Paradox: Please remove Shattered Retreat and Coalitions

[Kain2K]

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.

With extremes you can disprove everything. But I wasn't talking of extremes, I was talking of features that make sense from a gameplay perspektiv even though they are not totally historical. If shattered retreat and coalitions fall into this category, is a different story. But in a game, gameplay will always prevail, especially when the feature in question is a suitable addition for the game.

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.

So no need to repeat myself, since your main argument stays the same anyway.

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.

It certainly is no anti player feature, because the ai plays by the same rules.

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.

The features need balancing? Certainly. They slow down player progression? Well, most players I have seen here, are after 200, maybe 300 years, powerful enough to beat everything into oblivion that isn't controlled by a player. You can't blame Paradox to try slowing things down a bit and making the game a bit more difficult. Slower game progression is a poor argument for a game that spans a 700 year timeline, in which, after 300 years, most players do not have any mentionable challenge.

Like I said, the features need improvement, but to claim that they need to be removed because it is unplayable, exaggerates it a bit.

 

[Bortron]

If you haven't figured out by now that chasing shattered armies all over the map is counter productive to winning a war quickly then you are a moron, and should go back to playing something more intellectually appropriate, like Civ.

Granted, these mechanics could use some slight tweaking, but they are actually more realistic than before. That shattered army you see retreating is not a cohesive force you should be able to attack, it just a symbolic representation of a retreating army that is regrouping. Where they retreat to is sometimes a little weird, granted, but that is the only problem. If you ignore the defeated army and siege enemy provinces instead you will defeat the enemy in nearly the same amount of time as before when you would unrealistically chase down the enemy army until you completely annihilate them, which was extremely unrealistic for a time when casualties were relatively light.

As for coalitions, I played all day yesterday and never had a coalition problem. I have played this game for years and my goal when playing is not really about simply painting the map, so I probably won't run into any game breaking problem. It seems to only become an issue when trying to form a large unrealistic empire quickly, so WAD. If someone historically had tried to reform the Roman Empire during this time frame they would have run into coalitions as well. It probably does need some tweaking though, particularly in regards to religious conflicts. I notice some people have reported gaining infamy with Christians for winning crusades, which is a bit strange, but in truth, the mechanic is more about the rapid increase in power that comes with territorial expansion than who you took the territory from. If the Franks had completely annihilated the Islamic Caliphates and occupied their territory during the Crusades the power shift would have brought them plenty of Christian enemies in the aftermath worried they would be conquered next.

 

[philanthropic19]

Pardon my stupid question but I've seen the acronym "WAD" being used in this thread quite a few times. What does it mean? Thanks in advance to whoever replies.

 

[AllThat4Nothing]

Working as Designed, as opposed to Working as Intended.

 

[Leecros]

If you haven't figured out by now that chasing shattered armies all over the map is counter productive to winning a war quickly then you are a moron, and should go back to playing something more intellectually appropriate, like Civ.

Can't we all just get along?

 

[philanthropic19]

Granted, these mechanics could use some slight tweaking, but they are actually more realistic than before. That shattered army you see retreating is not a cohesive force you should be able to attack, it just a symbolic representation of a retreating army that is regrouping. Where they retreat to is sometimes a little weird, granted, but that is the only problem. If you ignore the defeated army and siege enemy provinces instead you will defeat the enemy in nearly the same amount of time as before when you would unrealistically chase down the enemy army until you completely annihilate them, which was extremely unrealistic for a time when casualties were relatively light.

Thank you. That makes complete sense to me. The mechanics definitely need tweaking and that will come for sure in future patches.

 

[AllThat4Nothing]

What if you enjoy both the Civ franchise AND CK2 pre-Shattered?

 

[tylowill]

Read only the first 3 pages of thread.... But I wanted to get my 2 cents in.

Shat. Ret would be awesome if these changes were made:
1. Make the retreats make sense (go to nearest safe county)
2. Retreating army suffers massive attrition penalties until it can regroup in safe county or dissolve (to be re-levied). Attrition should be abatable if Military Org tech is high enough.
3. Speed bonus should be random. (sometimes routed armies were hunted down and slaughtered, sometimes they were able to get away.)
4. Sometimes routing army should split into several groups all going to various safe areas.
-"safe area" is an unoccupied demise of vassal county, or perhaps an allied county.


I have less experience with Coalitions but here are 2 changes:
1. Limit threat range. (Mali and India not threatened by Empire of Ireland.)
2. Limit coalition cooperation; foreign powers fighting together get a combat penalty; sometimes attack one another. (As the D. of Kent my troops hate Mercia, and if we fight together against the encroaching Danes...well shit happens.)

 

[AllThat4Nothing]

Read only the first 3 pages of thread.... But I wanted to get my 2 cents in.

Shat. Ret would be awesome if these changes were made:
1. Make the retreats make sense (go to nearest safe county)
2. Retreating army suffers massive attrition penalties until it can regroup in safe county or dissolve (to be re-levied). Attrition should be abatable if Military Org tech is high enough.
3. Speed bonus should be random. (sometimes routed armies were hunted down and slaughtered, sometimes they were able to get away.)
4. Sometimes routing army should split into several groups all going to various safe areas.
-"safe area" is an unoccupied demise of vassal county, or perhaps an allied county.


I have less experience with Coalitions but here are 2 changes:
1. Limit threat range. (Mali and India not threatened by Empire of Ireland.)
2. Limit coalition cooperation; foreign powers fighting together get a combat penalty; sometimes attack one another. (As the D. of Kent my troops hate Mercia, and if we fight together against the encroaching Danes...well shit happens.)

+1

 

[Leecros]

1. Limit threat range. (Mali and India not threatened by Empire of Ireland.)

technically the threat range is limited. India won't care about Ireland. The limit is the diplomatic range.

Unfortunately that's just a little bit too far.

 

[philanthropic19]

Crap... I was too busy on the thread and forgot that I had a pizza in the oven ... its almost fully burnt now

 

[Leecros]

Crap... I was too busy on the thread and forgot that I had a pizza in the oven ... its almost fully burnt now

noooo! I shall light memorial candles for the fallen cheesy goodness.

 

[Bortron]

Can't we all just get along?

Sorry.

 

[philanthropic19]

noooo! I shall light memorial candles for the fallen cheesy goodness.

It seems you have the Charitable trait. I now have +10 opinion with you.

 

[Bortron]

What if you enjoy both the Civ franchise AND CK2 pre-Shattered?

You can still easily enjoy both.

 

[Perico del Puñalico]

If you haven't figured out by now that chasing shattered armies all over the map is counter productive to winning a war quickly then you are a moron, and should go back to playing something more intellectually appropriate, like Civ.

I am still waiting for the non-moronic way to win an adventurer war.

And in the circumstances where a siege is posible, I still don't see the point of the siege now. You wait for the second wave of a reinforced army that will arrive for sure much before you can finish the siege.

Any help of the non moron members of the board will be extremely appreciated.

 

[philanthropic19]

I am still waiting for the non-moronic way to win an adventurer war.

And in the circumstances where a seige is posible, I still don't see the point of the siege now. You wait for the second wave of a reinforced army that will arrive for sure much before you can finish the siege.

Any help of the non moron members of the board will be extremely appreciated.

I think the thing with adventurer wars is that YOUR armies will reinforce in your territory while the adventurer's armies will be whittled down by the battles they fight with you and they can't reinforce. You will win if you have a stronger army than the adventurer .. otherwise the adventurer deserves to win.

EDIT: You can win even if you are not stronger than the adventurer. Because you are going to reinforce and whittle him down, while he can't reinforce. The shattered retreat helps you there.

 

[Perico del Puñalico]

I think the thing with adventurer wars is that YOUR armies will reinforce in your territory while the adventurer's armies will be whittled down by the battles they fight with you and they can't reinforce. You will win if you have a stronger army than the adventurer .. otherwise the adventurer deserves to win.

EDIT: You can win even if you are not stronger than the adventurer. Because you are going to reinforce and whittle him down, while he can't reinforce. The shattered retreat helps you there.

So, the same thing I had before (I have never lost an adventurer war because I always have more troops than them). But now I have to chase him all over the map if I want to end quickly.

 

[Bortron]

I am still waiting for the non-moronic way to win an adventurer war.

And in the circumstances where a seige is posible, I still don't see the point of the siege now. You wait for the second wave of a reinforced army that will arrive for sure much before you can finish the siege.

Any help of the non moron members of the board will be extremely appreciated.

I have had zero problems winning wars so far. I am playing ironman and I actually haven't lost one war yet, and I am winning them just as fast as before. The non-moronic thing to do is to pick your enemies carefully. You still get a good amount of warscore for winning battles. Don't waste your time chasing adventurer armies; let them come to you.

 

[philanthropic19]

So, the same thing I had before (I have never lost an adventurer war because I always have more troops than them). But now I have to chase him all over the map if I want to end quickly.

If you want to end quickly, then yes you have to chase him. If you want to roleplay the game (which is what CK2 is meant to be, because it is CK2), then you should wait until he is worn and tired of attacking you again and again (which is how many adventurers did and lost in history). Just stay in your territory and defend against the adventurer's menace.. why do you even need to chase him? You are not on the offensive here.