My first experience with Crusader Kings II

[Bulletpoint]

Maybe I should add that I do think it's a good game. I enjoy playing a "game for adults" for once.

It has a bit of the same vibe as the original Medieval: Total War had. But I feel recent Total Wars have been very dumbed down. I wish they would take a lot of the ideas of Crusader Kings and combine them with TW.

But I guess that as long as they can't fix the AI in TW, it's a moot point. It's just nice to see armies in the field instead of just little numbers going up and down.

 

[Hardradi]

Medieval TW1 was a good game. A combination of TW battles and CKII would be fantastic.

As you said the AI in TW is just too weak and the depth of the game to superficial. I gave up on that franchise after MTW2. Bought RTW2 on special on Steam but uninstalled it.

 

[olaf]

TW is dead to me in a way. It was good for its time when MTW2 was out but nowadays in retrospect it all seems too simplistic. I want something much more advanced.

 

[Bulletpoint]

TW is dead to me in a way. It was good for its time when MTW2 was out but nowadays in retrospect it all seems too simplistic. I want something much more advanced.

Me too. I felt my brain was not firing on all cylinders even when playing TW2, which wasn't a bad game as such. But simplified and arcadey.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Ok, so I went on my first crusade. It was an anticlimax actually. Just a lot of random sized armies rushing in a beeline for the Holy Land and then chaotic battles happening there. Maybe that was what happened in reality, I don't know. But there was zero tension to it.

However, one interesting thing was that while my king's army was away, his dastardly brother, who is still a duke even though he got defeated in a previous war, made an alliance with other nobles to decrease crown authority. Pretty clever to make that demand while the main opposition army is far away on a crusade...

 

[Josey Wales]

I think the combat in CKII is it's weak point, you just move an army wait for the battle to resolve then wait again whilst you besiege the holdings. It's functional but yeah, it lacks tension.

When Shogun TW was first released I though it was the best thing ever to grace the PC, I played the demo over and over for months before the full release, but like most here I lost the passion for TW after MTW2. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater though, I'd like to see a TW type battle using the WEGO system where you issue orders to your units then an amount of time is played out in which you simply observe the effects of those orders. Make the units, formations, movement and combat a bit more in depth and you'd have something with the graphics of TW and the tactical complexity of CM.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I'd like to see a TW type battle using the WEGO system where you issue orders to your units then an amount of time is played out in which you simply observe the effects of those orders. Make the units, formations, movement and combat a bit more in depth and you'd have something with the graphics of TW and the tactical complexity of CM.

Fully agree. The TW battles lack inertia and gravity. Real battlefield commanders were not in split-second control of when individual units should advance or retreat, and even the unit commanders themselves couldn't make 1000 men all stop in their tracks simultaneously and start reversing. A WEGO system would be very interesting for TW.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

I think the combat in CKII is it's weak point, you just move an army wait for the battle to resolve then wait again whilst you besiege the holdings. It's functional but yeah, it lacks tension.

When Shogun TW was first released I though it was the best thing ever to grace the PC, I played the demo over and over for months before the full release, but like most here I lost the passion for TW after MTW2. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater though, I'd like to see a TW type battle using the WEGO system where you issue orders to your units then an amount of time is played out in which you simply observe the effects of those orders. Make the units, formations, movement and combat a bit more in depth and you'd have something with the graphics of TW and the tactical complexity of CM.

Josey, you and Bulletpoint might want to look at XIII Century and Real Warfare 2: Northern Crusades. They might fit what you are looking for in Medieval Experience. XIII Century plays like Bulletpoint describe. The emphasis is on battle planning pre-contact because once you are engaged it is extremely difficult to order troops to other things, which is reflective of the chaotic C & C issues of the age. Real Warfare 2 adds a strategic level `ala MTW2, but the battles play out like XIII Century. They are older titles and not well recognized, but they are serviceable titles with pretty good medieval warfare modeling and I believe I got both on Steam on sale for about $5-$6 bucks tops. They are RTS.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Thanks. Looks very similar to TW though. Seems you can still just click-drag to select a lot of units and then make them move any place in perfect order.. at least judging from this video

 

[Josey Wales]

Thanks @HOA_KSOP for pointing these out, I'd never heard of them until now and I'll take a look.

I quite like some aspects of the Scourge of War (SOW) series, especially the Order Of Battle and courier systems and these could work well in a WeGo system, however, I do find the SOW interface quite clunky. If I was a programmer and had the time I'd seriously consider creating a WeGo ancient/medieval battle game. One thing I dislike about the TW battles is that 2 huge armies clash and despite there being thousands of troops on the field, the whole thing is over in 12 minutes.

I'd much rather play a game where I spend ages thinking about where I deploy my troops and forming a plan around my analysis of the situation. Then, during the command phase I send messages to my respective unit commanders conveying my intent. During the replay phase my messengers ride out to the various commanders and those orders are interpreted as best they can be depending on the quality of the commander. The commanders then organise their troops into the appropriate formations with the time taken for this dependent on a combination of troop quality and commander quality e.g. peasants armed with makeshift implements take longer to move from column to battle line than well led professional men at arms.

Different formations would have different benefits and vulnerabilities forcing players to really think about deployment and manoeuvre, many ancient and medieval battles were won and lost because one side hadn't fully deployed part of their forces in the right place at the right time.

Ahhh I can dream...

 

[Bulletpoint]

Thanks @HOA_KSOP for pointing these out, I'd never heard of them until now and I'll take a look.

I quite like some aspects of the Scourge of War (SOW) series, especially the Order Of Battle and courier systems and these could work well in a WeGo system, however, I do find the SOW interface quite clunky. If I was a programmer and had the time I'd seriously consider creating a WeGo ancient/medieval battle game. One thing I dislike about the TW battles is that 2 huge armies clash and despite there being thousands of troops on the field, the whole thing is over in 12 minutes.

I'd much rather play a game where I spend ages thinking about where I deploy my troops and forming a plan around my analysis of the situation. Then, during the command phase I send messages to my respective unit commanders conveying my intent. During the replay phase my messengers ride out to the various commanders and those orders are interpreted as best they can be depending on the quality of the commander. The commanders then organise their troops into the appropriate formations with the time taken for this dependent on a combination of troop quality and commander quality e.g. peasants armed with makeshift implements take longer to move from column to battle line than well led professional men at arms.

Different formations would have different benefits and vulnerabilities forcing players to really think about deployment and manoeuvre, many ancient and medieval battles were won and lost because one side hadn't fully deployed part of their forces in the right place at the right time.

Ahhh I can dream...

If you ever have a windfall and make your own games company, let me know if you need an investor

I think the business case in this is much better than most people assume.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Maybe I should elaborate on why I think it's a good business case.

Common wisdom: People don't like difficult games.

Actually, people love difficult games. Look at chess. Look at Counterstrike. Look at Starcraft. Look at Dark Souls. Winning a difficult game becomes much more of an achievement, and everybody understands what bragging rights means. Gamers these days are not only children; many of us are in our fourties. (I'm hitting the big 4 next spring). The trick is to make difficulty scalable, so you don't get into the deep end straight away.

Common wisdom: People don't like intricate systems.

Actually, people like that games have depth. But they don't like feeling lost. The complexity needs to be communicated clearly to the player. For example, an enemy king might hate you, but let the player know WHY he hates you.

Common wisdom: People prefer fantasy worlds to real life.

I think a lot of people are very fascinated by real history. As a teenager, I used to play Warhammer Fantasy Battle, and was then blown away by Medieval Total War - I suddenly realised where all the inspiration for Warhammer came from, and I started to lose interest in that franchise. Why spend my time thinking about orcs and elves when there was a REAL medieval Europe I could sink my teeth into? There is so much colour and drama in real history.

Common wisdom: Players don't like to be restricted.

In fact, all good gameplay comes exactly from restricting the player and making him/her make real, meaningful choices. If you move a chess piece forward and to the right, you can't move it to the left. In roleplay games, if you choose to specialise in magic, you can't specialise in melee. Yet many big budget games (TW) make player choices inconsequential. If you waste a whole army, you can just raise another very quickly. If the general dies, another will be along shortly. IN shooter games, if you take out an enemy tank, there's another around the corner. That makes player choice hollow and meaningless. I believe there's a lot of untapped potential for games that are challenging, hard, and unforgiving.

But, the reason why games such as Crusader Kings II fail to capture a large audience, is because they lack SPECTACLE. A lot of people lack the imagination necessary to sit and imagine their armies crushing the opposition, just by looking at a screen with numbers going down. Combine spectacle with the points above, and you're on to a winner.

 

[MOS:96B2P]

Thanks @HOA_KSOP for pointing these out, I'd never heard of them until now and I'll take a look.

I quite like some aspects of the Scourge of War (SOW) series, especially the Order Of Battle and courier systems and these could work well in a WeGo system, however, I do find the SOW interface quite clunky. If I was a programmer and had the time I'd seriously consider creating a WeGo ancient/medieval battle game. One thing I dislike about the TW battles is that 2 huge armies clash and despite there being thousands of troops on the field, the whole thing is over in 12 minutes.

I'd much rather play a game where I spend ages thinking about where I deploy my troops and forming a plan around my analysis of the situation. Then, during the command phase I send messages to my respective unit commanders conveying my intent. During the replay phase my messengers ride out to the various commanders and those orders are interpreted as best they can be depending on the quality of the commander. The commanders then organise their troops into the appropriate formations with the time taken for this dependent on a combination of troop quality and commander quality e.g. peasants armed with makeshift implements take longer to move from column to battle line than well led professional men at arms.

Different formations would have different benefits and vulnerabilities forcing players to really think about deployment and manoeuvre, many ancient and medieval battles were won and lost because one side hadn't fully deployed part of their forces in the right place at the right time.

Ahhh I can dream...

After @Bulletpoint finances the game and @Josey Wales builds it I volunteer to Beta test it............

 

[Badger73]

After @Bulletpoint finances the game and @Josey Wales builds it I volunteer to Beta test it............

Me too!!!

 

[Bulletpoint]

You're all in on the team! But it won't be any day soon. I'm a pauper knight. But I play the lottery

 

[olaf]

Common armour and weapons myths

 

[Hardradi]

If you ever have a windfall and make your own games company, let me know if you need an investor

Yeah, this was a dream of mine for a long time. Land a huge lottery win and start a game company or refinance a good one.

Thanks @HOA_KSOP for pointing these out, I'd never heard of them until now and I'll take a look.

I quite like some aspects of the Scourge of War (SOW) series, especially the Order Of Battle and courier systems and these could work well in a WeGo system, however, I do find the SOW interface quite clunky. If I was a programmer and had the time I'd seriously consider creating a WeGo ancient/medieval battle game. One thing I dislike about the TW battles is that 2 huge armies clash and despite there being thousands of troops on the field, the whole thing is over in 12 minutes.

I'd much rather play a game where I spend ages thinking about where I deploy my troops and forming a plan around my analysis of the situation. Then, during the command phase I send messages to my respective unit commanders conveying my intent. During the replay phase my messengers ride out to the various commanders and those orders are interpreted as best they can be depending on the quality of the commander. The commanders then organise their troops into the appropriate formations with the time taken for this dependent on a combination of troop quality and commander quality e.g. peasants armed with makeshift implements take longer to move from column to battle line than well led professional men at arms.

Different formations would have different benefits and vulnerabilities forcing players to really think about deployment and manoeuvre, many ancient and medieval battles were won and lost because one side hadn't fully deployed part of their forces in the right place at the right time.

Ahhh I can dream...

I hear you, that sounds great to the lead up to the battle.

Wouldn't it be to much set and forget from the players perspective for the actual battle. Unless you can actually enter the fray yourself ala Mount & Blade: Warband. During the battle you would be able to manipulate reserves, rally troops, recall eager troops but I cant think of much else.

 

[BornGinger]

Does anyone have a suggestion for videos that address this complexity of shifting allegiances and fiefdoms of the time? Im trying to educate myself until CK3 arrives

I used to play this game quite a lot a couple of years ago (half a decade if I remember correctly) and at that time I sometimes checked out the videos of Arumba who usually explained things very well. I think he made a few short videos as a way to help people understand how everything works in the game.

This series of videos by Arumba might be the one I was thinking about. I'm pretty sure he has updated them as the game has changed since I played it the last time.

 

[Josey Wales]

Wouldn't it be to much set and forget from the players perspective for the actual battle. Unless you can actually enter the fray yourself ala Mount & Blade: Warband. During the battle you would be able to manipulate reserves, rally troops, recall eager troops but I cant think of much else.

Well to hypothesise further, I wouldn't want to create a game that I didn't enjoy playing and a set and forget format would not appeal to me. Essentially I'm thinking of a ancient/medieval equivalent of CM where you do take time in the beginning to analyse the situation, survey the terrain, make an initial plan and deploy your troops. However we all know that no plan survives contact and continual adjustments throughout the battle are required.

The game would be dynamic and each unit would have it's own Tac AI built in, so for example a unit moving in column to take a hill suddenly becomes aware of enemy cavalry nearby and so the Tac AI decides to form a deep line/shieldwall facing the cavalry. The time this takes depends on the troop quality and poor quality troops may end up being charged whilst transitioning leaving them very vulnerable. The unit in a defensive formation cannot move more than a few metres every minute and so it's manoeuvrability has been compromised by the mere presence of the enemy cavalry. To prevent this surprise from happening, small scout detachments can be used to spot enemy units and allow you the player to adjust formations, positions and deployment accordingly, however this all takes time to do rather than the TW method of 'insta-formation change'.

Spotting and information sharing would work in a similar way and units in combat with an enemy unit that they were not aware of before contact would suffer a penalty that troops in combat with an enemy unit that they knew were there would not, thereby simulating a 'readiness for combat' that surprised troops would not have.

Essentially the idea would be to simulate the cumbersomeness of managing an ancient/medieval army but still allow the player to make ongoing meaningful decisions throughout the game.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I know there was an American Civil War game many years ago that actually simulated sending out messengers on horseback to give new orders to regiments. That kind of system seems very fitting for a medieval combat game as well, I think. The player should not lose all control; I think the keyword is restriction.

As a related aside, I'm still watching through the video tutorial series about CKII. One thing that strikes me is that there is much too much emphasis on murder, and it seems it's much too easy for the player to manipulate world events by having tens of characters assassinated, even the king of France, even though the player has the role of some backwater Irish duke. Obviously murder was part of Medieval politics, but if it had been that easy to murder with impunity, society would have collapsed.

Again, restricting the player is key.