|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:It's a history based game; historically, after an army was defeated it would pretty much disentigrate. He is advocating for something emulating that. Yeah, but giant battles where that happened were a once in a lifetime thing. Not like CK2 where they're the only kind of battle.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
If that's the argument for historicity then I would assume the mechanic that ensures hosts don't only meet for one decisive battle, but several is also the wrong choice. It'd be neat if there were some campaigning and siege mechanics that ensured hosts only came together for extraordinary circumstances, that'd be super cool and a lot of work. But honestly historicity is thrown out the window anyway with the size retinues get to so I'm happy with whatever makes warring more fun. And in the current system for the amount of brain effort I want to throw into maneuvering around for a decisive battle, I'd rather it be mash together the figures on the war map and the loser falls over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Haha, it's no longer possible for the player to win a tournament if they're the ones holding the tournament. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
You shouldn't win your own events.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
The General posted:You shouldn't win your own events. but they're the only tournaments you ever see?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
If I'm not going to win them, what's the point of holding one?  Maybe if you're arbitrary you could get the option to force a win for yourself (Or the option makes you arbitrary), like with the Bokh wrestling: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:It's a history based game; historically, after an army was defeated it would pretty much disentigrate. He is advocating for something emulating that. The vast majority of medieval warfare was in the form of maneuver and skirmish warfare (and sieges of course). Medieval military campaigns often had armies shadowing each other over hundreds of miles, constantly trying to outmaneuver each other. You had a lot of vanguard and rearguard actions, advances and retreats, small unit actions, skirmishes between foraging parties and so on. Guerrilla warfare was a thing back then. Big giant battles where armies fought until one army was destroyed were rare. Armies were more likely to sit and stare at each other than actually fight. Once forces were committed to a battle on a large scale, they became very difficult if not impossible for commanders to control, and no commander wanted to be the guy who got his army massacred. I wouldn't want every single battle in CK2 to result in an army wiped out. When I first read about the shattered retreat thing they were gonna add, I thought it sounded awesome. Something like that probably could have been implemented a lot better though. The whole war system in CK2 is just so simplified. I wish it was more than just "click on army, click on enemy army, watch numbers go down until army is gone".
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:The vast majority of medieval warfare was in the form of maneuver and skirmish warfare (and sieges of course). Medieval military campaigns often had armies shadowing each other over hundreds of miles, constantly trying to outmaneuver each other. You had a lot of vanguard and rearguard actions, advances and retreats, small unit actions, skirmishes between foraging parties and so on. Guerrilla warfare was a thing back then. Big giant battles where armies fought until one army was destroyed were rare. Armies were more likely to sit and stare at each other than actually fight. Once forces were committed to a battle on a large scale, they became very difficult if not impossible for commanders to control, and no commander wanted to be the guy who got his army massacred. Even sieges weren't necessarily all that common. The way you have to siege down every single castle, city, and church(?) in a province in CK2 to control it is a bit ridiculous; William the Conqueror and Alp Arslan managed to take enormous amounts of land without besieging very much at all. Paradox games in general would be considerably improved if there were some way of simulating small-scale combats - skirmishes, ambushes, guerrilla warfare, and so forth - as well as small-scale wars, because the way the AI (and players) will generally fight to the death over even a single county, as if they were engaged in modern-style total warfare, isn't terribly realistic. I'd also like a mechanic whereby holdings are likely to just surrender rather than trying to withstand a siege if the war is going sufficiently badly. It would make occasions like the Turkish conquest of Anatolia or the Mongol conquest of the Abbasid Caliphate, in which large amounts of land changed hands with only a few sieges being fought, actually possible. Armies just disbanding after a massive battle, with appropriate gold and manpower penalties, is absolutely something I'd like to see, but that also means that massive pitched battles should be rarer. Like I said above, that's one of the reasons I'd like to see asymmetrical warfare enhanced in all Paradox games; it would make small countries and rebels actually able to stand a chance against larger ones, without needing to resort to unrealistic things like untouchable shattered retreats or rebels spawning more soldiers than there could conceivably be people in their province of origin. I would also like a pony.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
The Sin of Onan posted:I would also like a pony. Paradox presents the next CK2 expansion, Crusader Princesses 2: Equestria.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:Paradox presents the next CK2 expansion, Crusader Princesses 2: Equestria. I don't know for certain, but given that there's a mod like that for Vicky 2, I am 99% sure that such a mod already exists. Don't link me to it; I'd rather not actually see it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Sounds like a good time to instead link the guy Converting the entire world to Horse culture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
The Sin of Onan posted:I would also like a pony. The Necronomicon event chain is your friend, friend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
Do prepared invasions ever really work out anymore? Feels like everyone and their mum joins in and your fellow pagans never do. Feel like I shoulda just used to the troops to subjugate Scandinavia or something. Also was gonna complain about the rules some more, because why the heck do the muslims never suffer liberation revolts? Like, dangit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
Dareon posted:Sounds like a good time to instead link the guy Converting the entire world to Horse culture. Should be read for the puns alone. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:Do prepared invasions ever really work out anymore? Feels like everyone and their mum joins in and your fellow pagans never do. Liberation revolts can only target kingdoms that existed at one point. Most of the Middle-eastern and north African kingdoms don't have any history, so never get them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
ShootaBoy posted:Yeah, but giant battles where that happened were a once in a lifetime thing. Not like CK2 where they're the only kind of battle.  to type out my theorycraft idea for how they could try to make it interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:Do prepared invasions ever really work out anymore? Feels like everyone and their mum joins in and your fellow pagans never do. But it sounds like your problem is slightly different and about leading your own? If you're doing anything against Christians you've always had to tiptoe around the Carolingians in the Old Gods start. Make sure they are tied up in wars murdering their own levies over county conquests from each other or else tied up with Muslims. Make sure you have prestige for extra tribal event soldiers as tribal, or merc money as feudal because any fight with Christians will turn knock down drag out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
The main problem is that all your event troops are now light infantry pretty much, which melt when they encounter any real troops. This means that the usual plan of taking over Britain can't work as well as it once did, because even if you have the troops if they have even close to numbers parity you die horribly. Also, it's very irritating to see how nomads don't build poo poo properly. Dammit, Khazarian desert Mali place, I want you to take over Mali and make it into a glorious steppe land from which you endlessly harass the implacable Andalusian Empire Edit: Considering how many of my kids have loving cancer I really have to wonder if East Iceland is home to a secret loving uranium mine or something Deceitful Penguin fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Oct 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
The Sin of Onan posted:Even sieges weren't necessarily all that common. The way you have to siege down every single castle, city, and church(?) in a province in CK2 to control it is a bit ridiculous; William the Conqueror and Alp Arslan managed to take enormous amounts of land without besieging very much at all. Paradox games in general would be considerably improved if there were some way of simulating small-scale combats - skirmishes, ambushes, guerrilla warfare, and so forth - as well as small-scale wars, because the way the AI (and players) will generally fight to the death over even a single county, as if they were engaged in modern-style total warfare, isn't terribly realistic. I'd also like a mechanic whereby holdings are likely to just surrender rather than trying to withstand a siege if the war is going sufficiently badly. It would make occasions like the Turkish conquest of Anatolia or the Mongol conquest of the Abbasid Caliphate, in which large amounts of land changed hands with only a few sieges being fought, actually possible. I think a way to make more fun and realistic wars in CK2 would be to allow two opposing armies to be in the same province together without actually fighting. Each army can be given a posture or stance, like Offense, Probe, Assault, Defend, Evade, etc. If two armies are in a province together and both are on Evade or Defend, they don't fight. Small armies should be able to outmaneuver larger ones most of the time. If a small unit of light cavalry is using Evade stance, they should be able to run circles around that giant 10k doomstack. If you want to attack the light cavalry, you should be able to force them out of your province, but you shouldn't be able to just kill them all. The way that it works now, where a giant doomstack can walk into an enemy province with 100 men in it and instantly kill them all is ridiculous. If you think insurgencies are bad right now in the 21st century, imagine what they must have been like in the 12th. Small armies of rebels should be able to gently caress off into the mountains and hide if you just send a giant doomstack at them. If a couple of big armies are both on Assault stance, then you can have your huge Bannockburn-style clusterfuck. If one army is assaulting and the other evading, then the evading army should be fighting rearguard actions to cover a retreat into the next province. Perhaps a good general can even cut off the retreating army and force a confrontation. If armies are probing each other, then the armies should be fighting skirmishes with each other as they jockey for good positions inside the province. If your character is leading one of the armies, perhaps the game can even throw some cool events at you where you have to make decisions. Some kind of system like that would be more realistic and also give more control to the player, without being overly complicated. The AGEOD games work in a similar way to this. I was playing the AGEOD Thirty Years War game for a bit. Those games have some problems of their own but I like the combat and supply systems they have. Also I want a pony too. Ivan Shitskin fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Oct 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Much more important than stupid army complaints is the fact that zoomed out country names don't cross mountain ranges, making my trans Pyrenean Navarra look really stupid
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:The main problem is that all your event troops are now light infantry pretty much, which melt when they encounter any real troops. This means that the usual plan of taking over Britain can't work as well as it once did, because even if you have the troops if they have even close to numbers parity you die horribly. It still works as my first great holy war before great holy wars are triggered, so it can work as an insurance play for you to move out of Scandinavia if you do a reform and drop tribal and come in under the holding limit. The event troops are still poo poo if I remember right, but siege fodder is siege fodder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
You can't get mercs as Iceland, hahaha That said, it was a matter of tactics; I tributed Mercia, then used them to conquest the entire periphery before crushing Scotland into the ground so all my new little vassals could tear off little pieces. Next I just have to wait for them to get at peace, to break tributary status and start holy warring them, then Scotland some more, then hopefully I can form Britannia before everything goes nuts. (This is very unlikely tbh, as I have to both do that, get outta elective gavelkind and reform and I haven't decided if I wanna reform into Merchant republic or Feudal) Sweden reformed with help from me, holy gently caress did it take forever though; I had to kill a bunch of Saxon kings, then wait for them to try and subjugate. Some fucker who didnīt even found norway somehow never got subjugated by them and was a huge pain in the rear end. Also why the hell can my tribute be allied with me in one war and at war with me in another? kinda wack if you ask me Finally, interesting players of this game are Hindu Zunbils, who are now the largest Hindu Kingdom and look likely to eat up the completely shattered Arab Empire and Khazaria in W-Africa, which I am desperately edging closer to so I can bribe them endlessly so they can build things to get population. I really, really want them to do well. It would be hilarious and also possibly help burn down the loving Iberian Empire Deceitful Penguin fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Huh, turning on more normal diseases, does that also contain "infirm" ? Because this is the third time in a row that I get that bundle of joy in my 40s and it's kind of a hassle when it then turns into incapable at 50. Why can't someone smother me in my sleep already, ugh. Why do I even have a rival???
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:Huh, turning on more normal diseases, does that also contain "infirm" ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
  what is this, the Unholy Roman Empire? I'll see myself out
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Alikchi posted:what is this, the Unholy Roman Empire? I'll see myself out Well, Saint Drogo existed, so maybe this isn't so odd: wikipedia posted:During a pilgrimage he was stricken with an unsightly bodily affliction. He became so terribly deformed that he frightened the townspeople. In his twenties, a cell was built for him to protect the local citizens of the village from his appearance. Since he was so holy, his cell was built attached to his church. St. Drogo stayed in his cell without any human contact, except for a small window in which he received the Eucharist and obtained his food. He stayed there for the rest of his life, about forty more years, surviving only on barley, water, and the holy Eucharist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
If I depose the Caliph in favour of another claimant, this splits the Caliph/Emperor titles right? Thinking I should probably do that as the Hashamids, already taken Nubia and Abyssinia was well of parts of Arabia and am just waiting for next period of council discontent to launch my invasion of Egypt and I want to leave an absolutely crippled Arabian Empire behind me. Already more than halfway to getting them elective for instance by chain leading factions to increase council authority~ Though I'm vaguely irritated that the Shia Caliphate formed; thinking I should maybe switch to Ibadi, it might be a hassle but Oman still exists so I could tribute them, then have them raise some promising heirs. Could also go Jewish (I tributed a Jewish revolt in Abyssinina) but then I have to take Israel and uggghhh, it's such a hassle. Double edit: Ughh, Judaism out; forget them in the middle of a war and my vassals holy warred them to death. Deceitful Penguin fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
So I got the Glitterhoof event for the second time in this ruler's lifetime, and my first Glitterhoof was still alive. So the game did the only logical thing, which was to instead appoint my underage, Horse-cultured grandson to the council. Makes sense.  He's even a better Chancellor than Glitterhoof.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
could we get some shots of that world thats a big zunbil
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
 I've just formed Rajastan, and I'm still steadily pushing into the subcontinent. I eventually want to form India and then see what fuckery I can orchestrate from there. The best bit of advice I found for the Zunbil run (aside from parking your Chancellor on the Abbasid capital permanently) is to get an heir educated with an Altaic culture. This lets you raid temples to boost your moral authority enough to reform, and more importantly, allows the Tribal Invasion CB, which is just bananas. It uses the same mechanics as a Prepared/Sanctioned Invasion (you keep all the counties you occupy) and you can use it on anyone, any time, letting you consume entire realms in one bite. Elsewhere in the world:   - The Shia Caliphate Rising (Adilid) is some scary poo poo now that they buffed the amount of event troops it gets. And I'm more than happy to let them split the Abbasid realm in half. - Bulgaria randomly went Sunni, before being subjugated by Khazaria... which is also Sunni. - Wales is turning out to be the biggest power in the isles. - The Karlings totally hosed up this time. An early Elective revolt lost them France, and some unfortunate succession via a matrilieal marriage lost them the rest. All they have left is a duchy. - And, barring Papal intervention, the Umayyads are going to eat Europe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Various Meat Products posted:The best bit of advice I found for the Zunbil run (aside from parking your Chancellor on the Abbasid capital permanently) is to get an heir educated with an Altaic culture. A bi-product of this being the best bit of advice for p much any run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Various Meat Products posted:- I don't think I've ever seen a crusade against the Umayyads go well unless I was doing all the heavy lifting. On a semi-related note, is there a way to stop the AI of Aquitaine from holy warring the poo poo out of north Africa? It's getting very silly. Grizzwold fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Well maybe if they stopped being FILTHY HEATHENS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
So I'm sure this has been asked a million times, but where do you put Councillors in order to spread tech? The source county or the destination county? I found a thread on the steam forums that had detailed, extensive answers directly contradicting each other. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:So I'm sure this has been asked a million times, but where do you put Councillors in order to spread tech? The source county or the destination county? Put your Spymaster on a province with better tech than you (e.g. Constantinople) in order to funnel its tech to your capital. Your Marshall/Steward/Chaplain go on the province that you want to improve (which is pretty much always your capital), and they will improve the spread rate to that province.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Various Meat Products posted:Put your Spymaster on a province with better tech than you (e.g. Constantinople) in order to funnel its tech to your capital. Your Marshall/Steward/Chaplain go on the province that you want to improve (which is pretty much always your capital), and they will improve the spread rate to that province. I thought Marshall/Steward/Chaplain improved the rate tech spreads out of a province?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
It's into. Check the tooltips on the spread chance of different techs in the province.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
I was actually trying to spread tech from my old capital to my new (7-holding) capital two provinces away, so it sounds like I should put my tech guys in the intervening province and then in the new capital-to-be once the tech spreads that far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I was actually trying to spread tech from my old capital to my new (7-holding) capital two provinces away, so it sounds like I should put my tech guys in the intervening province and then in the new capital-to-be once the tech spreads that far. Only if you don't own the old capital any more, and can't put your spymaster on it. If you own both old and new capital, then they count as adjacent, so just slap marshal steward and chaplain on the new capital. The spymaster makes whatever he's sitting on count as adjacent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
Phoneposting, but there's a Dev Diary and it's deserving of inquisitorial attention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 15:19
|
|