Change Knights to Companions (plz read!)

[Woifee]

I’m quite sure plenty of kings had companions and also sword fencing played a huge part in their relationship

 

[Olden Weiss]

I’m quite sure plenty of kings had companions and also sword fencing played a huge part in their relationship

I believe you're confusing the medieval knight with the Sacred Band of Thebes.

 

[Karlington]

I’m quite sure plenty of kings had companions and also sword fencing played a huge part in their relationship

Alright, settle down there, Lady Olenna...

 

[Tukata]

Companions would be even worse, as in medieval times it was a word more generally associated with masonry or craftmanship.
Knights could be renamed Great Knights I guess.

Why not call them "Champions" or something? Sounds good to me. A king have hundreds of knights but he has only a handful of champions.

 

[Meezermouzer]

Knight retinue was in CKII in a small way and this is how PDX chose to introduce them in a big way. Knights can be courtiers or vassals that you appoint. It might be overly simplistic, but I'm glad they were included. Their inclusion propels role-play forward with actual characters and faces behind all those numbers. And I see the potential in all the new events that can come from this. I for one never really cared for or had any emotional attachment to CKII commanders in my armies. I only cared if I had a family member as a commander and that typically never happened unless I was trying to kill off a heir or an annoying vassal. It was a purge mechanism. I think character knights give more meaning to battles and careless choices. Also, Knight limit isn't finite, it changes based off various factors so we won't really know what the upper limit is--but we will soon.

 

[Karlington]

Knight retinue was in CKII in a small way and this is how PDX chose to introduce them in a big way. Knights can be courtiers or vassals that you appoint. It might be overly simplistic, but I'm glad they were included. Their inclusion propels role-play forward with actual characters and faces behind all those numbers. And I see the potential in all the new events that can come from this. I for one never really cared for or had any emotional attachment to CKII commanders in my armies. I only cared if I had a family member as a commander and that typically never happened unless I was trying to kill off a heir or an annoying vassal. It was a purge mechanism. I think character knights give more meaning to battles and careless choices. Also, Knight limit isn't finite, it changes based off various factors so we won't really know what the upper limit is--but we will soon.

CK3 still has commanders filling the same function as in CK2. The main difference is that each army only has one commander instead of three.

Knights are not a replacement for commanders, they are an entirely new thing.

 

[Riamus]

I for one never really cared for or had any emotional attachment to CKII commanders in my armies. I only cared if I had a family member as a commander and that typically never happened unless I was trying to kill off a heir or an annoying vassal. It was a purge mechanism. I think character knights give more meaning to battles and careless choices.

Agreed. It got to where I just enabled the auto-fill commanders checkbox and called it good. Except when I felt I needed a real boost to my armies, I didn't bother with choosing commanders overall or per-army (other than I'd often grab the best 2 to join my own character as commander of an army to give more strength to where my character was). Other than that, they had so little value to me that I didn't really pay any attention to them. I also feel that the knights mechanic will make them more interesting and make me want to pay attention to them.

 

[uleslaw]

What about Badasses?

 

[Froggie]

Are we going to see African Tribal Knights then?

 

[Atalvyr]

I think combined with the Warfare legacy there will be an interesting case for having family members take the added risk of knighthood. With the +2 prowess, it will boost you armies a fair bit if you can get an average increase of around that to your knights.

 

[Provenance]

Retainer is probably the best choice. It matches the concept of CK3 knights and has the advantage of being a widely applicable term from a historical perspective. Thus there would be no need for potentially dubious cultural or religious localizations. Just make it Champions for tribal rulers and something like Captains for Republics.

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

Are we going to see African Tribal Knights then?

CK3 knights have names depending on the culture.

 

[Saman Wilson]

CK3 knights have names depending on the culture.

Do you have an example? I have not seen this anywhere yet.

 

[Saman Wilson]

I still think the name "Knights" for that particular section of the game is horrible since it is NOT actually representing the numbers of knights in your army or in the battle for that matter (as they have said so). They should come up with a better name. Paradox I hope you see the flaw in it!

 

[Atalvyr]

Do you have an example? I have not seen this anywhere yet.

In the stream you can see that the Muslim knights are called Furusiyya or something along those lines. I believe we have also seen Champion for one of the pagan tribes.

 

[Karlington]

In the stream you can see that the Muslim knights are called Furusiyya or something along those lines. I believe we have also seen Champion for one of the pagan tribes.

I have definitely seen champion so I can vouch for that.

 

[Curtisp5286]

I think the argument that the knights do not represent the true number of knights that a medieval ruler would have is silly. You could say this about almost any set of in game characters.

Do the number of Barons reflect the true number of barons in an area? Maybe the should be renamed to Land Overseers.

Do the number of courtiers really reflect the true number courtiers? They should be renamed to Special Guest Persons.

You literally could go on and on like this. It’s a game. There are certain things that are going to be representative for gameplay purposes.

 

[Kapitalisti]

Modding localizations was probably the second easiest (easiest being flags when you had a model ready) things to mod in CK2 so I'd expect the same from CK3. So you can change "knight" into "ultimate warrior 3000" pretty easily. As for knights, I'm fine with the term here.

 

[Woifee]

Modding localizations was probably the second easiest (easiest being flags when you had a model ready) things to mod in CK2 so I'd expect the same from CK3. So you can change "knight" into "ultimate warrior 3000" pretty easily. As for knights, I'm fine with the term here.

I make them Knight Rider and give them a Hasselhoff Model.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Do you have an example? I have not seen this anywhere yet.

Literally on the previous page of this thread.

Actualy, name "knights" only used for christian Europe, other cultures have different names - from what was shown "champions" and "shoorveers"(indian equivalent). +that's NOT all of your knights, just notable ones.