Regardless of release standards, at least they won't erase CK from history like they tried with my favourite games... WotR and WotV
- 1
- 1
Anybody think things are going too well?
- Thread starter Dave0718
- Start date
-
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.
In CK2 you could fiddle around with retinues, commanders, sub-commanders and tactics but 95% of the time the winner in a battle was the one with the bigger doomstack. In CK3 it appears you have much more control on the outcome of a battle with men-at-arms/knight compositions, counters, terrain, advantage and combat width. However it remains to be seen if any of these mechanics mean anything and the combat will also come down who has the bigger army.
- 33
- 2
- 2
Men-at-arms are just the new retinues, counters are in CK2 as "tactical affinities", terrain matters in CK2 as well, advantage is an extremely simplified version of tactics. Knights and combat width are new though which will be interesting. Still, commanders only have 1 commander trait now instead of multiple commander traits on top of the fact that regular traits could give combat bonuses. There's only one flank now and no morale. I'm not sure about skirmish and melee phases anymore, I thought they said they weren't in, but it looks like in combat from the live stream you could see both phases.
Replacing tactics with advantage though is the big thing. It's not nearly as immersive to me or it seems not nearly as flexible as the tactics system. Tactics are basically a dice roll to begin with, it just didn't feel like one if you got composition, commander traits/martial/culture right. Advantage seems way less flexible. Why do you think you have "much more control" now?
- 12
- 4
- 1
Regardless of release standards, at least they won't erase CK from history like they tried with my favourite games... WotR and WotV
Online-only games all run this risk.
- 9
Guys,we have to sneak into paradox hq and make the game bad ourselves!
Then we can all be smug and say "we told you" to people that were excited!
It's the perfect plan!
Then we can all be smug and say "we told you" to people that were excited!
It's the perfect plan!
- 8
- 6
- 5
- 2
There are four factors working in our favor. This is Paradox big cash cow. They are fresh off the disaster of Imperator. They have had a fairly long development cycle. This the same team that is fresh off the success of Holy Fury. Now that doesn't have to mean jack crap. But those are compelling variables for why Paradox won't screw this up. It could still come out a buggy unplayable mess. We don't know. But on paper there are realistic variables to suggest we might have a solid release here.
Last edited:
- 15
- 6
- 1
I wouldn’t worry too much about it. It’s not worse than CK2 and it puts across something a little more different than its predecessor. Also if anything... I see a war DLC in the not too distant future.
- 5
- 2
- 2
Hurr durr bigger doomstuck... Take this. Right commanders+subcommanders+ luckly tactic and doomstuck is wiped. And it's happend in most of my battles, victory through right commanders, terrain and tactic/retinue. More control? Don't think so. MaA is just retinue 2.0. But now i can't even control my levy comp, they just all trash. Knights? Yeah, i would love have some space marines who can do 50+ kills in single battle, can't decline this. Counters? Simplified tactics. Terrain? It was in CK2 all along. Advantage? It's basically just dice roll with +% to damage. Combat width? Good, but CK2 have narrow flank what play same role.
On bright side, sieges in CK3 seems better than in CK2 largely due to new siege mechines retinues.
Attachments
- 16
- 4
- 2
- 1
- 1
Not sure how people are viewing the new combat system as less immersive. I much prefer being able to specifically choose which types of troops I have as men-at-arms. Also there was no proper counter system in CK2 - it depended on your entire flank being the right composition to get the correct tactics. At least now pikes will counter cavalry regardless of if they have knights or archers with them.
- 8
- 3
- 1
- 1
Mmm-hmm. They meant to tell me that they set a release date and the game actually happens to release on that date? On the first attempt? Naah... there's something fishy going on there...
In all seriousness, it's pretty sad to see this kind of question. Understandable, now when everything gets delayed and then delayed some more, but sad nonethless.
In all seriousness, it's pretty sad to see this kind of question. Understandable, now when everything gets delayed and then delayed some more, but sad nonethless.
- 3
- 1
I hope that would be true this time, but i better know another version: "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment "
- 5
- 3
- 2
- 1
And in the same raid we could see if they are developing vicky 3, its a win win
- 8
- 3
- 1
- 1
I hate hope
everyone I know hates hope
I truly believe the whole population of my country hates hope
everyone I know hates hope
I truly believe the whole population of my country hates hope
- 2
- 1
- 1
No unique byz gov, no steppe nomads, expanded all the way down to ivory Coast and Burma, bugs in stream show lack of quality testing beforehand. I don't see how this can't go terribly on release
- 19
- 4
- 2
- 1
I mean, of course there will be some bugs, and some features may be a bit underwhelming once we put our hands on it.
But overall, I'd like to remind everyone of the importance of the game designers' vision. When you listen to the interviews, when you read the dev diaries, you can see clearly that CK3 is a project that was thought as a whole, as a big game that should be accessible but complex, that would portray history in a certain way but remain focused on character fiction.
I think it's very important to be reminded of this, because it's the kind of vision that makes strategy games great. It's not just a vague "we'll make the same game but better" or "I want to make another niche GS game" or even "I will mix that game with this one and of course it will work!". No, it's a whole realistic vision driven by years of experience and enhanced by the efforts of many people who excel in their areas of expertise, and who had the time to work on it.
Some people will obviously feel the need to focus on the disappearance of unique governments for nomads or the ERE, or on naval combat. But they completely miss the big vision, which is ultimately what makes CK fun - the core mechanics of the game, instead of very specific subfeatures that aren't anything more than small variations in the big picture. And we know that the core mechanics of CK, which are relatively unchanged, are great. We can see that hooks and the new faith system make the game only better. We can see that the new combat mechanics only make them clearer and characters more important. And troops more diverse. The simple fact that combat now makes sense should be enough for everyone, really.
I would add to this that I'm fairly confident in my guts when it comes to games. I knew Imperator would be awful. I knew Stellaris would remain a mess if they didn't rework the AI a short time after release. I'm never kickstarted (one of the firsts to kickstart DOS) or bought a game in early access (like Battle Brothers, again one of the firsts) that didn't become a hit. I'm convinced that games have qualities that you can see even before they are released when you read interviews from the devs or when you read a bunch of dev diaries.
By experience I also know that there are always people who focus on a few things that are changed for the better but that they decided to dislike because they preferred the obscure, easily exploitable previous versions. Don't give to much credit to these people.
But overall, I'd like to remind everyone of the importance of the game designers' vision. When you listen to the interviews, when you read the dev diaries, you can see clearly that CK3 is a project that was thought as a whole, as a big game that should be accessible but complex, that would portray history in a certain way but remain focused on character fiction.
I think it's very important to be reminded of this, because it's the kind of vision that makes strategy games great. It's not just a vague "we'll make the same game but better" or "I want to make another niche GS game" or even "I will mix that game with this one and of course it will work!". No, it's a whole realistic vision driven by years of experience and enhanced by the efforts of many people who excel in their areas of expertise, and who had the time to work on it.
Some people will obviously feel the need to focus on the disappearance of unique governments for nomads or the ERE, or on naval combat. But they completely miss the big vision, which is ultimately what makes CK fun - the core mechanics of the game, instead of very specific subfeatures that aren't anything more than small variations in the big picture. And we know that the core mechanics of CK, which are relatively unchanged, are great. We can see that hooks and the new faith system make the game only better. We can see that the new combat mechanics only make them clearer and characters more important. And troops more diverse. The simple fact that combat now makes sense should be enough for everyone, really.
I would add to this that I'm fairly confident in my guts when it comes to games. I knew Imperator would be awful. I knew Stellaris would remain a mess if they didn't rework the AI a short time after release. I'm never kickstarted (one of the firsts to kickstart DOS) or bought a game in early access (like Battle Brothers, again one of the firsts) that didn't become a hit. I'm convinced that games have qualities that you can see even before they are released when you read interviews from the devs or when you read a bunch of dev diaries.
By experience I also know that there are always people who focus on a few things that are changed for the better but that they decided to dislike because they preferred the obscure, easily exploitable previous versions. Don't give to much credit to these people.
- 19
- 5
- 3
Watched the stream but also read the news/dev diaries and after the 1st stream I decided to buy the royal edition bc the game looks very smooth and I am falling in love with the entire graphics overhaul. Also I spotted one or two things that excited me.
- 4
- 2