CK3 Combat warfare is worse than pokemon

[412345123214]

Why do we have a raid shadow legends auto battler with 0 control they could literary just copy pokemon turn based combat with 0 new animation system because it is 2d and the assets for that are already there.

Why is combat not important remove warfare from the game what are you left with some mediocre seduce/kill mechanic. No vassal gameplay beside taking over, no diplomacy gameplay and once you have done it you start needing to come up with your own restriction or using mods to fill in the huge glaring gaps. But hey I was able to F my sister 10/10 game baby

The post got locked my thought on one of the argument:

Originally posted by bbry_pri:

Umm, many strategy games do combat like this, if you don't like it, don't play it. Throwing constant insults around shows little mental acuity, it just makes you look like an ---. By the way clever is not spelled cleaver. Why don't you go tell one of the most famous game designer's around, Sid Meier, how pathetic he was for not implementing your style of combat in Civ. There are features many of us would would like to see in games, but we are courteous enough to know in the end that it is not our game, and if we do request a change, we do it in a respectful manner. Both Civ and CK3 have sold plenty of copies, so obviously not everyone is as worried about this as you.

This is my answer to it:

What other games does combat in this style where you have 0 control over anything when the combat starts. Even with the previews title ck2, there was more to it than this. I want to see the list of games where what you claim is true. Also, selling numbers doesn't mean it is a good game. cyberpunk sold buggy and was unplayable; it doesn't say much.

You are missing the point. Even if civ wasn't my type of game or the type of combat is different from my liking, at least it is there you have some agency. ck3 warfare is a lousy auto-battler. Either invent the wheel or perfect what is out there. If you want the combat to be auto-battler, at the least, make it interactive if the players choose to interact with it. If the other players don't care, they can auto-play like usual. Even in games like auto chess, there are tactics involved. Why can't you place your units instead of the game doing whatever it wants, and you hoping to rng for some random numbers that nobody cares about when you have stacked enough of a MaA to wipe anyone. Every war is the same call your troops run at the enemy, which is most combat. They have done auto-battler for most of their games Stellaris, Ck2 but never this bad.

To iterate, I don't care what combat/warfare system they have. I want player agency that you have in all the games combat listed, like civ, ck2, stellaris, and even most auto-battler. Yes, there are terrain systems and counters, but they don't matter as much as they should.

[PDX-Trinexx]

Main reason combat is abstracted the way it is, is simply because it's not part of the game's scope. The focus is on dynastic politics and large-scale conflict; having tactical battles like you're describing would detract from that.

We'd rather direct our energy at making the existing layers the game takes place in more compelling than adding another layer. At the risk of sounding reductive, it's the same reason we don't have over-the-shoulder direct control of characters; you're effectively talking about a different game entirely at that point.

[Harris]

I liked the version with farts better.

Seriously though, they need to pause on making these DLCs with little substance, and take the time to rework base game's flawed systems (of which warfare is arguably the most important), even if they wouldn't be able to monetize it. Right now anything that isn't strictly behind paywall feels like a minimal effort afterthought. Regencies being an obvious example.

I turned off announcements from CK3 right after they forced the dev diary about adoptions for same-sex couples into my face. So now I had to make a deliberate effort to watch the "3 years of CK3" video. There was some exciting news about the future plans promised at the end. So I watch it, and what do I see at the end? A Muslim DLC, which does not really come as a surprise to anybody. And that's it?

On the whole, I feel like I'm not the target audience for this year of post-launch support. I don't play Clan governments at all, and I'd rather more love was given to East Slavs and tribals. I'm also one who thinks W&W does not really add much to the game and either of other DLC options that was offered (sex and dread-based rule) would make a better choice. Why can't we have both anyway?

[Bordric]

Not a war game. It is not total war, maybe this is not the game you were looking for.

[jerrypocalypse]

Originally posted by Bordric:

Not a war game. It is not total war, maybe this is not the game you were looking for.

Gotta agree with this.

As Trinexx pointed out, it's just not the focus of this game.

[412345123214]

Originally posted by PDX-Trinexx:

Main reason combat is abstracted the way it is, is simply because it's not part of the game's scope. The focus is on dynastic politics and large-scale conflict; having tactical battles like you're describing would detract from that.

We'd rather direct our energy at making the existing layers the game takes place in more compelling than adding another layer. At the risk of sounding reductive, it's the same reason we don't have over-the-shoulder direct control of characters; you're effectively talking about a different game entirely at that point.

I dont think you really grasp what the ask is. We are talking about adding buttons to the battle screen where you get to decide phases of the battle that are already there it might need to be fleshed out a bit. It will add agency to the gameplay loop and feel like you are leading the army fail some of the phases and now you might even lose the whole battle because you miss timed the timing. Also this option is only there if player is commander same for the AI.

Would be + to have a Ui where you select who gets to command what troops in the war and it is not just 1 general in the whole war. Kinda like heroes in auto-battler. Each commander has MaA assigned to them like usually. This part is more complicated, but manageable to do. As I said it is a big + but the first thing is more important.

I am not asking you to revamp and change everything instead of having the battle be auto keep that for the players that like this system and add agency nothing more it is pretty simple or even better make warfare not hard-coded and let us work with it as a community.

[Harris]

Originally posted by 412345123214:

I am not asking you to revamp and change everything instead of having the battle be auto

Yes - I think the OP was misunderstood. Nobody's asking to build a Total War game inside CK3.

It's just that the current iteration that's been with us since original release is not fun either. Having to chase enemy stacks around the map for years. Having no agency over the outcome of automated battles. Being unable to accurately predict said outcome.

T&T shuffled around the domain part a little bit, but it didn't do much other than super-focusing on a single holding rather than having barracks in every holding. For example, there is still no reason to have a diverse army instead of specializing into a single homogenous doomstack, be it heavy infantry or heavy cavalry.

It'a valid thing to be asking, because warfare was talked about in the "floor plan", and that was honestly a while ago.

[bbry_pri]

I have no problem with the op wanting to give criticism, I just feel there is no reason to not be courteous. As to the comment about this generation, I guarantee I am older than you, I was just brought up in a family where courtesy mattered. Also, the original post did not sound like the change you wanted was little. The way you are phrasing it now, is far more valid and possible. I obviously misunderstood what you were asking for.

[LedLoaf]

Originally posted by Harris:

Originally posted by 412345123214:

I am not asking you to revamp and change everything instead of having the battle be auto

Yes - I think the OP was misunderstood. Nobody's asking to build a Total War game inside CK3.

It's just that the current iteration that's been with us since original release is not fun either. Having to chase enemy stacks around the map for years. Having no agency over the outcome of automated battles. Being unable to accurately predict said outcome.

T&T shuffled around the domain part a little bit, but it didn't do much other than super-focusing on a single holding rather than having barracks in every holding. For example, there is still no reason to have a diverse army instead of specializing into a single homogenous doomstack, be it heavy infantry or heavy cavalry.

It'a valid thing to be asking, because warfare was talked about in the "floor plan", and that was honestly a while ago.

I'd love to have more interaction with the war system, but you definitely have agency over the outcome of the battles. Terrain, troop composition, generals, building perks, etc. The part that sucks is the AI is too easy to exploit, because they are stupid.

[412345123214]

Originally posted by LedLoaf:

Originally posted by Harris:

Yes - I think the OP was misunderstood. Nobody's asking to build a Total War game inside CK3.

It's just that the current iteration that's been with us since original release is not fun either. Having to chase enemy stacks around the map for years. Having no agency over the outcome of automated battles. Being unable to accurately predict said outcome.

T&T shuffled around the domain part a little bit, but it didn't do much other than super-focusing on a single holding rather than having barracks in every holding. For example, there is still no reason to have a diverse army instead of specializing into a single homogenous doomstack, be it heavy infantry or heavy cavalry.

It'a valid thing to be asking, because warfare was talked about in the "floor plan", and that was honestly a while ago.

I'd love to have more interaction with the war system, but you definitely have agency over the outcome of the battles. Terrain, troop composition, generals, building perks, etc. The part that sucks is the AI is too easy to exploit, because they are stupid.

The issue is they matter to a point. The issue is they dont want to lean into the numeric stuff heavily because they feel like players are dumb or the AI wont utilize it. if they absolutely dont want to change the core of warfare system they could lean into terrain buffs way more. Cultures that excel in forest fighting have huge bonuses and commanders that have traits to buff it even more. Weather system could also be deadlier and expanded on storms, rain, mud, heat and much more. Deadly sickness flue and other stuff could be events where half of your army gets killed.

[412345123214]

Originally posted by cdplayer906:

Originally posted by 412345123214:

I dont think you really grasp what the ask is. We are talking about adding buttons to the battle screen where you get to decide phases of the battle that are already there it might need to be fleshed out a bit. It will add agency to the gameplay loop and feel like you are leading the army fail some of the phases and now you might even lose the whole battle because you miss timed the timing. Also this option is only there if player is commander same for the AI.

Would be + to have a Ui where you select who gets to command what troops in the war and it is not just 1 general in the whole war. Kinda like heroes in auto-battler. Each commander has MaA assigned to them like usually. This part is more complicated, but manageable to do. As I said it is a big + but the first thing is more important.

I am not asking you to revamp and change everything instead of having the battle be auto keep that for the players that like this system and add agency nothing more it is pretty simple or even better make warfare not hard-coded and let us work with it as a community.

i don't think you really grasp what this game is about. combat is secondary. thats what the dev is trying to tell you. you sound pompous as hell just from this comment alone.

i always love people telling devs what should be pretty simple to implement. i'll bet OP has a unity game under his belt, maybe even a few

I am not asking them to write a new systems or anything of that sort all I am asking the bare minimum an interaction button to the already existing phase system. In the combat UI there is phases of combat add a button for each and the players that dont care about this just play as usual and let us the other players that care about warfare try to have the best outcome of the fight by making it feel like I am leading the army. The upside is if the timing is done right I will get more bonuses as I should and if I fail get negative score.

Also how can you call someone "pompous" and write this " i'll bet OP has a unity game under his belt, maybe even a few" yeah guys unity bad got him good :D

[Emperor2000]

Originally posted by LedLoaf:

Originally posted by cdplayer906:

i don't think you really grasp what this game is about. combat is secondary. thats what the dev is trying to tell you. you sound pompous as hell just from this comment alone.

i always love people telling devs what should be pretty simple to implement. i'll bet OP has a unity game under his belt, maybe even a few

The game is obviously about the dynasties, but to say war isn't a giant, an absolute GIANT, in this game is ridiculous. It's one of the few parts of CK that is inevitable and required. They can definitely beef it up and make it more engaging without pretending war isn't one of the biggest components of CK3.

The game currently is not about Dynasties, at least not until they have fixed the Bug, that the AI let their Dynasty die out, because they refuse to marry and if there is no "Highborn" Partner to marry, they should marry Lowborns, because they can be castrated at anytime, even the CK2 AI has married as soon they have reached the Age of 16.

Having to babysitting all AI's in the Game is not fun.

[FlyingDutchman]

Originally posted by 412345123214:

Originally posted by PDX-Trinexx:

Main reason combat is abstracted the way it is, is simply because it's not part of the game's scope. The focus is on dynastic politics and large-scale conflict; having tactical battles like you're describing would detract from that.

We'd rather direct our energy at making the existing layers the game takes place in more compelling than adding another layer. At the risk of sounding reductive, it's the same reason we don't have over-the-shoulder direct control of characters; you're effectively talking about a different game entirely at that point.

I dont think you really grasp what the ask is. We are talking about adding buttons to the battle screen where you get to decide phases of the battle that are already there it might need to be fleshed out a bit. It will add agency to the gameplay loop and feel like you are leading the army fail some of the phases and now you might even lose the whole battle because you miss timed the timing. Also this option is only there if player is commander same for the AI.

Would be + to have a Ui where you select who gets to command what troops in the war and it is not just 1 general in the whole war. Kinda like heroes in auto-battler. Each commander has MaA assigned to them like usually. This part is more complicated, but manageable to do. As I said it is a big + but the first thing is more important.

I am not asking you to revamp and change everything instead of having the battle be auto keep that for the players that like this system and add agency nothing more it is pretty simple or even better make warfare not hard-coded and let us work with it as a community.

Nothing of what you suggest would improve the game let alone warfare except for artificial feeling of power over the outcome. In addition to that it would make war redundant as you could just cheese your way to victory when you should loose. (aka the total war effect) The other change just makes the kinda mikro heavy warfare a even worse pain in the butt for no real benefit. Again warfare is part of the game not its focus.

The entire point is to win the war before it starts (prep, diplo, etc.) You are supposed to lead the dynasty not the army. If you want to play the battle go for total war, knights of honor 2, age of empires for rts.

[Slaytherine]

If you have played other Paradox games, the combat has always been uncontrollable and depends on other factors. While it's not controllable, doesn't mean that it is not complex. Look at HOI4, people write an essay to explain what is the best build.

[PDX-Trinexx]

Originally posted by 412345123214:

dont think you really grasp what the ask is. We are talking about adding buttons to the battle screen where you get to decide phases of the battle that are already there it might need to be fleshed out a bit. It will add agency to the gameplay loop and feel like you are leading the army fail some of the phases and now you might even lose the whole battle because you miss timed the timing. Also this option is only there if player is commander same for the AI.

There's always room for existing systems to be improved so I'm definitely not saying that warfare systems are set in stone and will never change, but direct user involvement in individual battles like you're proposing is... unlikely.

That said, never say never; if demand for something is there then we'll absolutely look into it and see how feasible it is to implement.

[Harris]

Originally posted by PDX-Trinexx:

There's always room for existing systems to be improved so I'm definitely not saying that warfare systems are set in stone and will never change, but direct user involvement in individual battles like you're proposing is... unlikely.

That said, never say never; if demand for something is there then we'll absolutely look into it and see how feasible it is to implement.

Do I get it right that there's currently no plans to do anything about warfare at all and you're basically looking for "demand" before even considering it?

Because that kinda contradicts what was communicated in Dev Diary 109 a year ago:

Warfare is not and never will be a primary focus for CK3, that said it’s not as character-driven as it could be, outside of commander advantage and the occasional great knight. There’s also a real problem with delivering content (usually in the form of events) during times of war, as the player more often than not gets interrupted by something appearing in the middle of the screen while maneuvering units. I’d eventually like for us to be able to deliver content in a way that doesn’t interrupt warfare, and use that system to highlight characters and heroic acts (Battle of Agincourt, anyone?). I’d also like to rework the major annoyances of warfare, such as supply.