Poll: Who would like to see a Crusader Kings game with Total-War-Style RTS Battles?

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Then change it so that battles only last one day, and add a "synchronise arrival" option so that armies attacking from several provinces reach their destination at the same time. Problem solved, and much more realistic than the current set-up of having battles last three weeks.
So, now we aren't just adding in TW style battles, we're rewriting huge tranches of the game to shoehorn them in.
We then have one day of fighting leading to the whole of a county being placed under siege...

Yes, but I don't see how that makes auto-resolving battles any harder.

Set all battles to auto-resolve when playing multi-player. Or, if there are only two players, manually fight the battles involving both players, and auto-resolve the rest.

So what's the point in adding the feature again? Especially if it now means that multiplayer and single player effectively become different games.
 
Why is everyone talking like in such a game you would have to fight every battle? CK2 is a character driven game, you would only be involved in directing the battles if your character is leading, say, a wing of the army. If he isn't, or if it's a queen and women can't lead then it resolves exactly the same way it does now. With the exception that battles take place in one day.

---

Slight tangent on the length of battles and calling them 'campaigns'.

A campaign may take months, but if the game calls them battles then I don't care for thinking of them as representing campaigns. They can change the text very easily, so as far as I'm concerned in CK2 we have battles lasting weeks, which is stupid. Make them last a day. There's no way you can realistically think of the battles as campaigns without doing mental gymnastics.

---

But like I've said from the start, I'm not in favour of TW'ing up CK2, or even M&Bing CK2, I want to approach it from the other direction. To make Mount and Blade as richly detailed and historically realistic as CK2. That's my dream. Pretty much everyone here is here because we don't like what CA have done with TW. I'd wager we all used to try and make a game work with diplomacy and spend more time on the campaign map rather than in battles, getting frustrated because you make an alliance only to have the stupid AI do something stupid like attack your huge army with a few peasants.

I think the next step in realism and depth for the detail of CK2 is to become the character. To play first person, like Mount and Blade, because then you can have in all the real difficulties that real medieval rulers had. They couldn't just search characters, or click on Novgorod and arrange a marriage. They had to speak with advisers to get information, they had to dispatch emissaries, heralds and diplomats. They had their own personal spies and spymasters they dispatched.

The only problem with it, and it might be a big one, is the length of time passing in the game, and thus overall speed of a game. I'm not too fussed about a game taking really long, but lots of people are. But like I said, and feel the need to constantly re-iterate, I'm not for changing CK2, I just want a game like M&B that is as richly detailed as CK2, where I can lead my troops into battle and fight. Not command in a TW fashion.
 
As a huge fan of the Total War series and Crusader Kings series I would obviously say no. :p Sorry it would harm both games because its not what they are about. Total War as your may have guessed focuses on the war, the battles, and such things all violent and stuff. CKII focuses on the dynasty and there struggles so much that there really isn't adjectives just the dynasty and what they are and will be. Still with that said I do think its weird Total War has a better diplomacy system then CKII. Not to say I want the diplomacy system brought into CKII but just its weird that there systems are not reversed. By that I mean you would think Total War diplomacy would be wars over? here is what you get! Rather you can get a nation to pay for the war to end in exchange of some land you took. Idk I would love to have a better diplomacy system in CKII kinda like the one in EUIV.
 
I would say no way. I would imagine CA has bigger resources, and if they can't get the AI to perform in battle, I don't think Paradox will do much better. TW games are fun, but there is a way to win land/sea battles, if you know how, you can't lose, no matter what the difficulty level. This hasn't changed since the very first titles. Eventually they become such a drag that you want to hit the auto-resolve, which is a little bit like CK2/EU, you have no control over it. The other problem is that a lot of time and expertise will be wasted on what is something that has so far been impossible to get right, spend that time on doing what they do best I think.
 
As others have explained adequately. CK2 is not about being an omniscient master of brainless paws, it's about being a mere mortal entangled in the intricacies of the larger world. Whoever you play, you only have limited influence over the course of events, that in my opinion is the biggest appeal of the game.

I certainly don't need more control over the course of battles. However, I do want to see more interaction and immersion during battles when my character is one of the commanders. Dealing with disagreements among the commanders or dissent among soldiers? Treating locals and captured spies? Leading the cavalry charge yourself or leaving it to others? Dismount and join the foot soldiers to rally their spirit?

Given all the splendid poetry and chronicles over the millenniums articulating the power and horror of warfare, I'm sure there are ways to enrich battle experience without undermining the design philosophy of this game.
 
Why is everyone talking like in such a game you would have to fight every battle? CK2 is a character driven game, you would only be involved in directing the battles if your character is leading, say, a wing of the army. If he isn't, or if it's a queen and women can't lead then it resolves exactly the same way it does now. With the exception that battles take place in one day.
OK... Now address the point about how it doesn't matter what your character's martial score is if you can just fight the battle and use whatever good tactics you yourself are capable of. Or the one that in multiplayer you'd have people sat around for half an hour or so per battle that you personally fight. Or indeed that in player versus player battles, the major determining factor would be how good the player is, not how good the played characters' martial scores are.
As well, we can get rid of the concept that a battle always historically took place in a day. Some did, but some went on for a few days with the armies retreating to camp at the end of the day, until one side surrendered, fled, or was routed.

---

Slight tangent on the length of battles and calling them 'campaigns'.

A campaign may take months, but if the game calls them battles then I don't care for thinking of them as representing campaigns. They can change the text very easily, so as far as I'm concerned in CK2 we have battles lasting weeks, which is stupid. Make them last a day. There's no way you can realistically think of the battles as campaigns without doing mental gymnastics.
So it makes more sense for you that you can march an army into (for example) Essex, fight for one day, and then have control of everything outside of the main castle, town and church?
---

But like I've said from the start, I'm not in favour of TW'ing up CK2, or even M&Bing CK2, I want to approach it from the other direction. To make Mount and Blade as richly detailed and historically realistic as CK2. That's my dream. Pretty much everyone here is here because we don't like what CA have done with TW. I'd wager we all used to try and make a game work with diplomacy and spend more time on the campaign map rather than in battles, getting frustrated because you make an alliance only to have the stupid AI do something stupid like attack your huge army with a few peasants.
Speak for yourself. I've played a grand total of three hours of TW based games, and they were broadly acceptable for being battle simulators with a campaign tacked on. I'm here because I found other Paradox games and liked them, not because I'm fleeing bad TW games.

I think the next step in realism and depth for the detail of CK2 is to become the character. To play first person, like Mount and Blade, because then you can have in all the real difficulties that real medieval rulers had. They couldn't just search characters, or click on Novgorod and arrange a marriage. They had to speak with advisers to get information, they had to dispatch emissaries, heralds and diplomats. They had their own personal spies and spymasters they dispatched.
You'll still need that layer of abstraction. You can't simulate what it was like to be that character in a computer game - you can't properly simulate the reasons for disliking someone based on the day to day interactions the character would have. There is no sensible way to try to emulate the book learning of the period, the martial training, and so on without living that life.
The only problem with it, and it might be a big one, is the length of time passing in the game, and thus overall speed of a game. I'm not too fussed about a game taking really long, but lots of people are. But like I said, and feel the need to constantly re-iterate, I'm not for changing CK2, I just want a game like M&B that is as richly detailed as CK2, where I can lead my troops into battle and fight. Not command in a TW fashion.

It's a game where you're meant to play out several hundred years. Of course it's going to play at an odd speed.
 
OK... Now address the point about how it doesn't matter what your character's martial score is if you can just fight the battle and use whatever good tactics you yourself are capable of. Or the one that in multiplayer you'd have people sat around for half an hour or so per battle that you personally fight. Or indeed that in player versus player battles, the major determining factor would be how good the player is, not how good the played characters' martial scores are.
As well, we can get rid of the concept that a battle always historically took place in a day. Some did, but some went on for a few days with the armies retreating to camp at the end of the day, until one side surrendered, fled, or was routed.


So it makes more sense for you that you can march an army into (for example) Essex, fight for one day, and then have control of everything outside of the main castle, town and church?

Speak for yourself. I've played a grand total of three hours of TW based games, and they were broadly acceptable for being battle simulators with a campaign tacked on. I'm here because I found other Paradox games and liked them, not because I'm fleeing bad TW games.


You'll still need that layer of abstraction. You can't simulate what it was like to be that character in a computer game - you can't properly simulate the reasons for disliking someone based on the day to day interactions the character would have. There is no sensible way to try to emulate the book learning of the period, the martial training, and so on without living that life.


It's a game where you're meant to play out several hundred years. Of course it's going to play at an odd speed.

1.) If you're controlling the character then the martial score can still be important. It could potentially affect or reflect everything from strength, swing speed, blocking to riding ability if mounted.

2.) I think you misunderstand. If you ride into Essex and fight and battles are one day in the type of game I proposed then you will be in the middle of a field in Essex and thus not able to control everything in castles, towns and churches. You would ride back to the nearest place after the battle and then take control of things you want. Or dispatch someone to relay your instructions to someone who can carry them out on your behalf.

3.) Fair enough. Judging by the comments I reckoned most people are more interested in the campaign, diplomacy, politics side of it rather than controlling battles. I didn't mean to imply everyone is fleeing TW, though I obviously could have phrased it better, because that's clearly what I said. I was just getting carried away with words.

4.) I disagree. I'm not saying it'd be easy, or a game that could be made in a year or two, we're talking hypothetical perfect world type stuff. It might not even be possible in my lifetime, but it's what I'd like. I do think a lot of it could be done, but that's a different discussion.

5.) Well at least we agree about one thing.
 
It would be quite amazing but the one thing I don't like about Total War games I rather dislike is the lack of numerical reality in armies that pdox captures much better