- Sep 15, 2014
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.
Have you considered allowing units to "overflow" combat width by their flanking range? So if combat width was 20, and cav could flank 2 tiles, you could have 20 infantry and 4 cavalry fighting effectively. The primary benefit that makes cavalry worth while is their increased flanking, but this quickly drops off once armies scale to the point that they are at full combat width. This would mitigate that drop off.Personally I think Cav should fulfill a role, like Artillery does within the combat mechanics. I don't think just tweaking pips to be relatively good to their cost would be enough or good.
Let's keep this civil and informed and you'll be taken more seriously.Uh, coalitions are pretty easy to juggle man if you have difficulty managing coalitions I don't know what to tell you besides improve? If you're going for a WC you're easily at -200+ opinion modifiers from AE at many points adding more to that doesn't change the playstyle at all. But the PDX devs don't really understand the basics of their own game so not surprising that they can't understand how truly meaningless those and many other changes are.
In fact I would expect to be well above 100% quite early. The smartest move is probably to keep everything unstated as that will only lead to the dev counting for 25%. Early game with 500 base +25% from admin ideas (+a little extra from techin admin) that means you can have about 1.5k dev before you start building up this modifier. How long does it take you to reach 1.5k dev?Those are still meaningless, by the time you're going 200%, 300%, 400% money, manpower, etc is infinite I can't play most singleplayer games past 1600 because you've already won by that point.
Remove insufficient support penalty. It makes having cavalry heavy armies for countries with a non 100% ratio impossible.Personally I think Cav should fulfill a role, like Artillery does within the combat mechanics. I don't think just tweaking pips to be relatively good to their cost would be enough or good.
Basically you want to go coast and avoid ocean too much.. coast is 1% attrition, open sea 10%. So going from europe to asia is not that bad. going over the ocean you might want to path your way carefully. California to Sydney.. yeah thats bad for manpower. But who in the world transport 40k there.. you'll do it once or twice in the world conquest.After reading the Dev Diary further and coming across the Naval Combat section, I don't know what to say. Am I further disappointed? Is the change any good? Concerning marines in particular and the +5 naval attrition building.
Basically if Britain transports, troops from London to Sydney, regular troops, during peace, that has the potential to wipe out their entire manpower pool? Am I reading this right. So the only logical way to ferry troops is none, ferry marines instead, and if you want to ferry marines then enjoy taking more Shock Damage, it's like you're purposely setting yourself into a Horde like shock phase. Someone please tell me I am reading it wrong. I see no reason why a journey from say California to Sydney of 40,000 regular troops should result in more casualties than troops available.
You might tell me to use marines as spearheads and then building troops on the newly acquired overseas territory after the war. Cool say my forcelimit is 60k, 40k regulars, 20k marines. I manage to claim Sri Lanka as Britain using my marines, all good I saved my manpower by avoiding the ferrying the regulars into the cesspit of manpower. Now I have Sri Lanka in my control, how am I supposed to send my regulars across? Do I build new regulars? I am forcelimit constrained. Do I disband the troops at home? More manpower loss? Someone please explain to me what's going on here.
And with naval attrition buildings so France will lose ships in the channel if Wessex has naval attrition buildings? Do they stack so 5 buildings in 5 provinces in one naval tile, 5x5 = 25 naval attrition???
This is the event bringing up Sharifate of Mecca
View attachment 501100
I liked the idea of having hybrid government. It actually has historical basis:
During the Ottoman period the Emirate was not hereditary, and owed its succession to direct nomination by the Ottoman Porte. A dual system of government existed over the Hejaz for much of this period. Ruling authority was shared between the Emir, a member of the ashraf or descendants of Muhammad, and the Ottoman vali or governor. This system continued until the Arab Revolt of 1916. Apart from the Emirs of Mecca, Ottoman administration in the Hejaz was first at the hands of the Governor of Egypt and then the Governors of Jeddah. The Eyalet of Jeddah was later transformed into the Hejaz Vilayet, with a governor in Mecca.
The Hejaz region was formerly under the Mamluk Sultanate until its defeat and take over by the Ottomans in 1517. In the same year, Sharif Barakat of Mecca acknowledged the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph. When the Sharifs accepted Ottoman sovereignty, the Sultan confirmed them in their position as rulers of the Hejaz. Ottoman authority was only indirect, as the arrangement left real power with the Emir. The Sultan assumed the title of "Hâdimü’l-Haremeyni’ş-Şerifeyn", or Custodian of the Two Holy Cities.
1) you dont reinforce when on a ship.Basically if Britain transports, troops from London to Sydney, regular troops, during peace, that has the potential to wipe out their entire manpower pool? Am I reading this right. So the only logical way to ferry troops is none, ferry marines instead, and if you want to ferry marines then enjoy taking more Shock Damage, it's like you're purposely setting yourself into a Horde like shock phase. Someone please tell me I am reading it wrong. I see no reason why a journey from say California to Sydney of 40,000 regular troops should result in more casualties than troops available.
Especially tall nations which are locked at a specific government rankI think devs should be careful not to unintentionally penalize tall nations (sure this is not the intention right?). Like if I play tall, I only have 3 states but every province are over 40 development, counting around 500 total dev, and suddenly I am penalized for bringing peace and prosperity, just to say.