Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[Smoker]

The Byzantines don't seem to have the Imperial system, Viceroyalties and themes as yet. DLC?

No but they have glorious castration.

 

[Alienman]

Pointless having allies in this because they do absolutely fuck all to assist you.

I agree that the AI while in combat is a bit odd, but allies have saved my ass several times. I was about to be replaced as king when my allies from Greece suddenly showed up on my shores with a 20k strong army. I do wish there was an attach function like in CKII, and that you can turn off that god awful retreat system.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Pointless having allies in this because they do absolutely fuck all to assist you.

My allies have saved my ass from super Byz attacks. Sometimes they just sit there other times they follow you. Enemy AI boat rushing is fucking retarded.

Apparently the abundance of female rulers is from so many male characters dying in combat or from their wounds as knights.

I'm trying to think of way around the kerfuffle of shit combat. All I've come up with is mangonelling those keeps down rapidly before they do the same, while I chase their main stack around with shitloads of expendable mercenaries.

Bit yeah, otherwise it can be a total bloodbath for your knights if they don't have that sword stat.

 

[Catacombs]

Pointless having allies in this because they do absolutely fuck all to assist you.

Not sure how you're playing, but allies have been essential in my current run, especially during wars.

 

[Catacombs]

@Kemenko: What citation do you need? The mod exists.

 

[Harthwain]

I agree that the AI while in combat is a bit odd, but allies have saved my ass several times. I was about to be replaced as king when my allies from Greece suddenly showed up on my shores with a 20k strong army. I do wish there was an attach function like in CKII, and that you can turn off that god awful retreat system.

There is a retreat system? Or do you mean the post-battle routing of the whole army?

 

[Alienman]

Yeah... can't remember what it is called now. They introduced it in CKII but you could turn it off. Before this you could follow the retreating army and finish it off.

Edit:

It's called "Shattered Retreat" and I hate it.

 

[cw8]

The Byzantines don't seem to have the Imperial system, Viceroyalties and themes as yet. DLC?

No but they have glorious castration.

Oh yes, I agree that's the all important thing, I take great pleasure castrating adventurers who delay my warplans by 3 years. But how do we keep Byzantine vassals in check without Viceroyalties? They always seem to implode first in CK2.

 

[Space Satan]

This game is a gem

 

[Tigranes]

Yeah... can't remember what it is called now. They introduced it in CKII but you could turn it off. Before this you could follow the retreating army and finish it off.

Edit:

It's called "Shattered Retreat" and I hate it.

It's a mess either way, in both EU4 and CK3. Either you wipe the entire enemy army in a single battle and then waste time sieging for two years when the outcome is decided, or you have shattered retreat where they fuck off invincible for 3 years then you fight them again.

 

[vonAchdorf]

AI seems to bring over their entire levy and mostly follow your stack around in my game. And they do the same for enemies.

However, armies of all stripes occasionally seem to get stuck moving back and forth for years without doing anything.

Yes, that's my experience. They can be helpful if you manage to "bait" them into joining / following your army.

Why did they remove the rudimentary ally controls from the game?

 

[Quilty]

AI seems to bring over their entire levy and mostly follow your stack around in my game. And they do the same for enemies.

However, armies of all stripes occasionally seem to get stuck moving back and forth for years without doing anything.

Yes, that's my experience. They can be helpful if you manage to "bait" them into joining / following your army.

Why did they remove the rudimentary ally controls from the game?

DLC, baby!

But honestly, there are so many basic things missing, like mapmodes that ck2 had, or a way to control which messages pop up and which stay ignored. Currently, the lower right corner is cluttered with irrelevant stuff. "You declared war!" Wow, really?!

 

[vonAchdorf]

DLC, baby!

But honestly, there are so many basic things missing, like mapmodes that ck2 had, or a way to control which messages pop up and which stay ignored. Currently, the lower right corner is cluttered with irrelevant stuff. "You declared war!" Wow, really?!

I think that will be a change implemented in a patch, not a DLC.

Yes, some map modes like Direct Vassals are missing or hidden behind a certain zoom level (and click) on the standard map. I like some of the new information in the lower right, like information about wars won / lost by neighbors. But other information like lieges countries on the other side of the world being raided are deep in "information overload" territory.

 

[Zariusz]

Can we make tributary wars?

 

[Alienman]

The crusader outfit for women is very interesting.

 

[IDtenT]

Milk cannons.

 

[mondblut]

It's a mess either way, in both EU4 and CK3. Either you wipe the entire enemy army in a single battle and then waste time sieging for two years when the outcome is decided, or you have shattered retreat where they fuck off invincible for 3 years then you fight them again.

I kinda like shattered retreat in CK2. Without it, you had to run in circles around an enemy army, whacking the mole over and over and over between the same two provinces, because as soon as you leave them alone, they start besieging and being a general nuisance. With shattered retreat they are removed out of the picture for a long time. Not as good as complete encirclement and destruction in HoI, but as close as it gets.

 

[Zero Credibility]

What pisses me off is that some things (like call to arms from allies) do not pause the game. If you are running the game at full speed you only have a second or two to pause it before it's too late to respond.

 

[vonAchdorf]

I kinda like shattered retreat in CK2. Without it, you had to run in circles around an enemy army, whacking the mole over and over and over between the same two provinces, because as soon as you leave them alone, they start besieging and being a general nuisance. With shattered retreat they are removed out of the picture for a long time. Not as good as complete encirclement and destruction in HoI, but as close as it gets.

CK3, unlike CK2, has you guess whereto they will retreat, which is more realistic than CK2, but demands that you pursue them more closely if you want to fight them again.

 

[mondblut]

CK3, unlike CK2, has you guess whereto they will retreat, which is more realistic than CK2, but demands that you pursue them more closely if you want to fight them again.

It's not about wanting to fight them again, it's about them remaining a perennial nuisance until you cut them down to the last man.

 

[Alienman]

Wouldn't it be more logical if defeated armies dispersed until reformed at home again. Battles would be more important and it would eliminate the whack a mole stuff.

It would still allow for comebacks.

 

[Zero Credibility]

The way shattered retreat works now is super-annoying. At least in CK2 you could eventually catch them again if using organizer leader for speed boost. Here? Unless playing somewhere land-locked, they just retreat to sea (can do so even with no money), circle all around you and siege your capital. Again.

AI is laser-focused on taking your capital at all costs. So when I declare a war, I just park my army two counties over from it, and wait for them to start to disembark, then run over and crush them while they still have the penalty for disembarking. I then return two counties over (if adjacent I noticed the AI will avoid landing) and wait for them to try again. And again, until they run out of troops, at which point I can finally go siege them without worrying about them again trying to take my capital.

 

[mondblut]

Wouldn't it be more logical if defeated armies dispersed until reformed at home again. Battles would be more important and it would eliminate the whack a mole stuff.

It would still allow for comebacks.

That's... pretty much what shattered retreat does, duh. Except that the defeated army still flees like a singular entity, but you can't engage with them or control them if they are yours.

 

[MajorMace]

I had my last war against Sweden in Ireland, and I had to defeat their stack 5 times in a row before they finally got obliterated from the map. It was even more absurd because they were accross the sea from their supplies and should have abandoned after defeat 2.
It's always unequivocally shitty when this happens, and all you see is this fucking retreat system trigger over and over, but I'm not sure how to fix it.

Regarding the whole design, I would still keep this retreat thingie, but add more conditions for a stack to get obliterated. I don't understand how an army, belonging to State A, can get crushed by another army, belonging to State B -with no reorganisation happening or even change of commander- over and over and over again and still fucking pick up the fight.
Another solution would be to include (or officialise ?) some "morale score" to determine whether a stack still survives a battle. If such an index already exists, I haven't found it.

Yet another idea would be to differenciate levies who aren't available because they're dead (and then take X time per unit to recover) from levies who aren't available because they surrendered (and then take Y time per unit to recover).

Either way, i'm happy. Anything but having to defeat, follow, defeat, follow, defeat etc 5 times with absolutely 0 chance of comeback from the defeated.

Still, I'd keep the retread in because it's more fair in multiplayer. At least as a toggle in the game's settings.

 

[vonAchdorf]

I had my last war against Sweden in Ireland, and I had to defeat their stack 5 times in a row before they finally got obliterated from the map. It was even more absurd because they were accross the sea from their supplies and should have abandoned after defeat 2.
It's always unequivocally shitty when this happens, and all you see is this fucking retreat system trigger over and over, but I'm not sure how to fix it.

Regarding the whole design, I would still keep this retreat thingie, but add more conditions for a stack to get obliterated. I don't understand how an army, belonging to State A, can get crushed by another army, belonging to State B -with no reorganisation happening or even change of commander- over and over and over again and still fucking pick up the fight.
Another solution would be to include (or officialise ?) some "morale score" to determine whether a stack still survives a battle. If such an index already exists, I haven't found it.

Yet another idea would be to differenciate levies who aren't available because they're dead (and then take X time per unit to recover) from levies who aren't available because they surrendered (and then take Y time per unit to recover).

Either way, i'm happy. Anything but having to defeat, follow, defeat, follow, defeat etc 5 times with absolutely 0 chance of comeback from the defeated.

Did you have horses? You need some kind of troops / skills to maximize damage in the flight / chase phase.

 

[MajorMace]

I have one stack of mounted units, upgraded to level 2 (so 200 units I believe).
Although, I may have upgraded it after this specific war.