|
It's dumb and does nothing to accomplish its stated goal of giving the armies who lose a battle a chance to recover because you can and should still follow them and finish them off, it just takes longer.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
cock hero flux posted:It's dumb and does nothing to accomplish its stated goal of giving the armies who lose a battle a chance to recover because you can and should still follow them and finish them off, it just takes longer. Instead of forced retreats it might be more interesting if they force-disbanded armies that lost bad enough to simulate a medieval army scatting and breaking after a particularly bad defeat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Luckily literally everyone will be able to turn off shattered retreat next patch, too bad you can't turn off the entire conclave dlc
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Except for the launcher where you can explicitly turn off conclave in it's entirety.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Conclave may well be my favorite CK2 DLC. What's currently keeping me from sinking any more time into CK2 is poor performance and constant slowdowns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:Except for the launcher where you can explicitly turn off conclave in it's entirety. Oh man don't I look dumb!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
Darth Windu posted:Luckily literally everyone will be able to turn off shattered retreat next patch, too bad you can't turn off the entire conclave dlc But why would you need to? The bad stuff is in the patch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
CK2 warfare would be a million times better if they just aped EU and added in forts with ZoC, and maybe tweaked warscore contribution from battles to be higher. And also if it let you press all dejure claims and poo poo at once, so that wars actually feel decisive and not like a scheduled slap fest every ten years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
I like Shattered Retreat. It means I have a chance to rally if I lose one bad battle, and it stops me chasing town tiny armies, which was just a bunch of faff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 08:13
|
|
only
|
Demon_Corsair posted:Can anyone please give me a quick primer on how war score works? I have gone to war with England to take my one of my Irish duchies. I hold all the holdings in 2 of the 3 counties, and sit at about 20% war score. They have won 2 major battles and it cost me 40-50% war score. I have won two major battles and killed two of their kings and I don't get jack poo poo. What makes some battles major point swings and other inconsequential? No. War score is based on how much of their army you've destroyed or how much of their turf - relative - you're holding. Killing 3000 men in battle means a lot more when your opponent has 6000 levies than it does when he has 40000. In this case it sounds to me like you're taking on the entire of England with two thirds of Ireland. You're probably outnumbered 3 to 1 in troops and 4 to 1 or more in territory. So yeah, his victories are more significant than yours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Killing the enemy ruler but not getting war score has always been silly, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
I think the better way to handle it in paradox games is that the winning army should suffer an organization penalty. Not enough to ensure you'll lose the next battle, but enough to make you at least think twice about automatically pursuing a beaten enemy. Scale the penalty to the intensity of the battle. Beat them in the skirmish phaseand the penalty is small. A knockdown, dragged out month long battle will have a huge penalty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Simplex posted:I think the better way to handle it in paradox games is that the winning army should suffer an organization penalty. Not enough to ensure you'll lose the next battle, but enough to make you at least think twice about automatically pursuing a beaten enemy. Scale the penalty to the intensity of the battle. Beat them in the skirmish phaseand the penalty is small. A knockdown, dragged out month long battle will have a huge penalty. This is already a thing, the losing army will have knocked out some of their organization, and will have knocked out more if the battle went on a long time. By nature, since typically the loser loses because he runs out of organization, the winner will have more and will win again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Rumda posted:But why would you need to? The bad stuff is in the patch. You keep saying this even though people have said before that it's not just the patch items that they hate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Are you using organization to mean morale or am I even worse at ck2 than I thought?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
cool and good posted:Are you using organization to mean morale or am I even worse at ck2 than I thought? Yes, probably, I've been playing a lot of Hearts of Iron lately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
ElGroucho posted:Shattered retreat sucks and it makes surrounding a county pointless instead of awesome Shattered retreat makes underdog wars a lot more fun since I'm not completely hosed if a major force gets caught by the enemy doomstack before I was ready to fight. It gives me room to shuffle troops around to try and recover from the situation, as opposed to saying "well, guess I lose this war". It's a welcome addition that makes CKII warfare between comparable forces slightly more interactive than "crash doomstacks into each other, winner gets to micromanage their troops for ten minutes in order to drive home the inevitable victory". I guess it's boring if you're always the big dog who's methodically stomping all their neighbors one at a time, but I feel like people would hate the Conclave patch a lot less if they tried starting as a small vassal or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
I only pick fights I'm pretty sure I'm going to win. I don't mind the shattered retreat stuff so much though. What bugs me is vassals spending wild amounts of money to make people join their factions constantly. I dunno if the ai cheats with that and upgrading their holdings because they do get around to it eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Weird question, but is there some kind of console command to incorporate a duchy into a kingdom without having to wait the 100 years ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Getting real tired of England invading Ireland, getting loving bounced at the shoreline, and then having to chase them all the way to goddamn Cambridge
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
cock hero flux posted:This is already a thing, the losing army will have knocked out some of their organization, and will have knocked out more if the battle went on a long time. By nature, since typically the loser loses because he runs out of organization, the winner will have more and will win again. I forgot the term is morale in CK2, but the problem as I see it is that after you win a battle the losing side always has near zero morale, while the winning side retains their morale, which is what enables you to ping-pong the enemy until its fully destroyed. The shattered retreat is supposed to address this problem by allowing an army to retreat unmolested, but I think it's fixing the issue from the wrong side. The victorious side should have more difficulty in rampaging around the countryside after winning a battle than they currently do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:Weird question, but is there some kind of console command to incorporate a duchy into a kingdom without having to wait the 100 years ? Nope, but there's mods to reduce the time, or ones that let you spend gold/piety/prestige to incorporate it instead. There was an old mod called De-jure adjudication that broke on the conclave update. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=637028699 is when someone else took it and re-branded it without attribution. The owner is an arsehole who deleted my comments when I asked him if he would be giving someone else credit for doing all the work. I had been fiddling with the old version of the mod to keep it up to date and make it work safely in multiplayer or allowing vassals to transfer the de-jure status of titles. I stripped out custom title creation as that's something another mod could do, so it barely resembles the original mod, but I was planning to provide credit. It's basically done, if you're interested I can tidy it up and publish it to the workshop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
 That's exactly what I'm looking for, thanks man!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Simplex posted:I forgot the term is morale in CK2, but the problem as I see it is that after you win a battle the losing side always has near zero morale, while the winning side retains their morale, which is what enables you to ping-pong the enemy until its fully destroyed. The shattered retreat is supposed to address this problem by allowing an army to retreat unmolested, but I think it's fixing the issue from the wrong side. The victorious side should have more difficulty in rampaging around the countryside after winning a battle than they currently do. The losing side is always going to have less morale because it has to be reduced to zero for it to lose. Unless you want to also reduce the winning side's morale to zero, which is stupid because then what is the point in even winning?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Simplex posted:I forgot the term is morale in CK2, but the problem as I see it is that after you win a battle the losing side always has near zero morale, while the winning side retains their morale, which is what enables you to ping-pong the enemy until its fully destroyed. The shattered retreat is supposed to address this problem by allowing an army to retreat unmolested, but I think it's fixing the issue from the wrong side. The victorious side should have more difficulty in rampaging around the countryside after winning a battle than they currently do. Shattered retreat addresses the problem by giving the loser some time and space in which to scrape together more troops to salvage the situation. For example, with shattered retreat it's possible to raise some mercenaries and send them to the retreat destination to save your army and prevent it from being completely annihilated, whereas without shattered retreat your army would be ground down to worthlessness long before you got there and you'd have to fight the rest of the war with mercs alone. To me, it's a welcome bit of depth to CKII's mostly-brainless warfare, though the AI is rarely able to make use of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Shattered retreat addresses the problem by giving the loser some time and space in which to scrape together more troops to salvage the situation. For example, with shattered retreat it's possible to raise some mercenaries and send them to the retreat destination to save your army and prevent it from being completely annihilated, whereas without shattered retreat your army would be ground down to worthlessness long before you got there and you'd have to fight the rest of the war with mercs alone. To me, it's a welcome bit of depth to CKII's mostly-brainless warfare, though the AI is rarely able to make use of it. I'd be more okay with it if they turned on the "50% movement means you're committed" mechanic from EU4. It's really annoying when the enemy army keeps running away from you and you can't catch up because the shattered retreat allowed them to move ahead of you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Goofballs posted:I only pick fights I'm pretty sure I'm going to win. I don't mind the shattered retreat stuff so much though. What bugs me is vassals spending wild amounts of money to make people join their factions constantly. I dunno if the ai cheats with that and upgrading their holdings because they do get around to it eventually. When I wrote it and at the time of release of Conclave it didn't cheat. Haven't worked on it in a while so might have changed but pretty sure it did the same at that time. It just budgets better than you think maybe?  There is also more ways to get favors than through money and there is also more ways to flip votes than only through favors. I think it's just selective that when it happens to you it becomes more apparent and happens "all the time". cock hero flux posted:The losing side is always going to have less morale because it has to be reduced to zero for it to lose. Unless you want to also reduce the winning side's morale to zero, which is stupid because then what is the point in even winning? It isn't reduced to zero*, the army will enter retreat phase at 20-15%** morale I believe. The only way to make what people here discussed is to make both armies deal exactly or almost exactly the same morale damage to each other which I find kinda boring. Otherwise with a "winning penalty" it is just gonna end up sometimes in weird situations with like winning army having 0% morale left while the fleeing army has 5-10% left. And then you get mad because now the losing army is gonna kick your rear end immediately afterwards(since in this case we don't have shattered retreat) *Of course subject to various factors like unit composition, tech and leaders but it is not guaranteed **Been a long time since I worked on CK2 so I don't remember exactly the numbers. Groogy fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Groogy posted:When I wrote it and at the time of release of Conclave it didn't cheat. Haven't worked on it in a while so might have changed but pretty sure it did the same at that time. It just budgets better than you think maybe? I dunno I'm obviously not going to say you're wrong because you made the game I'm just wondering and mentioning what I saw in an ironman 768 till end game I played through like 2 months ago. I don't notice so much in the shorter games basically because I cheat in short ones. Anyhow it just seemed that they were getting people who liked my dickhead rulers into the factions a lot, someone explained to me it was favors and it just seemed like a lot of gold given that they were upgrading stuff, slower than me for sure but still hitting milestones. Some of the people I'm sure were cheaper than others. It just seemed implausible because i hosed up in the first half or so of the game and was asking council members for favors and then trying to buy favors back before they could gently caress me with law change votes and it put a significant dent in my ability to upgrade structures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Groogy posted:When I wrote it and at the time of release of Conclave it didn't cheat. Haven't worked on it in a while so might have changed but pretty sure it did the same at that time. It just budgets better than you think maybe? It's probably just because the AI is a lot slower to invest in buildings than players usually are. They seem to prefer to spend money on short term things like buying favours. It's not really "budgeting better", just prioritizing how the money gets spent differently. Goofballs posted:I dunno I'm obviously not going to say you're wrong because you made the game I'm just wondering and mentioning what I saw in an ironman 768 till end game I played through like 2 months ago. I don't notice so much in the shorter games basically because I cheat in short ones. Anyhow it just seemed that they were getting people who liked my dickhead rulers into the factions a lot, someone explained to me it was favors and it just seemed like a lot of gold given that they were upgrading stuff, slower than me for sure but still hitting milestones. Some of the people I'm sure were cheaper than others. It just seemed implausible because i hosed up in the first half or so of the game and was asking council members for favors and then trying to buy favors back before they could gently caress me with law change votes and it put a significant dent in my ability to upgrade structures. The thing about the AI buying people into their factions is that it lets them inflate the faction numbers but it also makes the faction super fragile - the people only owe their loyalty to the person who paid them off, so it's just a matter of getting the faction leader out somehow (spymaster "discourage from joining factions" action, imprisoning/assassinating them, putting them on the council, etc.). As soon as the leader is forced out of the faction all the people they paid to join will immediately leave. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:
Got stagefright about the idea of having to put more effort into supporting users or develop it further, so I just threw my mod up on GitHub. I named it Imperial Reorganisation since I had the idea of tying it to Imperial Administration to remove the piety, prestige and opinion cost. I never got that far though. The general idea is you get to designate a recipient title with the right-click context menu, which must be a title that exists and you control, and then you can use the context menu on a lower tier title to move it. The De-Jure Adjudication mod set a title flag, which meant effectively only one player could use it at once. My mod sets variables on the titles to give them a unique ID that I can use in-game, and sets that on the character, so you can search through titles to find which title the character had assigned, since I'm fairly sure that event targets wouldn't work for this, as I tried many times in the past. EDIT: A fun feature is that you can change which Duchy Counties belong to, so you could make everything one big duchy if you wanted, or make all those titular duchies contain the county their capital is in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Hey grroogy. Is stellaris good yet
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Jedit posted:No. War score is based on how much of their army you've destroyed or how much of their turf - relative - you're holding. Killing 3000 men in battle means a lot more when your opponent has 6000 levies than it does when he has 40000. Ahh, I thought it was based on armies in the battle, not totals. Means you have to be super strategic taking on a bigger power since your victories are worth less and defeats hurt more. So I save scummed a bit, and started my war about 5 years earlier with an incapacitated king, Scotland as my ally and England fighting a war in Spain. Went much better. Think long term I need to make Scotland mine, marry up a nice alliance with France then start loving up England.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
So I was reading the dev diary and I was reminded of the tale of Genghis Khan killing someone by pouring molten silver in his eyes and ears. Please don't put that method of death in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
WilliamAnderson posted:So I was reading the dev diary and I was reminded of the tale of Genghis Khan killing someone by pouring molten silver in his eyes and ears.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
WilliamAnderson posted:So I was reading the dev diary and I was reminded of the tale of Genghis Khan killing someone by pouring molten silver in his eyes and ears. Marco polo said that after the sacking of Baghdad, the Mongols locked the caliph in a tower full of gold and material possessions, and left him in there to die. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Marco polo said that after the sacking of Baghdad, the Mongols locked the caliph in a tower full of gold and material possessions, and left him in there to die. Hell yeah
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Is the "lock someone in a room with only a high unreachable window and screw driven fans on the outside kick up a buncha dust and slowly suffocate the prisoner" execution in
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Well, so far we know of hanging, beheading, immurement, crucifixion and elephant stomping. That leaves 26 modes, so speculate away. I can think of: Impalement Drowning (please add butt of Malmsey event for assassination, TIA) Burning (wicker man optional) Hanging, drawing and quartering Disembowelment Dismemberment by wild horses Dismemberment by blade Manual strangulation Forced suicide (poison and knife may count separately here) Archery firing squad (a la St Sebastian) Stoning Being cast from a high place Racking Pressing Cutting out of the heart Snu-snu Starvation/thirst Exposure I don't know how it would be implemented, but trial by combat would be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
The new DLC sounds cool and all but to be quite honest. There's too much poo poo in the game now. A lot of stuff just feels tacked on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Jedit posted:Well, so far we know of hanging, beheading, immurement, crucifixion and elephant stomping. That leaves 26 modes, so speculate away. I can think of: Breaking wheel Larry Parrish posted:The new DLC sounds cool and all but to be quite honest. There's too much poo poo in the game now. A lot of stuff just feels tacked on. At this point it definitely feels like time for CK3 to synthesize all these disparate systems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 12:26
|
|