something i dont understand to this day: why did they cull the levy system of ck2 in favour of not having one at all in ck3?
levies used to actually provide different types of troops based on the holding type and the buildings built within; culling it undermines the whole dynamic between the holding types
in ck2, cities provided you primarily with militia-esque levies in the form of light infantry, archers, light cav etc...
meanwhile castles mainly provided the more heavily armed noble armies in the form of heavy infantry, pikemen, heavy cavalry
this somewhat created a need for synergy between cities and castles; cities provided very high income but low quality paper armies and castles provided low income but very high quality armies
churches meanwhile were somewhat inbetween as more 'independent' actors since priests didnt necessarily provide any armies or gold to you. in essence they provided both somewhat good income and somewhat good armies but in turn werent guarenteed to provide you with either of those
in ck3 on the other hand, all holding types provide the same low quality levy type, its just that castles now provided slightly more of them compared to cities
in essence, there's no fundamental difference between the holding types concerning their armies anymore. the only true difference is now only concerning their income generation, and cities obviously win out on this front
there's absolutely no balance at all between the holding types because one of the differentiators, which made castles actually worthwhile to build in ck2, got completely stripped
the same is true for churches, who also lost their role as a somewhat 'jack of all trades' while being harder to actually keep control of. this is because all churches are now owned by a single, easily swayable bishop rather than by a bunch of different bishops who all individually decided whether to provide troops and gold or not
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
the main question is why? what was the reason? why would they do this? what positive did they see in stripping such a massive part of the game?
1. it's easier to implement and test
2. it's easier for an average moron to understand
pdx has been dumbing down its games for a decade
>2. it's easier for an average moron to understand
dont think i would be that hard to understand for the average person they could just put a tool tip or in the tutorial something that says castles give better troops while cities provide more money with churches in between and the player could look deeper if they wanted to know the details but that wouldnt matter too much
They wanted to simplify the war system as it wasn't the main focus of the game. To make the game more accessible.
Ironic for a franchise called Crusader Kings but at this point the CK franchise is like Assassin's Creed, they keep the name because it's popular even though it has nothing to do with the original concept.
>the main focus of the game
the main focus of the game is fricking your dynasty into survival, why not strip all other facets of gameplay too? Why even have a game at all? Just go out and frick women, make kids, then have a nice day as you fulfilled your main life objective. Great life, great games
>why not strip all other facets of gameplay too?
They did
They should unironically take away controllable armies (because it feels off with everything else) and replace it with an event-driven warfare system.
no thanks
If re-using the travel system would result in a "campaign" instead of pingponging armies around, I'd support it
then warscore could be based off of the armies mustered for the campaign instead of the 10k soldiers who revive in 6 months and march 300km to stop the conquest of single county exclave
No 3 button warfare. You already infected Vic3 with your nonsense. e creating and campaign of a medieval
woops forgot to delete. what i mean is, the formation and maneuvering of a medieval army should not be abstracted. There is no realism argument for it either. Nobility would often fight their own campaigns.
This is a must for crusades. All the soldiers become army travelling just as you do on pilgrimage. armies spawn in capitals of the biggest supporters+head of fauth and are controlled by them. you get events and shit. through events you can influence army strength, morale or even change the directions. Not only do you need to watch the progress bar but there's army morale bar. Defenders control their armies normally, but do not see which way will attackers go.
Or just take away control of armies you aren't leading yourself.
Can't wait to experience the same 5 events in every war about the enemy leader making fun of your small penis
Desc: "Enemy commander has made fun of your penis, in front of your army."
Option A. "RECKLESS CHARGE!"
>80% you lose the battle
>20% chance you win
Option B: "Stay calm"
>You lose 500 prestige
>You gain the nickname "the Little-wiener"
>You gain 50 stress because you are arrogant
>60% chance you win
>40% chance you lose
>female commanders become OP, since they're immune to this event
>but... CK3 is better man... it has 3d breasts!
Unironicly can't go back to ck2 because of this despite it having superior gameplay to 3.
Sad if true
I will say that despite all it's flaws, it does let you perform big titty eugenics.
one of the points in ck3 I like more is that you can easier expand your realm through actual politics shit as a vassal lord.
Like in ck2 your options were basically just to conquer with military, or marry in such a way that after murdering a literal frickton of people you're eventually in the line of sucession.
In CK3 you just have to buddy up with your liege lord and you can petition him to recognise your claims over fellow vassal lords and you can get new territories without going to war.
CK3 is gonna be so fricking good once it has gotten 5-6 years in the oven with patches and numerous dlc. The base of CK3 is way superior to base CK2. They just need to add content and finetune the game.
Atleast it's not vicky 3 that is just fundamentally bad.
>CK3 is gonna be so fricking good once it has gotten 5-6 years in the oven with patches and numerous dlc.
The game is already over three years old with only two major expansions released.
*Huffs copium*
They're just off to a slow start, they'll pick up the pace soon!
Two fluff dlcs
Just two more wee- I mean years anon
Trust the plan. Totally not coping
The fact that Paradox now can't even manage to do DLC bloat except for their pre-covid titles is probably some kind of red flag. The way they let CK3 wither on the vine and fade into irrelevance, when it was actually kind of popular with normalgays who would have happily bought a bunch of DLC, was weird.
But didn't Sweden have really lax covid rules, compared to the rest of Europe at least? I distinctly remember the MSM crying about how UK and Sweden weren't tough enough on the chink flu. But at any rate, during its short lifespan even Imperator was getting content and revamps at a higher speed than CK3.
>even Imperator was getting content and revamps at a higher speed than CK3.
its because the bogged launch of imperator and the awful ratings made them actually attempt to fix whatever goodwill they had with their core base
meanwhile ck3 got praised left and right (for doing... practically nothing tbh, still dont understand where that came from) and ensured paradox got a sense of complacency
if people would have raised hell about the subpar writing, the weird tone, the awful direction, and the cut content, im sure paradox would have taken the post release development of ck3 more seriously. only look at the difference in quality between the second half of dlcs after the first couple got such bad reputation
but no, people were too busy posting le funny reddit screenshots about how they cucked their son or how they farted and burped in the presence of the pope
>but no, people were too busy posting le funny reddit screenshots about how they cucked their son or how they farted and burped in the presence of the pope
There's a reason the DLCs have been so heavily focused on "story" events. It's much, much, easier to please your growing casual Reddit audience with funny fart lines than it is to please your autists with engaging game mechanics. No one raised hell because those casuals have basically no standards for games, and they were the target audience. Any complaints about cut content and shallow mechanics were lost in a sea of updoots for le funny incest screenshots.
Honestly, I hate whole the idea of castles being substitutes for castles.
By the end of the 14th century, England had thousands of castles, but only 14 cathedrals. It simply doesn't make sense for the scale of the world, where the baronies are still large units.
>castles being substitutes for castles
* cities being substitutes for castles
what do cathedrals then have to do with it?
Clearly, that's what church holding represents.
Honestly church holdings in CK2 are more like abbeys, monasteries, and/or priories. Swedes are confused about Catholicism though, so they called them bishoprics.
A cathedral is the capital of a dioceses, which in CK2 terms is a duchy. The idea of a county, besides Rome itself, being the seat of more than one bishop is intensely wrong.
That would make even less sense because England like 900 monasteries.
Hmm... How is this hard to understand? I'm saying that there should not be different types of holding.
Simply depicting barons is a fool's errand you are representing something like 100 barons when there were 100000.
The count should be the lowest tier like in CK1. And abbeys, castles, villages could represented with an integer.
You could make cool stuff with this, e.g.
>abbeys increase development gain, popular opinion, clergy opinion
>villages increase revenue
>each castle gives you MAA slot and garrison size, but cost you +1 monthly gold
Castles would represent lesser lords ruling lands, taking their share of these lands and providing MAA. So, you would have to build villages to pay for castles.
I don't think a village is on the level of a castle, it should probably called "market town" or something
i thought we were talking about cities
>CK1 and 2? No, never heard of them
It's kind of tiresome, reading the same fricking question for 19 years
England also had a shitton of monestaries until that fat frick wanted a divorce.
ck3 was designed around being playable for console
that's all you need to know
LMAO Really? Because the console version has a game breaking auto save bug that makes it completely unplayable and apparently it's been this way since release and they have no intention of fixing it.
>console
>GSG
I don't think so, Tim.
New paradox games have 3x the mechanics and buttons to press. These buttons are 1/4 as important as the originals. This is by design to sell more DLCs to add back in complexity.
They're greedy as frick too. Notice there's never any good discounts for their dlcs and they're super overpriced so you would need like a 90% discount for them to be reasonably prices and paradox don't even do 50% discounts anymore. Notice the lack of discounts for their games now on steam. Also if you're going to buy use this site: https://isthereanydeal.com/
>Holding more land doesn't make you more powerful anymore because levies are basically nothing
>One big ruler is less threatening than two allies with less than half of the first's land combined
>This dumbing down doesn't even appeal to smoothbrain morons because everything being the same and units provided being different doesn't matter to people who won't even realise what the land gives them.
>This dumbing down doesn't even appeal to smoothbrain morons because everything being the same and units provided being different doesn't matter to people who won't even realise what the land gives them.
this, i hadn't even paid attention to any of that when i was 10 and first started playing the game and still had fun; because no matter what, more land resulted in more troops, which is quite logical
I don't know, but recently I went back to play CK2(+HIP) after a couple hundred hours of CK3 and it was so immediately obvious how much better it was. It's kind of sad. CK3 is mostly just nice for QoL features and the graphics are "fun" but mostly irrelevant. In terms of depth and content, CK2 still wins by a landslide.
That tablet is a merchants accounting.
It's called a meme. Do you like trains, champ?
moron
The same reason the dumbed down every single other aspect of gameplay? To appeal to morons.
Just refunded this garbage, had pirated on release and it's still the same dogshit confederate partition for 1938984 years, norse raiders fricking everywhere, border gore everywhere, everyone and their mother has 2+ alliances everywhere, same homogeneous generic looking characters, same uninspired events and moronic looking event windows with no soul, same moronic armies spawning on thin air in the exact county you want, same souless UI not even a fricking castle pic for your holdings might as well not have baronies at all
what a complete turd this game is
Primogeniture babs btfo
lmao
Just admit to being casuals that can't handle CK3 upping the difficulty.
>upping the difficulty
The player or the AI can just form an empire an the nation won't split anymore only the personal demesne.
>dissolution faction forms
lol
lmao
Is lying your only way out? I had to set game difficulty to Extreme Stability to prevent constant civil wars and empires from straight up disappearing.
>not playing with the more interactive vassals mod
Vanilla factions are braindead.
What would make factions better in CK3?
The mod I just mentioned or one like the CK2Plus Factions Standalone.
>paradox makes it so that the player practically cant fail
>"haha but if you DO fail, then you're REALLY fricked"
right but the problem still is that you can't fail
Disinherit your heirs moron
subhuman
>I will cope seethe and dilate over a -20 opinion penalty because my Black personmonkey brain can't account for my future self having to waste 20 years of my heir's life picking up each kingdom inherited by toddlers
>I will also blame nu-paradox for this moronation even if gavelkind was also in ck2
What an amazing and immersive experience! Truly advanced medieval statesmanship RP
I can disown or kill my children as a substitute for proper succession negotiations
Thanks for this elaboration anon, your gamer insight changed my opinion of CK3 and will improve my future campaigns!
>you want successions to actually have depth and matter?
>pffft just metagame bro
3 years passed, 50 fart events created, 6 le epic communism references made, and they couldn't bother to make a mechanic where you draw up your will
moron
Everybody complains about levies, but nobody realizes lack of economy is the game's real problem.
If you large debt, it might take you 10 years to pay it off, and the game prevents you from doing anything until that is paid, and gives you no way to cover your debt.
you cant take loans from israelites anymore??
yes, you can only take 300 gold loan from holy orders
You can ask for money from the pope, relatives, your liege and tons of other methods. Don't be disingenuous.
only if you have the corresponding perks from the moronic skill tree which was totally unneeded
>You can ask for money from the pope,
Only if you have 1000 piety
>relatives, your liege
random events
> tons of other methods.
like what
>no way to cover your debt
If your character dies then debt is gone
Just keep melancholy or other traits and kys when you're in debt
Same shit irl
and when you are 2 year-old and have -1000 debt?
Just make your decent skill spymaster have -100 opinion on you
You'll be dead in a year or less
>CK2: Levies are trash, use retinue or mercenaries
>CK3: Levies are trash, use retinue or mercenaries.
???
The difference in levies type never mattered, because levies never ammounted to anything beyond a number to absorb casualties in big battles. The tactics systems was utterly fricked.
>"churches meanwhile were somewhat inbetween as more 'independent' actors since priests didnt necessarily provide any armies or gold to you. in essence they provided both somewhat good income and somewhat good armies but in turn werent guarenteed to provide you with either of those"
That's true for all types of vassals in CK2.
>in essence, there's no fundamental difference between the holding types concerning their armies anymore
The difference is that castles are harder to storm and hold out for loner in sieges, which is the actual function and role of castles IRL - they are not special mystical places neessary to train and equip a special kind of warriors, they are defensive military fortifications.
>there's absolutely no balance at all between the holding types because one of the differentiators, which made castles actually worthwhile to build in ck2, got completely stripped
That one difference made castles actually worthwhile to spam. There was never a good reason not to build a castle if you could. Without that, you have to actually consider the regional geography and plop down castels on borders and regions that you need defended from attacks - you know, the way it worked with actual historical castles.
>while being harder to actually keep control of
Please don't fricking lie.
CK3 is fricked, but it's fricked for the same reasons that CK2 was fricked - by being a 0 cerebral activity blobber/LARP implement, and that's inconvinient for your autistic ass that needs to pretend that Paracucks actually made le Good Gayme once, but went to le shit since. That's a fricking lie, CK were never a good strategy game you colossal gay frick homosexual.
>CK2: levies are fine, retinues are game breakingly op
>CK3: levies are utterly trash and genuinely worthless, retinues are a necessity and you cant go without them
there, fixed it for you
>CK2: levies are fine, retinues are game breakingly op
>CK3: levies are utterly trash and genuinely worthless, retinues are a necessity and you cant go without them
That's the same statement with different wording.
no its not moron
Non of this is right and I can only assume you've played neither
Anyone know of a mod for ck3 that lets you build the uniques regardless of religion type?
On the topic of Crusader Kings warfare system, i've recently been playing Nobunaga's Ambition: Awakening and i found two aspects of the warfare in that game that i think would be a very good fit for CK3:
1. No magically raising/disbanding your levies in one location, your troops are raised from the castle that they're tied to. You can disband them by marching to the nearest castle you owned, but depending on how far the unit is from their castle of origin, it's going to take quite some time for them to go back.
2. No garrison, so marching every single unit from a castle means there's zero people defending it from a siege. The castle still takes a lot of time to siege of course, but relating back to my first point about how marching your troops takes time, raising every single able-bodied men in your realm to fight an external war is basically spreading your ass open for your opportunistic neighbour to swoop in and destroy everything you hold dear.
3. A simple but effective supply system. Your army is basically marching on a ticking timer that starts when you raise them. The base supplies is 120 days, so you got 120 days for your unit to march from its castle, to the frontline and do battles or sieges, and return to the nearest player owned castle to disband. If it runs out, your army is going to take chip-damage style attrition. If it got caught by an enemy unit then you can kiss your army goodbye because the damage multiplier from running out of supplies is brutal.
Another thing from Nobunaga's, which, i'm not sure is necessarily better or worse than how Crusader Kings handled it is upkeep. Would you prefer if you paid for your army's upkeep in front? Or do you think the monthly gold malus is already a good system?
welp i forgot to change the two aspects. shouldn't've written down a number before thinking up the actual thing.
>1
So, back to CK2? Personally not fond of either system, such mobilization works for Japan, because smaller scale, but when your empire spans from Ireland to Norway, it's pretty ridicolous.
>2
Probably ahistorical, but maybe justifiable for gameplay.
>3
Probably a good idea
>but when your empire spans from Ireland to Norway
thats when you're 100% reliant on retinues and only use levies for civil wars
Number 3 is a good idea and I'm a bit baffled they wouldn't implement something like that. They could elaborate on it later with DLC if they wanted to, but as a simple first order solution to abstracting supply it seems fine. I don't know what the modding tools look like, but that is probably doable from within their API right?
Actually, I haven't played that new Knights of Honor in a while but I think they had a decent simple little supply system. The army supplies just ticked down on campaign and refilled in towns (or you could steal supplies by raiding) and you could pump them up more by slotting a supply train into your army's inventory. Very simple, very gamey, but it made supplies a thing you at least considered when starting a war and sending out an army.
I like the new system better. From what I learned CK2 intensifies just stacking troops of the same type on the same flank for maximum bonuses. Which is not very realistic. Also, I feel like it's more realistic to have a mass of peasants and a professional core.
Yes, the mass of peasants at different times in different places have different equipment and style of warfare. So it's a minus for realism. But it wasn't too realistic to make all your levies into professional soldiers of some type either. This streamline does not bother me.
And I don't know if castles are useless. I don't minmax, but from what I heard the meta is to max out busted retinues and station them in castles with big bonuses.
Having read few books about medieval warfare, think both approaches are pretty shit.
For starters levies were auxiliary units, depicting them is kinda pointless.
This anon is right.
Peasant levies are reasonably common in defensive contexts, but no one was rounding up peasants into an army and marching to foreign locales, as you do in CK. The feudal elite who formed the core of the army would probably riot rather than let the farmers, who they relied on for food and wealth, be shipped into the meat grinder, or even allow them to be absent during labor-intensive seasons of plowing and harvest. This is something that a fantasy game like KoDP gets more right than these historical games.
Anglo-Norman England had conscription of freemen, but the Assize of Arms specifically exempts peasants.
Also retinues are way too large in both games. Edward I of England was considered to have an unusually large number of household knights, but see picrel.
I thought Edward I had retinue of 300 knights, much like Richard II.
Anyhow, I agree it's too large, e.g. King of Norway maintained 200 retainers, while lendmen (barons) were limited to 40.
I guess can argue men-at-arms are not meant to be retainers like in CK3, but then again it's strange that you can't call your vassal's MAA.
That might actually be the biggest flaw of the whole military system. The whole idea of giving your vassals land was so they could able to maintain their own knights, and when called to arms would show up with their knights to help.
But in CK3, vassals are free to stay feasting with their MAA, and only forced to send their levies.
So, in a more realistic approach, you would have replaced this bullshit system with the ability to call vassals to arms.
Thought the problem with this system people would complain about AI and pathfinding would cause lag.
Personally, the best approach would be to treat vassals like mercenaries. They would be depicted like mercenaries commanded by the vassals (or their regent), and instead gold, they would cost prestige.
>The feudal elite who formed the core of the army would probably riot rather than let the farmers, who they relied on for food and wealth, be shipped into the meat grinder, or even allow them to be absent during labor-intensive seasons of plowing and harvest.
>This is something that a fantasy game like KoDP gets more right than these historical games.
True.
For record, percentage of population featured in battles were so relatively small, so any number of farmers died was completely irrelevant.
For record England population of 3 million during War of the Roses, and in the largest battle, of Towton only 3% participated, and only some 10K died.
Almost all major battles had fewer than 0.5% of the population.
A few things I'd like to say about the differences between CK3 and CK2.
1. CK2 levies are actually useful but tactics are limited only to modifiers. CK3 levies are useless and everything is built upon stacking advantages and counters. Retinue buildings are too good now because they're too broken for stacking percentage modifiers for troops making whoever can meta the most to win.
War Elephants > Horse Archers > Cataphracts > Varangian Veterans > All
2. CK3: It's too easy to get your MaA to spawn in your capital, while levies take a long time and are cannon fodder for your special troops.
At least in CK2 you had to mobilize your troops to strategic areas.
3. Don't get me started on how useless ships are in both games. There should be a way to blockade troop movements using ships but the way ships just magically appear out of nowhere for a landlocked duchy is insane for CK3.
CK3 is the more simplified and dumbed down version of what some diversity hire would think of. Shows how far the thought process of developers in CK3 are going. Same with VIC3, utterly bad mechanics.
they simplified the game for casuals and simplified it even further to try to get console gamers to play the game (spoiler: they didn't)
It's moronic to think hypercasuals could get into a niche genre like grand strategy.
Seemed to have worked with GoY4
Yes but ww2 is much more popular than the middle ages.
hoi4 is primarily played by autistic bandkid zoomers that think France surrender jokes are funny, it's ck3 that's played by and targeted towards the Sims audience that want to see funny stuff happen like I had a gay orgy with the pope XD
the moronation of femoid management types (in the inside if not body) is not underestimated GOY 4 and it's consequences have been a disaster for the GSG Race CK2cels know this especially. I used to not like EU4 when I first start GSG journey with the CK2, but I see it is not moron design GOY$ shitty design from day 1 if you were there and had many brain creases you realized it was very empty beyond any other their game, and ABOVE ALL, that this is where the horror of focus SHIT came from, which was also an excuse to lazify event design and not implement any aspects of peace gameplay like previous game HOI3 HOI2. also building system GARBAGE and they IMPORT to V3 as well. HOI4 is where all garbage design decisions did start.
It's funny that you mention EUIV in a post about shitty design and then not use EUIV itself as an example of shitty design. When EUIV came out I tried it out and found it to be unplayable because the mana system took all the difficulty out of managing tough situations by letting you buy stability with bird mana (might have been feather mana, I don't remember). For example, Comet Sighted used to be this really feared event in EU3, but in EUIV all it meant was that you needed to waste some mana sometimes. I never ended up buying EUIV, and through the years I kept seeing people talking about other problems that kept popping up, such as coalitions making the late game unplayable and all the bullshit surrounding Leviathan.
CK2 is probably the only good Paradox game because there was never a time AFAIK when it didn't work, even on launch it was significantly more playable than prior Paradox releases, but without overwhelmingly stupid decisions like the manafest in EUIV or the focus tree bullshit in HOI4. I started with Victoria II, but I started playing it back before A House Divided came out so I had to deal with its various problems; pretty much no one thought it was the "perfect game" it is perceived to be now and we all just put up with Vic2, EU3, and Darkest Hour because we were map autists and no one else catered to our specific strain of autism like Paradox back then.
What CK3 should have been is a rewrite of CK2 with its DLC's maxed out, with an external studio handling the game's UI like what they did with HOI4's UI. But they're catering the game towards the GoT audience who wants to use the game to LARP, so instead we got CK2 with half the features missing (but you at least get to play as Muslims in the base game now!), but in exchange they added 3D models and made it way easier to turn your character into some kind of pervert because LARPers want their Adamite sex simulator before wanting a game with proper implementation of levies.
>It's funny that you mention EUIV
I apologize I think it is shitty just less shitty than HOI4 and I never played EU4 when it came out I also have similar thoughts though for me CK2 is the best paradox game and V2 second best
>no one else catered to our specific strain of autism like Paradox back then
Why has Paradox decided to stop catering to this particular autism?
From what I've gathered on this board and reddit it seems that it's because they've gone public.
>weird things happening in ck2 were funny because they happened on their own and weren't exactly accounted for, at least in the first half of the game's lifespan
>weird things happening in ck3 are fricking tediously unfunny because they were forced by the devs who want more reddit screenshots from its playerbase
paradox literally just wanted to cater entirely to the 'shitcrusaderkingssay' crowd while forgetting to make an actual game
>haha my sister-mother-wife FARTED and i went to WAR because of it LOL
Had to wait like 3 years or something for them to finally to do mechanics for this year. Not fluff mechanics that have no meaning. You can basically ignore the stances in CK3. While in CK2, they impactful. It's laziness and they know their audience. I'm waiting for an indieman to make an austistic strategy game that simulates every feudal relationship.
It's funny how we get 1 dlc per year and it's much shittier than ck2's quarterly dlcs and more expensive. Honk.
CK3 basically didn't have to exist at all.
money.
Yur Levies should only be used locally. In the War of the Roses, the commission of the array was used to recruit peasants and urban populations for defense mustered by the king. But when England had two kings, this recruitment was ineffective, and came down to retainer loyalty. That's my only gripe in the game abstractions of CK2, in my opinion. Retinues are retainers in CK2 but the game doesn't go down to the man controlling them. CK3 has worse abstractions. Aka teleport rally system, and the fact CK3 devs consider these levies "untrained peasants" when in reality they often were trained, especially with the longbow in England. They could also get some odd armour here or there.
I would like to add that anotger sad result of bad levy implementation in both CK2 and CK3 is that all wars are pretty much total wars, which is dumb. There is also a painful lack of seasonal influence, meaning armies are active the whole year and need no rest, something that goes against the medieval war dynamics.
A perfect simulation of all feudal nuances is plain impossible, but you can move very, very close to it as long as you focus on a single region, time period or struggle.
Basically, you need to make several games in one: One to simulate the centralized feudal realms in Spain and their struggle with the muslims, one for the Italian city-states and the HRE, one for England and France (maybe with the Crusader States as off-map powers that call for asistance from time to time), one for the Crusader States themselves (you can call aid from Europe) and of course one for Scandinavia. All of those states and regions had different types of governance and imo they would require different campaigns of roughly 100 years, or 200 at most. Expand the scope beyond that and you need to rely more and more in inaccurate abstractions.
My point is, the current size of CK2 and CK3 is what makes accurate simulations impossible.
But they don't even want to try because of modern political correctness. They even have women being able to be masters of the hunt, bodyguards and caravan masters. Not to mention you can put literal landed people as court jesters.
Think it would be really interesting if we had a game that was entirely set in Spain.
Just imagine a game where Spain has 1000 counties.
That's actually my dream, anon. Imo a full campaign from the death of King Ferdinand the Great (1065) to the middle of the 13th century (around the final conquests of King Ferdinand the Saint) would be pure kino: you get to see the full rise of the christian states and the fall of Al-Andalus, reduced to the vassal state of Granada.
Expanding on my original idea, you can even make mini, hyper-focused campaigns: The norman conquest of southern Italy, Sicily, part of North Africa and Antioch, the Welsh Marches, the Hundred Years War, the Albigensian Crusade and so on. Key is to pick an specific time period and not overexpand your map beyond of what is needed... Which is what CK2 and CK3 did, lmao.
What about a mod like Voltaire's Nightmare for ck3? Does it exist?
A game set around Spain wouldn't work because historical Spain worked as it did since no side was interested in a full conquest campaign like a player would.
Throw a player who only wants to conquer the penninsula and you're out of things to do in 10 years, much less centuries.
Anon, that seems to be pure nonsense: Campaigns are costly affairs that require high levels of organization and planning not only in Iberia but in any other historical scenario too. The reason why realms in Iberia didn't conquered each other wasn't only because taking parias (tributes) was more profitable, but also because total conquest was just too costly and even dangerous to attempt when the Almoravids and the Almohads entered the scene, as Alfonso VI and his descendant Alfonso VIII learned the hard way.
CK2 and CK3 simply do not model the cost and dynamic of medieval campaigns accurately, but it goes without saying that the hypothetical ideal game would. Not to mention that the argument of "muh player" can be leveled against all other historical scenarios easily: Why bother with HOI4 if the player will just powergame? Why bother with the HYW if the player will just powergame? At that rate no campaign can ever work.
Did you read Maurice Keen too?
That's pretty much the way he describes it in Medieval Warfare: A History.
Anyhow, think the proper way to depict it would be to introduce Jade Dragon interface for both Morocco and France.
You can request troops from them, and if Muslims are losing the Sultan might invade Morocco with event spawned deathstack, but eventually a civil war erupt in Morocco and forces them to disband the event spawned troops, same for France
So, only way would to fight off the event spawned invaders would be to develop Spain so rich, you can fend them off.
Aren't Levies actually like guys who were compensated in some way to be fit and ready to be called up?
So they wouldn't just be 'peasants with pitchforks'?
Yes, but Paradox decided to go for the meme grimdark option. Why? I don't know.
Is it possible to mod levies in some way by applying various modifiers etc to make them more realistic?
Because they're moronic and their games aren't good until the like 900th patch/DLC.
It's hilarious how paradox didn't include societies from ck2 with the justification that rulers didn't join them and then have literal events where a commoner challenges the king to a duel when traveling.
or going to university
Look at this shit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ElderKings/comments/192sx1r/karl_marx/
They must be getting paid by the CIA or blackrock. No one could possibly shill wokeness for free.
New OPD bideo. He predicted the warfare in V3 so his predictions here might have some weight.
If you could raise some of your vassal’s MaA it would likely better represent things and be closer to CK2.