Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
The hilarious part is even taking half the statement still says nothing about my opinion of reviews.
Anyways, in Paradox's case, player count can inform content and how much of it we get for better or worse.
Although, I would agree that player count doesn't reflect how much you personally can enjoy a game which is probably what matters more in the end, but that's also the thing which is hard to actually tell at first glance.
But that doesn't apply to what I was originally saying anyway. I was only commenting on the fact that some gamers use the number of people concurrently playing to validate their opinion of a game, which is odd to me.
The post I made the review comment in your quote in response to began talking about determining if the game was "good" and I thought it interesting that, if that was the case, why they were only commenting on peak players and ignoring the reviews. Number of sales (a logical correlation to number of players) alone does not mean a game is more or less enjoyable, or more or less "good". A game can have an incredibly high number of sales and be considered a monetary "success" but still be seen as a "bad" game and vice versa. Just listing some peak numbers and saying that means a game is "good" or "bad" is strange. But all that was never my original point, that only came about by their transition to determining if a game was considered "good."
CK2 peak was 140k 6 years after its release April 2018 that’s also the month it had its highest average player count at 10,000 the next highest average after that was 8,000 for 1 month the for every other month it’s between 1 and 7k with an average of about 3k.
CK3 did have a lower all time peak but the monthly average as been much higher. With a high of 24,000 and it usually being around 10,000. Everyone can have their opinions but the numbers actually say CK3 is more popular than CK2 was.
Actually I rechecked and the highest average was 48,000 players for a month for CK3 my mistake.
Longbow was useful against lightly armoured troops which was majority back then, not against elite armoured troops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE&t=937s
You're not going to like this but characters in Ck3 with only 3 traits have more personality than CK2 characters. Want to know why? In CK3 your 3 traits make you behave in a very predictable way (if you are AI controlled). If you have an honest/content spymaster they won't help anyone spy against you. If you have a deceitful/ambitious spymaster then they might assist in murder plots against you.
The Men at Arms system is a very predictable paper/rock/scissors counter mechanism.
If you have lots of heavy infantry then you get countered by skirmishers. Meanwhile skirmishers get countered by archers.
Longbowmen (who are special archers) counter Heavy Cavalry and skirmishers. If you purchased heavy cavalry and live next to the English then you have made a blunder by not understanding how unit countering works.
Light cavalry are a flanking unit. They are great at disrupting archers. Heavy cavalry is about a powerful charge into armored units - not about disrupting archers.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2767851158
This is my combat focused guide for CK3 if you would like to know more.
The Roman army at its height was a legion of "heavy infantry". The German tribes that wore down Rome's army were skirmishers - think along the lines Vietnam guerilla tactics. They attacked then ran away. The Scots and Irish *tried* to do the same thing to the English during the Medieval period.
So go play CK2 and post on the Ck2 board? In CK3 you get to choose lifestyle traits and that changes your strengths. If you raise the child you get to choose the three primary traits. Often you get 2 of your choosing and have to pick a "not so great one".
Skip to ~19 minutes into the video you linked. That is an arrow to the gut and is potentially lethal (look how the impact made the gel shake - you would not want to take that hit). Even as far back as the civil war infections are what caused most battle field deaths. You're wrong if you think things were not way worse during the medieval period.
Also as you point out : most troops were not wearing a breastplate with mail underneath. That is what the rich knights wore.
Also what happens if you turn around and get by an arrow from behind/under the arm/ in a joint? Can it pierce the thickest part of the plate? No. Can it pierce other parts of the armor? Absolutely.
You really need to learn how arms and armour actually, factually work. There are a lot of great youtube channels run by HEMA practitioners, historians, etc. that can teach you, as well as historical channels that talk about real battles and battle tactics.
Just for a start, arrows absolutely CAN pierce plate armour. Plate armour is not invincible. Plate armour was designed to stop slashing weapons and in that role it was highly effective. But against bashing and piercing attacks it was much less effective. You see this in the design of weapons that were made specifically to combat plate. But even if it were invincible, as you seem to think, take note of the time frame of this game versus the time frame when plate armour was historically used.
Have to be rude here, no way around it. Your ideas about medieval arms and armour come from Hollywood, not from history.
this is such a nonsensical post. First of all, why the hell would you compare a 10 year old game to one that has just got its first dlc? The comparison should be against ck2 at launch or a little more than 1 year from launch, it makes no sense whatsoever to try and transpose the bloatness of that game to ck3 as an argument.
As to your arguments, i wonder what you mean as "personality". Yes, you cannot accrue as many traits in CK3, but you end up getting a ridiculously high amount of modifiers contigent not only on the standardized life paths but also from the events that depend on said personality traits. This is not something present in CK2. In Ck2 your personality traits were absolutely inconsequential beyond the marginal modifiers they had. At most they would function somewhat as deterrents for the AI. For the player at the end of the day it didn't really matter at all that you could have all of the 7 virtues or sins, you could still powerplay because the choices available to you weren't dependent on them. On the contrary, they are generally the consequences of your choices. You didn't behave in a specific manner because you were just. You became just because you, as a player, behaved in a certain way. And this came at no price at all. You could have developed an arbitrary personality as a child. Because every choice is available at all times, you needed only choose that administration ck2 life path and in less than a year, by making choices in the respective events completely out of character, you could not only lose the trait but gain Just. How is that good personality building? CK3 personalities aren't nearly as static as you think. They are just not as nonsensically flexible as in CK2. And that's a good thing from a RP perspective. Besides, I wonder what you think is an experienced ruler. Given enough time and the correct choices, every single ruler in CK2 would become the same. All virtues, no sins, gregarius, 4 star education etc. In CK3, by having fewer and more significant personality traits, every character feels actually different from each other. And they behave so.
As for your other points, the warfare one is absolutely nuts; Why the hell do you think that CK2 warfare was better? The retinues were absolutely broken, there were many that weren't even viable because of massive bugs (like cataphracts firing light cavalry tactics, which actually HAMPER the horse archers in them, because HA are considered LC in the stupid code), and the flanks were of no consequence. Unless you were already massive to have an entire army of retinues (at which point the game was already over), you would be dealing with static levies over which you have no agency at all. The entire warfare system is wasted for the immense majority of the troops fighting in the game because you cannot organize the levies. Fancy that. Literally the only thing that you had in CK2 that is not present in CK3 are flank commanders. Which could be interesting, but aren't that big of a loss. Instead we got a much more intuitive, clear and functional model to work with that is miles better anything else both from CK2 and EUIV.
Finally, the dumbing down pertains to my very first point. CK2 is hard to learn. It's not a hard game in the strict sense of the word by any means. Such is also the case with CK3, because both aren't meant to be conventionally "hard". I'm very curious to hear from you what part of the game you think is dumbed down. But remember that you have to take into account that the comparison only makes sense with CK2 at launch/1 year from release.
Agreed. Base game was fine for what it was, although kinda barren. The fact all we've really gotten since is the royal court dlc is pretty lame, though. I feel like CK2 released like 3-4 decent dlc in the span of time it's taken this game to get 1 overpriced one. Smaller in scope, sure, but also felt like they fleshed out the game more.
It's inexcusable, really. Paradox is a much bigger company than back when they were pumping out CK2 dlc, and CK3 sold more comparatively within the same time span. Covid issues can only excuse so much.
Oh well, I'll keep checking back every year or so to see the progress. Maybe after 6 years they'll have 3 dlc out and it will finally be more fleshed out than CK2.