CKIII really needs to be more challenging

[LebaneseDude]

This may sound trite but the game became much more fun and challenging when I stopped metagaming and roleplayed my active ironman character.

Inheritance is a big one for example. Unless I'm callous I dont undermine my heirs. I land them often, to their detriment at times. I marry for power if I want to expand, influence if I want friends in high places, and sometimes even looks for fun... rather than eugenics

I feel like that's what they went for here. I'm excited for Royal Court cause it'll both add more RP elements and add some flavor to downtime. Warring gets tedious after a while.

I do think it doee need to be more difficult though. I use More Rules and other mods to add some kick.

 

[Lightbanee]

This may sound trite but the game became much more fun and challenging when I stopped metagaming and roleplayed my active ironman character.

Inheritance is a big one for example. Unless I'm callous I dont undermine my heirs. I land them often, to their detriment at times. I marry for power if I want to expand, influence if I want friends in high places, and sometimes even looks for fun... rather than eugenics

I feel like that's what they went for here. I'm excited for Royal Court cause it'll both add more RP elements and add some flavor to downtime. Warring gets tedious after a while.

I do think it doee need to be more difficult though. I use More Rules and other mods to add some kick.

yeah I hope Royal Court adds the desperately needed complexity. I'm almost done my Greek Gods campaign and i've conquered 90% of Europe because it seems Alexandria is busted as a holy site. All that bonus learning in a warrior kingdom means you end up with a ton of blademasters and champions. It's pretty funny having a guy that's got 4* Learning but has 40 prowess because he's a warrior monk. Legendary Blademaster and the religious champion perk while Zealous.

 

[Umrem300]

I think it is way too easy. One of the reasons being that, you can disinherit sons.
I would like to have a pregame option where you can't disinherit without cause. Even though I tell myself, "this run I'm not disinheriting sons" I end up doing it anyway and go from count to emperor between 1 and 2 lifetimes.
I don't like the idea of "intentionally playing bad" I'd rather see a harder difficulty that grants more bonuses for other kingdoms and more work required to bethrode/ally and harsher consequences when caught plotting. Perhaps make sway/seduce cost gold?

 

[Lightbanee]

I think it is way too easy. One of the reasons being that, you can disinherit sons.
I would like to have a pregame option where you can't disinherit without cause. Even though I tell myself, "this run I'm not disinheriting sons" I end up doing it anyway and go from count to emperor between 1 and 2 lifetimes.
I don't like the idea of "intentionally playing bad" I'd rather see a harder difficulty that grants more bonuses for other kingdoms and more work required to bethrode/ally and harsher consequences when caught plotting. Perhaps make sway/seduce cost gold?

I don't disinherit anyway, even with how screwed Confederacy can be, and I still manage to easily snowball.

 

[Olaf Trygvasson]

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.

Or the game can actually add the struggles that defined the period in the Catholic world- the entire middle ages was a story of the Church and the various kings struggling with each other for authority, at odds and playing factions of the other. There is currently none of that in the game. Excommunication should be the worst thing that can possibly happen in game, and a constant threat against the more powerful rulers. I don't even know if its in the game right now- I assume it is, but I don't think I've ever seen it

 

[vandevere]

Or the game can actually add the struggles that defined the period in the Catholic world- the entire middle ages was a story of the Church and the various kings struggling with each other for authority, at odds and playing factions of the other. There is currently none of that in the game. Excommunication should be the worst thing that can possibly happen in game, and a constant threat against the more powerful rulers. I don't even know if its in the game right now- I assume it is, but I don't think I've ever seen it

The problem was, in CK2, the Pope was excommunicating literally everyone. It didn't matter what you were doing. HRE, France, England, Italy, and the Spanish Kingdoms; the Pope would excommunicate them all, en masse. Didn't matter what you were doing, A Good Son of the Catholic Church got excommunicated along with everyone else. Up to your eyeballs in Holy Wars with defensive Holy Wars? Too bad,...you're Excommunicated. Underage? You would get an Excommunication as a Prezzie on your 16th Birthday. I've had quite a few play throughs where the entire Catholic World was Excommunicated, and I don't want to see that again. If we're going to have excomming again, I want it to make sense.

Rebel against the Pope like Barbarossa? Fine, an Excomming makes sense there. Possibly guilty of having the Pope's Bishops killed-Henry II and Thomas Beckett-that makes sense too. Squabble with the Pope over Papal Tithes-King John over Peter's Pence-equally fine.

But a Ruler, living a virtuous lifestyle, being a Good Son of the Catholic Church getting Excommed, especially because another Ruler asked the Pope because he wanted your land? Not a valid excuse for Excommunication.

Really, there are enough traits out there in CK3 to justify Excomming based on what your Ruler actually does...

 

[Lightbanee]

The problem was, in CK2, the Pope was excommunicating literally everyone. It didn't matter what you were doing. HRE, France, England, Italy, and the Spanish Kingdoms; the Pope would excommunicate them all, en masse. Didn't matter what you were doing, A Good Son of the Catholic Church got excommunicated along with everyone else. Up to your eyeballs in Holy Wars with defensive Holy Wars? Too bad,...you're Excommunicated. Underage? You would get an Excommunication as a Prezzie on your 16th Birthday. I've had quite a few play throughs where the entire Catholic World was Excommunicated, and I don't want to see that again. If we're going to have excomming again, I want it to make sense.

Rebel against the Pope like Barbarossa? Fine, an Excomming makes sense there. Possibly guilty of having the Pope's Bishops killed-Henry II and Thomas Beckett-that makes sense too. Squabble with the Pope over Papal Tithes-King John over Peter's Pence-equally fine.

But a Ruler, living a virtuous lifestyle, being a Good Son of the Catholic Church getting Excommed, especially because another Ruler asked the Pope because he wanted your land? Not a valid excuse for Excommunication.

Really, there are enough traits out there in CK3 to justify Excomming based on what your Ruler actually does...

I think it's getting that way, i'm seeing excommunication becoming a lot more common, in my current game both the Byzantine Emperor and Emperor of Francia were excommunicated. Neither had any Sinful traits and hadn't committed any tyrannies from what I could see. Seems similar to the the 'died of natural causes' at age 26... I've had that bug pop up multiple times. I've had a ruler die of 'natural causes' at 32 and a son die of 'natural causes' at 25. Thankfully i've stopped playing ironman so I just reload an autosave to deal with such a dumb bug.

 

[Kanaric]

It says to me that the CK3 team realized what no Paradox team before them has really seemed to realize: Paradox's traditional approach to defining difficulty settings (where H and VH give all AIs numerical bonuses) warps the game, rather than just making it harder for the meatbag.

exactly idk what that guy is implying because it's nonsense. The AI playing the game well without bonuses or penalties should be the highest difficulty. They should be penalized at lower ones. If they can accomplish that and the game be a challenge then you know it's well designed. Like this thing where the AI can get in a forever debt, that shouldn't be a thing. There should be mechanics to rectify that

There are also far too many exploits in all paradox games. They should be considered like cheating in the community but speed run culture does the opposite so everyone exploits the game and wonders when it's not even a slight challenge. Many harder achievements in these games REQUIRE exploits. They shouldn't be designing their games that way. The fact exploiting is so accepted and is even ingrained in achievement hunting means they will never be properly fixed.

Like in this if I want to exploit the game I always have 100% dread and i'm ALWAYS locking people up. I even have reserves in my dungeon for any potential heir.

 

[Tryvenyal]

Seems similar to the the 'died of natural causes' at age 26... I've had that bug pop up multiple times. I've had a ruler die of 'natural causes' at 32 and a son die of 'natural causes' at 25. Thankfully i've stopped playing ironman so I just reload an autosave to deal with such a dumb bug.

What you mean a 25 years old can't die from "natural causes"? Is "Failing health" a natural cause to you? To me it is... No special illness, just bad health. Not common in any way, nor extreemly uncommon either. The deathreason could be "Failing Health" instead if you want, for characters below 50.

 

[MrReaper182]

Role play this game based on your dynasty's head traits and It becomes much harder and fun. Before you do anything stop and ask yourself would the head of the family really do this? think about their traits and base everything you do off of those, and I mean everything.
For example If you have a contempt head then don't go and do any wars (even easy ones) because contempt people are happy how they are, if you have a greedy head then just have nothing but feasts and get fat, if you have a lustful head then just chase women or men if your gay, if you have a brave head then only fight wars that your outnumbered in (no fighting easy wars) to prove you are brave and if you are religious head then only fight holy wars.

 

[grommile]

I've had a ruler die of 'natural causes' at 32 and a son die of 'natural causes' at 25.

"Cardiac arrest due to a congenital heart defect" is, in fact, a perfectly natural way for a "fit and healthy" 20something or 30something to drop dead

 

[Lightbanee]

"Cardiac arrest due to a congenital heart defect" is, in fact, a perfectly natural way for a "fit and healthy" 20something or 30something to drop dead

They actually have a tag that says 'died of heart failure' so when they die of heart failure it actually says that not 'natural causes'

 

[zaboli]

Role play this game based on your dynasty's head traits and It becomes much harder and fun. Before you do anything stop and ask yourself would the head of the family really do this? think about their traits and base everything you do off of those, and I mean everything.
For example If you have a contempt head then don't go and do any wars (even easy ones) because contempt people are happy how they are, if you have a greedy head then just have nothing but feasts and get fat, if you have a lustful head then just chase women or men if your gay, if you have a brave head then only fight wars that your outnumbered in (no fighting easy wars) to prove you are brave and if you are religious head then only fight holy wars.

But why not just give the option for a hard mode? Sure I can role play but that's not the correct way to make a game harder.

Its just like if CIV would have only chieftain difficulty and restraining yourself by only building cities on the worst possible places.

Edit: Yes I can mod it, and yes not being able to get achievements spoils the fun.

 

[AlipheeseXV]

Here are some thoughts of mine to make the game more challenging without just implementing a hard mode:

- more game rules. Far, far more game rules!
Why?
Because with game rules a player may seek out the challenge he or she wants!
Want to have a relaxing 'snowball game', but at least some challenge on one or two specifing things?
Want to experience the hardcore things AI characters go through?
Build it with game rules!
Game rules on how hard player realms or AI realms are effected by factions!
Game rules on how many AI chars can do a hostile scheme vs the player!
Game rule which let's my female char die in childbirth!
And many more!

- AI awareness!
Like, seriously, on the one hand it is great what shenanigans I can pull off to revive 'old things'.
But for example a byzantine emperor who just watches how I as kingdom of Sicily joining his empire while being of hellenism faith, reform said faith including human sacrifice and then sacrifice like every of his vassals I catch in battles, tainting the rivers of Hellas red with blood and conquer half his empire from the inside... just because I have 'title revocation protection' in my contract... is dumb beyond anything!

- Holy wars should be a far more rare occasion!
Your neighbour is of hostile or evil faith?
Great! Conquer an entire empire in the lifetime of a single character!
Like, seriously, only big empire titles like the purple endboss blob may provide a challenge... and only to have your char live long enough to reap his or her own conquests.
Otherwise, conquering an empire like Carpathia is laughable easy!
Also, vassals who would loose their holdings in a holy war and become unlanded should definately join as defenders!

- Make jihads the equivalent of crusades!
At the beginning of my ck3 plays, when the event popped that 'muslim faiths now have access to jihads' I thought, great, epic battles ahead while I restore zoroastrian Persia... and then, like nothing...
In all seriousness, jihads should also be great holy wars!
Even it may be a-historical, as a challenge it should be included!
May also help to weaken the purple endboss blob.

- 867 start date should get a Seljuk invasion!
Starting in 867 and waiting over 300 years that the mongols arise... in the far east... and make it how far exactly nowadays?
Yeah, what a waste of a thread...
So, an additional invasion in the middle east, to spice things up and maybe also weaken the purple endboss blob would be a great addition!

- make 'liege holds de-jure kingdom' modifier a thing!
So, if I'm king/queen, my count vassals are jelous if I hold too many duchies and additionally get negative modifiers if I hold the de-jure duchy they are counts in.
If I become Emperor/Empress, they still are jelous if I hold more then 2 duchies... but for example restoring the roman empire to it's fullest glore and owning every single kingdom title in it... 'Nah, it'll be fine'...

 

[grommile]

Also, vassals who would loose their holdings in any war and become unlanded should definately join as defenders!

Fixed that for you.

 

[AlipheeseXV]

Fixed that for you.

I also thought about that, but just wanted to point out the worst case szenario them becoming unlanded.
But yeah, a single hold county inside the targeted area of a holy war should even drag kingdoms into wars.

 

[InsidiousMage]

If I become Emperor/Empress, they still are jelous if I hold more then 2 duchies... but for example restoring the roman empire to it's fullest glore and owning every single kingdom title in it... 'Nah, it'll be fine'...

The reason for the negative opinion modifier for holding more than two duchies is the duchy buildings. Kingdoms don't have any associated benefit to them so there is less of a problem to holding multiple kingdom titles.

 

[AlipheeseXV]

The reason for the negative opinion modifier for holding more than two duchies is the duchy buildings. Kingdoms don't have any associated benefit to them so there is less of a problem to holding multiple kingdom titles.

I know, and think it's a very 'unpleasent' way to regulate those buildings

 

[x4077]

The reason for the negative opinion modifier for holding more than two duchies is the duchy buildings. Kingdoms don't have any associated benefit to them so there is less of a problem to holding multiple kingdom titles.

The same penalty for holding more than two duchies was present in CK2, and there weren't any duchy buildings there to benefit from in that game at all. The original reason for there being the duchy limit is so that you were forced to hand out those titles to other people and have stronger vassals to deal with internally as opposed to holding onto all them yourself and keeping all your vassals weak.

 

[InsidiousMage]

The original reason for there being the duchy limit is so that you were forced to hand out those titles to other people and have stronger vassals to deal with internally as opposed to holding onto all them yourself and keeping all your vassals weak.

Holding a duchy, or any title really, in CK3 doesn't really correlate to being strong though. I'd much rather have deal with two dukes who only have a county each as part of their personal domain rather than ten counts with a county each. There is a balance to be had but right now the only real threat to the player are basically factions so having fewer direct vassals is generally better than having more simply because it's harder for them to form factions while simultaneously making it easier to end factions because there are fewer people you need to sway. If the player takes the time and effort to deal with their internal borders then you could have a bunch of ducal vassals but they can be incredibly weak since you made sure the each only own one county.