[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/vst/ - Video Games/Strategy

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Spoiler?[]
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File[]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 89 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: ck2-vs-ck3.png (296 KB, 1024x731)
296 KB
296 KB PNG
I finished my first game of Crusader Kings 3. Amazing fuckin' game, an 'everything I've always wanted' kind of experience. I look online and see everyone shitting on it saying CK2 is better. I look up CK2 and I don't see it.

I see people talking about mods but I don't bother with mod shit until 200+ hours into a game. Does CK2 need the mods to be better game? Does CK3 get boring quickly? I also hear systems in CK2 are deeper. Are the systems actually better, or is it just better at spreadsheet autism?

CK2 vs CK3, which game is better and why is it ck3?
>>
CK 3 has soulless artstyle
>>
>>838278
The characters are awesome. Their not stylized, but they also pull off the photorealism pretty well. The UI. Also the map is dope. The UI of CK2 definitely had more soul, I'm making a game with paper texture backgrounds, but menu heavy games I think are better with soulless UI so you can focus on the 'in world' art.
>>
You must be 18 to be here. Ck is more an rpg than a strategy game and ck2 has more role playing depth. There isn't much strategy to discuss for either game. This thread would be better on >>/vrpg/
>>
>>838298
>photorealism pretty well
I don't know what the fuck to say to that. Do you understand what photorealism even means? From the perspective of photorealism, it is two steps back from CK2's pre-rendered default portraits.
>>
>>838276
are those baronies featured on the ck3 map?
>>
>>838276
It's slightly deeper but not really.

>With conclave, the council votes on law changes, imprisonment, wars, etc. In practice, it doesn't really matter because you can just appoint landless courtiers you can bribe dirt cheap or high-opinion loyalists and abolish council power entirely within the first ruler's lifespan.

>Personal levies raise from individual holdings, vassal levies raise from their capital all at once at 0 morale. It sometimes makes sense to only raise troops in a certain area, or to avoid raising them since unraised troops increase the garrison. Retinues are always on-map however so once you have enough you can just preemptively fuck the AI.

>Levies are much more varied. This doesn't matter too much since every holding of the same type gives the same troops, but tribals have a disadvantage since they only get light infantry. Or would, but warrior lodges have ridiculous powercreep.

>Combat is more in depth but most of this depth is irrelevant. You can use extreme autism with troop ratios and cultural commanders to ensure optimal tactics, but you could also just spam retinues since retinue troops have better stats and inherit the cultural building bonuses from the capital.

>Tech advancement is per-province, so you won't suddenly forget how to make siege engines if your heir is a different culture. However, almost every tech is a tiny incremental bonus.

>Unless you're tribal, you're not hardlocked to gavelkind for hundreds of years and can easily swap to a single-heir succession law.

Main thing though is the nomad and republic governments since they play totally different than CK3. CK2's also got way more flavor events.
>>
Off the top of my head, things that CK2 has:
>Combat events where your character gets into duels on the battlefield
>Religions taken more seriously, you can't just spend your Faith Bux to whip up a version of christianity that lets you fuck your sister
>Medieval culture taken more seriously in general
>Better and more character events; the writing is generally better
>A late-game legal system which allows you to grant kingdoms to non-hereditary leaders so that the territory passes back to you when they die
>Tons of DLCs with enormous amounts of specific content between them
>>
>>838276
CK is by far my favorite series of paradox games, and I love both CK2 and 3
But something I would fix in Ck3 is how conversion works, I actually kinda liked how it worked in Ck2, it was a percentage chance in a certain period of time. Cultures are pretty resilient in Ck3 but faiths aren't so much unless you change the setting to slowest conversion. Also bring back chaplain conversions.

Also does anyone notice in most 1066 games lots of the finnish and balkan peoples end up converting to christianity anyways, can anyone tell exactly how that happens?
>>
>>838353
>Combat events where your character gets into duels on the battlefield
CK3 has this, it's called Punish Criminal, gotta unlock it, not sure how. Let's you duel a person and pick different approaches as the duel goes on

>>838368
>in most 1066 games lots of the finnish and balkan peoples end up converting to christianity anyways, can anyone tell exactly how that happens?
They find Jesus
>>
File: pic5992684.jpg (56 KB, 665x630)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>>838276
>the grim reality
>>
>>838383
No I mean, does the AI just convert after a while or is there something else to it?
>>
>>838276
They are both an underbaked boring crap, once you get through "damn, wow, actual characters instead of some shitty spirits of nations" stage
For me most obnoxious and antifun things in ck3 compared to ck2 are:
the lack of regencies
armies appearing at rally point instead of appearing where they truly are
naval transports

And that when they were developing a game, they haven't took opportunity to make characters into tangible entities positioned on a map to avoid things like managing your realm while being on crusade or feasting abroad. instead they had moved game into weird "spirit of dynasty" direction, with which we will be stuck for another ~10 years.
>>
>>838406
>implying you didn't just make the point stronger
>>
File: soul vs. soulless.jpg (61 KB, 1024x640)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>838278
>soulless artstyle
>>
>>838276
Unironically >>>/vrpg/
>>
>>838353
>A game that was in development for 7 years has more event content that a game that's up for less than 2 years
>And virtually nothing released over those 2 years, too
Who would have thought!
>inb4 add CK2 content in CK3 from the get go
Then what would they sell in their Sims: Medieval?
>>
>>838323
Yeah, the counties are still larger than that. It's a good show of how you can move around troops though.
>>
>>838327
>>With conclave, the council votes on law changes
Council voting on anything doesn't make any sense. The whole point of king's council is to carry out king's will, not offer a vote. People wanted to be in the council so much they would pay for it, because it gave with a bunch of privileges, like they could blackmail other people by abusing their authority and by pissing of a king's counselor was easy way get an attainder. Councilor's decision-making was purely advisor, not legally bounding like Conclave depicts.
Changing laws only mattered if vassals agreed to it, which is basically what CK3 does with it succession laws by taking a vote of the most powerful vassals. That is how changing laws should work.

>>Combat is more in depth but most of this depth is irrelevant.
In CK3, I'm barely able to win 1:2 while fighting in mountains, in with proper flanking you can defeat 1:5 in the mountains.

>>Tech advancement is per-province
I miss this so much.

>It's slightly deeper but not really.
In what is it deeper? Sure scheme system is an upgrade, church system is arguably worse, CK2 launches with investitures, CK3 still doesn't have antipopes.
>>
>>838353
>>Combat events where your character gets into duels on the battlefield
this is stupid, it is like PDX thinks battles were hollywood battles where everybody pick a pair fight for. The whole point of battles is to be group effort, so rulers would be surrounded by their retainers, and if their retainers were cut-down, there is no way they just face one opponent.

>>Religions taken more seriously, you can't just spend your Faith Bux to whip up a version of christianity that lets you fuck your sister
Piety-mana doesn't make any sense, you have to be pious to become an apostate?

>>Medieval culture taken more seriously in general
Not sure what you mean.
>>
>>838679
Why are the modern "soul vs soulless" comparisons so soulless?
>>
File: 14178944648.jpg (146 KB, 714x822)
146 KB
146 KB JPG
>>838276
The main problem with CK3 is that henrik or however that swedish fuck is called doesn't understand the massive difference between immersive role playing and video game rpg mechanics. These are two very different things that are actually kind of opposites despite being unfortunately lumped together under "role playing" due to the legacy of D&D and video games inspired by it. CK2 was beloved for doing the first, CK3 is hated for doing the second one.
CK2 feels somewhat like I'm playing an actual character that needs to deal with the sort of problems a medieval ruler would have to deal with. It's not perfect and more realism would go a long way to make it better, but CK3 took it in the exact opposite direction. CK3 feels like I'm playing some Diablo character stuck in the wrong game, having to buy the ability to blackmail people from a fucking skill tree or the ability to predict the time of his own death to the day. Or being able to one day declare that the new state religion will be a matriarchical nudist sect where people marry their siblings in fucking medieval europe and having to face basically no resistance. This is not immersive at all. I don't feel like I'm playing the role of an actual human being or facing any realistic consequences.
>>
>>838940
Agree about the focus tree.
That being said, I don't don't like how CK2 did things. If you are playing as a character, why do you even have personality traits? You aren't restrict by them, as the result most characters you you play feel the same.

Stress mechanic CK3 is intended to immerse you into acting like the character you are playing, which is a nice idea, because it at least on paper makes every character a different experience. However, because the personality trait system has been poor thought out and what gives you stress has been decided randomly, the outcome is bizarre.

And while this system is punishing players for doing the wrong thing, it doesn't really incite player to do something else. There needs to be a stick and a carrot.
I feel the simplest solution would be assigning every character a "life need", of which's lack increases depression and has similar impact on stress. For example, lustful character needs at least two lovers given any time, greedy character wants to keep at least 200 gold stored on their bank account every year, zealous character needs to do a pilgrim every 10 years.
>>
>>839004
>I feel the simplest solution would be assigning every character a "life need", of which's lack increases depression and has similar impact on stress. For example, lustful character needs at least two lovers given any time, greedy character wants to keep at least 200 gold stored on their bank account every year, zealous character needs to do a pilgrim every 10 years.
I like this
>>
>>838276
Because you're a retarded piece of shit.
>>
>>838276
The only advantage of CK2 is that it has a decade's worth of DLC and mods to lean on. Take that away and CK3 is objectively superior. However, this also means that until CK3 gets more DLC, it'll have less content than CK2. Whether that's a bad thing is arguable considering that some of that CK2 "content" is shit like magical Aztecs invading Europe from across the ocean, or selling your soul to Satan to become immortal.
>>
CK3 is better than CK2 despite me never playing CK2 for one thing and one thing only: Price.

I'm not paying more than a hundred bucks for a complete game, nigga.
>Inb4 just pirate it bro
Not gonna download a third party program just to play one videogame, sorry.
>>
>>838276
Here is the warcraft comparison.
>>
>>838276
I can actually play my ancestral family in CK3 which is really cool. All I needed to do was mod the coat of arms in as the vanilla one is wrong.

That makes it better than CK2 automatically for me.
Ridiculous that RC is taking this long though. They could have released 2 flavour packs at this point.
>>
>>838838
>there is no way they just face one opponent
You’d be surprised
>>
>>839039
I feel like it would give you some objectives. At the moment there is nothing to do except to blob.
>>
>>839124
kek half those provinces are literally featureless rocks in-game
>>
>>839004
Well put, I always had a problem with CK2's spreadsheet traits and prefer CK3's despite the flaws you mentioned
>>839039
Sounds like aspirations from the Sims, I like it. Royal court DLC gives me hope that they're leaning into the medieval life sim stuff that should have always been the series' bread and butter
>>
My biggest complaint with CK3 is that you NEVER get fucked over, and that's not an exaggeration. I often ask if my game is bugged or something. Here is a list of things where at least one happened every ruler generation that made your life difficult and made the game interesting
you get assassinated
your heir gets assassinated leaving you with an underpowered heir
a vassal rises up against you
a neighbor forges a powerful alliance and takes a county
you lose an offensive war due to mercenaries or surprise allies
you get sick and die
someone important gets sick and dies
someone fucks your wife and cucks you
somebody makes poor decisions for you while you are a child
you inherit a split realm and your brothers/uncles are pissed off and stronger than you
there's a revolt that is more than a minor inconvenience
you fail to grab an important claim before you die, greatly slowing down your expansion
you get too big and have to whittle off the frontiers of your land and reclaim them later
you have too many held counties and giving them to a vassal would upset the balance of power
a vassal starts blobbing inside your realm and becomes a threat
a powerful vassal or neighbor who liked you no longer likes you due to events and becomes a threat
I could go on and on, this is like half of what made CK2 "hard"

I have NEVER been assassinated in CK3, NEVER lost a war, NEVER had a meaningful uprising I didn't crush, NEVER had a bad heir, NEVER gotten sick, NEVER had a campaign that didn't end in being the most powerful empire and absorbing anything I want to the point of conquering the known world is just a matter of time.
Can I just get cucked or poisoned fucking once
Comments? Am I crazy? I enjoy the game I just want some drama, I want to get screwed over once per life.
>>
>>839281
they have flags and triggers that forbid ai to gangbang player
>>
>>838276
Congratulations, you've done pretty much everything there is to do in CK3 right now outside of painting the map with different names.

CK2 thrives as a story generator, CK3 probably will one day too but currently there's almost nothing in there to allow that. The next DLC looks to help that but it's going to take more than one DLC to equal CK2.
>>
File: Elf rework.png (2.3 MB, 1910x788)
2.3 MB
2.3 MB PNG
>>839195
It includes book and comic stuff aswell not just game.
WoW only shows around 60% of the known world of azeroth and none of it is to scale.
All states are named after known ingame and book canon places.
>>
>>839405
2 more expansions(not counting RC) and 3 more flavor packs and CK3 will surpass CK2 imo.
>>
>>839281
I found even CK2 extremely easy, but CK3 is basically not even a game, just a sandbox that let's you do whatever you want and never opposes you in any meaningful way.
>>
>>839488
If they keep making the expansions large and meaningful I could see that.
>>
>>839488
I'd like to see them give more cultures the kind of loving care and attention they gave to making their viking ubermenschen.

They won't, but I can still hope.
>>
>>838276
>but I don't bother with mod shit until 200+ hours into a game
Seriously? How could you even play
50 hours of any paradox game and not realize its completely barebones.
>>
>>838679
Get a load of this triggered zoomer.
>>
>>840151
EU4 is not. That is, after years of DLCs. But then again, it's their only good game series.
>>
>>839486
>Pic
Jesus Christ this looks bad.
>>
>>838298
>The characters are awesome
Debatable. I personally despise them.
>Their not stylized
You went full retard here.
>>
>>843300
>eu4
>good
shut the fuck up johan
>>
>>843310
I'm going to orc every breeding age female in azeroth and no one can stop me
>>
>>838298
>The characters are awesome
they look like disney characters, why did they make it look like a child's movie?
>>
>>838276
I havent bought CK3 for one main reason:
the skill tree
I love the way CK2 does progression quite naturally
>>
>>838276
>I look online and see everyone shitting on it saying CK2 is better
stop trusting the opinions of the autists on this site or the Paradox forums, most people generally like CK3 and think it's a step forward for the series
>>
>>838304
Crusader Kings III is a grand strategy role-playing video game set in the Middle Ages, developed by Paradox Development Studio and published by Paradox Interactive as a sequel to Crusader Kings and Crusader Kings II.
>>
>>846486
For me it's the omnipresent characters and absolutely no obfuscation on anything. You're basically playing god when you should be playing as your fucking character.
This game is so underbaked, I really don't understand why it's so popular. Yes, even CK2.
>>
>>846563
>absolutely no obfuscation on anything
play a different genre
>>
>>846563
>I really don't understand why it's so popular
Power fantasy for mongoloids who believe they're smart.
>>
>>846611
Not that anon, but IMO lack of obfuscation on PDX game is an issue.
When you give exact integers and percentages of everything it turns into excel sheet calculations. I don't these details bring much fun into the same, imagine that instead of representing your attributes (martial, steward, etc) as single numbers it would instead just say:
>"very poor" with skill between 0 and 3
>"poor" with skill between 4 and 7
>"decent" with skill between 8 and 11
>"good" with skill between 12 and 15
>"very good" with skill greater 15
Would you really lose much?
>>
>>838276
Ck3 would be good if it didn’t strip everything the DLCs added to most likely sell then again later.
>>
>>846618
>Power fantasy for mongoloids who believe they're smart.
That sounds great, any more games like that?
>>
>>846627
Any modern game with a lot of backwards mechanics. Paradox games, Pathfinder RPGs, Darkest Dungeon, Underrail, etc. All of them retard magnets.
>>
>>846622
it will just make people to calculate actual values somewhere at paper, obfuscation doesn't really matter if the whole system is broken
>>
>>843300
On the contrary, EU IV is fucking ass now. It was at its peak some time after the fort rework. Now, it's a steaming pile of doodoo
>>
>>846668
only mega autists will do that
>>
>>838327
>and abolish council power entirely within the first ruler's lifespan.
To be fair absolute monarchy is a noob trap. Abolishing council power is just a straight downgrade to having a council that only vote on laws but not on anything else.
>>
File: 1.png (1019 KB, 1280x720)
1019 KB
1019 KB PNG
>>846622
>Would you really lose much?
I'm working under the impression that you don't. We'll see though I guess.
>>
>>846702
That actually looks nice. Where is it from?
>>
>>846702
Oh hey I remember you posting in a thread awhile ago, the medieval King of Dragon's Pass-like right? How's the game coming along?
>>
>>846702
What's that, anon?
>>
>>846611
Anon, the whole point of strategy games is to predict and outplay your oponent.
Even if you go >durr rpg, every RPG at least makes you waste a turn/time to learn more about your oponent or makes you come back and retry the fight until you memorize and learn it.
In CK2/3 you can just click and immediately see everything you need to know, there's no strategy involved at all. You don't need to think about anything in this game, it's almost cookie clicker tier of brainlet game.
>>
File: 1.png (1.55 MB, 1280x720)
1.55 MB
1.55 MB PNG
>>846709
>>846817
Arbitology: Dei Gratia Rex. It is still in development, but there is a Steam page.
It's an attempt at Crusader Kings + King of Dragon pass in an alt-historical 12th century England. It uses the same sort of structure of random and player directed events, but there's a strategic, province-based map that you're encouraged to conquer.
I'm also shamelessly shilling my own game today I guess.
>>846752
That's me! I'm honestly flattered that you remembered it, anon.
Overall coming along nicely. Things are a bit slow right now due to some nonsense going on in my life. I'm trying to get unfucked, but it's taking longer than expected.

Picrel from an event chain I'm working on today.
>>
>>846950
Well the screenshots you showed were memorable enough that I put it on my steam wishlist back then, the art alone is really great.
Sorry to hear about the personal troubles, I was just checking up on Stellar Monarch 2 and saw that dev also had to delay things due to a death in the family. So these things happen, and definitely prioritize sorting out your shit first so you don't burn out like Jon Shafer did with At the Gates.
>>
File: King.png (337 KB, 476x492)
337 KB
337 KB PNG
I find some solace in creating abominations in the character creator and seeing how long it takes to breed them to normalcy.
>>
>>846950
>I'm also shamelessly shilling my own game today I guess.
It's cool, I have done it too. Your game seems to be using contemporary art which is always nice. All mainstream medieval games seem to be allergick to that art style.
>>
>>846675
I haven't played in for a couple years, but I'm sure that whatever they've fucked up again, it's still miles better than any of their other games.
>>
File: diosmio.png (313 KB, 522x406)
313 KB
313 KB PNG
>>846958
the second generation isn't promising
>>
File: Tyronesson.png (532 KB, 786x476)
532 KB
532 KB PNG
>>846967
>>846958
The son at least did well for himself, marrying the Queen of Minsk
>>
>>846950
Interdasting. I've added you to my wishlist. How moddable will this be?
>>
>>846958
isn't that one of those challenges people do in The Sims, also seeing how many generations it takes to go from a beautiful sim to an ugly one
>>
>>846973
Thanks! Events, which being KoDP-like make up the bulk of the content, are incredibly moddable.
Things touching the map and war systems are a little more brittle than I would like though. Theoretically it can be modded, but in practice this might be harder than it should be.
>>
File: 4th.png (192 KB, 320x408)
192 KB
192 KB PNG
>>846976
fourth generation and things are not looking good
>>
>>846996
So you created an american?
>>
>>847004
kek
>>
File: derp.png (489 KB, 708x454)
489 KB
489 KB PNG
>>847004
One of the daughters married into Asia and the kids are now prospering.
>>
File: the face.jpg (2 KB, 70x100)
2 KB
2 KB JPG
>>847010
>prospering
>>
>>838276
There's no risk in CK3. The AI refuses to try and assassinate you, cuck you, you can't be a knight and bravely risk your life in glorious battle, you can't be killed of a battle is going badly for you as commander, diseases ain't shit anymore, etc
>>
>>847517
Did a playthrough and you're right. Black death never comes. Diseases are basically lovers pox and cancer which are just random events.

I have had people try to kill me though. I installed a mod recently as well to increase the AI ferocity. Playing as a random count in Italy I was able to form the Kingdom of Sicily within 15 years and I was hardly even trying. Nothing will likely stop me from forming the Kingdom of Italy either. After that it's just roflstomping
>>
>>847520
Exactly. I miss being able to duel enemy commanders in CK2, I even miss randomly dying in battle because it shakes things up and it's historically accurate
>>
>>847517
>The AI refuses to try and assassinate you
wrong, I have been often assassinated by AI, you can check the game files to see there is no player-factor.

>cuck you
AI will definitely cuck you, basically unless your wife is your soul mate, you can presume you have been cucked.
>>
>>838276
Not sure if this is the right thread but there's no gen for CK so

I'm fighting my first CK3 crusade but I'm not sure who should be my beneficiary. If I do gain a county, it would likely be in a place away from my country and under a different ruler. Since I can pick any old cousin or my 18 yr old daughter, whom should I give it to? Is it considered a waste to give it to some cousin in your dynasty that you don't know or a daughter who married and already formed your alliance? There's no chance for me to gain the county since any cousin I kill will be inherited by another nobody who isn't associated with me.
>>
>>839004
>why do you even have personality traits? You aren't restrict by them, as the result most characters you you play feel the same.
Well that's up to you and your personal discipline in having the character act in accordance with their traits.
>>
>>847640
>gen for CK
You could try /gsg/
>>
>>847640
Did your daughter marry matrilineally? If not then there's no point in giving it to her, since the kids won't be of your dynasty.
Having landed dynasty members around the world is beneficial, I'd hardly consider it a waste.
>>
>>847640
Keep in mind that if you win you'll be given an option to switch to your beneficiary. I would pick an unmarried daughter.
>>
>>847655
But you are already free to do whatever you want, I don't get why some restrain would take away from you. If you want to larp with no restraints, you just go larping, don't play the game.
>>
>>847655
There's also the problem when your character, as they often do especially later in life after you've played around with focuses, has like 10+ traits that are impossibly to effectively roleplay
>>
>>838276
Retarded people make a personality out of enjoying old irrelevant shit that fits well with their braindead agenda that anything new is bad
>>
>>846471
>they look like disney characters
They look like The Sims. 2D Disney characters would be an improvement.
>>
just a starter to try to make ck3 better than ck2
revamp the alliances system, marriage should give non-agression pact instead of alliances, the game as it stands just turns into Total War™
revamp the technology system and detach it from culture
revamp the laws and detach it from culture
add some actual unique features to tenets and more customization in general to religions (seriously even mods do a better job)
remove the teleporting armies seriously and make it so you have to gather troops from across your country manually
add some meaningful things to wars and feudal contracts (this mod https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2322557383 isn't even complete yet and already shits on anything paradox has added so far)
religion fervor system just doesn't work
norse, muslims and byzantines blob out of control in every single game, every single one even if you set the maximum possible exclave independence
make something, anything in the far east, it is completely useless and has no flavor
use your so shilled 3D models by making them do ANYTHING other than stand around looking at each other in event popups, in CK2 you'd get a nice piece of art to set the mood but in CK3 you get two bland 3D characters and a generic 2D background for all events
add more content to the game and don't take 1923891283 months to add less content than a mod team could put out in 2 weeks
>>
>>839118
>Not gonna download a third party program just to play one videogame, sorry.
Do anti-pirate fags really?
>>
>>838278
Every single game paradox has produced since 2015 looks like a free-to play mobile game.
>>
>>838276
Ck3 is meh for me, everything feels so dull. There is no noticable difference whether I play as a coptic nubian character or panjabi iqta sunni lord, it feels the same.

Religions are a meme with just 3 pillars, the only difference being that perhaps one pillar gives you different event for farming piety every 5 years than the other. Its all flavourless. I barely notice religion at all

Characters all feel the same with just 3 traits and it wears off quickly (not to mention retarded trait icons that aren't recognisable at glance). Your DNA gets op to quickly

Gameplay loop just isnt fun or satisfying. Its completly ahistorical but it doesent compensate for it by being fun, its just conquering, surpressing rebelions, one dynasty war after each gavelkind succession and so on.

I'd argue that pdx formula has exhausted itself, if you take a look at games such as hoi4 or ck3/2 you will see that most of gameplay is artificially induced into the game by the means of events, nothing particulary satisfying develops from the gameplay mehanics themself, only through this type of "event injections"

This game focuses on roleplaying so much but is worse at roleplaying than its predecessor
>>
>>838276
Bad character models, shitty ui, shitty bloat added, mechanics from ck2 removed for some reason, religions are cookie cutter because of the customization system they added, game is now an actual map painter and way too easy
>>
>>848269
Best past is that all of them use Steam/EGS/launchers/etc. And I won't even start with Denuvo or these new "ant-cheats" (see: spyware).
>>
>>846950
Most surprising thing is the good dialogue. Most games posted to 4chan are killed by terrible writing.

What's the primary gameplay loop? Is it more about story decisions or managing a character or kingdom?
>>
>>838679
this zoomer is MAD. you can still play older games zoomie, they're not locked off to you it's just your shit taste holding you back
>>
>>838353
You forgot the best part
>taking the Jews money and then expelling them
>>
>>838838
>there is no way they just face one opponent
Didn't they literally have 1 on 1 duels before battles sometimes?
>>
>>849484
yes i too loved pushing le funny based button and getting hit with minus technology events for 10 years
>>
>>849502
If you had a true chad as a king, yes, he’d risk himself to spare his army/people unnecessary bloodshed.
>>
>>849502
it was during battle and you had little impact on the battle, you could win and still lose, and you could win and still lose.
>>
>>849502
my only experience with it was the event:
>"Random guy +10 your combat ability has decided to hunt you for sport on the battlefield"
>Your choices are:
>a) Face him! 90% chance of getting killed, 10% of chance of getting wounded
>b) Run! Get trait "coward"
Which was stupid, it isn't cowardice to avoid getting killed for a stupid reason, it is prudence.
>>
I wish Mass Conversions were still a thing. I like starting out as small tribals in Eastern Europe, someone like the Piast or Premyslid, expand a bit to conquer their de jure kingdom and then convert and build up my holdings. CK3 completely shat all over it. Not to mention I wish some tribal buildings would convert to their feudal equivalent when switching from tribal society to a feudal one. Now it feels like upgrading tribes is a completely not worth the time and resources, when you can just hoard gold and spam holdings the moment you switch to feudal.
>>
This thread was made by paid paradox shills I know this because every board related yo videogames yhese last fee days had a tjread dedicated to emptily bootlicking CK3, your fault for feeding them and these corpo shill threads will be the new norm because you faggots bit the bait
>>
>>850042
CK3 got 9/10 from every review site and on the forum people will defend every design decision to death as if PDX was a small indie studio, and not a middle-size developer whose greed rivals EA's.
>>
>>849957
Just looked it up. It was before battle, but it wasn't a winner of the duel wins the battle, but more of an opening get hype thing. They still fought the battle afterwards.
>>
>>849972
>it isn't cowardice to avoid getting killed for a stupid reason, it is prudence
It's the middle ages. Prudence and cowardice was considered the same thing to people of the time. Also I never have more than 10% chance of getting killed. How do you even make such weak characters?
>>
>>850220
wrong, Louis XI was called Louis the Prudent because:
>As king, Louis became extremely prudent fiscally, whereas he had previously been lavish and extravagant. He wore rough and simple clothes and mixed with ordinary people and merchants.
>>
Where can I find players? bought it on the sale
>>
>>838940
CK2 also has a lot of funny and whacky-but-credible events like that merchant republic event where you go to a party only to learn you are not in the guest lists and then the bouncers throw you into the mud while you notice the head of the organizing family looking at you from a window with a shit-eating grin, or the muslim one where some imams find you being smeared with honey with a very descriptive pop up about it.

Those really spiced up gameplay.
>>
>>843300
eu4 has hit it's peak back in the Art of War days. It has been getting worse ever since.
>>
>>848334
>most of gameplay is artificially induced into the game
heh
>he doesn't remember that interview where johan explained that they design their games to be intentionally obtuse with lots of pointless clicking as they consider x-clicks-per-minute as their core gameplay metric
they literally just make ui and graphics for a perpetually computing excel spreadsheet and then design things for the player to click on tofool them into thinking that they are playing an actual game
>>
File: correct.gif (842 KB, 480x360)
842 KB
842 KB GIF
>>850234
> Louis became extremely prudent fiscally
Really got me there
>>
File: 1632148423630.jpg (162 KB, 1920x1920)
162 KB
162 KB JPG
Ok niggers, you convinced me.

I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna download and play CK II. Never played a grand strategy game before.

Two questions:
Do I need steam to play it?

Should I play the base game and see if I like it before I pay for DLC or is the game only worth trying WITH the DLCs already?
>>
>>850734
Just pirate all the DLCs
>>
>>850734
If you have Steam you can download the game for free and just pirate the dlc. If you don’t then just pirate the whole thing. Some of the DLCs add a lot to the game, there’s no reason to play without them.
>>
>>838940
Ck2 had that problem too, especially with societies. The way they basically give you super powers and how your character inevitably becomes the leader by simply living long enough and clicking decisions on cooldown really annoys me.
>>
>>847539
The AI can assassinate you but only one AI can attempt at a time. So most of the time in the later game there’s going to be one AI with a 0% success chance scheme targeting you that protects you from anyone else.
>>
Don't believe their lies the only people who worship ck2 are paypiggies
>>
>>851188
And there can multiple plots against AI?
>>
>>851191
I bought all the dlc on a humblebundle sale for 5 dollars but even then the dlc is easily pirateable
>>
File: 1636322177904.jpg (1.91 MB, 2598x3348)
1.91 MB
1.91 MB JPG
If CK3 lets me make a hapa empire by forging Han and English cultures together, I will buy it. Until then, CK2 is better.
>>
Been playing as the Byzantine Empire for a few days, just reestablished the Roman Empire. But I wonder is conquering new lands, choosing random events, survive crusades and court intrigues, convert your empire to your religion all there is to do in this game?
I mean I now have 20k gold, completely unspent because there’s nothing to spend it on.
>>
>>852202
hence barren of content
The game shoots itself on foot by making wars so cheap.
Historically, John II of Byzantine Empire, made the Empire great against, reconquered most of the Balkans and Anatolia, and left the empire's coffers full.
However, John's retarded son and successor, Manuel was retarded fuck, and decided to waste all the savings on reconquest of Sicily. However, even with all their resources, they still failed, because Normans could muster 80K and Byzantines only 50K.
>>
>>852299
Gonna start a new game with the Tuscans conquering the Italian kingdom from the inside. Wish me luck fellas.
>>
File: 1.png (1.61 MB, 1280x720)
1.61 MB
1.61 MB PNG
>>849365
I missed this, sorry. Thank you for that. I'm not a particularly good writer, but I at least try to get to average. In a world of terrible writing, that's unfortunately sufficient.
>What's the primary gameplay loop? Is it more about story decisions or managing a character or kingdom?
If you've played King of Dragon Pass, it's largely that: you choose an action, then get a random event, then occasionally get an event that the simulation feeds you that falls into neither, as in pic related.
There are some fixed stories, but I try to mostly lean on emergent narrative. That is, the events you see and the options you have are based on what is going on in your game. Crusader Kings is at its best when it does this.
Unlike in KoDP where you play a tribe, in DGR, you play a single character. Being an Anglo-Norman king, the line between managing his personal life and the kingdom is very blurred though. Also the war phase is a lot more in-depth than raiding in KoDP, as it happens over months with its own set of directed and random events.
>>
>>846950
Might actually buy this, any idea on release? Are looking at another Yandere Simulator-situation?
>>
>>852509
By the way, is this an alternate history scenario where the bastard son won the anarchy instead of matilda and the Plantagenets? Or just one where the white ship didn't crash.
>>
>>848298
That’s almost every strategy-ish game these days, see aoe 4 or the latest civ
I hate this trend so much
>>
>>846950
Based perechad
>>
>>852535
It's been a lot longer in development than I intended, but it's pretty close I think. I actually tried to have it ready early this year but it resulted in cutting too much stuff. While I can't give a date right now, I really don't intend to do a YandereDev.
>>852544
The point of departure actually goes back earlier: the game posits an incomplete conquest by William 50 years before the start. He took a big piece of England in the southeast, was crowned at Christmas, and then died shortly thereafter.
He never held the north, and the northern barons propped up Edgar Ætheling as puppet king. The Norman conquerors similarly ruled England via a regency of William Rufus, leaving Normandy in Robert's hands. The game begins in Normandy where you, William Rufus' son, are being educated.
A lot of the reason for this is that 50 years of tenuous peaces allows me the freedom to procedurally generate the starting nobles and lay of the land to some degree. And to have a few different kingdoms at the start.
Also if you've read about William II, you might find it interesting that he had a child in this timeline. Like I said, there are some fixed stories in the game.
>>
>>852616
>The Norman conquerors similarly ruled England via a regency of William Rufus, leaving Normandy in Robert's hands.
I just think Robert would have steamrolled England if William Rufus was still a child. The 11th century wasn't particularly supportive of child rulers, as the Germanic tradition dictates that the king must be able to lead his own troops, and that was something William himself imposed on his vassals, minors couldn't inherit, until they grew up. Naturally, that changed when the woke barons abolished the warden right in the Magna Carta, which also enabled women to inherit more easily.

Also, I guess William the Conqueror died before siring Henry.

>Also if you've read about William II, you might find it interesting that he had a child in this timeline.
I always found it odd how he lived to be 43, and still didn't marry. Few kings, made it to 20 before marrying. Clearly he was gay.
>>
>>852616
You should add a couple of mad lad axons.
>>
>>839488
anon it's been two years and they've not released a single dlc or even content pack. People just keep saying 'it will get more content' but that's actually not happened at all.

I am becoming more convinced ck3 might be getting abandoned due to PDX's efforts being split in so many directions.
>>
>>852850
*one year
>>
>>852653
>woke barons
lol
>>
>>852861
woke is the essence of progressivism, and the barons were progressive for the timeperiod
>>
>if you aren't a hunter-gatherer you're woke
welp
>>
>>853055
>unironically implying history progresses towards something
Fuck off back to whatever hole you crawled out of, whigger.
>>
>>853084
History technically progresses to the point we go extinct or the earth becomes uninhabitable and we go with it.
We are all progressing towards something, that being our demise.
>>
>>853097
Why don't you shoot yourself and progress instantly?
Fucking Christ, I hate the doomer zeitgeist of current year.
>>
>>853101
Don't use His name in vain.
>>
>>850734
If you don't wanna pirate, get way of life, conclave, monks and mystics and old gods dlcs immediately. IMMEDIATELY. I'd argue ck2 without Way of life is borderline unplayable.
>>
>>852299
How the fuck could the normans of Sicily muster so much more men than the byzoids despite having a much smaller kingdom?
>>
>>853616
>how did byz fail X
Corruption
>>
>>853616
Norman Sicily was easily the wealthiest kingdom of Europe for a brief time between 1130‑1180. All the trade flowed through them, and they were tolerant of Muslims allowing them to trade and live in peace, many Muslim philosophers were invited to the king's court.
Palermo itself grew to become the second-largest city of Europe after Constantinople with the population of 200,000. It was also highly centralized. Furthermore, they their geography they didn't have to garrison large border.

Meanwhile, the Byzantines had to spend a ridiculous of the amount of resources in garrisoning the Anatolian front. And the Balkans were constantly in turmoil.
>>
>>853663
Very interesting, thank you.
>>
>>853929
You might also wonder how it went to the shit.
In 1180s, Normans tried invading Byzantine Empire, after Byzantine Empire had already been weakened by Emperor Manuel's failed invasion few decades earlier. The Norman counter-invasion failed too, and came with a great expense, essentially crippling both states.
Then the Sicilian king died without a male heir, his bastard son claimed the crown, but because of the weak position of legitimacy, he was very weak. And when Richard the Lionheart showed up with his cruse army he just bullied him around.
Just five years later, Barbarossa's son who was married to a Sicilian princess, decided to invade the weakened kingdom in the name of his wife.
Following his conquest, he deported the Norman nobility and banished the Muslims.
>>
>>853964
>Richard the Lionheart
Love playing him in Genghis Khan II
>>
>>853964
Damn, that certainly was a short-lived venture.
I wish historical strategy gams could even get close to simulating that autism and wackiness, maybe CK2 can, idk about CK 3. It would be fun if you could replicate or even make your own autisms, like the time the catholic church split in 3, or the investiture controversy, etc etc. Russia is also interesting during this period.
>>
>>854482
A major problem with CK2 and CK3 is the fast regrowing of the troops. You can wipe half the enemy force, and within a year they have already completely recovered.
Major disasters take one or two decades to recover from, not only in shortage of skill pool, but the impact on public image. The cities and castles are more likely to surrender when their side has recently lost a major battle and they nobody is coming to lift the siege.

That being said, I don't even think battle should give warscore in these game. A battle was a mean to an end, the being capturing castles and prisoners. Winning battle should make enemey garrison lower, but nothing else.
>>
>>854482
Its very hard because how very slow everything was in that age, the hundred years war lasted 116 years because it was very dificult to muster troops, arm them, train them (to a degree, trained soldiers were rare and most armies were levied peasants with weaponized farming tools or long pointy sticks as pikes), move them around since infrastructure was non-existant and Roman roads were starting to fall apart and the technology to build/repair them was lost, any kind of epidemic could decimate entire armies and realms, bad weather would cause famines that could put any kingdom to its knees, levied peasants were not working the fields etc... the whole logistic aspect of medieval war was SLOW.

Its doable but it may not be very engaging from a gameplay point of view since games that have a huge span of time where nothing happens are boring to a lot of people, most medieval games are focused solely on fighting battles (bypassing everything in between) or are cooked to be artificially faster (like CK2 troop regrowth), Imagine playing a game of CK2 where absolutely nothing happens in 50 years, then war is declared, it lasts 20 years and only has 10 minor battles and 2 major battles and even if you win your realm is crippled for the next 40 years (unless you steamroll or the enemies die from smallpox/camp fever/plague/wathever).

Maybe a game where the intermissions of war had minigames, city/castle building and politics could be made but I dont think there is enough market for a studio to develop something that big.
>>
>>854551
>the hundred years war lasted 116 years because it was very dificult to muster troops, arm them
Hundred Years wasn't a war but a series of wars.
Those being wars of:
1337–1360
1369–1389
1415–1453
So there were less than 100 years of fighting even if the historians can categorize conflict having lasted over 100 years.

>it was very dificult to muster troops, arm them, train them
The mustering didn't have issue, it just that after 40 days, they had to sent home or start paying them salary.

>peasants with weaponized farming tools or long pointy sticks as pikes)
Fuck with this fantasy shit, fair enough militias were often recruited to support main armies, but even they weren't armed with farming tools.
Assize of Arms of 1181 declares minium equipment for each class:
"Every knight was forced to arm himself with a coat of mail, and shield and lance; every freeholder with lance and hauberk, every burgess and poorer freeman with lance and an iron helmet."
France had similar declaration.

>Roman roads were starting to fall apart
Rome road's were actually self-sustaining, it is just that medieval people were cheap and started to take stones from the roads in order to build something else.
>>
>>854560
>Hundred Years wasn't a war but a series of wars.
I know that, but imagine how slow everything was that a single war over the throne had to be split over a series of wars.

>The mustering didn't have issue, it just that after 40 days, they had to sent home or start paying them salary.
You still had to send messengers to local nobles to start preparing, then the levies had to travel from their place towards gathering point and once assembled march towards wherever the commander was gathering them, it wasnt something you could do in a reasonably small amount of time, it was perfectly doable but it can be boring if you want to simulate that in a game.

>every burgess and poorer freeman with lance and an iron helmet
And said lance was a sharpened stick.

>Rome road's were actually self-sustaining, it is just that medieval people were cheap and started to take stones from the roads in order to build something else.
Being pillaged by people still counts as "roads falling apart" doesnt it?

In any case, you didnt argue my point of medieval warfare being slow and thus being unsuited for a videogame where you cant have long spans of time where nothing happens unless you make a very big project with minigames, city building, politic simulator, lineage building etc to keep players entertained, take the 100 year war as example, you need to put something in the game to do during the non-warring years or people will ditch (or you can bypass them entirely and send the player to the next battle by skipping those years but then you dont have a game simulating medieval times like >>854482 asked).
>>
>>854569
>>I know that, but imagine how slow everything was that a single war over the throne had to be split over a series of wars.
It is interesting to think how much the nature of warfare had changed in 1000 years.
In 6th century Clovis the Frank conquered all of Northern France within a few years, because Roman fortifications were designed to hold a few days so that the Roman army could show up, not weeks. Which remained true for early medieval period.
During high medieval period, the cities began building walls that could last two or three months, and stockpiling food. By the late medieval period, they had perfected the defenses and stockpiles, so that major cities could hold for whole year.
CK2/3 doesn't depict this but the length of sieges remains relatively to fort level and what siege weapons/tech you have, so sieges in 1066 and 1400 can last as long.

>>Being pillaged by people still counts as "roads falling apart" doesnt it?
I mean you implication is that that they naturally declined, which is a fair assumption that would apply to almost any road across history, except not the Roman roads. Relatively Roman roads are better than modern roads which require constant maintenance

cont 1/2
>>
>>854647
cont 2/3

>>In any case, you didnt argue my point of medieval warfare being slow
Wars could be fast or slow, remember that many kingdoms were quickly conquered within this period. Decentralization meant that the nobles were always important players in conquest, and their cooperation decided how long war could last. Their decision making was essentially driven by three factors:
>1. the balance between warring factors
If invading party showed up with a great army, surrendering quickly was preferable. And if the attacker lacked many resources and just relied on success, it was no-brainer not to give into them. English during HYW lacked many resources to field large armies for long times, and relied on luck, hence one reason HYW lasted so long.
>2. the popularity of the invader
Nobles were self-serving and preferred a liege whom they liked. Hence Muslims of the Reconquista resisted hard. During HYW, Edward III and Henry V lacked the support of the French nobility, they didn't a foreign king from a backwater island kingdom whose population was only 1/5 of France, with a weak claim. In contrast, many kings were able to seize their brother's kingdom with ease, because from the nobility perspective, they are just replacing guy with another similar guy.
>>
>>854648
cont 3/3

>3. the tyranny of the defender
If the defender was considered unreasonable, merciless, and arbitrary, the nobles could become afraid they were gonna be stripped of their property. Therefore, they would prefer to get rid of the threat, by supporting almost anyone else. Hence, for a brief time, Louis the Lion was able to seize half of England during the 1st Barons's War, despite being a foreigner, because the Barons really didn't like John failing every military campaign, extorting scutage and breaking all his promises.

HYW's exceptional length is the result opportunistic second-rate kingdom getting getting a few lucky rolls against a the continent's superpower , while failing secure the nobility's support.

Wars in CK2/3 are too length because siege duration remains the same and because nobility's support isn't factored.
>>
>>854647
Wait, how Roman roads are superior to modern concrete roads, I mean, the materials used are more resistant to time than stone no ?
>>
>>854657
Are you 12 and sheltered all your life? Modern roads need to be re-asphalted every few years. Meanwhile some rural Roman roads (and bridges) are still used in Europe.
>>
>>854657
I said relatively. horses were Roman equivalent of cars, and their roads could sustain horse travel without the need for maintance.
>>
>>854657
Modern r*ads = Tarmac n'shit, maybe some gravel beneath if you're lucky, endures no longer than a few years in good condition but is the modern standard because it's cheap and local government has no foresight.
RVMVN RVVDS = pic rel, actually built to last with inbuilt drainage and made of materials that don't fucking melt in the sun.
>>
>>854683
>materials that don't fucking melt in the sun
isn't sun stronger nowadays though?
>>
>>854728
no yuou dumb bitch
>>
>>854683
A modern road has to endure constant travel, far, far, far more than the majority of roman roads saw in a thousand years, by vehicles that can weigh up to 40 tons (big rigs). Roman roads are an absolute marvel which were perfect for their time and hold up incredibly even to cars today (a testament to their amazing construction), but modern roads face challenging difficulties themselves.

That said, US roads are built cheaply and like shit anyway. European tarmac roads are much better but even tarmac mixed with concrete has its limitations. There isn't and likely never will be any material on Earth capable of building a road that lasts forever for the kind of traffic we need them for.
>>
>>854744
most roads i had seen were dead not because of traffic but because of water not being drained away
>>
File: PompeiiStreet.jpg (101 KB, 594x795)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>854647
>>854648
>>854649
Wars could be short like the conquest of Gengis Khan (altough he didnt get to face western european armies so those could prove trickier for them) but still the preparations for them were a bit slower than "raise levies, merge army, send to the border" and thats the problem with a Medieval simulator like the guy I replied asked for, you need something in between otherwise people will get bored and not play the game, either you have a huge game with a lot of content or you timeskip to the battles or put a really watered down version of medieval stuff like CK2, again, the point is "can realistic warfare and overall medieval life be done in a way you dont need to put a ton of content so the game doesnt feel slow?".

>>854657
I think it depends on the use, for horses sure the roman roads were far better as overall they are more durable than asphalt concrete but roman roads had some jagged edges and I imagine they would be far more damaging to car tires than what we use nowadays.
>>
>>851836
Yellow fever fags are subhuman.
>>
>>854786
>so the game doesnt feel slow?"
Yes, the current war system has a good footing to depict wars somewhat accurately, but much like all mechanics, they fucked it in a way that doesn't make much sense.
So, with the current system, wars revolve around controlling the wargoal (which is a county, or multiple counties). And by controlling the wargoal, the warscore begins tick. However, the warscore ticks very slowly, and without additional warscore from battle or occupation, the war takes over years to tick up to 100%.
This retarded king of the hill-approach means that blobs will have plenty of time to mobilize a deathstack, and because occupations keep shifting most wars tend to last over 5 years, which turns every war into a total war and is completely ahistorical, but also makes the warfare a chore.

There is a simple solution for this, and it is an obvious one, but people protest it because it would make it harder. The solution is to give attacker 100% warscore immediately if the attacker is able to occupy all the wargoals, but it should also be the only way the attacker can win, battle should not give warscore. This would mean that if your enemy uses county-conquest and is able to occupy the single country (which usually takes 3 months) before your army can arrive, they would get 100% warscore and the war ends. Furthermore, warscore would immediately begin ticking in favor of the defender, so fast that defender would get 100% warscore within a year, unless the attacker is able to occupy the wargoal.
This would mean controlling distant territories is hard, and your border counts would have to be powerful so they can hold out long enough, and you of course reclaim your losses. Many paradorks resist this idea because "muh, I'd have to re-raise my levies because I came late?"
With that approach, comital wars would be fast, and only taking months, while ducal wars would take a few years, and only kingdom wars would last 5 year or longer.
>>
>>854834
have you tried out this? sounds like a simple change in defines/wargoals file
>>
>>854850
I did, it was the simple case of changing defines value of ATTACKER_TICKING_WAR_SCORE to 1 from 0.055.
It was a good change gameplay is a lot better. E.g. county of Barcelona (with 2K levies) was able to conquer one county from France (who brought 6K to deal with Barcelona). Those 6K actually made it to Barcelona but because PDX has programmed AI to be retarded, instead of stopping the Barcelonan siege, those 6K prompted to occupy all of Barcelona. Hence before they could occupy all of Barcelonan counties, the Barcelonans were able to occupy the one French county and win the war. Without that change, French would have won, I don't think there is a way to tell AI to be less retarded with their priorities, but I still think it is an improvement.
>>
>>854913
interesting
could create a lot of fun situations with some event that suggests to all neighbors that have a claim to attack kingdom that had gone to war recently.
>>
>>854913
Is there a similar line to edit to improve AI marriage logic?
>>
>>854970
Improve? In what ways?
>>
>>854525
>A battle was a mean to an end, the being capturing castles and prisoners.
I swear I've typed and posted this a few hours ago but I'll do it again now.
This idea stems from a misunderstanding of what historians mean when they say that siege warfare was the mainstay of medieval conflict. What it does mean is the simple fact that the average medieval campaign would be mainly concerned with well, sieges one after another after another before retiring before the end of service period or end of the campaigning season most times. What it doesn't mean is that battle didn't matter, in fact, their importance on a war would often outsize that of a siege and could win an entire conflict by itself. And that's the kicker, in general engaging in direct battle could very well see the immediate destructions of one's military fortunes with no way to recover unlike losing and receding from siege which you could return for next year. As such commanders would rarely try and face each other not because it'd be militarily useless to fight it but because it could be militarily disastrous to the point of there being no reasonable recovery for the losing side. The medieval age for good reason is where we get the trope of "one final/decisive battle" because quite often it would be. Now the observant who're reading this post might note my use of conflict over war but such has to do with questions of what a state is pre-Westphalia and the nature of a lot of these "wars" in terms of military mobilisations of combatant resources and actual fighting which I didn't think necessary for this post.
>>
>>855015
Yeah medieval warfare battles were very important as they were really determinant, especially if the king got killed like in the battle of Hastings so its only normal a lot of defenderes tried to avoid them and prefer to wait for sieges in an attempt to attrition the attackers, a siege could be devastating for the attacking army especially if they had an outbreak of smallpox/measles or against extremely durable fortress.

Taking on account how scarce people were during medieval time and how much manpower tending the fields needed its logical to think losing a big army in a direct battle could just decide the war, it wasnt easy to replenish levies, especially trained soldiers, I suppose levied peasants could be easier to replace but then... who is going to sow the cereals and pick the lentils and vegetables? if you send all peasants to war the fields become empty and nobody eats (also good luck having an army made entirely of untrained and demoralized peasants because the soldiers got killed 6 months ago).
>>
>>855015
And Paradox fails this by telling AI to waste resources on counter-offensive while ignoring ongoing sieges.
Siege of Harlfeur is a great example of a historical game of chess and caution.
Henry besieged Harfleur with 10,000, the French reacted to this by beginning the mobilization of a large army a few days march from Harfleur, in Rouen.
The same French army up fighting in Agincourt and is estimated to have been numbered at least 15K, in addition, most of the army didn't even make it to Agincourt because they moved so slowly, so full strength in Rouen must have been closer to 20,000.
The Siege of Harfleur lasted only a month, and during its course, half of Henry's army perishes, most by dysentery. So, by the end of a month, Henry has less 5,000 men, so he made the ultimate bluff, he told the garrison commander that he was gonna assault tomorrow and give no mercy, giving him the last chance to surrender.
The garrison commander didn't know about the shit condition of Henry's army, nor about the huge French army preparing a move nearby. Meanwhile, the French army didn't know Henry's strength, a century earlier Edward III had besieged Tournai with 22K men, so it wouldn't unreasonable to assume Henry's army was of similar size, hence why they hesitated to relieve the siege.

Because PDX not only ruins these kinda situations by giving too much information, but by telling AI that instead of preparing for a relief operation, they should counter-siege (which means their army will just get smaller).
>>
>>854975
Preventing imperial Dukes from marrying off their children to some Prussian tribal chief.
>>
>>855119
preventing feudals from marryings tribals would be neat, but I don't think it is moddable.
>>
>>855093
>Yeah medieval warfare battles were very important
Meanwhile in CK you play ping pong and whackamole for a few months haha
>>
>>855093
Given all that it seems CK warfare would belong better in a game about Star Wars or other futuristic works.
The rate of levy replenishment would make you think your steward commissioned a factory of CSI droids without your character's knowledge.
That or your peasants fuck like rabbits and are tougher than steel.
>>
>>853371
>monks and mystics
Hell no, fuck this DLC. Societies are shit. Demon worshippers are fucking gay and stupid and fuck anyone who wants to be able to grow back missing limbs with edgelord spells. Secret religious cults end up turning your entire realm into a tug of war where everyone flips to one religion then immediately starts joining another cult to flip back. Monastic orders are boring and prevent you from having interesting characters with a mix of virtues and vices. Hermetic society is the least shit but it's still dumb to begin with that you're skipping around the realm risking injury to go on the same quest to destroy laboratories when you're supposed to be busy being a king. Warrior lodges are the only interesting ones and that comes with Holy Fury.
Replace that with Reaper's Due and/or Holy Fury.
>>
>>854551
In theory, the slowness of geopolitical matters could be compensated with a lot of court and personal mechanics, it's partly an RPG after all Plus take into account that the game spans a long ass time. There's plenty of little things you can do or have to do while war stall and things like that.
>>
>>855337
I think the main problem with CK is people still want to blob the entire map and for that kind of gameplay you need something fast paced and easy to replenish units, if the game was more centered around chipping counties and dukedoms on ocasion they could aim for a different gameplay.

No medieval kingdom reached the size of the Roman Empire for a reason, at least in Europe and Asia minor, steppe warfare was a whole diferent thing and castles werent prevalent so steppe armies were free to sweep through it.
>>
>>855547
One of the things I don't about CK3 is how everything blobs and seldom collapses. Even if it does it's often not in several states as it often happened. Sure, there were empires that blobbed a lot and did flash conquest. Like the caliphate or the Mongols, but there were plenty of small states and even the big empire collapsed. someway or the other.
But this is just my autism.
>>
File: underwater-beat-down.gif (1000 KB, 438x401)
1000 KB
1000 KB GIF
>>855337
>That or your peasants fuck like rabbits and are tougher than steel.
That's how things were
>>
>>854657
A few thousand cars would destroy a roman road. Modern concrete roads don't need maintenance if you just need it for horses and don't need to worry about potholes or overgrowth
>>
>>839281
In my first ever game of ck3 went like this:

>ireland, 1066 fuck yeah
>serfs from m'lord munster flee to my fief
>welcome them
>m'lord munster rees at me
>lol wut serfs lmao
>4 months later
>spider bite in my bed
>fucking die, 1069
>didnt have a court doctor, rofl
>my heir takes over
>little shits like 2 y.o.
>cant do anything, not even plot my revenge
>ffw a few years
>get a pet cat, fuckin noice
>ffw a few more years
>finally hit 14 years old
>start plotting my revenge
>lord munster rees at me again
>abandon vengence for now
>get married
>wife says "your faggot cat has to go!"
>fuckin bitch
>give kitty to my sister to make wifey stfu
>go visit sister a year later
>404, cat not found
>my character commits sudoku within the month
>no more heirs, wifes a fuckin prude

10/10, need to play again sometime
>>
>>855610
Yeah that was a problem with CK2 at the begining too, things like the Byzantine Empire or the Abbasid always swalled the map with no hope of defeating them, they changed it in later patches so massive empires are very unstable and prone to civil wars, which is quite realistic actually.
>>
>>853084
I'm always entranced by this image no matter how many times it's reposted
it's so dense
>>
>>856482
I can't even pay attention to anything other than the niglet-toting 400lb gunt beast
It deeply disturbs me that this is a real actual human being
>>
>>856550
it's certainly the focal point, immediately grabs and centers your attention like any great work of art
>>
>>856550
Fuck off pleb. You're not appreciating even 10% of the image. The overweight blonde neanderthal is clearly the best part of the image.
>>
>>856562
My favorite is the fat dude in the eastern shirt with his off center psudo mohawk and dead on the inside, dying on the outside expression.
>>
>>856743
I like the woman in pink on the far right who's clearly regretting many life decisions
>>
the key to enjoying crusader kings is to not play it like a video game and try as hard as possible to "win"
roleplay it and it turns into a 10/10
>everybody just fucking kills babies and goes full tyrannical dictator mode





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.