2017% knight Effectiveness, 13733 slaughtered by 3, should we need a cap?

[GoGoDuck]

This herculean, beautiful, genius YouTuber has managed to stack Knight Effectiveness to an amazing 2017%. He also managed to genetically program his knights to an average prowess of 53.
'

The final result was that he could defeat an army of 13,733 with only 3 knights.

.
.
Since CK3 is about grand strategy, not a card game aimed at “multiplication,” should the devs put a cap on 'Knight Effectiveness' and 'Prowess'?
.
.
.
.
Just like lots of other reasonable stats in the game that have a cap:

 

[Notis Mi Crempie]

The very fact that this question arose says a lot.

 

[Knotz]

Akshually, I believe anime protagonist knights are historically accurate.

 

[Comrade_Boris]

Like all stats in the game, they should approach a capped value asymptotically, so players can enjoy watching number go up, but we also don't get ridiculously overpowered like this.

 

[GodspeedYou]

I don't like the way Knights and Prowess work in general.

The usual argument is that Prowess doesn't represent a Knights fighting ability but represents the Knight plus their retinue, but this doesn't really work - nearly every effect and event in the game that deals with Prowess uses it to mean fighting ability. The game mostly does not use this abstraction consistently.

As I see it, Knights in a battle are supposed to act as a mix of Elite cavalry unit, as the Commander's bodyguards and as army Officers. To better represent this abstraction, I think it should be so:

• The Damage and Toughness values given by Prowess should be massively nerfed, putting it at a reasonable level.
• The % chance of Knights being Wounded/Killed in battle and of the Commander being captured should depend on their Prowess.
• Knights should give a bonus to Advantage based on their Martial, to represent their skill as officers. To compensate, there should be an Advantage debuff for larger armies, proportional to size - representing large armies requiring more/better Officers.

This would possibly make Knights a bit too complicated, but would end the un-immersive "Anime protagonist Knights" situation we have now.

 

[Arcvalons]

CK3 is a perfectly balanced game.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Since CK3 is about grand strategy, not a card game aimed at “multiplication,” should the devs put a cap on 'Knight Effectiveness' and 'Prowess'?
.
.

Why? Seems that you just highlighted a good example of a long-term generational strategy paying off.

There is a reason the example you are pointing to is a battle fought in 1240 from a campaign that started in 867, and that's because the variety of bonuses accumulated would not be possible in the later start date. Gathering that amount of renown for legacies, artifacts with the right bonuses, eugenics successes, and so on is literally a multi-generational effort- in this case, over 350 years.

By contrast, most player campaigns are lucky to reach 100 years... because that alone is enough to break the power curve. Not on the basis of knight effectiveness, but the general difference between player ability to power-scale versus AI. This is a general point for basically any Paradox-style strategy game: if you can win in your first 100 years, the later-game is just a matter of finishing up.

So your problem is something that only occurs if a player spends over triple the average campaign time, single-mindedly pursuing a specific goal, well past the point that AI competitiveness would be dead in any given paradox game.

In so much that this is a problem, it is a self-inflicted problem, and in so much that this is a benefit, it is a benefit from playing to the game's strategies for compounding benefits beyond the point of intended strategic competitiveness, which is a general limit in most strategy games.




Moreover, even if you want to say space marine knights is a problem, you're conflating the symptom and the cause. Knights aren't OP because late-game knight effectiveness is uncapped... knights are OP because knight academies are broken in the earlier game. Knight effectiveness is nice, but far more relevant for the competitive phase of the game (the opening centuries of an 867 campaign) isn't the knights, but the +1 MAA stack modifier. Which allows bigger MAA stacks, including siege stacks, which allows easier and faster wars for accelerated blobbing.

 

[Slime99]

1 prowess should be 1 damage. Add those retinues for knights if you want them so badly, why abstract them away in the first place? And accolades already exist so there's that.

 

[Silens]

It's not the lack of a cap that is the problem, but that progression is linear. Going from 1 to 2 prowess gives the same increase as going from 80 to 81.

I think many problems would be solved, if there were diminishing returns after a while. At least it would be an easy fix to weed out the biggest problems.

 

[GoGoDuck]

This is a general point for basically any Paradox-style strategy game: if you can win in your first 100 years, the later-game is just a matter of finishing up.

They failed to balance the game properly to keep the late game challenging, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't aim for it. Fixing issues that undermine late-game balance and difficulty is a worthwhile pursuit.

Furthermore, from a realism standpoint, the idea of three knights defeating an army of 13,733 is simply unrealistic.

 

[Comrade_Boris]

It's not the lack of a cap that is the problem, but that progression is linear. Going from 1 to 2 prowess gives the same increase as going from 80 to 81.

I think many problems would be solved, if there were diminishing returns after a while. At least it would be an easy fix to weed out the biggest problems.

This exactly. Caps feel bad because you're not rewarded for the effort. If the number still goes up, but without equal reward, players can still enjoy number going up without destroying balance.

 

[GiantSpaceHamster]

If they end up adding China, you can pretend you're playing Dynasty Warriors. Except Dynasty Warriors is more realistic.

 

[FortressofRain]

I mean my approach to everything with this game should include some sorta of modifier array where the largest of each category applies, or limit which things can stack and to what effect, especially to things like trinkets and artifacts.

But I suppose if we take the abstract approach and game a knight with 12 holy relics on his person he might actually travel around with a retinue of 10,000 followers.

Hmm...I think i just figured out how to simulate being the leader of a Holy Order! =>

This exactly. Caps feel bad because you're not rewarded for the effort. If the number still goes up, but without equal reward, players can still enjoy number going up without destroying balance.

Agree. I think the idea of progression should equate to acquiring progressively better artifacts or traits for example and therefore encouraging you to pass on lesser ones to family or heirs oitright replacing the lesser ones without these wild stacking bonuses.

• Knights should give a bonus to Advantage based on their Martial, to represent their skill as officers.

To be fair...this is exactly what happens when you make them the commander. I don't see stacking Martial to increase +Advantage (from Martial) a solution to already OP knights. So I disagree with your suggestion.

Gathering that amount of renown for legacies, artifacts with the right bonuses, eugenics successes, and so on is literally a multi-generational effort- in this case, over 350 years.

Coincidently it also takes about 350 years to free Lucifer from his tomb under the Vatican, or raise Anubis from the Underworld. So that's actually remarkably on-brand for the CK3 universe. ; )

 

[MarkFranz]

Should we need a cap?

Certainly not in sense as hardcoded, because it's would break fantasy mods for who those results are plausable, it's would be terrible.

However as i said many times Knights was always broken sinse release with devs doing no attempts to fix them, so there should be nerfs, maybe indeed non-hardcoded cap on effectivness, but even without it, there certainly needed nerf of domain buildings buffs, as on your screenshot almost 1500% of effectivness comes from domain alone.

 

[MarkFranz]

is that Prowess doesn't represent a Knights fighting ability but represents the Knight plus their retinue

Which is copium, if we be honest about. "Retinue"-thing was invented after release, when people pointed out how broken knights are, and exist only as a single line of localisation.

 

[Opanashc]

Prowess has too high of Damage and Toughness rating per point. As it stands, a knight of 12 prowess (quite common), is stronger than a single stack of skirmishers.

 

[peteoj]

Prowess is a mess, warfare is a mess, Knight effectiveness a comically stupid mechanic but for some reason the devs will choose not to fix any of this and overhaul the entire system because apparently to them this is acceptable.

 

[FortressofRain]

I mean couldn't we just keep the percentage modifiers as is...and just reduce the initial damage per Prowess level...or probably better yet after some thought, keep the base stats and reduce the percentage modifiers. See below:

If knights are like 10 / 10 per Prowess...that's still like 120 damage at 12 Prowess and 530 damage at 53 prowess...I mean they would still be super strong but manageable so..where there would be merit in stacking 1500%. But maybe a more balanced approach in both regards would be best.

A strong knight at 20 Prowess at 1500% would be the equivilent of 3,000 damage...which is the equivilent of about a regiment of Varagian Veterans.

To be fair a strong knight (and retinue of 100 footmen or 50 knights - however you want to abstract of imagine it) even at 45 Prowess and 100 damage per Prowess (with no bonuses) would be about the equivilent of 1 unit of Varagian Veterans base, as it stand now.

I honestly don't think all the modifiers need to be overhauled...but bringing all things (units and knights, etc.) down to earth at like a reasonable level would suffice.

An easy way to think of it is that a unit of men-at-arms does 45 damage per troop at 100 troops per unit.

Knights are the exact opposite. They get a damage of 100 (equivilent of 100 troops) x Prowess (equal to that unit's damage). The formulas are the same but inverse...with knights able to pull ahead if Prowess > damage of comparable men at arms unit.

You could argue that such a powerful knight abstractly has 100 men-at-arms in his "retinue" which from a historical and abstract perspective gives plausability to the idea of 1500 elite men-at-arms taking on 5,000-10,000 levies. Some accounts of romans vs Barbarians were estimated at 1:5 romans to Barbarians. Such as 10,000 legionaries fighting 50,000 Barbarians (but arguable exagerated). The ratios in this example are at least somewhat plausible - but even historically the ratios were closer to somwwhere between 1:1 to 1:3.

if you abstract something like 100 elite men-at arms (heavy infantry) per champion fighting on foot, or 50 heavy cavalry accompanying each knight...with the "good strength" knight being about 20 prowess...and the strongest knights ever reaching a heroic 45+ Prowess...at these numbers you'd need 45 Prowess to counter a regiment of Varangian Veterans with no percentage bonus or 55 Prowess to be equivelent to a unit of Retinue Vangaurd.

However that leads to the conclusion that at the base stats now...100 damage per prowess...you would need a knight modifier of about 580% at 45 Prowess to counter varangian veterans at maxed 580% heavy infantry bonus or 1160% to be the equivilent of 2 units of Varagian Veterans. This is about how and where Paradox balanced their knights to units. A modifier of ~2000% is the equivilent to just under 4 units of Varangian Veterans at 580% boost.

Varangian Veterans -> 45 damage x 100 = 4,500 damage

Or heavy cavalry -> 100 damage x 50 = 5,000 damage

Retinue Vangaurd (Late) -> 55 damage x 100 = 5,500 damage

Or retinue heavy lancers -> 200 damage x 50 = 10,000 damage

So you'd need a knight with 45 Prowess at 100 damage per x 2000% (total 90,000 damage) to be equal to 3 units of Retinue Vangaurd @ 580% (31,900 damage per unit, total 95,700 damage) or 3 unit of Retinue Heavy Lancers @ ~280% (~28,000 damage per unit, total 84,000 damage)

I just feel like a knight should be the equivilent of bringing a single elite regiment of heavy footmen or heavy cavalry to the field equal to maybe 1 to 3 normal regiments of elite men-at-arms. That's sorta like comparing 15 knights with 100 retinues to 45 regiments of varangians (without buffs) at their highest of the high tier peak Prowess and by that I mean legendary. This ironically is just over 100 damage per Prowess per knight. A knight with 45 Prowess at 100 damage per Prowess is exactly the equivilent of 4,500 damage, the same as 100 Varangian Veterans (100 x 45 = 4,500 damage). This where Paradox gets their base stat of 100 damage per Prowess. So a 53 Prowess knight = 5,300 damage more than a regiment of Varagian Veterans.

Or another way to look at it is a knight with 50 elite best of the best heavy cavalry retinue in tow ~= to 1 or 2 units of retinue heavy cavalry which equal 10-20k damage total. So 20k total damage ÷ 100 damage ÷ 40 prowess = ie a knight w/ 50 cav must be about 40 Prowess x 100 damage x 500% boost or 20 Prowess at 1000% boost to be equal to 2 regiments of retinue heavy lancers...and yet the heavy lancers like other retinue troops also counter double units...so the argument of having a 2000% boost to knights is reasonable if you look at it from this perspective.

The problem lies in that knights can stack to 2000% bonus, where Varangians stack only to about 580% max If I remember correctly. That means max knight in this scenario would be the equivilent of about 4 units of maxed Varangians (and while good are not the best of the best heavy infantry - see retinue vangaurd). So I guess it really just depends on what you want to consider "balanced" and what you are trying to balance it against. Obviously comparing them to levies gives a obviously skewed outcome...

...but perhaps the arguement therefor lies in the ineffectiveness and balance of levies rather than knights themselves.

I think the bonus % stacking for men at arms and knight should proceed evenly so you can pick and choose which strategy you prefer...then balance this with any other consideration such as having powerful knights as characters maybe rebelling against you cuasing you grief you could raise the effectiveness to say 2 units of elite units...like retinue troops which can counter other troops, I think would be fair and ideal.

In conclusions maybe 1 champion + 100 imaginary retinue heavy footmen or 1 knight with 50 retinue heavy cavalry might be palatable or for base comparrison.

The 1000% bonus to knights would be not quite equal to the 580% increase to heavy footmen (becuase knight only have 10 toughness? Idk vs 100 heavy infantry having like 30-40 toughness x 100 units)...and I agree heavy cavalry as a unit underperform becuase they don't scale up with stationing bonuses equally with other troops like heavy infantry.

Obviously the damage must be weighed by the toughness of said knights, but mostly it's just math. In the end I think a knight should be the equivilent of about maybe 1 to 3 retinue men-at-arms or cavalry or something reasonable. Then again I'd argue men-at-arms vs levies could be more reasonable too.

Just brainstorming here. *shrug* But in conclusion...yeah the units and scaling bonuses need some rethinking amd balancing.

It's not just knights that are an issue...it's anything that can be exploited becuase it isn't well thought enough or programmed with proper checks or caps.

In short...yes...there should be some sorta cap...unless you want to fantasize said knight being Joan of Arc with 10,000 peasants in tow everywhere she goes. =>

 

[Knight of Lemonwood]

Paradox: “Let’s take a perfectly functional warfare system and turn it into a nonsensical mess that we will have to figure out how to fix later down the line at the expense of forgoing development time that is otherwise used to bring new features into the game.”


Well done.

 

[Slime99]

Maybe knight effectiveness should be removed entirely. Why do random buildings make your knights fight better anyways? At most some traits or cultural traditions should give a minor buff to knights, and the former only when you're leading the troops yourself. The effectiveness of a knight should be mostly the knight's own training not something the liege magically gives out. As you can see from the OP most of the knight effectiveness is coming from the domain. This is quite frankly ridiculous.