|
Is there a lower simulation fidelity for outside of a player's diplo range option? When I'm playing in eg Sri Lanka I don't care about what the Norsemen are up to, but I do care that speed 5 is a lot slower than it was at game start.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:the south has a nice straight line at the edge of the map, the west has a nice straight line at the edge of the map, but the east looks like someone has torn off part of the map. Clearly that means we're going to get Vinland and S. Africa
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
Speaking of torn apart map, I wish they found a better solution for impassable land: it makes the map so ugly, it looks like its full of holes, specially at max zoom out Just make them the same color of any arbitrary realm is next to it, maybe
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Speaking of torn apart map, I wish they found a better solution for impassable land: it makes the map so ugly, it looks like its full of holes, specially at max zoom out It will do that if a single realm controls all the surrounding territory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
I know, but since that is not always the case, there are always holes
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
With the notion of map expansion to China and Japan (or further?) I really question whether it's a bad trade in having to fit systems that make sense for europe elsewhere. Trying to jam a square shaped peg into a round hole. There's also the issue of like, why have these things in the same game map? Do they expect the Duke of Sicily to try to vassalize some daimyo in Kagoshima? In the games I'm playing as some Duke in Europe I have zero relationship with whatever is going on in Gambia. Is the game engine simulating poo poo down there? lol I hope not. It would make more sense to make an independent product that is highly tuned to the specific period and region. Like don't add Japan to Crusader Kings, make "Samurai Lords: A Crusader Kings Game"
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
Knuc U Kinte posted:I loving hope not.  Femtosecond posted:With the notion of map expansion to China and Japan (or further?) I really question whether it's a bad trade in having to fit systems that make sense for europe elsewhere. Trying to jam a square shaped peg into a round hole. My thoughts exactly. Either make a Sengoku 2 or don't, but don't waste effort on bringing a half baked east Asia simulation into CK3 before actually building out Europe and the Middle East. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jul 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 19:56
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
is there anything about chinese feudalism that makes it incompatible with CK3's systems
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
Trebuchets are a straight upgrade to Mangonels, right? I assume there's no reason to keep the latter around except the lower cost. Are crossbowmen also a straight upgrade to bowmen? What's the recommended regiment comp? Right now I have six slots filled with 2 x Armored Footmen, Bowmen, Pikemen, Armored Horsemen, and Trebuchets. e: looking at the description, it does seem like bowmen and crossbowmen counter different things. Should you have one of each?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
if you're small and fighting armies equal or larger to yours, my strategy has been to buy MaA that give terrain bonuses to whatever the most defensible barony in the realm is (usually mountains or swamps of the sort) and then bait the AI into attacking me there. otherwise you should just stack up on heavy infantry/heavy cavalry because they're better at ending battles in the main phase which means you get to kill the entire army.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:is there anything about chinese feudalism that makes it incompatible with CK3's systems the player base
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
The designated heir is not my realm priest or haver of any function that would prevent her from inheriting, they're both on a gender equality religion, they both have male children and my primary title is simply on high partition. My succession screen looks like this:  The only difference I can see is that the twin is landed, which seems very odd for it to be the case since normally that counts against the character for partition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:is there anything about chinese feudalism that makes it incompatible with CK3's systems I think I've seen the critique leveled that CK3 already (loosely) simulating a very specific style of feudalism that existed in Western Europe in the high medieval period and then appyling that to most of the Eurasian landmass from the 9th centuary onwards, so it'd be a bit much to complain about it not exactly working in East Asian specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
Asehujiko posted:The designated heir is not my realm priest or haver of any function that would prevent her from inheriting, they're both on a gender equality religion, they both have male children and my primary title is simply on high partition. I'd take a look at that title with its own succession - it's only a duchy but there might be some weirdness where it has all your counties under it, which would mean that your designated heir wouldn't be eligible to inherit any actual land (and you can't only inherit a kingdom or empire title, you have to have counties).
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I'd take a look at that title with its own succession - it's only a duchy but there might be some weirdness where it has all your counties under it, which would mean that your designated heir wouldn't be eligible to inherit any actual land (and you can't only inherit a kingdom or empire title, you have to have counties).
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
Is the non-designated twin your vassal? When they're independent I've definitely seen that gently caress stuff up, though I've never seen it make them not your primary heir. Def bug report that. That said though, I say lean into it, especially if you can give the designated twin some land on the periphery of the empire. Ditching your primary title and going back to being small for while is really tough to do in this game, might as well go with it. Phlegmish posted:Trebuchets are a straight upgrade to Mangonels, right? I assume there's no reason to keep the latter around except the lower cost. The siege weapons are all a straight upgrade. Assuming you can afford it, definitely disband the old ones and replace with newer ones. Crossbowmen are less of a straight upgrade because as you say, the counters are different, and Crossbowmen don't counter light infantry and do countered armored units. But since light infantry have garbage stats and armored units are vastly more dangerous and crossbowmen have much better stats, you should absolutely upgrade. As for powergaming with your MaA: The somewhat disappointing truth about both the counter and building systems is that varied compositions are bad and you should never do them; incidentally varied compositions are also the thing the AI is hardcoded to do. Countering is based on relative numbers present, so you can absolutely overpower a full stack of any counter unit by bringing either two or three stacks of the countered unit, and you'll do full damage. Meanwhile buildings, particularly the duchy unique buildings, will buff one or two types of units only, which also encourages specialization. And because the bonuses are percentage based, you want to pick a unit type with high base stats, which again narrows the field. The buildings you have access to are limited by terrain, which does at least encourage some regional variation, but also encourages you to own the same provinces all the time, since the best terrains (farmlands, floodplains) are rare, certainly rarer than I think they should be. Depending on how many MaA slots you have access to, you'll want to dedicate 1-2 of them for siege engines, and then make all of the rest one of the powerful unit types, and set your buildings up to match. The best units, in order, are:
Raskolnikov38 posted:is there anything about chinese feudalism that makes it incompatible with CK3's systems Feudalism as modeled in game was not a system that was employed anywhere in the world that I'm aware of. It's wrong everywhere, though it's less wrong in Western Europe. Now I don't know how the Chinese state of the time was organized, but I gather that it was a lot closer to the centralized Imperial structure that the Romans of the period used, ie. not feudal at all. I'm sure they could add a well modelled China if they really wanted to, but it would be adding so much work while the section of the world we have now still needs so so much. And having East Asia absent from the map really doesn't really hurt the currently modelled area. The Cheshire Cat posted:you can't only inherit a kingdom or empire title, you have to have counties) This is actually not the case. If a character is set to inherit only a duchy or kingdom title, they will auto-usurp the capital county upon accession. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jul 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:(although the game is honestly more fun if you stay a vassal I think). Vassal game is great for multiplayer. Rival dukes in the same kingdom, or have one player be the king and the other(s) be scheming dukes, or if you're boring have one be the king and run a cooperative and efficient realm. Can't wait until Paradox lets us play republics again so my friends and I can bring Venice to ruin assaniating each other to be this week's Doge. I've also been having a fun single player game in Byzantium trying to gently caress/Marry/Castrate my way to Basileus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
3 years later and it fixed itself. I got the notification that the designated twin is my heir with no proximate cause and it appears to be working well now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
What do you mean by "Chinese feudalism"? The game can't simulate the internal dynamics of the Byzantine Empire in it's current state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
Map the entire world. Map Antarctica. Map Lemuria, even.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 03:15
|
|
|
wologar posted:Map the entire world. Map Antarctica. Map Lemuria, even. Map the loving moon and i am not kidding
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 03:21
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:the south has a nice straight line at the edge of the map, the west has a nice straight line at the edge of the map, but the east looks like someone has torn off part of the map. I hope they threw it in the trash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
verbal enema posted:Map the loving moon and i am not kidding Sunset invasion takes on a whole new meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 03:50
|
|
|
All of the best DLCs for CK2 were ones that deepened mechanics and gameplay rather than expanded them from what I remembered. Rajas in particular didn't add anything interesting at all just because the scope outweighed any justice they could ever do to an entire subcontinent in a single DLC
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 03:52
|
|
|
Yeah, on one hand I like expansions that add some color to the rest of the map. Since the Indian and African kingdoms are there, I want to play them, and I don't want it to feel like a shallow repaint of the French feudal system (though realistically it's just a slightly more colorful repaint). On the other hand, there is already so much depth you can go to if you never made anything but Europeans playable. And that's interesting too. I don't know how realistic the CK3 system is for places like India and Africa, but for China, everyone would notice it's inaccurate. And realistically, China was so much more populous, prosperous and efficient than most other countries for long stretches of the timespan that it'd totally unbalance the game. After all, the Byzantine empire ends up conquering half of Europe most of the time. I think the CK2 solution of having China as an off-map country with a limited set of interactions is the right call, and I hope they do the same thing in CK3. A CK3 like game that focuses on China might be interesting too, but that'd be a dedicated product, and probably has already been made by a Chinese studio.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 07:26
|
|
|
CK3 is much more "generic" and allows for stuff to exist and not just be a repaint of French/English feudalism. CK2 had to invent some madness like Titular Titles to represent a lot of stuff. And even Western Europe is not properly represented. France, England (and Spain?..) are properly Feudal cause land owning is the core of the system and the land is relatively evenly spread. But then you go to Italy and it's all about cities, and in later ages the cities of France and England should become much more important too. I know I speak in Hollywood History terms, but those are basic things you expect to be implemented, and even some simplistic models like Medieval Total War tried to represent this - you'd want castles to produce good military early and cities to produce money, but later Pike & Shot era makes city militia important as well. In Scandinavia, the land itself is relatively worthless as I understand, and it leads to a different model. Russia is the land of free real estate but you care about rivers and trade routes. Most places outside of Europe didn't have the important land-owning church so it's weird to have Temples as alternatives to Castles and Cities. Gameplay is based on vassalage and states consisting of independent actors represented on the map, but I hope eventually devs implement some way of landless characters to be playable and important. This would make a lot of this representation easier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 07:52
|
|
|
My dream DLC is them coming up with a proper way to play as landless characters. I want to keep playing as a deposed duke, plotting revenge. Or start as an adventurer or peasant leader. Make some of those historical landless characters into dynasties. So many possibilities. Of course you'd have to make starting or being landless incredibly weak/difficult, but I think it would be a fun challenge for people who are good at the game but not into map painting (me) edit: I was also just thinking that they could probably make theocracies/the papacy playable if they let you swap to someone in your dynasty who ruled a church and you could spend a lifetime adding prestige to your family and switching back to feudal when you died. No need to keep playing as one all the time. Knuc U Kinte fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 08:48
|
|
|
Playing as a Peasant Uprising would be dope
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 08:50
|
|
|
pidan posted:I don't know how realistic the CK3 system is for places like India and Africa, but for China, everyone would notice it's inaccurate. And realistically, China was so much more populous, prosperous and efficient than most other countries for long stretches of the timespan that it'd totally unbalance the game. After all, the Byzantine empire ends up conquering half of Europe most of the time. I think the CK2 solution of having China as an off-map country with a limited set of interactions is the right call, and I hope they do the same thing in CK3. CK3 isn't even particularly realistic in how Europe works, let alone Africa, India, and the Middle East. Or the Eastern Roman Empire. The inaccuracies specific to China would hardly be exceptional by comparison. I feel like China's approach to Marriage is a lot closer to CK3's model than that of Middle Eastern or African powers. (Quasi-related side beef here: Marriages should not be restricted by religion nearly as strongly as they are.) I'd agree that an 867 start date China would be bonkers and unstoppable. A 1066 China would add a few strong powers that would probably just do their own thing, but the big one would be largely unstoppable. Now, if Paradox were to develop, say, a 907 start date.....
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 08:54
|
|
|
 Stolen from reddit. Mom, I'm 33, stop organising playdates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 10:54
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:As for powergaming with your MaA: Thank you for breaking it down. I guess I'm disappointed and relieved at the same time, it does simplify things being able to go for a single unit. Right now I'm playing as Duchy of Flanders around 1200 and have six slots available, with a size limit of 12. My best option appears to be Armored Horsemen. Would you recommend a comp of 4 x Armored Horsemen, 2 x Trebuchets? Or is that just too expensive to justify even if you don't go 12/12 on them? The modifier system is another thing I'm not quite clear on - if I build structures in a county I own, do my units get the bonuses no matter what, including from cities and temples? I'd assume so, since I don't see where else they'd go. Does it matter if I'm holding it as a vassal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 11:55
|
|
|
One detail that Pitt's (otherwise excellent) post bypassed was cost-effectiveness. Playing the long term is super fun and what the game's all about, but when starting out you probably have a lot more MAA slots than you have gold to fill them, nevermind maxing out multiple duchy buildings. In such scenarios going straight into cavalry is possibly wasteful, you can get a lot more bang-for-buck by (eg) having archers fighting behind levies. But yea, mixing MAA is bad don't do it, which is horribly counterintuitive =/
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 12:08
|
|
|
I was under the understanding that light footman were fine to just maximally fill a slot?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
This is all very interesting. Ive been making mixed MaA, Ill try that in my next game Although Ive been mostly following the same strategy I had for armies in CK2, which is: more men = win
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 12:43
|
|
|
One thing I'm noticing is that there are no county-level buildings that provide bonuses to heavy cavalry. Doesn't that mean you're better off with Armored Footmen unless you have several duchies? Right now I have 2 x Armored Footmen, 2 x Armored Horsemen, and 2 x Trebuchets. I'm not sure about the two trebuchets, might be a waste of a slot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
the buildings available are dependent on the terrain of the barony. Additionally some unit bonuses only show up at the later levels of the building so always make sure to check out what the fully upgraded building bonuses are. ie: desert and jungle give you access to camelrys and war elephant buildings that give heavy cav bonuses from the start
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:One thing I'm noticing is that there are no county-level buildings that provide bonuses to heavy cavalry. Doesn't that mean you're better off with Armored Footmen unless you have several duchies? I find that sieges tend to be the slowest part of a war, two trebuchets and a lucky commander trait or perk to increase movement speed between sieges can really open up a fast war before the AI can efficiently respond.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 14:04
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:One thing I'm noticing is that there are no county-level buildings that provide bonuses to heavy cavalry. Doesn't that mean you're better off with Armored Footmen unless you have several duchies? Depends on culture actually. I think Byzantines for example are one of the cultures that can go all in on heavy cavalry and get the buildings to buff them. Personally I've had the best results with lots of archers and pikemen (helps that my most recent campaign was in spain, you have hills and mountains for your pikemen to use). I think Flemish cultures might get sufficient buffs to light infantry to make them the best option actually
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 14:12
|
|
|
New summer teaser! We now know every ethos. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/ck3-summer-teaser-2.1482137/ Egalitarian's the clear winner here, though I think inventive (from dd64) is equal in power. That +5 vassal limit is very strong. RE: the maa discussion, I highly recommend reading this: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/combat-mechanics-explained.1434737/ Heavy cavalry aren't as good as you'd think, it's very hard to stack buildings (need jungle/farmlands) and the terrain modifier applies before percentage modifiers, so they really do get neutered in terrain. Cultural-specific Heavy Infantry are the best stat-wise (Varangian Veterans, Mubarizun) and they have the second best building scaling. Unfortunately for them, Horse Archers exist, and as long as they exist you really shouldn't build anything other than Horse Archers and siege units. If you want something cost-effective, Ayyar and Metsänvartija are pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
Yeah I always have at least one siege unit MaA because they are super useful for taking out castles and capturing hostages, you don't want them attached to your main field army though if you can avoid it because they slow you down and are useless in a battle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 14:52
|
|
