This game is fundamentally broken

[Flockingbird]

I could not for the life of me be able to find the post, but the reasoning was that it would disrupt the flow of multiplayer. A few months later they released Tours & Tournaments which introduced activities that bombard you with events.

I'm pretty sure the post was by someone who has left the team, but used to constantly post on the forums. Unfortunately can't remember their name.

I believe you’re talking about this post and this one.

Spoiler: Wokeg’s posts, quoted

A pre-emptive "no promises, no timelines" on all of the below, FWIW, but in a rough order.

On knights: though this would be interesting, I'm afraid it's not particularly easy to do. Tl;dr here is that knights can get killed in battle, and the methods of doing so are not fully fledged events, nor is the title currently particularly adapted to cope with just expanding them to be full events, especially if we want people to be able to play multiplayer whatsoever without desyncing or autopausing during every player war. The alternative is just randomly dying with zero input or response when leading an army sometimes, which, whilst perhaps realistic, is neither great drama nor super fun. If the player is going to die without any agency, it should at least be a bit of a spectacle.

I think many of us would agree that playable knights would be an interesting addition to the gameplay, but there are some pretty significant design challenges and moderate-to-mildly significant technical ones to be overcome before they could be added to vanilla.

On wards & hooks: as a few people have pointed out, we'd need to be careful about the exact implementation, honestly. No one is ever going to give a ward away if it means giving a strong hook on that child - that would mean that anyone who has control of that child would have sufficient blackmail material on you to force you to help them plot to kill that same child. Even a weak hook is sadly something many folks are reluctant to agree to. Hostages are such an interesting aspect of medieval history that I can't help but agree that there's something interesting that could be done there, but I'm afraid I don't think your suggestions are quite it.

On internal wars: hmm, honestly, I think we're a bit wary of adding more feed messages, though they would certainly be very easy to add. I'll have a think about interference in internal wars... on the one hand, you're not wrong that perhaps the liege should be/at least be able to interfere more in such dramatic internal dealings, but that's also opening up a much larger tin of worms in terms of realm management, the viability of vassal play, and so on. You can demand some things atm and try to enforce that through war, but it's not the clearest flow in the world, nor particularly heavily telegraphed to the player.

On demanding de jure holdings from other rulers: I believe you're looking for the Convince De Jure Territory council action, added with Royal Court .

On giving land away outside of your realm: I'm actually pretty interested in something like this, to be honest. I don't know about just giving it away, feels a bit gamey, but I certainly think there's room for land transfers between realms like this.

Edit: corrected typo.

... went to post this, already quoted, Flockingbird got hands.

^^' I don't think I would've been allowed to make those events otherwise. Though I think the original reasoning was sound at the time (it's generally better to not design features that just... won't work in certain game modes if you can avoid 'em), it's certainly been shown that the appetite is there, folks are willing to make the compromise, and with ToTo, we can see that it's really not as big a deal as long as it's not constant.

Now we're into weedier design questions. Do we have time for this? Should we do a basic implementation? Should it be its own feature and get a dedicated chunk of a DLC? Is this something we can handle in down-time or for a free patch or something, or does it require a DLC? If it does, does that mean we need a whole warfare DLC? All of these are much easier to answer (albeit with a bit of discussion) than the MP thing. Glad to have the MP problem (and I must stress that my words are non-binding here, it's just me speaking), in my opinion, mostly answered.

I'd certainly like to! Love writing gore content. Some of my favourite writing in the title is in the duel system, and it's been ages since I've had a chance to sit down and write some horrible grisly first person deaths.

FWIW, my gut feeling is that playable knights'd do a lot to allay this. We can check what your base prowess is. We can check what your actual prowess is. Event content can see if you're a sixteen year old wearing the best gear in the world and assuming that means you don't need skill. Technically battle events as they are now could too, but they're so hidden most folks barely remember they exist, and doing niche skill interpretation content like that'd be way too obfuscated.

Were we to do playable knights, there'd doubtless be some power fantasy in there, but tbh I'd want to do more with the chaos of war, the ultra-chaos of battle, and the ability of armies other than the stereotypical doomstack or Space Marine squad to fight.

All excellent points.

For future plans: Oxycoon and I spend a not-insignificant amount of time conspiring about warfare content. We're often a tad stymied, generally for very good (if very frustrating) reasons, but playable knights alone've got... about three drafts for different potential designs atm? There might be others from different cabals on the team. As ever, I can't promise them, let alone a timeline, but at least some of these designs look a helluva lot more plausible right now than they did six months ago.

Sadly correct. AFAIK, it's hardcoded not to be possible. Likely not too hard to script around hackily, I imagine that's how most mods do it, but it's not natively doable unless I'm very much mistaken.

Worth noting that, technically, knights are considered to have retinues, so it's not supposed to be just them fighting alone. That said, I think we've let that become a bit of a cop-out — prowess is individual for every other check in the title, it's individual in duels, and none of the prowess modifiers are flavoured around supporting characters, so ehhhh. If we add more warfare content, this is something I'd like to address, either to revise it or to reinforce it.

Man, the stuff I'd do with heartstrings on the battlefield. Locking eye contact with your child as someone drives a spear through their heart? Your best friend riding to your rescue when you get cut off, as your bodyguard is falling all around you? Watching a rival break ranks with their troops to assault your section of the line? So much narrative potential.

 

[qer]

Why is this being disliked? It's a useful first impression.

Dunno, I did say it was fun but that at least my opinion was that it doesn't improve upon Ck2 concepts which is a bit extreme but I held to that opinion.

Also I have realize that the 3 personality trait limit which I liked was from a mod (dark ages) so bad example that I picked lol.

 

[Torredebelem]

Dunno, I did say it was fun but that at least my opinion was that it doesn't improve upon Ck2 concepts which is a bit extreme but I held to that opinion.

Also I have realize that the 3 personality trait limit which I liked was from a mod (dark ages) so bad example that I picked lol.

With the right mods for each one's taste, CK3 is a game that offers an unlimited number of hours of excellent gameplay. Besides the lack of challenge, unfortunately for me it is less a wargame and management game than CK2 and that will be felt throughout the entire arc of the game development, I am sure.

 

[Zarket]

I've been reading the ACOUP blog for a while and remembering other resources I've read about medieval Europe, and I admit I feel like crying.

What the game is supposed to represent as aristocrats has absolutely nothing to do with aristocracy. To begin with, it lacks the fundamental core: aristocrats, bellatori, were defined precisely by their role as warriors. For them, moral virtue was primarily defined by martial ability. Whether Castilian, French, or Italian, aristocrats are the warrior class and justify their existence through their martial ability; it is one of the universal aspects of that social class. Look at the songs Bertran de Born composed, and see what arguments he used to extol the warlike spirit of other aristocrats at different times in his life. I don't see this being represented in any way.

To continue, the complete absence of other actors is... ridiculous. As much as the pop culture view of the Middle Ages claims, aristocrats are not the only inhabitants of the world, nor were vassalage and serfdom the only social institutions. And aristocrats had to constantly interact with these other actors, because they existed in the same world. In fact, these interactions were a constant in their lives, because the aristocrats were in a continuous power struggle with these institutions and these social actors.

One of them is the peasants. Aristocrats were defined by two things: a warrior spirit (which I've already mentioned) and the fact that they were large landowners. This means that they were one of the main economic actors in society, because we're talking about an agrarian society. That is, a society whose economic production is predominantly agricultural and, therefore, where the two main economic subjects are aristocrats and peasants.

The economic, social, political, and legal relations between aristocrats and peasants were at the heart of their daily concerns. This was what made some aristocrats and others peasants. And they were tremendously conflictual and dynamic. Aristocrats had to perform careful balancing acts between maximizing the benefits they extracted from peasants and preventing them from rebelling or denouncing them (some might be surprised by the great amount of litigation between the peasantry and the aristocracy). And kings took sides in this, and not always on the side of the aristocrats. It cannot be that this aspect is totally absent from the game.

And yes, I understand that you don't want pops, that it's abstract, etc. Fine. But at least you have to present it with an understandable and entertaining abstraction that you can play with but that lets you clearly see what it represents. Right now, that's not happening. You barely have any control over popular opinion or control. You can't decide to tighten or loosen policies toward the peasantry you govern, you can't decide to grant a moratorium or debt relief to your sharecroppers, you can't do anything that the aristocracy could or should have done in relation to the peasants, despite the fact that this was what consumed most of their time in peacetime. It's ridiculous.

And finally, there's religion. Look, I'll summarize it very simply: in the Middle Ages, virtually all of the world's inhabitants believed there were one or more immortal beings, extraordinarily powerful, who took an active interest in the lives of mortals and acted on that interest. In the game, it doesn't seem that even the zealots thought this way.

Please fix this mess. This game isn't a strategy game about the Middle Ages, but a memetic game about what people think the Middle Ages are.

 

[Torredebelem]

You barely have any control over popular opinion or control. You can't decide to tighten or loosen policies toward the peasantry you govern, you can't decide to grant a moratorium or debt relief to your sharecroppers, you can't do anything that the aristocracy could or should have done in relation to the peasants, despite the fact that this was what consumed most of their time in peacetime. It's ridiculous.

There are mods that add that layer of relations through decisions and events.

Please fix this mess. This game isn't a strategy game about the Middle Ages, but a memetic game about what people think the Middle Ages are.

CK3 was not designed as a strategy or management game. It is a story generator centered in characters, their relations and their actions seen from the scope of the player character. Fortunately, there are thousands of mods that portray very well other visions for the game. It is just a matter of searching and cherry picking which ones fill the player's bill.

 

[TheSeraphim]

CK3 was not designed as a strategy or management game. It is a story generator centered in characters, their relations and their actions seen from the scope of the player character.

My favourite stories it generates are the ones where my compassionate son becomes a murderer randomly & the ones where my chaste wife cucks me with a 60 year old lowborn. /s

 

[WTH666444]

My favourite stories it generates are the ones where my compassionate son becomes a murderer randomly & the ones where my chaste wife cucks me with a 60 year old lowborn. /s

Indeed. Very poor to argue it‘s a story-generating game when storytelling happens through events and you‘re the only agentic actor, because everybody else gets one calculation a month to decide to do one thing, it seems.

"The game is too big to allow every AI autonomy!!!!!“. Well, then why are we making it bigger, again?

 

[Zarket]

There are mods that add that layer of relations through decisions and events.

Neither mods nor events are good substitutes for the core mechanics that should be in the game. You can't make a game about the Middle Ages where bishops and the Pope are randomly generated.

CK3 was not designed as a strategy or management game.

The game's description on Steam (where it is marked as a strategy game) and on Paradox (where an award for best strategy game is displayed) disagree with you.

It is a story generator centered in characters, their relations and their actions seen from the scope of the player character.

A story generator centered in characters that ignores all the essential aspects of those characters' lives and worldviews. Very well done, indeed.

 

[JM Tiberius]

CK3 was not designed as a strategy or management game. It is a story generator centered in characters

We agree that CK3 is not a strategy game, but Paradox does not.

 

[Torredebelem]

Neither mods nor events are good substitutes for the core mechanics that should be in the game

That is your "should", not the game designers'. Reality does not bend to your whims, sorry for the bad news.
Mods are extremely powerful tools to change gameplay in so many meaningful ways that catter to so many different audiences. Not aknowledging their importance speaks volumes for the understanding (or lack thereoff) of Paradox business model as well as the strenghts of its Clausewitz engine.
Finally and as a gamer, bypassing mods rob you of so much different and meaningful experiences conveyed by so many talented people that, in part, share your tastes...

The game's description on Steam (where it is marked as a strategy game) and on Paradox (where an award for best strategy game is displayed) disagree with you.

That is called marketing and my agreement is lost in the translation between what is marketed and what is presented in the final product. I too, crave for a much more strategic approach to the game.

A story generator centered in characters that ignores all the essential aspects of those characters' lives and worldviews. Very well done, indeed.

I don't think it is particularly well done, far from it. But reality is a wall that won't budge independently of the size of ram you use.

 

[Voidian]

That is your "should", not the game designers'. Reality does not bend to your whims, sorry for the bad news.
Mods are extremely powerful tools to change gameplay in so many meaningful ways that catter to so many different audiences. Not aknowledging their importance speaks volumes for the understanding (or lack thereoff) of Paradox business model as well as the strenghts of its Clausewitz engine.
Finally and as a gamer, bypassing mods rob you of so much different and meaningful experiences conveyed by so many talented people that, in part, share your tastes...




That is called marketing and my agreement is lost in the translation between what is marketed and what is presented in the final product. I too, crave for a much more strategic approach to the game.



I don't think it is particularly well done, far from it. But reality is a wall that won't budge independently of the size of ram you use.

I don't get where this "story generator" thing comes from, it was never advertised, sold, or pretended to use this term, wasn't it a term used by the rimworld dev to pretend their colony management game was not a colony management game? I don't think I ever heard any other game trying to use that marketing term to cover up their real genre besides Rimworld.

As for mods, traditionally paradox games were always played vanilla and all mods were to be ignored because of their achievement policy, it's only starting to change recently but I believe most people are used to never even touching mods because of this, Stellaris just changed the ironman requirement (which was never a problem) and it STILL blocks achievements if you mod the game.

Even if mods were something people knew about or were willing to use (other than those that do not alter the checksum) for these games, in the case of CK3 I do not think they are even capable of, ever, fixing the issues with the game, no matter how much work people put in them and how much goodwill they have to work long hours for free.

That is your "should", not the game designers'. Reality does not bend to your whims, sorry for the bad news.
Mods are extremely powerful tools to change gameplay in so many meaningful ways that catter to so many different audiences. Not aknowledging their importance speaks volumes for the understanding (or lack thereoff) of Paradox business model as well as the strenghts of its Clausewitz engine.
Finally and as a gamer, bypassing mods rob you of so much different and meaningful experiences conveyed by so many talented people that, in part, share your tastes...




That is called marketing and my agreement is lost in the translation between what is marketed and what is presented in the final product. I too, crave for a much more strategic approach to the game.



I don't think it is particularly well done, far from it. But reality is a wall that won't budge independently of the size of ram you use.

I don't get where this "story generator" thing comes from, it was never advertised, sold, or pretended to use this term, wasn't it a term used by the rimworld dev to pretend their colony management game was not a colony management game? I don't think I ever heard any other game trying to use that marketing term to cover up their real genre besides Rimworld.

As for mods, traditionally paradox games were always played vanilla and all mods were to be ignored because of their achievement policy, it's only starting to change recently but I believe most people are used to never even touching mods because of this, Stellaris just changed the ironman requirement (which was never a problem) and it STILL blocks achievements if you mod the game.

Even if mods were something people knew about or were willing to use (other than those that do not alter the checksum) for these games, in the case of CK3 I do not think they are even capable of, ever, fixing the issues with the game, no matter how much work people put in them and how much goodwill they have to work long hours for free.

Did you miss the reply telling me that half the things that need to be fixed are hard coded and impossible to change, and the other half ammounts to the majority of the game's code, having to be reviewed every single patch to make sure it's working?

I'll tell you what, you go ahead and actually do all of this:

And then I'll believe you, but we know you won't do it, you're going to give another excuse, but you know you can't, you know mods can't do this.

Besides, simply tweaking numbers will create a clunky, poor quality experience of early game wars being impossible, no matter how you play them, and late game wars are still going to be pathetically easy if this:

Is true.

Late game you'll still be stackwiping everything because the advantage system itself, as a system, seems broken as well.
Not to mention that other thread mentioning terrain modifiers are, for some unknown reason, made irrelevant in the late game as it seems like they somehow are added/subtracted from the final number after all modifiers are applied, so your 1000 damage horsemen might get something like a -40 damage from fighting in the mountains.... Yey?
View attachment 1291291

 

[Torredebelem]

I don't get where this "story generator" thing comes from, it was never advertised, sold, or pretended to use this term, wasn't it a term used by the rimworld dev to pretend their colony management game was not a colony management game? I don't think I ever heard any other game trying to use that marketing term to cover up their real genre besides Rimworld.

It comes from the original CK1 game and the general gist from that time onwards. It was back then, strategy with a twist that got improved with CK2. You can read a lot of professional reviews explaining exactly that angle of gameplay for all three installments of the franchise. As far as Rimworld, I never played it nor do I think it relates with anything brought up so far.

As for mods, traditionally paradox games were always played vanilla and all mods were to be ignored because of their achievement policy, it's only starting to change recently but I believe most people are used to never even touching mods because of this, Stellaris just changed the ironman requirement (which was never a problem) and it STILL blocks achievements if you mod the game.

That is for those who care about achievements. Judging by the amount of users who sign to the most successful mods, one can safely say the numbers of users playing with mods certainly surpasses the several hundred thousands, perhaps a million or more. I have more than 1200 hours logged on CK3 and have a grand total of ZERO achievements. My way of playing is not particularly original when only around 30% of the users managed to earn the achievement to get married, something below trivial difficulty to achieve.

Even if mods were something people knew about or were willing to use (other than those that do not alter the checksum) for these games, in the case of CK3 I do not think they are even capable of, ever, fixing the issues with the game, no matter how much work people put in them and how much goodwill they have to work long hours for free.

You clearly are out of your water and don't know what you are talking about. Which is only natural as from your own words it is clear you never delved into the mod angle of CK3 (or any other Paradox title, for that matter).

I have nothing further to add to this discussion so I'll stop debating at the end of the bottom line.


Bottom line:

The game being labelled a strategy game is a marketing gimmick and an aknowlegement of the designs Clausewitz engine so far was able to deliver. I find that unfortunate as I would have prefered something much deeper in a management and strategical angle, but that's just one guy's opinion. Mods are a cardinal aspect of the game experience and a very significant chunk of the player base only play with the mods that portray the vision for the game they prefer.

 

[Voidian]

It comes from the original CK1 game and the general gist from that time onwards. It was back then, strategy with a twist that got improved with CK2. You can read a lot of professional reviews explaining exactly that angle of gameplay for all three installments of the franchise. As far as Rimworld, I never played it nor do I think it relates with anything brought up so far.



That is for those who care about achievements. Judging by the amount of users who sign to the most successful mods, one can safely say the numbers of users playing with mods certainly surpasses the several hundred thousands, perhaps a million or more. I have more than 1200 hours logged on CK3 and have a grand total of ZERO achievements. My way of playing is not particularly original when only around 30% of the users managed to earn the achievement to get married, something below trivial difficulty to achieve.



You clearly are out of your water and don't know what you are talking about. Which is only natural as from your own words it is clear you never delved into the mod angle of CK3 (or any other Paradox title, for that matter).

I have nothing further to add to this discussion so I'll stop debating at the end of the bottom line.


Bottom line:

The game being labelled a strategy game is a marketing gimmick and an aknowlegement of the designs Clausewitz engine so far was able to deliver. I find that unfortunate as I would have prefered something much deeper in a management and strategical angle, but that's just one guy's opinion. Mods are a cardinal aspect of the game experience and a very significant chunk of the player base only play with the mods that portray the vision for the game they prefer.

So the game being marketed, sold, targeted and developed by a company that does nothing but grand strategy games is the false genre, and the one you just made up isn't? I don't follow, it really sounds like "I'm right because I said so".

Also, care to explain how your mods could alter the hard coded parts the other modder have claimed to be unable to change?
If all of this could be done, why wasn't any of it done in half a decade?

 

[Alphonce]

So the game being marketed, sold, targeted and developed by a company that does nothing but grand strategy games is the false genre, and the one you just made up isn't? I don't follow, it really sounds like "I'm right because I said so".

Also, care to explain how your mods could alter the hard coded parts the other modder have claimed to be unable to change?
If all of this could be done, why wasn't any of it done in half a decade?

100%