I played last week CK2 after CK3 and found out that CK2 is far supperior game in many aspects

[ivane]

Main thing which I liked in CK2 more is that you are developing your character, life and your decitions are changing your character. For example Even if you have weak character at young age, you can still become efitient by achieving things. For example if you win battles, you will become good strategist no matter how unexperienced your character was at age 16. In CK3 you just stuck with your character and its 3 traits, doesnot matter how great deeds you achieve. you rarly can change traits or skills...


also traits are too few. Character should have much more complex personallity than 3 traits. person should be much more complex than that, this is main reason why we do not remember any of our characters in CK3, they are oversimplified and almost never change after 16 years, so they do not have personallity and we did not remember them... I played whole game as byzantine in CK3 on ironman and had much less imertion than with 1 character in CK2. this can not be accident

Another big thing is warfare. It was so damn immersing in CK2, you have 2 generals on flanks, different battle phases, duels in middle of battles.. having weak general could become big problemm.
Also in CK3 if you have castle, enemy is automaticly on the attacking side when you appear and that is really stupid. if enemy is besieging your settlement that does not mean that he has to attack you when you show up. I can even show you historical evidence. look how ceasar fought gouls in Battle of Alesia. He has besieged Gouls and built another wall around camp, so when gouls came they also had to besiege Ceasars camp.

My biggest problem is dumbing down game is intentional to make game much more easy for casual players, but that also makes it boring in a big time. It is shame, I hope paradox will change that philosophy and make CK3 as complex as CK2, but sadly I dont think so. We are in modern era, where every game has to be dumbed down, even grand strategy... shame

[olstar18]

引用自 glythe：

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.

Or if they shoot your horse when its at a full charging gallop.

[VoiD]

引用自 Kimlin：

引用自 Grunaldi：

it maybe worth mentioning that on Steam Charts ck2 have all-time-peak of 140k players while ck3 sits on 98k

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.

You're right, but CK2 is the game that put Paradox on the map, it was the first of this recent series of popular games that went mainstream and kinda dominated the strategy games scene.

EU4 was also half a pioneer in this too, it got a lot impulse from CK2 and added some of it's own too, it's also quite clear that CK2 has more UI issues, closer to their classic games than EU4, which has more than HoI4, and so on, but the older games also tended to be much deeper and strategic, to this day, even though it never really got that much content out of DLCs, there are plenty of fans who still think the best Paradox Game was Victoria 2, and people are afraid it turns into another CK3 with no depth and thirsting for content for a long, long time.

[Bolovo]

引用自 VoiD：

引用自 Kimlin：

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.

You're right, but CK2 is the game that put Paradox on the map, it was the first of this recent series of popular games that went mainstream and kinda dominated the strategy games scene.

EU4 was also half a pioneer in this too, it got a lot impulse from CK2 and added some of it's own too, it's also quite clear that CK2 has more UI issues, closer to their classic games than EU4, which has more than HoI4, and so on, but the older games also tended to be much deeper and strategic, to this day, even though it never really got that much content out of DLCs, there are plenty of fans who still think the best Paradox Game was Victoria 2, and people are afraid it turns into another CK3 with no depth and thirsting for content for a long, long time.

In what way does ck3 at release have no depth when compared with ck2 at release? TBH i'm one of those people who think past games, such as vic 2 indeed, were quite more interesting and strategic. But i'm not afraid of some CK3 analogy. I'm afraid of it losing its soul and turning into something more like europa universalis or even imperator rome. If anything, i'm HOPING for the quality jump between ck2 and ck3. So i'm really curious, precisely what mechanics do you think are dumbed down or more superficial in ck3 in comparison to its past iteration?

[KharnTheKhan]

引用自 ivane：

引用自 Panthaz89：

the traits really only affect whether you will be picking up a coping mechanism or not most of the time. Some get unique decisions. CK2 was stupid with traits imo you could get all of them on every character and each of them had significantly less impact than the traits in CK3 instead of having watered down collectables CK3 traits actually make a real difference. You don't get to be good strategist from winning every battle with no natural talent for it. I do agree that you should be able to pickup a 4th trait at some point regularly considering Alfred the great gets to have 4 from the start.

The fact that Alfred the great gets to have 4 traits, is proof that 3 trait is not nearly enough to write down characters personallity, espetially to describe legendary characters.. even 5 trait would not be enough. you also need levels of traits. Character can be proud, but it is very important how much. only that way you can describe characters personallity.

In CK2 you dont only have more traits, which can be changed trough life experiences, but you also have levels of traits. some people can more angy than others, for example. I am angry person, but I am sure my anger can not be compared to Ivan the cruel.
and no, it does not give you "minor" buffs, first and most important it gives you unique personallity and second your mentality is deciding factor for event decitions,


In CK3 you get 3 trait until 16 age and almost certain you are stuck with that. Character seducing 20 women and I still not getting lustful trait, character killing people left and right and doesnot getting cruel trait...

When you are junior hunter and you have to kill cute Deer, you get stressed first, yeah, but if you have killed 20 deers, you doesnot care any more, life changed you it made you different. and this is the aspect CK3 does not get.. yes there are rare times when you change your personallity but it is too rare, character should be changing constantly.

In CK2 I could build up a character, from weakling to strong experienced ruler which has
backgraound, story and complex mentallity. In CK3 you are stuck with character, which you can not change it after age of 16, you can only prepare hair to be different, but your actual character can not be improoved or altered! And I dont like the Idea that after 30 wars fought, your diplomacy and warfare abillity should be same what it was 30 years ago when you were 16 years old. for me the doesnot make sence.
For example when I played HOI4 I saw that Erwin Rommel the legendary "Desert Fox" had not "Desert Fox" trait and I did not understood first, why. then I realised that in 1936 he doesnot have even saw a desert. People change trough life constantly and CK2 understoods that fact better than CK3.

when I play CK3 my whole contentration is to give my hair good 3 traits. Sometimes I am so bored, that I want to commit suicide to start with fresh character. I dont had that feeling in CK2.

This is of cource my personal experiences. I just wanted to see if there is other people who think this way and I saw that there are planty of such people.

You do realize its possible to get 4 traits naturally right?

[KharnTheKhan]

引用自 ivane：

Good luck pening late medieval armour with toy called longbow.
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

thats why guns were so widely used in late medieval, Bows took many years to learn effectively, Crossbows and Guns could be learned in weeks

[Wan Yao]

引用自 Hashut：

引用自 ivane：

Good luck pening late medieval armour with toy called longbow.
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

thats why guns were so widely used in late medieval, Bows took many years to learn effectively, Crossbows and Guns could be learned in weeks

Do some better research than Mythbusters.

The question of arrows and plate armour is very controversial among historians and HEMA types. There are experts on both sides of the debate. But there have been tests -- controlled tests, not sh*t made for a reality tv show -- that have demonstrated that arrows can penetrate plate armour. You can google them up.

The thing is, plate armour was very specifically developed to counter slashing weapons. It was vulnerable to piercing. That's why you start seeing weapons with spikey, piercey stuff during the plate era. An arrow, at least in theory, delivers exactly the kind of concentrated piercing energy that can penetrate plate. And do NOT underestimate the amount of force delivered by a bow -- especially a longbow.

Also, guns common in the late medieval period? Uhm. No. You're thinking of the early modern era.

**EDIT** I'm not going to delete that. I've watched most of the video. It was NOT what I expected. I honestly thought from your post you were citing Mythbusters, which I would NOT take seriously.

I stand corrected. Partly.

HOWEVER, I'll also direct you to this wikipedia summary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point

I still don't think it's a clear cut thing. See also this discussion where some commenters note that an arrow (like any weapon) doesn't have to penetrate armour to be effective.

http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1062

EDIT EDIT: And when you watch the entire video, you'll see that the trauma inflicted by the arrows was not insignificant. Imagine volleys arrows hitting you, even assuming that none of them penetrated more vulnerable areas etc... Again, you don't necessarily need penetration for the attack to be effective.

(There's also discussion of different arrowheads. The narrow arrowhead was apparently developed to penetrate mail which was very effective effective against the broader heads which common in an earlier period. So I *think* they were using arrows designed specifically to penetrate chain. Would different, wider arrowheads produce different results? Probably not, but it's a question worth asking.)

All that said... I'm incredibly grateful you linked that video and I got to watch it. It demonstrates something that I generally know to be true: medieval armour, all medieval armour, was pretty damn effective at what it was designed to do. Nope, not perfect. But very effective.

[KharnTheKhan]

引用自 Wan Yao：

引用自 Hashut：

thats why guns were so widely used in late medieval, Bows took many years to learn effectively, Crossbows and Guns could be learned in weeks

Do some better research than Mythbusters.

The question of arrows and plate armour is very controversial among historians and HEMA types. There are experts on both sides of the debate. But there have been tests -- controlled tests, not sh*t made for a reality tv show -- that have demonstrated that arrows can penetrate plate armour. You can google them up.

The thing is, plate armour was very specifically developed to counter slashing weapons. It was vulnerable to piercing. That's why you start seeing weapons with spikey, piercey stuff during the plate era. An arrow, at least in theory, delivers exactly the kind of concentrated piercing energy that can penetrate plate. And do NOT underestimate the amount of force delivered by a bow -- especially a longbow.

Also, guns common in the late medieval period? Uhm. No. You're thinking of the early modern era.

**EDIT** I'm not going to delete that. I've watched most of the video. It was NOT what I expected. I honestly thought from your post you were citing Mythbusters, which I would NOT take seriously.

I stand corrected. Partly.

HOWEVER, I'll also direct you to this wikipedia summary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point

I still don't think it's a clear cut thing. See also this discussion where some commenters note that an arrow (like any weapon) doesn't have to penetrate armour to be effective.

http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1062

EDIT EDIT: And when you watch the entire video, you'll see that the trauma inflicted by the arrows was not insignificant. Imagine volleys arrows hitting you, even assuming that none of them penetrated more vulnerable areas etc... Again, you don't necessarily need penetration for the attack to be effective.

(There's also discussion of different arrowheads. The narrow arrowhead was apparently developed to penetrate mail which was very effective effective against the broader heads which common in an earlier period. So I *think* they were using arrows designed specifically to penetrate chain. Would different, wider arrowheads produce different results? Probably not, but it's a question worth asking.)

All that said... I'm incredibly grateful you linked that video and I got to watch it. It demonstrates something that I generally know to be true: medieval armour, all medieval armour, was pretty damn effective at what it was designed to do. Nope, not perfect. But very effective.

You responded to the wrong person, Learn how to read

[KharnTheKhan]

引用自 Wan Yao：

引用自 Hashut：

thats why guns were so widely used in late medieval, Bows took many years to learn effectively, Crossbows and Guns could be learned in weeks

Do some better research than Mythbusters.

The question of arrows and plate armour is very controversial among historians and HEMA types. There are experts on both sides of the debate. But there have been tests -- controlled tests, not sh*t made for a reality tv show -- that have demonstrated that arrows can penetrate plate armour. You can google them up.

The thing is, plate armour was very specifically developed to counter slashing weapons. It was vulnerable to piercing. That's why you start seeing weapons with spikey, piercey stuff during the plate era. An arrow, at least in theory, delivers exactly the kind of concentrated piercing energy that can penetrate plate. And do NOT underestimate the amount of force delivered by a bow -- especially a longbow.

Also, guns common in the late medieval period? Uhm. No. You're thinking of the early modern era.

**EDIT** I'm not going to delete that. I've watched most of the video. It was NOT what I expected. I honestly thought from your post you were citing Mythbusters, which I would NOT take seriously.

I stand corrected. Partly.

HOWEVER, I'll also direct you to this wikipedia summary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point

I still don't think it's a clear cut thing. See also this discussion where some commenters note that an arrow (like any weapon) doesn't have to penetrate armour to be effective.

http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1062

EDIT EDIT: And when you watch the entire video, you'll see that the trauma inflicted by the arrows was not insignificant. Imagine volleys arrows hitting you, even assuming that none of them penetrated more vulnerable areas etc... Again, you don't necessarily need penetration for the attack to be effective.

(There's also discussion of different arrowheads. The narrow arrowhead was apparently developed to penetrate mail which was very effective effective against the broader heads which common in an earlier period. So I *think* they were using arrows designed specifically to penetrate chain. Would different, wider arrowheads produce different results? Probably not, but it's a question worth asking.)

All that said... I'm incredibly grateful you linked that video and I got to watch it. It demonstrates something that I generally know to be true: medieval armour, all medieval armour, was pretty damn effective at what it was designed to do. Nope, not perfect. But very effective.

And yes guns were being used more and more in the 15th and 16th century which is late medieval not the early modern period

[KharnTheKhan]

引用自 Wan Yao：

引用自 Hashut：

You responded to the wrong person, Learn how to read

lol go touch grass jackass

Reported

[KharnTheKhan]

引用自 Hashut：

引用自 Wan Yao：

Do some better research than Mythbusters.

The question of arrows and plate armour is very controversial among historians and HEMA types. There are experts on both sides of the debate. But there have been tests -- controlled tests, not sh*t made for a reality tv show -- that have demonstrated that arrows can penetrate plate armour. You can google them up.

The thing is, plate armour was very specifically developed to counter slashing weapons. It was vulnerable to piercing. That's why you start seeing weapons with spikey, piercey stuff during the plate era. An arrow, at least in theory, delivers exactly the kind of concentrated piercing energy that can penetrate plate. And do NOT underestimate the amount of force delivered by a bow -- especially a longbow.

Also, guns common in the late medieval period? Uhm. No. You're thinking of the early modern era.

**EDIT** I'm not going to delete that. I've watched most of the video. It was NOT what I expected. I honestly thought from your post you were citing Mythbusters, which I would NOT take seriously.

I stand corrected. Partly.

HOWEVER, I'll also direct you to this wikipedia summary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point

I still don't think it's a clear cut thing. See also this discussion where some commenters note that an arrow (like any weapon) doesn't have to penetrate armour to be effective.

http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1062

EDIT EDIT: And when you watch the entire video, you'll see that the trauma inflicted by the arrows was not insignificant. Imagine volleys arrows hitting you, even assuming that none of them penetrated more vulnerable areas etc... Again, you don't necessarily need penetration for the attack to be effective.

(There's also discussion of different arrowheads. The narrow arrowhead was apparently developed to penetrate mail which was very effective effective against the broader heads which common in an earlier period. So I *think* they were using arrows designed specifically to penetrate chain. Would different, wider arrowheads produce different results? Probably not, but it's a question worth asking.)

All that said... I'm incredibly grateful you linked that video and I got to watch it. It demonstrates something that I generally know to be true: medieval armour, all medieval armour, was pretty damn effective at what it was designed to do. Nope, not perfect. But very effective.

And yes guns were being used more and more in the 15th and 16th century which is late medieval not the early modern period

Major Source being the Hussite War which occurred between 1419 and 1434

[Obi Hung Kenobi]

well no ♥♥♥♥, ck 2 has had years of DLC and add ons

CK 2 at release was also bare bones

[VoiD]

About the arrow vs armor debate, the tl;dr answer is: It depends.

Yes, high quality plate armor won't even get dented by arrow fire, as seen in the video posted above.

But.

Not all armor had the same cost, and the same quality.

引用自 Bolovo：

引用自 VoiD：

You're right, but CK2 is the game that put Paradox on the map, it was the first of this recent series of popular games that went mainstream and kinda dominated the strategy games scene.

EU4 was also half a pioneer in this too, it got a lot impulse from CK2 and added some of it's own too, it's also quite clear that CK2 has more UI issues, closer to their classic games than EU4, which has more than HoI4, and so on, but the older games also tended to be much deeper and strategic, to this day, even though it never really got that much content out of DLCs, there are plenty of fans who still think the best Paradox Game was Victoria 2, and people are afraid it turns into another CK3 with no depth and thirsting for content for a long, long time.

In what way does ck3 at release have no depth when compared with ck2 at release? TBH i'm one of those people who think past games, such as vic 2 indeed, were quite more interesting and strategic. But i'm not afraid of some CK3 analogy. I'm afraid of it losing its soul and turning into something more like europa universalis or even imperator rome. If anything, i'm HOPING for the quality jump between ck2 and ck3. So i'm really curious, precisely what mechanics do you think are dumbed down or more superficial in ck3 in comparison to its past iteration?

All of them.

Combat in CK3 is the simplest in the paradox universe, there are no positions, no formations, no flanks, nothing, just blob of the sum of damage+%modifiers throwing a number at the other blob, until one side breaks.

In CK2, granted levies weren't useless peasants and instead were using some actual, real armies, where feudal really did get high quigher quality troops, so going feudal wasn't pointless, tribals would use a lot of light infantry trash, while feudal holdings would give you lots of heavy footmen, pikemen, heavy cav, etc..

Also, CK2 combat had these tactics: https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Combat_tactics
So you could fine tune your professional armies (retinues) with the correct kind of troops, under the correct religion, lead by a commander of the right culture to trigger the tactics you wanted to use, and have them use the correct bonuses for the troops they were going to use (such as cavalry leader, or infantry leader, or center leader) and the usual terrain you'd expect to fight in, you could also get into warrior lodges of certain cultures (public societies) and climb their ranks to get access to certain skills, bonuses and rites for even more bonuses towards the correct troops you'd expect to lead, and the end result could be massive, In one campaign playing as nomads I have bred a king for war, with all of the correct bonuses, with a legendary lance for further cavalry bonuses too and with 1500 soldiers he managed to beat the HRE, which, unlike CK3, was an actual threat as their armies are not composed by 0 damage CK3 levies, they were armies of heavy troops instead, I've wiped their stacks of 20k+ soldiers in one v one combat, instantly making each one of their flanks within the first week of combat and then chasing them all down.

Even if my commander wasn't leading the proper troops (cavalry) in the proper terrain type (flat) he would still be a beast of uncompared military prowess, here's a picture of him leading a bunch of levies in his army. Here's an example with sub optimal troops: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2138134412
The well bred ruler (and his father, in fact his father ended up a bit better) was doing 8k damage while the other regular khan with some nice commander traits had 400, and the army without a general was doing 200, so it makes a HUGE difference.

This is why I get a galactic facepalm when some people claim the CK3 system is anywhere near the CK2 system, or that CK2 had no system and combat was decided by bigger numbers, I'll agree that CK2 was so complex that some people never even bothered to learn how it works, but the people who use their own lack of knowledge as an argument against it are not being honest.

And this is just on the military part, you cannot try to reform your culture, or use another's culture, or reform a pagan religion to create a matriarchy who breed satan's spawns in every generation, there's nothing like being the grandmaster of the assassin's guild, there's no way to attempt to live a saintly life and have the pope turn your character into an actual saint, no way to take some famous bloodline or forge your own, no college of cardinals, no trading posts, no republics, no silk road, no chinese interactions, religions are just modular and generic without clear defining traits separating the actual groups, lifestyle perks aren't tied to actually trying to live that lifestyle, insted you collect XP and get them all every game, no real health or disease sytem, no epidemics and hospitals.

Anyway, there's a LOT of stuff lacking in CK3, and on top of that the balance is horrible, AI emperors can't hold their own empires for more than 2 years, levies are a waste of space, plots are nearly impossible to fail, while at the same time the game's so easy there's no reason to invest in intrigue at all, the game had a good base for something great, but it needed, and deserved, a LOT more work than it got since release.

[Bolovo]

引用自 VoiD：

About the arrow vs armor debate, the tl;dr answer is: It depends.

Yes, high quality plate armor won't even get dented by arrow fire, as seen in the video posted above.

But.

Not all armor had the same cost, and the same quality.

引用自 Bolovo：

In what way does ck3 at release have no depth when compared with ck2 at release? TBH i'm one of those people who think past games, such as vic 2 indeed, were quite more interesting and strategic. But i'm not afraid of some CK3 analogy. I'm afraid of it losing its soul and turning into something more like europa universalis or even imperator rome. If anything, i'm HOPING for the quality jump between ck2 and ck3. So i'm really curious, precisely what mechanics do you think are dumbed down or more superficial in ck3 in comparison to its past iteration?

All of them.

Combat in CK2 is the simplest in the paradox universe, there are no positions, no formations, no flanks, nothing, just blob of the sum of damage+%modifiers throwing a number at the other blob, until one side breaks.

In CK2, granted levies weren't useless peasants and instead were using some actual, real armies, where feudal really did get high quigher quality troops, so going feudal wasn't pointless, tribals would use a lot of light infantry trash, while feudal holdings would give you lots of heavy footmen, pikemen, heavy cav, etc..

Also, CK2 combat had these tactics: https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Combat_tactics
So you could fine tune your professional armies (retinues) with the correct kind of troops, under the correct religion, lead by a commander of the right culture to trigger the tactics you wanted to use, and have them use the correct bonuses for the troops they were going to use (such as cavalry leader, or infantry leader, or center leader) and the usual terrain you'd expect to fight in, you could also get into warrior lodges of certain cultures (public societies) and climb their ranks to get access to certain skills, bonuses and rites for even more bonuses towards the correct troops you'd expect to lead, and the end result could be massive, In one campaign playing as nomads I have bred a king for war, with all of the correct bonuses, with a legendary lance for further cavalry bonuses too and with 1500 soldiers he managed to beat the HRE, which, unlike CK3, was an actual threat as their armies are not composed by 0 damage CK3 levies, they were armies of heavy troops instead, I've wiped their stacks of 20k+ soldiers in one v one combat, instantly making each one of their flanks within the first week of combat and then chasing them all down.

Even if my commander wasn't leading the proper troops (cavalry) in the proper terrain type (flat) he would still be a beast of uncompared military prowess, here's a picture of him leading a bunch of levies in his army. Here's an example with sub optimal troops: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2138134412
The well bred ruler (and his father, in fact his father ended up a bit better) was doing 8k damage while the other regular khan with some nice commander traits had 400, and the army without a general was doing 200, so it makes a HUGE difference.

This is why I get a galactic facepalm when some people claim the CK3 system is anywhere near the CK2 system, or that CK2 had no system and combat was decided by bigger numbers, I'll agree that CK2 was so complex that some people never even bothered to learn how it works, but the people who use their own lack of knowledge as an argument against it are not being honest.

And this is just on the military part, you cannot try to reform your culture, or use another's culture, or reform a pagan religion to create a matriarchy who breed satan's spawns in every generation, there's nothing like being the grandmaster of the assassin's guild, there's no way to attempt to live a saintly life and have the pope turn your character into an actual saint, no way to take some famous bloodline or forge your own, no college of cardinals, no trading posts, no republics, no silk road, no chinese interactions, religions are just modular and generic without clear defining traits separating the actual groups, lifestyle perks aren't tied to actually trying to live that lifestyle, insted you collect XP and get them all every game, no real health or disease sytem, no epidemics and hospitals.

Anyway, there's a LOT of stuff lacking in CK3, and on top of that the balance is horrible, AI emperors can't hold their own empires for more than 2 years, levies are a waste of space, plots are nearly impossible to fail, while at the same time the game's so easy there's no reason to invest in intrigue at all, the game had a good base for something great, but it needed, and deserved, a LOT more work than it got since release.

"Combat in CK2 is the simplest in the paradox universe, there are no positions, no formations, no flanks, nothing, just blob of the sum of damage+%modifiers throwing a number at the other blob, until one side breaks."

I'm assuming you mean CK3 here.

TBH your text is a bit nonsensical, you compare things that have been introduced well into the ck II's life, like warrior lodges, societies, hospitals etc. while also pointing out stuff that is sure to be included at some point in a wholly revamped way, like republics, Eastern roman empire meachanics, the silk road etc. How does this make sense if CK3 is only 2 years old, those 2 years having been completely atypical because of obvious reasons? Whad did you expect CK3 to be, just CK2 with better graphics? You might as well not even have made CK3 if that was to be the case. And some other points are almost unintelligible... i mean, you rant about the game not having minor stuff like bloodlines... did you actually notice that you have actual dynasty mechanics, whole with more traits than even alexander's bloodline in ck2, cadet branches with unique shields, renown etc.? You talk about culture, religion... Are you aware that there are actually mechanics for culture reformation, branching, hybridization, technology etc as well as a whole revamped religion reformation system customizable with dozens of tenets? In what way is CK2 pagan reformation superior to the possibilities of ck3? Reforming with whatever tenets you'd like, with even the possibility of branching out multiple times more if you'd like... I mean, with all honesty you don't even seem to have played CK3.

But enough with that, let's address your main point.

First of all, i've played ck2. I've actually more than a thousand hours in that game, so you don't really need to tell me about ingame mechanics such as combat tactics, which are an interesting idea, but an almost literal piece of ♥♥♥♥ in practice and i will tell you why:

1. You're only able reach enough retinue cap to field an entire balanced and tactics-geared retinue flank well after you've reached king rank or even emperor, at which point it becomes simply a matter of mopping up everyone else. It's hideously ugly, up until the point you are able to field that you are using levies over which you have no agency, making combat tactics utterly irrelevant. After that you simply start rolfstomping enemy armies and winning battles that shouldn't really be winnable because the AI actually doesn't use the system at all...

2. The system is wholly unbalanced and full of bugs. There are a limited number of combinations you can use to optimze tactics and cultural retinues are hit or miss. You can have completely overpowered light cavalry on one side and useless cataphracts (because of bugs) on the other.

3. Flanks were interesting, but they didn't really add a whole lot to the game. It was simply a matter of having mini battles inside of battles. No interaction, No influence whatsoever. I don't even know why you care about particular traits such as center commander, flanker etc. In what way do such simple modifiers for an obsucre system make for better gameplay

When compared to CK3 this system is utterly primitive. Ck3 is much more streamlined, with every man at arms being viable as it turns into a matter of countering and being countered, which makes the AI much more efficient and actually dangerous with it. Commanders still have traits, ability that decisively influences the outcome, terrain still matters, there is a new supply system which makes far more sense, there is a new duel system and the secondary commanders are still there, this time as knights, which matter quite a lot. And levies are not useless at all. They are excellent diversions and protection for your siege man at arms as you attack enemy provinces, leaving combat man at arms to roam around ensure the sieges are completed. And even by themselvs, levies with a good commander and in a good defensive position are able to trade reasonably well against man at arms. And man at arms aren't really a professinal army. It's like the correct abstraction for what ck2 intended. Instead of having a province yield a fixed regiment with cavalry, light infantry, heavy infantry etc. that you have to throw into battle as is, you simply think of man at arms as all of those knights, light cavalry, archers, heavy infantry etc. from those different provinces grouped together into specific regiments during times of war. Having retinues as a standing army was more than stupid in a medieval game.

I'm sorry for the wall of text, but to be honest with you i could have written still a whole lot more about how better the combat system is in CK3 alone. Play the game. You don't really seem to have...

[Bolovo]

引用自 VoiD：

About the arrow vs armor debate, the tl;dr answer is: It depends.

Yes, high quality plate armor won't even get dented by arrow fire, as seen in the video posted above.

But.

Not all armor had the same cost, and the same quality.

引用自 Bolovo：

In what way does ck3 at release have no depth when compared with ck2 at release? TBH i'm one of those people who think past games, such as vic 2 indeed, were quite more interesting and strategic. But i'm not afraid of some CK3 analogy. I'm afraid of it losing its soul and turning into something more like europa universalis or even imperator rome. If anything, i'm HOPING for the quality jump between ck2 and ck3. So i'm really curious, precisely what mechanics do you think are dumbed down or more superficial in ck3 in comparison to its past iteration?

All of them.

Combat in CK3 is the simplest in the paradox universe, there are no positions, no formations, no flanks, nothing, just blob of the sum of damage+%modifiers throwing a number at the other blob, until one side breaks.

In CK2, granted levies weren't useless peasants and instead were using some actual, real armies, where feudal really did get high quigher quality troops, so going feudal wasn't pointless, tribals would use a lot of light infantry trash, while feudal holdings would give you lots of heavy footmen, pikemen, heavy cav, etc..

Also, CK2 combat had these tactics: https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Combat_tactics
So you could fine tune your professional armies (retinues) with the correct kind of troops, under the correct religion, lead by a commander of the right culture to trigger the tactics you wanted to use, and have them use the correct bonuses for the troops they were going to use (such as cavalry leader, or infantry leader, or center leader) and the usual terrain you'd expect to fight in, you could also get into warrior lodges of certain cultures (public societies) and climb their ranks to get access to certain skills, bonuses and rites for even more bonuses towards the correct troops you'd expect to lead, and the end result could be massive, In one campaign playing as nomads I have bred a king for war, with all of the correct bonuses, with a legendary lance for further cavalry bonuses too and with 1500 soldiers he managed to beat the HRE, which, unlike CK3, was an actual threat as their armies are not composed by 0 damage CK3 levies, they were armies of heavy troops instead, I've wiped their stacks of 20k+ soldiers in one v one combat, instantly making each one of their flanks within the first week of combat and then chasing them all down.

Even if my commander wasn't leading the proper troops (cavalry) in the proper terrain type (flat) he would still be a beast of uncompared military prowess, here's a picture of him leading a bunch of levies in his army. Here's an example with sub optimal troops: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2138134412
The well bred ruler (and his father, in fact his father ended up a bit better) was doing 8k damage while the other regular khan with some nice commander traits had 400, and the army without a general was doing 200, so it makes a HUGE difference.

This is why I get a galactic facepalm when some people claim the CK3 system is anywhere near the CK2 system, or that CK2 had no system and combat was decided by bigger numbers, I'll agree that CK2 was so complex that some people never even bothered to learn how it works, but the people who use their own lack of knowledge as an argument against it are not being honest.

And this is just on the military part, you cannot try to reform your culture, or use another's culture, or reform a pagan religion to create a matriarchy who breed satan's spawns in every generation, there's nothing like being the grandmaster of the assassin's guild, there's no way to attempt to live a saintly life and have the pope turn your character into an actual saint, no way to take some famous bloodline or forge your own, no college of cardinals, no trading posts, no republics, no silk road, no chinese interactions, religions are just modular and generic without clear defining traits separating the actual groups, lifestyle perks aren't tied to actually trying to live that lifestyle, insted you collect XP and get them all every game, no real health or disease sytem, no epidemics and hospitals.

Anyway, there's a LOT of stuff lacking in CK3, and on top of that the balance is horrible, AI emperors can't hold their own empires for more than 2 years, levies are a waste of space, plots are nearly impossible to fail, while at the same time the game's so easy there's no reason to invest in intrigue at all, the game had a good base for something great, but it needed, and deserved, a LOT more work than it got since release.

Pal, i've just seen you've got more than 600h in CK3. Not liking the game is one thing. Fair enough. But for someone with 600h, i'd expect someone to actually notice things like dynasties, like how believing that combat is just a matter of numbers and modifiers will lead you nowhere (specially when you yourself acknowledge that levies are laughable when compared to man at arms) etc. So, i have to ask you... what happened?

[Damedius]

While CK 2 is better in some way s it also far worse in many others.

You have to buy a DLC in order to do a lot of the things that are included in the base game of CK3. Like changing culture. Want to educate your heir, then buy a DLC. However that DLC also has a council attached to it. You can't even wipe your own ass without the councils permission. This means you have to bribe them in order to do almost any action.(Declaring war, giving out titles, etc.)

The arrange marriage/betrothal button is essentially broken and gives a small selection the possible candidates. You can get around this by inviting them to your court but occationally this doesn't work either for some reason.

CK 2 in it's current state is a bit of buggy mess filled with convoluted rules and will probably never be improved upon now that they have moved on to CK 3. It was built on a slew of bad design decisions that will never be fixed at this point.