mythtrip Feb 11 @ 3:50pm
Best paradox 4X streamlined game, with every decision significant.....like Imperialism 1&2
CK2 is a very good game, but it still seems like there is a lot of arbitrary play, with many meaingless decisions. When you have 8 stats for a character, who can remember all of them? How do you consider them all? Marriages can be arbitrary, and wars are a matter of cranking out armies and sending them in. Biggest army wins. What paradox 4x game has fewer stats, but most/all sigificant? IE, if I produce this type of troop, it will be superior in this terrain or vs. a certain type of troop. Or if I go after this resource, it will have a critical effect for me or against my opponent.
Imperialism 1 and 2 was superb in this respect. Abstracted game play, but all your decisions have effects. You are controlling the game, not just watching it from a distance.
Showing 1-15 of 21 comments
< >
HerrComrade Feb 11 @ 5:17pm 
Agreed. Honestly I think this game would be improved by several orders of magnitude if they stripped out the combat and turned it into Crusader Sims instead, since the whole combat system eventually just gets out of control stupid and in the way of the rest of the game.

I mean it would be nice if they actually fixed the nonsense with conjuring magical armies from nowhere and make the number values re: terrain, troop type and so on actually mean something but after this many DLC releases I just don't see that ever happening.

EU4 is supposed to be good but the arbitrariness of CK2 has kept me from sinking money in there.
vortex_13 Feb 11 @ 9:37pm 
Army composition and commanders make a huge difference in combat. I've seen 20k stacks get destroyed by 4k ones with better commanders and units. If you're just raising armies and throwing huge stacks at your enemy you're missing part of the game.
HerrComrade Feb 12 @ 4:46am 
Originally posted by vortex_13:
Army composition and commanders make a huge difference in combat. I've seen 20k stacks get destroyed by 4k ones with better commanders and units. If you're just raising armies and throwing huge stacks at your enemy you're missing part of the game.

In the 1000+ hours I have put into this game I have never seen it once work like that, even on the easy setting. The only time I have seen any real difference is when the commander has a skill that gives a +% bonus to terrain or troop type. Otherwise I frequently watch my 10k army of light and heavy horse with its compliment of archers get demolished by light infantry on flat terrain because they were outnumbered by 1500.

For a long time I thought it was something I was missing, like technology dispersal or hidden values, but at this point I just think their system doesn't work the way they designed it to.
Excuse Me? Feb 12 @ 6:28am 
This isn't Total War, armies composed of mainly cavalry don't work like that. Same with EU4, if you have predominantly more horse troops than infantry your army is going to crumble.
Alex Feb 12 @ 7:41am 
Why would they get crumbled on open, flat terrain?
UltimateHobo Feb 12 @ 8:26am 
nobody can deny that sometimes the game just screws you for no reason. huge adventurer stacks appearing out of the ether, you commander hesitating for a week even with high martial skill, a army of mostly LI and trash troops beating a superior one because your commander chose to shieldwall with a primarily cav army.
Ive had to end ironman games because of crap like this.
Gloomseeker Feb 12 @ 10:03am 
At least it keeps things interesting and challenging...

I've almost given up on my current game many times after some pretty bad setbacks but persistence can pay in the end.
HerrComrade Feb 12 @ 8:45pm 
Originally posted by Excuse Me?:
This isn't Total War, armies composed of mainly cavalry don't work like that. Same with EU4, if you have predominantly more horse troops than infantry your army is going to crumble.

Please explain the logic behind this, since troop values would suggest otherwise.
Tweakee Feb 12 @ 8:56pm 
There's a sequence to combat. It's not well explained by the game, but you can see it if you watch a battle on slow speed.

Basically, an army of all cavalry will do very poorly against a balanced army because they have no one to cover them defensively.

It's easy to see how much difference army balance and commanders make when you get one of the big invasion events. My armies can easily defeat those weaker spawned troops with 1/2 as many troops..
HerrComrade Feb 13 @ 4:52am 
Originally posted by Tweakee:
There's a sequence to combat. It's not well explained by the game, but you can see it if you watch a battle on slow speed.

Basically, an army of all cavalry will do very poorly against a balanced army because they have no one to cover them defensively.

It's easy to see how much difference army balance and commanders make when you get one of the big invasion events. My armies can easily defeat those weaker spawned troops with 1/2 as many troops..

Two points:

First, the point I was making was that a balanced army should fare better than a bunch of light inf and archers but usually doesn't and loses to numbers anyway. The guy who said durr not TW didn't read properly and assumed I am an idiot.

Second point is that cav units have the best values for melee and pursuit and aren't too shabby in skirmish either, though heavy cav is at its worst during skirmish phases, especially during the attack. Troop type in that case should favor cavalry, the idea that a balanced army is better flat wrong in that situation. I understand very well how the combat phases work, what the troop values are, how each of them fare on attack or defense, how terrain can affect combat, how attacking off boats or over rivers can influence combat based on troop type and the role of commanders with both skills and perks and their application of leadership choices during combat in all phases.

With those points made, the fact is in the end that all amounts to just about squat when you are outnumbered because if you are outnumbered you are 9 out of 10 times going to lose, regardless of the modifiers. The only time you are going to get a predictable win is when the enemy morale is in the toilet. Yes, it should work differently but it doesn't, and it makes combat in this game an inane, arbitrary crap shoot.

edit:

Also, it's wonderful for you that your armies somehow work as they should, but I have never actually seen that happen, and I am not the only person to complain about it.

Also, I'm not really sure I believe anyone who says they win a battle with 1/2 the number of troops because it would take a ton of stacked modifiers in both directions to make that a realistic situation. While it should definitely be a workable situation - a good commander with infantry bonuses defending a mountain with pikemen vs a bunch of light inf with an idiot commander attacking with their arses facing the enemy uphill in the rain - it's been my experience that the AI will avoid making attacks into that kind of setup unless they outnumber you so severely or have a reasonable troop variation that it shouldn't matter anyway.

I just do not believe people when they make statements like that. Once in awhile is a fluke, not design, so either it's pure conjecture or wishful thinking.
Klutch Johnson Feb 13 @ 7:01am 
Your cavalry should be about 25% of your force, unless your a horse society like the hordes.
Highly Heretical Feb 13 @ 8:16am 
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=227569953
Here's a picture of what happened after 4000 of my troops, without a leader, came off boats onto an army of just under 8000, who did have a leader.
Of course, I didn't get the amphibious landing penalty or the terrain penalty because I raised the province's defending troops on the last day before landfall, but my troops still had the 50% morale cap (and the troops I raised had 0 morale because levies).
I continued to use those troops to decimate virtually the entire Abbasid Empire's forces, when virtually all of my forces were on the other side of the continent fighting the Umayyads.
It was a good war.
In summary, combat tactics matter a huge amount, so troops optimised to take advantage of them tend to do very, very well.
HerrComrade Feb 13 @ 10:07am 
Originally posted by Klutch Johnson:
Your cavalry should be about 25% of your force, unless your a horse society like the hordes.

I don't understand how that translates into game mechanics.



Originally posted by Highly Heretical:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=227569953
Here's a picture of what happened after 4000 of my troops, without a leader, came off boats onto an army of just under 8000, who did have a leader.
Of course, I didn't get the amphibious landing penalty or the terrain penalty because I raised the province's defending troops on the last day before landfall, but my troops still had the 50% morale cap (and the troops I raised had 0 morale because levies).
I continued to use those troops to decimate virtually the entire Abbasid Empire's forces, when virtually all of my forces were on the other side of the continent fighting the Umayyads.
It was a good war.
In summary, combat tactics matter a huge amount, so troops optimised to take advantage of them tend to do very, very well.

I don't understand how this is an argument for tactics since you're abusing game mechanics by voiding the amphibious penalties. While clever and a trick I will need to remember (thank you), it more or less rules out the idea of attacking with particular unit types better suited to amphibious attacks than the pile of horse troops you threw at a bunch of heavy infantry.

While I see that the numbers comment I made is wrong, it's still just looking arbitrary to me since the defenders troop composition should have won given the circumstances. So all this really does is throw it in the entirely opposite direction.
Highly Heretical Feb 13 @ 10:16am 
Originally posted by HerrComrade:
I don't understand how this is an argument for tactics since you're abusing game mechanics by voiding the amphibious penalties. While clever and a trick I will need to remember (thank you), it more or less rules out the idea of attacking with particular unit types better suited to amphibious attacks than the pile of horse troops you threw at a bunch of heavy infantry.

While I see that the numbers comment I made is wrong, it's still just looking arbitrary to me since the defenders troop composition should have won given the circumstances. So all this really does is throw it in the entirely opposite direction.
The amphibious thing is irrelevant, the point is that I had an army designed to trigger and take advantage of good combat tactics.
http://www.ckiiwiki.com/combat_tactics
Plus of course Cataphracts are awesome.
UltimateHobo Feb 13 @ 10:49am 
Your army in the screenshot is much better because it was almost entirely composed of heavy cav and horse archers (i dont think anyone would argue that these arnt the best two troop types in game) so you should win because the enemy had a lot of trash units (LI). But the game doesnt always reflect that.
Ive been in almost the exact same situation where ive had maybe around 2/3 the enemy units but mine are almost all HA or HC and i usually have a good general mixed in but because the general decided that volley was the correct choice or that its better to slow advance than do something useful i lose. Even sometimes when i outnumber the enemy and have better units i lose because of these factors.

I dont want to be able to control the battle because thats what TW is for and i doubt the AI would ever be made for it and the grand strategy elements would suffer (CA has never made the AI good and theyve been at it for how long?) but it would be nice to at least give your generals some sort of focus. For example if i could say focus on HA bonuses then the AI would do that, or if i could say meele as soon as possible then it would factor in. At the very least i would like to see the requirements upped from 1% because at 1% archers you may as well have 0% and in fact you may be better of doing so.
Showing 1-15 of 21 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Feb 11 @ 3:50pm
Posts: 21