CK3 is too easy

[Aidanator800]

I have over 2600 hours mind you and I still agree with them, the game becomes too repetitive due to every region playing exactly the same with small exceptions to Iberia and Vikings.

Don't forget Persia's coming soon as well

 

[Genocidalvirus]

Have you tried mods? There are mods that turn the game more challenging.

We should not have to rely on mods. As my friend and I were discussing today, mods are not the same as developer content, worrying about it breaking other aspects of the game, causing conflicts and being updated.
But for what he is mentioning there is not a mod that exists.
For everyone one on the forums that's been asking it to be more difficult, there are hundreds of others not on the forums that agree.
With every dlc they release, although they add content they just make the game easier.
With CK2 you had packs, their is no anti warmongering mechanic in CK3. There are 20 things they could pick from to make the game more difficult, they just need to do it, if they want players to continue to buy their dlcs.
Look at the badges on these players in the forums they have played everything, they support all Paradox games, we are requesting difficulty in any way shape or form, toggle on and toggle off. Stellaris has tons of difficulty options, why can't CK3.

 

[Andrzej2]

First thing, they should remove meritocracy and sanctioned loopholes perks as they are OP and boring.

 

[LebaneseDude]

I mean... at 1000+ hours you've probably experienced most of what there is to experience. At that point it's natural to have exhausted all the fresh fun to be had or have gotten very good compared to the average player.

Best way to continue extracting value is through mods and overhauls. The GoT and TES ones are pretty good.

 

[Graian]

I mean... at 1000+ hours you've probably experienced most of what there is to experience. At that point it's natural to have exhausted all the fresh fun to be had or have gotten very good compared to the average player.

Best way to continue extracting value is through mods and overhauls. The GoT and TES ones are pretty good.

You need far less than 1000 hours to excel in this game. Mods aren't the solution, they are a way to circumstance a problem.

 

[Eltener]

The GoT and TES ones are pretty good.

GoT basically just has civil war mechanic + Robert's Rebellion. Beyond that there's barely any content imo. They seem more concerned with cosmetics like x helmet, y building or z character's face than decisions, event chains and mechanics. CK2 version is still way way better.

TES is a lot better, other good examples include Godherja, WoK, Cybrxkhan's Library and Fallen Eagle. PoD also seems very good but couldn't get into it myself.

 

[Flockingbird]

For everyone one on the forums that's been asking it to be more difficult, there are hundreds of others not on the forums that agree.

The devs have the data; we do not. For all we know, the majority of CK3 players prefer cheese. Given comments I’ve seen on the cheesiest mods I use, I’m inclined to believe this is in fact the case—but I know that I don’t know—and neither does anyone here who isn’t a CK3 dev.

I also believe the devs are always trying to improve the balance, sometimes with big changes introduced with free patches accompanying DLC, and more often with little tweaks. I remember one of the devs talking about the advantages of rebalancing via small tweaks when working with complicated, intertwined systems—a primary one being reducing the chance of breaking things that were working in the attempt to fix something else. Making the changes gradually helps avoid that, but can lead to players not noticing the changes and assuming that the devs aren’t working on the problem and even that they’re indifferent to players’ feedback.

Using mods while the devs work on improving the game is good advice.

Anybody need me to post link/s to the devs explaining why they can’t just incorporate modders’ work? I’ll edit it in if someone needs it.

edit: I missed this:

But for what he is mentioning there is not a mod that exists

Torredebelem may have been referring to their own mod, which they developed over ~three years before offering it on Steam, etc. I remember many discussions in which they talked about changes they were making in their mod to make the game more difficult. As I understand it, that’s a major purpose of the mod. You might give it a try—link is in their signature.

edit: autocorrect error, lol

 

[Breebelbox]

The devs have the data; we do not. For all we know, the majority of CK3 players prefer cheese. Given comments I’ve seen on the cheesiest mods I use, I’m inclined to believe this is in fact the case—but I know that I don’t know—and neither does anyone here who isn’t a CK3 dev.

I also believe the devs are always trying to improve the balance, sometimes with big changes introduced with free patches accompanying DLC, and more often with little tweaks. I remember one of the devs talking about the advantages of rebalancing via small tweaks when working with complicated, intertwined systems—a primary one being reducing the chance of breaking things that were working in the attempt to fix something else. Making the changes gradually helps avoid that, but can lead to players not noticing the changes and assuming that the devs aren’t working on the problem and even that they’re indifferent to players’ feedback.

Using mods while the devs work on improving the game is good advice.

Anybody need me to post link/s to the devs explaining why they can’t just incorporate modders’ work? I’ll edit it in if someone needs it.

edit: I missed this:

Torredebelem may have been referring to their own mod, which they developed over ~three years before offering it on Steam, etc. I remember many discussions in which they talked about changes they were making in their mod to make the game more difficult. As I understand it, that’s a major purpose of the mod. You might give it a try—link is in their signature.

edit: autocorrect error, lol

The thing is that you can't please everybody just by trying to tone done the feature crawl which you introduced yourself with new DLC which add more boni to the player. This is why game Devs invented different difficulties decades ago. If you just try to balance let's say the "normal" difficulty, there will always be people who will find the game too easy or too difficult. That's why it is pretty much a necessity and an industry standard to have at least three different difficulty settings like easy, normal and hard. The more settings the better of course.

But the CK3 Devs went a different route with only offering easy and normal difficulties and considering their statements they seem to want to die on that hill.

The conclusion is that CK 3 is a game for casual players (which is fine) and anybody who is looking for a challenge bought the wrong game, unfortunately.

 

[Jaevelklein]

~100 hours into CK 3 but with 2k hours into CK 2. Yes, CK 3 is too easy.

The game does best in being balanced with the overall enjoyability for everyone but also pandering to the top of the playerbase. It is similar with most other games. Anyone can shoot a gun in CS:GO, but not everyone is pro. Same with games like League and Dota. They aren't balanced around the middle, but top-down with the pro-scene in focus while the middle and lower player base still enjoy the game. It's a proven concept, something CK 3 needs more of as well. There's nothing more enjoyable than despite having thousands of ours into a game, yet you still realise there's new stuff to learn, and/or things you could have done differently.

The current Men-at-arms system bonuses depending on where you place them and what holdings you build in a specific terrain type is a step in the right direction. For maximum benefit, I really have to spend time thinking about what to build and where I want to hold my personal domain instead of just stacking global bonuses.

More of this, ck 3!

 

[JackTheHat23]

I just was playing a game as the Kingdom of Croatia, and with literally my second ruler (who ended up being a woman) I got deposed due to facing 3 different factions at once. The Kingdom then descended into a death-spiral of constant revolts to replace each usurper king, and if you call that "too easy" then I don't know what to say.

Are you new to the game? I've never once been deposed. I'll start a game as a Croatian realm now just to prove to you how easy it is.

 

[NDIS]

Or maybe a mechanic that depletes your available manpower and economic efficiency to reflect war casualties.

And how do we start the game? We marry our ruler, get 350 prestige, hire 300 professional soldiers, assemble a militia, and this already makes it possible to conquer the neighboring county. Next, a snowball.
1. Professional soldiers should be hired only for gold! No prestige! It's absurd - what will they eat?
2. The gathering of the militia should create tangible problems in the economy! But I don't feel any problems even when my entire militia has been fighting on foreign territory for several years in a row!
3. Conquest should be an investment, with risk in case of failure and with a long payback. Even if successful, the economic recovery of my and the conquered country should take time. As now I usually borrow money to create a ducal title, I also want to borrow it for any military enterprise.
4. As the topicstarter has already said, defensive AI alliances.

 

[Genocidalvirus]

With all the amazing products, content and patches that the artisans of Paradox weave, I request they consider a cadre dedicated to challenge and balance.
Where neighboring realms unite against warmongering players.
Nobles that reject my marriage requests to steal their best traited knights to my courtiers.
Rebellious insurrections that can capture a non-upgraded fort.
As in history, Kingdoms and Empires would rise and fall, updates have provided the rise, but weightless consequence has not allowed for the fall.

 

[grommile]

But the CK3 Devs went a different route with only offering easy and normal difficulties and considering their statements they seem to want to die on that hill.

Unfortunately, the general track record of difficulty settings in Paradox games is that the "Hard" settings consists almost entirely of:

• diplomatic acceptance penalties for players
• economic and military bonuses for the AI

that end up warping the game as much as they make it harder. (See the people who claim with a completely straight face that if you know what you're doing, some countries in EU4 can be easier on VH than they are on Normal.)

The conclusion is that CK 3 is a game for casual players (which is fine) and anybody who is looking for a challenge bought the wrong game, unfortunately.

"Challenge" in Paradox games has generally always come from playing MP, or from the first 50 years of a high-threat starting position.

 

[iniudan]

First thing, they should remove meritocracy and sanctioned loopholes perks as they are OP and boring.

With regency, the administrator tree should probably give bonus to been the reagent instead of giving the plot as become the ruler as the first thing.

 

[Breebelbox]

Unfortunately, the general track record of difficulty settings in Paradox games is that the "Hard" settings consists almost entirely of:

• diplomatic acceptance penalties for players
• economic and military bonuses for the AI

that end up warping the game as much as they make it harder. (See the people who claim with a completely straight face that if you know what you're doing, some countries in EU4 can be easier on VH than they are on Normal.)

"Challenge" in Paradox games has generally always come from playing MP, or from the first 50 years of a high-threat starting position.

I know that it is very difficult to impossible to create a really competent AI. At this point I would be happy if there was a hard difficulty which just made the AI more aggressive and gave them some boni like to income and troops, for example. It would be better than nothing, IMHO.

 

[Diskianterezh]

It's always hard to determine what is the "medium" line of difficulty : where new players can find entertainment while veteran seek challenge.
The problem with difficulty modes is that you're not really playing the original game, but a modified version, distorted to try and offer you a challenge, at the risk of playing a completely different game. Take EU4, for example: many people feel that the game's fun evaporates after the first 100-150 years, so they want this consolidation/first conquests phase to be the heart of the challenge. But this phase is highly unstable, and the slightest advantage/allliance/rivalry can instantly snowball and put an end to the run (I'm too powerful, there's no more challenge, etc.), and what does the extreme difficulty mode offer in response? AI bonuses, penalising the mechanics around which the game is supposed to revolve: in other words, tying a hand behind the player's back rather than offering a real challenge that tests their skills.

- As an aside, I find that the end phase of EU4 is strangely more balanced: big blobs may be less fun, but they're more challenging in a way: you'll always find a final opponent in the end. It's a pity that this part is less watched for the updates -

I think the difficulty system is bad for two reasons:
- I don't consider myself to be an extremely expert player, and along with most of my friends who are also casual gamers, we quickly get bored of the status of planetary empire that we achieve in 100 years. The 'base' game is too simple, that's a fact. Adding difficulty modes would just be a band-aid that wouldn't be very effective.
- As mentioned above, a difficulty mode based on arbitrary bonuses and the fact that the AI isn't playing the same game is an admission of failure and distorts the game, whereas CK3 is an extremely dynamic game with multiple ways of adding challenge via the natural complexity of an expanding empire :
Two players of different levels can play together in the same game. Managing the domain of a Count, and the few vassals of a Duke, is far less complicated (and safer, provided you have a powerful protector) than the administrative chaos of an empire.
A veteran player can build an empire in a few decades, but that's no problem! The problem lies in the management of the empire in question: currently, empires snowball too easily, and once you're an emperor, you just have to let yourself be carried along by inertia. The simple fact of having numerous vassals mathematically prevents factions by the sheer power of your peasants (when your ten daughters and friends don't simply make them impossible). Once you're emperor, external enemies are your prey, and internal enemies are no match at all... when they should be the main difficulty of an empire!

Make domestic imperial politics a reality, and the mere fact that your empire is growing will naturally make it more complicated to manage, creating a dynamic difficulty, no matter your experience.

 

[druez]

It is still missing content from CK2 that really through a monkey wrench into things. A true pandemic/plague system. Those things would just throw plans through a loop The way they did succession rules in this game, makes it much easier to get your heirs in place.


I've been playing with Obfusckate and it is a much better game. Also some of those mods that change how fevor work for relgions and the like.

But, seriously a FOG of war system, with a spying system and/or scouting system would add a ton to this game. Having to work to find out what peoples traits are in the other kingdoms around me.

Having a feast in Ck3 with Obfusckate serves a purpose over the years, so I can see the sons or daughters I might want to marry my children too. They attend and I get to know their stats.

Sending an embesiary so I get to know people in other realms better.

It is a great mod.

But, it really needs to be built into CK3 and expanded and polished to be truly awesome.

 

[Ezumiyr]

CK has always been "too easy", that's an issue that comes with the fundamental design of the game. Most of the challenge is concentrated in the first years in-game (rarely more than a couple of characters). After that, it's easy to just keep growing exponentially in every way.
And it's not really limited to CK. It's an issue with every strategy game: it becomes easier as the game goes on.

The only real way to face constant challenge in CK is by switching character randomly at every character death (or maybe every time you create an empire title?). That way, not only you face a similar challenge to what you have at a game start, but you also have to face the realm you built with a previous character.

Nobody will make CK feel constantly challenging by nerfing some perks here and there, changing some values or adding a fog of war, just like nerfing assassination attempts didn't make CK2 more challenging. It's just the natural flow of a strategy game that all the difficulty is at the start of the game, when you kickstart your economy, when you start your first conquests. Nobody in this thread is suddenly going to find a cure for snowballing.

Difficulty simply isn't the issue here, and to be perfectly honest, I'm a bit disappointed that we still need to have this debate in 2023. The issue is player engagement. We feel like we don't have "stuff" to progress into, no new ways to develop our characters. There's no cliffhanger when we close the game. Too often, we as a player need to start things, and it gets old to always be the mastermind that starts a complex plot or an ambitious conquest. Sometimes, we'd like to be on the reactive side of things. CK2 tried to solve that through ambitions, and it's really one of the feature from CK2 that I don't understand isn't in CK3 - because it helped to define characters, and it gave interesting goals to the AI.

But there are certainly other ways to do it. Again, the goal is to create situations that the player will have to react to. Some macro-events like epidemics, complex plots to seize the throne through long-built alliances, heretic uprisings that actively try to break the established order, heirs turned against their lieges. Basically, everything that makes a good story. And yes, most of the time, the player will still win in the end. Because what matters isn't how difficult the situations are, it's to generate more story, more things to do that don't solely depend on the player initiating everything.

 

[Genocidalvirus]

I seriously hope devs read this thread.
We don't need simple passive stat boosts to the AI.

Honestly it could be as simple as

• Adding a warmonger AI pact mechanic
• Having some sort of prevention to being able to steal the best prowess, stats, and traits from other courts so easily.
• Adding some cons to items instead of only pros
• Adding some difficulty based game options, ie. Scaling rebals, AI aggression.

 

[tsr-aph]

One of the best ways to increase difficulty is with factions. As you get bigger, factions become more powerful and you have fewer potential allies to help you in a revolt.
Personally, I think that sub-vassals should be able to join factions, because right now the meta is having fewer powerful vassals towards the late-game and letting them eat faction pressure.

When this mod gets updated, Letters and Loyalty adds to this faction pressure by making vassals in more distant parts of your realm more disloyal. A system like this makes internal management harder and creates an effective max realm size. IMO this is how Paradox should fix difficulty in the game —when you are small, the threat is external, when you are big the threat is internal.