Do you think Paradox would think about adding a "Fronts" HOI4 approach to CK3 like they did with 1.5 patch on Victoria 3?
- 8
- 7
- 3
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No matter what they do as long as rock paper scissors remain it doesn't matter.
ck2 combat tactics and army compositions were so much better.
ck2 combat tactics and army compositions were so much better.
- 12
- 2
- 2
It doesn't seem necessary for this game, especially now that you have the option to automate if you want to.
- 6
- 1
- 1
I don't think wars were fought in fronts in this time.
I would like to see something more like Imperator where raising levies has a real cost and is done bit by bit so you raise what you need for each war or take on additional risk and burdens.
I'd also make it so they don't all rally so it can be more advantageous to have forces on one portion of your vast lands while fighting in another so you can raise some troops on time if anything comes up.
This i think is the most comparable to the real challenges of war in this era.
I would like to see something more like Imperator where raising levies has a real cost and is done bit by bit so you raise what you need for each war or take on additional risk and burdens.
I'd also make it so they don't all rally so it can be more advantageous to have forces on one portion of your vast lands while fighting in another so you can raise some troops on time if anything comes up.
This i think is the most comparable to the real challenges of war in this era.
- 5
- 1
The problem is that their rock paper scissors doesnt even work, rework the damn countering, all it does is make players make 1 unit type armies and never interact with it.
- 7
- 1
I don't want fronts because it makes absolutely no sense in ck3 but I do want the devs to take a look at logistics, currently there's very little stopping large armies from crossing halfway through the map freely and that needs to be fixed, there needs to be limitations in how armies move and some sort of strategy needs to be taken into consideration.
My take is the devs should look into the provisions system, already a pretty neat system for travel that makes the player actually plan their routes and movements before moving around, the devs knew it would make no sense to make camps freely able to move around without taking into account the resources needed for that purpose yet they didn't think about armies. We need a sort of provision system for armies and supply routes/baggage trains, you should need to buy provisions to supply your troops, plan out supply lines and if all else fails, scavenge or sack regions for food and gold to keep your men alive and happy. You shouldnt be able to just ride a ship from England to Jerusalem without your entire army being destroyed, naval transportation should be completely overhauled to be expensive, deadly and unpredictable if the devs just don't want to add navies at all.
My take is the devs should look into the provisions system, already a pretty neat system for travel that makes the player actually plan their routes and movements before moving around, the devs knew it would make no sense to make camps freely able to move around without taking into account the resources needed for that purpose yet they didn't think about armies. We need a sort of provision system for armies and supply routes/baggage trains, you should need to buy provisions to supply your troops, plan out supply lines and if all else fails, scavenge or sack regions for food and gold to keep your men alive and happy. You shouldnt be able to just ride a ship from England to Jerusalem without your entire army being destroyed, naval transportation should be completely overhauled to be expensive, deadly and unpredictable if the devs just don't want to add navies at all.
- 11
- 3
- 1
God no. Victoria 3's war system is horrid. And fronts make no sense in this timeframe. Battles were mostly melees with cavalry charges and arrow volleys. They happened on a field or in a forest or in a desert. There were no fronts at all. Just armies moving towards other armies or sieging castles.
The newEU5 Project Caesar DD showed an interesting supply line system that I think might be adapted for CK3 though. It would limit massive armies in ways they currently aren't, since massive armies would need stronger supply lines, and if you made the lines raidable you could introduce a whole new way for smaller armies to combat larger ones. That could also be something new for landless players to do with a "raid the supply lines" contract. If nothing else it would at least add a sense of strategy in picking the route your army is going to take instead of just clicking on a province and heading straight there or chasing armies around the map.
The new
- 7
- 3
- 1
- 1
Personally I think war is very disconnected from the supposed core of the game, character interactions, so I think a warfare overhaul should in part focus on that. Rewarding loyal generals, negotiating support from characters with different goals and personalities, more varied and interesting alliances. I made a post a while back going over some of this (see my signature).
On the topic of fronts, I don't think it makes much sense to have fronts be something mechanically forced on warfare, but instead be a consequence of circumstances that would have cause it in real life. I don't know much about medieval warfare, but I imagine that fronts would develop due to limited resources in an area restricting troop numbers, the time it takes to mobilize troops from all the way across an empire, and the political power to send your vassal's people to a distant front rather than one closer.
On the topic of fronts, I don't think it makes much sense to have fronts be something mechanically forced on warfare, but instead be a consequence of circumstances that would have cause it in real life. I don't know much about medieval warfare, but I imagine that fronts would develop due to limited resources in an area restricting troop numbers, the time it takes to mobilize troops from all the way across an empire, and the political power to send your vassal's people to a distant front rather than one closer.
- 15
- 4
In my opinion, war in CKIII has many problems and limitations:
In conclusion, the game still has a very, very long way to go. After 1,400+ hours, I’m starting to get bored. Everything remains static unless I make things happen. The AI needs to be improved further, or it will be one of the main reasons why players stop playing.
- AI. Despite the latest "Crown" update, the AI is still too limited. I keep seeing useless and repeated movements from point A to point B. Not to mention the administrative government (yes, I’m always talking about this one). Paradoxically, the administrative AI is actually smarter than the others. It is more ambitious, focused on conquering new territories instead of endlessly competing for the Byzantine throne.
- The economic system needs an update as soon as possible. Honestly, it's embarrassing. By the endgame, you accumulate so much money that it becomes meaningless. War should be costly and difficult to manage. Levies should be extremely expensive, not just in terms of gold but especially in terms of taxation in our domains. When men are at war, they are not plowing the fields or producing anything, so income should be significantly lower, and general popular discontent should rise. If I lose a domain, it should suffer the effects of raiding—its development level should decrease. Add some major disasters (beyond just epidemics), some crises that force you to either pay or fight populist factions during wars. Make the world feel more dynamic. Seasons should have an impact: in winter, tax income should be lower, armies should move slower, development should stagnate, etc.
- Vassals should create more interesting power dynamics. In my last game, I was a count, and my liege, a duke, declared war on the emperor. GIVE ME THE CHOICE to decide freely which side to fight for. I should have the option to betray a faction and switch sides, just like adventurers can.
Recruiting my vassals’ men-at-arms should create discontent, destabilizing my realm. I should feel the weight of war and the internal disorder it brings.
In conclusion, the game still has a very, very long way to go. After 1,400+ hours, I’m starting to get bored. Everything remains static unless I make things happen. The AI needs to be improved further, or it will be one of the main reasons why players stop playing.
- 9
- 4
Make levies actually matter, maybe an ability to buff levies?
Nerf all the knight bonuses over 25% into the ground, especially looking at "only the strong" +100%...
Nerf all the knight bonuses over 25% into the ground, especially looking at "only the strong" +100%...
- 2
- 1
Investing even a single minute of dev time in that unhistorical troop type "levies" is a waste of time and effort.
I want real feudalism, where your relationship with vassals matters. Nomads are a step in the right direction, title troops are a step in the right direction. "Levies" as a useless cannon fodder troop type shouldn't have made it out of the alpha stage of the game in the first place.
- 12
- 3
Or just nerf knights and outlier bonuses (+75% from literally the second perk in gallant tree, for example)
- 1
There needs to be some sort of army management mechanics that is actually tied to vassal management. Often once an army is called up and assembled, there's nothing that even indicates any sort of ranks and hierarchy within the army in the field. It's all just one big blob of numbers. Nothing about how the chain of commands, nothing about how the management and performance of troops in the field is shaped by whether the egos of the commanders won't clash and nothing about promotions or demotions.
- 5
Vassals, especially in feudal structure act as a chain of command for a gameplay perspective when it comes to managing the politics of the realm. But when it comes to warfare and armies, there is no functional chain of command and hierarchy.
The army is just one huge blob that the liege raise and gather at one spawn point. Other than stacking stats and numbers, the army in the game has no personality whatsoever. They are almost entirely loyal to the liege once raised so long as you can afford the upkeep cost. You don't get even a feeling that a feudal kingdom's army is made up of different private armies led by your feudal lords of different ranks and titles in the army.
Even when you subdivided the army for a war, there's no indication of any real subdivision when it comes to who commands the different subdivisions.
When we know this kind of sub division is often present and even crucial in how the Mongols conquered such a big empire. You have your horde, tumen and mingghan units with different numbers of men under each division, and sub commanders reporting to their senior officers.
Your khans, emperors and kings issued orders to their subordinates who in turn issue orders to their subofficers. An army should feel like a big collection of different smaller units each led by lesser lords or commanders.
Think like your landless adventurer count who report to your landless adventurer duke, who reports to landless adventurer king and so on. Each rank having a army size limits.
The army is just one huge blob that the liege raise and gather at one spawn point. Other than stacking stats and numbers, the army in the game has no personality whatsoever. They are almost entirely loyal to the liege once raised so long as you can afford the upkeep cost. You don't get even a feeling that a feudal kingdom's army is made up of different private armies led by your feudal lords of different ranks and titles in the army.
Even when you subdivided the army for a war, there's no indication of any real subdivision when it comes to who commands the different subdivisions.
When we know this kind of sub division is often present and even crucial in how the Mongols conquered such a big empire. You have your horde, tumen and mingghan units with different numbers of men under each division, and sub commanders reporting to their senior officers.
Your khans, emperors and kings issued orders to their subordinates who in turn issue orders to their subofficers. An army should feel like a big collection of different smaller units each led by lesser lords or commanders.
Think like your landless adventurer count who report to your landless adventurer duke, who reports to landless adventurer king and so on. Each rank having a army size limits.
Yeah for sure, just created this thread to get some feedback and opinions going. I'm a long time Paradox player from like Europa Universalis III or Europa Rome. It sucks as it seems like Paradox is transitioning away from its grand strategy roots in some ways.
The games are slowly losing their grand sense of strategy in a lot of aspects in favor of improved visuals and more quality of life improvements (dumbing down of mechanics) which isn't exactly horrible. Just wish they can come to a medium as we know they're a business for profit and looking to have a bigger customer base (games are getting more expensive to develop as a whole) while not alienating their initial player base that helped them get to this point. Maybe this also might need another thread.
- 3
How so? Powerful hardware getting cheaper and cheaper, tools and languages are getting more accessible and easy to use, ai assistance helps as well.
- 3
.png){kind=avatar}
Alright, let's see:
-Troop raising and rally point overhaul
-More interactive sieges
-Accolade UI rework
-More interactions with knights
-Three-commander armies
-Battlefield duels
-Army morale
-Province devastation
-Peace deals
-War impact on economy
Among other things, I believe these would (in my humble opinion) greatly improve warfare.
(AI improvements goes without saying)
-Troop raising and rally point overhaul
-More interactive sieges
-Accolade UI rework
-More interactions with knights
-Three-commander armies
-Battlefield duels
-Army morale
-Province devastation
-Peace deals
-War impact on economy
Among other things, I believe these would (in my humble opinion) greatly improve warfare.
(AI improvements goes without saying)
Last edited:
- 9
- 1
Peace deals not being a thing is so confusing to me, it's such a basic GSG system at this point that having a modern GSG game without it just feels archaic. Also the fact that you can't even end an alliance without the outright death of someone just makes no sense and shows how little diplomacy is even prioritized in the game.
Last edited:
- 11
- 1
Peace Deals are so necessary in this game, this was the very system that should have been enhanced in the transition from CK2 to CK3, yet it stayed the very same system that it was!!
- 11
- 2