The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
Well, the Varangians were from pretty far north, and they easily could end up fighting in deserts...Hopefully we won't get desert experts in Scandinavia
Doesn't this happen in the archer's phase? Then, it is quite realisticaly acceptable imo, since you have the following: imagine those doomstacks having many many archer companies that would insta-hit all or almost all of the defenders, while themselves would be under the cover of a tortoise type formation made by the rest of thousand of soldiers. The thing is that those 500-1000 don't really get in melee combat, where they would indeed be able to kill opponents at a close to 1:1 ratio.While you're rebalancing combat PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE cap the numerical advantage factor at something.
What I mean is, if an attacker with 10k troops fights a defender who only has 500 troops, the 500 troops are killed at a rate that assumes all 10k of the enemy are on the same battlefield attacking them.
Now we could assume that 10k troops could surround the 500 but there is still only around 500 men worth of surface volume, and the defenders aren't going to take it lying down.
You'll know what I mean if you get a huge doomstack of 20k troops and roll over a 500 man army and lose some ridiculously low number of men. I'm pretty sure I've fought a battle killing hundreds of men and losing only 5, and that just doesn't happen.
So please reconsider the logic, remember surface volume. If you outnumber your enemy by hundreds of thousands of men and they only have 1000 men defending, you should still expect to lose hundreds of men, but in CK2 you lose like 1 man or none at all.
This is partly why empires are so powerful, they make the biggest doomstacks and your combat system isn't logical.
You had already DD with retinues, not much is added to the DLC, this and some events IIRC. Rest is basing on free patch features.I don't mean to be negative (only a little bit) but when are we gonna hear about features that a related to Rome?? So far we've almost exclusively heard about 1.07... It's hardly a legacy of Rome dev diary.
I'm really looking forward to 1.07, but I'd love to hear more about features for LoR![]()
Well, they did say that a lot of the Byzantine specific stuff would be in the DLC, and that they'll be talking Orthodoxy next week, so there's a chance.You had already DD with retinues, not much is added to the DLC, this and some events IIRC. Rest is basing on free patch features.
tthis is basically the combat width mechanic from the hearts of iron series. The devs probably consciously didn't incorporate it ingame for simplicity's sakeWhile you're rebalancing combat PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE cap the numerical advantage factor at something.
What I mean is, if an attacker with 10k troops fights a defender who only has 500 troops, the 500 troops are killed at a rate that assumes all 10k of the enemy are on the same battlefield attacking them.
Now we could assume that 10k troops could surround the 500 but there is still only around 500 men worth of surface volume, and the defenders aren't going to take it lying down.
You'll know what I mean if you get a huge doomstack of 20k troops and roll over a 500 man army and lose some ridiculously low number of men. I'm pretty sure I've fought a battle killing hundreds of men and losing only 5, and that just doesn't happen.
So please reconsider the logic, remember surface volume. If you outnumber your enemy by hundreds of thousands of men and they only have 1000 men defending, you should still expect to lose hundreds of men, but in CK2 you lose like 1 man or none at all.
This is partly why empires are so powerful, they make the biggest doomstacks and your combat system isn't logical.
Ditto.Can culture buildings not dissolve when a ruler of a different culture takes over? [unless rebels or other events take them out]
Or maybe just tie the construction to the province culture?
Everything else looks fine to me.
Having everyone in the front line is the root cause of the "numbers trumps everything else" issue. If every soldier is on the front line then the power of an army is proportional to the square of its numbers. Adding extra random elements (tactics) and military abilities (traits) does introduce more randomness, but it doesn't really get to the root cause.Shouldn't a 500 man army facing a 20k army instantly surrender or rout (ie disperse) if its not behind fortifications in this period?
That said, provided the smaller army is decently sized (about 10k), its true there should be a limit on the numerical advantage especially on the defensive, as the larger army would have difficulty deploying its numbers (and if the first part of the fighting went badly, the remainder of the army tended to withdraw/rout).
I would like to see a winter expert! And then make that trait common for pagans in northern scandinavia, finland and russia.
Yes please to all of these, especially the winter expert (winter wolf)! If you could make sure that this is a really common trait amongst the pagan around the Baltic Sea it would have the really sweet side-effect that they'd be less of a punching bag ~4 months of every year (i.e. slowing down their conquest).Maybe Characters can learn these leadership traits like in HOI3, while in command of a flank.
Also maybe add a Siege Engineer trait to speed up sieges.
The Lanchester square law only applies to ranged combat with aimed weapons. Because most of the combat in this game is melee, Paradox might want to consider a system where targets are assigned before hits are calculated.Having everyone in the front line is the root cause of the "numbers trumps everything else" issue. If every soldier is on the front line then the power of an army is proportional to the square of its numbers. Adding extra random elements (tactics) and military abilities (traits) does introduce more randomness, but it doesn't really get to the root cause.
Exactly! I didn't realise that someone had invented a law for this sort of thingThe Lanchester square law only applies to ranged combat with aimed weapons. Because most of the combat in this game is melee, Paradox might want to consider a system where targets are assigned before hits are calculated.