PDX: Please fix the Crusades!
- Thread starter dannazgui
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
"Let's go this way!"
"No, I'm going this way!"
"But we're going that way!"
"But they're going this way!"
"HOW ABOUT WE ALL JUST GO WHEREVER WE WANT?"
"But I'm going this way!"
- 9
My issue with crusades is kind of an issue with war as a whole. Really need to get the computer to do a better job of managing large amounts of troops. Need more coherent AI, that has a battle plan and strategy.
(PS I love the game, so not a diss just a suggestion on what I would like to see)
Wish the computer as a whole would use the personality of the leaders better. eg. a military leader with good scores would be good at managing his troops and supplies etc... a bad one not so much.
(PS I love the game, so not a diss just a suggestion on what I would like to see)
Wish the computer as a whole would use the personality of the leaders better. eg. a military leader with good scores would be good at managing his troops and supplies etc... a bad one not so much.
- 2
“Aight, I’ma sack Zara and Constantinople”Quite historical actually
- 2
"huh these muslims seem a little more greek than i was expecting"
- 1
There's also just a weird imbalance between levies and knights/men-at-arms. Big wars against several enemies are mostly an exercise in preventing enemies from joining up; fighting 10 dukes is much harder than fighting the emperor that rules those dukes because the increase in knightly/MaA numbers from increased rank is quite small. Two independent one-county counts will always beat one two-county duke and on and up the chain. Getting more levies is basically pointless.
- 7
- 1
Is contribution sorta bugged these days? My beneficiary just "won" even though I only ever committed about 1k troops that got immediately wiped out on like day 4 of the eventually 5 year Crusade.
- 1
In my experience, the First Crusade in CK2 was ALWAYS for Egypt.I'm... a bit confused. CK2's dynamic crusades system is a backported downgraded version of CK3's system. That's not hyperbole, that's literally what got made. It does have the dynamic crusader states that can arise along the way, that's absolutely something we're missing and should re-add, but otherwise the major difference is that CK2's is less dynamic than CK3's, not more. Weights were generally much more hardscripted for specific titles so the AI didn't really grok much above the default expected targets — this meant that behaviour would be a bit more consistent when there's an obvious target (e.g., Jerusalem) but less so thereafter. If you're complaining about military AI, there wasn't really any of that either: neither CK2 nor CK3 offer control of allied armies, just simple army chaining.
That was my only complaint, though; perhaps I'm a filthy casual, but I actually liked the War Chest.
I had no idea you guys were working on CK3 when Holy Fury came out. O . O
with the kingdom holy war CB, crusades seem a bit less effective, mainly because AI doesn't coordinate very well.
They actually do, but with the Rationality value and not with Skills and the Devs have said in big Wars, like Great Holy Wars, there is only 1 AI for each side, who controls all Armies.
- 1
Depended on the Ck2 patch. Sometimes it was always Egypt, sometimes it was always Jerusalem.
In CK3 it was seemingly always Jerusalem until this patch, where the Pope seems to love Andalusia for some reason (I literally joined the Crusade in my Reconquista game this patch just to tell him to redirect the Crusade to somewhere where it wouldn't mess with my reconquest).
It seems casualties taken in battle count for a lot in GHW scoring, so if you get in early and get your army wiped out, you get a whole lot more score than AI armies that stick to Pope's army (and the spiritual HoF does not score at all).
- 2