>every siege takes 9 months
>only defenders can get disease outbreaks
>besiegers will always if the enemy army doesn't drive them out
It's so boring, it's like a chore...
And it only serves to artificially slowdown expansion, historically most sieges didn't last more than 3 months.
It takes far less time if you have two stacks of trebuchets.
>zoomie cannot cope with strategic or long term gameplay.
Yeah, I am thinking subway surfers might be more yours speed, kid.
>strategic or long term gameplay
>ck3
ahhahahahahahaha
>actual zoomie doesn't know that CK3 siege is a complete stepdown from EU4
kek
>EU4
>HOI4
>CK3
>Vicky3
Disgusting how all of these have fallen
those games were ever good
They were to people who enjoyed grand strategy, not nu paradox's audience
CK and vicky I can agree with but EU4 is great, Hoi4 needs mods but with them it’s fun
HoI went from an strategy game to a visual novel, how isn't that a downgrade?
>but muh mods
No mod corrects that basic issue. Hell, most of them reinforce the VN aspect.
Not only that's a different game series, EU4's sieges were complete bullshit.
Never played CK2 or 3 but the siege there looks identical to shitty EU4 sieges
eu4 sieges fricking sucked ass
I liked random factor
CK3 is a bad game. It's slow by design, because it's made by a bunch of communists who want you to roleplay as a boring character in a static world.
It really seems to be designed to be slow
>battles can take months
>armies move 5km per day
>if you want 1 county in a war, you either have to occupy 20 additional counties or wait 5 years for the war score to tick up
>in order to seduce your spouse, you have to send them poetry for 20 years
>you can only hunt every 5 years
you also need to wait hundreds of years to unlock actually good succession laws aka the point you'll be bored of your game anyway
>not getting table of princes
Czech yourself before you wreck yourself.
This is the biggest issue in the game IMO, it’s just disinherit simulator for me. Makes it pretty boring
Play a Czech and get table of princes.
If I have 3 sons I will give Learning education focus to the one who has the pensive trait, and I will hire a court tutor for better learning outcomes, I will encourage traits like humble, and then he will be much more likely to want to take holy vows, because I groomed him for that
I used to hate CK3 succession but now I understand its just something so you dont shit out kids and you actually pay attention to your spawn, you also want to be careful not to marry your kid off to someone who is landed or to give them land because they will start to declare war on denmark as a count because they have you as an ally 1000 km away
you can also do 2 learning lifestyle points and pick celibacy
you can divorce your wife
you can murder/imprison your wife
one time someone murdered my son and heir and I only had daughters, for some reason that meant my grandson inherited everything without partition, or some shit like that
also if you have a duchy or even a kingdom that might be lost to partition you can spend 1500 prestige and turn its succession laws for that particular title to feudal elective, and keep your vassals happy so they vote your candidate (usually works)
really the game gives you plenty of tools but most of all I appreciate that it teaches you to actually think before marrying yourself or your family members, look at stuff like landed/unlanded, look at common traits that will make the marriage happy, etc. and not just play sort by highest martial/stewardship
as for sieges I like how they work in CK3 because constantinople for example has a really high fort level so most siege weapons wont be enough to take it, if you invest in your forts they can hold out long enough for your armies to arrive and lift the siege, thats how this shit works its not a bunker with a MG that shoots enemy armies, eventually it will fall, also you mostly want those fortifications in places where you are likely/want to fight like river crossings
also if you have a regiment of siege weapons and some levies I always use the "station besiegers" option and it will give me a perfect army for just taking castles, I never keep the majority of my troops in a siege, the besieging army will have a commander with the siege expert trait selected if there is one available, none of your men at arms except the siege weapons, and just enough levies to keep the siege speed optimal, it melts through enemy fortresses (also invest in one holding to have siege bonus building and station your siege weapons there of course)
I've never had seduction schemes take longer than a year or so, considering you probably just married this broad for an alliance and not for love it shows you taking time to woo her
How are the devs of CK3 pro-communist? CK3 has nothing to do with communism.
>CK3 Simulates feudal rulers as being incompetent morons who regularly shit themselves in front of other people
>"How are the devs of CK3 pro-communist?"
but most feudal rulers WERE incompetent idiots? you can say they push unrealistic social justice ideas into the game, but there's nothing communist about ck3 it's a fricking economic system, I'd say the only game of theirs that comes close is victoria3 they basically market that game as a wholesome social democracy simulator
>but most feudal rulers WERE incompetent idiots?
Source, commiekun?
The entirety of known post Roman history up until like Napoleon? You're not a historically illiterate zoomer homosexual somehow still playing a history game are you?
So no source, say no more
communism is a metaphysical noospheric spiritual contagion, not an economic system
How is that pro-communist? If anything it would liberal. I have seen communists say that feudalism is better than "dictatorship of the market".
>besiegers will always win if the enemy army doesn't drive them out
Arguably realistic. Most sieges where defenders didn't receive a relief force were won by the attackers.
The only issue is length really, and not because it's too long but because it's too standardized. Shitty tribal holdings should take weeks, not months, typical castles only a couple of months but big fortresses with high fort level should take years without accounting for random effects. Candia took 21 years for example,
Most vs always
There have been several cases where the besiegers were forced to abandon the siege without losing to a relief army. Due to dysentery outbreaks killing half of their army or besiegers running out of money to pay troops.
The bigger the army is more troops it's going to besiege, the more troops you have, the more costly and dysentery risky the operation is.
>typical castles only a couple of months but big fortresses with high fort level should take years without accounting for random effects. Candia took 21 years for example,
That's because Candia was a port and received supplies through ships. There is not a single non-coastal city that was able to resist a siege for over a year.
E.g. Siege of Calais was one of the hardest sieges, it was heavily fortified, but the French didn't have the naval supremacy to supply it, thus the defenders ran out of food in 10 months, not in years
Isn't this partially rapresented by attrition and money?
Example 1: Your attrition is too much so you can't siege anymore so you move your troops to save them
Example 2: you are besieging with retinue and/or mercs and you move away the troops or disband them to save money because you are running out of funds
We can say that you lose the siege as an attacker when you go away. It doesn't need a popup that say "you lost". I agree that they could add a modifier for attrition caused by disease outbreak if they will give us epidemic mechanics again.
I get there are "partial" depictions, but these don't really do any justice.
Attrition is based on food, when you run out of food you gain gradual attrition. It doesn't represent dysentery which was a major cause of attrition and stemmed from dirty water.
Similarly, the lack of payment would result in soldiers deserting, not just mercenaries. Even if you are a conscripted farmer, you are still paid daily wage so you can afford to buy food, your obligation ends when your liege cannot cover for you. So, many would desert.
>We can say that you lose the siege as an attacker when you go away. It doesn't need a popup that say "you lost".
If a lack of funds and a dysentery outbreak would cause sudden attrition (as opposed to gradual attrition) your army would wither away and stop the siege (because the defenders would outnumber you).
Paradox intentionally made combat in ck3 shit because they wanted to make playing the game easier with a controller and were hoping to get into the console market, any combat overhaul will easily be years away based on what their current dlc schedule looks like (aka overpriced dlc that each have carpal tunnel syndrome causing event spam)
You have to realize that the demographic they're trying (and failing) to market towards are newbies to strategy games (even though these people all dropped ck3 way back in 2020)
>(even though these people all dropped ck3 way back in 2020)
source
>Paradox intentionally made combat in ck3 shit
Unlike how they accidentally made combat in ck2 shit.
There is a lot that is nice about CK2 combat but the tactics system is so frustratingly broken that it ruins it completely.
>have a ass ton of pikeman
>put decent 12 martial italian commander in charge
>almost never rolls pike column advance
>almast always rolls some bullshit skirmish tactics
next time a put a scott in charge
I hate it.
And the stupid way it handles horse archers is even worse.
is there a mod to fix the shitty combat in ck3 or ck2?
One full regiment of men of arms siege weapons usually takes it down to 50 days unless you're far behind on research
Let's dig a little deeper.
>the defenders will surrender when morale hits 0.
>the base morale is 100, and every fort level increases it by 75
>every day 1 morale is lost
Therefore besieging 1 level fort without siege weapons will take 5.8 months
Every onager-regiment increases morale loss by 0.2
Therefore, in order to besiege level 1 fort in 50 days, you would need 13 onagers-regiments. This is funny because in 867 kings are limited to 12 (3 × 4) regiments.
So, your statement is just wrong, but it gets better... because that was only level 1...
Remember that every vassal capital gets +1 fort level, and many buildings grant +1 level. Thus after 20 years of playing, most holdings have level 3 fort level (granting them a morale of 325).
The high morale means besieging a level 3 fort without siege weapons will take 325 days, and even if you have 13 onagers it will take 90 days.
This is absolute insanity. The defenders of Alesia ran out food in 14 days, despite expelling the civilians.
Contrast to CK3 where a random tribal (level 1) holding in the middle of Russia will hold out for at least 3 months, 5 if they don't have onagers (which they don't start with).
You forget about accolades that grant bonuses to men at arms total size. Maybe you forgot to update your game before you wrote this shitty post.
Also why are you such a giant homosexual who cherrypicks weakest siege weapon to prove your point by exaggerating as much as you can to tilt scales.
I had 14 men at arms regiments ize, maybe 13 actually at the time and was sieging everything in 55 days with mangonels, as far as I can recall with exception of like capital forts and uber upgraded keeps which were still quite quick.
I feel like you just have autism and tried to compute some random numbers you pulled instead of actually playing the game, expanding your regiment sizes as much as you can and warfaring with siege weapons. Play the game chud.
>You forget about accolades that grant bonuses to men at arms total size
Because that hardly matters you get 0.01 siege progress for 200 men, so 4 000 besiegers are equivalent of an onager. So, how often do you actually besiege provinces with that size of armies? I don't because kills half the army before the siege finishes.
>I had 14 men at arms regiments ize, maybe 13 actually at the time, and was besieging everything in 55 days with mangonels
Sound like you play as Byzantines who are the only ones who have mangonels available in 867 when everybody else has to wait 200 years to unlock them.
Mangonets are intended to be besieged fort levels of 5-9 (which are everywhere when after 200 years). So, the fact you can get quick sieges in 867 by using mangonels to besiege levels 1 is an exception, not sure why you brought it up.
>I feel like you just have autism and tried to compute some random numbers you pulled instead of actually playing the game
Those "random numbers" are from defines and wiki, look them up. Better than your "you are wrong, because using mangonels in 867 is fast".
Because calculating the siege effects would add additional complexity to an already "autistic" theorem and only have a minor impact.
>Because that hardly matters you get 0.01 siege progress for 200
It matters when its the size of a siege regiment. God are you stupid. Just stop embarassing yourself already. You have too much autism to interpret whole picture instead you try to argue individual numbers which make 0 sense alone. Get good at the game.
>It matters when its the size of a siege regiment.
???
Sieges are slow but He is right in general though that you left off quite a few obvious additional improvements. The Engineered for Destruction and Sappers perks from the martial focus are easily attainted and make a big difference, +40% siege weapon effectiveness and adding siege progress to a bunch of other MaA. +40% means a group of 5 onagers gives you +1.4 daily progress instead of +1.0. With sappers and a full group of say 500 heavy infantry and 500 archers you are getting another +1.0, so just with that you are now getting 3.4 daily siege progress. On fort size 2 that is about 75 days and fort size 3 it is 95. Less obviously there are some traditions that improve this further, like longbow competitions or Eastern Roman legacy as those increase the size of MaA regiments that are impacted by Sappers. That is of course much more situational though.
This is just the daily progress though. The really cumbersome math would come from the siege events. Normally they are every 20 days but Military Engineering commander trait reduces that by 30%, down to 14. These can speed up daily siege progress, give a huge 1 time boost or even speed up the events to progress even faster. Damage the walls makes events 10% faster (so now every 12 days), break them is 30% for 1 every 8! Garrison health adds +10% then 20% to daily progress, so at 3.4 we had it goes to 3.74 then 4.08. Garrison supplies is an instant +10% then 30% progress, so on fort 2 that is an instant 25 another 75 progress (75 total), an entire fort level while fort 3 is 32.5 then 97.5 at once! At one every 14 days you could expect 5 for fort 2 at the 75 days we predicted… except that it will likely be less since the events can drastically shorten that 74 days. Of course, it might be troublesome to get a commander with Military Engineering and the martial focus perks.
This is just the simple base game stuff.
He is right in general though that you left off quite a few obvious additional improvements. The Engineered for Destruction and Sappers perks from the martial focus are pretty easy to get or expect, and make a big difference. 40% means the size 5 regiment of Onagers is getting you +1.4 instead of +1.0. Add in a group of something like 500 heavy infantry and 500 pikeman and you are getting another +1.0, since sappers gives +0.1 each size for those and other types of MaA. The Accolade levels up too, rank 2 instead getting +2 size, +15% progress and -15% event delay, and max giving an enormous +4 siege weapon size, +20% progress and -20% siege event delay. With at that and Military engineer you’re looking at a progress event every 10 days at start, dropping to one every 4 days once the walls are completely breached.
Size 9 onagers is 1.8, +40% for 2.52, so 4.52 then multiplied by the 1.2 for 5.424 daily progress, cracking fort 2 in 47 days and fort 3 in 60, before we even factor in the events we spoke of before. This is with a pretty balanced set up, if you really want to siege quickly you could replace one group of fighting MaA for more siege weapons.
Well I messed up this post because I forget I had two tabs open of this thread and accidentally left off my post from one where I brought up the level 1 besieger accolade bonuses to show what is immediately available:
Even 1 knight with the besieger rank 1 adds +1 to siege weapon maa size, -10% siege phase time and +10% daily progress! With that alone it is like you’ve gotten 2 of the siege events from the beginning, stacking with the ones you actually get. So size 6 Onager is 1.2, +40% from the perk previously discussed is now 1.68, so 3.68 instead of 3.4… all at +10% for 4.048 starting daily progress. It is a good thing it speeds up siege events because that progress alone would crack fort 2 in 62 days and fort 3 in 81.
Oh yeah, you also forgot every single modifier there is to add to your equation. How can an autist be so blind and oblivious? Play the game, homosexual
I find it weird that THIS is all there is to sieges, as just temporary modifiers that get lifted the second an army steps away--the defenders don't lose garrison size if they suffer from disease or starvation, and any damage to the walls is instantly fixed (for free) once the siege is lifted. They exist purely as a sunk-cost fallacy of "do i wait 13 months or not?"
I mean, CK3's siege MAA, calculations, and phase tickings are better than CK2's, but I still find them pretty limited, as it's treated as a one-sided affair on behalf of the defenders. I'd like a return of more siege events, ala ck2, which didnt determine sieges, but at least made them flavorful and lively.
I'd personally remove the attrition penalty, and instead make sieges about two competing commanders going through their ticks and trying to affect the other, like a mini-battle, developing the siege camp to defend against attackers, mining the walls, building trenchworks to shoot at the defenders, and blocking access to supplies and water. Meanwhile, defenders could have their own positives, like stealing supplies from the attacker, sallying out to destroy siege engines, counter-mining the enemy sappers, or rebuilding damaged walls with barricades or other impromptu fortifications
>CK3 upset some actual monartard
Well, I didn't expect that.
>monartard
?
I think he meant to write mana tard
>simps for corporate-owned popularity contest winners that only know how to pay lip service and nothing else
>dares to call monarchists moronic
lol
lmao even
incest is only bad if it's done over multiple generations because of lack of genetic diversity. people in the past weren't dumb if you immediately got those kind of results from having a baby with your family member they wouldn't have done so. the only reason it got that bad with the Habsburg is because it gradually got worse with each generation and they didn't notice it until it was too late.
Sieges took years in real life and unsuccessful on many occasions you mong.
>waaaah, I can't conquer the known world in three and a half weeks, MOOOOOOOM
Speaking of wars I just witnessed the most moronic Crusade ever. It's so bad I had to draw a map. The green line is an outline of my lands and the red line is the route the crusaders took. The crusade was for Israel and there was a single battle in Negev (red X on the map), at the end 84% of the war score was just from me controlling the war target. All of my armies and my allies armies were raised in Jerusalem so I think they were trying to avoid landing on us but they could have gotten the same effect by landing in Egypt (which they usually do). This is severely moronic even for the AI, the first crusade is usually difficult and I was kinda looking forward to it but damn.
That path is clearly calculated to avoid attrition and your raised armies.
If neutral parties actually cost attrition like a hostile, they wouldn't have taken that route.
Is that a joke? The armies were starving by the time they hit the Caucasus. Also they lost the battle in Negev and immediately started taking the same route back around.
I mean the landmine attrition, I don't think AI calculates travel attrition in pathfinding
I see. Still they would have been better off landing in Egypt or Antioch and just sieging their war to Jerusalem. And in the end the effect was no better than just landing on top of my armies because they landed 3 counties away from Jerusalem and I was able to move fast enough to catch them.
Honestly crusade AI is a different kind of bad. In a crusade for Egypt huge death stacks shuffled around in the western desert for years trying to not go over supply limit
They tend to do better when the crusade is closer to home. I did a game as Jorvik where I stayed Asatru and they nearly had me in the first crusade. Crusades being an actual threat is so much more fun.
This mod fixes crusades.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2921875710
It might be suspect to some form of optimization.
Game lags during crusades because it has to organize long paths for many different armies.
I just had one where they tried to crusade me in England and we crusaded them for Rome at the same time. My guys did fine and sailed all the way to rome and sieged everything down. They went through the alps but started bugging out and scuttling around like wienerroaches as it seems like they couldn't decide on whether to go back and retake their holdings or press on. I had planned on repelling them first on my shores then going to attack but in the end I didn't even have to lift a finger. Really disappointing.
How did they get ships in the Persian gulf?
It's ck3, they just pulled them out of their ass.
Basically the same in any paradox game. Even v2 has auto victory occupations. Eu4 I think the defending army can attack the sieging army but I don't remember it ever being worth it.
>every siege takes 9 months
Then bring siege engines, you dumb moron
There should be an option to leave a giant wooden horse outside the gates for 100 gold or to use 300 prestige to be a badass a launch a night invasion through a secret tunnel man. Not enough options.
and have your tunnel collapse on your head by the defender's counter tunneling
Disinheriting isn't all that inaccurate, my only problem with it is that it requires tree mana and I never have enough in the early game.
Having dynasty members as independent in different realms generates tree mana, so that issue is in theory self correcting pretty quickly. Some traditions can give absurd amounts too. However spending it on disinheriting is a bit wasteful, especially early on due to the super powerful legacies you can get. Forcing them into joining a monastery or better yet, a holy order, may be better though hard to pull off on heirs. Holy orders are especially handy since you don’t need the monastic religious tenet to have them join one and it still disinherits them. The other easy way is to send them as a lone knight against a stack during a war to hopefully get them killed but that is terribly metagamey.
I'm unreformed Asatru. And I usually like to play as one of my younger sons and the oldest will never become a monk or join a holy order.
>younger sons
Why? For eventual long reign bonuses and more control over how they develop?
Yeah I like to have rulers that reign for a long time, it also gives them less time to get bad stress traits. This is why I really love the born in the purple trait.
But to get Born in the Purple don’t you need, among other things, Byzantine Traditions on your culture which gives a +50% short reign penalty, more than countering the -25% short reign bonus of the trait?
Yeas but It give children born with the trait precedent in the line of succession and their parent needs to be ruling for them to get the trait. It helps prevent rulers from being too old when coming to power.
like someone else said you can see easily if you hover over renown that a big deal of renown income is having dynastyy members, I like how it encourages you to not just breed to keep up a successor for your realm, if you have daughters you might get renown for your dynasty by making them SUCCESFULL marriages and queens of other realms, growing your dynasty
One time I got a shit ton of renown by matrilineally marrying my daughters to sons that were second in line for a kingdom and them murdering their older brother. You can also matrilineally marry your daughters to the grandsons of kings and as long as their son isn't landed they will accept. The only problem with this method is that it pretty much requires you to be a Christian.
Also I'd like to add that Dynasty of many crowns is a really lame modifier considering how hard it is to get.
Is it? You can hunt down the tiny or titular kingdoms or and then grant to a dynasty member the kingdom title and 1 county not de-jure to the kingdom title in the middle of your realm, then make them independent. Then you can re-vassalize them if you want or keep them there for renown growth.
For a set of bonuses to just always have, it seems pretty sweet. What would you have preferred?
I never thought of the one county thing. But you get more renown if they stay independent because of their vassals paying homage to them. I guess it's not too bad of a modifier, but strong blood is way better and I find it easier to get.
Muslims can still get a bunch of renown from marriages due to polygamy. 4 wives means you can get 4 times the “married to emperor” renown.
Lots more kids too, though Clan means you are pushes to marry them to vassals too.
Yeah I found out how cool polygamy is in my israeli play through. I add it to all my custom and reformed religions now.
>Godwine III Wulfthrythson
HWÆT SÆGST ÞU
the paradox fan self-wank is always incredible
even something as simple as parking your army in a province and waiting for the mostly predetermined timer to run out is actually an extremely sophisticated abstract representation of "famine/disease/attrition/morale" and thus does not need to be addressed or improved upon
it's as if the consumers are driven by instinct to prevent paradox from wasting labor and resources in anything that isn't an event or a flavor "pack"
When you read about real sieges they are all but one note.
Some times garrison surrendered immediately.
E.g. during HYW after the Anglos had taken Rouen and Caen (major cities of Normandy), the cities in Normandy began to surrender immediately after the English army showed up, because if these major cities couldn't resist and the French kept jobbing, what chance would they have? Especially when the English offered them autonomy and generous terms.
Should mod/change sieges into their own mechanic so that firstly they take longer, and vassal traits affect the outcome. For example a stubborn ruler would fight to the end, a cowardly ruler would be more likely to surrender.. options for the besieging army to send terms to the defender such as guaranteeing the safety of besieged vassal, or threatening to pillage the city. With decisions ofc having long term character trait and opinion modifiers. It would be nice to have some kind of parley/champion mechanic for battles. For instance in the 1381 English Peasant revolt Wat Tyler was murdered at a parley. An option for single combat before major battles would be cool, even if it just provided a morale modifier...
paradox sieges all fricking suck
ck2 had "okay" sieges' haven't tried 3
bump
bump
siege in knights of honour 2 is cool
OP is yet to discover siege equipment
>cat pisses on vassal furniture
>pay half of what a holding costs to the vassal as compensation (225 gold)
Why does every event either bankrupt your realm or give you an extreme boon. Why does it have to be one or the other why can't there be medium and small rewards and maluses?
Better question is why the frick why is the came obsessed with cats and dogs
They were literally not important to nobles
They literally care more about their horses, and kings often imported lions to show off their wealth, but no lions nor horses.
The obsession with cats and dogs, is very millennial stuff, same thing with about white privaledge and "womanizing"