Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kanil]

To be fair to all both total war and ckII are grand strategy games. One includes tactical combat and the other has really complex politics, they are, in many ways, two sides of the same, poorly-minted medieval coin.

I must say: the two are very comparable and I dare say they would both benefit from including features of the other.

I would not play a CK2 with tactical combat, it would rather quickly get tedious and time consuming.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I agree, but I think both Total War would benefit from more in-depth politics and CKII from expanded military/wars/battles options.

[majikero]

Yes but I still don't want tactical combat like Total War in my Crusader Kings. Can you imagine how much fighting can be done if a year?

[Urist McScoopbeard]

*pffft* you only get 400 of them in CKII.

Anyways I would enjoy a simplistic combat simulation in CKII. Wouldn't have to be TWesque, could just be squares on a terrain map, that I would enjoy.

[dennislp3]

You know...you could have tactical battles...with the option to auto calculate...just like you can in TW >.> just sayin

[guale]

The problem with auto-calculate in my experience is the battles always end up significantly worse than if I actually play them out. I've had a battle auto-calc and lost nearly half of my forces only to reload and manually fight through it with almost zero losses.

[lordcooper]

But it essentially uses auto-calculate now.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

But I think he means that if you have both, but Tactical is better, and time consuming, yet auto resolve blows it creates a system where you MUST do tactical, of course you could just have options: autoresolve only, both, etc.


The only that gets me is: why wouldnt want to decide the fate of your kingdom instead of pressing a button?

[lordcooper]

Why wouldn't you want to take on the role of a single soldier Chivalry style instead of just commanding troops from a distance?  Because they're different bloody games, that's why.

Anyways, I think I'd rather get some CK2 in my TW than get some TW in my CK2.

[Leatra]

I don't want CK2 in my TW and I don't want TW in my CK2.

If I want battles, I'll play TW.
If I want politics, I'll play CK2.

But CK2 is better and TW gets old after a while *ignites a flame war*

[Kanil]

If I want battles, I'll play TW StarCraft.

There ya' go.

On a different topic: Inheriting things with your primary character is so annoying, just sitting here at my monitor begging for people to get old and die already. Reminds me why I usually use spare children for that...

[lordcooper]

Help matters along a bit then?

[Rakonas]

The idea of manual tactical battles is terrible for the primary reason that battles in CK2 (and other paradox games) take place over multiple games and aren't exactly battles but extended conflicts with skirmishes and such in the same general area.
Manually fighting battles and autoresolving battles would either differ in the time the battle takes, making it clearly beneficial to do one or the other, or both be instant and thus removing all element of suspense in a battle. Personally I like CK2's battle system very much, where the generals on the field decide tactics instead of the player, but the player can watch each phase and it actually seems rather reasonable. I expect paradox to expand on CK2's battle engine in future games since it's much nicer to look at and more reasonable than, say, EU3's battle engine.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

You have to remember that sometimes the more depth you add the easier you make the game. This might seem like a paradox at first but when you learn a whole bunch of tricks in Total War it's much easier to win stacked battles. The AI can't obviously adapt to that so you reach a point where the player can stomp all over the AI and the only way the AI can be a challenge is with artificial cheating elements.

I don't mind the combat in CKII at all. The main thing that cancels out it's tactical depth is the levy system. The levy system is all about enmassing troops and throwing them at other troops. Since you often have no control over what kind of levies and often their flanks there isn't much you can do tactically. With retinues you can create some fearsome flanks and completely ride over levy stacks. 

I was hoping EUIV would borrow from CKII battles system and just have retinues so we could really customise our fronts. Sadly they went with that one unit system which I despise. I'm curious about March of the Eagles. I could never get into Hearts of Iron because modern combined arms hurts my head. A game where the tactics are much easier to understand, horse flanks, musket volleys etc. might get me sold on the more war focused Paradox games.

[majikero]

Any tips on these "fearsome flanks"? Should it be mainly cavalry and heavy troops?