Crusader Kings 2 merged with Mount and Blade: Warband

[nyah]

Seeing as this is already at the top of the list a groan can't hurt. Is there any way to bump a thread back down?

 

[knppel]

Seeing as this is already at the top of the list a groan can't hurt. Is there any way to bump a thread back down?

:glare:

 

[unmerged(271387)]

I wouldn't like this practically.Continuing battles can get tedious and especially with those peasant rebels where you would get unnecessary pop ups to "lead your great army ,m' lord!".And there would be other problems too,like the AI not being good enough to give a serious challenge without mods and the massive slowdown that would be caused by the battles that would happen around the CK2 map continuosly.
But it is a nice dream.But for most of the present time it will be kept a dream.It will most likely happen when each human has super-computers in the far future so that the AI can both be challenging and not cause a massive slow-down and Paradox has the technology and money to weld two not-similar games.

 

[riknap]

O reallly? You should have told this to Kasparov when he was playing chess with Deep Blue. You are such a smart guy.

chess has relatively simple mechanics that can easily be both brute-force computed and used with heurestics.

most modern computer games use stuff like sub-routines and variable triggers that cannot match a player when running at a playable speed at an average CPU simply because they cannot crank out enough scenarios to perfectly counteract the player's actions. the more features are added, the less efficient the AI is.
games where the AI performs exceptionally well include Gal Civ which is both turn-based and has relatively simple chess-like mechanics (ie. in terms of variety and implementation) - the important thing is that it's turn-based, ie. the AI can "think" its moves (ie. crank out scenarios fast enough) while real-time AI will be at a disadvantage (to get a feel of how the AI is at a disadvantage, just run CK2 at the fourth speed setting and no pausing in the middle of multiple wars and an intentional resource handicap).

 

[Slaxl]

No one saying "no" has done so with a good reason. Total war's bad AI, M&B's bugs, powerful computers necessary are not reasons to say no. Since this isn't going to happen any time soon you can rest assured if it does happen you'll be playing it on a computer so powerful that your current PC looks like an old Amstrad CPC 464.

I wouldn't like this practically.Continuing battles can get tedious and especially with those peasant rebels where you would get unnecessary pop ups to "lead your great army ,m' lord!".And there would be other problems too,like the AI not being good enough to give a serious challenge without mods and the massive slowdown that would be caused by the battles that would happen around the CK2 map continuosly.
But it is a nice dream.But for most of the present time it will be kept a dream.It will most likely happen when each human has super-computers in the far future so that the AI can both be challenging and not cause a massive slow-down and Paradox has the technology and money to weld two not-similar games.

You wouldn't have to fight every battle. Like in CK2 you would appoint others to lead if you felt they were better, or you were too far away (no instant travel), so it need never get annoying. If this does ever happen (sadly I doubt), then it'd be far enough in the future it'd run on PC's that AI and other stuff will be much improved.

Also I think they are similar games. If you just play one of the Europe world mods for M&B:Wb then you're already a huge step closer. If we gloss over the fact that you have to start low and work your way up, wheras in CK2 you can start high, what do you do in M&B once you're a ruler? You appoint courtiers to positions of power, you balance war and diplomacy with neighbours, you seek to expand your personal territories for greater income, and reward leal servants with fiefdoms of their own. They are very similar. When I'm playing CK2 my guy is wandering around as he would in M&B in my head. It's why certain abstractions of CK2 annoy me so. Such as instant diplomacy, seeing map changes as they happen, being able to instantly go from Iceland to Persia, battles that last months etc.

Yes, the core game in CK2 is establish a dynasty, while in M&B you can't have kids, (I don't think, somehow no one ever wants to marry me ), and the core game is conquest, that doesn't mean they can't be similar. It also means that if they were mixed then you would be creating a dynasty.

I know it'll never get made, but if it would be made it would appeal to all groups, even those saying no, because they're imagining the wrong thing. You need to see my imagination, trust me, it's awesome in there.

 

[Thiomay]

Also I think they are similar games. If you just play one of the Europe world mods for M&B:Wb then you're already a huge step closer. If we gloss over the fact that you have to start low and work your way up, wheras in CK2 you can start high, what do you do in M&B once you're a ruler? You appoint courtiers to positions of power, you balance war and diplomacy with neighbours, you seek to expand your personal territories for greater income, and reward leal servants with fiefdoms of their own. They are very similar. When I'm playing CK2 my guy is wandering around as he would in M&B in my head. It's why certain abstractions of CK2 annoy me so. Such as instant diplomacy, seeing map changes as they happen, being able to instantly go from Iceland to Persia, battles that last months etc...

I know it'll never get made, but if it would be made it would appeal to all groups, even those saying no, because they're imagining the wrong thing. You need to see my imagination, trust me, it's awesome in there.

The two games are simpler only in theme. I would love a game that combines the to but just because it could be great doesn't mean it has to be executed perfectly. Insta travel is a perfect example of that, the two games have an entirely different pace. The RPG perspectiv of M&B feels great at the start but at some point when your King you don't want to micro manage everything and you want the interface easier and faster to read. The movement speed of an all cavalary-party may be okay but when you have a large party with few horses and your'e not catching any bandit partys on the way travaling can get very boring. To find a way to merge the games is essentially making a new game.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

No one saying "no" has done so with a good reason. Total war's bad AI, M&B's bugs, powerful computers necessary are not reasons to say no. Since this isn't going to happen any time soon you can rest assured if it does happen you'll be playing it on a computer so powerful that your current PC looks like an old Amstrad CPC 464.



You wouldn't have to fight every battle. Like in CK2 you would appoint others to lead if you felt they were better, or you were too far away (no instant travel), so it need never get annoying. If this does ever happen (sadly I doubt), then it'd be far enough in the future it'd run on PC's that AI and other stuff will be much improved.

Also I think they are similar games. If you just play one of the Europe world mods for M&B:Wb then you're already a huge step closer. If we gloss over the fact that you have to start low and work your way up, wheras in CK2 you can start high, what do you do in M&B once you're a ruler? You appoint courtiers to positions of power, you balance war and diplomacy with neighbours, you seek to expand your personal territories for greater income, and reward leal servants with fiefdoms of their own. They are very similar. When I'm playing CK2 my guy is wandering around as he would in M&B in my head. It's why certain abstractions of CK2 annoy me so. Such as instant diplomacy, seeing map changes as they happen, being able to instantly go from Iceland to Persia, battles that last months etc.

Yes, the core game in CK2 is establish a dynasty, while in M&B you can't have kids, (I don't think, somehow no one ever wants to marry me ), and the core game is conquest, that doesn't mean they can't be similar. It also means that if they were mixed then you would be creating a dynasty.

I know it'll never get made, but if it would be made it would appeal to all groups, even those saying no, because they're imagining the wrong thing. You need to see my imagination, trust me, it's awesome in there.

People have given plenty of good reasons, but the most important one (which I explained in more detail earlier in this thread) is that most Paradox fans want to play grand strategy games, not grand strategy/tactical battles hybrid. And like I said earlier tactical battles would take away focus from grand strategy. In most games where there are both you end up spending most of your time in tactical battles and strategy part becomes just a preparation stage for your next battle. Worst thing is that you end up fighting meaningless battles even if you don't want to, because it's the only way to make sure that your side wins. And strategy part suffers, because constant tactical battles disrupt the flow of the strategy game. Personally I think that Paradox has improved battle mechanics of CKII a lot since I last wrote to this thread and this is the way I want to see battles improved even further instead of adding tactical battles which don't really fit into the game.

 

[soulfreezer]

Exactly, I stopped playing Total War games because those tactical battles where starting to get repetitive and boring. And as you said, you were kind of forced to play those battles, because it was the only way to make sure that you didn't take unnecessary losses.
I agree that this game is better without tactical battles.

 

[Chevaresqye]

People have given plenty of good reasons, but the most important one (which I explained in more detail earlier in this thread) is that most Paradox fans want to play grand strategy games, not grand strategy/tactical battles hybrid. And like I said earlier tactical battles would take away focus from grand strategy. In most games where there are both you end up spending most of your time in tactical battles and strategy part becomes just a preparation stage for your next battle. Worst thing is that you end up fighting meaningless battles even if you don't want to, because it's the only way to make sure that your side wins. And strategy part suffers, because constant tactical battles disrupt the flow of the strategy game. Personally I think that Paradox has improved battle mechanics of CKII a lot since I last wrote to this thread and this is the way I want to see battles improved even further instead of adding tactical battles which don't really fit into the game.

The thing that makes CKII so popular isn't its strategy aspect but the sensation of personal involvement. You are able to play a strategy game from a personal view point, and that is revolutionary. The exact same thing happens in Mount & Blade, a game where you do not have to role-playing, you can be whoever you want without being tied into any role.

In fact, strategy aspect of CKII is the last thing that I worry about, because CKII should be a game for fun, not for win. A side, a strategy player can build their character around stewardship and diplomacy and still able to win the war by their supreme number while staying comfortably in his/her castle. One the other side, an tactical player can max out their martial stat and rush in battle field to gain some tactical win at the risk of losing their ruler. This actually enrichs the dynamic of gameplay.

But last word, I don't think it gonna happen. Combine M&B and CKII will cost as much as making two standalone game, if not more. So what price tag will make sense since its actually two different games glued together?

 

[Olaus Petrus]

The thing that makes CKII so popular isn't its strategy aspect but the sensation of personal involvement. You are able to play a strategy game from a personal view point, and that is revolutionary. The exact same thing happens in Mount & Blade, a game where you do not have to role-playing, you can be whoever you want without being tied into any role.

In fact, strategy aspect of CKII is the last thing that I worry about, because CKII should be a game for fun, not for win. A side, a strategy player can build their character around stewardship and diplomacy and still able to win the war by their supreme number while staying comfortably in his/her castle. One the other side, an tactical player can max out their martial stat and rush in battle field to gain some tactical win at the risk of losing their ruler. This actually enrichs the dynamic of gameplay.

But last word, I don't think it gonna happen. Combine M&B and CKII will cost as much as making two standalone game, if not more. So what price tag will make sense since its actually two different games glued together?

While I admit that dynastic roleplaying aspects of the game appeal to many, there's still a huge crowd who appreciates the game because it's best strategy game there is about the medieval Europe. Only few medieval strategies manage to represent the feudal system so well as Crusader Kings -series does. In similar manner Europa Universalis -series is most detailed and best strategy game series about the early modern period. Personally I enjoy Paradox games because practically every historical faction is in the game and while fighting wars is necessary, diplomacy has much greater role than it has in many other computer strategy games.

 

[Slaxl]

People have given plenty of good reasons, but the most important one (which I explained in more detail earlier in this thread) is that most Paradox fans want to play grand strategy games, not grand strategy/tactical battles hybrid. And like I said earlier tactical battles would take away focus from grand strategy. In most games where there are both you end up spending most of your time in tactical battles and strategy part becomes just a preparation stage for your next battle. Worst thing is that you end up fighting meaningless battles even if you don't want to, because it's the only way to make sure that your side wins. And strategy part suffers, because constant tactical battles disrupt the flow of the strategy game. Personally I think that Paradox has improved battle mechanics of CKII a lot since I last wrote to this thread and this is the way I want to see battles improved even further instead of adding tactical battles which don't really fit into the game.

Trying to understand this makes my head hurt. I don't see how what you're saying is relevant. No one has given a good reason, all they've done is given a list of things to avoid. If it could be made perfectly there'd be none of these issues people raise. I think some people want to give up too quickly. It's the same in other suggestion threads, someone has a great idea, someone else says it won't work because of a minor quibble. There's a solution to every problem. Except the problem of Paradox themselves not wanting to make this game . My own more realistic aspiration is that M&B 2 has more detail in the campaign relationships, options to do, places to go, and isn't focused on multiplayer.

Yes, Paradox has improved every aspect of CK2, but by this point we're talking about a theoretic whole new game, distinct and separate from CK2 and M&B. Not an actual thing that's come about because of gripes with CK2. CK2 is still far and away the best game out there.

 

[unmerged(271387)]

If any game could be done perfectly,no one would raise any issues.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Trying to understand this makes my head hurt. I don't see how what you're saying is relevant. No one has given a good reason, all they've done is given a list of things to avoid. If it could be made perfectly there'd be none of these issues people raise. I think some people want to give up too quickly. It's the same in other suggestion threads, someone has a great idea, someone else says it won't work because of a minor quibble. There's a solution to every problem. Except the problem of Paradox themselves not wanting to make this game . My own more realistic aspiration is that M&B 2 has more detail in the campaign relationships, options to do, places to go, and isn't focused on multiplayer.

Yes, Paradox has improved every aspect of CK2, but by this point we're talking about a theoretic whole new game, distinct and separate from CK2 and M&B. Not an actual thing that's come about because of gripes with CK2. CK2 is still far and away the best game out there.

There's not much to understand in it, it's plain and simple. I don't see how combining as complex strategy game as CKII with tactical battle game could work in a satisfying way. People have mentioned why others who have tried have failed and why the concept wouldn't work. People want to see Paradox continuing to do what they are good at rather than making Tactical Battles DLC or CKIII: Mount & Blade. There's a reason why I prefer playing Paradox grand strategy games instead of King Arthur: The Role-playing Wargame or Total War -series and in my opinion adding Mount & Blade elements to a grand strategy game would make the game worse.

 

[Saranis]

Please keep ALL aspects of action out of my grand strategy games.

 

[Chevaresqye]

I don't see how combining as complex strategy game as CKII with tactical battle game could work in a satisfying way.

There is alway a auto-resolve button for player who do not want to involve in those mess. For multi-player, we can have an "auto-resolve only" mode.

 

[gekomees]

Crusader Kings Dynasty Warriors style?
Crusader Warriors. Slicing up hundreds of infidels at a time! Story mode including many famous historical campaigns and Empire mode, allowing you to choose any* existant country in the time period and strive to become the biggest power in medieval Europe. Between battles manage your kingdom's economy, personal diplomacy and much more. etc etc

*DLC is necessary to play some countries

I'd buy it if it were well executed.

 

[Chevaresqye]

Crusader Kings Dynasty Warriors style?
Crusader Warriors. Slicing up hundreds of infidels at a time! Story mode including many famous historical campaigns and Empire mode, allowing you to choose any* existant country in the time period and strive to become the biggest power in medieval Europe. Between battles manage your kingdom's economy, personal diplomacy and much more. etc etc

*DLC is necessary to play some countries

I'd buy it if it were well executed.

Please delete this post. We don't know what gonna happen once Koei read it...

 

[soulfreezer]

There is alway a auto-resolve button for player who do not want to involve in those mess. For multi-player, we can have an "auto-resolve only" mode.

Auto-resolve doesn't help. Total War has auto-resolve and they still force you to play out the battles yourself, because if you use auto-resolve you take unnecessary losses, especially in siege battles.
I'd rather have a game without tactical battles at all, instead of a game where I either have to choose between fighting tactical battles myself (which I don't like) or getting somehow punished for skipping the battle.

No tactical battles is exactly one of the reasons why I switched from total war games to CK2.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

There is alway a auto-resolve button for player who do not want to involve in those mess. For multi-player, we can have an "auto-resolve only" mode.

The thing is I like how the battles are currently. When I select the army participating to battle I see abstraction of what is going on in battle and can react to that by deciding to retreat or by sending in reinforcements etc. There's two alternatives how tactical battles can be handled in games which move from strategy mode to battle mode; either strategy is on pause while the battle is resolved, which would make it impossible for me to move the other armies while the battle is happening even if it's game is on auto-resolve mode. Or game time doesn't pause while I'm playing the tactical battle, which would mean that while I'm leading some men on a battle map everything else goes horribly wrong because I'm not there giving orders. Ping ponging between the maps could be possible, but it would be confusing especially if there was multiple tactical battles happening at the same time.

When I'm playing a game which has grand strategy scale I don't want battles to be more detailed than those of the Hearts of Iron (there are a lot more variables in HoI battles than there are in CKII battles). While I don't want to see tactical battles in grand strategy, I don't hate tactical battles per se and I have spent many hours playing turn based tactical battle games like Steel Panthers, but I'm not huge fan of real time tactical battle games, although some of those like classic Sid Meier's Gettysburg! can be fun. IMHO tactical scale battles just doesn't fit easily into a strategic scale game.

 

[unmerged(684634)]

Could be neat, I'd enjoy it as an optional feature.