The constant agony of a Scrub or please let us get Achievements on lower difficulty

[Pocket Sand]

Look I get the point where you have to "earn" achievements, but at this point I can't even think of an Ironman game in CK3 that didn't turn into stressful grind and didn't require constant Task Manager savescum to progress.
This has nothing to do with RNG's in themselves, but rather the fact that on Ironman RNGs tend to be more likely to be negative, and as the game progresses, it gets to the point where negative debuffs stack to the point where you either lose the game entirely, or AI irrationally goes after you for no reason but to add fake "challenge".
So what gives?
Maybe some players enjoy this, but I doubt I'm the only one who is quite frustrated with this.
To get any achievements you basically have to micro everything and even then negative rolls are going to sack you at worst opportunity, be it rebellion stack or your character dying in the worst moment possible, so essentially you have to replay same campaign like a dozen of times to get far in it.
Again, maybe some people enjoy this and love to replay as same character 20 times until they get it right, but I just find it boring, repetitive and it kills my desire to play the game, while playing on Easy without achievements is also kinda frustrating, because it feels like I'm playing on a pirated version or something.
By all means, keep Ironman as it is for multiplayer, but please, for the love of Jupiter, let us get achievements on Easy.

[Average AMD neanderthal]

i'm just pointing it out there but, i have been on an achievement run for the past few weeks, and i have already done several achievements where you have to conquer and hold areas that are difficult to get, or where you have to form nations in a single lifetime even. the types of achievements where less than 1% of people obtained it.

you have to know what cards you can play, and what your enemy can play. there's plenty of ways to go about things.

[Eddie Latium]

I don't mean to be a buzzkiller, but this won't change - it's how is designed.

Let me reassure about an important thing though, the game isn't rigged against the player, so to speak. Those are all in-game mechanics that work the same way for the AI, the difference is it "knows" how to play.

Paradox games are notorious for not having the smoothest learning curve, but it's like learning to ride a bike, once you learn it's different.

Now, you can start playing on Normal Ironman from the beginning but you just need to set realistic expectations, your dynasty won't rival the Karlings in your first campaigns, it's important you choose a "welcoming" start so things won't be too difficult.

The game already labels which "interesting starts" are more easy or difficult than others, it does that giving for granted you know how to play though, so keep in mind few more factors on top of that:

1. Size - a medium or small sized realm could be easier to manage at the beginning.
   
   
2. Neighbours - the more isolated the better, or at least not having strong neighbours.
   
   
3. Start date - in the 9th Century Europe is upside down for example, see how the area you want to play in differs in the two dates.

I hope it helps, if you're struggling with a particular aspect of the game feel free to ask. :)

[Razorblade]

Achievements are the way they are because Paradox is trying to get players to play the game as they intended. Easy and non-ironman games are there for learning the game; they're not meant to be your forever-crutch.

I highly suggest you give a normal ironman run a chance. Your ability to learn seems to be held back by savescumming your way out of your problems, and blaming RNG for your inability to manage your realm. Take away the training wheels, and you'll have to learn the game mechanics. Learn the mechanics, and you'll have a much better experience. And remember, you have only lost when the game over screen happens. Losing to a rebellion isn't game over; it's part of the CK3 experience.

[Heraclius Caesar]

The achievements for this game are fairly easy to get. The only ones I don't have are the ones that I just have zero interest in getting; same with ck2.

Which ones are you having trouble with?

[Melkolf]

Ironman is the real game, achievements belong there.

I'm new and have played all levels. Haven't seen any real difference in RNG between them - I expect the worst and plan accordingly. AI pounces if one doesn't take care in all settings.

Save scumming wastes my time when I should be playing, goes against the uncertainty of life and the intentions of devs and the game. Chase an achievement if you wish and if you don't achieve it, learn from the mistakes/bad luck and go again. Yeah, frustration, disappointment. But that's the type of game it is and we don't always get what we want...

As HC says, one can always ask for specific help and I've found plenty searching forums. Most of what I've faced has already been experienced and commented upon, and helped me obtain achievements, for what achievements are worth. For me the fun's in playing and going with the flow, not chasing what are for the most part false/fake goals.

Targets are for real life, games are for fun. But if achievements are your fun then enjoy getting them on the terms the devs intended.

[Lady Dormouse]

I have to agree, achievements should be Ironman compliant runs only. Lots of people manage to grab a bunch of them, including people new to CK or even Paradox 4X games in general.

If you're finding yourself frustrated, trying playing a game or three with the console enabled to help you make mistakes and recover from them with console commands if you must, but first try finding a way out of the situation on your own. Do that maybe focusing on a practice run of the first achievement you want to game out how to get their in Ironman. Then try an Ironman game to do the same.

[Pocket Sand]

I'd agree, but some mechanics are simply irrational. For example, as Byzantine Emperor, when you expand, it upsets your vassals. Why are they upset over Empire growing? Like maybe one vassal may be upset for specific reason (if he has relatives in place you conquered or something), but default debuff to vassal relations? That makes no sense but to punish player and create fake challenge where it doesn't even make sense.

[Eddie Latium]

That applies to the AI as well. They're not upset for the Empire growing (which may not earn them anything anyway), they're receiving a malus for sending men to war, it's a sort of war exhaustion.

[Pocket Sand]

War exhaustion should apply if war is being lost or is prolonged, not by default regardless of context. I'm fairly certain that there were many common things about medieval nobility, but hardline pacifism wasn't one of them.

[Eddie Latium]

War exhaustion is there for the very fact of being at war itself, it's pretty simplified in CK3.

In CK2 armies where raised individually from vassals, they took a opinion hit from them; now they did it realm-wide, so instead every vassals is affected but to a lesser degree.

[Pocket Sand]

As I said, the problem with war exhaustion is that it implies that vassals are against war our of principle - which makes 0 sense, since war meant profits, slaves and other benefits for vassals that partook in them. Blanket negative debuff doesn't make game realistic, it just serves as a handicap for player to create illusion of "challenge".

[Heraclius Caesar]

Originally posted by Baron Pyotr Wrangel:

War exhaustion should apply if war is being lost or is prolonged, not by default regardless of context. I'm fairly certain that there were many common things about medieval nobility, but hardline pacifism wasn't one of them.

I agree that it seems ridiculous but what EA said has some merit here especially in the context of what the developers are trying to show in having you play in a medieval world.

Your vassals aren't going to be thrilled contributing what they see as their men and resources towards one of your wars that doesn't (as far as they can tell) directly benefit them in any way. On the other side of that though I do believe it would be more accurate for some vassals to have a negative opinion about you going to war while some have a positive opinion. From a historical perspective there were always "hawkish" factions around rulers, encouraging them to go to war while the naysayers were decrying the costs of men and money for the war.

Like I said before though the achievements in this game are very easy to get, definitely don't need to "save scum" and all that. Which ones are you having trouble with?

[pi73r]

Rotfl, this game is already as easy as it can be and it needs some hard mode patch to be enjoyable. Git gud.

[Circurose]

I think the game is pretty easy to get "Rare" achievement.

Sure Al-Andalus can be annoying when the Christians crusade you non-stop for 10 years, but it is doable. Some just require patience.

[Average AMD neanderthal]

Originally posted by Circurose:

I think the game is pretty easy to get "Rare" achievement.

Sure Al-Andalus can be annoying when the Christians crusade you non-stop for 10 years, but it is doable. Some just require patience.

try getting 'what love does for us'. i have spent hours seducing everyone's wives with the full seduction tree and spreading the news of my deeds so the husbands with the vengeful trait would kill me.

i still haven't had a save where it didn't take ages to get assassinated, and also not get killed.
one character made it as far as the age of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ 80 with just a handful of attempts on his life. but all poison based, and he survived it. not that any of his lovers seem to care to step in and prevent anything.