This game is fundamentally broken

[ShepherdOfCats]

After playing a little bit and discovering, that the new Vassal Stance loves high Authority, which makes it for the Nomads, even more easy to keep their Vassals happy, because they love the new Vassal Stance.
The Devs even managed to break the Balance for Vassal Stances.

Now, I want as much Vassals as possible to be from the new Vassal Stance Typ.


I think it is safe to say, the Game is now completly broken, because the Devs have no intends to ever fix the Balance of this Game, they have made it even worse.

I don't think it's as much the devs as it is the corporate suits.

So if those non-gaming execs are reading (very wishful thinking):

"At this point, I'll pay $10 for a game balance overhaul DLC."

And, not to be too greedy (I guess?), but "I'll pay another $10 for a complete combat overhaul DLC"

That's $20 of my money just lying on the table for you guys. Now if someone will please forward those exact words up the chain, the powers-that-be will see the potential profit in it, and it should happen. Announce it, and I will pre-order it NOW, no questions asked.

In fact, I'm holding off on buying nomad DLC. It's not that I don't want it to be a successful DLC, but this game has some very glaring core issues that have to be addressed. You can only roleplay it so much before you realize that this game does absolutely nothing to tease your brain in the way that other strategy games do (or even in the way that its own predecessor did). This game has invented accidental min-maxing.

Here's the trailer for Crusader Kings III:

"Real strategy requires Cunning"

No, no it doesn't.

It requires you to play without your hands and peck on your keyboard with your nose, so that you don't leave the AI in the dust. I'm literally out of ideas to strain to make this game more challenging.

You really don't have to be all that cunning.

Just for the nostalgia, here's a good example of a tight situation that CKII would put you in and you'd have to *gasp* strategize to get yourself out of:

CK2 trailer

Funny, and yet challenging at the same time. I would love to see some "Friendless, pennyless, and possessed. In a word: DOOMED! . . . or are you?" situations for my CK-3 characters please!

 

[Benismann]

To me what stands out as fundamentally broken is the parallel mechanics like buildings+estates, prestige+legitimacy, accolades+bladmeaster+knighthood and the silos (Royal Court).

I get it, but i also kinda not get it. What are you trying to say here?..

 

[Grell74]

I get it, but i also kinda not get it. What are you trying to say here?..

Well what was the benefit of introducing legitimacy when there is already prestige (besides being able to market it as a new feature)? Don't estates serve the same purpose buildings could or are meant to, why is there no interaction between them (again another silo). Why introduce accolades when Blademaster and the prowess trait chain (Formidable Banneret etc) are completely bare bones.

Why cant my Royal Court host feasts, weddings coronoations etc? Because its a DLC existing in a detached silo and those features were added in a different DLC.

We cant play as a baron or landed clergy but we can play landless? Do things things make sense or were they just flashy gimmicks pitched to a marketing dept?

There are so many half baked mechanics limping along side by side failing to interact with each other in a coherent or balanced manner.

 

[Emperor 1997]

I don't think it's as much the devs as it is the corporate suits.

So if those non-gaming execs are reading (very wishful thinking):

"At this point, I'll pay $10 for a game balance overhaul DLC."

And, not to be too greedy (I guess?), but "I'll pay another $10 for a complete combat overhaul DLC"

That's $20 of my money just lying on the table for you guys. Now if someone will please forward those exact words up the chain, the powers-that-be will see the potential profit in it, and it should happen. Announce it, and I will pre-order it NOW, no questions asked.

In fact, I'm holding off on buying nomad DLC. It's not that I don't want it to be a successful DLC, but this game has some very glaring core issues that have to be addressed. You can only roleplay it so much before you realize that this game does absolutely nothing to tease your brain in the way that other strategy games do (or even in the way that its own predecessor did). This game has invented accidental min-maxing.

Here's the trailer for Crusader Kings III:

"Real strategy requires Cunning"

No, no it doesn't.

It requires you to play without your hands and peck on your keyboard with your nose, so that you don't leave the AI in the dust. I'm literally out of ideas to strain to make this game more challenging.

You really don't have to be all that cunning.

Just for the nostalgia, here's a good example of a tight situation that CKII would put you in and you'd have to *gasp* strategize to get yourself out of:

CK2 trailer

Funny, and yet challenging at the same time. I would love to see some "Friendless, pennyless, and possessed. In a word: DOOMED! . . . or are you?" situations for my CK-3 characters please!

Thanks, for reminding me, that the current Game Director has abandoned the cool Story Trailers about the Fox Dynasty.

Why cant my Royal Court host feasts, weddings coronoations etc? Because its a DLC existing in a detached silo and those features were added in a different DLC.

If you watch the Royal Court Trailers, I think Weddings, where planned for Royal Court, but removed to give T&T more Content.

 

[giorgosth128]

To me what stands out as fundamentally broken is the parallel mechanics like buildings+estates, prestige+legitimacy, accolades+bladmeaster+knighthood and the silos (Royal Court). Due to the DLC model these elements don't and will never properly interact with each other. Shouldn't I be able to have a coronation or wedding in my royal court?

The DLC model also means that overpowered bonuses (the AI cant properly utilise) are added on top of each other each time. So the game is increasingly becoming incoherent not to mention poorly optimised.

I rolled back and only play on 1.8.2 Robe, its so nice to be able to go to a feast or hunt and not be subjected to a dozen annoying popups. At that point the game had a more unified framework and is not the hodgepodge of poorly thought out an integrated mechanics it is now.

well that is a double edged sword. if they make them interact then people will coplain its like delopemnt in Eu4 where you needed to have the dlc for it work or else everthing was static. they make this choice becasue they don't want to force the player to buy the dlcs which kudos to them.

 

[Benismann]

Well what was the benefit of introducing legitimacy when there is already prestige

Those are very different things, though? The benefit was none but that's mostly coz the balance doesnt exist at all and legitimacy isn't OP enough to stand out. Legitimacy is supposed to be, well, legitimacy. And being a legitimate (or the opposite) ruler has almost nothing to do with prestige.

Why introduce accolades when Blademaster and the prowess trait chain (Formidable Banneret etc) are completely bare bones.

Those are also completely different, albeit more connected than legitimacy and prestige.

Don't estates serve the same purpose buildings could or are meant to, why is there no interaction between them (again another silo)

And those two... Sure. But that's only like 1.5 out of 3.

We cant play as a baron or landed clergy but we can play landless? Do things things make sense or were they just flashy gimmicks pitched to a marketing dept?

Didn't they say they did it coz byzantium needed landless (administrative) anyways for what they were doing so they derailed and did landless landless too?

There are so many half baked mechanics limping along side by side failing to interact with each other in a coherent or balanced manner.

And this is very true.

 

[Marlabon]

Didn't they say they did it coz byzantium needed landless (administrative) anyways for what they were doing so they derailed and did landless landless too?

In the dev diary for landless adventurers it is written that adventurers were added to round out Roads to Power. Furthermore, to add something for the rest of the map than only focusing on the administrative government of Byzantium.

The dev diary: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...iary-151-landless-adventurers-part-i.1697815/

 

[peteoj]

I called it by the way, turns out I was right, the ai's inability to function is undermining people's enjoyment of the dlc. The ai doesn't feel aggressive in the steppe thus the player never feels pressured to move and thus the entire steppe life is trivialized, also the devs inability to balance their damn game means that the player can easily dominate with any new government type but the Ai simply can't function properly with it. Same thing happened with admin, same with landless, same happened to Nomads and same will probably happen with the Eastern governments. As I said before, regardless of how objectively mechanically good a DLC might be the fundamental issues with the game will continue to undermine it.

 

[WTH666444]

I called it by the way, turns out I was right, the ai's inability to function is undermining people's enjoyment of the dlc. The ai doesn't feel aggressive in the steppe thus the player never feels pressured to move and thus the entire steppe life is trivialized, also the devs inability to balance their damn game means that the player can easily dominate with any new government type but the Ai simply can't function properly with it. Same thing happened with admin, same with landless, same happened to Nomads and same will probably happen with the Eastern governments. As I said before, regardless of how objectively mechanically good a DLC might be the fundamental issues with the game will continue to undermine it.

May 24th announcement. Everything‘s lining up, trvst the plan.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

I called it by the way, turns out I was right, the ai's inability to function is undermining people's enjoyment of the dlc. The ai doesn't feel aggressive in the steppe thus the player never feels pressured to move and thus the entire steppe life is trivialized, also the devs inability to balance their damn game means that the player can easily dominate with any new government type but the Ai simply can't function properly with it. Same thing happened with admin, same with landless, same happened to Nomads and same will probably happen with the Eastern governments. As I said before, regardless of how objectively mechanically good a DLC might be the fundamental issues with the game will continue to undermine it.

I've heard it was kind of difficult to expand as a nomad vassal of a nomad due to lack of cbs though.

 

[WTH666444]

I've heard it was kind of difficult to expand as a nomad vassal of a nomad due to lack of cbs though.

They can‘t advance in tier, ever. You can only do so by dominating a title, which requires you to be independent.

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

Thanks, for reminding me, that the current Game Director has abandoned the cool Story Trailers about the Fox Dynasty.

Heh.

I'm speaking for myself here, but I don't usually play the intrigue game in Crusader Kings, especially not murder. But CK3 doesn't really put you those truly dire situations, where it would seem like the only viable option. The game simply lacks these types of dilemmas.

Yeah, you could murder-plot your way to a higher rank, but you could more easily press your claims and stack-wipe your liege's levy-heavy armies with a handful of your MaA and knights. You'd have to be intentionally handicapping yourself to attempt to get a claim through a murder plot, where there's risk of exposure.

I'm playing CK2 now and a truly-threatening neighboring empire in India has like 75,000 troops against my 30,000 and war isn't really an option to press my claim. There's no ridiculous stack-wiping in CK2 unless you have an overwhelming force. There's also no insanely-fast reinforcing in enemy territory at all, even in occupied territory (except mercs and retinues).

So, I married in, and I'm gonna do the intrigue thing. The game is (essentially, unintentionally) forcing me to do something I don't normally do, choosing a strategy I don't normally use, and . . . .

I LOVE IT.

But where is that, in CK3? Where is the game pressing you to seriously consider which options you'll have to take, to get yourself out of a sticky situation? CK3 will not make you consider doing the unthinkable (like murdering your brother to inherit his armies, so you can win a defensive war you're almost certain to lose). There are just much simpler ways to get what you want.

It's always either easy war mode, or (not even intentionally) piling on opinion bonuses so much that everyone loves me and I basically just get what I want.

 

[MarkFranz]

I'm playing CK2 now and a truly-threatening neighboring empire in India has like 75,000 troops against my 30,000 and war isn't really an option to press my claim. There's no ridiculous stack-wiping in CK2 unless you have an overwhelming force.

I would add to it not just overwhelming force, but competent commanders as well, commanders, as you have 3 flanks to care for. Great commanders is significant power multiplier in CK2, commander with right traits can turn losing battle around. There also different ways to win battle, while most often it's just about who lose morale first, compared to CK3 when it's all about single "advantage" stat.

 

[JM Tiberius]

But CK3 doesn't really put you those truly dire situations, where it would seem like the only viable option. The game simply lacks these types of dilemmas.

This is a big reason why I don't really play CK3 anymore and I suspect it's behind the complaints about the game being "too easy." The game doesn't push back or resist. There are few, if any, obstacles to overcome that aren't just event choice A or B. Even the core obstacle - gavelkind partition succession - is easily gotten around by stacking opinion and gold. The systems in place simply do not facilitate organic challenges or obstacles.

If anything, learning the game and it's idiosyncrasies is the only challenge. Once you understand the mechanics, "you beat the game, it's over." Which is a shame, because this is the only game I play where getting good makes the experience of playing it actively worse. After 1500 hours of EUIV I can say I understand the game, but I still feel like I can learn and improve without having to limit my choices. Stellaris similarly has unique and interesting playstyles that you can sink your teeth into after a long time playing. Hell, even a game like Baldur's Gate 3 rewards you for learning the weird parts of the game by throwing more challenging encounters at the player. Crusader Kings otoh seems uninterested in providing anything resembling a long term challenge. "You beat the game, it's over."

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

I would add to it not just overwhelming force, but competent commanders as well, commanders, as you have 3 flanks to care for. Great commanders is significant power multiplier in CK2, commander with right traits can turn losing battle around. There also different ways to win battle, while most often it's just about who lose morale first, compared to CK3 when it's all about single "advantage" stat.

I mean, you could deal some serious damage to their morale (a mechanic that was entirely removed from CK3's development for . . . reasons). But completely wiping an equal-sized force down to absolutely nothing, so much so that the enemy realm had to completely re-raise their armies? That almost NEVER happened except in obvious situations where it's like 10,000 to 500.

Yeah it's fun the first few times it happens in CK3. You've made a meme band of viking berserkers that completely disintegrates enemy armies twice their size ---> It's cool.

But after a while, it starts to get silly. It's just one element of this game that I think is really broken. We're forcing the AI to start over raising an entirely new army because the AI can't cope.

And how do we balance it? Roleplay? Am I supposed to just raise levies and play without MaA? Do I forbid everyone from becoming a knight? What would I be roleplaying as? A peasant? There's only so much that a player can do within reason to try to make this game balanced.

 

[El-Tapicero]

But completely wiping an equal-sized force down to absolutely nothing, so much so that the enemy realm had to completely re-raise their armies?

Wiping out the enemy force entirely is fine. It happens when the battle ends so quickly that the opponent doesn't even get a chance to organize — basically, a Masterful maneuver.


What’s not fine is that it happens so often. And that brings us back to the core of this whole mess: you’re playing CK3 alone. The AI doesn’t know how to play. It’s an unbalanced game that, once you learn how it works, you basically “beat it".

This issue won’t be resolved until there’s a team specifically dedicated to balance.

 

[Azgabeth]

Well what was the benefit of introducing legitimacy when there is already prestige (besides being able to market it as a new feature)?

i agree with everything you just said except this.

While i think legitimacy itself needs a whole rework(it should be based on title not realm).

There is a purpose to splitting prestoge and legitimacy.

Prestige represents how everyone in the world sees you, both foreign and domestic.

Legitmacy, is well, how legally legitimate your holding of a title is, it’s how your subjects see you.

Consider Henry the 4th in CK3 terms. He was a powerful English noble so he already had high prestige. You could make the argument that he had distinguished or illustrious level prestige and perhaps it would have gone higher had he lived longer.

But fundamentally his Legitimacy would never have hone above “recognized” because he was an usurper.

 

[WTH666444]

i agree with everything you just said except this.

While i think legitimacy itself needs a whole rework(it should be based on title not realm).

There is a purpose to splitting prestoge and legitimacy.

Prestige represents how everyone in the world sees you, both foreign and domestic.

Legitmacy, is well, how legally legitimate your holding of a title is, it’s how your subjects see you.

Consider Henry the 4th in CK3 terms. He was a powerful English noble so he already had high prestige. You could make the argument that he had distinguished or illustrious level prestige and perhaps it would have gone higher had he lived longer.

But fundamentally his Legitimacy would never have hone above “recognized” because he was an usurper.

Maybe legitimacy will be looked over with Coronations.
Does seem like the obvious time to do it, as you introduce one more gain to a resource already always bumping up against its cap, to actually make coronations meaningful and not just a repetitive flavor event.

 

[Duchy-2]

I called it by the way, turns out I was right, the ai's inability to function is undermining people's enjoyment of the dlc. The ai doesn't feel aggressive in the steppe thus the player never feels pressured to move and thus the entire steppe life is trivialized, also the devs inability to balance their damn game means that the player can easily dominate with any new government type but the Ai simply can't function properly with it. Same thing happened with admin, same with landless, same happened to Nomads and same will probably happen with the Eastern governments. As I said before, regardless of how objectively mechanically good a DLC might be the fundamental issues with the game will continue to undermine it.

Judging by what the updates and the dev's response to the difficulty complaints -- "You beat the game" -- it seems that their new target audience is a constant in-stream of 'newbies'. Wouldn't want to scare off any potential new players by having them face any sort of difficulty. Why? Because if they're scared off then that's one less person to buy future dlc; their logic. I wouldn't be surprised if the game being easy is an explicit demand from higher up.

 

[Jimboy93]

Heh.

I'm speaking for myself here, but I don't usually play the intrigue game in Crusader Kings, especially not murder. But CK3 doesn't really put you those truly dire situations, where it would seem like the only viable option. The game simply lacks these types of dilemmas.

Yeah, you could murder-plot your way to a higher rank, but you could more easily press your claims and stack-wipe your liege's levy-heavy armies with a handful of your MaA and knights. You'd have to be intentionally handicapping yourself to attempt to get a claim through a murder plot, where there's risk of exposure.

I'm playing CK2 now and a truly-threatening neighboring empire in India has like 75,000 troops against my 30,000 and war isn't really an option to press my claim. There's no ridiculous stack-wiping in CK2 unless you have an overwhelming force. There's also no insanely-fast reinforcing in enemy territory at all, even in occupied territory (except mercs and retinues).

So, I married in, and I'm gonna do the intrigue thing. The game is (essentially, unintentionally) forcing me to do something I don't normally do, choosing a strategy I don't normally use, and . . . .

I LOVE IT.

But where is that, in CK3? Where is the game pressing you to seriously consider which options you'll have to take, to get yourself out of a sticky situation? CK3 will not make you consider doing the unthinkable (like murdering your brother to inherit his armies, so you can win a defensive war you're almost certain to lose). There are just much simpler ways to get what you want.

It's always either easy war mode, or (not even intentionally) piling on opinion bonuses so much that everyone loves me and I basically just get what I want.

After reading this, I've become so keen to play CK II again. I completely forgot what a great game it was. Especially with all the DLCs.

Man, I wish there was a CK 2 remaster. Give me the graphics from CK III and the gameplay from CK II.