This x 10000.
I think there's just this urge to tinker with things. Especially when you're more tech nerd than game designer, you end up just doing stuff because you can.
- 28
Why does CKII need to be more like EU?
- Thread starter Sabotage13
- 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.
This x 10000.
I think there's just this urge to tinker with things. Especially when you're more tech nerd than game designer, you end up just doing stuff because you can.
Wait, what?
Can you name a medieval war that was won in one battle?
Battles was spectacular. Battles was popular. Battles was something war leaders boasted about. But wars were won by sieges.
- 28
- 7
Bouvines. Or rather, the Coalition fielded multiple armies against the French, each of which where defeated in one battle.
The reason wars were won by sieges, was because leader were very reluctant to actually commit to battles, because battles were random and incredibly decisive. So they danced around getting superior footing and supply lines, or tried to take their objectives without engaging in a battle. Because battles could destroy your entire army and leave you to panically try to reassemble anything approaching a fight-worthy force.
- 28
This game still has more internal politics than EU4 probably ever will and now it was added upon. Before Conclave internal politics was mostly about levy optimization and now it is about more than that.
On another note I was hoping for movement lock myself.
On another note I was hoping for movement lock myself.
- 4
- 2
That doesn't change the fact that these changes made the game worse.
- 32
- 3
That's why I suggest not to eliminate the mechanic of coalition, but work the numbers so it makes sense on CK 2 era. Kings would only care about areas that are near his borders, they should not care about what happens in far away lands. Coalition is logical, but using the numbers of current version is not logical at all. Duchy take overs in England should not concern the Holy Roman Empire, or concern Hungary.
Shattered retreat is fine too, as long as the pursuers should be given more advantage than the losers.
Shattered retreat is fine too, as long as the pursuers should be given more advantage than the losers.
- 4
- 3
- 1
Just to more add to wars and battles, I think a good tool is to separate between wars, and campaigns. Wars are total sum of hostilities between the parties before they agree to peace, campaigns are the total sum of hostilities experienced by a single army before it either returns home, or is broken and rendered incapable of combat.
While it might change after CK2's timeframe, during it the general rule is that battles are "campaign-enders". A single campaign could feature many sieges, but if two armies engaged in battle, the campaign of the defeated army was over. Whether or not wars were decided by a single battle, depends on whether the war was decided by a single campaign.
The best way to give CK2 battles the weight actual medieval battles would have, would be to do the following:
Reduce all pursue defense (possibly with the exception of either knights, or cavalry specifically) and increase all pursue attack. Yes, even of infantry.
Then implement three different levels of retreat, based on the amount of morale left, how short the battle was, and how onesided it was.
While it might change after CK2's timeframe, during it the general rule is that battles are "campaign-enders". A single campaign could feature many sieges, but if two armies engaged in battle, the campaign of the defeated army was over. Whether or not wars were decided by a single battle, depends on whether the war was decided by a single campaign.
The best way to give CK2 battles the weight actual medieval battles would have, would be to do the following:
Reduce all pursue defense (possibly with the exception of either knights, or cavalry specifically) and increase all pursue attack. Yes, even of infantry.
Then implement three different levels of retreat, based on the amount of morale left, how short the battle was, and how onesided it was.
- Retreat: The army still has cohesion and is not broken. It retreats to a province dictated by its owner (hint: this means you chose to retreat rather than it happening due to broken morale).
- Shattered retreat: The army is broken, but individual units survive. All individual regiments in the army try to retreat to different provinces, each of which should be 3-5 provinces away from where the battle took place. These units do not move faster than normal, and if they encounter any hostile armies along the way, the result is determined by its size: Smaller armies get fought normally, while against equal or larger armies the battle immediately goes to pursuit of the shattered army.
- Disintegration. The army is broken, and no cohesion remains. After a battle lost this way, the losing army counts as if it was disbanded. No regiments remain on the map.
Last edited:
- 12
- 2
Benevento wasn't the last battle of Charles conquest of Sicily. Even more, if you're trying to put an example it's Benevento OR Tagliacozzo, because second followed first.
Hastings wasn't the last battle Wilhelm fighted too. English lords coronated Edgar, and there was skirmishes. Non effective (because some lords don't take new king as rightful ruler and because power of Norman army), but to end a war Wilhelm needed to capture archbishop and subjugate other english leaders.
It's not popular history, because it wasn't very bright. But it was happen.
Bouvines wasn't the first battle of Anglo-French war. For example Normandy was lost to French at the Bouvines point. Even if we take only campaign of 1214, Bouvines wasn't the first fight.
Yes, there were armies defeated in one battle; I asked for wars.
UPD: Ah, I saw your second post. Yup, it can be intresting, but campaign-braker battles (battles we know as campaign-braker battles) is battles with big warscore impact. So if we can't really do it simple and gracefully, campaign mechanic can be a mess, and it will be essentially flavour only.
And when armies still has cohesion they, by engine, represented as continue to fight - sirkmishes, local retreats, returns and so on. After all, we're speaking about fights taking weeks and, sometimes, monthes on territories about thousands of km2.
I didn't tryed yet - is it possible to make retreat by yourself without losing the combat by current system?
Weren't they concerned in real history?
- 21
- 4
Well Blobs aren't inherently bad in and of themselves... being too stable is a problem and being to unstable is a problem. Point being there shouldn't be too much of anything that feels "gamey" where they are punishing a nation for being too well. Each stage of the game should have it's own challenges but they should all be logical. (Logical being a keyword here because if it isn't then it is a pretty big immersion breaker for me.)
- 19
William DON'T win the war at Hastings! The English nobles elected another king after Williams win in Hastings. William couldn't win until December 1066.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_the_Ætheling
- 13
- 1
I absolutely agree with this. You should not be punished for doing well, you should be presented with a new challenge, and coalitions are not that, they're just a timer.
Internal instability is the biggest threat to large empires, and if managing that instability is interesting, than the game will both good and different from all he other conquer-the-whole-world games. Note that internal instability can also act as a timer, albeit a more dynamic and organic one: as long as you are not secure within your borders, you can hardly start looking beyond them.
When you start blobbing big time, you spend more and more time dealing with factions within. Only once in a while do you have the internal peace to go on a long war outside. But instead of being on a set timer, it's the player's skill at dealing with the inside with speed that gives him more opportunities to expand. And if internal problems get big enough that you lose part of your territory, then your next opportunity will be about reconquest, not expansion.
I think this would be a much better way to deal with blobbing, and all the way to the late game too. To be honest, I really thought this would be what conclave would be about.
- 20
- 1
I really like this idea. The problem is implementing it.
Coalitions would make so much more sense, and be far more interesting, if you could have more than one of them against a target, if the mechanics of them forming was based more on the relationships between different potential coalition partners and if there was a more dynamic infamy system. But again, the problem is that this is far easier said than to actually implement.
Speaking for myself I would have been happier if PDX had charged 11GBP for just the council and education changes, under the understanding that some of that price included development work on an as yet unreleased properly implemented coalition mechanic and expanded/reworked combat mechanics similar to what you suggest. As it has panned out I have the feeling that the current coalition mechanic in particular is a pretty simplistic place holder put in to fill out the most recent release whilst they work on a more nuanced system.
- 4
I'm on the absolute other side of this discussion.
I have no idea why people think it was fun to smash two big blobs of troops into each other and then chase the retreating army into province after province with your blob, getting nonstop guaranteed victories til 100% warscore with few or no actual sieges. The warfare in this game was always pretty unstrategic for exactly that reason and this is one of the first things they've ever done to try and fix it. Even you roleplayers should appreciate that wars don't end in a couple months anymore. Remember that this is the era of the Hundred Years War. Wars were long as all hell in this period.
Coalitions help to stop you from exploding across the map in a short amount of time. This makes the game more challenging because it gives time for other challenges to set in, like factions, rebellions, age, illness, adventurers, money problems, etc. I really don't get the issue, unless you're a hyperliteral roleplayer who's imagining all these people sitting around a big table and doing secret handshakes as they discuss how much they love each other and hate you.
I have no idea why people think it was fun to smash two big blobs of troops into each other and then chase the retreating army into province after province with your blob, getting nonstop guaranteed victories til 100% warscore with few or no actual sieges. The warfare in this game was always pretty unstrategic for exactly that reason and this is one of the first things they've ever done to try and fix it. Even you roleplayers should appreciate that wars don't end in a couple months anymore. Remember that this is the era of the Hundred Years War. Wars were long as all hell in this period.
Coalitions help to stop you from exploding across the map in a short amount of time. This makes the game more challenging because it gives time for other challenges to set in, like factions, rebellions, age, illness, adventurers, money problems, etc. I really don't get the issue, unless you're a hyperliteral roleplayer who's imagining all these people sitting around a big table and doing secret handshakes as they discuss how much they love each other and hate you.
- 25
- 2
I started to play CK2 instead of Eu4 for three main reasons:
1: Characters
2: Battles were more decisive and actually meant something
3: No coalitions
2 of those things are now out of the list. Please stop Paradox.
1: Characters
2: Battles were more decisive and actually meant something
3: No coalitions
2 of those things are now out of the list. Please stop Paradox.
- 35
- 2
Hyper literal, again?
What should stop you from exploding across the map in a short time should not be coalitions. It should be dangerous internal strife that actually threatens your hold on your realm if you push too far too fast, and actual competition from other rulers that will be smart about using all the tools at their disposal to stop you. There should be assassination attempts against my heirs and the best members of my council, plots to undermine me with my council, factions against me should get outside support from my enemies with money and troops, if I am a vassal, other vassals should be trying to destroy my reputation with my liege, etc...
It should be a competition, not me with all my tools against the ai and its complete inability to use any of these tools effectively replaced with a gamey mechanic just to slow me down.
- 15
That simply represents the silly stubbornness of the AI to sign a peace at 75%+ Warscore. Their army is in disarray and they can muster only a small token force, but still try to fight. This does not change the fact, that your first battle, where all their forces were shattered, was decisive.
William DID win the war at Hastings. The saxons simply tried to ignore it.
- 15
- 1
Wait, wait, wait.
There is a lot of using words as "immersion breaking", "gamey mechanic" and so on. So let's imagine there is a state that just expanding further, further and further. There are neiborghoods who aren't complete morons, so they understand they're not safe.
Pre-Conclave system: "ah, he conquers and vassalizes everything, but we can't do nothing about it, let's just wait our turn."
Post-Conclave system: "well, I'm not safe, you're not safe, even that big guy in Constantinople isn't safe! Let's say when that conqueror attack somebody and his troops are busy (and he have his troops depleted) - just kick him to the back!"
First system is less immersion breaking that second?
There is a lot of using words as "immersion breaking", "gamey mechanic" and so on. So let's imagine there is a state that just expanding further, further and further. There are neiborghoods who aren't complete morons, so they understand they're not safe.
Pre-Conclave system: "ah, he conquers and vassalizes everything, but we can't do nothing about it, let's just wait our turn."
Post-Conclave system: "well, I'm not safe, you're not safe, even that big guy in Constantinople isn't safe! Let's say when that conqueror attack somebody and his troops are busy (and he have his troops depleted) - just kick him to the back!"
First system is less immersion breaking that second?
- 16
- 4
Why 75%? Why not 30%, or 15%, or 4%?
We don't even know how much troops Saxons had on this battle. We have rough numbers "something about 7-10 thousands" and casualities "Normans lost something about two thousands, saxons something about twice that number".
- 10
Obviously, I don't like any of the options, but if forced to choose based on immersion alone, I would still pick the first one. It's much more believable for that time period to have a bunch of guys being to egocentric to agree on anything to put an united front for any length of time than to have people who don't have the same culture nor religion actually agreeing on anything for more than a fortnight.
Just as obviously, I would love it if my immediate neighbors agreed on trying to contain me, but that should not be an absolute alliance, and it's length should certainly not be determined by a set timer. As I stated elsewhere, the game has all the tools to simulate such alliances, if only the ai knew how to use them. Now THAT would be proper immersion.
- 6
- 1