Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[thesecret1]

How do you think they are going to make 40 DLC and milk this game

They didn't need this shit in CK2. And in EU4, it took them hell of a lot longer to reach that point. It's been year and a half, and so far, they've released one expansion (that ended up being trash), and two flavour packs. That's pathetic.

 

[Delterius]

Adding in India, central Africa, the Eurasian steppes was a mistake and it just diverted focus from the center of attention in the medieval world.

Big disagree.

That old map was atrocious, and it had to go.

Central africa was too much though especially in CK2 as it's poorly optimized.

CK2 used to be poorly optimized, years ago. And northern west africa was barely relevant when it came to performance issues. Very few provinces means very few characters, and it's likely to stay tribal for the entire game.

Plus the gold rush events are funny as fuck.

 

[Zariusz]

From the insane lad behind Crusader Blade

 

[Delterius]

From the insane lad behind Crusader Blade

if anything i respect the autism involved

 

[Alienman]

Been playing the game for a bit, with all the DLCs and shit. I guess it was an okay time, even if it feels a bit lacking compared to CK2.

Anyway, my issue (and I'm sure I'm late to the party) is the allied AI. You can't rely on them at all. Sure, they show up for the most part, but then the only AI they seem to have is to follow you around, but at times they ignore battles you had hoped for them to join for some unknown reason. It's absolutely dreadful, and takes me out of the game constantly. And I can't fathom that there isn't a button to tell them to go somewhere, or where to focus. That's not the only problem though, since they follow you everywhere, they destroy the supplies in every county you enter, starving everyone to death.

I guess it will be too much to hope this will be fixed, as it is currently it is unplayable.

 

[Axioms]

Been playing the game for a bit, with all the DLCs and shit. I guess it was an okay time, even if it feels a bit lacking compared to CK2.

Anyway, my issue (and I'm sure I'm late to the party) is the allied AI. You can't rely on them at all. Sure, they show up for the most part, but then the only AI they seem to have is to follow you around, but at times they ignore battles you had hoped for them to join for some unknown reason. It's absolutely dreadful, and takes me out of the game constantly. And I can't fathom that there isn't a button to tell them to go somewhere, or where to focus. That's not the only problem though, since they follow you everywhere, they destroy the supplies in every county you enter, starving everyone to death.

I guess it will be too much to hope this will be fixed, as it is currently it is unplayable.

If you had a button you'd be too OP since the AI couldn't support each other that way against you. Anyway it is what you deserve for liking CK3. No one feels bad for you.

 

[halkony2012]

Been playing the game for a bit, with all the DLCs and shit. I guess it was an okay time, even if it feels a bit lacking compared to CK2.

Anyway, my issue (and I'm sure I'm late to the party) is the allied AI. You can't rely on them at all. Sure, they show up for the most part, but then the only AI they seem to have is to follow you around, but at times they ignore battles you had hoped for them to join for some unknown reason. It's absolutely dreadful, and takes me out of the game constantly. And I can't fathom that there isn't a button to tell them to go somewhere, or where to focus. That's not the only problem though, since they follow you everywhere, they destroy the supplies in every county you enter, starving everyone to death.

I guess it will be too much to hope this will be fixed, as it is currently it is unplayable.

After 200+ hours of CK2 and 3, honestly I think army combat is the most boring part of the game. Its a system severely lacking in interesting tactics and strategy. It's generally just "slam bigger number into smaller number" with some minor optimizations in terrain and unit types. Every time I play either game, I feel like min maxing for gold is always optimal. You improve your demesne, have funds to raise retinues, and eventually you're so tall the AI just can't keep up.

I've always been a bit frustrated by the fact that you can game army movement so easily by pausing in between move commands and checking the "Arrival" dates to catch a smaller army. Like yeah, you could not do it, but then it devolves into a stupid game of reaction that isn't the least bit rewarding.

I'm tempted to say there should be a more involved RTS component to army combat, but obviously Paradox would never spend the resources designing or implementing that.

 

[Delterius]

I'm tempted to say there should be a more involved RTS component to army combat, but obviously Paradox would never spend the resources designing or implementing that.

tbh i don't think there should. of all the paradox games CK is the rpg sandbox. let it be that.

art in this dlc is pretty good. they are using great sources for it.

 

[Axioms]

Been playing the game for a bit, with all the DLCs and shit. I guess it was an okay time, even if it feels a bit lacking compared to CK2.

Anyway, my issue (and I'm sure I'm late to the party) is the allied AI. You can't rely on them at all. Sure, they show up for the most part, but then the only AI they seem to have is to follow you around, but at times they ignore battles you had hoped for them to join for some unknown reason. It's absolutely dreadful, and takes me out of the game constantly. And I can't fathom that there isn't a button to tell them to go somewhere, or where to focus. That's not the only problem though, since they follow you everywhere, they destroy the supplies in every county you enter, starving everyone to death.

I guess it will be too much to hope this will be fixed, as it is currently it is unplayable.

After 200+ hours of CK2 and 3, honestly I think army combat is the most boring part of the game. Its a system severely lacking in interesting tactics and strategy. It's generally just "slam bigger number into smaller number" with some minor optimizations in terrain and unit types. Every time I play either game, I feel like min maxing for gold is always optimal. You improve your demesne, have funds to raise retinues, and eventually you're so tall the AI just can't keep up.

I've always been a bit frustrated by the fact that you can game army movement so easily by pausing in between move commands and checking the "Arrival" dates to catch a smaller army. Like yeah, you could not do it, but then it devolves into a stupid game of reaction that isn't the least bit rewarding.

I'm tempted to say there should be a more involved RTS component to army combat, but obviously Paradox would never spend the resources designing or implementing that.

Another major downside of real time games is stupid shit like this. No matter what you do it is gamey on "catching" enemies and other combat stuff. With TBS you set your army to move somewhere and what happens, happens. Combat sucks because of course it does. You can't do RTS stuff because the "overworld" is moving along in real time. There's mods to export battles out to I think Bannerlord and it pauses the game while you fight, but obviously that isn't feasible in multiplayer which Paradox is obsessed with.

 

[Catacombs]

After 200+ hours of CK2 and 3, honestly I think army combat is the most boring part of the game.

Adding Total War-like combat would be awesome.

 

[Axioms]

After 200+ hours of CK2 and 3, honestly I think army combat is the most boring part of the game.

Adding Total War-like combat would be awesome.

You can already play the battles in Bannerlord, is that not counting as total-war-like combat? Although as stated earlier the problem is you have to pause the main game for every battle.

 

[Catacombs]

You can already play the battles in Bannerlord, is that not counting as total-war-like combat?

Bannerlord and Total War combat are different: In Bannerlord, you're controlling one person, leading an army. In Total War, you're controlling legions of armies.

I've seen the Bannerlord mod, and while the idea is great, needing to fire up an entirely different game to settle combat is ridiculous. Keep everything in one game.

 

[Axioms]

You can already play the battles in Bannerlord, is that not counting as total-war-like combat?

Bannerlord and Total War combat are different: In Bannerlord, you're controlling one person, leading an army. In Total War, you're controlling legions of armies.

I've seen the Bannerlord mod, and while the idea is great, needing to fire up an entirely different game to settle combat is ridiculous. Keep everything in one game.

Well in that case you're shit out of luck. You can't have battle modes in a real time game and especially not one geared to multiplayer.

 

[Deflowerer]

After 200+ hours of CK2 and 3, honestly I think army combat is the most boring part of the game.

Adding Total War-like combat would be awesome.

For a game of this scale, would be totally ridiculous. What's the point of making it if people would probably auto-resolve combat 90% of the time?

 

[halkony2012]

tbh i don't think there should. of all the paradox games CK is the rpg sandbox. let it be that.

art in this dlc is pretty good. they are using great sources for it.

Agreed, the rest of the game is very enjoyable for what it is. Just spit balling really.

Another major downside of real time games is stupid shit like this. No matter what you do it is gamey on "catching" enemies and other combat stuff. With TBS you set your army to move somewhere and what happens, happens. Combat sucks because of course it does. You can't do RTS stuff because the "overworld" is moving along in real time. There's mods to export battles out to I think Bannerlord and it pauses the game while you fight, but obviously that isn't feasible in multiplayer which Paradox is obsessed with.

Never knew that, sounds really cool. I'll have to look into it.

Bannerlord and Total War combat are different: In Bannerlord, you're controlling one person, leading an army. In Total War, you're controlling legions of armies.

I've seen the Bannerlord mod, and while the idea is great, needing to fire up an entirely different game to settle combat is ridiculous. Keep everything in one game.

For a game of this scale, would be totally ridiculous. What's the point of making it if people would probably auto-resolve combat 90% of the time?

I think it's important to note that even if Paradox did make something like this, it would blow dick because Paradox just doesn't make those kinds of games.

Deflowerer's comment reminds me of Age of Wonders 3 which had really fleshed out and interesting army combat, but it really broke up the flow of the civ building gameplay.
You could manually battle to keep all your units alive and waste a half hour, or just autoresolve and lose a unit or two at worst.

 

[Catacombs]

Well in that case you're shit out of luck.

I'm not missing out. I talked about *wishing* for Total War-like combat in CK2/3. Obviously, that's not at all possible from Paradox.

You can't have battle modes in a real time game and especially not one geared to multiplayer.

Multiplayer is irrelevant in this context.

 

[Axioms]

Well in that case you're shit out of luck.

I'm not missing out. I talked about *wishing* for Total War-like combat in CK2/3. Obviously, that's not at all possible from Paradox.

You can't have battle modes in a real time game and especially not one geared to multiplayer.

Multiplayer is irrelevant in this context.

Not in the context of a game that is desigened for multiplayer, which all Clausewitz games are.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Fate of Iberia released. Patch notes here.

(Also Paradox decided to turn the Garments of the Holy Roman Empire DLC into a freebie.)

 

[Üstad]

After 200+ hours of CK2 and 3, honestly I think army combat is the most boring part of the game.

Adding Total War-like combat would be awesome.

The game's fundamentals is already dumbed down. Like post-war peace, succession, government types, distinction of cultures and religions are far from finished. I'm not fingerpointing you here but there is one major flaw of paradox fanboys, they care about cosmetic or meme stuff more than core aspects of the game.

Take a look at the culture pack, it only make cultures different in a gimmicky way meanwhile it should have drastically change the gameplay. The only thing differs some feudal dudes in Fergana Valley from the French realm is handful of cultural boons that's all. That's a very flawed game design, that's just a lipstick on a pig.

 

[Fedora Master]

Fate of Iberia released. Patch notes here.

(Also Paradox decided to turn the Garments of the Holy Roman Empire DLC into a freebie.)

The real meat are the non-DLC changes, so let's check:

"Removed blockers to invite close/extended family children from foreign courts (they still have to accept though, most useful for getting wayward children of your own back to court)"
Good, that was a pain in the ass.

"The AI is now significantly more inclined to prioritize warring for their De Jure land"
Hopefully this helps against border gore.

"The AI can now properly select the Council task “Develop Country” task from the Steward"


"You can now romance your incestuous lover: the tabou penalty is not applied if you are already a lover of the target"


Basically if you don't care about Iberia it's nothing to write home about.

 

[Üstad]

The problem with Crusader Kings game series it's that just like any other paradox game it's a poor simulation and suffers from bad game logic. Series of static modifiers and events acts as gods touch, trying fix the mess caused by bad game logic.

My subjects should be concerned about my power over them, this would calculated differently according to their personality of course but no such thing. Why am I as a temporal caliph, allowed to divorce or disallow my subjects from divorcing to entire sunni realm? Or why Bulgarians and Serbs can't create their autocephalous churches, seperating themselves from Byzantines? Why can't pagans have proper Popedom where the election of pope is inclusive to entirety to their religious realm? Or concerned about popes keep getting elected from same dynasty and fearful of balance of power? Why can't religions have proper authority modifiers?

Like when the religion is weak, you override some religions rules which creates might make it right situation, which was quite the case for both Islam and Christianity. Like Otto I elected pope arbitrarily and elected priests for church lands in his realm unopposed, atleast tried if I remember it right.

Authority of religion and central church institution would simulate the situation early christianity in Britain well for example. Distant peripheries, especially when the central authority (if any) fails to consolidate power should be de facto allowed to do their things. Like celtic christianity meanwhile there was no formal authority of celtic christianity, this is just how we perceive it, it's just power of pope in Rome just failed to reach there, correct me if I'm wrong.

The boons of religion and culture shouldn't be static. I'm Khan of some nomadic steppe land, I conquered enough and I'm ready to settle down. I need to be fed from a greater civilizational aspect, so that the religion and their adherents culture would help me to settle down and build stuff. Merely adopting coptic christianity shouldn't provide me huge boon if the heritage of coptics and their intellectual centres are dead. Same logic for other aspects of course.

The game has no logic, it's series of railroaded static modifiers. It's like Hearts of Iron IV, you finish a focus and boom you get economic boons and half of Czechoslovakia. Of course since there are no better games for dynastic simulation I have to go with CK3. We desperately need competition for dynastic simulation games otherwise paradox and their retarded game engine will continue to release broken mess with a good paint job.

 

[whydoibother]

Bethesda and Paradox have basically monopolized a subgenre of game, that is only done in their engine. And the engine is shit. And the companies are getting worse at their own subgenre of game.
Pls help.

 

[Üstad]

Bethesda and Paradox have basically monopolized a subgenre of game, that is only done in their engine. And the engine is shit. And the companies are getting worse at their own subgenre of game.
Pls help.

We'll create games with state sponsorship after we get rid of Erdoğan. So you'll have to excuse us if we make Turks overpowered. You'll have to create Turks bad mod to nerf us which will disable your epic steam achievements. Apparently it's a big fucking deal

 

[whydoibother]

tag tur
delete units
declare a war without casus beli
tag back to my nation
nuthin personnel, turks

 

[Fedora Master]

Bethesda and Paradox have basically monopolized a subgenre of game, that is only done in their engine. And the engine is shit. And the companies are getting worse at their own subgenre of game.
Pls help.

We'll create games with state sponsorship after we get rid of Erdoğan. So you'll have to excuse us if we make Turks overpowered. You'll have to create Turks bad mod to nerf us which will disable your epic steam achievements. Apparently it's a big fucking deal

Sorry Turks, you'll never beat the Bulgarians as far as ultranationalist mods go.