Tribals have it btw. If you have a claim to liege's primary title you can duel them for it, and if they refuse you just gain it peacefully.
- 1
-
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.
I would argue those are pitfalls of existing features, NOT reasons to add more of those.
- 1
Im not sure why not tbh, the more I play the game nowdays the more it feels paced to suit people like me that wanna play on 1-2-3 speed most the time, micromanaging, roleplaying and actually telling a story. Wheras they said they removed Battlefield duels and such to cater to the 5 speed MP crowd.... but those people cry that too much happens now. So just embrace it Paradox ( they can play 2 speed MP and have a drink and chillll )
- 1
- 1
This is the best joke i heard today. Speed 5 MP... Oh sweet child......
- 1
On the side, it is weird how many events, particularly travel, then just turn "duels" against random characters into stat challenges with a "wounded" result.
I understand not wanting to tie someone's hand with a tedious duel when they just want to keep traveling to a destination, especially when balancing other tasks and/or playing MP, but the duel system is there and the temporarily-created bandit characters have a prowess stat: why not use the duels?
If it's because it's they're fairly repetitive, maybe a look should be made at how they could be made more interactive to be enjoyed at some pace, especially when we consider how many turn-based RPGs can be enjoyed--even if it's an auto-win button if you have +20 prowess. And then, if travel duels could be made interesting, they could apply their learnings for the battlefield, which have the similar kind of timing/attention restraints.
We have leveled traits with subsets now, if we want some more combat complications (instead of purely using Prowess), we could make checks against those for different fighting techniques: offensive skills (mostly affected by weapons), defense skills (mostly affected by armor), agility skills (affected by physicality), trick skills (affected by personality/learning/circumstances of the duel), etc, that give different "attacks" or effects, depending on how each of those tracks are developed
I understand not wanting to tie someone's hand with a tedious duel when they just want to keep traveling to a destination, especially when balancing other tasks and/or playing MP, but the duel system is there and the temporarily-created bandit characters have a prowess stat: why not use the duels?
If it's because it's they're fairly repetitive, maybe a look should be made at how they could be made more interactive to be enjoyed at some pace, especially when we consider how many turn-based RPGs can be enjoyed--even if it's an auto-win button if you have +20 prowess. And then, if travel duels could be made interesting, they could apply their learnings for the battlefield, which have the similar kind of timing/attention restraints.
We have leveled traits with subsets now, if we want some more combat complications (instead of purely using Prowess), we could make checks against those for different fighting techniques: offensive skills (mostly affected by weapons), defense skills (mostly affected by armor), agility skills (affected by physicality), trick skills (affected by personality/learning/circumstances of the duel), etc, that give different "attacks" or effects, depending on how each of those tracks are developed
Last edited:
- 1
Sometimes, before battle was joined, a duel of champions occurred. This seems to have been more tribal in nature. The winning side would get a moral boost. Such a pre battle duel system doesn’t seem to fit the warfare system of ck3. Plus, I am not sure how often the system was used during CK3’s timeframe. Often times, extra focus was placed on capturing or killing enemy leader.
Anyone bringing up how duels are "annoying" or "don't work for multiplayer" are wasting our time.
Just like the existence of Administrative governments besides Byzantium, all that needs to be done is add a rule: Battlefield Duels - On/Off.
Done.
Let's get to the heart of the issue, instead of bringing up borderline off-topic nonsense.
I've been lobbying for years to allow leaders to be Crusader Kings and not Command Tent Simulators, but I can't change a thing. Mods help.
On the topic of warfare: steps in the right direction have been taken in regard to attaining and leveling Aspiring Blademaster - but it doesn't feel like enough. There ought to be a cultural tenent that boosts the experience gained for Aspiring Blademaster. Buy the time you actually get to Legendary Blademaster, you're old -- if you get there at all. Yes, "Kin" helps a lot, but you still basically have to find a random NPC that magically has Legendary Blademaster in order to bring their power to bear in actual combat.
If I'm making a dynasty of warriors, it's simple enough to get Herculean. Or Strong. But trying to get Legendary Blademaster is nearly impossible.
I don't want the Aspiring Blademaster trait to lose its elite status, but it would be nice to have a society that is oriented towards having Blademasters being more common and easier to level.
Here's hoping that Japan gets some awesome "Bushido" - like suite of new samurai-oriented cultural traditions. If there was ever a society that would work with getting more XP in the Aspiring Blademaster line, Japan would be it.
Just like the existence of Administrative governments besides Byzantium, all that needs to be done is add a rule: Battlefield Duels - On/Off.
Done.
Let's get to the heart of the issue, instead of bringing up borderline off-topic nonsense.
I've been lobbying for years to allow leaders to be Crusader Kings and not Command Tent Simulators, but I can't change a thing. Mods help.
On the topic of warfare: steps in the right direction have been taken in regard to attaining and leveling Aspiring Blademaster - but it doesn't feel like enough. There ought to be a cultural tenent that boosts the experience gained for Aspiring Blademaster. Buy the time you actually get to Legendary Blademaster, you're old -- if you get there at all. Yes, "Kin" helps a lot, but you still basically have to find a random NPC that magically has Legendary Blademaster in order to bring their power to bear in actual combat.
If I'm making a dynasty of warriors, it's simple enough to get Herculean. Or Strong. But trying to get Legendary Blademaster is nearly impossible.
I don't want the Aspiring Blademaster trait to lose its elite status, but it would be nice to have a society that is oriented towards having Blademasters being more common and easier to level.
Here's hoping that Japan gets some awesome "Bushido" - like suite of new samurai-oriented cultural traditions. If there was ever a society that would work with getting more XP in the Aspiring Blademaster line, Japan would be it.
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
- 1
Im sorry, but duel system being crap is very much on topic. Sure, it being toggle-able OFF (i would rather take it be off by default thank you very much). Duels are awful. They pretend to give you some info about the options, but since you dont really know the state of the duel (i tried reading the event itself, it doesnt seem to matter) OR what even matters in the duel, it's all for nothing. Why would i pick the "no success increase, low risk" options? There're several of those, so i would assume they have a reason to exist, but alas.
I also distinctly remember losing duels coz i got all the options being "low/no success low risk" 3 times in a row so i just couldn't do anything at all. Or at least that's how it felt, maybe if i were clicking the right ones i would've won, but again, the system has no feedback that are not win/lose and i assume every choice matters, othewise why would they be there...
Duel overlay mod at least provides a progress bar on top. I've seen it go from 80 to 0% in one turn, but at least it's some feedback for my actions.
Duels really need to be improved if they are to appear more often.
- 1
- 1
I get that a lot of people don’t want battlefield events because they can feel spammy or intrusive, but isn’t it kind of odd how empty campaigning feels? When you're leading an army, there are no events, no mechanics, no risks—nothing. You can't even be harmed or killed in battle, which only happens to AI characters. That just feels silly.
There’s no stakes, no thought, no real strategy or roleplay. It’s all just hollow and continues to be ignored by the devs. Say what you want about duels being controversial, but having events that actually make use of your martial education while leading troops would add so much. Supplying your army—like you do with your travel camp—could open up new challenges and events. Even just the basic ability to be injured or killed in battle would add tension and consequence to war, and without it, CK3 leans too far into safe, power fantasy territory.
Honestly, the game would benefit hugely from making warfare more engaging across the board. But it feels like the devs have little to no interest in fixing what is arguably the weakest, most undercooked part of the game. So… whatever, I guess.
There’s no stakes, no thought, no real strategy or roleplay. It’s all just hollow and continues to be ignored by the devs. Say what you want about duels being controversial, but having events that actually make use of your martial education while leading troops would add so much. Supplying your army—like you do with your travel camp—could open up new challenges and events. Even just the basic ability to be injured or killed in battle would add tension and consequence to war, and without it, CK3 leans too far into safe, power fantasy territory.
Honestly, the game would benefit hugely from making warfare more engaging across the board. But it feels like the devs have little to no interest in fixing what is arguably the weakest, most undercooked part of the game. So… whatever, I guess.
- 1
- 1
- 1
This kind of goes back to what I was saying about battlefield outcomes already being determined the moment two armies meet. Nothing is going to happen during the battle that sways the outcome, unless both sides are very, very evenly matched, and even then, sometimes the dice rolls go in your favor, but are immediately balanced out by going in the enemy's favor and it just keeps going back-and-forth every 4 days with another roll, to give the illusion that conditions on the battlefield are changing. IMO battle dice-rolling should just be removed from the game completely, as I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've actually seen it be relevant to the outcome of a battle. Maybe I had one time that I got a few favorable dice-rolls in a row, and could actually see the red/blue bar moving back in my favor. One battle out of . . . thousands?
I'd even say it was done better in CK2. Setting your army up into 3 flanks. You could clearly see the battlefield go through phases. The tactics chance to fire was completely RNG sure, but at least you could see what was happening. You could be getting annihilated in the skirmish phase by nomads and their crazy horse blobs, but then the battle goes into melee phase, and then your pikemen's "force back" tactic triggers and the enemy's attacking flank gets utterly deleted. I'd literally be watching this 2-d interpretation of the battle unfold, watching and waiting for it to happen, and it was so, so glorious when it did. Battles were dumbed down considerably in CK3.
In CK3, most of it, by far, is determined by army size, MAA counters, building modifiers, etc all of which are prepared before the battle starts. You'll never see an upset, or an unexpected victory, unless you're just brand-new to the game and haven't learned how it all works. I'm kind of looking back and laughing at the comments that suggest that a leader can better lead from the rear, as an argument against duel events. What are you doing that is affecting the outcome of the battle? . . . . Nothing. Go take a bathroom break while the game is calculating your battle.
The developers tried to resolve this by making advantage have higher damage modifiers (from 1x to 10x) but this just compounded the issue. It is basically a 'how quickly do you want to see a stack-wipe happen?' option. It's still a factor that is completely out of the player's hands, once the battle starts.
Armies meet in battle, and the game starts a daily calculation based on damage and toughness modifiers. You watch the numbers drain down slowly until one side reaches 0. The only tactical option a player has, once the battle has started, is to retreat (which isn't even really a tactical option because you're just prolonging the inevitable, they'll be more likely to capture your knights when you retreat, and that's just going to make the next battle even harder--I suppose in very specific instances you might be able to retreat to better terrain, and that's assuming the enemy would rather fight your army again than just start sieging holdings in the area that you abandoned). I've retreated—maybe—3 times back when I first started CK3, and once was a mis-click.
Battles are the least-engaging element of the game. But we don't want to interrupt that, by having something . . . anything . . . happen.
Last edited:
- 1
You can tho, it's just that the chances for that are VERY low and almost everything that affects them positively for you (as of, lowers them) affects AI less for some reason.
I know you can get captured but I've never been killed or mortally wounded in my 1000+ hours of gameplay.
You can also get wounded and/or maimed. You can only die in battle if you're already wounded, and i believe it's the same for AI.