I've never lost to adventurers. I've lost the war against them, strictly speaking, but I've always been able to crack back hard and take everything back.
They're still an absolutely derpy mechanic. While it's reasonable that, barring Imbecile trait, adventurers shouldn't attack unless they have a reasonable chance of taking down their target, there should be a chance that these clowns just can't marshal up enough support to, say, take on the HRE in 900. The game does not allow for that; instead, if an adventurer wants to win against some arbitrarily large realm, the game just hands them a bunch of troops, probably enough to do the job, no strings attached. I'm all for difficulty in games, but this is an example of *false difficulty* - just having random doomstacks spawn, sometimes right in your capital, just to fuck with the player. The inability to deal with them through 'other means' (imprisonment or assassination) is clearly not part of intended play, either; I don't think that PI considered that as a factor to begin with, and hasn't fixed it atm due to laziness. It's absolutely ridiculous that you can't imprison an openly treasonous vassal without incurring an opinion malus.
To be frank(ish), those of you who are arguing in favor of the current adventurer system are just arguing in favor of a lower quality, less polished game. Nobody wants the *idea* of them to go away. There are folks who just see the system as unworkable and want to deep-six the whole thing, and there are folks who want to see it made more realistic and immersive, with plots and gathering support and so on. Then there's you guys, who think that random difficulty is a good thing. I can't agree with that.
They're still an absolutely derpy mechanic. While it's reasonable that, barring Imbecile trait, adventurers shouldn't attack unless they have a reasonable chance of taking down their target, there should be a chance that these clowns just can't marshal up enough support to, say, take on the HRE in 900. The game does not allow for that; instead, if an adventurer wants to win against some arbitrarily large realm, the game just hands them a bunch of troops, probably enough to do the job, no strings attached. I'm all for difficulty in games, but this is an example of *false difficulty* - just having random doomstacks spawn, sometimes right in your capital, just to fuck with the player. The inability to deal with them through 'other means' (imprisonment or assassination) is clearly not part of intended play, either; I don't think that PI considered that as a factor to begin with, and hasn't fixed it atm due to laziness. It's absolutely ridiculous that you can't imprison an openly treasonous vassal without incurring an opinion malus.
To be frank(ish), those of you who are arguing in favor of the current adventurer system are just arguing in favor of a lower quality, less polished game. Nobody wants the *idea* of them to go away. There are folks who just see the system as unworkable and want to deep-six the whole thing, and there are folks who want to see it made more realistic and immersive, with plots and gathering support and so on. Then there's you guys, who think that random difficulty is a good thing. I can't agree with that.
