CKIII really needs to be more challenging

[zaboli]

This is not thread to bash the game but a simple suggestion. I just finished a campaign together with a friend (it was his first time playing CKIII) and it was kind of shocking how easy it was to go from a irrelevant count in a underdeveloped land in Lapland to the most powerful man in Eurasia ruling 2 empires in just one generation. It is just way too easy to snowball without any obstacles, there really needs to be some kind of competition. At least make it hard to expand right know there isn't any strategic thinking required to grow big, you just declare war on your weakest neighbours and snowball your way up. The only challenge in the game comes from the unflexible succession laws.

I know CKIII isn't about empire-building but more about role-playing, but it will be so much more fun to role-play if there was actually threat. My king of an underdeveloped Sweden with mediocre stats was more powerful than the Byzantine empire? If i wanted I could conquer all of Europe with just one character without any strategical mindset.

I'm not asking for anti-blopping mechanics but for ways to make the game more difficult for experienced players. I really think the devs should add a hard mode.

 

[JacobiteJames]

This is not thread to bash the game but a simple suggestion. I just finished a campaign together with a friend (it was his first time playing CKIII) and it was kind of shocking how easy it was to go from a irrelevant count in a underdeveloped land in Lapland to the most powerful man in Eurasia ruling 2 empires in just one generation. It is just way too easy to snowball without any obstacles, there really needs to be some kind of competition. At least make it hard to expand right know there isn't any strategic thinking required to grow big, you just declare war on your weakest neighbours and snowball your way up. The only challenge in the game comes from the unflexible succession laws.

I know CKIII isn't about empire-building but more about role-playing, but it will be so much more fun to role-play if there was actually threat. My king of an underdeveloped Sweden with mediocre stats was more powerful than the Byzantine empire? If i wanted I could conquer all of Europe with just one character without any strategical mindset.

I'm not asking for anti-blopping mechanics but for ways to make the game more difficult for experienced players. I really think the devs should add a hard mode.

They just need to make tribals be not so strong early game. Ck2 had tribals field mainly light infantry levies, but ck3 now having 'levies' and 'men at arms' means tribals will always be more powerful in war.
Tribals are locked to confederate partition, but if you can keep expanding this is rarely an issue

 

[Torredebelem]

I'm not asking for anti-blopping mechanics but for ways to make the game more difficult for experienced players. I really think the devs should add a hard mode.

I agree with your post except this quoted sentence.

The problem for me lies in the easiness and quickness of attaining a bit of everything, except legacies.

For instance, land grabbing CBs should only be available to characters with a certain trait (Ambitious) or that have more than X (between 12 and 15 would be a good range) of Martial. For religious land grabbing CBs the trait should be Zealous. This would solve most of the easiness of expansion to a large degree.

Claims should also be much harder to be fabricated with events that would force the player to make significant sacrifices or see the progress of the claim to be reduced or even starting from scratch. Another way to do it would be to treat claim fabrication as some kind of scheme with a time to setup and then in the end having a certain probability of success based on several variables.

The number of MaA should be reduced substantially as well as their maximum regiment size, because the player will max out much easily everything and fine tune everything than the AI and coding a decent AI for this game or any other very complex Paradox title is not something that is going to happen, due to personnel and hardware limitations. So the AI either should have invisible crutches or we must live with what it is.

At a role playing level, lifestyle perks should be much harder to attain (in my personal mod I quadrupled the number of points needed for a perk - 4000 - and make it dependable on both the main stat in question and the learning stat) and on average, finishing an entire tree should be the accomplishment of a lifestime.

Still on lifestyle perks some of them are too powerful by a larger margin. I understand the need to provide significant bonuses with each perk, but for example giving 25% to claim fabrication instead of a whooping 50% with a perk would still be significant but much more balanced.

Then we have legacies, which suffer the same malady as the lifestyle perks. Some of them are way overpowered, but here the effect is felt much more slowly given the pace that legacies happen in the game. Anyway, it would be good to cover them as for instance if someone wants and given the present values, at some point by middle game the player only breeds ubbermenchen for every child conceived.

Then we have how easy it is to convert religion and culture. It should be given the same treatment as the fabricate claims action and the rebellions caused by different culture/religion should be dangerous to the player with random events supporting the story of each rebellion and thus creating a new emergent narrative while making the game and the internal management of the realm much more challenging.

Then we have demesne size that is far too generous allowing the player to get vast amounts of wealth that is used to finance growth, both territorially as well as in terms of carpet building everything. And again, the player will do this and max out demesne size much better than the AI.

Heirs should be harder to come by and descendency should be less assured than it is at present where a character has on average a good 5 or 6 children without any effort. It is interesting that fertility is more or less in line with what were the averages of those times, but children died like flies before reaching 10 and that is not reflected in the game. Also the pregnancy should be significantly more risky than in vanilla. To mitigate a situation where a character dies without descendants possibly forcing a game over being a tad bit heavy handed, have a decision available for the old character to attempt to forge a new heir at considerable expenses and risks. Obviously this new heir would always have opinion problems along his life due to the rumours surrounding his misterious appearance.

Finally the risk of death should be a clear and present danger for each player character. Events tied to dread, to tyranny, to popular opinion in the provinces, to control in the provinces, to the assassination scheme against the player, should pose a critical risk to the character being played, always keeping him/her on the edge.

This is what I have to say about the post with which I agree - except with the last sentence - and having implemented most of the measures I enunciated here in my personal mod I can say they work very well. Yes, gameplay is still on the easy side of the spectrum, but each game is no more a walk in the park and the emergent stories that arise keep my interest in each campaign much longer while always being a pleasure to immediately start anew after a few days off.

 

[fodazd]

My personal opinion: I agree that the game should be a bit harder, but I don't think a system where the player just can't get anything done anymore would be an improvement. Conquering a large empire *should* be possible. The early game experience of going from count to emperor is mostly fine. The problem is that once you have reached that point, there is no challenge left. I think that the game would really benefit from deeper internal politics, where keeping a large realm together long time should be more challenging than conquering it in the first place. However: Given how many people seem to have trouble with the stronger factions, I don't think "make factions stronger" is the right way to go here. At the end of the day, I really do think that adding more difficulty settings is the only way to solve this issue, because not everyone agrees on how difficulty certain things should be.

 

[Sorbo]

Tribals are locked to confederate partition, but if you can keep expanding this is rarely an issue

Can avoid it too if you convert to cultures with Table of Princes.

 

[Hichel]

Making everything taking longer to achieve will just cause boredom most likely if the AI can't stabilize it's realms too. You can exponentially grow by just conquering nearby fractured realms.

 

[grommile]

finishing an entire tree should be the accomplishment of a lifestime.

Eh. Why bother, then? That ninth perk isn't going to do you much good if you don't get it until you're in your dotage.

 

[Torredebelem]

Eh. Why bother, then? That ninth perk isn't going to do you much good if you don't get it until you're in your dotage.

Well my characters don't get any senile modifier until their death, so the ninth perk will have the same use at 30 than it has at 70. But it depends on the ninth perk out of the 15 available, it depends on how you play and it depends on if you want to complete a tree instead of spending the ninth perk in other tree. But I am a firm believer that each tree should take on average about 25 years to complete. That's the sweet spot I strived to in my mod - for me and a few friends I distribute it - with a more balanced feeling than the quickness of vanilla. This makes your decision about which main path to take more meaningful while providing room to pursue other paths that can unlock perks from other trees that have a synergistic effect between themselves. And of course, you might want to land your heir as soon as he is 16yo to start accruing perks.

 

[grommile]

ut I am a firm believer that each tree should take on average about 25 years to complete.

Ah. That's a more useful way of stating your goal ("achievement of a lifetime" could easily come across as "you get it when you're 60")... and as it happens, (barring events) it already takes 21 to 30 years to complete a perk tree.

 

[Torredebelem]

Ah. That's a more useful way of stating your goal ("achievement of a lifetime" could easily come across as "you get it when you're 60")... and as it happens, (barring events) it already takes 21 to 30 years to complete a perk tree.

Some events, thanks to the huge amount of lifestyle points they give, do cause a significant deviation from the range you present and they are not that rare. Also there are ways to gain perks automatically following some event pools which also cause a significant deviation from your range. Over the course of a couple of decades both will happen almost certainly. By increasing the number of points necessary to earn a perk, the impact of such events giving lifestyle points is diluted.

 

[Testeria]

Well my characters don't get any senile modifier until their death, so the ninth perk will have the same use at 30 than it has at 70. But it depends on the ninth perk out of the 15 available, it depends on how you play and it depends on if you want to complete a tree instead of spending the ninth perk in other tree. But I am a firm believer that each tree should take on average about 25 years to complete. That's the sweet spot I strived to in my mod - for me and a few friends I distribute it - with a more balanced feeling than the quickness of vanilla. This makes your decision about which main path to take more meaningful while providing room to pursue other paths that can unlock perks from other trees that have a synergistic effect between themselves. And of course, you might want to land your heir as soon as he is 16yo to start accruing perks.

You do realize that experience is what makes succession crisis a thing in CK3? Without it, it would be not much of a difference between an old king and a new one.

 

[Torredebelem]

You do realize that experience is what makes succession crisis a thing in CK3? Without it, it would be not much of a difference between an old king and a new one.

That has nothing to do with the subject at hand that was not even answered to you. Besides, it is not the number of perks (or how many one gets until being old) that influence succession crisis. It is mostly the short reign penalty and the reset of all the sway actions/bribes/donations made by the previous character that kept everything stable.

 

[JacobiteJames]

That has nothing to do with the subject at hand that was not even answered to you. Besides, it is not the number of perks (or how many one gets until being old) that influence succession crisis. It is mostly the short reign penalty and the reset of all the sway actions/bribes/donations made by the previous character that kept everything stable.

Levies from realm priest especially

 

[junassa]

Depending on where you play I think a simple thing like AI actually helping against holy wars would make things more interesting. At the risk of self promotion I've updated Durbal's mod and expansion is way harder with it (I've also slowed expansion just a tad to allow some realms to congeal a bit).

 

[Testeria]

That has nothing to do with the subject at hand that was not even answered to you.

Oh, sorry.

Besides, it is not the number of perks (or how many one gets until being old) that influence succession crisis.

Really? I thought that perks that add gold generation, significant opinion boost, fighting abilities, war cost, or level of stats (among others) are crucial in SURVIVING succession crisis.

Actually, this is the only point where the game becomes interesting again (beyond the initial character): when I get lazy with my old powerful king and suddenly I have to solve all these problems with his noob inexperienced son.

 

[Slow Bathroom]

Current flaws in the game aside, I'd like a game mode where the odds are really stacked against Catholicism. Right now I exclusively play minority or custom religions, because if I start a game surrounded by people of my religion I feel like I've half won the game before I even started.

 

[Torredebelem]

Really? I thought that perks that add gold generation, significant opinion boost, fighting abilities, war cost, or level of stats (among others) are crucial in SURVIVING succession crisis.

Actually, not. You can manage discontent of vassals in other ways, for instance by lowering crown authority, placing powerful vassals on the council, by bribing them, by swaying them, by giving them landed titles, by befriending them (yes, I know it is hidden behind a perk but easily attainable as it is the first that can be selected), by managing the number of direct vassals or by leaving a warchest to the successor that enables him to be able to hire some companies of mercenaries if facing a rebellion. Of course, by having a mounty haul campaign - that's the present state of CKIII - where, among many other things, perks are dead easy to come by you have still more options to deal with discontent in your realm but that in my opinion defeats the purpose of this thread that is, let me remember you, "CKIII Really Needs To Be More Challenging".

Actually, this is the only point where the game becomes interesting again (beyond the initial character): when I get lazy with my old powerful king and suddenly I have to solve all these problems with his noob inexperienced son.

That's why I came up with tested ways to make the game more interesting along its whole play arc, using a series of measures that help balance the whole experience. As of now, the few people who played with it are happy with the change of pace in the campaign and its added challenge, coming from the measures I enunciated above and still others I didn't touch (for instance, warfare is a riskier affair in what I modded as battles are much less predictable). Of course, I am not claiming that the dozen people that got my mod by mail have any kind of statistical representation, but I think that if the devs want to address the easiness of the gameplay, the overall drop in CK3 players, and the abandonment of campaigns after a third of its duration, my ideas should be given a shot.

 

[Lollipop_but_rock]

Ck3 is actually a game where you need to place constraints on yourself to have somewhat interesting games. I personnaly dont use at all "fabricate claims", so I need to at least connect 2 neurons together to play, not more, but at least 2.

You also need to learn to play badly and to make bad decisions, because bad decisions, and bad outcomes from your decisions, won't ever be forced on you. It's a game where you acts don't have consequences. And it please a part of the player base (the part usually saying sentences like "we don't all play in the same way") , the part for which paradox have chosen to make the game for.

 

[Torredebelem]

The funny thing about this thread is that people are swift to disagree with someone who already thought about these problems and implemented solutions to seriously mitigate them but are incapable of presenting different solutions themselves. With my approach to the game since release date and my experience in balancing other titles (both from Paradox and Bethesda), I am certainly keen to read and learn from them.

And yes, I know it is a hard pill to swallow if one recommends a decrease of bonuses of all sorts to fix the easiness of gameplay, psychology explains that very well, but in economic terms take it as having more money in your pocket - the easiness about almost everything in the game is attained - and experiencing huge amounts of inflation - the easiness of almost the entire game - or having less money in your pocket with far less inflation, thus bringing the economy - gameplay difficulty - in control. I clearly prefer the later scenario.

 

[Hichel]

The funny thing about this thread is that people are swift to disagree with someone who already thought about these problems and implemented solutions to seriously mitigate them but are incapable of presenting different solutions themselves. With my approach to the game since release date and my experience in balancing other titles (both from Paradox and Bethesda), I am certainly keen to read and learn from them.

And yes, I know it is a hard pill to swallow if one recommends a decrease of bonuses of all sorts to fix the easiness of gameplay, psychology explains that very well, but in economic terms take it as having more money in your pocket - the easiness about almost everything in the game is attained - and experiencing huge amounts of inflation - the easiness of almost the entire game - or having less money in your pocket with far less inflation, thus bringing the economy - gameplay difficulty - in control. I clearly prefer the later scenario.

Stats balance is always welcome, but still I do think that the biggest problem is how the AI Behaves in the game in general. Less bonuses might increase the time it takes to achieve a certain objetive (Maybe not be an emperor in one gen, but rise do king or grand duke) but not necessarily it might become more difficulty, it will just take longer.

CK3 was the first one of the crusader kings series that I went from a complete game (even though I played a lot more of ck2) because I could really set the pace, even on the slow side if needed and was a pleasure. Now, my games on average took longer on CK2 than CK3 because of how more direct you can be on the newer game on relation to achieve your objectives and how the game inversely becomes easier the longer your campaign goes because, we, the player are much better at sustaining the realm than the IA.

Realm fracture is great, but seeing from Iberia to Cathay (almost) all broken up by it isn't that appaling and makes it easier to conquer a lot of places in such a short time. In essence, I think there is a lot of work to be done in relation to stats inflation and world map construction to make the game more plausible and challenging