Am I crazy or does this game confuse slowing down with difficulty?

[jjjdddsss]

I loved this game at release and put about 500 hours in, but it seems for the last year or more expansions and patches have been focused on slowing the player down. I've never been one for world conquest anyway but for the more casual player like me I seem to end up spending sometimes decades in game with nothing to do.

This game simply doesn't run fast enough for that much down time to be sustainable. I'm sure there are micro optimisations I could be doing but I play this game as a relatively casual role playing war game, which I think a lot of people do, and the constant road blocking aimed at the minority of power players makes the game basically unplayable for me. The Welsh conquest of Britain game I played when I first got the game simply isn't fun to do anymore, and that makes me sad.

On a related note, why are we roadblocking to slow world conquests? Wouldn't mechanics to break up empires be more effective, and real difficulty for that matter?

 

[BD13]

This game simply doesn't run fast enough for that much down time to be sustainable.

This seems to be an issue. Waiting out decades of threat level probably wouldn't be such a big deal if it didn't take so many hrs. I don't want to work all day so that when I get home I can get a few hrs of waiting out my threat level. Lol.

I'd rather just start a new game tbh.

Id say I just need to upgrade since my PC is ancient but it seems even players with good pcs see a slowdown.

 

[jfoytek]

So I agree to a small extent,

I agree there should be multiple avenues to play the game, your game play style would fall under the Map Painting category which you and your brethren should be able to enjoy the game style that you like. However that's about as far as I agree with you.

BD13 he was not talking about the game litterally slowing down because his PC is not able to process the late game information, he was talking about the game pace in general as he is likely not finding the best marriage for every family member, he is likely not finding out who is an Heir that is not likely to inherit like a brother to a 21 year old land holder with a young wife. He likely isn't trying to marry a pretender to a title and then assassinating the current title holder, there is so much depth to CK2 but I am assuming he is simply Getting a claim, conquering, watching map turn color rinse and repeat....I see this as being a totally boring way of playing myself but everyone is different!

So jjj I see you already own EU4 can I ask why your not playing Europa instead its far more of a map painting game then CK2 is, CK2 really at its heart is about role play its about your family, making your 2nd cousin once removed a Duke of Albino, and your youngest brother the bishop of canterbury. Its about creating a story and watching it unfold.... The goal is not to Hold the entire world under the grasp of 1 member of your family, the goal is to hold the world under the grasp of your dynasty. So you see many colors in the political map but when you switch to the dynastic map they all turn the same color...

Its easy to conquer but can you play the emperor and king maker role.....

 

[BD13]

I understood the title and that paradox was not literally slowing the game down. Just his expansion.

I guess I just took the part I quoted as literal. My mistake.

 

[jjjdddsss]

So I agree to a small extent,

I agree there should be multiple avenues to play the game, your game play style would fall under the Map Painting category which you and your brethren should be able to enjoy the game style that you like. However that's about as far as I agree with you.

BD13 he was not talking about the game litterally slowing down because his PC is not able to process the late game information, he was talking about the game pace in general as he is likely not finding the best marriage for every family member, he is likely not finding out who is an Heir that is not likely to inherit like a brother to a 21 year old land holder with a young wife. He likely isn't trying to marry a pretender to a title and then assassinating the current title holder, there is so much depth to CK2 but I am assuming he is simply Getting a claim, conquering, watching map turn color rinse and repeat....I see this as being a totally boring way of playing myself but everyone is different!

So jjj I see you already own EU4 can I ask why your not playing Europa instead its far more of a map painting game then CK2 is, CK2 really at its heart is about role play its about your family, making your 2nd cousin once removed a Duke of Albino, and your youngest brother the bishop of canterbury. Its about creating a story and watching it unfold.... The goal is not to Hold the entire world under the grasp of 1 member of your family, the goal is to hold the world under the grasp of your dynasty. So you see many colors in the political map but when you switch to the dynastic map they all turn the same color...

Its easy to conquer but can you play the emperor and king maker role.....

That's the thing though, as I said I play it as an RPG, I don't map paint. You can do the things you said, though personally I only marry off immediate family, but the game is still too slow for it. And let's be fair the game doesn't encourage you playing in that way. When it takes so long for my characters to be able to do anything my investment is just gone.

 

[jjjdddsss]

I understood the title and that paradox was not literally slowing the game down. Just his expansion.

I guess I just took the part I quoted as literal. My mistake.

The part you quoted was literal, my point there is that the road blocks and down time wouldn't be as much of an issue if the game itself ran faster. But as you said, I have a good pc and I'm still waiting 10 minutes for anything to happen on speed 5, sometimes longer.

 

[keynes2.0]

On a related note, why are we roadblocking to slow world conquests? Wouldn't mechanics to break up empires be more effective, and real difficulty for that matter?

And what players have been requesting for years, unlike the infamy mechanic which was met with howls of outrage.

 

[jfoytek]

So oddly I play this game on the second slowest speed setting and the rare times that I chance the speed its to slow down or pause and I often wonder how people play it faster...
There is way to much to manage and miss if you go any faster....

 

[Rostan]

The problem is that mechanics developed to stop blobbing are annoying, not damaging. A ”real divide” type of mechanic that creates a risk of breaking up large empires would be more realistic. Having to (easily) crush a ”More Council power” revolt every 10 years is annoying, not tough. In fact, revolts caused by few years in power in 2.04 (which were also separated by vassals) were stronger than anything today.

 

[jjjdddsss]

So oddly I play this game on the second slowest speed setting and the rare times that I chance the speed its to slow down or pause and I often wonder how people play it faster...
There is way to much to manage and miss if you go any faster....

You never played as a count? I tried to teach my girlfriend the game and she played a count in Ireland, she spent almost 50 years with nothing to do except name children, I couldn't imagine that below speed 5. Even at 5 that was painful.

The problem is that mechanics developed to stop blobbing are annoying, not damaging. A ”real divide” type of mechanic that creates a risk of breaking up large empires would be more realistic. Having to (easily) crush a ”More Council power” revolt every 10 years is annoying, not tough. In fact, revolts caused by few years in power in 2.04 (which were also separated by vassals) were stronger than anything today.

I would love a real empire break up mechanic, maybe form kingdoms along cultural lines?

 

[Silversweeeper]

On a related note, why are we roadblocking to slow world conquests? Wouldn't mechanics to break up empires be more effective, and real difficulty for that matter?

Some people would probably dislike it a lot, but as long as it was preventable e.g. like the post-decadence invasion breakoff is prevented by managing your decadence (which is a bit difficult due to decadence working the way it does, but still not impossible) it would make a lot more sense than just external factors slowing blobs down. It would also be historical, as most empires fell due to growing too large to effectively manage, which led to corruption, which led to inefficient defensive capabilities, internal strife, and/or outlying areas defecting.

I personally feel like it would make a lot of sense if great rulers could conquer large portions of land (like e.g. Alexander the Great, Justinian, and Genghis Khan), but a weak ruler would have to struggle to keep the realm from disintegrating as governors grow corrupt and hold back taxes and levies, powerful vassals start to demand more rights at best and the throne at worst, and distant areas either rising up to seek independence or getting attacked by foreign powers, causing the ruler to either have to give them up or to divert his dwindling resources to protect these areas. Multiple great rulers in a row would potentially allow the empire to expand very rapidly, while multiple poor ones in a row would result in halted expansion at best, decentralization, resource draining wars, and/or the ruler getting overthrown in many cases, and outright collapse at worst.

It should be possible for the Roman Empire to shrink down to just Greece after it reclaims the old borders if the emperors mismanage their affairs. You should be able to prevent it by either granting some concessions (or outright bribes) to your vassals or by prevailing against rebels, civil wars, and invasions, but it should not be as easy as "de jure drift everything and make sure everyone is Greek". Of course, there should also be ways to regain lost land if an empire is weakened but someone manages to halt the collapse (I'd suggest a subjugation-style CB against all de jure territories within two sea zones), allowing a great restorer like Justinian to take back large amounts of land in a short period of time (which then can be abandoned/lost by a later ruler).

 

[jfoytek]

You never played as a count? I tried to teach my girlfriend the game and she played a count in Ireland, she spent almost 50 years with nothing to do except name children, I couldn't imagine that below speed 5. Even at 5 that was painful.
I would love a real empire break up mechanic, maybe form kingdoms along cultural lines?

I always start as an Earl or Count....

I never become an emperor! I never rule a kingdom larger then its Dejure, I always enforce Dejure Lands! I spend my time making the world my family's play ground!
I do not allow myself to go to war, the only wars that I allow are to puch someones claim. Or to fix something not being Dejure!

And yes anything beyond on the second speed is far too fast for me to enjoy the game.

 

[jjjdddsss]

Some people would probably dislike it a lot, but as long as it was preventable e.g. like the post-decadence invasion breakoff is prevented by managing your decadence (which is a bit difficult due to decadence working the way it does, but still not impossible) it would make a lot more sense than just external factors slowing blobs down. It would also be historical, as most empires fell due to growing too large to effectively manage, which led to corruption, which led to inefficient defensive capabilities, internal strife, and/or outlying areas defecting.

I personally feel like it would make a lot of sense if great rulers could conquer large portions of land (like e.g. Alexander the Great, Justinian, and Genghis Khan), but a weak ruler would have to struggle to keep the realm from disintegrating as governors grow corrupt and hold back taxes and levies, powerful vassals start to demand more rights at best and the throne at worst, and distant areas either rising up to seek independence or getting attacked by foreign powers, causing the ruler to either have to give them up or to divert his dwindling resources to protect these areas. Multiple great rulers in a row would potentially allow the empire to expand very rapidly, while multiple poor ones in a row would result in halted expansion at best, decentralization, resource draining wars, and/or the ruler getting overthrown in many cases, and outright collapse at worst.

It should be possible for the Roman Empire to shrink down to just Greece after it reclaims the old borders if the emperors mismanage their affairs. You should be able to prevent it by either granting some concessions (or outright bribes) to your vassals or by prevailing against rebels, civil wars, and invasions, but it should not be as easy as "de jure drift everything and make sure everyone is Greek". Of course, there should also be ways to regain lost land if an empire is weakened but someone manages to halt the collapse (I'd suggest a subjugation-style CB against all de jure territories within two sea zones), allowing a great restorer like Justinian to take back large amounts of land in a short period of time (which then can be abandoned/lost by a later ruler).

Excellently put, that's basically my feelings on it. I think it would add to the role play aspect if we had the rise and fall of empires. They seem afraid to ruin it for map painters though, while simultaneously trying to make painting as slow as possible. I guess they think map painters are the majority of fans for this game?

Seriously though, I would love to rule a declining empire as the less competent son of a great man. Then some generations later trying to reclaim my former glory, what a storyline that would be. Much better than sitting on a big empire occasionally playing whack a mole.

Volatility, that's what would make this game more fun, it's largely rng based anyway.

 

[Tapio]

Id say I just need to upgrade since my PC is ancient but it seems even players with good pcs see a slowdown.

Yeah the database gets quite large near the end. It's pretty smooth on an SSD and a i3(Skylake) self-built computer until the last two hundred years or so from Charlemagne start and that's still well playable. On my old A6 with a crappy six year old SCSI HDD the game slowed down after 300-400 years. I don't think world conquest would be doable on that computer in Conclave.

 

[gdj]

On a related note, why are we roadblocking to slow world conquests? Wouldn't mechanics to break up empires be more effective, and real difficulty for that matter?

Because the AI isn´t sharp enough for that.

Let´s take factions as an example. The average or well skilled player can deal with factions rather easily, while AI empires run from civil war to civil war already. Has anyone seen Byzantium not turn elective lately? So, making factions more dangerous would turn AI realms into a constant battlefield.

Or perhaps penalties for taxes and levies scaling with realm size? Sure, good players will still expand to some point, but the difficulty increases (presumably by a lot). The AI on the other hand is unable to deal with the penalties they already have, wasting manpower and money in stupid ways that defy description.

In short, breakup mechanics are difficult, or nigh on impossible, to implement as long as the AI is so ridiculously bad.

 

[keynes2.0]

So, making factions more dangerous would turn AI realms into a constant battlefield.

Yes, this would be a good thing. Big realms fell apart throughout this period. Chalemanges realm was divided because it couldn't be held together. Andalusia devolved into infighting emirates. The caliphates couldn't hold onto egypt and the levant. The greeks slowly lost ground to the turks. The germans couldn't hold onto the dutch and italians.

If you want empires to keep from snowballing then they have to gain and lose territory at about the same rate. So however frequent it is for a large AI realm to expand needs to be how frequent it is for the AI realm to shrink. Right now, AI realms shrink only under exceptional circumstances. So either expansion gets a bunch of straightjacket restraints (not fun) or they blob uncontrollably.

 

[Aries666]

So I agree to a small extent,

I agree there should be multiple avenues to play the game, your game play style would fall under the Map Painting category which you and your brethren should be able to enjoy the game style that you like. However that's about as far as I agree with you.

BD13 he was not talking about the game litterally slowing down because his PC is not able to process the late game information, he was talking about the game pace in general as he is likely not finding the best marriage for every family member, he is likely not finding out who is an Heir that is not likely to inherit like a brother to a 21 year old land holder with a young wife. He likely isn't trying to marry a pretender to a title and then assassinating the current title holder, there is so much depth to CK2 but I am assuming he is simply Getting a claim, conquering, watching map turn color rinse and repeat....I see this as being a totally boring way of playing myself but everyone is different!

So jjj I see you already own EU4 can I ask why your not playing Europa instead its far more of a map painting game then CK2 is, CK2 really at its heart is about role play its about your family, making your 2nd cousin once removed a Duke of Albino, and your youngest brother the bishop of canterbury. Its about creating a story and watching it unfold.... The goal is not to Hold the entire world under the grasp of 1 member of your family, the goal is to hold the world under the grasp of your dynasty. So you see many colors in the political map but when you switch to the dynastic map they all turn the same color...

Its easy to conquer but can you play the emperor and king maker role.....

I like how you say each to their own then proceed to tell us what the game is about which is actually entirely your opinion and play style.

 

[Silversweeeper]

Because the AI isn´t sharp enough for that.

Let´s take factions as an example. The average or well skilled player can deal with factions rather easily, while AI empires run from civil war to civil war already. Has anyone seen Byzantium not turn elective lately? So, making factions more dangerous would turn AI realms into a constant battlefield.

Or perhaps penalties for taxes and levies scaling with realm size? Sure, good players will still expand to some point, but the difficulty increases (presumably by a lot). The AI on the other hand is unable to deal with the penalties they already have, wasting manpower and money in stupid ways that defy description.

In short, breakup mechanics are difficult, or nigh on impossible, to implement as long as the AI is so ridiculously bad.

The AI will always be worse off than the player, assuming an even playing field and mechanics that can be understood by the player, as it generally tries to play according to its traits and doesn't have a long-term plan, which gives the player an advantage as the player can ignore their traits (save for when an event option is blocked/allowed due to a trait) and can have a plan spanning decades or centuries. However, it would probably be possible to make the AI consider wealth/troop count a bit more when it comes to war declaration and it would be possible to make the AI think a bit more about its laws and other things to make it less likely to make suicidal decisions.

 

[gdj]

Yes, this would be a good thing. Big realms fell apart throughout this period. Chalemanges realm was divided because it couldn't be held together. Andalusia devolved into infighting emirates. The caliphates couldn't hold onto egypt and the levant. The greeks slowly lost ground to the turks. The germans couldn't hold onto the dutch and italians.

If you want empires to keep from snowballing then they have to gain and lose territory at about the same rate. So however frequent it is for a large AI realm to expand needs to be how frequent it is for the AI realm to shrink. Right now, AI realms shrink only under exceptional circumstances. So either expansion gets a bunch of straightjacket restraints (not fun) or they blob uncontrollably.

I couldn´t agree more to that!

Unfortunately it is simply incompatible some of the core mechanics of the game. Charlemagne´s realm can have civil wars to no end, it won´t split if there is only 1 primary title. The caliphate won´t shrink as such, beacause there is only 1 Sunni Caliphate. The greeks slowly lost ground, but it never happens in the game when as long as they are so ridiculously overpowered, regarsless of mechanics, and noone else can crown himself "emperor of the romans" as many historical rivals did.

 

[Silversweeeper]

Unfortunately it is simply incompatible some of the core mechanics of the game. Charlemagne´s realm can have civil wars to no end, it won´t split if there is only 1 primary title. The caliphate won´t shrink as such, beacause there is only 1 Sunni Caliphate. The greeks slowly lost ground, but it never happens in the game when as long as they are so ridiculously overpowered, regarsless of mechanics, and noone else can crown himself "emperor of the romans" as many historical rivals did.

One thing that I think would weaken the various blobs would be if all vassals get the chance to break free if the liege loses an independence war or gives in to the demands of the Independence faction (with the liege getting a claim if they do so). Regarding rival emperors for the ERE/RE, that could probably be handled via a faction modelled more or less after the Antiking or Overthrow factions (but without the "become elective if the faction wins" part) with it becoming available if the liege recently lost a major war, if the liege isn't BitP, if the liege has a regency, etc.