Personally my favorite part (and most unrealistic part) of the CK3 combat is the impactfulness of Knights. You can cheese it so that 8 knights can kill over 800+ levies. Makes me feel like they are Heroes from Total War
@dal segno would make sense as knights rarely operated solo. Generally a lot funnier imagining gods of war rather than a retinue of 5-15 mixed calvary hand trained by an elite warrior to support his assaults.
It would be better than the Tours and Tournaments and the next DLC (forgot its name, I literally stopped playing when that useless shit was announced as a DLC).
@@LilGamingYes not really, this dlc actually adds stuff to peacetime, feasts, tournaments and hunts were massive parts of medieval rule, actually adds some depth.
@@tzaphkielconficturus7136 Dunno if ck3 works the same, but ck2, the amount of troop type you had dictated ur attack style, so if u had more archers and were english, you got the special skirmish phases, or if u were scotland with pikemen, u got special schiltrom phases. So having a shtton of crappy peasant levies, would disable this.
@@ManCheat2 Ah, I remember. No, battles are quite different in CK3. There aren't even flanks anymore; only one commander per army. Units are described with a set of 4 (5 if you count siege?) stats which affect their performance. The battles have set phases, and the "advantage" numerically describes the situational bonuses for an army, primarily affected by terrain and commander skill.
CK2 also had a supply system in how many troops could be in a region before they start suffering attrition. Nice as having a supply train element, I think CK2 did even supplies better.
@@PlatonicHesaf you never were in the steppes in the winter, were you? Your biggest enemy as Nomads is the winter and the complete crash of supply, completely levelling your hordes Ck2s supply system was decent, it was just not very well shown, the only thing you saw was the skull and suddenly starting to lose massive amounts of troops
I'd argue CK2 is objectively worse when it comes to combat than CK3. Flanks were irrelevant you could leave them alone and still never lose a battle. Also the martial focus was so broken that it made MAA bonus stacking seem balanced in comparison. Also if we do a side by side development cycle comparison its not close at all.
Personally, I'd like it if levies were raised in vassal capitals (I think that's how it worked in CK2? I never played it). It would address the teleporting armies issue and give the player a strategic decision of whether striking the enemy fast or waiting to amass your forces in one place. It would also give an inherent penalty to having land very far removed from the rest of your territory. Since only the local portion of your armies will be able to reach on very short notice. And it would also visually represent the levies that your vassals provide through their contract.
I like the idea of this. At the moment if I own England and Scotland invades I just make my armies appear in York. If wales attack-shrewsbury. If units originated from the holdings and had to gather at a location it would be more realistic and you could ambush them on there way.
Dude you should really go through and play CK2 and just give it a little bit of time. Ck3 is best described as fancy CK2 without nearly as much depth or immersion IMO.
If the levies were your vassals yes, But in ck3 levies from vassals dont join the call to war, its just a percentage of their total levies you get from the contract
there is a mod that does this called crusader wars that combined CK3 with total war attalia. your armies basically switch into custom battles on attalia and the outcome crosses between the two games
I'd prefer a return to CK2 combat, I felt like a god when I defended against 300 or so troops with my 50 while behind a river and in a hill. I tried pulling off a similar tactic in 3, and I just got curbstomped because once you start losing due to bigger numbers, you dont stop, theres no back and forth or morale race like in CK2 or EU4
I wish your character would fight on the battlefield and we could get events on the field of battle. It would make it a lot more interesting especially for people who are on console without mods.
I just wished the army managment was more akin to ck2 cause it makes no sende to be ablr to spawn 100k troops in one provance without being able to cut off the levies from gathering
Ck2 perfected the way medieval battle worked with all the phases. Also, it’s probably the game where the terrain gives the most decisive factor. Ck3 has way too many men at arms bonus.
More we can give to much bonus, maybe they could reduce the amount of bonus from the same building or cap it to a certain number. Cause right now I just need a great heavy Infantery, give build the right military infrastructure for them and add siege for the wall and then GG I can easily beat any army of 20K-30k with my 1.5k troops of men at arms (and if I mix with culture that increase the number of heavy Infantery I usually have a stack of 12 per heavy Infantery so you can have "too much" men at arms pretty easily before even reaching late medieval tech)
@@avisdunrandom Yup, they should divide by like 10% everything or find another way to make it not stack so much. My byzantium game was basically a pike + Cataphracts. I was able to beat an army 60k strong with like 5k men at arms. It was so easy that it wasn’t fun at all.
@@jumperwilli7770 think it was pretty fun in the beginning but when you don't have "a worthy opponent" you just start to declare war to 3 or more in the same time.
They could make it so that you have to train your men at arms in certain dutchies or counties, and then that dutchy's or county's building bonuses will be the only bonuses you get for your men at arms. The consequence would be that you're only allowed to train men at arms from your personal holdings, so you need to sacrifice economic power in order to get better troops, and there would be a hard cap on how good your men at arms could be that still allows big and small countries alike to both have equally good troops depending on how they menage the realm. It would also give more depth to the real management aspect of the game.
Preferably I would like the combat the way it's done in imperator Rome, with forts and settlements/cities, localised legions / levies, mercenenary armies that would walk around the map (not buy and spawn), with a food tax on the land (but generating extra money), the rock paper scissor battle tactics, generals with loyalty system. The Ck3 combat is just to simple to be honest....
Either they should add a combst system like ck2 or make another combat system, where we can control decisions like flanking, launching assaults, and offensives like ck2.
I think that when a game says that 10 very experienced Knights can win with the bare hands over 1000 peasants, it sure is need to overhaul the combat system...
I personally like the Bannerlord/CK3 mod that allows you to fight your CK3 battle in Bannerlord. Sadly the mod is outdated or it was last time I checked
The worst part of Ck3 for me is the combat, waging war is a chore that I get through because managing my realm and RPing as my ruler is actually the fun part.
"If your number is higher and you haven't built all archers as your men at arms, you win" I...can say this is false. At least for playing outside of Europe (as i commonly do). I've had my ass handed to me quite a few times by smaller armies when I have quite a few decent MaA, the biggest I've lost was I think 14K vs 8K, in a war as [the Empire of] Mali against Nubia. War is definitely more nuanced for me, and simply having worse supply than your enemy can really tip the favour against you.
The only big problem that needs to be fixed with every paradox game is the AI, people complain that it’s not realistic but it’s not because it doesn’t follow the real historical narrative 1-1 but that the way the AI expands and gets involved with other nations conflicts don’t make any sense no matter how you look at it a majority of the time.
Battlefield events like they had in ck2 would be nice. I mean they have a whole ass dueling feature that you barely ever get to use (until the dlc next week). In fact I don’t recall ever actually coming across a lethal duel in the vanilla game for any reason at all
@@sadettinarslan5324Probably win a few battles but losses will prob be like 50k crusaders to 2k cataphracts and so you lose like 4 battles but obliterate the entire army
@@somethingelseidk1035 but they siege your provinces down faster than you defeat their gigormous armies.and ticking warscore you know right is sieging castles. and no muslim nation ever helps you out in this confrontation. only choice left for is to insta surrender and then insta truce break to retake yur stolen kingdom.
the thing im missing most of all are the tactics that gave units bonuses in certain phases, it gave the wide array of cultures and even the religions a little more flavour and in some cases allowed for insane outperformances if combined with the right terrrain If someone wants to find out what I mean by that, play as an african pagan tribal and get the free warriors retinue, bonus points if you are berber and later on add the light cav on the flanks, your basically unstoppable unless you get completely overwhelmed or fight in mountains
It doesn't make sense the absolute disconnect between generals and court. There are no consequences or rewards for characters that go into battle a win. You can even send rivals on suicide missions just by themselves and get them killed.
I usually just use my men-at-arms regents because of the insane quality advantage i have with them. In my current play through i’m using 1 siege regiment (currently from early medieval) and the rest are cataphracts (I think I have 5 or 6 regiments at tier 10 (500 troops per regiment)) It covers any army up to around 7500 regular quality troops or 10000 levies although I’ve not fought a stack of levies that large yet
it would be cool if you could decide a set of strategies with different bonuses for maa and terrain as well as commanders traits, and it would include the rock paper scissors mechanic
I feel like i understand the choices they go for but i feel like a paradox game with a more tactical simulation of war would feel more real to life than maybe even some total war games
The closer one to get to this idea is Hearts Of Iron, but even then it's largely limited to the operational scope of warfare of divisions and not the more tacticsl one of say, platoons.
I hate how indecisive battles are you’ll have to fight a dozen or more battles during any war to achieve victory. that’s just not true for warfare at this time I don’t want it to be one and done but 6 plus battles with the same enemy is far too much.
Absolutely agree. I shouldn’t be having fighting between countries for 12 years of back and forth in the 800s. One decisive victory would pretty much do it back then. And I think that every Earl and duke and King killed should affect war score as well. Just because William the Bastard had an heir doesn’t mean that the war would continue if he was killed in battle. Williams army would have dissolved and there would probably be years between another attack and it probably wouldn’t have happened again with Robert or any of his other kids. I want to feel like I’m living history in this game, not like I’m just min maxing and chasing an army around the map until they finally give up after the 10th battle.
The only issue I have with it is the gathering. I like the CK2 version, assembling large armies take time regardless of how good you are. In CK2 we could besiege the capital before the enemy could mobilize or attack segments of the army coming from far away, this worked well when you rebelled against your liege and your duchy was right in the middle of the kingdom.
I like to think of the commander score as a representation of the tactical ability of the commander. so in a way that strategy is going on. its just behind the scenes. i do think those numbers could be more impactful and that would probably be a good change. As it is right now having a commander with 40 score doesnt FEEL much different than having one with 30. maybe having lower battle roll floors and higher ceilings based on your commander skill so that better commanders are more consistently great or just increasing the percentage buffs from advantage from 2 percent per point to 4 or 6
Need a paradox like game where it plays like eu4 or ck3 but when you have a battle you can choose to fight it total war style or just fight normal (definitely wouldn’t work at this time but it’s a very cool idea for the future)
There was a mod released a couple years ago called Crusader Blade where you can play any ck3 battle out in Mount and blade warband and there's a upcoming mod doing the same thing for total war Atilla called Crusader Wars so it will be reality soon.
The devs have said that reworking anything to do with battles would require recoding everything about war, since it's one of the least-flexible system on the back-end. With that in mind, if there WAS a war rework (which some devs have indicated may not be off the table) I would actually want to move away from conventional stack-micro wars altogether, with something like an adapted version of the traveling system being used to plan out a campaign as a series of position-action pairs, like a Grand Tour. You could add a lot more depth and granularity to almost every aspect of war that way, whilst with a stack-micro system every bit of granularity added comes with an increase in how much micro is demanded.
That is an interesting point that I think gets forgotten alot. Most mideval wars just saw the attacking army marching towards their objective (i.e. enemy's capital) and the defenders trying to stop them. Sieges were only on the castles that were in the way, not little baronies that others dont matter at all.
that could be fun, declare war and then have events that start a reconnaissance phase which entails scouting your enemy's numbers troop types then finding a location where to do battle and trying to lure your enemies to said battlefield. Both commanders would have equal opportunities to one up each other with their skills etc then the battles would play out as normal or perhaps changed i dunno. Pretty much like their new dlc coming out etc with tournaments feasts etc its about warfare. i feel each and every ruler and kingdom etc should have their troop numbers quality etc be hidden unless you use spies to find out what they got and how powerful etc they are.Would make choosing your wars much more impactful since you can and will take on more than you could handle lol.
When I was playing it I just made a mod changing 1 define, responsible for how much damage "advantage" increases. Increasing that multiplier was enough, no rework needed.
There needs to be a concept of baggage and supply. So many medieval battles were decided when a contingent makes a dash for the baggage. This could either demoralise the enemy, or the loss of these troops to looting could also prove pivotal
maybe they could hve something like those dueling or chess event decisions where your outcome is decided by what tactics you choose with a bit of luck thrown in there
I wouldn't say the entire system need a rework, just some more flavour, there is a mod on workshop which adds events during entire battle in which you cna get some traits, get wounded etc. That thing is the only thing I'd change in vanilla combat, just add more flavour beacuse it's really solid system right now
I think hidden information mod, fixes every issue CK3 has (maybe with the exception of character teleportation.) If you can not list all available characters in the world and and for the price of 4*12 + some gifts dockets invite the ones with the best characteristics. A lot of the arcady-ness of the game gets resolved.
Personally I liked the ck2 system of raising troops and battles because it had basically all the same point except you had the 3 parts of the battle that could make or break a victory. I think they could implement a compromised system that would work perfectly. It just matters if they are lazy or not. Furthermore, the attrition/supply system is t really different. I hate that in ck3 you take attrition for not sieged every single enemy tile on the wag to your objective lest you want to lose 1/10 of you army for not wanting to siege a castle with no importance . In CK2, terrain was better, troops were better balanced, supply was about the same, combat was more in depth and actually functioned more realistically, and was overall more fun. I also liked the fact that you could build forts while on campaign to avoid taking as much attrition and to secure a foothold somewhere. Ck2 is just more in depth and better portrays the Middle Ages compared to ck3 which would better suit the late late medieval periods like the 1200s-1600s
dont know if this is historically accurate but what if you could establish temporary supply lines in enemy territory which cost monthly gold but give supply bonuses there, and the defending armies could destroy the supply lines
Depending what you aiming for, players always will be focusing on most obvious solutions, so if the knights will be shit they will be ignored, but it is better to have spacemarines that you handpicked then a hord of the levies , what I think was interesting are accolyudes, if they somehow would be assigned to the army/unit that would create a regiments with a leader, making it a little more fun to "Craft" perfect synergies
The tours and tournaments dlc made me hate going to war. Weddings jousts and pilgrimages are this fun chose your own adventure game while going to war feels like an excel spreadsheet.
Why, MAA perform the same exact function except with more variety. I've seen a number of people with this opinion but haven't actually seen someone say why CK2 retinue system is better.
@@kingjamestres, simple, the retinue troops stay on the map instead of vanishing. CK2 had more realistic armies and it allowed for better strategy because you could actually prepare for war instead of just summoning your armies from nowhere. Also it would pave the way for a return of the Nomadic government type and the Mongols having that would be genuinely scary. MAA do not perform the same function. Because they’re effectively just an extension of the normal army.
@@TheRyuSword Yes the MAA can vanish but they also can be summoned separately from levies with a raising time to simulate moving. They also cost more, exactly like retinue there's no real difference other than visual. You can argue realism for armies was better in ck2 because of the levy system requiring you to move you're troops together but your troops still popped out fully ready at the local rally points so in gameplay terms all it meant was either you were small enough that it wasn't annoying or too big that it was a headache concentrating forces. its nearly the same in ck3 you just don't have to go through that annoying first part after declaring war where tbh it makes no sense that you couldn't move levies into position before declaring war. ck3 fixes that by using army raising times to simulate all that boring micromanagement.
@@sadettinarslan5324 I think you're mistaken MMA are notoriously OP I've seen many people want them nerfed with a focus on the right buildings they can easily beat enemies 10-20x them
Warfare is a huge let down in CK3. Almost never do you see levied peasants with no armor and only a pitchfork to carry them through a war. CK2 did medieval combat much better for several reasons. 1) no generic 'levies' troop type garbage. Everything is light infantry, spearmen, archers, heavy infantry, light cavalry, horse archers, and heavy cavalry. 2) If you levy your troops from your vassals, they show up in land your vassals own. Then you have to assemble the army before marching out against the opponent. If you're fast, you can actually siege out your enemy and get 100% war score before your opposing empire can even bring its numbers to bear, which makes for better gameplay. 3) tactics and the battles in CK2 better reflected medieval warfare than CK3. You have a left flank, a center, and a right flank. You have tactics which do stat boosts and penalties for range and melee (which is where CK2 battles were best criticized on those stats). Having generals and troops on each division is important for winning, as winning on 1 flank can often win you a battle or ease the losses on the center. By contrast, CK3 is incredibly 1 dimensional. No flanks, tactics are just battle phases (skirmish, melee, pursuit), multiple generals aren't really a thing. 4) for the bulk of medieval warfare (5th-15th century), cavalry DOMINATED medieval warfare. They SHOULD be the meta and, if their at least supported by the other forces (which allowed them to be as dominant as they were), they should wreck all enemies who aren't defending in a siege.
Wish I could tag the dude higher in the comments that claimed CK3 combat “…was objectively better.” Hit the nail on the head with this. Ck3 like the previous paradox title HOI4 just over simplified everything down. I’m also of similar opinion that cavalry is grossly misrepresented in ck3, and rather ck2 is a much better depiction of it. Recently one of my friends raged in a ck2 MP because he got his ass kicked as 9th century Vikings against the Magyars. Showed up the carpathian basin with 5k and was absolutely living his army was decimated by 4,000 Magyar cavalry and horse archers while only killing around 100. The only thing everyone that was playing kept asking was, “well what did you think was going to happen?”
@@kendrox0994So a very heavy infantry army nation is upset that a nation with troops that were direct counters to slow targets won a battle I mean I agree with the group what do you expect. It's like if you play a modern army game and bunch up your entire army in one spot and complain that planes and artillery obliterated the army.
Point 2 is completely nonsense, soldiers spawn in your vassals capital and take time to assemble at your rally point. There's even an animation for gathering soldiers, and it can take months in any larger realm.
Theres definitely a reason why because all the mainstream paradox games have focuses on what theyre about In order of timeline: Ck3 roleplaying dynasty building Eu4 basically just logistics Vic3 industrialization economy sim Hoi4 mass military focus
I’d like them and generals to function much more like Imperator: Rome. Personally I think they perfected it there and I do like having the option of turning on automation and assigning them specific orders.
"Is this the best way to represent medieval combat?" *Me with 40 high prowess knights and +500% knight effectiveness slaughtering temujin's 60k mongol army leaving 3-6 keshig to run back home* Seems fine to me 😌
in general i dont have many complaints with the combat itself. A few things could be improved but i feel it shouldnt be a priority. On the other hand, the AI needs a massive improvement, specially in terms of combat. Allies are more a drag than helpful. They basically only serve to help you survive when you are still weak by having their armies as your own "meat shield", but apart from that they do more bad than good. For example, having an army in need of supplies, i put them on a county to resupply and an ally decides to put his army on the same county putting us above the supply limit. I move my army to the next county ad my ally follows me and does the exact same thing, basically not letting me resupply, so i have to move away a lot so i can resupply without my allies screw me up. But they only follow me when it is to screw me, when i go and attack an enemy expecting them to follow, quite a few times they just turn around an abandon me to die. But when they are alone, instead of marching my direction to fight the enemy together they just throw their units one by one against the enemy just to be destroyed, losing war score and making more work for me to win the war. In short, the AI in combat follows you when they shouldnt, when they should follow you to fight a battle that together will win, they run away from the enemy, and when they are outnumbered and alone they decide to fight. They do exactly the opposite of what they should.
Before worrying about any reworks they need to allow player characters to personally fight in battles already. I always have these carefully crafted martial characters and they're just sitting there with insane prowess instead of putting it to use and scoring kills in battle like a regular knight.
I can run up with a 3k army and wipe a 30k army. - only the strong, martial admiration, and a couple others I haven’t played in a while but those right there along making a hybrid culture with Egypt, or kannada to get war elephants. U wipe every thing like 10 to 1
I just wish it to ne less granular to control my armies. When i have to comtroll a huge stack of armies its hard to pick out the ones i need and which general should control, Which brigade. Its especially bad when a weak brigade with my ruler.
Tbh Ck2 combat is the furthest paradox has gone into making combat tactics into their games, being able to defeat an army 9 times your size with just retinues, good generals, terrain and trash enemy commanders was the best feeling ever, instead we get the trash dice rolls no one cares about with modifiers because *we dont know how to balance our s*it games*
I think the army’s population needs a rework, like if I’m the Byzantine emperor in 867 there’s no way my full imperial army is 8K or less, historically gets have between 20-30K (depending on how well the empire was doing)
idk if they need a rework, but i'd say they need an expansion adding more detail and realism.. honestly would be down for a full blown dlc like royal court of tours and tournaments if it would make war more fun
Just add a rock paper scissors mechanic, generals will choose one, and might get countered or counter their enemy. Make it so if you are leading the battle you get to choose
It's fine the way it is because in open field battle, it was number of soldiers, equipment, morale, how much supplies and types of troops that made the difference. Tactical mindgames were only remarkable because of how uncommon they were. And the commander traits system really reflect the amount of experience a commander has gained on the field. At the end of the day, CKIII is a political simulator and picking commanders and types of soldiers are political decisions.
In the begining just having more levies will win you every battle. Mid game it's decently balanced between men at arms and levies. And in the end game men at arms are just absolutely broken. I think commanders are decently balanced tho
Battle are ok ...but I would love to see a more simplefied economy sysyirm like some resources in certain provicnes so trade would play a role in the game donest have to be Victoria 3 depth but just sometjing simple like eu4 or.imperaror Rome ...
we need a garrison system rehaul similar to eu4 why have 500 men stationed at a castle on the other side of my empire and on the other hand why leave 2000 men outside of my walls if a mongol hoard is coming
It would take for ever if very unit interaction had something as complex as the duel mechanic, you have multiple battles at once and the game would fall apart with the numbers at endgame. We have martial scores already to represent tactical use.
For historical accuracy I'm unaware but for game play it is the most understandable combat mechanic in a Paradox game in my opinion. As someone that often plays martial characters in the game you feel rewarded for prioritizing Knights and Men at Arms.
1. You can't fight as a knight and have an impact on the battlefield with your prowess. Kinda makes prowess useless for players when you only use it for duels. 2. other than being a general for an army, you don't have special events when commanding kinda leaving out the whole feel of being a commander. I would like them to implement something like the tournament events in battle events or anything that allows our choices to impact the battle. 3. The ai is dumb. So many battles I need to rely on the ai to join a battle, but they rather go and siege than fight. If we could command them tho.... 4. Sieging is soo boring. Literally have to sit and wait for months to take one castle. Give us something that speeds up the process and risks losing out men other than supply limit. Like how tf we take a castle with the only death was starvation?
What bothers me is the freraking 40.000 man army that you can gather in a rally point super fast. That is super broken. first, that is a massive army forn the time, second, it is gameplay broken
You should be able to declare war if all your troops are in your territory and going in sovereign territory without permission shouldn't happen unless in war.
Rework? No, but tweaks or balancing for sure. It is so easy to get a small army of just knights and men@arms and completely wipe the floor with any opposing army up to 5x or 6x your size. This is thanks to the accolade system i think... definitely needs some balancing and tweaks but a full rework is a bit excessive. Although it would be nice to have a manpower system like in eu4, somehow levies/men@arms are infinate. Makes no sense in medieval times.
It's good to talk about it, but I honestly never cared about this aspect too much. I'm more the "Conquer this land with the most ridiculous combination possible" guy. Like hindu Spain or Jewish/Christian India. And yes, battles are important in a medieval game you get an A+ Laith 😉
Well, it wouldn't be a bad idea, but the combat is ok, there are many mor thing to fix, or add, to focus on that, like republics, nomads, cults, fix the fucking Bizantium, so, i can live with this battle sistem if they improve the rest
I think that combat in CK3 should be easy. If you want combat go to HOI4, Victoria2 or EU4. I think they need to improve economy a bit, like add trade routes cuz the way they made Constantinople bring money is not OK, why walls and temple give 10 gold?
Personally my favorite part (and most unrealistic part) of the CK3 combat is the impactfulness of Knights. You can cheese it so that 8 knights can kill over 800+ levies. Makes me feel like they are Heroes from Total War
Altough yeah unrealistic, a trained knight can probably overpower a few untrained levies.
@@Leo.V very true, but not 100+ per Knight in a single battle
@@Jack-kb5nb Well ofcourse, you can really get some big numbers with knighteffectivness stacking
the knights apparently aren't just single guys, it also includes their cohorts
@dal segno would make sense as knights rarely operated solo. Generally a lot funnier imagining gods of war rather than a retinue of 5-15 mixed calvary hand trained by an elite warrior to support his assaults.
DONT GIVE THEM IDEAS
THEY WILL MAKE A DLC OUT OF IT
It would be better than the Tours and Tournaments and the next DLC (forgot its name, I literally stopped playing when that useless shit was announced as a DLC).
@@LilGamingYes not really, this dlc actually adds stuff to peacetime, feasts, tournaments and hunts were massive parts of medieval rule, actually adds some depth.
@@gonvillebromhead2457 Feast and Hunts were already part of the game, this should not be a DLC.
@@LilGamingYes Feasts and Hunts will be free. Tours and Tournaments will not be.
stopped playing ck3 a while ago the dlc arent even good i jusst need a new total war game to come out
Imagine playing a Horselord and your army consists of 80% footman. I think that tells us all we need to know.
this ^
You still bring levies to your wars when you have archer cav?
@@tzaphkielconficturus7136 Dunno if ck3 works the same, but ck2, the amount of troop type you had dictated ur attack style, so if u had more archers and were english, you got the special skirmish phases, or if u were scotland with pikemen, u got special schiltrom phases. So having a shtton of crappy peasant levies, would disable this.
@@ManCheat2 Ah, I remember. No, battles are quite different in CK3. There aren't even flanks anymore; only one commander per army. Units are described with a set of 4 (5 if you count siege?) stats which affect their performance. The battles have set phases, and the "advantage" numerically describes the situational bonuses for an army, primarily affected by terrain and commander skill.
Ck2 arguably had a better combat system than Ck3 with each flank having it's own commander and unit composition
True but in Ck3 we have supplies management forcing you to divide each army in order to reduce casualties instead of one gigantic army
CK2 also had a supply system in how many troops could be in a region before they start suffering attrition. Nice as having a supply train element, I think CK2 did even supplies better.
@@PlatonicHesaf you never were in the steppes in the winter, were you?
Your biggest enemy as Nomads is the winter and the complete crash of supply, completely levelling your hordes
Ck2s supply system was decent, it was just not very well shown, the only thing you saw was the skull and suddenly starting to lose massive amounts of troops
I'd argue CK2 is objectively worse when it comes to combat than CK3. Flanks were irrelevant you could leave them alone and still never lose a battle. Also the martial focus was so broken that it made MAA bonus stacking seem balanced in comparison.
Also if we do a side by side development cycle comparison its not close at all.
@@Savaris96 true but i would say that supply management was not really as good as Ck3, since you have no knowledge of your supplies
what we really need is some naval warfare fr
Fr
Fr
Fr
Fuck no.
Naval warfare wasn't a thing in the medieval era ,only Eastern Rome and Abbassids had professionnal standing fleet.
In response to people saying warfare isn’t the main focus of CK3 name one person who’s favorite play style isn’t fighting to form a great empire.
I want battles to be a bit more like CK2 where you had at least one commander per flank
Personally, I'd like it if levies were raised in vassal capitals (I think that's how it worked in CK2? I never played it). It would address the teleporting armies issue and give the player a strategic decision of whether striking the enemy fast or waiting to amass your forces in one place.
It would also give an inherent penalty to having land very far removed from the rest of your territory. Since only the local portion of your armies will be able to reach on very short notice.
And it would also visually represent the levies that your vassals provide through their contract.
I like the idea of this. At the moment if I own England and Scotland invades I just make my armies appear in York. If wales attack-shrewsbury. If units originated from the holdings and had to gather at a location it would be more realistic and you could ambush them on there way.
Dude you should really go through and play CK2 and just give it a little bit of time. Ck3 is best described as fancy CK2 without nearly as much depth or immersion IMO.
If the levies were your vassals yes, But in ck3 levies from vassals dont join the call to war, its just a percentage of their total levies you get from the contract
I wish ck3 played like ck3 but had total war battles. Now that would be the dream
It's basically the dream of most Paradox gamers for their games, to be honest.
Possible after 20 years. In this current gen your PC will break for all these codes to materialize
There is a mod to do that
wait 20 years bro
there is a mod that does this called crusader wars that combined CK3 with total war attalia. your armies basically switch into custom battles on attalia and the outcome crosses between the two games
Ck2 has the better combat system. It baffles me that they don't just implement it in CK3.
front laith doesn't exist he can't hurt you.
Front laith:
I'd prefer a return to CK2 combat, I felt like a god when I defended against 300 or so troops with my 50 while behind a river and in a hill. I tried pulling off a similar tactic in 3, and I just got curbstomped because once you start losing due to bigger numbers, you dont stop, theres no back and forth or morale race like in CK2 or EU4
I wish your character would fight on the battlefield and we could get events on the field of battle. It would make it a lot more interesting especially for people who are on console without mods.
I just wished the army managment was more akin to ck2 cause it makes no sende to be ablr to spawn 100k troops in one provance without being able to cut off the levies from gathering
Ck2 perfected the way medieval battle worked with all the phases. Also, it’s probably the game where the terrain gives the most decisive factor.
Ck3 has way too many men at arms bonus.
More we can give to much bonus, maybe they could reduce the amount of bonus from the same building or cap it to a certain number.
Cause right now I just need a great heavy Infantery, give build the right military infrastructure for them and add siege for the wall and then GG I can easily beat any army of 20K-30k with my 1.5k troops of men at arms (and if I mix with culture that increase the number of heavy Infantery I usually have a stack of 12 per heavy Infantery so you can have "too much" men at arms pretty easily before even reaching late medieval tech)
@@avisdunrandom Yup, they should divide by like 10% everything or find another way to make it not stack so much.
My byzantium game was basically a pike + Cataphracts. I was able to beat an army 60k strong with like 5k men at arms. It was so easy that it wasn’t fun at all.
@@jumperwilli7770 think it was pretty fun in the beginning but when you don't have "a worthy opponent" you just start to declare war to 3 or more in the same time.
They could make it so that you have to train your men at arms in certain dutchies or counties, and then that dutchy's or county's building bonuses will be the only bonuses you get for your men at arms. The consequence would be that you're only allowed to train men at arms from your personal holdings, so you need to sacrifice economic power in order to get better troops, and there would be a hard cap on how good your men at arms could be that still allows big and small countries alike to both have equally good troops depending on how they menage the realm. It would also give more depth to the real management aspect of the game.
@@nathanaelsallhageriksson1719 Fam, you literally just described the upcoming stationed men-at-arms mechanic.
I mean I’ve won numerous battle while outnumbered due to terrain bonus, commander traits, recently embarked, etc, so idk if I’d want it to be reworked
The problem is really reinforce rate creating infinite troops and knights being op.
Preferably I would like the combat the way it's done in imperator Rome, with forts and settlements/cities, localised legions / levies, mercenenary armies that would walk around the map (not buy and spawn), with a food tax on the land (but generating extra money), the rock paper scissor battle tactics, generals with loyalty system. The Ck3 combat is just to simple to be honest....
Either they should add a combst system like ck2 or make another combat system, where we can control decisions like flanking, launching assaults, and offensives like ck2.
I think that when a game says that 10 very experienced Knights can win with the bare hands over 1000 peasants, it sure is need to overhaul the combat system...
Bare hands? These guys were full armor, also a knight also has his bodyguards
@@bazirancovek You understood perfectly what I wanted to write, don't play dumb...
The only unrealistic part is the knights 🏇🛡️ are not using infrastructure 🏗️.
I personally like the Bannerlord/CK3 mod that allows you to fight your CK3 battle in Bannerlord. Sadly the mod is outdated or it was last time I checked
The worst part of Ck3 for me is the combat, waging war is a chore that I get through because managing my realm and RPing as my ruler is actually the fun part.
just return the three commander style of ck2, so cavs and infantries make sense
if you have cavs, your flank will be stronger, etc
"If your number is higher and you haven't built all archers as your men at arms, you win"
I...can say this is false. At least for playing outside of Europe (as i commonly do). I've had my ass handed to me quite a few times by smaller armies when I have quite a few decent MaA, the biggest I've lost was I think 14K vs 8K, in a war as [the Empire of] Mali against Nubia. War is definitely more nuanced for me, and simply having worse supply than your enemy can really tip the favour against you.
The only big problem that needs to be fixed with every paradox game is the AI, people complain that it’s not realistic but it’s not because it doesn’t follow the real historical narrative 1-1 but that the way the AI expands and gets involved with other nations conflicts don’t make any sense no matter how you look at it a majority of the time.
Battlefield events like they had in ck2 would be nice. I mean they have a whole ass dueling feature that you barely ever get to use (until the dlc next week). In fact I don’t recall ever actually coming across a lethal duel in the vanilla game for any reason at all
The E*glish would like to disagree, they consider Archer spam as top tier entertainment
Late game ck3 combat is a joke if you have max Maa you can just wipe out anything that gets sent your way and doomstacks aren't punished hard enough
250k crusaders will roflstomp your 10k cataphract men at arms.
@@sadettinarslan5324Probably win a few battles but losses will prob be like 50k crusaders to 2k cataphracts and so you lose like 4 battles but obliterate the entire army
@@somethingelseidk1035 but they siege your provinces down faster than you defeat their gigormous armies.and ticking warscore you know right is sieging castles. and no muslim nation ever helps you out in this confrontation. only choice left for is to insta surrender and then insta truce break to retake yur stolen kingdom.
the thing im missing most of all are the tactics that gave units bonuses in certain phases, it gave the wide array of cultures and even the religions a little more flavour and in some cases allowed for insane outperformances if combined with the right terrrain
If someone wants to find out what I mean by that, play as an african pagan tribal and get the free warriors retinue, bonus points if you are berber and later on add the light cav on the flanks, your basically unstoppable unless you get completely overwhelmed or fight in mountains
It doesn't make sense the absolute disconnect between generals and court. There are no consequences or rewards for characters that go into battle a win. You can even send rivals on suicide missions just by themselves and get them killed.
You can reward him with land after your conquered it btw your commander have salary
I usually just use my men-at-arms regents because of the insane quality advantage i have with them.
In my current play through i’m using 1 siege regiment (currently from early medieval) and the rest are cataphracts (I think I have 5 or 6 regiments at tier 10 (500 troops per regiment))
It covers any army up to around 7500 regular quality troops or 10000 levies although I’ve not fought a stack of levies that large yet
it would be cool if you could decide a set of strategies with different bonuses for maa and terrain as well as commanders traits, and it would include the rock paper scissors mechanic
I feel like i understand the choices they go for but i feel like a paradox game with a more tactical simulation of war would feel more real to life than maybe even some total war games
The closer one to get to this idea is Hearts Of Iron, but even then it's largely limited to the operational scope of warfare of divisions and not the more tacticsl one of say, platoons.
I hate how indecisive battles are you’ll have to fight a dozen or more battles during any war to achieve victory. that’s just not true for warfare at this time I don’t want it to be one and done but 6 plus battles with the same enemy is far too much.
Absolutely agree. I shouldn’t be having fighting between countries for 12 years of back and forth in the 800s. One decisive victory would pretty much do it back then. And I think that every Earl and duke and King killed should affect war score as well. Just because William the Bastard had an heir doesn’t mean that the war would continue if he was killed in battle. Williams army would have dissolved and there would probably be years between another attack and it probably wouldn’t have happened again with Robert or any of his other kids. I want to feel like I’m living history in this game, not like I’m just min maxing and chasing an army around the map until they finally give up after the 10th battle.
Add light cave to you armies. Pursuit adds casualties after a victory and can lead to some serious stack wipes even early on.
The only issue I have with it is the gathering. I like the CK2 version, assembling large armies take time regardless of how good you are. In CK2 we could besiege the capital before the enemy could mobilize or attack segments of the army coming from far away, this worked well when you rebelled against your liege and your duchy was right in the middle of the kingdom.
This is why winning Faction Wars is too easy in CK3
I like to think of the commander score as a representation of the tactical ability of the commander. so in a way that strategy is going on. its just behind the scenes. i do think those numbers could be more impactful and that would probably be a good change. As it is right now having a commander with 40 score doesnt FEEL much different than having one with 30. maybe having lower battle roll floors and higher ceilings based on your commander skill so that better commanders are more consistently great or just increasing the percentage buffs from advantage from 2 percent per point to 4 or 6
Need a paradox like game where it plays like eu4 or ck3 but when you have a battle you can choose to fight it total war style or just fight normal (definitely wouldn’t work at this time but it’s a very cool idea for the future)
There was a mod released a couple years ago called Crusader Blade where you can play any ck3 battle out in Mount and blade warband and there's a upcoming mod doing the same thing for total war Atilla called Crusader Wars so it will be reality soon.
@@TheRealLaking Yeah but I mean like a whole dedicated game not just mods
I'd maybe think about having some events fire that can cause big swings in the battle.
My dream is a paradox game with total war battles
The devs have said that reworking anything to do with battles would require recoding everything about war, since it's one of the least-flexible system on the back-end.
With that in mind, if there WAS a war rework (which some devs have indicated may not be off the table) I would actually want to move away from conventional stack-micro wars altogether, with something like an adapted version of the traveling system being used to plan out a campaign as a series of position-action pairs, like a Grand Tour. You could add a lot more depth and granularity to almost every aspect of war that way, whilst with a stack-micro system every bit of granularity added comes with an increase in how much micro is demanded.
That is an interesting point that I think gets forgotten alot. Most mideval wars just saw the attacking army marching towards their objective (i.e. enemy's capital) and the defenders trying to stop them. Sieges were only on the castles that were in the way, not little baronies that others dont matter at all.
that could be fun, declare war and then have events that start a reconnaissance phase which entails scouting your enemy's numbers troop types then finding a location where to do battle and trying to lure your enemies to said battlefield. Both commanders would have equal opportunities to one up each other with their skills etc then the battles would play out as normal or perhaps changed i dunno. Pretty much like their new dlc coming out etc with tournaments feasts etc its about warfare.
i feel each and every ruler and kingdom etc should have their troop numbers quality etc be hidden unless you use spies to find out what they got and how powerful etc they are.Would make choosing your wars much more impactful since you can and will take on more than you could handle lol.
When I was playing it I just made a mod changing 1 define, responsible for how much damage "advantage" increases. Increasing that multiplier was enough, no rework needed.
Ck3 with a total war style of battle would literally be the perfect game
Fax
There is a mod that let's you play battles in Bannerlord. Tho it seems it's outdated.
There is a mod that let you play the battue un total war
I like my doom stacks I can turn off my brain and chase my enemy down, if I wanted to be more sweaty I would play HOI
There needs to be a concept of baggage and supply. So many medieval battles were decided when a contingent makes a dash for the baggage. This could either demoralise the enemy, or the loss of these troops to looting could also prove pivotal
maybe they could hve something like those dueling or chess event decisions where your outcome is decided by what tactics you choose with a bit of luck thrown in there
I wouldn't say the entire system need a rework, just some more flavour, there is a mod on workshop which adds events during entire battle in which you cna get some traits, get wounded etc. That thing is the only thing I'd change in vanilla combat, just add more flavour beacuse it's really solid system right now
I think hidden information mod, fixes every issue CK3 has (maybe with the exception of character teleportation.)
If you can not list all available characters in the world and and for the price of 4*12 + some gifts dockets invite the ones with the best characteristics. A lot of the arcady-ness of the game gets resolved.
Personally I liked the ck2 system of raising troops and battles because it had basically all the same point except you had the 3 parts of the battle that could make or break a victory. I think they could implement a compromised system that would work perfectly. It just matters if they are lazy or not.
Furthermore, the attrition/supply system is t really different. I hate that in ck3 you take attrition for not sieged every single enemy tile on the wag to your objective lest you want to lose 1/10 of you army for not wanting to siege a castle with no importance .
In CK2, terrain was better, troops were better balanced, supply was about the same, combat was more in depth and actually functioned more realistically, and was overall more fun. I also liked the fact that you could build forts while on campaign to avoid taking as much attrition and to secure a foothold somewhere. Ck2 is just more in depth and better portrays the Middle Ages compared to ck3 which would better suit the late late medieval periods like the 1200s-1600s
dont know if this is historically accurate but what if you could establish temporary supply lines in enemy territory which cost monthly gold but give supply bonuses there, and the defending armies could destroy the supply lines
Depending what you aiming for, players always will be focusing on most obvious solutions, so if the knights will be shit they will be ignored, but it is better to have spacemarines that you handpicked then a hord of the levies , what I think was interesting are accolyudes, if they somehow would be assigned to the army/unit that would create a regiments with a leader, making it a little more fun to "Craft" perfect synergies
The tours and tournaments dlc made me hate going to war. Weddings jousts and pilgrimages are this fun chose your own adventure game while going to war feels like an excel spreadsheet.
A return of retinue as they were in CK2 would be nice.
Why, MAA perform the same exact function except with more variety. I've seen a number of people with this opinion but haven't actually seen someone say why CK2 retinue system is better.
@@kingjamestres, simple, the retinue troops stay on the map instead of vanishing. CK2 had more realistic armies and it allowed for better strategy because you could actually prepare for war instead of just summoning your armies from nowhere. Also it would pave the way for a return of the Nomadic government type and the Mongols having that would be genuinely scary. MAA do not perform the same function. Because they’re effectively just an extension of the normal army.
@@TheRyuSword Yes the MAA can vanish but they also can be summoned separately from levies with a raising time to simulate moving. They also cost more, exactly like retinue there's no real difference other than visual. You can argue realism for armies was better in ck2 because of the levy system requiring you to move you're troops together but your troops still popped out fully ready at the local rally points so in gameplay terms all it meant was either you were small enough that it wasn't annoying or too big that it was a headache concentrating forces. its nearly the same in ck3 you just don't have to go through that annoying first part after declaring war where tbh it makes no sense that you couldn't move levies into position before declaring war. ck3 fixes that by using army raising times to simulate all that boring micromanagement.
@@TheRealLaking my retinues in ck2 never fell short against huge number of enemies. in ck3 they are lackluster. especially in late game.
@@sadettinarslan5324 I think you're mistaken MMA are notoriously OP I've seen many people want them nerfed with a focus on the right buildings they can easily beat enemies 10-20x them
Need more duels, why is my chad character not getting any kills
I think there should be some sort of experience where a certain commander will get better prowess over time or better traits. Kinda like hoi4.
Warfare is a huge let down in CK3. Almost never do you see levied peasants with no armor and only a pitchfork to carry them through a war. CK2 did medieval combat much better for several reasons.
1) no generic 'levies' troop type garbage. Everything is light infantry, spearmen, archers, heavy infantry, light cavalry, horse archers, and heavy cavalry.
2) If you levy your troops from your vassals, they show up in land your vassals own. Then you have to assemble the army before marching out against the opponent. If you're fast, you can actually siege out your enemy and get 100% war score before your opposing empire can even bring its numbers to bear, which makes for better gameplay.
3) tactics and the battles in CK2 better reflected medieval warfare than CK3. You have a left flank, a center, and a right flank. You have tactics which do stat boosts and penalties for range and melee (which is where CK2 battles were best criticized on those stats). Having generals and troops on each division is important for winning, as winning on 1 flank can often win you a battle or ease the losses on the center. By contrast, CK3 is incredibly 1 dimensional. No flanks, tactics are just battle phases (skirmish, melee, pursuit), multiple generals aren't really a thing.
4) for the bulk of medieval warfare (5th-15th century), cavalry DOMINATED medieval warfare. They SHOULD be the meta and, if their at least supported by the other forces (which allowed them to be as dominant as they were), they should wreck all enemies who aren't defending in a siege.
Wish I could tag the dude higher in the comments that claimed CK3 combat “…was objectively better.” Hit the nail on the head with this. Ck3 like the previous paradox title HOI4 just over simplified everything down. I’m also of similar opinion that cavalry is grossly misrepresented in ck3, and rather ck2 is a much better depiction of it. Recently one of my friends raged in a ck2 MP because he got his ass kicked as 9th century Vikings against the Magyars. Showed up the carpathian basin with 5k and was absolutely living his army was decimated by 4,000 Magyar cavalry and horse archers while only killing around 100. The only thing everyone that was playing kept asking was, “well what did you think was going to happen?”
@@kendrox0994So a very heavy infantry army nation is upset that a nation with troops that were direct counters to slow targets won a battle I mean I agree with the group what do you expect. It's like if you play a modern army game and bunch up your entire army in one spot and complain that planes and artillery obliterated the army.
I feel the cavalry comment heavy cavalry is shit compared to armoured footmen
Point 2 is completely nonsense, soldiers spawn in your vassals capital and take time to assemble at your rally point. There's even an animation for gathering soldiers, and it can take months in any larger realm.
Point 2- you can't get 100% even if you seize the entire nation because you would have to win a big battle regardless
Theres definitely a reason why because all the mainstream paradox games have focuses on what theyre about
In order of timeline:
Ck3 roleplaying dynasty building
Eu4 basically just logistics
Vic3 industrialization economy sim
Hoi4 mass military focus
I’d like them and generals to function much more like Imperator: Rome. Personally I think they perfected it there and I do like having the option of turning on automation and assigning them specific orders.
Putting In supply lines and some way to harry the enemy could give smaller armies a chance
"Is this the best way to represent medieval combat?"
*Me with 40 high prowess knights and +500% knight effectiveness slaughtering temujin's 60k mongol army leaving 3-6 keshig to run back home*
Seems fine to me 😌
in general i dont have many complaints with the combat itself. A few things could be improved but i feel it shouldnt be a priority.
On the other hand, the AI needs a massive improvement, specially in terms of combat.
Allies are more a drag than helpful. They basically only serve to help you survive when you are still weak by having their armies as your own "meat shield", but apart from that they do more bad than good.
For example, having an army in need of supplies, i put them on a county to resupply and an ally decides to put his army on the same county putting us above the supply limit. I move my army to the next county ad my ally follows me and does the exact same thing, basically not letting me resupply, so i have to move away a lot so i can resupply without my allies screw me up. But they only follow me when it is to screw me, when i go and attack an enemy expecting them to follow, quite a few times they just turn around an abandon me to die. But when they are alone, instead of marching my direction to fight the enemy together they just throw their units one by one against the enemy just to be destroyed, losing war score and making more work for me to win the war.
In short, the AI in combat follows you when they shouldnt, when they should follow you to fight a battle that together will win, they run away from the enemy, and when they are outnumbered and alone they decide to fight. They do exactly the opposite of what they should.
Before worrying about any reworks they need to allow player characters to personally fight in battles already. I always have these carefully crafted martial characters and they're just sitting there with insane prowess instead of putting it to use and scoring kills in battle like a regular knight.
If Total War and CK3 do a collab, it’s the game of the century.
I can run up with a 3k army and wipe a 30k army. - only the strong, martial admiration, and a couple others I haven’t played in a while but those right there along making a hybrid culture with Egypt, or kannada to get war elephants. U wipe every thing like 10 to 1
I just wish it to ne less granular to control my armies. When i have to comtroll a huge stack of armies its hard to pick out the ones i need and which general should control, Which brigade. Its especially bad when a weak brigade with my ruler.
Tbh Ck2 combat is the furthest paradox has gone into making combat tactics into their games, being able to defeat an army 9 times your size with just retinues, good generals, terrain and trash enemy commanders was the best feeling ever, instead we get the trash dice rolls no one cares about with modifiers because *we dont know how to balance our s*it games*
I think the army’s population needs a rework, like if I’m the Byzantine emperor in 867 there’s no way my full imperial army is 8K or less, historically gets have between 20-30K (depending on how well the empire was doing)
I remember winning over a country with only 300 men vs 15 thousand
idk if they need a rework, but i'd say they need an expansion adding more detail and realism.. honestly would be down for a full blown dlc like royal court of tours and tournaments if it would make war more fun
Just add a rock paper scissors mechanic, generals will choose one, and might get countered or counter their enemy. Make it so if you are leading the battle you get to choose
It's fine the way it is because in open field battle, it was number of soldiers, equipment, morale, how much supplies and types of troops that made the difference. Tactical mindgames were only remarkable because of how uncommon they were. And the commander traits system really reflect the amount of experience a commander has gained on the field.
At the end of the day, CKIII is a political simulator and picking commanders and types of soldiers are political decisions.
Imagine CK3 but with Mount and blade 2 style of combat that'd be cool
They need to fix the bug where the war score randomly decreases for no reason, no matter how many counties you took over and have taken over.
The biggest impact on the success of a war is how sensible the decision to wage war and in such a manner was. 🤷
All Archers worked for the British in the first half of the 100 years war so
It's not hoi 4, wars are important but not so much that you lose the game if you lose any war
Just noticed that laith’s hair is lopsided. Thanks you frontal view lol
AI should be controlling armies besides one you put Your Guy directly in charge of
In the begining just having more levies will win you every battle. Mid game it's decently balanced between men at arms and levies. And in the end game men at arms are just absolutely broken. I think commanders are decently balanced tho
I just want a flanking mechanic or surrounded mechanic and naval warfare
Battle are ok ...but I would love to see a more simplefied economy sysyirm like some resources in certain provicnes so trade would play a role in the game donest have to be Victoria 3 depth but just sometjing simple like eu4 or.imperaror Rome ...
we need a garrison system rehaul similar to eu4 why have 500 men stationed at a castle on the other side of my empire and on the other hand why leave 2000 men outside of my walls if a mongol hoard is coming
If you're briton, Welsh, or Ireland, take longbow and go all archers.
Honestly I’d like it if losing a castle in war honestly felt like losing resources
It would take for ever if very unit interaction had something as complex as the duel mechanic, you have multiple battles at once and the game would fall apart with the numbers at endgame. We have martial scores already to represent tactical use.
It needs a rework big time
To put it simply they literally just need to bring over everything from CK2.
They could try to make it so you set your troops in formation
Paradox and taleworlds(the company behind bannerlords) needs to come together
For historical accuracy I'm unaware but for game play it is the most understandable combat mechanic in a Paradox game in my opinion. As someone that often plays martial characters in the game you feel rewarded for prioritizing Knights and Men at Arms.
1. You can't fight as a knight and have an impact on the battlefield with your prowess. Kinda makes prowess useless for players when you only use it for duels.
2. other than being a general for an army, you don't have special events when commanding kinda leaving out the whole feel of being a commander. I would like them to implement something like the tournament events in battle events or anything that allows our choices to impact the battle.
3. The ai is dumb. So many battles I need to rely on the ai to join a battle, but they rather go and siege than fight. If we could command them tho....
4. Sieging is soo boring. Literally have to sit and wait for months to take one castle. Give us something that speeds up the process and risks losing out men other than supply limit. Like how tf we take a castle with the only death was starvation?
What bothers me is the freraking 40.000 man army that you can gather in a rally point super fast. That is super broken. first, that is a massive army forn the time, second, it is gameplay broken
You should be able to declare war if all your troops are in your territory and going in sovereign territory without permission shouldn't happen unless in war.
Rework? No, but tweaks or balancing for sure. It is so easy to get a small army of just knights and men@arms and completely wipe the floor with any opposing army up to 5x or 6x your size. This is thanks to the accolade system i think... definitely needs some balancing and tweaks but a full rework is a bit excessive.
Although it would be nice to have a manpower system like in eu4, somehow levies/men@arms are infinate. Makes no sense in medieval times.
I lost interest just because of the lack of battle representation. How lame can a game design be marketed in the first place.
Ck3 be like:
Pick place to start
Custome char
Mongolian culture
Spam horse archers
Form hybrid culture
"You beat the game"
It's good to talk about it, but I honestly never cared about this aspect too much. I'm more the "Conquer this land with the most ridiculous combination possible" guy.
Like hindu Spain or Jewish/Christian India.
And yes, battles are important in a medieval game you get an A+ Laith 😉
Also aren’t archers some of the most cost effective men at arms
They really need to rework about knight effectiveness
I still prefer the way they handled battles in CK2 over how they work in CK3
Well, it wouldn't be a bad idea, but the combat is ok, there are many mor thing to fix, or add, to focus on that, like republics, nomads, cults, fix the fucking Bizantium, so, i can live with this battle sistem if they improve the rest
Stupid to play ck3 when theres 2 with hip
I think that combat in CK3 should be easy. If you want combat go to HOI4, Victoria2 or EU4. I think they need to improve economy a bit, like add trade routes cuz the way they made Constantinople bring money is not OK, why walls and temple give 10 gold?