CKII is just a proof of concept (albeit an excellent one)

[riadach]

No incentives to roleplay and lack of attachments to characters

This is one of the most important points. In the beginning, I likened CKII to an RPG. Now in an RPG there is RP. In theory, you can roleplay in this game: being arbitrary you can randomly revoke titles from vassals, being lustful you can use seduction focus non-stop, being slothful you can just speed-five the game. But unless you're into this kind of stuff, you're likely to try to play the game in an optimal way. And the fact that your character is wrath does not prevent you in any way to act as patiently and calculating as ever.

I do have to agree with this. I sometimes think it would be a good idea to adding consequences to a character not acting according to his traits. Perhaps the stressed, depressed, lunatic traits should be used for that purpose. A character who is kind but is forced to castrate a 6 year old should at least have some sort of anxiety over it, similar to a coward forced to lead an army into battle.

 

[Ezumiyr]

About the incensitive to roleplay:

One easy solution that some players have been proposing since very early in the history of CK2 is to change how most events work.

1. Get rid of the obvious bad/good pick, and instead add choices based on your current traits
   
2. Add special mechanics tied to certain traits. One good current example is the Cruel trait, but other like Charitable should probably have their own set of events and possibilities.
   
3. Randomize event outcomes. And I'm not just talking about those events with 67% chance of succeed. Currently too many events are completely deterministic - either you succeed (in which case you win always the same thing) or you fail (and you have a small penalty or you die). There should be more possible outcomes and consequences, possibly unexpected ones.
   
4. Reduce the trait-changing events. Imagine if you were playing D&D and every day in game you can change your alignment and character. Not only it makes roleplay inconsistent, but in CK2 it rapidly turns roleplay into a min-max festival. Characters should be evolving, sure, but I shouldn't be able to change my character so fast and so easily. And I shouldn't feel that certain traits are a burden, while others are just super-good to have.

Each set of traits should be gameplay-defining instead of just influencing your stats. In fact, I've came to think that there should be two sets of traits: character traits, which influence your playstyle and unlock new mechanics and events ; and stats traits (mostly genetic and cultural ones like strong, beautiful, multilingual etc) which influence your stats. This way, players would not just try to maximize their stats, even if I agree that intuitively, a cruel character should probably have a lower diplomacy. But just think about it: if your character has a base 11 diplomacy, do you think that the best way to show this character is really cruel is to put a -3 diplo malus, or to enable the character to torture prisoners in a horrible way which will decrease the character's popularity among non-cruel characters?

 

[Mouthwash]

I've been waiting so long for people to realize this.

It's worth mentioning that the war mechanics (which should be more permissive than EUIV, not less) and lack of incentive for vassalization are also major reasons for the unrealism of the game. The main reason that anyone would accept a liege is for protection, but since he might well decide to seize my land the next year it's rather pointless. The only real reason to do so ingame is to be able to war with his vassals and take their land, which is, I'm assuming, not how it worked in history. I'd propose some kind of integration mechanic so that new vassals are considered 'foreigners' for some time - they'd have truces with most of the realm, can't fabricate (fabrication should really only be available if you have some kind of familial connection, such as a marriage) and can't have their titles revoked.

And of course a dynasty simulator is totally pointless without any incentive to stick with your dynasty. Right now CKII is just a character-based landholding game like Mount and Blade.

 

[Krankengedanken]

I cant disagree with your train of thought tbh, but for making the game more challenging try to play in MP trust my word
https://discordapp.com/channels/311214300620521492/311214300620521492
check in the ck2 rules chat and see by yourself how many (waaay to many) rules there are, so to make the game more balance for everyone. THanks to it you can shine with your knowledge of the game or be a lucky person with the God of RNGs.
p.s. 1.9k hours here and still learning little secrets and exploits

Sorry, your link doesn't work for me, says there are no text channels or I don't have access to them.

But it's true, I have only casual experience with MP, so I was talking primarily about singleplayer.

By adding the tooltip removal as a rule, it would allow those who want to try to RP an extra tool, while not impacting at all those who want to minmax. I know I would use it!

As a band-aid, it'll do just fine, although experienced players probably know most of the correct choices by heart. But if we want min-maxing players to also experience roleplay (as a min-maxing player I would like that), we need something more (see below).

I do have to agree with this. I sometimes think it would be a good idea to adding consequences to a character not acting according to his traits. Perhaps the stressed, depressed, lunatic traits should be used for that purpose. A character who is kind but is forced to castrate a 6 year old should at least have some sort of anxiety over it, similar to a coward forced to lead an army into battle.

My thoughts exactly, but I would go even further and introduce the stress meter akin to the one in Rimworld. And just like in Rimworld if you go to 100, something really bad gonna happen (psychotic break, heart attack, suicide).

But then there should also be a mechanic for reducing the stress level by acting in character or doing something nice for your avatar.

About the incensitive to roleplay:

One easy solution that some players have been proposing since very early in the history of CK2 is to change how most events work.

I think the problem with that from PDX's point of view is that it would require a DLC focused entirely on this feature alone, because of its scope, and they might be cautious about the financial flop that might follow if the DLC is not well-received. Even WoL that focused on the same area was much smaller in scope.

It's worth mentioning that the war mechanics (which should be more permissive than EUIV, not less)

As for the war mechanics, the battles in CKII always fascinated me: the devs made quite an interesting system (more interesting than in EUIV that's for sure) with unit types, and flanks, and narrow flanks, and commander traits, and a bunch of different tactics. And no one cares gameplay-wise. You just get an army 30% bigger than your enemy's and don't attack into rivers and bad terrains.

It's kind of sad that someone spent their effort to code a special Italian cultural tactic, but even playing as Italy most people would never need to use it to win wars.

 

[raistlin_wizard]

I'm reading it and I'm for some of the things you mention, just a minor detail. You can land women if you have Full Status of Women and Full Cognatic, can't you?

 

[Palatinus Germanicus]

I've always thought of CK2 as a 2-Demisional RPG w/ a highly restrictive environment & limited options/choices.

Also it answers the question, "what if EU4 were a better sandbox, where countries could actually collapse & break apart, & marriages & claims worked more realistically?"

Remember folks, the world is made up of people... not provinces.

 

[Badesumofu]

Not much to add other than that I also love CK2, but agree with basically all the points made in the OP. It's a great game and unique as well, but there's really a lot of room for improvement.

Stuff like Scholarship being poorly integrated with the Hermetic Society is really a result of the DLC policy. The Stellaris approach to DLC (very briefly could be summarised as the cake being entirely in the free patch and only the cream being part of the paid DLC) could probably fix that

 

[BeyondExpectation]

I've been waiting so long for people to realize this.

It's worth mentioning that the war mechanics (which should be more permissive than EUIV, not less) and lack of incentive for vassalization are also major reasons for the unrealism of the game. The main reason that anyone would accept a liege is for protection, but since he might well decide to seize my land the next year it's rather pointless. The only real reason to do so ingame is to be able to war with his vassals and take their land, which is, I'm assuming, not how it worked in history. I'd propose some kind of integration mechanic so that new vassals are considered 'foreigners' for some time - they'd have truces with most of the realm, can't fabricate (fabrication should really only be available if you have some kind of familial connection, such as a marriage) and can't have their titles revoked.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with the seizing land next year (title revocation?) but the vassalize and conqueror from within system is a function of the game's both very simple and very inaccurate internal politics. The VAST majority of realms for most of the recorded* game span didn't allow internal vassals to fight each other. Large within de facto realm land shifts happened as a result of civil wars (usually with the victor rewarding his supporters), lieges giving away land to reward loyalty/nepotism more generally (the demesne limit is a very ahistoric mechanic put in for gameplay reasons; many feudal rulers had far larger demeses than the game allows) and a combination of gavelkind succession and territorial consolidation through the female line.

The other big factor that the game excludes is warlordism within de jure realms; in the 10th century in France, and the 11th century in Andalusia, just to name two examples, central authority broke down entirely, and any local ruler who had the military to seize a neighbor's land did. (For reason's I can't fathom, this happened MUCH more in Islamdom than Chrisendom, and when it happened in the latter, the heirs of the legal ruler tended to somehow regain power within a few generations).

*Most of the 769 start and much of the 867 start is either legendary or totally fabricated.

 

[Leo_Boon]

While greater depth would be much appreciated by veteran players, we mustn't forget that CKII is actually a very complex game, and only after extensive playthroughs do we get accustomed to all the different mechanics and game elements. If you ever try to teach anyone you'll quickly realise how many screens, tables, numbers, traits, menus and decisions there are, which can be very disorienting for a new player. Adding significant amounts of depth to CKII might please those who have invested hundreds of hours in the game, at the cost of making the game crushingly difficult for someone new to learn, and it is a fine line to walk.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

While greater depth would be much appreciated by veteran players, we mustn't forget that CKII is actually a very complex game, and only after extensive playthroughs do we get accustomed to all the different mechanics and game elements. If you ever try to teach anyone you'll quickly realise how many screens, tables, numbers, traits, menus and decisions there are, which can be very disorienting for a new player. Adding significant amounts of depth to CKII might please those who have invested hundreds of hours in the game, at the cost of making the game crushingly difficult for someone new to learn, and it is a fine line to walk.

You seem to be confusing complexity and depth. Games can be very complex without being deep and vice versa. For instance, chess is fairly simple, but enormously deep. Likewise, CK2 is much more complex than chess, but also far shallower.

 

[Woifee]

I want a CK MMORPG.

 

[AllThat4Nothing]

Totally agree about the easy part.

I always have to chuckle a bit when the difficulty meter is way up there just because I selected an independent Count. "Difficulty 80%" or something like that. It's meaningless because 1. it's not difficult at all in general and 2. in many ways it's easier than "easier" starts...

In no way has this detracted from my enjoyment though. Been playing regularly since release. Just wanted to chime in with support where the OP talks about being easy.

 

[Krankengedanken]

I'm reading it and I'm for some of the things you mention, just a minor detail. You can land women if you have Full Status of Women and Full Cognatic, can't you?

Yeah, you're right, thanks for the correction. I tested it, and turns out it's only about Absolute Cognatic: you can have it and Traditional Status of Women, and you can land them. Have it vice versa and you can't. Looks somewhat strange, to me its status of women in a society that should determine it, not a succession law of your primary title.

 

[Leo_Boon]

You seem to be confusing complexity and depth. Games can be very complex without being deep and vice versa. For instance, chess is fairly simple, but enormously deep. Likewise, CK2 is much more complex than chess, but also far shallower.

But the changes OP and others desire would almost certainly increase complexity along with depth. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy them, I'm saying that the devs might have to choose between pleasing the hardcore fans and keeping the game relatively accessible, which is usually resolved in favour of newcomers.

 

[Krankengedanken]

But the changes OP and others desire would almost certainly increase complexity along with depth. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy them, I'm saying that the devs might have to choose between pleasing the hardcore fans and keeping the game relatively accessible, which is usually resolved in favour of newcomers.

A lot of desired depth may be realised with complexity going on in the background. For instance, if all existing game subsystems were nicely integrated, it would only marginally increase complexity for the player (but it would greatly increase the complexity of the internal mechanics of the game).

As for the general argument that the game is already too complex for new players, on one hand, it's certainly quite complex, on the other hand, you only need to have basic familiarity with the interface, choose a good start, and know about 15 simple rules (finding out about them is another story of course) to play the game successfully. After that level is achieved people can learn at their own pace. I think it's more of a question of whether a player personally likes complex games.