Play as a count in Abyssinia.
Play as a count in Abyssinia.
More to the OP's point though, the game isn't actually that difficult once you learn all the mechanics. One of my first games I started as count of Armagnac (think that was the one, one of the counties in duchy of gascogne, southern france). Managed to take all of aragon and france in 100 years (though this was an earlier build). The game is more about learning to head off problems before they get serious. There are a few difficult areas though, I'd say the caucasus is more difficult than spain as you're competing with the ERE for territory and face annihalation from both the cumans and seljuks.
Still, if you play as a count instead of a ruler in either of these regions, you can get screwed by your liege having shitty diplomacy and surrendering your territories in the first 5 years.
An interesting challenge is to play as a Count of England near Wales, try to break away and form the Kingdom of Wales.
Been playing as the Count of Macon, it's been a really fun game so far! One problem I am having is Quick Save not working and my son being automatically switched to some random person in my Wife's location.
The difference between CK2 and a lot of Paradox games is that there are a lot more random events that can badly affect your plans. We're not talking about -1 stability or whatever. All it takes is your ruler dying too young and childless of plague, or your liege deciding to revoke half your titles, or a plot against you succeeding, or any number of other things going wrong, and your successful dynasty will come crashing down around your ears. Or at least, it will unless you reload whenever anything goes wrong... If you do that, then yeah, the game will seem too easy.
Depends how you play. If you set out to powermonger your way into global domination, then you will have ample means to achieve a lot of conquest relatively quickly. On the other hand, you can play more realistically or even roleplay. For example I don't assassinate or fabricate claims to get titles. I would need to be forced by someone else, a non-vassal (and not replaceable by me with a claimant), trying to assassinate me. Or get lawyered out of a claim I really believed I should have to that specific title. I also don't cheese the marriages too much. Playing like this, I don't get so big so soon.Game too easy or am I too good?
You could also make yourself a rule like no reloading.
I guess all of the above is realistic with a conquest-oriented ruler. If you roleplay the moral inhibitions of a mediaeval Christian ruler, you expand more slowly. If you jump at every opportunity the game mechanics allow, or if you carefully plan conquests ahead for generations, then you get the "human vs AI" advantage and certainly an "advantage" compared to real life historical rulers (for one, the schemes we plot often exceed the Intrigue scores of our rulers, consorts and spymasters ).Poland - (First game, savescummed, learned a lot of mechanics)
England - (First MP game, played with friend, almost lost in the beginning but ended up getting Jerusalem and most of France through inheritance. Ended early because my friend is impatient and has a low attention span.)
Sicily - (Got CK2+ as I heard it makes the game harder. It was easy enough if I kept revolts down, but a lot of the 'balance' changes are just increasing number values, and I don't feel it too fun. I still managed to get Jerusalem and as a Pious ruler, called invasion on England and got all of it. Revolts were no problem at all. Still easy. )
Denmark - (Second MP game, most fun game so far, friend united Ireland as Connacht, and I inherited Poland through ingenious planning. Surprisingly a lot of female rulers, I managed to arrange marriages with Sweden, Ungvar, and Vitebsk. Friend is taking about 50% of my profits though, lol. )
try to destroy one of the 2 empires...
Play as the county of Lubeck, de jure of Holstein, in 1066. Then use your claim to the Duchy of Mecklenburg, held by pagans. Once you get Mecklenburg, take Wolghast, then press to Prussia.
Now form the Kingdom of Pommerania.
If you can do this, you have succeeded where history has failed.
Starting small just delays the strength, though. Add a generation or two and you're still King. You might want to try starting later as well, since everything gets built up more and mercenaries are no longer an I Win button. I didn't care for it myself, just because you end up having to learn a whole new game balance. I just take it easy with my conquests and build up my holdings more. I look small but pack a bigger punch.
When will the citizens of free countries learn to stop supporting Dictators?
Check out my Vicky2 AAR: Last Tango in 1.3 - An Argentine AAR Favorite Gameplay AAR, Vicky1/2 2011 (Round 3) - Completed
Five for Fighting - A Canadian HoI3 AAR WritAAR of the Week (December 11th - December 18th, 2011) AAR Showcase Week of 6/17/12 - Completed
play as nubia in 1066 start. WHERE'S YOUR GOD NOW?
seriously, if you powergame with great rulers, conquer everything ect. things are easy. start as a lowly count in a bad situation, or a sovereign in a bad spot like abysinnia powergaming is REQUIRED to survive, while RPing as a little duke greatly limits your expansion possibilities
The difficulty in this games comes from self-imposed RPing constraints (i.e. house rules). The base mechanics themselves are pretty easy.
It's not that there aren't enough hours in the day. Just that I'm not awake for enough of the ones already available. - Karen Ellis
You may also know/hate me as Semaphore >.> <.<
Andalyssia is a rough game if your up for a beating from hell. Only way to survive is to unite the kingdom of Gondor and defend against the holy war onslots till your tech ketches up. But then again your not the king right off the bat and hes usually dumb enough to start holy wars rather then build up the economy and troop trainning first.
Expansion via diplomacy only is also a great way to make the game harder.
Its easy for now because the Muslims haven't been fleshed out and they keep getting knocked over each game and so do the pagans. With 1.06 and Sword of Islam, that may change and it may not be as easy as it has been before. We'll see.
If you want my help, register your game..
Senatus Populusque Romanus!
If you min / max , this game is incredibly easy. If you role play a bit , it becomes alot more interesting.
I avoid most gamey mechanics. That means i almost never assassinate (when i do its usually a trivial character for lols , never to force an inheritance or get out of a bad DOW). I rarely every marry for lands that are not connected to my own. That means even if the Queen of England wants to marry me as the King of Bavaria , i won't do it unless im giving the Second title (england) away to a brother after. I never play with anything above Med ca as a ruler (the time period was nothing close to "Countries and Nations" , the amount of threat reduction Med ca creates is too boring , no vassal are ever a threat). I even go as far as to NOT DOW people that i have mutually high relations with (30+) , i think the AI follows a similar system so its only fair.
So i dunno , i guess its how you play it. If i want to assassinate people , marry anyone with land and implement the perfect laws , this game is stupidly easy. But if you start playing with a bit of role play and try your hardest to stick to "realism" , i find it alot more challenging. But also , 1.05 did make the game much harder than previous patches. Before it , you could Holy war (still can early game) over in over in Iberia , Africa and other non catholic places and get an incredibly strong powerbase early. Now with religious defense wars , its alot harder ( specially if you don't abuse holy orders offensively). Finally though , if you always play as a King , the game will probably be fairly easy. Working your way up to being a King in an interesting place (HRE , France , ERE , RUS) is fun.
Larger empires should have more expenses, as well as a more difficult time putting down rebellions.