Control of Allied Forces?

[ColorsFade]

This is part question, part complaint.

Question: I never played CK1 or CK2, so I would like to know: in those games, does the player ever get to control the allied armies during a war?

I bought this game and was pleasantly surprised at how much I initially enjoyed it. But not having control of allied forces during wars is killing every last bit of joy I get from playing it. I'm done. I can't abide this poor design.

I'm sure there's an argument to be made that the player should only be able to control their own empire and it's forces.

But it's a video game. And we play these things for fun. And watching the horrible allied AI continue to lose me wars is beyond frustrating.

At this point, I'm just mad. I'm the player. I paid the money for the game. Give me the control of the armies. All of them. Let me decide which armies to merge, where to put them, how to use them.

I'm so utterly frustrated and disappointed right now. And I'm mad that I'm hours beyond the Steam refund. Because if I could get a refund right now, I would.

This one aspect of the game is completely ruining an otherwise stellar title.

[Nosferatu]

I'm not terribly sympathetic to the idea that the player should be able to control other's forces. There should definitely be some kind of way to communicate and coordinate one's allies, though. At the very least the primary participant in the war on player's side, whether that's the player or an AI ally, should be able to share his plans with allies, with allies usually going along with such plans. When I'm helping my allies I don't mind the ally calling the shots, but not knowing what said ally is even going to do makes things pretty frustrating.

[Ficelle]

Totally opposed to the player being able to control other nation trrops

You play the ruler of your nation...not god, the hive mind master able to control the whole world to do his bididng

Eventually some limited ways to coordinate...which would already be more than the enemy team...but full control ...big no

[ColorsFade]

Why not a toggle in the settings?

I don't understand the mindset of "the player should have no control."

It's a video game. The philosophical stances make no sense when the game play is frustrating/disappointing. Handicapping the player makes for an un-fun experience.

What's the point of spending all your time and resources expanding your empire and marrying off kids to form alliances if the AI is just going to lose wars for you?

Let me lose the wars. Then I can at least feel okay about it. I know *I* did my best.

But watching the horrible AI give away my lands and titles is not fun in the least. And it's a really bad stance to defend such poor game design.

[Ficelle]

Not opposed to options of course

But...
Why not have the option to start with 10000000 gold
Why not have player arrmies doing 10 times more damage
Why not have the option....

....add each and every option you can imagine....90% of them being all about making player the most OP possible because...ya know...fun


Soon enough, they are no more making a game, they are making a UI tab for infinite options

I would much prefer they concentrate on making a game about a ruler and his dynasty while keeping a strategy game...strategic
My opinion anyway

[Burnhardt]

Originally posted by ColorsFade:

Why not a toggle in the settings?

I don't understand the mindset of "the player should have no control."

It's a video game. The philosophical stances make no sense when the game play is frustrating/disappointing. Handicapping the player makes for an un-fun experience.

What's the point of spending all your time and resources expanding your empire and marrying off kids to form alliances if the AI is just going to lose wars for you?

Let me lose the wars. Then I can at least feel okay about it. I know *I* did my best.

But watching the horrible AI give away my lands and titles is not fun in the least. And it's a really bad stance to defend such poor game design.

By that reasoning we should be able to move our enemies armies off to some far corner of the world, split them off to nice bite sized chunks, or have them disband completely. All so we can just steamroll over them, because 'Video Game'.

If the AI is 'losing' wars for you, you're likely either:

1. Expecting your allies to fight your war for you, and not with you (i.e not using your own troops).
2. Punching someone way above your weight, and not being ready for it.
3. Being punched by someone above your weight.

The first two are all on you.

The third is just part of the game. You can't be winning all the time, and even then there are plenty of ways of dealing with it, and coming back.

[Turian14]

I haven't had much of an issue with the AI Allies. They usually show up and if they don't well thats part of the fun. Allies are a bonus they aren't your personal army to command. Focus on building up your own forces or play a high intrigue character and kidnap the enemy king when a war breaks out you don't want.

[Jackbwlch]

Originally posted by ColorsFade:

Why not a toggle in the settings?

I don't understand the mindset of "the player should have no control."

It's a video game. The philosophical stances make no sense when the game play is frustrating/disappointing. Handicapping the player makes for an un-fun experience.

What's the point of spending all your time and resources expanding your empire and marrying off kids to form alliances if the AI is just going to lose wars for you?

Let me lose the wars. Then I can at least feel okay about it. I know *I* did my best.

But watching the horrible AI give away my lands and titles is not fun in the least. And it's a really bad stance to defend such poor game design.

Maybe your Allies want you to lose the war. I have lost wars for my allies on purpose.

[ColorsFade]

I don't know what's more frustrating. Not being able to control allied forces in a war, or people defending such horrible game design.

Nah, I know which is worse.

This is like playing XCOM and only being able to control 1 of your 6 troops. It's dumb.

[ColorsFade]

Originally posted by Burnhardt:

1. Expecting your allies to fight your war for you, and not with you (i.e not using your own troops).

What, pray tell, exactly, is the point of having allies then? If you're not supposed to call them to your defense? That's basically what you're saying here. Don't have allies. That's just plain dumb.

3. Being punched by someone above your weight.

Which is exactly what happened.

The third is just part of the game. You can't be winning all the time.

This is some of the most faulty, excuse-making logic I've ever read. It's almost like you folks are in some kind of Stockholm Syndrome relationship with Paradox. "It's just part of the game."

Yes. It is. So GIVE ME CONTROL OF THE ALLIES so I can combat it!

All you're saying here - the ONLY thing you're saying - is that the AI deserves to control the armies, and not me. That's it.

And that's just dumb.

You know what would have been fun? Having control of the allies, being able to join the armies or split them as necessary, and direct where they should go. Then I - the player - could have strategically decided what he most important targets were, and how to attack them, and when. I could have decided which parts of their army to attack. And because the AI was splitting the enemy armies up into multiple large forces, it actually could have been possible to defeat the superior forces by using superior tactics.

That would have been incredibly rewarding.

But you would rather the AI control 90% of the forces, which really just amounts to having a random dice roll determine the fate of your kingdom.

Think about what you're advocating... a random dice roll - an AI routing - determining the success of a player's actions, instead of... the player.

Wow.

[Turian14]

Originally posted by ColorsFade:

I don't know what's more frustrating. Not being able to control allied forces in a war, or people defending such horrible game design.

The problem isn't that you can't control your allies the problem is you don't know how to play properly. The game has a learning curve. You could use cheats if you wanted for tons of gold so you could just buy mercs and win every war your in. For me that would take the fun out of the game but you might enjoy it.

[Black_Rat]

Originally posted by ColorsFade:

I don't know what's more frustrating. Not being able to control allied forces in a war, or people defending such horrible game design.

Nah, I know which is worse.

This is like playing XCOM and only being able to control 1 of your 6 troops. It's dumb.

Actually if you want to use the Xcom reference, this would be like doing an xcom mission with an ally. They are not a member of your squad, they are there helping you with your mission. They have their own wants and motivations and therefore may not do exactly what you want. Your ally is not YOU. You have no control over them.

[Burnhardt]

Originally posted by ColorsFade:

Originally posted by Burnhardt:

1. Expecting your allies to fight your war for you, and not with you (i.e not using your own troops).

What, pray tell, exactly, is the point of having allies then? If you're not supposed to call them to your defense? That's basically what you're saying here. Don't have allies. That's just plain dumb.

3. Being punched by someone above your weight.

Which is exactly what happened.

The third is just part of the game. You can't be winning all the time.

This is some of the most faulty, excuse-making logic I've ever read. It's almost like you folks are in some kind of Stockholm Syndrome relationship with Paradox. "It's just part of the game."

Yes. It is. So GIVE ME CONTROL OF THE ALLIES so I can combat it!

All you're saying here - the ONLY thing you're saying - is that the AI deserves to control the armies, and not me. That's it.

And that's just dumb.

You know what would have been fun? Having control of the allies, being able to join the armies or split them as necessary, and direct where they should go. Then I - the player - could have strategically decided what he most important targets were, and how to attack them, and when. I could have decided which parts of their army to attack. And because the AI was splitting the enemy armies up into multiple large forces, it actually could have been possible to defeat the superior forces by using superior tactics.

That would have been incredibly rewarding.

But you would rather the AI control 90% of the forces, which really just amounts to having a random dice roll determine the fate of your kingdom.

Think about what you're advocating... a random dice roll - an AI routing - determining the success of a player's actions, instead of... the player.

Wow.

The point of allies as Turian already pointed out above, is to supplement your forces. They are not meant to actually be your forces, as you appear to think so with your claim of '90% of the forces' being controlled by the AI. Your ally may have their own war to deal with, and need to use their troops for that rather than helping you.

You still need to be able to fight your own wars with your own troops/levies. If you are unable to do that, then pay for mercs. If you don't want to do that, even in a defensive war, then there is always the option to Surrender.

Sure you may lose some land in the process. You may even be Subjugated/Vassalised against your will. But you are still in the game, and you can begin to plan how you bounce back.

There is of course the possibility that losing results in a Game Over.

But that is the way CK goes, and is meant to go, at times.

And yes. A lot of us think that it is those setbacks, and our subsequent comebacks, that makes for the best stories, and most rewarding experiences, the game can offer.

[ColorsFade]

Originally posted by Burnhardt:

Originally posted by ColorsFade:

And yes. A lot of us think that it is those setbacks, and our subsequent comebacks, that makes for the best stories, and most rewarding experiences, the game can offer.

I understand this point quite well, as I have over 1000 hours into Stellaris. And I agree with it.

But the war mechanics here are still stupid.

In any war, throughout history, when there's been allied armies involved, there is an allied commander. The game could easily handle the mechanics. It's dumb not to give the player control.

If you're a king defending your crown against a threat, and you call your allies to your defense, you deserve control over those forces. If you're a king going to war against a foe and call your allies to war, you should be able to control them.

To say otherwise is to not understand the history of war, and to defend poor game mechanics.

[Turian14]

Originally posted by ColorsFade:

Originally posted by Burnhardt:

I understand this point quite well, as I have over 1000 hours into Stellaris. And I agree with it.

But the war mechanics here are still stupid.

In any war, throughout history, when there's been allied armies involved, there is an allied commander. The game could easily handle the mechanics. It's dumb not to give the player control.

If you're a king defending your crown against a threat, and you call your allies to your defense, you deserve control over those forces. If you're a king going to war against a foe and call your allies to war, you should be able to control them.

To say otherwise is to not understand the history of war, and to defend poor game mechanics.

CK3 is not stellaris. In this time period many times the lord had no idea how many levies he actually had be thankful you at least know how many soldiers you have. However its clear you don't understand the game and I read your steam review you have more hours than me in CK3 and still utterly do not understand the game my advice use cheats or play a different game.

[dolby]

if you want full control of the allied forces you can do that already lol... You are probably doing it already.. you'r just too ... to notice it...

By taking their land and titles you take direct control... i do agree they could add rally or defend pings like someone already pointed out but direct control no thanks. I should even go so far to say they need add more options for AI allies to betray you, extort you for more gold or land, tiles...what ever... and if you don't agree they just leave...or help the other side stuff like that...