What's missing for me, is worthy adversaries. You can reach the point in your game that no power on Earth can touch you, and nothing even comes close. If there were 'lucky' empires that could rise to the power level of a skilled player, then that would make the game much less 'over' by the time you grew large. The way Rimworld scales its challenge level to your accumulated colony 'wealth' is a good model for this; the more you are winning, the more it ramps up the difficulty to keep you challenged. There's no reason CK3 couldn't spawn an advanced AI or four just to mess with you as the game progresses. I'd love to see a mega-egypt with 200k troops, and you're like 'oh sh__, how do I keep out of their way...' That would be an exciting game.
The Historic Invasions mod comes somewhat close to this. It adds occasional powerful rulers with specific objectives to get in your way. However, they’re spread out in time and in the map, so certain areas just never encounter them.
CK2 had a similar idea. Every once in a while, a "Great Conqueror" with a unique bloodline would spawn in an area, and have huge stats, huge buffs, and an extremely aggressive AI. Essentially, a mini Genghis Khan. It was cool for sure, but I didn't like how it would upset the existence of the families already in the area. Rather than totally random conquerors, I'd like it if every once in a while, a random dynasty had one of its members marked as special in some way, whether invisibly, or by a trait, and then THAT character would seek out some kind of greatness. That way, whatever families have come to power in the region don't just get overthrown every once in a while, and whatever relations you might have with those families could matter.
@@Tarkusarkusar I don't think randomly buffing a single character would have a significant impact on the challenge of CK3. The biggest problem with challenge in CK3 in my view is that the AI doesn't value economy nearly enough for how powerful it is. All of the "meta" strategies for expanding militarily are dependent on having more gold to spend on stacking MaA than your opponent. You could nerf MaA bonuses or economic growth to pull the player back in line but I think a better approach would be to improve the AI's approach to gold. Holding a county that produces more income than its neighbors should paint the absolute biggest target of all time on your back. CK players talk about "playing tall" but I don't think that's a real concept in CK3 on account of there being no downsides, it's just objectively correct to always invest into your capital counties. If building tall attracted the attention of rivals, there might be some more merit to playing "wide" and focusing on vassal management. After all, if you can rig a vassal contract to get 50%+ of the income from your richest counties, maybe it's better to let them change hands and reap the benefits without any of the risks. I think the AI in general could use some improvements in self-preservation, but I think this would be a good start for increasing the degree of opposition the player faces in every game of CK3 rather than just the ones where they find themselves in the path of a randomly buffed AI character, plague, or harm event.
Just buffing the AI by giving it a large amount of troops isn't a good challenge if you ask me. Difficulty settings that just give AI progressively larger buffs are quite boring. Unfortunately, the AI just isn't intelligent enough to provide a challenge to an experienced player. Perhaps in the future, with machine learning, this will change. For now, what I do is roleplay. I won't make the most logical or "meta" decisions, I'll make decisions based on the personality of my character and the history of the region I'm playing in. CK3 is definitely a big improvement over CK2 when it comes to the role-playing aspect. Particularly with stress punishing you for making decisions that go against your character's personality. One of the other things I like is how easy it is to create mods. I love the WotR period in English history and so I'm working on a mod for it which I can't wait to be able to play.
@@nmpolo I'm pretty sure the AI is braindead by design. As someone with a computer science degree, I believe it should be fairly straightforward to write an algorithm that would optimally station men-at-arms, and maximally build the other provinces without MAA for gold production (EDIT by which I mean, that is an extremely easily solvable optimization problem). The fact that they haven't done so is probably because they don't want the player to be constantly frustrated with their neighbors. There's also probably a historicity reason as well - independently acting human nobles are going to be choosing far from the optimal choices all the time. They should just as often be drinking away their inheritance and picking hopeless wars, just like in real life. But as I said in my original comment - that's a problem once you reach a certain point in the game. There comes a point where you need some realistic challenge to shake up the map.
From my personal experience, the game is Easy but frustrating. Especially when it comes to vassals and I know vassal management is part of the experience but it feels like a chore more than something engaging, Especially during a succession that leads to an immediate revolt against your new character even if the previous ruler was loved. it's just "Oh here we go again"
The game can end up feeling robotic for sure, and I experience that frustration especially when I do speedruns. It's hard to say what the answer is, because it should be the case that vassals will take advantage of a succession to secure power for themselves, but the problem is how their demands are so all or nothing. If I were to try and fix this problem, I'd make it possible for vassals to make demands of their new monarch that aren't either dissolution of the realm, a claimant replacing them, or lowering crown authority.
@Tarkusarkusar I'd consider you more of a expert than myself but even something as simple as concessions would be nice. Like each vassal asking for something and the more loyal ones demanding nothing. It's so frustrating to just feel helpless as you do everything, gifts, liberty etc and a 100+ opinion vassal takes the initiative to get more and in a certain aspect a good reflection of disloyal vassals only motivated by their own success. As a result ktI've become more reliant on republic vassals as of late especially after my rome run, they're anecdotally more compliant. And I try to never land family members now as it just becomes a headache.
Not to berate you or anything, but I hear this a lot here and there (instant revolt after succession). I have 5,600 hours in ck3 and saw this once, when I started playing when the game came out. Porbably because I like micromanagement and vassals are always in line and happy (and i secure aliance with them a lot with my kids). So, how is this happening to you? I'm genuinely interested in understanding this problem that "everyone" have. When my friends are having issues with this and I take over their save files or teach them, I see that they never micromanage their realm, they claim giant kingdom title of foreign culture and their vassals have random duchies and conflicts with de jure lands.
@@Titan_TM ck2+ had a mechanic where vassals would join factions that would pressure to appease them (easy if you're a good ruler) or they'd start sending demands for you to give up your demense or they revolt, much more realistic imo
How do i deal with succession after 150+ hours of play. Kill anyone who gets in the way of me and my heir or disinheit if i can afford to do so. Now im hearing succession requirements and im scratching my head like "whats that?" 😂
Developers just should add settings that INCREASES difficulty, its not that hard to code. Main point that makes game eazy is bots mma being weaker than players mma couse player usually have optimazed holding and bot have fewer gold from more land couse he is dump in many other ways. You can increase plauge, you can increase vikings aggression, why you need mods to just buff bots.
in ck2 there is a lot more randomness and you die more often. in ck3 you often just end up reaching a point in which you can afk for 70 years accumulating lifestyle perks, money, prestige, piety and renown. you gain so much from doing nothing in that game. ck isnt supposed to be a number-increasing grind imo
The funniest thing about what you've said is that it mirrors my exact complaints about CK2 by the end of its lifespan. By the time we got to Holy Fury CK2 had become so bloated with random modifiers, easily obtained/stackable buffs and plain broken shit that it became difficult to not be overpowered as shit within the lifetime of your first character if that character ever died at all because lmao easily obtained immortality.
@@S3Cs4uN8 i kinda disagree, because bloodlines is something that can be difficult to accomplish, or is something you have to more proactively seek out. they are also full of flavor and has different choices. this is also almost the only aspect in ck2 that has this mass accumulation of modifiers, so it is kind of a unique addition, whereas ck3 has it everywhere. i also wouldnt say that immortality is easy to obtain
@@S3Cs4uN8true but there you can just not use the societies that was at least for me the op thing they added other than that the game is a lot more random , harder to stack genetic buffs and so on , meanwhile ck3 has become a Pokémon game of getting the best genes
Doing unconventional starts is really the only way for that to happen. If you play as Catholic or Orthodox in Europe, Muslim in most of the map or Hindu in India, it just won't happen.
Definitely true, but I will add to this that if the AI were declaring wars they couldn't win all the time, it'd be similar to the viking invasions in 867, where they become annoying. That being said, it would be nice if the AI were better at the game so that they could pose a reasonable threat, and have that threat be couched by the personality traits of the king to encourage paying attention to the world. In the current game, personality does influence AI, but so minorly that it doesn't make me feel chill with content kings around, and scared with ambitious kings around.
@@BritishRepublicsnthose are my favorite games 😂 Id suggest to try human sacrifices with bidaic. Get a crazy, high intrigue, wife/secondary wife/spymaster and she might start "cleaning" up your kingdom. It's great. Only, it's still gg once you build gold mines. Another suggestion would be vassalize other cultures and faiths, force the wars internally
I think it would be useful if foreign rulers took your massive empire or threatening army into account, forming new kingdoms or remaining stable in the face of the external threat you pose. Or if you were a particularly ambitious vassal your liege would go out of their way to curb your power, frame you for treason etc.
I like playing into character interactions more, like you mentioned here. Framing your enemies, or turning other kings/dukes against an enemy. I do believe that strategy and roleplay can go hand-in-hand.
I’d argue that the Legends of the Dead DLC/update adds a significantly tougher Struggle aspect to the game. While Plagues aren’t that difficult to deal with unless they’re apocalyptic, and become a nuisance once your empire is large enough, managing Legitimacy does involve making tougher choices, and things that you once would have done without thinking, like accruing Tyranny, revoking titles, and disinheriting children now have an actual cost way beyond the early/mid game.
Yeah, the only balance mechanic in CK3 is tediousness. A player will think: "I can do *this* but I'd have to click too many buttons so I'd rather not."
I'd argue that the difficulty in CK3 is from other players, not the AI. Like if you want a truly difficult game, you're gonna want to play against other humans online
But how fun and interesting is that? In Vanilla the player who spec-d intrigue will win, they can either assasinate every other player directly, unalive them with the stress cascade of assasinating relatives, force hooks on them, force hooks on their allies, forge a massive military alliance by forcing marriages with hooks and assasinations and so on.
@@hippieyoda1993 in multiplayer, yes, it seems that way. In singleplayer others are better because they offer a lot earlier more benefits for more playstyles or starting positions.
recently I have been playing a ck2 ironman game as venice, it was so much more compelling than any game I've played in ck3 which I have more hours in, but I don't know why it was so much more compelling, part of it was certainly difficulty given that the HRE became huge and swallowed all of the other merchant republics who I could now not attack, and the ERE took ragusa (which was also too big to attack), so it forced me to be creative in the ways I expanded and grew my power, add to that the, in my opinion, better building mechanics of ck2, it just created such a fun experience I hope will one day come to ck3.
I've contemplated about difficulty in a game. I was playing some ARPG games like Diablo and Last Epoch when I thought about it: - if the game is more challenging at the start, and gets easier the more you level up, it will get boring quickly - if the game is easier at the start, and gets more difficult the more you level up, it will feel like you're getting weaker and all the grind you've done is basically meaningless - if the game is just as challenging at the start, and offers the same challenge at end game, it will feel like you're not progressing So what I've concluded is this: a game with good difficulty scale is one that offers challenge in both the start and the end game, but of different kind. Take a survival game for example, at the start, you might have trouble with gathering resources, which poses a challenge in and of itself, and at end game, you will need to feel like you've overcome the gathering resources difficulty, so that you'll feel like you're progressing, but now there are other challenges like defending your resources from raids for example.
to me it looks like ck 3 is moving toward Role playing game, and moving away from the strategy :( that's why it's easy so people can play their stories. i whish they would implant a hardcore mode
I think it is possible to have a role-playing game and a strategy game. Consider the "strategy" of your dynamic relationships with kings and queens across the land. In the current game, it's not very deep. Marry your kids to another realm and get an alliance, but it would certainly be possible to implement ways for foreign rulers to take an interest in other realms based on their relationships. vassalization is a microcosm of this idea. A vassal does consider strategic elements when deciding to swear fealty, but they do consider things like "is my potential liege my friend?" or "are we allied" and so on. Expanding on THAT idea would be a great way to get strategy and roleplay going.
For me the combination of the ages mod and obfuscate mod have made the game way more challenging and random so combined with rice and viet for the flavour are my favourite way to play the game
I'm hesitant on calling Crusader Kings 3 too easy, when I didn't feel the least bit comfortable or confident in understanding the game's _many_ overlapping mechanics until roughly 160 hours of playtime. 1032 hours in, there are _still_ occasionally times where I just don't know how to win a war, where the vassals seemingly just _won't stop_ trying to revolt no matter what I do, where I _can't_ get the renown together to sort out my succession, where a well-placed murder scheme will just be inexplicably set to 5% success _and_ secrecy despite me having a solid intrigue with a good spymaster and the target being a tyrant hated by his all vassals. And I'll occasionally just get manhandled by the AI. _You_ may have mastered the game, and I have nothing but respect for that... but it seems unfair to then complain that the game isn't challenging for you anymore, and that it be made _more challenging_ at the baseline for _your_ enjoyment to the potential detriment of other players' experience. I of course recognzie this is a skill issue on my part, but I've _never_ been good at games. I struggle with most games almost constantly, but I try to enjoy them nonetheless. Though for the players that _do_ want a more challenging experience, there should absolutely be some new things added in the gamerules to toggle if you want a more demanding game. Just don't go tampering with the default difficulty, in my opinion.
This comment may not necessarily apply to your point in the video, but, Ive thought alot about Crusader Kings as a perosn with over 1k hours in ck2 and roughly half as much in ck3. Seeing people here in the comments talk about changes and things to improve the sandbox makes me wanna be vocal too. I think time moves too fast in ck3. I think every tick being a day is FAR too fast to truly get to experience the world around you in a meaningful way that a real life king might have gotten to know those in their court and around them.
I played through 1000h of CK3 and I got attacked LITERALLY ONCE by AI when I had over 5000 manpower. AI just doesent bother with me man and thats so frustrating.
In my experience I was only attacked when I kept myself weak on purpose. Like holding 1-3 counties in Ireland and waiting for vikings to arrive and invade AI only attack you when it has big advantage over you. But then I don't think it takes into account if you have gold for mercenaries so if you prepare you can win anyway
Ai can actually be somewhat opportunistic, i remember getting chaindecced like 3 times when i was playing lombard bengal with my own faith. I think the problem is that the opportunities just never come and rarely does anyone have equal forces to u to create one for other AIs.
After getting the Persian ending in the struggle I kinda lost some interest in the game. Nothing could stand in my anymore and the mongols were many years away, and no the European powers could do anything because they were fractured like crazy.
Obfuscate is a cool mod. But it doesn't play well with other mods for obvious reasons. For that reason, I can't use it because I use a few mods that I consider essential.
Even with the ObsfusCKate mod the game is too easy for any experienced grand strategy player, the player can gain piety/prestige much more efficiently than any AI and that leads to unlocking powerful options like being able to take a kingdom or even empires as a count, its not even some secret minmaxing knowledge, you'll find these just by playing normally and when you start to snowball there is basically nothing that can slow you down, CK2 was a pretty easy game too but not this easy.
The new DLC with diseases added a decent amount of difficulty, in my opinion. You have to actually manage your heirs and family properly, because they might start dropping like flies. Had a run as the King of England, and his first three sons died of either disease or war. His youngest son, who studied scholarship, took over in his mid-twenties and ruled for nearly 50 years, defeating a crusade (he was also a Lollard) and surviving the black plague. I definitely think that the game could use more difficulty. I have 1.2k hours in the game, and it feels like the majority of my playthroughs don't make it past 100 years. Rising to the top can be tricky and fun, but once you're there, it's relatively easy to maintain power and not feel threatened by outside forces. The main issue is that AI characters aren't ambitious or cunning to challenge you, from outside or from inside. I would like to see either better factions or more aggressive expansion by AI countries.
>You have to actually manage your heirs and family properly, because they might start dropping like flies. you have 2. TWO. Not 5, not 10, not 3, TWO whole buttons - isolate capital and enter seclusion. Idk how clicking those any time a plague pops out is "actually managing heirs and family". And i dont think there're any other direct ways to do anything about them. So am i missing something? the second part is true tho. Having an early empire should def come with lots of challenges, but it just doesnt.
@@benismann I think what they meant was that you need to have a backup plan in case your favourite heir suddenly dies and his backup dies too, you need to be prepared and educate all your children and you can't really rely on avoiding succession problems by having just one son, because if he dies - which is much more likely with plagues - you are screwed.
Great video. I agree with everything here. On the point of 'struggle', I think there are many small things Paradox could do. Similar to how say Fallout 4 had a vanilla mode and survival mode. CK3 could have a version for veteran players who completely understand the mechanics. This would add perhaps a little formal prestige for people who play on this mode, bragging rights if you will :D For example, stacking buffs could be capped, or have diminishing returns. Say Men-at-arms reduced costs capping out at 50%, rather than 90%, going from meme to convenient. I also think reducing the domain limits as to enforce working with more vassals and enforcing the feudal system would be cool, but I may be alone in that. But otherwise, a mode for vets, that isn't implemented poorly could be a win.
My best games are where I create an empire in Ironman ck3 then play as a new character after crusade. I then create a new empire and start as a new character after another crusade. House seniority law created stability in those empires. As I built my third empire the other two would fight each other but both endured to the end date of the game along with my third empire. Throughout this game the three empires would sometimes fight with r each other or team up on the other that became too powerful.
One thing to increase the difficulty of play throughs is creating a bunch of op characters around the world and just watching/playing them like normal then go years into the future. Ended up taking all of West Africa in like 5 years because of the tech(I occasionally would help the families in this way) bonuses and claims but it was a slug feast because everyone also had claims and deep alliances(imagine multiple wars with 9-12k every few months lol).
It's easy as long as what you want to do is easy. What I want to do is not. I usually play AGOT mod and try to get my dynasty on EVERY title without waging any internal war myself. Wars are only waged to expand the Empire outside of its own borders, or to defend from rebellions, or support the AI allies when they themselves wage it. For me it's a game of diplomacy and intrigue which slowly unravel over time. One plague at the wrong time, one vassal too angry at one of my dynasty members, one hunting accident, everything can set my entire game back by a generation or end it entirely, or the opposite can happen and one generation will thrive and make it impossible to lose everything in the short term. Everything is up to chance, to chaos, and my agency only go as far as I can use brain alone to battle fate, instead of forcing it by claiming everything around me like most "bored" players do.
@@benismann you can do the same exact thing in original, but since my playstyle is more dynasty oriented, I suggested a mod where dynasties are more iconic. The mod has nothing to do with the difficulty of the game. The difficulty is based on WHAT you do in it, as I've explained above. You clearly lack reading comprehension if you can't understand even that.
I've never done a world conquest because it just gets too boring and painstaking, I can't be the only one. After I take a few kingdoms I just make my dynasty inbred or whatever
A universal issue faced by very easy games is that they lose out on a whole mechanism of engagement. When someone wishes to roleplay a lowly count, yet they can go toe to toe with kings after a single decade, it hurts their roleplay. That's generally what it means for a game to be too easy. But CK3's problems go much further than that. Here, it's not simply that the steps to reach your goals are too few and too simple. They are themselves antithetical to the roleplay aspect of the game. Building a power base could still be fun even if it weren't much of a challenge, if the way to go about it would be something like appeasing vassals and developing the land. Instead the game incentivises migrating to India and declaring yourself the pope.
For me there's def not enough struggle and actualization difficulties. If i understood the "struggle" difficulty correctly, that is. And lack of it is really hurting any actualization goal since... well... it's achieved in like 100 years most if it's not something like WC. And that just makes it boring. Like starting as some random culture random faith dude in the middle of hostile lands with little land and gold and then create a hybridculture and a new faith and empire, or try to do the empire while being complete outsided SOUNDS cool. But it's either too easy or a slog. And then it's not like cultures differ that much anyways. Like norse is one of roughly 0 cultures that has any meaningful amount of unique stuff associated with it (it's heritage in norse case), which is also why people still play norse all the time. And the funniest problem is - when u try to add challenge, you usually limit urself on funny mechanics usage, like disinheriting for example, but that also removes some of the uphead challenge of THINKING about managing succession and trying not to fuck it up too much in advance. When u restrict urself to not disinherit and stuff, that part of the game is just gone.
I've not played in months. I tried everything to make the game more challenging but nothing works. I like to play as Alfred the Great. That scenario should be difficult. It should be difficult to cling on to your lands as waves of northmen land on your shores. But it's not like that. After the initial invasion in the north by Ivar and Halfdan, nothing happens. Instead of pushing south to wipe out the Saxons and avenge their father they do nothing except maybe a few raids and conquests of small realms in Ireland. Then when Halfdan and Ivar die and their event troops are depleted they're just easy targets busy fighting each other. If you're efficient you can conquer all of the British Isles and Scandinavia within Alfreds lifetime using only men at arms units. Scandinavian adventurers are just annoying. They're not challenging to defeat and they always have precisely the same number of troops which breaks the immersion on its own. I've still never lost a war in CK3. No matter who I start as I can make them into a superpower within about 50 years. AI is too passive and there are no consequences for my warmongering. If you start as Hasteinn you can conquer the Papacy within 5 years of starting the game. The "new features" in DLCs are always just more modifiers to make the game even easier.
What a terrible video. Game is too easy because the AI has next to no handling of the game and every new mechanic they add is just another layer player can and AI can't use decently. Your gibberish about 'one player may find x fascinating and y player may like that boring' is utterly unnecessary.
Achievement hunting is what's driving all my current campaigns hence why I found your channel. I'm at the point where I can come up with a strategy like: Swear Fealty to HRE > Claim HRE title > Rig Election or Push Faction > Use HRE to Usurp Romagna > Fight the Pope for Rome. However, I still fumble with actually pulling off the plan or recovering whenever I make a mistake so that's where the difficulty and fun for me comes from. I also get a kick out of goofy names like the Butphu-Kurr dynasty, but that's just me.
In CK2, you and your children could die of random diseases, putting your realm at risk of breaking up. Other characters could assassinate you, declare war on you, rebel against you, etc… No 2 games of CK2 play the exact same. CK3 however, feels too static.
I feel like a good way to increase difficulty would be making it harder keep vassals from rebelling. Right now if you just don't do anything tyrannical like imprisoning random people for no reason and just play decently smart you pretty much never face revolts large enough to pose a threat. Late game your biggest threat should be internal which right now it just isn't. Even when factions do fire they are normally just to change laws and not any real threat to your campaign like dissolution factions or claimant factions.
It's an interesting thought which I'd expand on by not necessarily having every vassal rise up in rebellious war, but instead a system of demands and tribute. Every time a new king comes to power, the entrenched vassals and families ought to have demands in order to renew their fealty. To me, that would be a way to add challenge and make each succession feel more interesting, without devolving into a vassal-swatting competition.
Here is just the craziest idea. How about they make more difficulties. Its so strange why there is only Very easy Easy and Normal. Where the heck is Hard Very Hard and Master mode? I don't understand
Giving AI a fixed +50% gold or soliders won't change anything. The AI is just bad and pdox I think want their AI to be bad so that offsets the complexity new gamers face.
This is something that immediately occurred to me upon first playing this game recently is that while I currently find it very challenging, I can see that the answers for how to succeed are literally all laid out in front of me and that the only difficulty is my ability to understand how to manage the systems properly
I feel like they tried to make it more difficult by restricting the idea of designating heirs and how succession breaks apart your realm. That said, if the game is attempting to be a historical sandbox, primogeniture has been in effect for thousands of years by this point.
The Opacity thing is an interesting point because I actually went through something like that in Civ 6. Coming from CK3, a game that for all intents and purposes is pretty easy to get into compared to other games of the same genre, I thought Civ 6 would be similar in that regard, if not a little more complicated. I did the tutorials and tried my best for 2 or 3 games, but I simply could not get it. The main mechanics just didn't make sense and I couldn't make heads or tails of it. I got frustrated and annoyed and just uninstalled it. Hell, I even tried watching some RU-vid videos to get the hang of it like I did for CK3 (this was one of the channels to help me then), but they didn't really help. And so, I never could get into the series, unfortunately.
Hard limits to actions based on character personality would be a good thing. AI will or won't expand based on ambitious/content and I think forcing the player into these situations creates a good obstacle to blobbing all over the map. Now when raising your kid and finding his personality is not a good fit for YOUR ambition creates a layer of complexity for succession. Also Tribal are wayyyyyyy too OP. Like a tribal start can carve out anything they want, hybridise to speer-transition and then run away with the game: in 20 years go from backwater savages to the most advanced people in the world.
I think the curves actually are two sliders, here at CK3. Of these three curves, two (struggle vs. actualisation) tend to manifest as opposed forces: most measures that would add to the struggle also take from actualisation (by making certain stories harder to pull off, frustratingly hard, or outright impossible) and vice versa (allowing the crazy tale of my Roman-Norse-Italo-Hebrew-Perso-Indian culture has also given that abomination of a culture huge meta advantages). The third is opacity; those who don't like CK's heavy opacity curve leave, the others graduate, at which point they embraced it so much it's actively used as the tool to further their position on the other slider. Want to actualise yourself as additional cultures or settings? Actively seek the total conversion or RICE submods, each with its quirks to learn, and clamor for 'more flavor' in the basegame. Want more struggle? There is no Starnet or Anbeel's equivalent, the expectation instead to delve deep into realistic, but ultimately new limitations (ObfusCKate) and fuel your struggle that way.
My favorite eu4 achievement I think is swedish Lake. It's area has some challenging mechanics due to HRE with a stronghold in the mountains. Potentially allowing you to fight superior opponents defensively.
I think a part of this is also player expectations from CK2 which was a harder game in both struggle and opaqueness. That set certain players to always chafe against CK3 because of how smooth it is in comparison. What this critique leaves out however is that this new difficulty was not made for CK 2 players but to attract new players. I have multiple people I know who weren't strategy or let alone grand strategy players who now play CK3 a lot they see it like a medival sims with an added layer of map painting and that really appeals to them. Paradox has said they were corting this new type of player and I think a lot of decisions they've made about difficulty was with them in mind.
I'm worry this kind of essay just led Paradox to make fake difficulty because Paradox never really could make an ai that are challenging against the player while still being logical. They would just inflate the stats and make sure player bias is in full effect then move on.
Well, since that plagues can nearly whipe out your court and your breed with only mid-scale ones, it's not that easy anymore :D And the Black Blague wipes out half of the map
I tend to end up making so much renown prestige piety gold and legitimacy that I just disinherit everyone but one of my childrenc so I just keep my realm united that way or I just change the title laws of one of my duchies
I personally like it when my realm splits on succession. I enjoy watching my brothers and sisters run independent realms and I usually just go to expand in a different area. There was this one time that made me pretty upset though when my own grandmother went to war against me because she had claims. 😿
A while ago, I tried to get into EU4, but as a CKIII player the UI made no sense to me. Also because my computer was so slow, it took over an hour to load the game, and by the time I quit, I went over the two-hour refund thing. Also doesn't help that I didn't know how to refund until after the 90 days were up. Another annoying thing, I bought Sims 4 and the next week it went free. I spent over $40, I could of bought a DLC with that hah. (Sims DLCs are very overpriced and I wouldn't of bought one anyways, I'd spend that on CKIII DLCs
You mentioned the succession video. Please make one. My strategy is to rush absolute control and designate an heir. After that i make my capital duchy feudal elective so it doesnt split.
Scholar Education other sons, ask to take vows / dynasty disinherit / marry chaste and rush celibate. Or simple as kill your brothers, game is bare easy
Its medieval The Sims lol. I think instead of making the game unrealistically harder than what the usual 'difficulty' for a ruler was at the time, they should keep focusing on flavor like CK2 did, and quit the whole realism shtick theyre trying to force currently
The majority of people who stick with this game Long term will be roleplayers. It's a roleplaying game in every mechanic. People need to stop making the goal of every game winning and learn to have other kinds of fun.
@@Huntanor At the same time tho, it gets harder to roleplay when you're essentially playing easy mode after a certain point. It's like playing the Sims with infinite money. A good challenge brings great flavour to a roleplay game because both you and the character you are playing face the same challenge - you are struggling as well as your avatar. So yes, roleplay isn't all about winning, a good challenge can bring so much to a story
struggle sure =D as in a struggle to explain the rate of expansion to the neighbours lol, & wasnt it right untill the last few patches for ck2? that it had coalitions added =D which was an overnight game-changer that was annoying but i wanted the other stuff from dlc or seemed like cheating turning coalitions off in the settings >< ck3 doesnt even have republics or the holy college thing yet so its probably stll close to or just passed mid development still
