- Nov 1, 2010
But if your not taking any attrittion siegeing should be grand.
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.
This thread is more than 5 months old.
It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose. If you feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so though.
It doesn't matter how much an individual action costs manpower-wise re 5.2 CTJU. What matters is that a harsh war will bring you to 0 manpower (in any patch, except maybe post-CC 5.1), and in 5.2 CTJU+ it takes far too long to recover from that.Assulting castles though would really burn your MP. No wonder PEWT thinks 5.2 is too hard on MP.
It frequently takes 30+ years in 5.2 CTJU to reinforce, rebuild, regenerate manpower, finish off WE-related rebels, and the like after scenarios like the war I'm currently in in this game. Use the x3 rule of reinforcing: one cycle to fill the manpower pool, one cycle to (re)build troops to account for better income/forcelimits or wipes, and one cycle to reinforce existing stacks, plus a little bit from rebels, after-war attrition due to not noticing it/having two armies pass each other on their way to do something/other innocent stuff, and so on.High Level forts are quite costly to assault without a siege.
@ Pewt: Define far too long. And tell me what is your criteria. Total wars every 5/10 years?
1 Total war in the newest beta patch would set u back about 15-20 years
In a CTJU based game (with an MP mod which doesn't change manpower), the Ottos, with a 850k MP base in 1700ish have a manpower gain slightly over 7k/month. They boast an army of about 1 million men. This gives them about 20 years to get themselves back together, accounting for WE-related stuff, after losing a total war. However, with events, it is often closer to 15 years than to 20, and that's the usual amount of time between major wars. And I think there was one 10% MP decision which was not taken (recruiting act, IIRC).
In ZZFZ, if you optimize a bit, you can have reasonably harsh wars with less than 10 years between them. Sure, they can be fun, but to reduce the whole game to a nearly endless stack grind... dunno.
In post ZZFZ patch this war would not be as entertaining as it was. It would be over much sooner and recovering would last much longer.
2 Elcyions vs 1 Elycion in a hypothetical two front war... I'd put my money on the 2 Elcyions. It's not unreasonable for someone complain about having to play against two players in the same country. I don't see the point of you guys threatening to ragequit though, why couldn't pilis just play as a vassal after war is declared (or leave the game to avoid a rehost). The rule could be also only be enforced if the single player decides he doesn't want to face two players.It has to do with some players beeing bad at multitasking and Jelousy and bad players and such also it has to do with communication and people wanting to play togheter
There are wars in which a coop would matter. The war which caused this fiasco was not one of them.2 Elcyions vs 1 Elycion in a hypothetical two front war... I'd put my money on the 2 Elcyions. It's not unreasonable for someone complain about having to play against two players in the same country. I don't see the point of you guys threatening to ragequit though, why couldn't pilis just play as a vassal after war is declared (or leave the game to avoid a rehost). The rule could be also only be enforced if the single player decides he doesn't want to face two players.