Paradox: Please remove Shattered Retreat and Coalitions

[Olaf the Unsure]

The only issue I have with shattered retreat is that you shouldn't be able to retreat into land that doesn't belong to you or an ally. Regarding coalitions/infamy, I think it's an inferior system to the AE system in EU4. In EU4, you can plan and strategize your conquests because you know that too much AE = coalition. So therefore, you conquer nations of different cultures, of different religions, in different directions, to manage the AE. On the other hand, the CK2 coalitions are defensive-minded rather than a way to cut down someone that gets too big, too fast.

This is a good point. I haven't always been clear in my criticisms.

It's one thing for a defeated army to flee deeper into its own territory to recover. That makes sense.

But it makes no sense for an army shattered in enemy territory to retreat deeper into enemy territory, much less to be able to start a siege there.

 

[AllThat4Nothing]

But it's just a bad idea to begin with. Coalitions should not be in a game set in the Middle Ages. Ahistorical reasons absolutely fly when it comes to a historical strategy game. Shattered retreat I don't know much about, but from what I've heard both of these features have practically made the game unplayable. On all levels, these features are negative additions to CK2, so stop defending Paradox's poor decision-making. If community outcry has any chance of changing their minds on these newly introduced features, I say it's worth trying.

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

 

[Korashy]

Both Shattered Retreat and Coalitions are not only nonsensical in the designed context, they are also utterly ridiculous.

There is no reason to prevent stackwipes. If your army got sh*t on, it got sh*t on. History isn't fair.

Instead of Coalitions, the AI could... maybe... you know... actually play the marriage and diplomacy game right, instead of marrying another low born.... but that would be harder than copy pasting from EUIV

 

[Ritmas]

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

Nah, Wiz will come and answer him with just "Muh historical accuracy" and pretend that there is no problem or it's solved.

 

[DeadHalf]

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

The amount of time somebody has spent on a forum has no relation to how much time and money they've spent on a video game.

 

[AllThat4Nothing]

The amount of time somebody has spent on a forum has no relation to how much time and money they've spent on a video game.

Exactly.............. That was exactly my point. Jesus.

 

[wickermoon]

from what I've heard both of these features have practically made the game unplayable

Well, from what I've heard, it's mostly over-exaggerated and people who can't read the coalition map-mode. So now we're at an impasse.

Coalitions are borked, I agree. Some of them do not make sense at all (see Pope + Umayyads vs Castille), but from what I've heard they're not continent spanning. Most of the time, people take a look at the coalition map-mode, assume that everything red is one big coalition (which is not the case) and think it's broken. If Paradox did anything wrong, then it is that they designed a very confusing map-mode.

Take a look at this screenshot:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ck2game-2016-02-03-06-23-01-285-2-jpg.157064/

This shows two coalitions. One against the Umayyad and one against the Byzzies, but it's nigh on impossible to see who belongs to which. I agree that the Byzzie coalition is blown out of proportions and could be considered non-sensical, but the real problem is that, for example, I can't even determine (by just looking at it) whether the Muhammadid are in the coalition against the umayyads or the byzzies. For all I care, they're all in one big coalition, but that's not the case.

 

[Dracko81]

but from what I've heard

That's cool now go and actually play and make own opinions about it.

If community outcry has any chance of changing their minds on these newly introduced features, I say it's worth trying.

That isn't really how it works. A lot of information thrown around is actually made up. If you want to make a case for changing the mechanic, you should play with it and then show how it is wrong.

Complaining because someone else is complaining without even checking the facts will get you no where.

 

[Matthias_Wlkp]

How is shattered retreat unrealistic. Any General who is facing a crushing defeat would be a fool to not retreat his army. A dead soldier can't fight. Was it more realistic before? Is it more realistic when a General fights until the end, facing a crushing defeat, rather than to withdraw, and thus losing his whole army?

Geez, I really hope that you never have to command an army.

This.

I would rather have some additional options for shattered retreat, like pointing the destination I want to retreat to, but it's not bad as it is now. I think it's more unrealistic, that a commander would waste the time and resources of his 5k army just to chase a few hundred enemies for the sake of warscore %. I would even say that you should not be able to engage the enemy unless he explicitly say he wants to. But then the game would be boring and would be more chess-like. You would have to have much more sophisticated combat controls to make this interesting, ambush mechanics and so on. This game is fairly simplified in the battle concept, which is as unrealistic as it needs to be.

 

[durbal]

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.

 

[Kain2K]

But it's just a bad idea to begin with. Coalitions should not be in a game set in the Middle Ages. Ahistorical reasons absolutely fly when it comes to a historical strategy game. Shattered retreat I don't know much about, but from what I've heard both of these features have practically made the game unplayable. On all levels, these features are negative additions to CK2, so stop defending Paradox's poor decision-making. If community outcry has any chance of changing their minds on these newly introduced features, I say it's worth trying.

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.

 

[Ritmas]

This.

I would rather have some additional options for shattered retreat, like pointing the destination I want to retreat to, but it's not bad as it is now. I think it's more unrealistic, that a commander would waste the time and resources of his 5k army just to chase a few hundred enemies for the sake of warscore %. I would even say that you should not be able to engage the enemy unless he explicitly say he wants to. But then the game would be boring and would be more chess-like. You would have to have much more sophisticated combat controls to make this interesting, ambush mechanics and so on. This game is fairly simplified in the battle concept, which is as unrealistic as it needs to be.

How about reading a book or at least watching documentary about medieval warfare before you start applying your 21century "logic" to it to decide either it's realistic or not?

 

[durbal]

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.

If I picked up a game called Crusader Kings 2 and my Christian neighbors started a coaliation against me when I took Muslim land I would've never played it after seeing that. It's ridiculous.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

Complaining because someone else is complaining without even checking the facts will get you no where.

Defending the game because someone else is complaining without even checking the facts will get you nowhere.

 

[Kain2K]

If I picked up a game called Crusader Kings 2 and my Christian neighbors started a coaliation against me when I took Muslim land I would've never played it after seeing that. It's ridiculous.

No it is not! What if those muslim lands, you just picked, make you strong enough to come after me next (provided you, or one of your vassals have a claim)?

I don't say that the mechanic does not need some tweaking, but to say it makes the game unplayable is ridiculous.

 

[Matthias_Wlkp]

How about reading a book or at least watching documentary about medieval warfare before you start applying your 21century "logic" to it to decide either it's realistic or not?

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

 

[Korashy]

The problem with Shattered Retreat isn't that the army is retreating. It's that it turns that army into some ethereal Usain Bolt that can run straight through enemy forces unharmed, with super speed. No General would see a disorganized enemy host approach their position and decide "Well guys... clear up those tents over there, and let these chaps through. We'll engage them after following them for 2 months to Baghdad, not before I say."

 

[durbal]

No it is not! What if those muslim lands, you just picked, make you strong enough to come after me next (provided you, or one of your vassals have a claim)?

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

 

[iniudan]

That's certainly the theory, but it doesn't really work that way. The problem is that if you don't chase them, then there is no "outcome." It's just an endless loop of inconsequential battles.

I had a war over Saxony with Francia that would make me widely disagree with that, best war I ever had in the game, we hanged at 80-90% lost for like 4 years, with some short spike back up while the French had to recover from all the minor skirmish, that we lost, and attrition, until the Ummayad declared war on France and we could finally reduce the pressure, thus Saxony finally got a white peace. With the old system that war would have ended the instant it started.

But that was in pagan homeland territory, so attrition in general might need to be more severe to make it work.

 

[Korashy]

So what happens when you win a Crusade (for Jerusalem) as say HRE. Instant coalition of every christian lord around you?