Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2138134412
Take a look at the pursuit damage.
That was a Khagan bred from his birth to be the perfect general, and nothing else, with the correct religion, culture, warrior lodge, items and general traits, and the other one was just a great general with chinese commander traits, see the difference?
205 damage without a general
448 damage with a great general
8324 damage with a perfect general
Is this the effect of Retinues? Check the troop composition, those are regular feudal levies, there was WAY more to the combat system than just "I made Retinues, I'm invincible" now, and I'm sure anyone claiming this was OP doesn't know the first thing about how to get there and couldn't possibly replicate anything like that even if they tried right now.
Here's another example:
https://imgur.com/07Z1aoD
These are 5k Nomad "Retinues" versus 15k heavy feudal troops, Notice how fast the flank in which the Khagan is leading falls, the other 2 had excelent generals with 2~3 chinese traits (OP), you can't "find" better generals than those I had unless it was your son, bred and controlled by your player like that Khagan, and the other 2 were still losing the combat with nothing but LC, which excels in Skirmish, The enemy would probably have won those battles if my Khagan wasn't there in the skirmish phase, and if they survived long enough to get in melee, when LC is worthless, they'd get instantly slaughtered as they had no heavy troops to fight in melee. That 15k vs 5k had me nervous before it started, even though I had nothing but "retinues" and I was in my favored plains terrain, with bonuses for plains too.
Again, I am sure nobody criticizing the CK2 system here could get anywhere near the required level to win this battle, yet they'd claim it's "the same thing" it's not.
Meanwhile in CK2 I don't need to worry about generals, flanks, general traits, artifacts, societies, religious bonuses, societies, terrain, if I have 2 MAA or a couple of decently buffed knights (just get "only the strong" culture and add a few duchy buildings) you'll stackwipe every empire in the planet, and once your ruler dies the heir inherits 100% of that power, you don't have to go out of your way, you don't have to invest into anything you don't have to understand any mechanicsl, you just place the 2 full MAA stacks & your knights against anything in the planet and combat is over.
I mean
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3148317483
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3148317567
PS: Before that I was sailing around attacking the byzantine empire with 2 stacks, one with nothing but the knights, one with just those 2 MAA regiments, they'd drop on top of the big byzantine armies from the sea, taking a giant advantage penalty.... And stackwiping them just the same. Either the knights or the MAA could do it by themselves.
This is horrible, this is nothing like that example, I had Crossbow retinues back home I trained specifically to counter the mongols and.... I literally forgot to raise them, and I still won, with a bunch of MAA I didn't invest in, at all, in this game, and they were all "countered" as those mongol troops are supposed to "counter" heavy infantry, yet they held their own and killed 4x more than they lost, while the knights wiped the floor with them.
The knights? Nothing special, about 400~500% efficiency bonuses, without the martial tree, and I was playing with Obfuskate, so I couldn't even get the "Best" knights in the world, those were all random dudes that would show up in my court & marry to my daughters just because they "looked strong", they were all around 20 prowess average, and this was the "endgame crisis", it was pathetic. If you really want to push this absurdity and truly minmax, which is not something I did, you can reach results like 3 guys stackwiping entire armies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sINqz2-aeeg
Needless to say once that happened I felt so demotivated I ended that run right there as there was nothing to ever look forward to in that playthrough again.
I Seriously didn't do anything, I was just literate enough to read "barracks and blacksmiths give bonuses to Heavy infantry, so I'll station them there" and that was enough to break the game beyond repair.
I agree with your reasoning that MAA are too powerful in CK3 compared to what we had in CK2. Simply put, and somewhat sadly, CK2 still has a better Warfare System. If they would give us open source, as I mentioned in one of the Steam discussions, I would never complain. I would simply fix it myself when the developers don't seem to know how. No one I've talked to in CK3 likes the strategy(those who disagreed with me), and I honestly don't understand why they play this game.
Edited: And you provided a lot of proof that MAA (from CK3) are too overpowered compared to what we had in CK2.
Am I wrong with my statements? If so, please tell me what is incorrect. If I'm not wrong, then I don't see the point of your response to me. If other people agree with me, there will be change; if not, there won't. That's it. I don't know why you're so against me expressing my criticism. I won't be silent like some and expect change to happen magically.
I don't understand why you think my 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?") is problematic. I never said anything about you voting for someone(in real life, man it was only thing that is logical which we all had in ower countries), nor did I connect it to real-world politics. It was a purely logical question with one clear answer: if you don't vote for your preferred candidate, they're unlikely to win. The point of the example is this: if you want something changed, it won't happen if you don't voice your opinion (just like I'm doing now regarding the CK2 Warfare System).
Edited.
Again, I don't see the point of your comment. If you didn't come here to discuss with me, then why did you?
It seems you've come here to say we're in the minority and shouldn't talk about anything (but what does that have to do with the topic). Don't we have freedom of speech here? And if my opinion is in the minority, why am I not allowed to express it? As I said, people will agree if they agree or don't if they disagree. It is really simple to understand and that's it. Do you see that you're trying to impose your opinion by force, which isn't even related to the topic of this discussion(that i shouldn't say my opinions/criticism because i am minority)?
As for the 5000% boosted knights, that just illustrates how dire the problem is, but in my own example reaching a simple 300~500% with a bunch of random knights from your own realm (not the best in the world and certainly not a 100 prowess dude like in that video) is already enough to stackwipe every army in the entire planet besides the mongols, and even they ended up losing, even though it wasn't a flat stackwipe like the HRE or the Byzantine empires.
No single thing will fix the issues with the game, it's a giant mess thet urgently needs a custodian team (like the one from stellaris) to work on this full time to get things figured out, just like there is no hope for this game until the AI is taught how to play, there is no hope for this game while levies exist as they are, and bonues stack the way they do, and space marines walk among men like gods.
Am I being unreasonable, or are you? I'm a patient man, but... ugh.
What you don't seem to understand is that you disagree with me about what? That's my point(you didn't said any argument against my that WS from CK2 is better then what we have now in CK3, i didn't see, sorry if i missed, if you did). You haven't said anything about the topic of this discussion. You've only said that we're in the minority and how we better not to speak about things we disagree because we are in minority(it looked like your comments were intended that way, maybe you didn't mean it, but that's how it seemed), and nothing else. Do you understand now what I meant when I said that what you said is off-topic?
Do you know what a discussion or an argument/debate is? I stated my points; you stated nothing. How you can't understand this is beyond me. It's really simple. If you're against my opinion and don't wish to discuss it, then don't. But if you do wish to discuss it, stay on topic.
*The topic isn't how we are minority and that we should not talk about those things if we are in the minority. Do you understand what you did said? That's why I responded the way I did in my reply to you.
Edited: He run away.
You have a point.
In another thread I explained what we might get.
A selection tactic based on your tactic trait, that can have various effects if they pop. From buffs, to immediate damage, to events. All headed by knights and based on knight count.
IE: a "full charge" that causes a chunk of damage if it pops. It will apply a knight, who will have various possibilities that can trigger, like being a casualty.
or maybe a damage buff to levies, from a speech for 3 months (we can get rid of the event a put it here.)
or an event pop up, where a knight for a handful of the best soldiers to charge. Where you have options to give them like promising a title, etc. They will then have many results mostly focused on char development (rather then juts a chunk of damage.)
This allows a feeling of tactical adaptability, while also focusing on the strength of CK 3's design by keeping the characters center stage and having variable results to give a feeling of drama for those characters.
My biggest criticisms are directed at the CS in CK3, which is not the same as the CS in CK2. This contradicts the initial assertion that CK3's warfare is just a "reskinned version"(reformat) of CK2's. Points one through four of my earlier comment (which i said above in the first comment) further illustrate this difference fom CK2 WS.
As an example, consider this scenario from CK2 that I've previously shared(this is 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."
This kind of tactical maneuver, involving dynamic troop repositioning during battle, is not possible in the current CK3 "CS". This fundamental difference proves that the CK2 and CK3 CS are distinct. Therefore, claiming the CS which is part of WS are the same is incorrect.
Edited:
"In another thread I explained what we might get.
A selection tactic based on your tactic trait, that can have various effects if they pop. From buffs, to immediate damage, to events. All headed by knights and based on knight count.
IE: a "full charge" that causes a chunk of damage if it pops. It will apply a knight, who will have various possibilities that can trigger, like being a casualty.
or maybe a damage buff to levies, from a speech for 3 months (we can get rid of the event a put it here.)
or an event pop up, where a knight for a handful of the best soldiers to charge. Where you have options to give them like promising a title, etc. They will then have many results mostly focused on char development (rather then juts a chunk of damage.)
This allows a feeling of tactical adaptability, while also focusing on the strength of CK 3's design by keeping the characters center stage and having variable results to give a feeling of drama for those characters."
Honestly that would be good if they add this, really good ideas.
*CS- Combat System
*WS- Warfare System
The "brilliant tactical maneuver" you keep quoting was literally just "I assigned more troops to my good commander who was fighting a bad commander" That's it; that was your tactic. Is that really interesting gameplay to you?
Sure, CK3 has no direct analogue to that specific event, because it's one commander versus one commander, rather than 3-on-3, but does it really matter? Do you consider it a legendary strategic maneuver to put some crossbowmen on a hill to defend against a cavalry army? No, it's the completely obvious choice to make in that situation.
Moreover, what's your proof that even had any impact on the battle? Your "tactic" was to break the enemy's weakest flank, but is there any guarantee that wouldn't have happened without you shifting around your troops? Did you save scum the battle multiple times to check that you absolutely couldn't have won without your change in "tactics, or did you did you simply attribute your success to your actions, without any proof they actually changed the outcome?
As you can see by my public profile, I have well over a thousand hours in both CK2 and CK3; in all likelihood, I absolutely dwarf your skill level. Unfortunately, I simply recognize that making my number bigger does not make me some tactical genius like you think you are.
And if all you want are a bunch of numbers with little substance, perhaps you should be playing a JRPG. The micro-strategy in Paradox games, outside of maybe HoI4, has always been brain-dead. It's the macro-strategy that is the focus of the games, and the part that has any level of depth.
You accused it of being a feature for noobs, and you are wrong, as it is of little benefit to noobs. I'm not giving an opinion on that matter; I'm simply telling you that yours is logically flawed.
If you like microing combat, you should be playing a different game. The CK games are clearly very limited in the tactical depth of their battles, and a couple extra flanks did not significantly change that fact.
Regardless, I hardly see the point in microing against a braindead AI anyway. At least if the system is "simpler," the stupid AI can actually engage with it to an extent. Minmaxers are so focused on having more and more tiny ways to steal candy from a baby, they never ask "What's the point?"
I understand your point about the game slowing down.
Since I have no evidence to either confirm or deny this, I'll simply say that in CK2 it was never a significant problem. The real issue was the number of characters created and with poor optimization. But even if that mechanic did slow the game down, it wasn't noticeably so, at least in my experience with CK2. Of course, if it impacts performance as much as you believe, they could at least have that in all the automatically raised army, appear smaller, manageable units, like in CK2 -> this would make sense if CK2's CS were implemented. In that case, you could pursue those smaller units and distribute them to the center or flanks, which would be fine with me and I wouldn't complain if it was like you said that would make slower game noticeably.
----------------------------------------
Details: I had no commanders better than him(except one on the right which i had but slightly better). He had a strong commander on his left flank, against whom my center was no match and his center was the same(i mean strong). I then assigned a defensive-minded commander(traits for defenses... all for defense) to my center to delay him as much as possible—that is, to hold his left wing and center without losing my own center. My only strong point was my right flank (for attack), but his wasn't bad either. If I hadn't positioned enough troops(from my left wing to right) against his, I wouldn't have been able to win(his right and my were were 500 difference in my benefit). I also had to carefully calculate how many troops to leave with the central commander so he could hold out long enough for reinforcements(from my right winger). You know that red line that appears when they begin charging how looks like he reached that point(my commander) and managed to stop them. Of course, if reinforcements from the right hadn't arrived when they did, he wouldn't hold them any second more. It was a matter of timing everything was so perfectly executed. That's why I said the battle was so intense I should have recorded it. Now I regret not doing so, so I could publish it online and show you firsthand that this strategy wasn't just a matter of moving from one side to the other. - this is a detailed description of my strategy. And i had a smaller army than him that i am sure(i was zoro they were muslim, muslim had some modifies which give them more damange than in regular religions).
EDITED: because I've played this battle in past, I'm unsure whether I left some soldiers on the left flank (essentially sacrificing them during one of my many attempts) to buy time for the commander on the right to win or if I redeployed the entire left flank to the center and right but I do know that I balanced the number of soldiers deployed from left to the right flank and the center.
I shortened it because the full explanation was too long and complicated for someone who maybe don't understand some things i said here. You would understand (since you played CK2, but I have doubts because of your opinion that CK2's CS isn't superior to CK3's). Considering everything I've written, can you tell me if CK2's CS is still considered bad, and if it's the same as CK3's? I didn't say that something better couldn't be created than what we had in CK2, but what they did created it is really poor and CS from CK2 is very superior from that.
You have the complete example I described to someone above on page 1 we discussed, so you can see nothing has been edited. Now I will post the part I removed from the example because I thought it was unnecessary and wanted to shorten it: "...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." - And to add war was been won because of that battle really awesome.
----------------------------------------
I've played CK2 for 2411.3 hours. If you don't believe me, and if my profile is currently locked, I'll unlock it for you. Based on experience, I have over 1000 more hours of playtime than you. I didn't mention the number of hours to brag, but because you did. I said what i said because it looked to me that you didn't explored those details, since you thing CS from CK2 is the same as in CK3. That's why I said you might not be familiar with the mechanics. Many people play CK2 without thinking deeply about their actions.
----------------------------------------
I love strategy games like CK2, and if CK3 is a sequel, why didn't they maked better CS, or just implemented CS from CK2? CS from CK2 is a strategic element. But what is strategy if players don't utilize it in battles too this is strategy game after all. That's why I said you don't seem to love strategy—it seemed to me that you prefer things to be easier, which CK3 is nowadays.
----------------------------------------
True strategists or strategy game don't need an icon to tell them whether they'll win or not(battle outcomes would be unpredictable, this option tell you future which is fantasy). Make it optional. If you like it, feel free to use it, I don't, I'll turn it off. That's a perfectly logical approach, and I see no problem with it, or just remove it.
----------------------------------------
If I wanted to play a more realistic strategy game, I wouldn't have played CK2. As I've said, I enjoy the strategy (in addition to the family dynamics and all other things) that CK2 offers, and I don't see any games, or game series, that are better. I simply want what's logical: the inclusion of a more strategic system than what exists in CK3(if they did better i would mention CS from CK2, but for know WS from CK2 is more strategic and far more better). That was the point of my comment. It's not my fault that, for some unknown reason, you're trying to convince me it's all the same, when it isn't. You simply can't compare CK3 to its predecessor(when you look WS), all other things are good and i don't have issue with them.
*CS -Combat System
*WS - Warfare System