How and Why do you play CK.........or not?

[unmerged(20798)]

I am pretty much a Paradox fanboi, i love EU2, HOI and Vicky, but CK-? I just don't get it. I grasp the central point: you're controling a dynasty in medieval europe and the basic aim is to keep your family alive and in power: so, you breed kids, you marry 'em off to the most promising available females hoping to both sire something with improved genetics and perhaps acquire a few claims along the way. But that seems to be it. All the other stuff: wars, diplomacy, even tech development just doesn't really seem to cut it.

I tried the game under 1.01, couldn't get into it. I read Uhtreds Northumbrian AAR which encouraged me to give it a whirl under 1.03, still no joy.

In HOI i can make choices about the tech tree, the wars are deeply engrossing and FUN. In Vicky I can build up and economy exactly how i want to, and i can choose to be Liberal or Conservative and respressive, the wars can be ok, and the game is FUN. EU2 i haven't played since 1.03, but i remember there were loads of choices to make and thta it was FUN.

CK, it seems to me, leaves you at the mercy of a Genetics-based engine, there aren't many choices to make and it isn't really that much fun. I can't identify with my character or my dynasty. It seems to veer from the far too easy to the all of a sudden nigh-on impossible, BUT.......................

I'm willing to accept that its me who is to blame, that i am missing nuances or essentials that would bring this game alive.


PLEASE, PLEASE, show me a shred of hope!! Tell me how you play this game, how you enjoy it! Why, even, you enjoy it.

 

[Judge]

Well I don’t play it anymore. I have better ways of spending what little free time I have. As it is, the game is way too inadequate to spend time on and I don’t see much hope for this game right now.

I tried to play a couple of games but got frustrated by all problems and historical inaccuracies. The game also tends to get tedious when you have played it a couple of times. I am afraid that I have to say “Better luck next time Johan”.

However with some patches CK might prove me wrong. After all even HOI is enjoyable these days and I didn’t think I would say that ever

 

[Secret Master]

I tend to be engrossed by the game, until my empire gets so big that it becomes too easy to even beat the mongols. But until that point, I have a lot of fun. Let me ask you some questions.

1) What about the wars are you not liking, exactly? Sure, they are not as detailed as other games, but what is not enjoyable about them? Not enough wars to fight? Too hard? Too easy? Not having good targets to attack?

2) Diplomacy: Yes, the engine is weak here, and thanks to oddities regarding peace negotiations and alliances, the game seems strange at times. However, in multiplayer it works just fine. And the marriage-inheritance system works fine, giving everyone a shot at picking up land for free.

3) Technology: Technology research is no fun without a very specific economic and military goals in mind. If you are not customizing your army composition, then you're not going to have any fun with research. You also will face no real decisions in research if you have no economic goals. With army reserach, decide on your army composition. Archers and pikemen? Light cav? Knights? Then, research accordingly, while sometimes stealing techonology from the muslims. With sneaky research, you can create some pretty awesome armies by just getting a tad bit ahead in technologies that are key to your army type. For ecnomiy, ask yourself whether you own rich lands or poor lands. If you own Wales, research mining, as the +1 a year bonuses are better than +5% to income bonuses for poor provinces. If you own Venice, research cattle herding. That cheese dairy is worth every penny with its +10% to income when the province is wealthy. The tough decisions are there, you just have to think about it a bit.

4) Running the family. I'm not sure what you don;t like about this? Is it just tedious? Frustrating? Or do you feel like it just comes to nothing? If you've played RPGs before, they can give you a good perspective on what running your family should be like.

 

[Heavenseed]

First I like dynasty building style games (like old Romance of the Three Kingdom,etc. ) Ck offers more complexity with inheritance laws and I really like Medieval History. So CK become addictive for me. Like anybody else bugs sometimes ruin my game-play. But this game has great potential and every patch will make this game more playable. (just look EU2!) So at least keep an eye on CK!

 

[Beauclerc]

I love the basic premise of CK - building a dynasty and all that, and I think there's a lot of elements to the game that are excellent. But, overall, I think it is let down by some serious problems in both the design/balance of the gameplay and the implementation of the current design. Sadly these cause me to be less enthusiastic about playing the game than I should be having only owned it a few weeks.

In terms of balance of gameplay - considering that its a character-based game, there's little interaction between the characters. You can be a vassall of someone and never really interact with your lord at all. You don't even form any sort of real relationship between your family members, direct or otherwise - which would at least have provided an additional element to a game based around dynasties. I think the lack of character-interaction/relationships is an oversight in the gameplay.

It would have been better also, if the three levels of lordship could provide a different, but equally challenging aspect to the game. Counts could be vying for more land and climbing the social ladder. Dukes could be looking for power, prestige and perhaps ultimately Kingship, and Kings could be looking to expand their borders. But again, I don't think this is balanced. As a count in say England, there's not a lot you can really do except breed and build up the lands you have. Hardly thrilling really. I would like to have seen each of these levels of Lordship to have their own specific aspects to the game.

I think in an ideal world, I wanted a game that allowed me to start off as a Count in England... have fun building up my dynasty until it became a Ducal power, have more fun in that part of the game until my dynasty finally became Royalty... and have a new set of problems to face.

That hasn't really materialised in CK for me. I admire the developers for producing a game like CK - no-one else produces such historical simulations quite the way the Paradox do. But, for a medieval fan like me, the fact that they have produced the core of a great game, but not reached the levels I think it could have reached, I am probably more disappointed than I would be with one of their other titles.

Sorry for waffling...

 

[Gothmog]

I play CK as sort of a roleplaying exercise...While that's true of my playing style for most strategy games (from Rebellion to Victoria), this goes double for CK, since you're playing a persona and a dynasty rather than a nation*...play as the ruler and the nation would, rather than just the nation

*term used very loosely here

 

[Katte]

I don't play it at the moment because there is just not that much going on during the game, so I hope for an update to enhance this. But i always stick around and follow discussions.

 

[unmerged(16099)]

I play CK on ocassion but I just can't seem to get much more then a hundred years into a game. CK seems to have more 'down time' when compared to other Paradox titles and I often find myself just staring at the screen and watching time pass. The dynasty management stuff is interesting, but it does not hold my attention long enough to finish anything but the shortest scenario.


--
EnPeaSea

 

[KingJohn]

During the downtime I focus more on the family management but I agree troop regeneration rates are too slow.

I enjoy CK but I think the EU relation system should be bought in and the technology development should be a bit more involved.

To be honest I read all these posts about people saying there is nothing to do, but the main aim of the game as far as im am concerned is expanding your empire while keeping your vassels on your side and maintaining your family strength.

 

[Chaingun]

I find the like of intelligent resistance from the strategic AI the most troublesome issue as of currently. At its heart CK is a competetive game between player entities, may they be human or AI. If the AI is stupid it does not make for a good game whatever the game mechanics are like.

 

[Judge]

The AI is definitely more of the primitive sort and yes that’s the biggest downside. That’s probably why we have monstrously overpowered Mongols, Byzantines and Iberian Moslems to somewhat cover up the bad AI performance.

The absence of crusading AI kings are also hugely irritating and disastrous to a game called Crusader Kings. But since the Byzantines are so enormously overpowered there is really no need for a crusade and perhaps the AI actually has realized that, in this way being a lot smarter than we tend to think?

 

[unmerged(16099)]

To be honest I read all these posts about people saying there is nothing to do, but the main aim of the game as far as im am concerned is expanding your empire while keeping your vassels on your side and maintaining your family strength.

I agree that CK has things to do, but the activities that you mention don't always take up much time. Often I find myself waiting for my armies to replenish while my vassals are happy as ever and the family line is secure. At those moments I find myself staring blankly at the screen or reading a book while letting the game run.


--
EnPeaSea

 

[unmerged(26782)]

I don't play CK at the moment. I really got bored with the apatchic AI. But I'll see what 1.05 has to offer.

 

[Gothmog]

I don't play CK at the moment. I really got bored with the apatchic AI. But I'll see what 1.05 has to offer.

Oh, Lord deliver unto us the saviour, thy only son version 1.05 who shall redeem us and shelter us from harm and odd alliances...

 

[unmerged(21937)]

With 1.04 AI skills in using it's troops has increased, now they actually can make some nasty tactical suprises for you if are overconfident. Of course when most humans attack AI when they have at least 3:1 number advantage on their side, it is no miracle that AI gets beaten.

AI still doesn't fully realize that keeping it's vassals' troops mobilized for years is bad. It now actually uses them most of the time, but when an AI kingdom makes a grand mobilization to fight a big and long war, it often leads to at least partial collapse, as vassals start dowing from low loyalty caused by having their troops fielded. That happens with human led kingdoms as well, but humans tend to learn from few mistakes to demobilize vassals whose loyalty is too low or send gifts to improve key vassal loyalty.

Another one is bad kings. When madman, schizo, pneumonic or heretic has the throne, AI kingdoms often fall. Humans might do the same when getting similiar problems and also when racking up much BB, but again, humans learn to watch how their vassals loyalty goes and then send gifts to troublemakers. AI does not.

So I suggest that AI would receive some sort of giftgiving algorithm. Some logic when it should send gifts. AI can just as easily or actually even more easierly than human check the monthly loyalty modifier of it's vassals, so I don't think that getting AI a giftgiving algorithm would be impossible task. I don't know how heavy load it would be to CPU, so maybe that limits it.

Then I'd suggest that AI would automatically demobilize all regiments that cause vassal's loyalty to decrease when their loyalty is already too low (25% or lower for example). Perhaps couple it with giftgiving system that AI either gives gift to increase loyalty or demobilizes regiment, based on whether or not it can afford the gift.

If neither of these can't be done, then AI would just need to resort to additional AI-cheats, like perhaps reduced loyalty malus on vassals from regiments and / or perhaps have maximum negative effect from diplomatic ability and / or character traits capped at 0 or -1.0...

 

[unmerged(26782)]

Oh, Lord deliver unto us the saviour, thy only son version 1.05 who shall redeem us and shelter us from harm and odd alliances...

Huraah and amen.

 

[crash63]

I don't like the lack of action in CK.
Not very intersting to have nothing to do (except reading a book during the game)...

 

[unmerged(18148)]

I agree with EnPeaSea.

This problem can only (and partially) be solved with a LOAD of events with a MTTH of a year or twice a year, to keep interest.

 

[Duuk]

I still think that loyalty drops are too hard and too fast.

It causes kingdoms to implode like clockwork.

If the world were like CK: York would still be independant, and there would be no Islamic fundamentalists to deal with, all of them having been killed and converted by the Byzantines (who dominate the UN).

 

[unmerged(5822)]

I don't currently play CK, 'cause I am waiting for 1.05 to arrive and fix the Mongol (the player has to conquer them or be overrun, effectively ending the game either way - either the player is crushed or the player ends up with a huge empire too powerful for anyone to oppose) and loyalty (always heading for 0 or 100 rather than a high or low number in-between; one or three bad character traits should lead to a loyalty of 30-40, not 0) problems. CK has a lot of potential, and is so close to realising it...