CK3 is too easy, hard difficulty needed.

[Corialli]

I really enjoy playing CK3, but it is way too easy to steamroll the NPCs. Strangely, this game only goes up to normal difficulty. Is there any way to make it more difficult?

[Unimportant]

Mod

[nikdonikde]

I kind of dislike that traits doesn't affect your event options, to have restrictions on it could greatly improve the game. You are lunatic? Doesn't matter you can still choose rational options in events. Are you cruel? You still can be compassionate every time. It doesn't make sense RP wise even.

[Prince Maslama]

I swear to god, the only thing that may prevent you from being the most powerful man on earth in CK3 is whether or not you choose to roleplay.

Also why tf is everyone a "living legend" 50 years into the game. Count Eustace in northern england having the same prestige level as a Roman Emperor has to be the most hilarious thing ive yet seen in the game behind ships materialising out of nowhere when you embark.

[The Former]

𝕿𝖍𝖎𝖘 𝕳𝖎𝖘 𝕸𝖆𝖏𝖊𝖘𝖙𝖞, 𝕻𝖗𝖎𝖓𝖈𝖊 𝕸𝖆𝖘𝖑𝖆𝖒𝖆,

Your wisdom exceeds that of the eldest statesmen.

You've hit the nail on the head, my lord. If one chooses to break the game, it can be done quite easily. The game is not built with challenge as the first and foremost concern. Take these quotes on game design pillars and AI from the dev diaries:

Originally posted by Dev Diary #0:

Character Focus: Crusader Kings is clearly and unequivocally about individual characters, unlike our other games. This makes CK most suited for memorable emergent stories, and we wanted to bring characters into all important gameplay mechanics (where possible.)

<...>

Player Stories: All events and scripted content should feel relevant, impactful and immersive in relation to the underlying simulation. That way, players will perceive and remember stories - their own stories, not the developers’ stories.

Originally posted by Dev Diary #36:

Our main goal with the AI has been that it should make the game more fun for the player. This has several aspects to it:

It should provide some level of challenge, because steamrolling from the get go isn’t fun
It should avoid doing things that are frustrating, even if it would make it “smarter”
It should feel as if it’s a plausible actor within a Medieval world

Notice how a mere one third of the AI design principles is "provide some level of challenge". Notice how it follows:

"It should avoid doing things that are frustrating, even if it would make it 'smarter'." This means that the AI should avoid min/maxing and abusing the system the way a player would purely for the sake of making itself a greater challenge. Why? Read on:

"It should feel as if it's a plausible actor within a Medieval world."

This is one of the most crucial aspects that we overlook. The AI is simulating feudal lords with personalities, goals, and a desire to survive. The AI isn't playing the map painting game so many players are, so it's not going to pour every bit of its time and effort into the military, abuse game mechanics, etc.

Example: I'm playing a chieftain in Ulster. I want to conquer Ireland. Obviously, I fabricate claims on literally everything around me and take all of Ireland.

How does a historical chieftain handle the matter? Well, he doesn't fabricate claims and steamroll everyone, that's for sure. The fabricating of claims is purely a mechanic to give impatient players a means of pressing conquests swiftly. The AI uses it very sparingly, because it was a historical rarity.

If I say the former chieftain of Oriel was good friends with my father and "Oh, right here I have a letter with his seal saying that he wills Oriel to my father and his posterity!" that's one thing. But if I say something like this again in Ailech, and Breifne, and Dyflinn, and Athlone... How long do you think people will believe it? This the AI doesn't use it; it's not appropriate of a "plausible actor within a Medieval world".

Just one of many examples, of course.

So the key to enjoying yourself? Unless you enjoy steamrolling, it sounds like the key is choosing to roleplay.

[PuttBlug]

Originally posted by nikdonikde:

I kind of dislike that traits doesn't affect your event options, to have restrictions on it could greatly improve the game. You are lunatic? Doesn't matter you can still choose rational options in events. Are you cruel? You still can be compassionate every time. It doesn't make sense RP wise even.

It does though, at least unless you're a lunatic. A cruel ruler can be compassionate and gains stress for choosing to go against his/her nature, if it is the wise choice. No matter your nature, if you're ruling a kingdom that's ready to revolt you may want to not give in to your natural tendencies.

[Prince Maslama]

Originally posted by Lockfågel, Paradoxriddaren:

𝕿𝖍𝖎𝖘 𝕳𝖎𝖘 𝕸𝖆𝖏𝖊𝖘𝖙𝖞, 𝕻𝖗𝖎𝖓𝖈𝖊 𝕸𝖆𝖘𝖑𝖆𝖒𝖆,

Your wisdom exceeds that of the eldest statesmen.

You've hit the nail on the head, my lord. If one chooses to break the game, it can be done quite easily. The game is not built with challenge as the first and foremost concern. Take these quotes on game design pillars and AI from the dev diaries:

Originally posted by Dev Diary #0:

Character Focus: Crusader Kings is clearly and unequivocally about individual characters, unlike our other games. This makes CK most suited for memorable emergent stories, and we wanted to bring characters into all important gameplay mechanics (where possible.)

<...>

Player Stories: All events and scripted content should feel relevant, impactful and immersive in relation to the underlying simulation. That way, players will perceive and remember stories - their own stories, not the developers’ stories.

Originally posted by Dev Diary #36:

Our main goal with the AI has been that it should make the game more fun for the player. This has several aspects to it:

It should provide some level of challenge, because steamrolling from the get go isn’t fun
It should avoid doing things that are frustrating, even if it would make it “smarter”
It should feel as if it’s a plausible actor within a Medieval world

Notice how a mere one third of the AI design principles is "provide some level of challenge". Notice how it follows:

"It should avoid doing things that are frustrating, even if it would make it 'smarter'." This means that the AI should avoid min/maxing and abusing the system the way a player would purely for the sake of making itself a greater challenge. Why? Read on:

"It should feel as if it's a plausible actor within a Medieval world."

This is one of the most crucial aspects that we overlook. The AI is simulating feudal lords with personalities, goals, and a desire to survive. The AI isn't playing the map painting game so many players are, so it's not going to pour every bit of its time and effort into the military, abuse game mechanics, etc.

Example: I'm playing a chieftain in Ulster. I want to conquer Ireland. Obviously, I fabricate claims on literally everything around me and take all of Ireland.

How does a historical chieftain handle the matter? Well, he doesn't fabricate claims and steamroll everyone, that's for sure. The fabricating of claims is purely a mechanic to give impatient players a means of pressing conquests swiftly. The AI uses it very sparingly, because it was a historical rarity.

If I say the former chieftain of Oriel was good friends with my father and "Oh, right here I have a letter with his seal saying that he wills Oriel to my father and his posterity!" that's one thing. But if I say something like this again in Ailech, and Breifne, and Dyflinn, and Athlone... How long do you think people will believe it? This the AI doesn't use it; it's not appropriate of a "plausible actor within a Medieval world".

Just one of many examples, of course.

So the key to enjoying yourself? Unless you enjoy steamrolling, it sounds like the key is choosing to roleplay.

To the owner of atrocious takes Paradox's Whiteknight,

You're suggesting that conquest isn't how the game is meant to be played? You also recommend staying small and roleplaying instead?

Okay then, tell me the things I can do as a humble duke in Crusader Kings 3 that would make me feel immersed in the game.

Let me answer that for you. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO IF YOU'RE NOT A KING OR EMPEROR.

It seems like from that dev diary the developers are saying one thing and doing another. The game is designed so that you engage in some form of conquest so that in a few decades you're either a King or Emperor. Literally every flavour pack dlc so far is centred around "painting the map".

[PuttBlug]

Originally posted by Prince Maslama:

Originally posted by Lockfågel, Paradoxriddaren:

𝕿𝖍𝖎𝖘 𝕳𝖎𝖘 𝕸𝖆𝖏𝖊𝖘𝖙𝖞, 𝕻𝖗𝖎𝖓𝖈𝖊 𝕸𝖆𝖘𝖑𝖆𝖒𝖆,

Your wisdom exceeds that of the eldest statesmen.

You've hit the nail on the head, my lord. If one chooses to break the game, it can be done quite easily. The game is not built with challenge as the first and foremost concern. Take these quotes on game design pillars and AI from the dev diaries:





Notice how a mere one third of the AI design principles is "provide some level of challenge". Notice how it follows:

"It should avoid doing things that are frustrating, even if it would make it 'smarter'." This means that the AI should avoid min/maxing and abusing the system the way a player would purely for the sake of making itself a greater challenge. Why? Read on:

"It should feel as if it's a plausible actor within a Medieval world."

This is one of the most crucial aspects that we overlook. The AI is simulating feudal lords with personalities, goals, and a desire to survive. The AI isn't playing the map painting game so many players are, so it's not going to pour every bit of its time and effort into the military, abuse game mechanics, etc.

Example: I'm playing a chieftain in Ulster. I want to conquer Ireland. Obviously, I fabricate claims on literally everything around me and take all of Ireland.

How does a historical chieftain handle the matter? Well, he doesn't fabricate claims and steamroll everyone, that's for sure. The fabricating of claims is purely a mechanic to give impatient players a means of pressing conquests swiftly. The AI uses it very sparingly, because it was a historical rarity.

If I say the former chieftain of Oriel was good friends with my father and "Oh, right here I have a letter with his seal saying that he wills Oriel to my father and his posterity!" that's one thing. But if I say something like this again in Ailech, and Breifne, and Dyflinn, and Athlone... How long do you think people will believe it? This the AI doesn't use it; it's not appropriate of a "plausible actor within a Medieval world".

Just one of many examples, of course.

So the key to enjoying yourself? Unless you enjoy steamrolling, it sounds like the key is choosing to roleplay.

To the owner of atrocious takes Paradox's Whiteknight,

You're suggesting that conquest isn't how the game is meant to be played? You also recommend staying small and roleplaying instead?

Okay then, tell me the things I can do as a humble duke in Crusader Kings 3 that would make me feel immersed in the game.

Let me answer that for you. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO IF YOU'RE NOT A KING OR EMPEROR.

It seems like from that dev diary the developers are saying one thing and doing another. The game is designed so that you engage in some form of conquest so that in a few decades you're either a King or Emperor. Literally every flavour pack dlc so far is centred around "painting the map".

Each person is different, I like CK3 very much but it can get boring when you're so powerful nothing can even come close to threatening you. You can choose to start a new game or you could do something else once you reach that point. You could try to install members of your dynasty as independent kings and protect them so your dynasty keeps getting renown from them for example.

But you don't have to like the game, there's plenty of games I don't like and I don't play them.

[The Former]

Originally posted by Prince Maslama:

Originally posted by Lockfågel, Paradoxriddaren:

𝕿𝖍𝖎𝖘 𝕳𝖎𝖘 𝕸𝖆𝖏𝖊𝖘𝖙𝖞, 𝕻𝖗𝖎𝖓𝖈𝖊 𝕸𝖆𝖘𝖑𝖆𝖒𝖆,

Your wisdom exceeds that of the eldest statesmen.

You've hit the nail on the head, my lord. If one chooses to break the game, it can be done quite easily. The game is not built with challenge as the first and foremost concern. Take these quotes on game design pillars and AI from the dev diaries:





Notice how a mere one third of the AI design principles is "provide some level of challenge". Notice how it follows:

"It should avoid doing things that are frustrating, even if it would make it 'smarter'." This means that the AI should avoid min/maxing and abusing the system the way a player would purely for the sake of making itself a greater challenge. Why? Read on:

"It should feel as if it's a plausible actor within a Medieval world."

This is one of the most crucial aspects that we overlook. The AI is simulating feudal lords with personalities, goals, and a desire to survive. The AI isn't playing the map painting game so many players are, so it's not going to pour every bit of its time and effort into the military, abuse game mechanics, etc.

Example: I'm playing a chieftain in Ulster. I want to conquer Ireland. Obviously, I fabricate claims on literally everything around me and take all of Ireland.

How does a historical chieftain handle the matter? Well, he doesn't fabricate claims and steamroll everyone, that's for sure. The fabricating of claims is purely a mechanic to give impatient players a means of pressing conquests swiftly. The AI uses it very sparingly, because it was a historical rarity.

If I say the former chieftain of Oriel was good friends with my father and "Oh, right here I have a letter with his seal saying that he wills Oriel to my father and his posterity!" that's one thing. But if I say something like this again in Ailech, and Breifne, and Dyflinn, and Athlone... How long do you think people will believe it? This the AI doesn't use it; it's not appropriate of a "plausible actor within a Medieval world".

Just one of many examples, of course.

So the key to enjoying yourself? Unless you enjoy steamrolling, it sounds like the key is choosing to roleplay.

To the owner of atrocious takes Paradox's Whiteknight,

You're suggesting that conquest isn't how the game is meant to be played? You also recommend staying small and roleplaying instead?

Okay then, tell me the things I can do as a humble duke in Crusader Kings 3 that would make me feel immersed in the game.

Let me answer that for you. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO IF YOU'RE NOT A KING OR EMPEROR.

It seems like from that dev diary the developers are saying one thing and doing another. The game is designed so that you engage in some form of conquest so that in a few decades you're either a King or Emperor. Literally every flavour pack dlc so far is centred around "painting the map".

𝕿𝖔 𝕳𝖎𝖘 𝕳𝖎𝖌𝖍𝖓𝖊𝖘𝖘 𝕻𝖗𝖎𝖓𝖈𝖊 𝕸𝖆𝖘𝖑𝖆𝖒𝖆,

May your quiver be inexhaustible.

I am suggesting that conquest is one way to play the game, and also that there are many ways to go about a conquest besides fabricating claims and marching armies.

Now if you'll excuse me, I must return to solidifying my position as Mormaer of Oriel. I've just completed a most bracing round of falconry and am presently watching the affairs of that foul dastard Ivar Ragnarsson, seeing if he might offer me opportunity to reclaim my homeland of Argyll.

I hear he was defeated at Sudbury in most humiliating fashion, where he lost his leg and fell captive to King Eadmund of East Anglia. Hah! A most pleasant bit of news. How fortunate that this early peace afforded me time to seek it!

What shall I do with the prestige I've gained...? Shall I seek for champions? Shall I prepare myself against neighboring raids? The local chieftains all have intriguing tales... I know not which is most dangerous!

Ah, perhaps I shall use this windfall of glory to draw more kerns to myself. Yes... If I raid successfully, I can win enough coin to throw a feast and see that my Irish champions and advisors come to view me in a positive light. (The travails of a Highlands Gaelic mormaer in exile...) Or, I could visit Oxford! I've long wanted to see the storied hill country of Wessex.

Of course now that I've married I also need to start considering the future. My sons will need protection and counsel while that one-legged cur Ivar is lurking. I ought to seek for an able tutor. I could attempt to capture one in raiding, or perhaps I could simply bribe the right wanderer. My sons will also need a seneschal if they're to reclaim our homeland with a smooth transition to power.

There's also the matter of the lad I captured while raiding Ulster. Shall I pull him to my service and educate him? He does have a certain rogueish charm... I'll bet he'd make my heir a fine spymaster, if I could educate him well and teach him the Gaelic ways! Although if I release him with a favor, he would serve as a fine agent, or perhaps I could win over his father! A fairly capable military man for Ulster, as he tells it.

Oh! I nearly forgot! I could be improving my holdings with that plunder! Gracious, yet another avenue to pursue. I need to be considering how and when I want to spend on such things. Fortunate that I found a wife who knows coin.

Oh look! Ulster just allied with Meath. Seems the kerns angle is indeed the most suitable at this time. And to think, I nearly gambled it on the recruitment of champions I can barely afford in the first place.

So much to consider for a mormaer in 869, I'm bound to make a mistake at some point! Wish me fortune, my lord.

𝔈𝔳𝔢𝔯 ℑ𝔫 𝔄𝔴𝔢 𝔬𝔣 𝔗𝔥𝔢𝔢,
𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔓𝔞𝔯𝔞𝔡𝔬𝔵 𝔎𝔫𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱

[Prince Maslama]

:^)

[AdahnGorion]

Originally posted by Corialli:

I really enjoy playing CK3, but it is way too easy to steamroll the NPCs. Strangely, this game only goes up to normal difficulty. Is there any way to make it more difficult?

I reckon it might be hard, because of the way you play it.

Do you roleplay your characters? Do you hinder yourself from abusing the system? did you start off as a little count, in a hostile place? The hard part is not to paint the map (this is a poor game for that) the hard part is to roleplay and actually focus on character interactions and dynamics..

If you just wanna explioit and paint, you might as well play EU4

[Riflas]

Play again but with randomized faiths

[zorkman]

Play with the mod 'obfusckate', which hides information on characters you don't know. Too much for me, but as a CK3 king I am sure it will be up your street.

[The Former]

Originally posted by zorkman:

Play with the mod 'obfusckate', which hides information on characters you don't know. Too much for me, but as a CK3 king I am sure it will be up your street.

𝕿𝖔 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕯𝖎𝖘𝖈𝖊𝖗𝖓𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖅𝖔𝖗𝖐𝖒𝖆𝖓,

May your banners wave with vigour.

I absolutely love this mod, I'd also recommend it. I'm no CK3 king, but it just really makes things more intense. (It also makes your spymaster that much more important.)

[zorkman]

Originally posted by Lockfågel, Paradoxriddaren:

Originally posted by zorkman:

Play with the mod 'obfusckate', which hides information on characters you don't know. Too much for me, but as a CK3 king I am sure it will be up your street.

𝕿𝖔 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕯𝖎𝖘𝖈𝖊𝖗𝖓𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖅𝖔𝖗𝖐𝖒𝖆𝖓,

May your banners wave with vigour.

I absolutely love this mod, I'd also recommend it. I'm no CK3 king, but it just really makes things more intense. (It also makes your spymaster that much more important.)

I am not mocking the mod, as I think it is really good idea, but as the maker replied to me, you really have to be quite experienced to really play it.

[The Former]

Originally posted by zorkman:

Originally posted by Lockfågel, Paradoxriddaren:

𝕿𝖔 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕯𝖎𝖘𝖈𝖊𝖗𝖓𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖅𝖔𝖗𝖐𝖒𝖆𝖓,

May your banners wave with vigour.

I absolutely love this mod, I'd also recommend it. I'm no CK3 king, but it just really makes things more intense. (It also makes your spymaster that much more important.)

I am not mocking the mod, as I think it is really good idea, but as the maker replied to me, you really have to be quite experienced to really play it.

𝕿𝖔 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕯𝖎𝖘𝖈𝖊𝖗𝖓𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖅𝖔𝖗𝖐𝖒𝖆𝖓,

May your raptor fly true.

True enough. I only meant that I enjoy it despite not being a master of the game. It absolutely does help to have experience, though, because you're lacking a lot of gameplay context. It helps if you can fill in the blanks with what you know the vitals are.

(For example, I may not know what the enemy's Martial is, but I know what Martial affects and thus what gambles I'm taking by not knowing the enemy's value.)