The game needs a system of low level fightings and escalation

[naq29]

Because low level fighting/raids/conflicts between local lords are very common during the middle age. In this game, everything from local revolts to border conflicts all target the top liege while the local rulers sitting on their asses doing nothing. Instead, there should be a system when a conflict may start small, then escalate and pull bigger and bigger forces into the fight until it becomes an all out war, instead of World War from day 1.

 

[Apocal]

While I agree, there needs to be a reason to avoid escalation in the first place. It is an umcommon war victory in CK3 that isn't worth the squeeze.

Making war put your realm in the red for ten years would probably fix that though.

 

[Benismann]

War in general has to be more granular. Having 2 empires raise their whole armies and all the levies to fight over 1 county is funny for the first time, kind of sad by the 10th time.

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

While I agree in principle, think about how this would feel as a player. Imagine, you are the top liege. Your neighbour's vassal declares war on your border vassal. Because it's a small-scale border skirmish you don't get called into it. Your vassal loses the war, and your realm loses territory without you being able to intervene. Would that feel like good, rewarding gameplay?

 

[Zarket]

While I agree in principle, think about how this would feel as a player. Imagine, you are the top liege. Your neighbour's vassal declares war on your border vassal. Because it's a small-scale border skirmish you don't get called into it. Your vassal loses the war, and your realm loses territory without you being able to intervene. Would that feel like good, rewarding gameplay?

Another example of why the game needs double vassalage.

 

[Voidian]

It happened naturally in CK2, at least it did for large empires.

CK2 had a functional levy system, so raising your entire army was very expensive, pissed off every single vassal under you, and gathering those armies would take very long, so people wouldn't raise every levy from everywhere just to fight a war at a certain flank, it was more reasonable to simply raise some levies from neighboring lands and use them instead.

Then let vassals forget their negative opinions for a while, cooling off as you'd raise another part of your vassal's levies, on another side of your kingdom, to fight a different wat somewhere else while not raising the first side's lievies.

CK3 butchered every single area of the levy system so every nuance is gone, there is no reason not to simply raise all, all the time, and move your flag around, troops teleport at light speed, they don't suffer attrition on the way, they can't be intercepted, they don't piss off your vassals.... And they don't even work past the first decades of gameplay.

 

[X_FloW]

the entire warfare mechanic needs to be scrapped clean off the code and make a new one from scratch in its place

 

[peteoj]

While I agree, there needs to be a reason to avoid escalation in the first place. It is an umcommon war victory in CK3 that isn't worth the squeeze.

Making war put your realm in the red for ten years would probably fix that though.

too bad Ck3 doesn't have any real economic or manpower systems to display devastation, best you can do is get somehow Negative money and a few province debuffs that are largely ignorable.

 

[peteoj]

the entire warfare mechanic needs to be scrapped clean off the code and make a new one from scratch in its place

This! I said this before but the justification for making warfare so bland and mind-numbing makes no sense, they wanted to focus on RP but warfare was like 70% of any medieval autocrats entire life. We get courts, travel mechanics and coronations but not actually interesting warfare mechanics? The devs priorities seem so out of whack.

 

[Benismann]

CK2 had a functional levy system, so raising your entire army was very expensive, pissed off every single vassal under you, and gathering those armies would take very long, so people wouldn't raise every levy from everywhere just to fight a war at a certain flank,

Did AI do that?

 

[Voidian]

Did AI do that?

To be fair I never really noticed, there conflicts against players are rarely small scale conflicts they could easily resolve with a few troops, so I imagine I'd never be put in a position in which I could even notice it.

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

Imagine, you are the top liege. Your neighbour's vassal declares war on your border vassal. Because it's a small-scale border skirmish you don't get called into it. Your vassal loses the war, and your realm loses territory without you being able to intervene. Would that feel like good, rewarding gameplay?

The proper way to handle this:
1. An outside force attacks the vassal.
2. If the vassal stands to lose land or an important artifact, the liege gets a sticked notification (if it's just a war to free prisoners or some rivalry shenanigans then just a normal notification).
3. The liege can choose to join the war (the normal "offer to join war" interaction).
4. If the liege doesn't participate in the war in which the vassal stands to lose land, once he war ends then his/her Legitimacy plummets and general discontent grows in the realm (huge opinion maluses, factions, etc).

 

[Zarket]

This! I said this before but the justification for making warfare so bland and mind-numbing makes no sense, they wanted to focus on RP but warfare was like 70% of any medieval autocrats entire life.

And it's not just that. Making war was the job of the feudal aristocracy, its raison d'être. All aristocrats were warlike to a greater or lesser extent. In the worldview of feudal society, aristocrats wage war, priests pray, and the rest work. Bellatores, oratores, laboratores.

Aristocrats weren't soldiers, they were warriors. Their identity was intrinsically linked to violence, both in times of peace and war. And that's not present in the game at all. It's a complete failure on the role-playing side.

 

[MummyMonk]

And it's not just that. Making war was the job of the feudal aristocracy, its raison d'être. All aristocrats were warlike to a greater or lesser extent. In the worldview of feudal society, aristocrats wage war, priests pray, and the rest work. Bellatores, oratores, laboratores.

Aristocrats weren't soldiers, they were warriors. Their identity was intrinsically linked to violence, both in times of peace and war. And that's not present in the game at all. It's a complete failure on the role-playing side.

On the note of what you've said – it amuses me how the character's educations are totally random and a "one size fits all" sort of thing, just one of the 5 totally equal choices that AI usually picks randomly. Like... why are girls from noble families casually get martial education so often (aside from Scandinavian shieldmaidens)? Why don't boys from noble houses *not* get martial education like 80% of time (talking about Feudal Europe now)? Why isn't Learning education tied specifically to characters aiming to become priests / monks? What is "Intrigue education", exactly?

This issue then gets doubled down in the University Visit activity (as weird as it is already) where it's the same copy-paste events whether you are improving you "Education" in Stewardship, Learning or Intrigue (of all 5 lifestyles I'd argue only Diplomacy, Stewardship and Learning belong to this activity, with Martial and Intrigue being very out of place).

 

[Apocal]

While I agree in principle, think about how this would feel as a player. Imagine, you are the top liege. Your neighbour's vassal declares war on your border vassal. Because it's a small-scale border skirmish you don't get called into it. Your vassal loses the war, and your realm loses territory without you being able to intervene. Would that feel like good, rewarding gameplay?

If it was done correctly, you wouldn't be losing territory in a small-scale border skirmish.

 

[Citizen Caen]

And it's not just that. Making war was the job of the feudal aristocracy, its raison d'être. All aristocrats were warlike to a greater or lesser extent. In the worldview of feudal society, aristocrats wage war, priests pray, and the rest work. Bellatores, oratores, laboratores.

Aristocrats weren't soldiers, they were warriors. Their identity was intrinsically linked to violence, both in times of peace and war. And that's not present in the game at all. It's a complete failure on the role-playing side.

Reminds me of a poem from a 12th century Troubadour and petty Noble, Bertrand de Born:
“We are going to have some fun, For the barons will make much of us … Trumpets, drums, flags, and pennons, standards and horses white and black - that is what we shall shortly see. And it will be a happy day; for we shall seize the usurers’ goods, and no more shall beasts of burden pass along the highways by day in complete safety; nor shall the burgess journey without fear, nor the merchant on his way to France; but the man who is full of courage shall be rich.”

CK unfortunately leaves out that it wasn’t just the Vikings who loved a good raiding

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Reminds me of a poem from a 12th century Troubadour and petty Noble, Bertrand de Born:
“We are going to have some fun, For the barons will make much of us … Trumpets, drums, flags, and pennons, standards and horses white and black - that is what we shall shortly see. And it will be a happy day; for we shall seize the usurers’ goods, and no more shall beasts of burden pass along the highways by day in complete safety; nor shall the burgess journey without fear, nor the merchant on his way to France; but the man who is full of courage shall be rich.”

CK unfortunately leaves out that it wasn’t just the Vikings who loved a good raiding

When gold is either 300 to build a castle, or repair the damages a cat causes, I understand why they might not include such minor raids

 

[Citizen Caen]

When gold is either 300 to build a castle, or repair the damages a cat causes, I understand why they might not include such minor raids

Such is the danger in strategy game design of scaling expenses with incomes…
I know the idea is that it makes it easier to balance, but I’m not sure it really works in practice. Seems to me as you add more and more percentage based expenses via mechanics and events it becomes impossible to account for all the potential imbalances.

 

[Arcvalons]

It happened naturally in CK2, at least it did for large empires.

CK2 had a functional levy system, so raising your entire army was very expensive, pissed off every single vassal under you, and gathering those armies would take very long, so people wouldn't raise every levy from everywhere just to fight a war at a certain flank, it was more reasonable to simply raise some levies from neighboring lands and use them instead.

Then let vassals forget their negative opinions for a while, cooling off as you'd raise another part of your vassal's levies, on another side of your kingdom, to fight a different wat somewhere else while not raising the first side's lievies.

CK3 butchered every single area of the levy system so every nuance is gone, there is no reason not to simply raise all, all the time, and move your flag around, troops teleport at light speed, they don't suffer attrition on the way, they can't be intercepted, they don't piss off your vassals.... And they don't even work past the first decades of gameplay.

Nah, in CK2 you were still forced to raise your entire levy because the AI would certainly do so. The scenario you describe only applies fopr when you're fighting a OPM, or when you already control half the map.

 

[Voidian]

Nah, in CK2 you were still forced to raise your entire levy because the AI would certainly do so. The scenario you describe only applies fopr when you're fighting a OPM, or when you already control half the map.

I must have played it wrong then, I'd always raise the bare minimun I needed, because vassal revolts can be dangerous in that game, unlike CK3, and using their levies in offensive wars all the time is an easy way to get your entire kingdom to hate you at -100.

Specially if you raise their ships, ships are extremely expensive to maintain, and they really hated to pay for them.

I'd even not use retinues most of the time because the costs to replenish them, even atrito losses were extremely high, enough to put a giant empire in the red. So I didn't use anything I didn't need.

Of course, if you're tiny king/duke and your armies can merge near instantly because they are 1 or 2 counties away from the capital then sure, there isn't much reason to do it, but I'd still keep retinues out if I could because of the costs.

I didn't even like to raise my own levies because of their costs