Already waiting patches - fastest Paradox game that I stopped playing

[Zhetone]

Here's an example of something incredibly stupid:

3 years into my new save a major realm is destroyed. Bravo!

By the way, due to starting circumstances where the HRE begins with a massive independence faction, this is likely to happen in a large number of saves, because Paradox somehow never noticed the HRE imploding in test runs.

 

[Markusw7]

Ah, yes. Shoving in a false dichotomy of releasing a game with no bugs at all (which, given how no one asked for that makes this also a straw man) and releasing the game without the more serious bugs (which is what @PhilzuNeide considers their examples to be) is truly a masterpiece of argumentation.




But the AI doesn't save money for war anyway. It merrily goes bankrupt during a war by using boats to travel just two provinces away.




You know what's not super easy to miss though? AI not using matrilineal marriages. There are literally female rulers among the suggested ones. Including an unmarried and childless Matilda of Tuscany. Launch 1066 game as anyone else but Matilda and then observe her. Within a minute she'll marry patrilinealy for no regard for preserving her dynasty. Each time.

And, in doing so, flat out ignoring the game over condition of Crusader Kings. Which means the AI is completely busted. At which point your excuse of "but what if it was introduced only in the release candidate built" excuse no longer flies.

One person could figure that out in just a few minutes of testing. And what makes it even better is that CK3 has an inflated amount of female rulers thanks to knights (most of whom are landed characters) dropping like flies and even the 1.02's succession bug that made mothers the primary heirs of their children. Making it all the easier to spot the issue.


You don't know either, so why bring it up to put yourself on a pedestal? And the bugs extend to the core gameplay loop of CK3. That some people turn a blind eye to that doesn't negate their severity, nor excuse Paradox for releasing the game in that state.



If a FUNDAMENTAL mechanic gets broken it doesn't matter if it was done so by a release candidate built. There's more than one release candidate built in each software release. Just slapping "lel release candidate" is no excuse for breaking fundamental mechanics. It's a reason to make another release candidate build in which it isn't.

Also, as was the case in the paragraph above, you don't know for a fact that such bugs weren't there for months either (it'd truly be a surprise coming from a company with such stellar history of QA) , so you sticking to that tangent like glue is utterly ineffective.


Because in 2020 out of all years people would be so not understanding of a game getting postponed. Just look at Cyberpunk 2077. Oh, wait, that's made by a company that actually deserves goodwill from the playerbase so maybe it's not the fairest of comparisons.

And yes, delaying a game's release when your AI is so busted it completely ignores the game's game over condition whenever it has a female character as a ruler or a heir is the better choice than releasing it in such a sorry state.

I'm not claiming knowledge of when the bugs were created, i'm giving a reasonable explanation as to why you claiming "They should have known or found these bugs and fixed them already" is nonsense because...

1. You don't know how long said bugs have existed for.
2 .You don't know that they don't already know about them.
3 You don't know that they aren't already fixing them.

No fundamental mechanics are broken, there are some that don't work in some cases and in some cases for the AI but the game is absolutely playable.

 

[Markusw7]

Here's an example of something incredibly stupid:
View attachment 627242
3 years into my new save a major realm is destroyed. Bravo!

By the way, due to starting circumstances where the HRE begins with a massive independence faction, this is likely to happen in a large number of saves, because Paradox somehow never noticed the HRE imploding in test runs.

I'd say this is a issue of modelling, everyone who played CK2 wanted a weaker Holy Roman Empire. I'd say paradox has chosen the wrong way to model it, that doesn't mean that is isn't entirely WAD.

 

[Colonel Bogey]

The music that plays with this actually sends chills up my spine and I legit feel bad for a second haha. They did do a very good job in that sense.

I like the music here. It tries to keep itself subtle and out of the way until something important or dangerous happens. Glory music throughout a game generally starts grating on me and I switch it off.

 

[ShamanMcLamie]

Honestly, it might be the Paradox Release with the least amount of serious bugs and the most polish i´ve witnessed so far. Yes, i´ve seen catholicism being replaced by catharism within 20 years. But i´ve also seen Catholicsim being stable for hundreds of years. I actually want stuff like the conversation of europe to catharism to happen; Not always, but sometimes and so far, at least for me, the frequency of it happening is okay.

I can´t really even verify the bugged ai or the common complaint about seduction; Yes the "disputed heritage" event fires a bit often, but judging by looks, genetic traits and the developer console most kids end up being mine. The ally a.i. is pretty good, i have no complains in this regard; There are some issues with the embark a.i. but nothing game breaking or too constant.

I can totally understand that people are annoyed at any bug; Especially if a playthrough you have invested a lot into ends up being ended by one.

But compared to other releases and patches? Bugs were to be expected. But i´m pleasantly surprised at the lack of *serious* bugs.

A lot of the issues I've seen and heard about seem more do to bad coding in the soft code versus serious bugs in the hard code. The form Switzerland decision was using a lot of old code. It required Upper Burgundy instead of Transjurania and it required the German culture to even show the event instead of the new sub cultures, or the Central Germanic group.

The form HRE decision was arranged in a weird order so East Francia(Germany) wasn't becoming part of the de jure HRE because the title was destroyed before it was set to be made de jure HRE.

I haven't checked this myself, but I've heard the code for seduction had the AI acceptance rather high.

Seems like a lot of soft code was a bit rushed and half baked. Stuff that can be easily fixed by the next patch. Hell I've already made mods fixing the form HRE and Switzerland events.

 

[Zhetone]

I'd say this is a issue of modelling, everyone who played CK2 wanted a weaker Holy Roman Empire. I'd say paradox has chosen the wrong way to model it, that doesn't mean that is isn't entirely WAD.

if it's WAD that the HRE collapses immediately in a lot of starts then it's idiotic design and they should know better.

 

[Guardian66613]

- AI warfare is very weak and Allies armies are terrible;

[/QUOTE]
This is the only thing that annoy me right now. They just don't help at all.

 

[ulix]

By the way, due to starting circumstances where the HRE begins with a massive independence faction, this is likely to happen in a large number of saves, because Paradox somehow never noticed the HRE imploding in test runs.

Yep, very annoying. If I'm not playing Matilda or Bohemia, and am thus the leader of the indepence faction (and can decide to never send an ultimatum), it will fire each time in the first 5 years or so. HRE breaks every time in the 1066 start, and is almost never reunited.

BTW, I find the war AI pretty good. Yes, sometimes it does stupid shit (standing next to a close battle, using ships all the time), but it generally helps me greatly, and 90% of the time I can nudge it exactly where I want it to go. Much better than I could in CK2 before we had the option to attach.

An "attach" option would still be highly appreciated.

 

[ThePatriot1776]

You're still talking about another people/historical period. Would you consider right to have England de jure part of the Empire of Italy because it was a Roman province?

Lombards were still around in 867 and are in the game as Langbards.

 

[DominusNovus]

Not only is it two different teams working on CK2 and CK3 there isn't an issue with rampant seduction it's an issue with an event that changes parentage which didn't exist in CK2 so couldn't have been foreseen in the same way.

No. There is an issue with rampant seduction, or else said event wouldn't be firing in the first place so frequently. It doesn't matter that the developers are a different team. Unless they're from a different company, operating on a different planet, with minimal knowledge of CK2, there is not excuse. WE are not the CK2 developers, and WE know that this was a problem in the previous game. The fact remains that they took many many balance, UI, and QOL features from CK2 out of CK3. It sucks but is understandable that they'd take out features like merchant republics and byzantine succession, etc. To take out such fundamental features is inexcusable.

 

[TheRealAlu]

Agreed. It was so clean, I believe the number one goal with the initial release was to be as bug-friendly and presentable to reviewers as possible with the end-goal being to expand out the code later, and I don't necessarily mean expansion content, but rather the default code.

Here's a code example: I'm the author of a mod that adjusts the lipstick women receive from the "Beauty" trait. After my initial release, I was having requests from players telling me to remove the lipstick... on men. At first I thought it was an issue with my mod, until I looked in Paradox's code and saw there are literally zero conditions for which men receive lipstick. You could have an 80-yr old Viking pagan warlord, raping and pillaging, but as long as he has a Handsome trait, he gets lipstick. Once I discovered that, I had to take a step back. I couldn't believe Paradox was that lazy. I included a fix removing the lipstick on all men until Paradox codes some conditions, especially because Handsome traits are inherited, so the men don't even get to choose whether they're wearing the lipstick or not.

Whoa boy... I knew something was a bit off. I just assumed handsome men should look 5-10 years younger than their real age, never going below 16 of course. It's a shame Paradox didn't just make makeup an optional box you can tick in the barbershop that only pretty characters can have. Saying you can only look pretty with makeup on isn't sending the best message either.

 

[WeissRaben]

Lombards were still around in 867 and are in the game as Langbards.

Comparing county conquest to a migration is silly in the extreme. You could have cited the Normans in Southern Italy instead - which is still wrong, but less so - but you went with the "wow, everything you said is wrong" approach instead.

 

[Slimane]

For casual play it is pretty fun. Just don't get too attached and to serious about it.

Because that's what diehard fans of Paradox and grand strategy games wanted: a casual experience. are you kidding me?

 

[ThePatriot1776]

Comparing county conquest to a migration is silly in the extreme. You could have cited the Normans in Southern Italy instead - which is still wrong, but less so - but you went with the "wow, everything you said is wrong" approach instead.

The original statement I was responding to was about Norse seizing territory south of France. I provided historical and genetic proof that the Norse did in fact seize territory in what would become Italy which is south of France. I never stated anything other than the facts of history.

 

[Slimane]

Agreed. It was so clean, I believe the number one goal with the initial release was to be as bug-friendly and presentable to reviewers as possible with the end-goal being to expand out the code later, and I don't necessarily mean expansion content, but rather the default code.

Here's a code example: I'm the author of a mod that adjusts the lipstick women receive from the "Beauty" trait. After my initial release, I was having requests from players telling me to remove the lipstick... on men. At first I thought it was an issue with my mod, until I looked in Paradox's code and saw there are literally zero conditions for which men receive lipstick. You could have an 80-yr old Viking pagan warlord, raping and pillaging, but as long as he has a Handsome trait, he gets lipstick. Once I discovered that, I had to take a step back. I couldn't believe Paradox was that lazy. I included a fix removing the lipstick on all men until Paradox codes some conditions, especially because Handsome traits are inherited, so the men don't even get to choose whether they're wearing the lipstick or not.

The number of issues i've found in 60 hours of gameplay is simply astounding. I'm disappointed that Paradox would not take more time to make sure their flagship franchise is coming out in pristine form. Most of the bugs and issues can be seen/reproduced within the first minutes/hours of play! You expect me to believe they missed all this during play testing? Feels amateurish... Shame!

I'm certainly never buying a Paradox title on release ever again. I refuse to pay to be a beta tester.

 

[TheRealAlu]

1. Dread is way too easy to get. It should be something you earn by killing innocents which would give you tyranny too. Or murdering people and getting caught. Or executing a revolt leader. Perhaps executing close family members, or their spouses, the first of which would also get you kinslayer but the second one would just be dread.

2. AI need to be better at budgeting gold and focus more on building than saving for mercs and boats. Put an AI only event that lets them take out a 1:1 loan for boats. A decision they can take if they can't afford boats during a surprise war I'm fine with them getting that one little advantage over us. If it means they can actually go build things so the world doesn't feel like an empty wasteland unless I personally develop it myself.

3. Soulmates should never be seduced by anyone else, period. Seduction complaints would stop here if people had a way to counter it.

4. The disputed heritage event needs counters. It needs a bigger more involved event you can participate in. Let me turn some of these wannabe upstarts into a Ned Stark.

5. The Fervor mechanic is broken. It punishes successful religions way too harshly. The original intent on this mechanic sounds fine in paper but it doesn't work in reality. It needs to be a buff to small religions. Making them easier to spread on their own and harder to convert. Instead of empowering weaker religions and giving them a chance to grow it feels more like a mechanic that just punishes strong religions and forcing them to implode.

6. Matrilineal marriages are broken. Needs to be fixed otherwise there's no point to having anything but male only inheritances for dynasties to not suicide themselves out of existence. An AI should always be marrying its first daughter off matrilineally only even just as a backup incase their only son heir dies young. Maybe not realistic, but it's how most smart players play the game. The AI should be seeking not to get a game over. Dynasties can still die off when they become unlanded, murdered, or have legit accidents and diseases. We don't need them killing themselves.

7. The family tree button needs to not crash the game. I know people are complaining about cadet branches but IMO that's probably the only way to save this menu. If you make it so cadet branches have their own family tree connected to your tree with a button like a bastard branch did in the original CK2 game this would dramatically save game performance on this screen. Having everything open and visible, cadet included, is just a fast ticket to crash town.

8. Succession rules need to be tweaked to keep things in neat organized areas. Makes it much easier for the AI to defend its territory and heavily reduces internal bordergore. Players (or really expansionist AI) also being able to remove someone from the non-primary succession queue by giving them a full duke title with all involved counties should be easier as well. Land is land. If you conquer land for your kids and give them duchies/kingdoms to rule why do they need my primary heirs future personal domain? Yeah you can theoretically give them enough land to not steal your domain but at the current ratio it demands you'd need to give someone like 10-15 holdings if you want to keep your 10 holdings, and the AI just isn't smart enough to hold onto that much land. They're going to inherit it, then hand it to someone else so what's the point of them getting it in the first place? The average stewardship cap for holdings is like 3-5 early game and 4-7 late game.

This wouldn't let you abuse it so you can like say... give someone a duke or king title that is meant to be your primary air, and forcing the game to skip to a younger heir you prefer for your primary titles. No, this should just take them out of secession of the minor titles you might want to hold onto or have spread around more evenly amongst your unlanded heirs. Basically if someone has maxed out their stewardship domain slots why give them extra crap they can't handle?

 

[Zhetone]

The original statement I was responding to was about Norse seizing territory south of France. I provided historical and genetic proof that the Norse did in fact seize territory in what would become Italy which is south of France. I never stated anything other than the facts of history.

the comparison is quite frankly terrible because in the game you have Lappland holding Pisa as an extension of its mainland territory whereas in real life it was adventurers (in game terms) who conquered new territories without having land elsewhere. Even in England the Norsemen who conquered land did not have land in Scandinavia; they were landless conquerors who settled in new lands. This is much more tolerable to me than the situation in CK3 where the King of Sweden conquers chains of exclaves to reach Cyprus or something

 

[ThePatriot1776]

the comparison is quite frankly terrible because in the game you have Lappland holding Pisa as an extension of its mainland territory whereas in real life it was adventurers (in game terms) who conquered new territories without having land elsewhere. Even in England the Norsemen who conquered land did not have land in Scandinavia; they were landless conquerors who settled in new lands. This is much more tolerable to me than the situation in CK3 where the King of Sweden conquers chains of exclaves to reach Cyprus or something

My comparison is valid and historically true. Whether you like it or not.

 

[johnty5]

The AI not even building any buildings is a pretty major issue, and way more than just a "balance issue."

That depends on why the AI isn’t building any buildings. If Paradox built the AI to purposely not build buildings, you’re right - it’s a broken system.

If, however, there’s a modifier sitting somewhere in the code that weights how the AI prioritises spending on mercs vs schemes vs bribes vs buildings etc - and that modifier just needs changing from 100 to 50 - it’s absolutely a balance issue.

 

[SauronGorthaur]

No. There is an issue with rampant seduction, or else said event wouldn't be firing in the first place so frequently. It doesn't matter that the developers are a different team. Unless they're from a different company, operating on a different planet, with minimal knowledge of CK2, there is not excuse. WE are not the CK2 developers, and WE know that this was a problem in the previous game. The fact remains that they took many many balance, UI, and QOL features from CK2 out of CK3. It sucks but is understandable that they'd take out features like merchant republics and byzantine succession, etc. To take out such fundamental features is inexcusable.

Even CK2's team knew it was a problem, which is why they introduced a game rule to block AI seduction (instead of adjusting the AI acceptance toggles so they'd make more sense, but hey, an easy way out is still them doing something). And like you said, the fact that it was made by a different team isn't really an excuse. Because CK3's team quite clearly looked at CK2's team's work and decided to keep the whole seduction idea. And then apparently didn't ask the other team about any potential issues with it that popped up over the years or the players' attitude towards it.

And it's also interesting that you brought up the other forms of government. Which CK3's team took out because they weren't happy with how they were in CK2, but didn't have the time to do remake them for CK3's release and as such decided to instead polish the forms of government they decided would be in on release (they particularly polished the switch from tribal to feudal). With those forms of government potentially being future DLC material after they get reworked to meet their standards.

They recognized there could be something better to be done about it, acknowledged they wouldn't make it in time for the release (at least in a way that wouldn't be disappointing) and as such decided to avoid the whole shebang (and, again, potentially postpone it for DLCs, so they could get more time to work on that). But they couldn't extend the same level of scrutiny to seduction mechanics. Despite the playerbase being so vocal about it in CK2 that the CK2 team had to make the aforementioned game rule.