What it need CK3 to be great in warfare!!!

[Seth]

Warfare:

1) Knowing that you will win a battle (because of the green icon) ruins the enjoyment of strategy. I think that the "green icon" should be optional because if you are a truly strategic player, you don't need an icon to tell you that you will win. (Historically, this wasn't possible; we have many examples: Napoleon lost to Russia, Austria-Hungary lost to the Serbs, Hitler lost on the Eastern Front and collapsed as a result, the Swiss won many battles, the Rhomaioi, Byzantine Empire, lost to the Arabs, the Sasanian Empire also lost to the Arabs, Muslims lost to Christians in Spain and to the Franks... too many examples to list all—in all these battles, you couldn't know beforehand whether you would win or not. Too many factors exist that can change the tide of battle, and I am sure that all commanders didn't have a "green icon" to help them.) This feature is useful for the tutorial playthrough (for beginners), and it should be optional.

2) Not having right, left and center positions for commanders is also bad.

3) You cannot move army units from the right to the left wing.

4) Your troops are automatically assembled in your capital (where you placed the rally point) when raising them, which can make defense or attacks easier than they should be. I think that the feature which existed in CK2 (where you had to drag troops from provinces to a point where you would combine them) is more realistic.

These features would make CK3 more strategic and realistic. If I forget something, I will add it, or you can write in the comments. All these features existed in CK2. I don't know why they weren't added to CK3.

As it stands, CK2 is still far superior in warfare features and more realistic.

[Seth]

Originally posted by Bishi:

Yeah this won't be changed, hate to break it to you buddy. Not too long ago the advantage buff was increased to 10 and people were freaking out because this exact thing was happening. PDX reverted back to base 5, but there is a setting now if you want to relive that patch if you missed it I guess.

Seems it was too much to expect from them. So they added something to make it easier to win? I didn't know about that. If I understood you correctly, then I've just wasted my time writing this, and they clearly don't know what strategy is.

Edited:

"Points 2 and 3 are unique game mechanics to CK2, I'm not sure if this will ever return to the series tbh"
-It's a shame they weren't included in CK3, especially since they created them and they were so good in my opinion.

"you can still game wing composition"
-If you've played CK2, you'll understand what I mean when I say "move troop units from left to right wing" In your combined army. I meant from the right flank to the left flank commander which you can't in CK3. These troop units can consist of 200, 1,000 or... any number of soldiers—that's why I added the fourth point.

"For point 4, I suggest trying out the Dark Ages mod. Your armies are slow as molasses and it takes months to raise even in your capital. Not what I would call riveting gameplay, but it is a feature of the mod that can add bit more realism"

-When I said "realistic" I didn't mean that everything needs to be realistic. That would make the game unplayable or overly complicated. I meant features that existed in CK2 but haven't been added to CK3, features that were simple to understand. I'll probably go back to CK2. Maybe in 20 years I'll come back to CK3 and see if it's finally surpassed CK2:).

[Seth]

Originally posted by Bishi:

Originally posted by Seth:

Seems it was too much to expect from them. So they added something to make it easier to win? I didn't know about that. If I understood you correctly, then I've just wasted my time writing this, and they clearly don't know what strategy is.

Quite the opposite actually. When RtP first released, there was a buff to advantage that made battles in terrain matter more and often made most fights a crap shoot if you were going to win or not. This was quickly nerfed due to community outrage.

If you want to experience what I am talking about, there is a setting in the game rules where you can change the advantage combat multiplier. If you change it from 5 to 10, you can see how this patch played. It was very different and made certain situations like fighting in mountains much more precarious. Hell you would even lose half the time with "likely" will win indicator.

The community as a majority rejected making warfare harder in this particular way. So, I don't think your point 1 will ever come back to fruition, but there is a setting at least for it now. I think your best bet is point 4 happening. But, like I said, who knows how* the community will react to armies taking 5 times longer to raise.

Edit:*

I understand what you meant now, but I didn't say battles need to be more realistic or that players should always be at a disadvantage. I said that the features and interface CK2 had were excellent and realistic for that kind of strategy game. I'm not saying the player or AI should have an advantage (it should be equal; if they have better troops or more then me and better commanders, they should win, not the player just because we are the player—I mean, players shouldn't get arbitrary bonuses).
"I only said that we don't need -green or red icons- to tell us if we'll win" and we need more commanders(three not one, under whose command is the army) in a combined army:-this is from my experiences- "Because you could create tactics that allowed you to win even when outnumbered, which I did. I moved troops from the left flank to the right, where my stronger commander was positioned. The center commander held his left and center positions. When my right flank commander won, he took the enemy's center with my center troops, and together they attacked the numerically superior enemy left flank. I managed to win that battle—it was epic because I hadn't saved the game before it. When I went back to a save, I was always stuck in that battle with the same enemy who always won. Do you understand what I meant about winged commanders and the first point, and all the other points? Even if it's basic, you can create a strategy that will bring you victory".

[Seth]

Originally posted by Bishi:

Do you understand my point that wings are very likely never coming back, especially at this point in this particular game's life cycle? And also, you explained perfectly how they can be gamed to win fights you have no business winning.

I'm not trying to discredit your experiences and how you feel about CK2. I just explained one band-aid they tried, but the community did not like warfare being harder and unpredictable.

In fact, due to all the crusade posts, I would argue people want this game to be easier and they should never lose a single war, even the ones that require ally help or basic strategies such as back sieging.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree and it's a shame they won't add these features to CK3, but you see my point about winged commanders, and you should agree with me that they should have added them, because it would have been more realistic (and even players on easy mode could have understood it).

I know you don't want to discredit me, but they did a really bad job(with this combat advantage system that didn't exist in CK2.). I would be against it too because I'm for equality, not for them to have an advantage against me just because I'm a player, or for me to have an advantage because I'm player against ai.

Strategy isn't a children's game. If they want everything to be easy, just go play GTA 5 or use the command "gold 10000000" and you'll always be the strongest or just play on easy mode (i didn't say this to you specifically, but to people who want things to be easier, for me game is too easy now and don't need to be any easier). We who want a greater challenge, why should we suffer because of them(if they wish easy give them and to us who wish harder give us that)?

To be clear, I understand what you're saying: "that these features won't be added ever or they can't added because is to late", however if enough people want them, it's possible they could be added(if it is possible). And I haven't suggested anything new, just features that already existed in CK2. They already have the ideas for how to implement them, since they created them in the first place.

[ThunderNorse]

Your ruler is also not actually fighting in battles. Its very rare to die in battle as the ruler, but common to be captured by the enemy. This means your ruler will never be able to get kills on other character unlike your knights or other AI rulers. So having the option to have your ruler fight in battles would improve the game, also be able to fight for your liege if your liege wants you as knight. (to me CK was best when anything could happen to your character)

[Seth]

Originally posted by ThunderNorse:

Your ruler is also not actually fighting in battles. Its very rare to die in battle as the ruler, but common to be captured by the enemy. This means your ruler will never be able to get kills on other character unlike your knights or other AI rulers. So having the option to have your ruler fight in battles would improve the game, also be able to fight for your liege if your liege wants you as knight. (to me CK was best when anything could happen to your character)

I agree.

[VoiD]

Above all I'd like to see the return of tactics, instead of "blob A does damage to blob B", and combat phases, having skirmish & melee in which different troops have different combat value.

I'd also love to see the end of this gross imbalance between "levies" (they aren't levies, just shirtless unarmed peasants), MAA and Space Marines (Knights).

And, of course, the AI needs to be taught the game's basics, the player should not be stackwiping all armies in the planet just by building 2-3 mid tier buildings of the correct type and assigning the correct MAA to those 2~3 counties, this is the bare minimun we should expect from the AI.

[Seth]

Originally posted by VoiD:

Above all I'd like to see the return of tactics, instead of "blob A does damage to blob B", and combat phases, having skirmish & melee in which different troops have different combat value.

I'd also love to see the end of this gross imbalance between "levies" (they aren't levies, just shirtless unarmed peasants), MAA and Space Marines (Knights).

And, of course, the AI needs to be taught the game's basics, the player should not be stackwiping all armies in the planet just by building 2-3 mid tier buildings of the correct type and assigning the correct MAA to those 2~3 counties, this is the bare minimun we should expect from the AI.

It is what it is. We're probably in the minority with these thoughts, which is unfortunate.

[FelipeHssimoW]

Originally posted by Seth:

Originally posted by VoiD:

Above all I'd like to see the return of tactics, instead of "blob A does damage to blob B", and combat phases, having skirmish & melee in which different troops have different combat value.

I'd also love to see the end of this gross imbalance between "levies" (they aren't levies, just shirtless unarmed peasants), MAA and Space Marines (Knights).

And, of course, the AI needs to be taught the game's basics, the player should not be stackwiping all armies in the planet just by building 2-3 mid tier buildings of the correct type and assigning the correct MAA to those 2~3 counties, this is the bare minimun we should expect from the AI.

It is what it is. We're probably in the minority with these thoughts, which is unfortunate.

I actually don't think that's the case, but rather that a lot of people left the community. I've been banned so many times just for criticizing something in the game and a bunch of people started provoking me, then the CM would delete all my arguments and ban me, just me. I think this happens often and was even more frequent in the early years. Not everyone has the same patience as me.

I think you summed up what I think well, I'll soon plan another discussion on another topic that I think is relevant for the future of the game.

[Seth]

Originally posted by FelipeHssimoW:

Originally posted by Seth:

It is what it is. We're probably in the minority with these thoughts, which is unfortunate.

I actually don't think that's the case, but rather that a lot of people left the community. I've been banned so many times just for criticizing something in the game and a bunch of people started provoking me, then the CM would delete all my arguments and ban me, just me. I think this happens often and was even more frequent in the early years. Not everyone has the same patience as me.

I think you summed up what I think well, I'll soon plan another discussion on another topic that I think is relevant for the future of the game.

Ok, I wasn't aware of that, as i ain't on discussions that much. I didn't even know silencing was here too.

I will try to be there.

[Razorblade]

Originally posted by Seth:

These features would make CK3 more strategic and realistic. If I forget something, I will add it, or you can write in the comments. All these features existed in CK2. I don't know why they weren't added to CK3.

Individual armies being raised for every county absolutely tanked performance; a late game HRE going to war was the equivalent of a late game Crusade in CK3. I miss blitzkrieging being a valid war option, but it was completely untenable from a performance standpoint.

As for flanks, if your war system is going to be boring, it may as well be simple and boring, so you can get through the tedium faster. Flanks did not make the game more interesting; it just added a few extra clicks so the hardcore minmaxers could go "Yayyy! Big numbuh go upp!" Completely pointless, unfun system on top of a war system that already sucked. The JRPG-brained crowd already has plenty of modifiers to stack on their armies, without the extra clicks every time you assemble an army, so I don't really see the practical difference between the two systems; it still boils down to "big number good."

The battle success predictor, on the other hand, doesn't work anyway, and has never worked, so I'd hardly call it a "noob" feature. If anything, it's confusing to noobs, since it is not at all reliable.

There are certainly lots of improvements to be made to the battle system, but CK2 is hardly a good model. If it was a remotely fun system, the devs wouldn't have bothered experimenting with new ideas in the first place. But it wasn't fun; it was a boring means to an end, just like CK3's is. If you're looking back for inspiration, you're looking in the completely wrong direction.

[VoiD]

I'd say the CK2 wasn't a good model, it was the best model paradex had, exlucing the post-rework Stellaris

I wish we had more control over the system, but the system itself and it's mechanics were better than everything they've made since.

Originally posted by Seth:

Originally posted by VoiD:

Above all I'd like to see the return of tactics, instead of "blob A does damage to blob B", and combat phases, having skirmish & melee in which different troops have different combat value.

I'd also love to see the end of this gross imbalance between "levies" (they aren't levies, just shirtless unarmed peasants), MAA and Space Marines (Knights).

And, of course, the AI needs to be taught the game's basics, the player should not be stackwiping all armies in the planet just by building 2-3 mid tier buildings of the correct type and assigning the correct MAA to those 2~3 counties, this is the bare minimun we should expect from the AI.

It is what it is. We're probably in the minority with these thoughts, which is unfortunate.

I wouldn't say so, wherever I look it's always about half a dozen people saying the opposite, against hundreds/thousands of different users that come and go leaving their criticism against these same half dozen people since launch. There was one more, a guy called "Paradox Knight", he'd be in every thread defending the game from any and all criticism as well, jaming discussions, it was weird, one day he just made a post saying he couldn't take it any more and he'd leave the game and these forums forever, never seen him around here again (I see him in some of the chinese games I play posting on their forums sometimes, seems normal now)

Also, wherever we can actually see upvotes and agreements, it shows a very different picture.

Take the official paradox forum as the best example:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/this-game-is-fundamentally-broken.1661745/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/ck3-is-too-easy.1599035/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/late-game-lolw.1726932/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/2017-knight-effectiveness-13733-slaughtered-by-3-should-we-need-a-cap.1728134/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/the-nomad-levy-system-mentioned-should-be-adapted-to-all-governments.1728602/

Notice which kind of posts tend to get overwhelming agreements vs disagreements.

Even in Reddit, the worst place in the internet used often just for memes, if you word things properly (too aggressive and you're always downvoted, even if you're right), you can find a lot of agreement and hadrly anyone trying to tell you the opposite.
IE: https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/1ibtx7l/comment/m9l6p1a/

A user made another meme like the origina post, but showint the opposite idea and it was getting upvoted as well, just the same, you'd expect if it was just "agreement with that idea" one should be heavily negative, but no, it's just reddit upvoting any memes.

Anyway, it's really odd, you try to start a serious discussion here, and after a while the usual suspects (that aren't present, yet) show up, derrail the discussion, start attacking everybody, start repeating nonsense like bots, people start getting banned, the thread is closed, and people leave, that has been happening for years and I haven't seen this in any of the other paradox forums, you can criticize games like Vic3 harshly and the discussion just keeps going, these kinds of trolls don't show up, people say their piece on both sides and often the devs start listening and making changes to the game, this is why we already had our first military rework and a 2nd one is already scheduled.

This is the reason why I gave up on the steam forums, btw, at least for this game, nobody seems to be listening and it's only a source of baits for trolls trying to get you banned over and over again.

Anyway, it's quite telling when the one DLC that comes out that goes against the design decisions of paradox for the last half decade, and the stuff the people arguing against criticism said people wanted is the first DLC to permanently increase player numbers, if "the silent majority" didn't want better strategy elements, how come RtP is their best DLC with the best retention on steamcharts? It's always the same argument "most people aren't here to voice their opinions" but we have never, seen a case in which the "silent majority" doesn't have a similar opinion to the proportions we see online.

IE: A DLC that gets 80% positive reviews from 3k users probably resonated well with close to 80% of the other 5 million users that didn't voice their opinons as well, if we want to ask for how long they've enjoyed the DLC we can often go to steamcharts to see the proportion and % growth months after it's release and it always gives us a good indication of how things are going. Granted, we know unhappy customers are more likely to complain or leave a negative review, because they are more emotionally invested, it's still unreasonable to think a true 90% positive would fall to 50% because of that.

Speaking of Vic3, the exact same thing happened over there, they spent pre-development trying to bash players for complaining about the terrible warfare, game launched, it had a bad launch thanks to this, they tried to keep telling people "it's an economic game guys, it's not a war game guys" for a year, then they gave up and addressed warfare. Boom, player numbers have increased and the bleeding of players have stopped. It's almost as if players have been telling exactly what they wanted from their games from the start.

[VoiD]

Originally posted by Bishi:

@VoiD

I agree with most of what you are saying, but you lost me completely once you started talking about RtP. It was pretty broken on launch on both sides of balance. After the fixes to advantage and insane mercenary camps, I would argue RtP still power-crept the game and added two forms of governemnt that still allow one to break this game open far faster and easier than tribal, feudal, or clan ever did. Also, RtP basically made it impossible to game over now with inheritchance being part of the base game now.

I'm personally pretty mixed on it. We can even find posts on the official forums of people voicing concerns that Nomads might be even as strong or stronger than these two new additions.

I really do think you guys are in the minority. And angry people tend to gather and voice their frustrations online. Most people aren't even going to bother participating here or there unless for tech support.

Personally, I've resigned myself to just using mods like Dark Ages and Obfusckate. I lost hope in PDX delivering what I wanted or even expected after the Stellaris dlc pass from 2 years ago.

Oh yeah, the balance was messy, but that's something that tends to get adjusted over time, what I mean is that it's the first, and only DLC with actual content to justify it's long dev cycle adding 2 government types and more mechanics to the game.

Everything else felt like nothingburgers, the "best" of the bunch, T&T, was an entire DLC dedicated do nothing but side-content.

It's no secret that CK3 didn't change, almost at all, since launch, there was a severe lack of content in the post-release years which is something you can't really say about any of the other Paradox games that werent abandoned (Imperator) and even that one had more changes with it's final reworks. Any threads asking for DLC recomendations would be flooded with people saying "honestly, none of them are important", and everyone would agree, until RtP.

As for the majority vs minority argument, I don't ever see this high proportion of people supporting the way things were done up until now, in every discussion, everywhere, we see hundreds/thousands of people, eventually, arguing with the same half dozen people defending the game and/or trolling threads to get them locked, I have no reason to believe this supposed "silent majority that agrees with everything I say" exists anywhere.

I find it far more likely there are more people tolerant of the ways things have been going, but given the oportunity they'd agree with most/all complaints we see people agreeing with everywhere, after all, there is no real competition to CK games.

The people claiming we "can never know anyting" and indicators have no value would only, ever be satisfied if Paradox made a very intrusive unbiased poll that wouldn't allow players to play the game until they voted on their opinions ingame so we could have the numbers from every single player in the world, but we know that's never going to happen.

[Seth]

Originally posted by Razorblade:

Originally posted by Seth:

These features would make CK3 more strategic and realistic. If I forget something, I will add it, or you can write in the comments. All these features existed in CK2. I don't know why they weren't added to CK3.

Individual armies being raised for every county absolutely tanked performance; a late game HRE going to war was the equivalent of a late game Crusade in CK3. I miss blitzkrieging being a valid war option, but it was completely untenable from a performance standpoint.

As for flanks, if your war system is going to be boring, it may as well be simple and boring, so you can get through the tedium faster. Flanks did not make the game more interesting; it just added a few extra clicks so the hardcore minmaxers could go "Yayyy! Big numbuh go upp!" Completely pointless, unfun system on top of a war system that already sucked. The JRPG-brained crowd already has plenty of modifiers to stack on their armies, without the extra clicks every time you assemble an army, so I don't really see the practical difference between the two systems; it still boils down to "big number good."

The battle success predictor, on the other hand, doesn't work anyway, and has never worked, so I'd hardly call it a "noob" feature. If anything, it's confusing to noobs, since it is not at all reliable.

There are certainly lots of improvements to be made to the battle system, but CK2 is hardly a good model. If it was a remotely fun system, the devs wouldn't have bothered experimenting with new ideas in the first place. But it wasn't fun; it was a boring means to an end, just like CK3's is. If you're looking back for inspiration, you're looking in the completely wrong direction.

I suggested that raising armies shouldn't be fully automated because it removes strategic depth. One strategic element is the ability to engage and defeat smaller, newly raised squads before they merge into larger armies. Another is the tactical maneuvering of these smaller squads within the "Combat System", such as shifting them from the right to the left of the commander, which is a valuable feature. I believe these are strong points, and I'd appreciate a specific counter-argument if you disagree.

Regarding your opinion that the "Combat System" wasn't superior in CK2 compared to CK3 i have example for your from my experience: "Because you could create tactics that allowed you to win even when outnumbered, which I did. I moved troops from the left flank to the right, where my stronger commander was positioned. My center commander held his left and center positions. When my right flank commander won(his right from my side), he took the enemy's center with my center troops, and together they attacked the numerically superior enemy left flank. I managed to win that battle".- Can you tell me if this is possible to do this in CK3 "Combat System"? - it's not. Then how can you compare these two systems and say they're equally bad(I agree with you that CK3's "Combat System" is awful – broken, badly designed, and truly trash, but CK2's system is far superior and It's not perfect, but it's far better then what we have in CK3) If you still disagree after considering my points about army raising, please explain why, referencing specific mechanics or examples, instead of just saying it's "bad'. I'm happy to discuss it further if you provide concrete reasons. Strategy games don't have to be fast, but CK2 was a fast-paced game. How can you say its features were slow? In my experience, CK2 was a fast-paced strategy game. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how to play it, which might explain why you think its mechanics were slow.

If you find strategic gameplay uninteresting, I'm not sure why you're engaging in this discussion. Perhaps a game like GTA 5, which focuses on action and open-world gameplay rather than strategy, would be more enjoyable for you. In CK2, both troop numbers and commander skill are crucial. I have provided an example of a smaller force defeating a larger one through strategy. My argument is that while strategy can sometimes overcome a numerical disadvantage (as my example illustrates), it's not a guaranteed outcome, and numbers still play a significant role in determining the likely victor(that's also a historical fact and i don't see problem with that). And in my example, I didn't use MAA, which means CK2's "Combat System(CS-shortened)" places even more emphasis on the commander and tactics then what we have in CK3 which, for people who love strategy, is a great feature and far better then what we have now in CK3.

So, you agree that the green icon is ineffective and doesn't benefit even new players? If that's the case, then I'm not sure why we're continuing this discussion. Since we both seem to agree it's useless, why not simply remove it(as you said it is broken)? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by continuing the argument.

I gave an example that contradicts your point. It seems to me that you don't like strategy.
I hope that you now understand better.

[Seth]

Originally posted by Bishi:

@VoiD
I really do think you guys are in the minority. And angry people tend to gather and voice their frustrations online. Most people aren't even going to bother participating here or there unless for tech support.

Personally, I've resigned myself to just using mods like Dark Ages and Obfusckate. I lost hope in PDX delivering what I wanted or even expected after the Stellaris dlc pass from 2 years ago.

I understand what you're saying, and if I were wrong, the statement "angry people tend to gather and voice..." would be correct. However, I'm not angry. Everything I've said makes sense. If I am wrong, please just explain what's wrong with my arguments against the "Warfare System" in CK3.

That's a very poor way of thinking. How are developers supposed to know which features are good or not if the community doesn't give them feedback? By remaining silent, the game can only get worse. Everything I mentioned has solid arguments supporting it. Another example: If you want your preferred candidate to govern the country, how can you achieve that if you don't vote for him, and no one else who shares your views on that candidate votes for him either?
I hope I've managed to explain why I'm writing these criticisms.

[Seth]

Originally posted by VoiD:

Originally posted by Bishi:

@VoiD

I agree with most of what you are saying, but you lost me completely once you started talking about RtP. It was pretty broken on launch on both sides of balance. After the fixes to advantage and insane mercenary camps, I would argue RtP still power-crept the game and added two forms of governemnt that still allow one to break this game open far faster and easier than tribal, feudal, or clan ever did. Also, RtP basically made it impossible to game over now with inheritchance being part of the base game now.

I'm personally pretty mixed on it. We can even find posts on the official forums of people voicing concerns that Nomads might be even as strong or stronger than these two new additions.

I really do think you guys are in the minority. And angry people tend to gather and voice their frustrations online. Most people aren't even going to bother participating here or there unless for tech support.

Personally, I've resigned myself to just using mods like Dark Ages and Obfusckate. I lost hope in PDX delivering what I wanted or even expected after the Stellaris dlc pass from 2 years ago.

Oh yeah, the balance was messy, but that's something that tends to get adjusted over time, what I mean is that it's the first, and only DLC with actual content to justify it's long dev cycle adding 2 government types and more mechanics to the game.

Everything else felt like nothingburgers, the "best" of the bunch, T&T, was an entire DLC dedicated do nothing but side-content.

It's no secret that CK3 didn't change, almost at all, since launch, there was a severe lack of content in the post-release years which is something you can't really say about any of the other Paradox games that werent abandoned (Imperator) and even that one had more changes with it's final reworks. Any threads asking for DLC recomendations would be flooded with people saying "honestly, none of them are important", and everyone would agree, until RtP.

As for the majority vs minority argument, I don't ever see this high proportion of people supporting the way things were done up until now, in every discussion, everywhere, we see hundreds/thousands of people, eventually, arguing with the same half dozen people defending the game and/or trolling threads to get them locked, I have no reason to believe this supposed "silent majority that agrees with everything I say" exists anywhere.

I find it far more likely there are more people tolerant of the ways things have been going, but given the oportunity they'd agree with most/all complaints we see people agreeing with everywhere, after all, there is no real competition to CK games.

The people claiming we "can never know anyting" and indicators have no value would only, ever be satisfied if Paradox made a very intrusive unbiased poll that wouldn't allow players to play the game until they voted on their opinions ingame so we could have the numbers from every single player in the world, but we know that's never going to happen.

You are right 100%.