100 years war as a Struggle mechanic ?

[Cephei80]

Hello . maybe i am skipping steps and already talking about wars but the earlier the better i think while things are still not cooking and not fully baked.

I was wondering about some events like the 100 years wars , the 80 years war , the long Turkish war (or any similar situation generated by the world or player) and i wondered if there is a way for these wars to be portrayed properly especially in term of length or struggle complexity .
the most immediate one that make me ask questions is the 100 years war because as we know based on previous games if we get such war now in any previous game it will probably be over in 5 to 20 years but since this game seems to have lot of ambition and scope i would like to at least allow the first war to be unique if any special mechanics are going to be added since its imminent event.
personally i would like it to be like the Reconquista struggle in ck3 or something to allow it to be long and players can have a fun historical experience with it because based on my experience with such wars things will go this way
war start , england fight but france if it gain momentum it could capture all forts and reach 100% before england could even send reinforcement like punic wars in imperator and how carthage cant simply send reinforcements all the time to sicily and cope with the Roman army who just walk in on foot easily and replenish .
my personal hope is to see some complexity like the struggle mechanic used in some hot regions like the balkans , india , japan , france and britain , maybe iberia and morocco , and mongol lands.
if not possible maybe we can just get 100 years war with very hard warscore generation so it can be like the chaotic conflict it was in history instead of a rush to 100% score in 5 years.

 

[mrflagio]

CK3 pretty much sucks, so borrowing any of its bolted-on-and-abandoned concepts like Struggles is probably not a good starting point.

 

[Cephei80]

CK3 pretty much sucks, so borrowing any of its bolted-on-and-abandoned concepts like Struggles is probably not a good starting point.

thats not a constructive comment . and ck3 is a fun game played by 15k players average .
when you respectively disagree you state a logic reason you dont just say bias
this is not the type of comment i made this post for .
also not sure if you know this or not but this game is not " borrowing" its improving . previous games walked so this game can RUN not stagnate

 

[mrflagio]

Here's a reason: Struggles were created because CK3's base gameplay can't properly simulate the Reconquista. In a game where the Reconquista is a major historical moment in the timeframe. In a game in which holy wars exist and is called Crusader Kings 3.

So no, I don't want a future game to create a special feature to simulate something defining about its era because the base gameplay fails at that very simulation.

(Not coincidentally, the fact that CK3 fails to simulate war, economy, politics, and pretty much anything else properly is why it sucks.)

 

[Zukhani]

CK3 is a terrible game.

 

[masteriw]

thats not a constructive comment . and ck3 is a fun game played by 15k players average .
when you respectively disagree you state a logic reason you dont just say bias
this is not the type of comment i made this post for .
also not sure if you know this or not but this game is not " borrowing" its improving . previous games walked so this game can RUN not stagnate
View attachment 1124268

I'm not sure about those numbers, a game like Fortnite probably has 10 times more average players and I still wouldn't want anything from that game borrowed by Project Caesar.

CK3 is a poor game with a few decent mechanics, just like Vic 3, and Struggles isn't even one of those.

I'll agree with one thing though, CK3 walked so this game can RUN... hopefully in the opposite direction.

 

[Lindaegan]

The CKIII "struggle" "mechanic" might be terrible (like most of the mechanics in that game), but at least it makes sense for it (in terms of gameplay, not anything else). How are you going to simulate the actions of a myriad characters so the struggle moves properly and with a good speed, anyway?

The only reason the CKIII devs have been tossing a struggle into basically every region of the world is of course the very common complaint against CKIII - that it is boring and samey. If this game has that same problem, then I will probably never buy it - just like how I still have not been bothered to buy CKIII. Because then it is fundamentally broken.

 

[MasterPaw]

Just to make it clear, the 100 years war does not need to be depicted as a single war, as there were periods of truce

 

[emperorgamer11]

Struggles are such a nothing-burger mechanic - no thanks!

 

[William the Merry]

Hello . maybe i am skipping steps and already talking about wars but the earlier the better i think while things are still not cooking and not fully baked.

I was wondering about some events like the 100 years wars , the 80 years war , the long Turkish war (or any similar situation generated by the world or player) and i wondered if there is a way for these wars to be portrayed properly especially in term of length or struggle complexity .
the most immediate one that make me ask questions is the 100 years war because as we know based on previous games if we get such war now in any previous game it will probably be over in 5 to 20 years but since this game seems to have lot of ambition and scope i would like to at least allow the first war to be unique if any special mechanics are going to be added since its imminent event.
personally i would like it to be like the Reconquista struggle in ck3 or something to allow it to be long and players can have a fun historical experience with it because based on my experience with such wars things will go this way
war start , england fight but france if it gain momentum it could capture all forts and reach 100% before england could even send reinforcement like punic wars in imperator and how carthage cant simply send reinforcements all the time to sicily and cope with the Roman army who just walk in on foot easily and replenish .
my personal hope is to see some complexity like the struggle mechanic used in some hot regions like the balkans , india , japan , france and britain , maybe iberia and morocco , and mongol lands.
if not possible maybe we can just get 100 years war with very hard warscore generation so it can be like the chaotic conflict it was in history instead of a rush to 100% score in 5 years.


View attachment 1124234

Ck3 has had no organic struggles, they all exist at a start date, and the 2nd, the iranian intermezzo, exists only in 867. Although theyre meant to slow things down, in some cases they let you solve things far sooner than irl, which is your complaint about the 100 YW.
War is meant to be far costlier in PC than eu4, so you shouldnt be able to take all the english land by 1339 as france but will likely have to let england keep some land. The 100YW had many periods of peace, followed by crises leading to wars.
Also if youre trying to use a map to illustrate a point, you should use an English one

 

[William the Merry]

thats not a constructive comment . and ck3 is a fun game played by 15k players average .
when you respectively disagree you state a logic reason you dont just say bias
this is not the type of comment i made this post for .
also not sure if you know this or not but this game is not " borrowing" its improving . previous games walked so this game can RUN not stagnate
View attachment 1124268

The constructive part is how they shouldnt copy ck3. You can also look at various dlc reviews to see how disliked the game is, even if people still play it

 

[viola]

I'm going to be controversial here and say that Struggle-like mechanics, that is, unique mechanics for specific regions and time periods, are fundamentally a good idea because you're simply never going to have generic game mechanics that are going to be able to simulate complex and particular historical events since generic mechanics are necessarily simplistic and uniform by nature. This isn't because the generic mechanics are insufficient, it's because history is impossibly complex and this is a simple video game. So, geographical "struggles", like "Ages" that are already confirmed to be in Project Ceasar, work to compliment generic mechanics.

Depending on how it's done such a mechanic could be used to ensure the 100 years wars is as climatic as it was, as opposed to England losing the small strip of land it had left in 1337 in Aquitaine and then both country having no further interactions for the next centuries as they'll be busy slowly blobbing into their immediate neighbours.

 

[William the Merry]

I'm going to be controversial here and say that Struggle-like mechanics, that is, unique mechanics for specific regions and time periods, are fundamentally a good idea because you're simply never going to have generic game mechanics that are going to be able to simulate complex and particular historical events since generic mechanics are necessarily simplistic and uniform by nature. This isn't because the generic mechanics are insufficient, it's because history is impossibly complex and this is a simple video game. So, geographical "struggles", like "Ages" that are already confirmed to be in Project Ceasar, work to compliment generic mechanics.

Depending on how it's done such a mechanic could be used to ensure the 100 years wars is as climatic as climatic as it was, as opposed to England losing the small strip of land it had left in 1337 in Aquitaine and then both country having no further interactions for the next centuries as they'll be busy slowly blobbing into their immediate neighbours.

A way to make the ai interact with traditional rivals more often rather than staring each other off is for them to declare war on each other even if odds not 100% in their favour.
That way England will actually try to reclaim lost lands only to lose even more, or France will try to strip lands from them only for the King to have to disinherit his heir. Acts of sabotage, spying, supporting revolts, all these could push the ai to declare on each other more often than not

 

[viola]

A way to make the ai interact with traditional rivals more often rather than staring each other off is for them to declare war on each other even if odds not 100% in their favour.

All I can see coming from that is the AI turning irrational and starting losing wars seemingly on purpose. only making things more lopsided for everyone.

Unfortunately, it's very easy to type suggestions that amount to "just make the AI smarter and acting more player-like" and it's very hard to do that.

 

[ButcherOfTorfan]

If such a feature were to be added, both England and France would fall very far down the list of countries I'm excited to play.

 

[William the Merry]

All I can see coming from that is the AI turning irrational and starting losing wars seemingly on purpose. only making things more lopsided for everyone.

Unfortunately, it's very easy to type suggestions that amount to "just make the AI smarter and acting more player-like" and it's very hard to do that.

In your gameplay of eu4, how often have you seen austria face an ottoman, protestant, and french war at the same time?

 

[viola]

In your gameplay of eu4, how often have you seen austria face an ottoman, protestant, and french war at the same time?

I haven't been taking the score and I fail to see how this is relevant to anything at all.

 

[William the Merry]

I haven't been taking the score and I fail to see how this is relevant to anything at all.

Overly cautious ai stops historical wars happening

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

Mmm a struggle works sort of for CK3 as it is played with characters. Restricting gameplay this much for a hundred years with lots of specific rules to France and England not sure it would be the best

 

[pheonicia]

Overly cautious ai stops historical wars happening

Historical or not a suicidal ai isn't fun.