Paradox: Please remove Shattered Retreat and Coalitions

[Kain2K]

The problem is that it occurs even if that isn't the case.

Agreed, but that is something that falls into the category "needs to be tweaked".

 

[Ritmas]

If you are trying to convince me, that medieval times were filled with hundreds of 5k vs 100 battles, because one army is chasing another - we have nothing to discuss

So it was the slaugthered army with 0morale simply remained in order, became supersonic fast and invicible while traveling 600km in random direction that happened?

 

[DeadHalf]

To call something ahistorical is no argument in a game. It is gameplay that stands above all, not historical accuracy, even though this is a historical game, it is still a game. And I find it rather arrogant to claim that something makes the game unplayable, when the expansion was released only yesterday. Just wait a bit and adapt your strategies, if in two or three weeks you still think the that the new features do not work like they should you have every right to criticise, but this is ridiculous.

I think Pdox stated often enough that history is a poor argument when it comes to a game. And the term "unplayable" is no argument at all. If CK2 does not start ist is unplayable, if you can't end a story quest in a game it is unplayable, but not because a feature does not work like you want it to.

Coalitions and shattered retreat make the game terrible. To say that we have to wait and see to complain about it is ridiculous, because those mechanics existed in EU4, and were widely hated in that game as well. They make the game unplayable insofar as if I wasn't able to play the game without them, I would never play it again. That's not an empty whine either. I don't play EU4 specifically because it has those mechanics. They're that awful.

 

[CassCD]

Paradox is lucky it has a near-monopoly on "historical" grand strategy games (if you can call global cross-cultural world wars in 1200 "historical"), because for some reason they have this wish to see people play the game THEIR way. I gave Conclave a good review initially, but the coalition mechanic is a big no, so I ended up asking for a refund and reverting to a previous version of the game. Sadly, like with EU4, I have reached the limit for which I can be bothered to put up with Paradox´s railroading. And I am sad because both for "Cossacks" and for "Conclave", I simply love some of the new features. Sadly, they are lumped together with some nasty ahistorical game-wrecking drivel, which is usually in the free patch, not giving players a choice.

I can live with shattered retreat, but will never buy or use a version that gives you infamy if you attack opponents of other religions or has global scale coalitions a la EU4 (they are ahistorical even then, let alone in a medieval themed game).

Getting used to doesn't mean those features makes sense what so ever, especially in this timeframe. At best, shattered retreat should be only possible for retinues and infamy straight up removed and actually make devs work on alliance system that could somewhat represent some kind of coalition that would be possible in the time period.

I"ll answer your both with a quote from Wiz that I believe is extremely applicable here:

To qualify that statement: Realism is not a meaningful argument in itself. What matters is the overall level of immersion, which would clearly be broken if we added bunny samurai casting ice magic. The reason I 'spam' this phrase is because people seem to think that if they just point out how a particular mechanic is not 100% realistic, that is a sufficient argument to change that mechanic, but they only ever do it selectively for mechanics they personally dislike, and because we're talking about a game here you can always find a reason to call something unrealistic.

Plenty of people will disagree with the sentiment, of course, but it is what it is and that's not going to change.

 

[durbal]

Agreed, but that is something that falls into the category "needs to be tweaked".

Who are you replying to? I never said the game was unplayable. I said it was ridiculous.

 

[Fork Breaker]

You'll be dismissed out of hand because you just joined. Welcome to the Forums...

But I've played the game for years though? Just haven't registered here.

 

[Perico del Puñalico]

I started to play the patch with an old saved game where I had just inherited the Roman Empire. I have won an independence civil war and my Infamy went directly to 100% (winning the independece war has a weight of 4951.54%, LOL) and every single realm of the map joined a coalition against me.

Not expanding, just defending from independences.

I think this should be fixed.

 

[philanthropic19]

Here is a quote from Birken about Paradox's future plans about the infamy system in CK2:

There's an effect called change_infamy, it won't be in the game until 2.5.2 though. Infamy gain and thresholds are controlled from defines though, so there's some control in 2.5.1
2.5.2 also features infamy scaling based on the cb used.

PS: I've been following the threads about infamy and coalition mechanics... haven't bought Conclave yet. I wanted to read people's opinions whether these mechanics were well done or not.

 

[durbal]

I don't think change_infamy will do much besides scale infamy gain and deterioration. The problem is that it's not regional, cultural, and/or religion-specific.

 

[p0sTpWnEd]

My wife and I started a game up last night. We have all the expansions to both this game and EU4. I can honestly say that this was the first time we didn't really have much fun playing...

Bottom line: If Paradox wants to make the game more challenging, I fully support that. But if they do it in a way that just kills the fun of the game (hint: chasing lightning-fast armies around Europe - armies you've already defeated 10 times - to desperately try to win a war 3% at a time is not fun) then I can't say I'm interested.

 

[philanthropic19]

I don't think change_infamy will do much besides scale infamy gain and deterioration. The problem is that it's not regional, cultural, and/or religion-specific.

Totally agree with you. Coalitions in CK2 seem like a good thing BUT THEY MUST be limited by religion, culture, region etc. These factors are the bread and butter of CK2 and any mechanic in the game simply must not ignore these.

 

[Kenlin]

I don't understand the point of coalitions since they don't even stop blobs -- they're entirely defensive, unlike the EU4 ones. In this game they're just speedbumps.

But slowing down blobbing slows down blobbing. When your blobbing is stymied, someone else can blob up alongside you, and their blob now becomes a challenge to your blob.

So speedbumps stop blobbing.

 

[durbal]

But slowing down blobbing slows down blobbing. When your blobbing is stymied, someone else can blob up alongside you, and their blob now becomes a challenge to your blob.

So speedbumps stop blobbing.

Can't tell if serious.

 

[Kenlin]

Can't tell if serious.

Rude.

The problem with blobs is that blobbing begets blobbing - it is a feedback cycle. By introducing a braking mechanism into the cycle, a new counterblobbing mechanism can rear its head.

If I'm trapped between the HRE and the Umayyads, I can't blob like I can if I'm nomads surrounded by one county tribes. The braking mechanism has the effect of equalising the sizes of blobs in the long run, which makes for a more interesting and tactical endgame.

Whether that is what is currently occurring in game is debatable, but the argument that it takes a blob to stop a blob is sound (which does not preclude the possibility of blobs also collapsing in on themselves as an alternative mechanism).

 

[durbal]

The braking mechanism has the effect of equalising the sizes of blobs in the long run, which makes for a more interesting and tactical endgame.

Still can't tell if serious.

 

[Kenlin]

Still can't tell if serious.

Rude again. You're clearly not interested in discussing the mechanic at all.

 

[Teije]

Coalitions and shattered retreat make the game terrible. To say that we have to wait and see to complain about it is ridiculous, because those mechanics existed in EU4, and were widely hated in that game as well. They make the game unplayable insofar as if I wasn't able to play the game without them, I would never play it again. That's not an empty whine either. I don't play EU4 specifically because it has those mechanics. They're that awful.

Widely hated is an overstatement. They were badly implemented at first, but now both those mechanics are quite sensibly implemented in EUIV and are good parts of the game. No more retreats across half of Asia and coalitions form under reasonable conditions only. The game is definitely richer because those features exist.

So the issue here in how these features have been implemented in CK2 apparently. (Can't speak from personal experience, as haven't played enough of Conclave as yet). Unfortunate that the lessons learned over multiple patches in EUIV haven't been applied here, but they will be in time I'm sure.

 

[Fork Breaker]

To call something ahistorical is no argument in a game. It is gameplay that stands above all, not historical accuracy, even though this is a historical game.

This is one, very subjective opinion. I disagree with you strongly on this point. Would you enjoy the game as much if the gameplay was exactly the same except it had Ninja zombies with guns? Because I sure wouldn't. Why? Well not because of the gameplay, that's for sure. In fact, having these undead machine-gun Ninjas might prove to be very interesting gameplay-wise, and allow the player to employ some very unorthodox strategies with both great pros and cons. But CK2 is a Medieval grand strategy game, and neither zombie Ninjas nor guns were present in Europe during the Middle Ages. Gameplay cannot always stand above other aspects of a game.

Also, when it comes to this patch, the features aren't that great gameplay-wise either, to be honest.

I find it rather arrogant to claim that something makes the game unplayable, when the expansion was released only yesterday.

I was making these arguments way before the DLC was released (except for the point about features evidently being broken, obviously). My main argument was about the concept of coalitions like the ones in the latest update appearing in a Medieval setting.

I think Pdox stated often enough that history is a poor argument when it comes to a game.

That's their opinion, then. But I don't think implementation of mechanics which do not fit the game's timeline is a good idea. It feels out of place, and in the particular case of coalitions it is an outright unnecessary anti-player feature.

And the term "unplayable" is no argument at all. If CK2 does not start ist is unplayable, if you can't end a story quest in a game it is unplayable, but not because a feature does not work like you want it to.

If a game is unfun because a patch added unbalanced, features which slow down progress to the point where it can become not only unfun, but nigh impossible, "unplayable" is a pretty applicable term.

 

[Matthias_Wlkp]

So it was the slaugthered army with 0morale simply remained in order, became supersonic fast and invicible while traveling 600km in random direction that happened?

Neither happened. and they are not invincible, simply they don't engage in combat. Fact, that you can slaughter an army down to 0 is as unrealistic.

600 km in random direction - completely unrealistic. They would return home or some other point to regroup. However the simplifications used so far make this impossible.

Choosing between two completely ahistorical solutions, I like shattered retreat better, although its far from being perfect.

 

[durbal]

Rude again. You're clearly not interested in discussing the mechanic at all.

Actually I am, but I'm not interested in discussing the merits of it with someone who thinks two blobs declaring wars on each other makes for interesting gameplay. I'm not trying to be rude, but if CK2's ultimate design goal is to have everything naturally devolve into blob-on-blob action (which it currently is at the Empire stage and Paradox seem trying to remedy) then I'd rather play something else.