Battlefield duels are never coming, are they?

[ShepherdOfCats]

Don't spare me.

Be blunt with me.

Be brutally honest.

Update after update, patch after patch, 5 years of waiting. . . another major update about to drop. So many opportunities to implement this feature. It would go great with the warrior creed and atmosphere of nomadic life. Alas, it is not to be. It shall never be.

For 5 years, I've watched as my fellow vassals take risks and fight for the glory of our liege and realm. Many do not return.

For 5 years, I've been the 50-prowess dainty flower, safe in my tower, inexplicably shielded from the harsh realities of a violent and unforgiving world.

I know, there is a small chance, a very small chance, that I might shed blood in battle, should I lead my own armies. But . . . not from a duel. It is more likely that I valiantly scratched myself on a tree limb—far removed from the front ranks—and my physician healed me right away. My son and heir fights, and duels the enemy knights. My brothers fight. My daughters and the shieldmaidens fight. But not I.

I am a human player, thus Paradox sayeth:, "No, you are special. You mustn't fight on the battlefield."

I have all of this un-used prowess. I should theoretically be the most capable battlefield fighter of them all.

A life of wasted potential, I take with me to my grave.

 

[rasuuru]

I watched a video where author had a mod with battle duels. And he said that it is annoying because duels happen in every battle.

Besides, not every ruler/commander fights alongside their soldiers. Commander standing on high platform on back line can control the battle more efficiently.

 

[Willy Waggler]

Battlefield duels are both annoying, and useless in multiplayer. I can see why they aren't in ck3

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

To be clear, I'm not, nor would ever suggest, battlefield dueling be forced on players who don't want it. This is so easily solvable with option/rule setting, it isn't even worth mentioning as a concern. I totally get it that you don't want your favorite character dying because he slipped on a banana peel in battle. I don't think it has to be that silly if they implement it in CK3.

This is something that they hinted at since the game released, since it was a feature that quite a few players *did* enjoy, as frustrating as it was in CK2 to lose that odd duel, it was at least fair between NPC and Human player alike. I had hoped battlefield duels for CK3 would have followed, after the update that implemented duel events. That's been 3 years, I believe.

I'm bothered by the fact that my character has to sit out the fighting as my fellow vassals march off to battle.

The immersive disconnect is real.

I'm supposed to pretend that I'm the "living legend" who everyone adores and reveres, and yet when all my compatriots return from battle—drinking and celebrating in their valor and victory—I, and I alone, have no stories to tell. I did spar with a friend while everyone else was off fighting. I mean, that's pretty cool, right? I can be brave when I want to be. (*-1 level of fame*).

I don't know if they're trying to make me feel like a goofy little kid among knights who tries too hard to impress, but if that's what they were going for, they nailed it.

I'm supposed to be extremely skilled with a weapon. Allegedly. Never been truly tested though, and never will be.

I tried the mod "Players serve as knights" but, not to diminish the efforts of the guy who made it, I don't think it's well-implemented, and last I checked hadn't been updated for several updates.

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

The hardest I ever laughed in a CK2 game (other than the physician "bee" treatment that goes badly), was when I had a one-armed-one-eyed-one-legged warrior lodge member who was winning duels on the battlefield which he had no business winning. I could *not* get that character to die.

That is legend-seed material if there ever was any. It would fit awesomely into CK3.

If it were allowed to happen.

 

[MoeinSS]

This is indeed a very missing feature and truly wasted potential in the game. Hope to see it being properly implemented one day.

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

What if battlefield duels served as a way to turn the tide of battle?

Let's be honest, other than dice-rolls, battles are basically decided the moment two armies meet. If you're losing at the start of a battle, odds are you're going to be losing at the end of it. There isn't any flanking, or 'chance of tactics' like there was in CK2. The dice rolls aren't going to change the outcome so drastically that you're going to 'snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.'

Imagine if the devs took it deep:

Scenario:

You're holding a gap in the mountains against an approaching, overwhelming enemy force. The inevitable battle ensues. If you lose this fight, they're going right through the gap, through the mountains, and will undoubtedly begin their conquest of the open plains, where meeting them will be certain suicide. This is your one chance.

You already have as much of an advantage with terrain and commander skill that you can get. Despite this, you see your soldier count going down as the battle ticks on. The outcome is already determined. You are going to lose. All you have now to do, is wait several days until the game is done calculating, and your army is forced to retreat.

Your men look to you, fear and uncertainty in your eyes. Some lord of the rings type-sh-stuff happens. "Look to my coming, at first light on the fifth . . . blah blah blah"

Raising your sword, you charge into battle. Duels ensue. With each enemy that falls, your men are inspired!!!! (+5 minimum roll, +10 toughness, +10 damage modifier for the remaining duration of battle). The battle ticker whittles down to single digits, essentially knights versus knights. You have no fingernails left. You've chewed all of them off. You were not meant to win this battle. . .

*dramatic pause. Fade to black. You decide how it ended.*

Until now, this had been just another boring battle. But now, you finally have an opportunity to put that prowess to use for something other than falconry hunts!!!

 

[Tom The Viking YT]

I advise trying the below mods:

• Duel overlay
• Battlefield Duel hotfix
• Better Battles Updated

I load them up in the exact way as the above, have fun.

 

[Pendables]

The CK3 dev team decided that duels need to be like 10 events long where you click "Strike! Parry! Riposte!" over and over again so they would be too annoying to come up in battles

 

[apollo1989vieten]

I watched a video where author had a mod with battle duels. And he said that it is annoying because duels happen in every battle.

Besides, not every ruler/commander fights alongside their soldiers. Commander standing on high platform on back line can control the battle more efficiently.

Not every commander did, but a good number did fight side by side with their men at arms. If the one leading the army has a prowess stat of better than the lowest knight on the field for his unit, maybe he should take the place of the lowest knight fighting. Of course, fighting as a knight reduces the overall commander effectiveness. I am not sure how to fix this dilemma. Maybe the player can manually add the player’s character as a knight, if of martial gender.

 

[Pups' Socks]

Don't worry, we got message settings, something that existed in CK2 and has been asked for since day 1, only recently, so I'm pretty sure we'll get battlefield duels sometime within the next 4 years.

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

The CK3 dev team decided that duels need to be like 10 events long where you click "Strike! Parry! Riposte!" over and over again so they would be too annoying to come up in battles

I get that, haha.

It's lacking, yeah.

But the reason they did that is because compared to CK2 where you just suddenly get hit with a message that your character has defeated someone in battle or you've been killed, they wanted players to have some choice in how the duel progresses. It's still RNG but it's not: "Well, here goes nothing. *fingers crossed*"

In that regard it is an improvement.

But it's like they were going somewhere with it, and just forgot all about it.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Don't spare me.

Be blunt with me.

Be brutally honest.

I am fairly sure this was addressed years ago. IIRC it was part of the dev commentaries during the pre-release phase, and re-iterated after they re-introduced duels but kept them out of the battles.


Separate from that, battlefield duels from CK2 have many of the characteristics people regularly complain about CK3 events in general. They interrupt game flow, and are rarely interactive because in so much that there are choices, they are often non-choices with clearly optimal options. Given that the game already optimizes for not specing your character into battle-leader rolls regardless (even your martial lifestyle points are often better spent on non-army-leader perks), to the degree that a primary motive for putting family members in armies is to kill them...

Additionally, 'meaningful' battlefield duels are also subject to non-fun implications in general. If you, the player, can win an otherwise lost battle via a player character prowess check, then the design philosophy of the game of generally symmetrical options for the AI means that you, the player, would randomly lose an otherwise won battle via a NPC prowess check. If the AI *doesn't* consistently use them, this is an asset for the player that makes the game easier. And if the AI *misuses* it (such as making bad decisions based on the irrationality / courage AI personalities), then AI realms will cripple themselves with leaders taking duels a player would know not to take. Again, making the game systemically easier in the player's favor.

Put these together, and battlefield duels are almost certainly going to stay mod-only.

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

I am fairly sure this was addressed years ago. IIRC it was part of the dev commentaries during the pre-release phase, and re-iterated after they re-introduced duels but kept them out of the battles.


Separate from that, battlefield duels from CK2 have many of the characteristics people regularly complain about CK3 events in general. They interrupt game flow, and are rarely interactive because in so much that there are choices, they are often non-choices with clearly optimal options. Given that the game already optimizes for not specing your character into battle-leader rolls regardless (even your martial lifestyle points are often better spent on non-army-leader perks), to the degree that a primary motive for putting family members in armies is to kill them...

Additionally, 'meaningful' battlefield duels are also subject to non-fun implications in general. If you, the player, can win an otherwise lost battle via a player character prowess check, then the design philosophy of the game of generally symmetrical options for the AI means that you, the player, would randomly lose an otherwise won battle via a NPC prowess check. If the AI *doesn't* consistently use them, this is an asset for the player that makes the game easier. And if the AI *misuses* it (such as making bad decisions based on the irrationality / courage AI personalities), then AI realms will cripple themselves with leaders taking duels a player would know not to take. Again, making the game systemically easier in the player's favor.

Put these together, and battlefield duels are almost certainly going to stay mod-only.

I would like to flip that around and reiterate my point about AI fellow vassals and other family members being qualified for roles as knights.

If I have a vassal who I don't like, I could force them to be a knight and very likely get them killed if they have very low prowess. The AI cannot do that to players.

The ugly, stuttering, hunchbacked 3-prowess son who was first-born? Yeah . . . I'm not playing as that guy. He's going to the front lines so that his genius, handsome younger brother can take over. Having them serve as knights is basically a death-sentence. It's a great way to bully the AI (even if you aren't really trying to).

My rival? He's going to the front lines. I mean, I'd join him, but . . . gotta go hide in my tower. Gonna send my brother, too. I'm next in line to inherit his land.

So, it's *already* unbalanced in favor of players. I'm not saying the AI *should* do these things to players, but humans assume no risk at all when the liege goes to war.

What makes the player so special? Why the separate rules for AI and humans? Why put me in some protective bubble, especially if I'm rocking 40+ prowess? If you don't like duels, turn them off in the rules settings. The devs have implemented dozens of features that they left the ability to turn off. There's a way to make it work for everybody.

What is the point of traits like "aspiring blademaster?"

Sure, I might get an event that lets my heir earn the trait. And then, once my current character dies and I'm playing as my son . . . there are practically no more opportunities to level it up, other than once-in-a-lifetime random events. Utterly pointless. I'm curious as to what percent of players have ever even made it to rank-one of the blademaster trait. (and how close to dying-of-old-age were they, if they managed it?)

 

[DeanTheDull]

What makes the player so special?

The player pays money to the developer.

Why the separate rules for AI and humans?

Because if the player has an un-fun enough experience, the player stops paying money to the developer.

The AI pays the same regardless, which is nothing.

Why put me in some protective bubble, especially if I'm rocking 40+ prowess?

Because 'you' are not you, the individual, but a conceptualization of thousands peoples worth of collected feedback of what 'you,' collectively, find fun.

Battlefield duels were not among the highlights of CK2.

If you don't like duels, turn them off in the rules settings.

Alternatively, let those who do like duels turn them on via mod settings.

Notably, this alternative costs less developer time than an option with a presumed default of off, which is what the status quo functionally is.

The devs have implemented dozens of features that they left the ability to turn off. There's a way to make it work for everybody.

And that way currently exists: you are given the framework to modify the game to your preference.

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

Because 'you' are not you, the individual, but a conceptualization of thousands peoples worth of collected feedback of what 'you,' collectively, find fun.

Battlefield duels were not among the highlights of CK2.

These threads are generally well-received when someone takes a moment to remind the developers that they're dropping another major update, and we still don't have this feature.

Rulers as Knights...devs seem to be pretty active in here, so can we possibly revisit this topic?

I have a savegame right now that I've played til somewhere around the year 1360 or so and I've finally raised up the perfect physical specimen and conquered 1/4th of the known world give or take. So, my herculean giant maxed out knighthood...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

^^24 agrees, 8 likes, 2 loves

Like I said, I get it. Some folks don't like having their multiplayer games interrupted by events. Some folks don't like having their favorite character's reign cut short (literally).

I don't think the 10% of players who have ever tried multiplayer should be forced to have battlefield duels in their games.

Generally when you search for 'battlefield duels' on these forums, they come to the same conclusion: Prowess is pointless in this game.

It's really hollow if you make your fame fighting in tournaments or challenging people for artifacts in non-lethal combat, but you're too cowardly to risk (or reward) your character on the battlefield. Not, cowardly by choice, mind you. Just that the developers won't let you play on the battlefield. You might get hurt. That doesn't make you feel like a king, especially in some cultures where it's kind of expected that you wouldn't be afraid to fight.

The fatherless court poet went out and fought. Sounds like he deserves to be the king. You got one-upped by a poet.

 

[EmperorDweeb]

So, I wouldn't like to have battles resolved with duels because it would be tedious to do multiple duels, but I would love to resolve wars with them. If there was a "Duel for Title" interaction, that would cool and would slot into the existing Duel/Game framework in CK3.

Duels and Board games are identical in how they play out, and you can already challenge characters to games where the stakes are titles, so I can't imagine adding it to Duel would require that much work to integrate. One way this could work would be if a character is at war (or at peace time if culture permits), they can challenge their opponent (if not infirm/maimed, a child, or for a woman if cultures don't allow it) to a Duel at a high prestige cost for the contested titles instead of finishing the war via war score. Their opponent has the right to refuse or have a champion fight in their stead if both sides agree to champions. If the challenge is refused outright, the challenger takes prestige and renown from the challenged for their perceived cowardice, and they receive negative opinion hits to all their knights since they would not fight for them. AI that have higher prowess than the challenger, or are Brave or Arrogant, would be more likely to accept challenges and vice versa. If accepted the normal "Strike, Parry, Riposte" happens, and the winner of the duel immediately gets 100% war score or simply immediately presses their demands.

This way, it's not every battle, and it could potentially make wars shorter and spare both sides the cost of raising men at arms if they're confident in their sword arms if accepted.

 

[klopkr]

No these would 'slow' the game and make multiplayer unplayable... unlike tournaments that slowly load in new animations and have to be watched like a hawk blocking the entire game map just to follow through with it or royal court also blocking the game map and having to flash to black to reload while the game is running. Those are fine! Oh and normal events that happen during wars anyways.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

So, I wouldn't like to have battles resolved with duels because it would be tedious to do multiple duels, but I would love to resolve wars with them. If there was a "Duel for Title" interaction, that would cool and would slot into the existing Duel/Game framework in CK3.

Duels and Board games are identical in how they play out, and you can already challenge characters to games where the stakes are titles, so I can't imagine adding it to Duel would require that much work to integrate. One way this could work would be if a character is at war (or at peace time if culture permits), they can challenge their opponent (if not infirm/maimed, a child, or for a woman if cultures don't allow it) to a Duel at a high prestige cost for the contested titles instead of finishing the war via war score. Their opponent has the right to refuse or have a champion fight in their stead if both sides agree to champions. If the challenge is refused outright, the challenger takes prestige and renown from the challenged for their perceived cowardice, and they receive negative opinion hits to all their knights since they would not fight for them. AI that have higher prowess than the challenger, or are Brave or Arrogant, would be more likely to accept challenges and vice versa. If accepted the normal "Strike, Parry, Riposte" happens, and the winner of the duel immediately gets 100% war score or simply immediately presses their demands.

This way, it's not every battle, and it could potentially make wars shorter and spare both sides the cost of raising men at arms if they're confident in their sword arms if accepted.

I have had a Viking tribal character in the past being challenged to a duel over a title that my vassal had a claim to.

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

No these would 'slow' the game and make multiplayer unplayable... unlike tournaments that slowly load in new animations and have to be watched like a hawk blocking the entire game map just to follow through with it or royal court also blocking the game map and having to flash to black to reload while the game is running. Those are fine! Oh and normal events that happen during wars anyways.

Right? Events are basically hand-in-hand with the Crusader Kings series. Otherwise, you're never really presented with choices and consequences that could shape your character, for better or worse. I guess deciding 'which part of the map you want to paint' is a choice.