Is CK's gameplay too open?

[Grim Madder]

I am quite new to the forums and generally just play the game happily without any real world interaction. After reading through a lot of the threads here and on Reddit plus youtube videos, it seems to me that I play in a manner the majority don't play.

It appears that most people play on high speeds with the goal of conquering as much of the world as they can in the shortest amount of time possible. I always felt the game itself worked better when played at speed 1 only focusing on a stable happy court. The AI and the game in general seemed to work better with a less aggressive human player.

What I am wondering is if the game should have been so open in it's concepts. Normally, I would applaud an open game with many different options, but I do wonder if CK2 development has suffered because of this. Some have stated that EU and CK should be very very different games, but then they play them in the same way...aggressive conquest.

Should CK3 therefore state very clearly at the beginning what it wants to be and stick to that value rather than trying to appease everybody? Should it decide if it wants to be more focused on the characters rather than conquest? Should its focus be on kingdom building? All design decisions would then be made with that goal in mind. I raise these questions because I think it is very difficult for the game too balance both objectives equally.

I would like to add that I am not criticizing anybody's game playing style as the game is open about how you play and of course people can play however they want. I am just interested in how people approach the game and what they want from the CK series. I also understand it is a game, and many people restart or reload after losing one battle simply too enhance the enjoyment of the game for themselves.

I am also not criticizing the vision of the CK2 Dev team as I love this game. I am more asking what the next step should be.

It would be no surprise to anybody that I am on the side of fleshed out characters, a lot of interaction, court and vassal management, with it being very difficult to take land. The end goal for me is that the dynasty survives and only prospers when everything lines up perfectly for it to do so.

 

[Monphat]

Some have stated that EU and CK should be very very different games, but then they play them in the same way...aggressive conquest.

Guess you're talking about my post here. I do hope that your thread and that other thread would be read by Paradox because CK3, even if it is to be launched in 3-5 years, should be designed in a completely different way.

1) It seems to me that Paradox, as a company specializing in strategies, is somewhat reluctant about roleplay mechanics and roleplay appoach to this game, it's just not their familiar field.
2) Not to mention that Clausewitz engine itself is primarily designed for visual representation of provincial conquest.
3) Another thing is that Paradox fanbase unsurprisingly consists mostly of classic grand strategy fans.

These three factors combined prompted the company to make what they made - current CK2, a strategy/RPG hybrid that is somewhat ashamed of having the latter half and increasingly focusing on the former one. For reasons that I've already mentioned in other thread, this is actually a wrong game design choice for multiple reasons. In the end you get neither a good strategy, nor a good RPG, you get something inbetween, something weird and frankly boring.

Compare old CK2 patches where strategic mechanics and roleplay mechanics had 50/50 ratio. Game shined and was amazing, even with a lack of content. It attracted lots of people, even those who are afraid of Paradox complex strategy systems, exactly because it was not all about strategy. Then comes the string of DLC that were all about new strategic mechanics. Roleplay side of the game was not expanded upon for years until WoL. My personal disillusionment about CK2 ironically came exactly with WoL because it became obvious that Paradox, at least current CK2 team, is at loss when it comes to roleplay and is not sure what fans want from them in that regard. I'm not even that big of a roleplay fan, I enjoy strategies as much, maybe more, but come on, I think I can differentiate between good roleplay mechanics and bad ones. Or that this strategy should not be primarily strategy at all.

Not sure how to make proper CK3, all things considering, because you do have to balance two different genres in an ideal proportion to make it really great. Possible solution is to separate roleplay stuff like characters, opinions, plots etc. and strategic side like realm management and conquest into two different modes with each mode having a significant impact on the other one. Your successes in the roleplay realm respresnted, say, by a Sims-like Castle where characters are walking and interacting, would have a direct impact on the strategic realm represented by good ol' Clausewitz map. This would solve the problem of "nothing to do, but blobbing" because visual representation of your success would not be limited to the map size or gold, but to roleplay side as well. Another thing is that it would end an era of scripted events, which are a lot of demanding work, because all roleplay stuff will happen naturally.

This game would require some serious effort on Paradox's part though and some serious technical savvy. Not sure they would accomplish that. As for now, I recommend this mod as it is the closest thing to what I want CK2 to be.

 

[DukeDayve]

Sure. I normally play at speed 3 (used to be speed 4 before Rajas ruined performance of game) and focus on creating the de-jure kingdom my capital county is in, then maintaining a happy kingdom. Usually if I conquer land outside of that de-jure kingdom I'll make it independent, to simulate my kingdom creating buffer states around it and whatnot.

 

[orochi2k]

People are seek for power, that power is mostly from land for now, and conquering more land is currently the most effective way.
If it is possible for us to play as a loyal duke/counter under king/emperor with our influence so high that we rise troops not only from our land but also from other meanings, earning incomes not only from our land but from other methods. This can be a game changer. If it is possible to play as a shadow ninja master with a 10k army ruling only a small count it shall be fun. (<----playable mercenary? )

Oh, and I totally have no idea how those adventurers get such a large group of army with them every time they try to invade someone.

 

[CoSMoS]

CKII is a sandbox, and it's part of the fun and enjoyment of the game, that you are able to play as a Buddhist Norse Merchant Republic located in The Isle of Mann or recreate the Mongol conquests centuries earlier or whatever else may rock your boat - you can try to dominate the world, but you definitely doesn't have to. The game can be played in whatever way it may please you, and you set your own goals. Isn't it kinda obvious that this was never meant to be a accurate portrayal of history, when they refuse to fix even stuff like the Flanders and Aquitaine issues? We're just meant to go crazy and see what unfolds, and focus on whatever we like, RP-elements or whatever it may be. I like that we have options, and how other people get their enjoyment out of this, well, I don't really mind.

 

[Kaspa000]

The game can be played in whatever way it may please you

Provided the performance holds up late game. Oh how i miss the days before the launch of Rajas

 

[Monphat]

CKII is a sandbox, and it's part of the fun and enjoyment of the game, that you are able to play as a Buddhist Norse Merchant Republic located in The Isle of Mann or recreate the Mongol conquests centuries earlier or whatever else may rock your boat - you can try to dominate the world, but you definitely doesn't have to. The game can be played in whatever way it may please you, and you set your own goals. Isn't it kinda obvious that this was never meant to be a accurate portrayal of history, when they refuse to fix even stuff like the Flanders and Aquitaine issues? We're just meant to go crazy and see what unfolds, and focus on whatever we like, RP-elements or whatever it may be. I like that we have options, and how other people get their enjoyment out of this, well, I don't really mind.

Have to partially disagree here. Yes, you can do all those various things within the game, but how different are those options really? English count-emperor journey feels exactly the same as French count-emperor journey. Unifying Russia is the same thing as unifying Spain. After enough playthroughs your interest in the game starts to go low because no matter what you do it's the same thing, mindless and easy conquest of provinces, over and over. Same events, same situations, same choices. Only difference is the color of your realm and names of the characters, everything else is almost exactly the same. Again, that's indicative of this game being a clone of EU. And arguably EU does a better job at making different nations feel... Different.

It's like saying that there is a huge variety of fruits present in a food store. Peaches, apples, oranges... But fruits is all they have and you really want a good steak or fish or pasta.

 

[Rognvaldr19]

Yeah, if you play like a country and not like a dynasty, you're going to come up against some of the very few limitations in the game (unless you're playing as the Mongols).

 

[tngen toppa]

i fully agree with the points made

Guess you're talking about my post here. I do hope that your thread and that other thread would be read by Paradox because CK3, even if it is to be launched in 3-5 years, should be designed in a completely different way.

1) It seems to me that Paradox, as a company specializing in strategies, is somewhat reluctant about roleplay mechanics and roleplay appoach to this game, it's just not their familiar field.
2) Not to mention that Clausewitz engine itself is primarily designed for visual representation of provincial conquest.
3) Another thing is that Paradox fanbase unsurprisingly consists mostly of classic grand strategy fans.

These three factors combined prompted the company to make what they made - current CK2, a strategy/RPG hybrid that is somewhat ashamed of having the latter half and increasingly focusing on the former one. For reasons that I've already mentioned in other thread, this is actually a wrong game design choice for multiple reasons. In the end you get neither a good strategy, nor a good RPG, you get something inbetween, something weird and frankly boring.

Compare old CK2 patches where strategic mechanics and roleplay mechanics had 50/50 ratio. Game shined and was amazing, even with a lack of content. It attracted lots of people, even those who are afraid of Paradox complex strategy systems, exactly because it was not all about strategy. Then comes the string of DLC that were all about new strategic mechanics. Roleplay side of the game was not expanded upon for years until WoL. My personal disillusionment about CK2 ironically came exactly with WoL because it became obvious that Paradox, at least current CK2 team, is at loss when it comes to roleplay and is not sure what fans want from them in that regard. I'm not even that big of a roleplay fan, I enjoy strategies as much, maybe more, but come on, I think I can differentiate between good roleplay mechanics and bad ones. Or that this strategy should not be primarily strategy at all.

i fully agree with your points made here.
also the point made by orochi2k below yours is quite important.
the fact that the only option for gaining more income and soldiers is to expand your realm is somewhat of a fundamental flaw.

for instance economy in ck2 is basically non existent,in eu4 there is a rudimentary system in place but thats it and only in victoria we got a decent,but still improvable system.
i think paradox should acknowledge the fact that what we call economy has always existed no matter what date and that a realistic and truly engaging grand strategy game ought to have a decent economic system in place,because it opens up varying styles of playing.
for instance if i would control one of the passages over the alps in the middle ages,i would swim in money even though I'm only some small count or baron,but in ck2 i have to conquer more and more.

 

[balistaus]

I don't understand what's wrong with world conquest, I think you deserve the reward for careful planning and so on. As for too open? what do you mean? like too many options? I think this game getting more linear and linear especially from the last patch with the opinion hard nerf, I can't even play as tyrannical ruler anymore without paying heavy fine D;. I think they need to put some kind of mechanic to make vassal like you when you execute someone in your court for no reason lols. The dlcs they brought up also not helping on making the game easier and more linear. The patches they put out that supposebly making the game "harder" isn't making it harder, just slower and less option on how to play the game. This is my opinion btw.

 

[finkellll]

I have more fun creating chaos instead of World Conquest / empire building. As stated, the conquest side of this game is bland and repetitive, and gets old once the realm hits de jure size (since at that point its holy wars or god forbid claim fabricate).

I find games where I try to destabilize and shatter the huge blobs to be far more entertaining, since my characters' stats actually play a significant role in the strategy. High martial? Declare war, take land, revoke/execute and release as independent. High Intrigue/Diplo? Plot to kill. Who do I create alliances with? Chancellors & spymasters are always in enemy land destabilizing it, and I need to have land close by so I am within range and have a chance of getting plot to kill above 100%.

I will also do "high score" games with the secondary goal of having every male of my dynasty landed somewhere. Since I am trying to land as many people as possible, the marriage game becomes the focus of the campaign instead of war (usually only wars I press are claims for dynasty members instead of my own territory gain.) and since score is the main goal any option that increases prestige & piety is chosen (which usually means an opinion of me is lowered).

If you are simply trying to paint the map you are playing the wrong game. This game is only similar to EU4 if you play it like EU4.

 

[Kollatius]

Way I play CK2 is as a game of dynasties: Trying to get my dynasty on the thrones of Other Duchies/Kingdoms/Empires

Only time I go aggressive is when I'm playing as a heretic and want to overthrow the mother religion

 

[fivestarultra]

What makes CK2 special is that the game is played more in the player's mind than on the actual screeen.

Character reactions are plausible allowing your mind to assign motive and thus personifying characters. CK2 can elicit a varied array of emotions and weave a history that only one other game that I know of can (if you've ever played the game Diplomacy). However Diplomacy is all human players.
I hope this aspect of gameplay is not lost in CK3.

 

[nkibilko]

Very rarely do i ever blob, and i usually only play on speed 5 during a siege.

My favorite thing to do is choose a duchy, bring the entire thing under my demense, then build up a kingdom around it... See how many troops and taxes i can get from my super focused 2-3 duchy kingdom. Honestly my favorite game ever was with a ONE duchy Kingdom, Brittany. I only expanded outside of my kingdom after a few hundred years, but that was only to create a de jure empire from Brittany itself, which was awesome. The entire time i used prepared invasions (since my realmsize was under 40) to land my relatives in other kingdoms. By the time a patch broke the game i had like 2000 living dynasty members and had a king of my dynasty on about 15 other thrones.

 

[nkibilko]

What makes CK2 special is that the game is played more in the player's mind than on the actual screeen.

Character reactions are plausible allowing your mind to assign motive and thus personifying characters. CK2 can elicit a varied array of emotions and weave a history that only one other game that I know of can (if you've ever played the game Diplomacy). However Diplomacy is all human players.
I hope this aspect of gameplay is not lost in CK3.

I feel like this and also EU4 are very much imagination driven... after all, it's all just simulation on a map... It's up to the player to really put themselves in a time and place, although certain things in-game can help that.. like graphics and music, etc. But still, with no imagination you'd get no enjoyment.

I doubt ck3 will lose that, it's a core of the game.

 

[St. LongEar]

I am quite new to the forums and generally just play the game happily without any real world interaction. After reading through a lot of the threads here and on Reddit plus youtube videos, it seems to me that I play in a manner the majority don't play.

It appears that most people play on high speeds with the goal of conquering as much of the world as they can in the shortest amount of time possible. I always felt the game itself worked better when played at speed 1 only focusing on a stable happy court. The AI and the game in general seemed to work better with a less aggressive human player.

What I am wondering is if the game should have been so open in it's concepts. Normally, I would applaud an open game with many different options, but I do wonder if CK2 development has suffered because of this. Some have stated that EU and CK should be very very different games, but then they play them in the same way...aggressive conquest.

Should CK3 therefore state very clearly at the beginning what it wants to be and stick to that value rather than trying to appease everybody? Should it decide if it wants to be more focused on the characters rather than conquest? Should its focus be on kingdom building? All design decisions would then be made with that goal in mind. I raise these questions because I think it is very difficult for the game too balance both objectives equally.

I would like to add that I am not criticizing anybody's game playing style as the game is open about how you play and of course people can play however they want. I am just interested in how people approach the game and what they want from the CK series. I also understand it is a game, and many people restart or reload after losing one battle simply too enhance the enjoyment of the game for themselves.

I am also not criticizing the vision of the CK2 Dev team as I love this game. I am more asking what the next step should be.

It would be no surprise to anybody that I am on the side of fleshed out characters, a lot of interaction, court and vassal management, with it being very difficult to take land. The end goal for me is that the dynasty survives and only prospers when everything lines up perfectly for it to do so.

I can't even imagine how CK2 can be played in multiplayer, because there are too many things to focus at the same time.

I am playing on speed 2, but I have also set many options to pause game on pop-ups. And with how AI cheats when its armies are changing direction, I don't really see it possible to play game without pausing and calculating best approach to intercept armies. Ok, maybe in real-time other people can take over larger territories, but in game-time I feel better confident.

I've tried some EU games and they become very dull after a while. Same problem is with CK2 - when you are taking over everything and there are no power, that can stand against you, it becomes boring as Hell. They both are conquest games. I see no reason why they should be different types of games, because AI is too stupid and uncooperative and I see no way of playing one game, that would consist of thousands of players to replace AI and make it real.

Also the only difference between CK2 and EU is character management and maintaining that conquested territories are inherited and ruled by dynasty members. It would be harder to take over whole planet, but not impossible, by ditching some parts of micromanagement what I'm doing now(and that's why I'm pausing game a LOT).

Frankly, I don't see any reason for CK3 at the moment. CK 1 for one wasn't even noticed as a game(financialy), and I just paid for CK2. CK3 is in future and it might be financial disaster, so don't count on it so soon, besides it clearly would need new game engine, that would fix those bugs, that are ridden with CK2. The worsest is the one(it is a design flaw), where I decided to check what would be effects if I reject the poem, that some poet decided to write about me and I foolishly howered my mouse over it. The game went into freeze. I went to make a tea and drink it and then after 5-6 minutes(I don't remember how long exactly, but long enough to consider killing it in taskbar) I've got floating information of my 600+ dynasty members who would all have -10 option penalty of me. I mean - seriously I had to wait for this?

 

[Grim Madder]

I don't understand what's wrong with world conquest, I think you deserve the reward for careful planning and so on. As for too open? what do you mean? like too many options? I think this game getting more linear and linear especially from the last patch with the opinion hard nerf, I can't even play as tyrannical ruler anymore without paying heavy fine D;. I think they need to put some kind of mechanic to make vassal like you when you execute someone in your court for no reason lols. The dlcs they brought up also not helping on making the game easier and more linear. The patches they put out that supposebly making the game "harder" isn't making it harder, just slower and less option on how to play the game. This is my opinion btw.

There is nothing wrong with world conquest. EU is a great game for it. I also agree the game is getting more and more linear because now the only real options are world conquest. The part of the game that lets you be a ruler of your family, court, and/or country, has been sadly underdeveloped in favour of more focus on world conquest.

They have tried to make the game harder to deal with the fact there is not enough to keep you focused on your own character and court so most players end up trying to expand. Instead of thinking of mechanics in an attempt to make it harder to expand, I believe more character driven events, economy expansion, family/dynasty control, marriage, alliances, friendships, building projects, material production/trade, peasant happiness, laws, diplomacy, and education could have all been reworked, expanded, and improved.

I then feel players would have naturally become less aggressive in their expansion efforts which in turn would have helped the AI and the overall balance of the game.

 

[Grim Madder]

Very rarely do i ever blob, and i usually only play on speed 5 during a siege.

My favorite thing to do is choose a duchy, bring the entire thing under my demense, then build up a kingdom around it... See how many troops and taxes i can get from my super focused 2-3 duchy kingdom. Honestly my favorite game ever was with a ONE duchy Kingdom, Brittany. I only expanded outside of my kingdom after a few hundred years, but that was only to create a de jure empire from Brittany itself, which was awesome. The entire time i used prepared invasions (since my realmsize was under 40) to land my relatives in other kingdoms. By the time a patch broke the game i had like 2000 living dynasty members and had a king of my dynasty on about 15 other thrones.

Very cool I am doing something similar now with my dynasty in Africa. I have relatives all over the place. 90 years in we have still not expanded even one territory. I did plan to expand one territory every 50 years, but my Chief of Fabrication is unable to ever get a CB

 

[Xinkc]

I always felt the game itself worked better when played at speed 1 only focusing on a stable happy court.

I have no idea how you can play on speed 1. There's only so much one can do (council members can only do one action at a time and have a percentage chance of doing things per year) and only so many actions to do outside that.

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

I have no idea how you can play on speed 1. There's only so much one can do (council members can only do one action at a time and have a percentage chance of doing things per year) and only so many actions to do outside that.

Read every trait for every character in the game? Then make up stories for each and every one of them.