![]() Is your leader craven, for instance?Īnd for the state of your troops or theirs, yes it does tell you that. That's not even close to what I'm asking when I mean traits. That two of them have it, at that, when it only even applies on centre flank and there can only be one commander in charge of the flank. Bad commanders are significantly worse than no commanders at all.Īs for "checked all this," you don't show us the traits- or even mention that "they're all good"- in the OP, just say they have Inspiring Leader. It really doesn't matter whether they have commanders or not when it comes to whether yours are an issue. ![]() ![]() it makes no sense.īesides as i said, THEY HAVE NO COMMANDERS. The game just simply doesn't tell me anything about the state of my troops or theirs, my quantity and quality are better than the enemy yet, I lose consistently. seriosuly I stopped playing this game before because i started losing when i'd have twice as many troops and even have them be better troops than theirs. Originally posted by Riftwalker:traits are all good, looked at that. Tl dr: CK2 combat is deceptively complex and there's a bunch of factors you haven't shown us, check traits, tech and pre-battle morale. No idea how likely that one is without going into actual detailed study of the combat system, though. My most likely guesses would be, in roughly the order of likelyhood, poor traits on your commanders (coward, for instance), existing morale issues on your troops (freshly raised levies, say, or just got off boats), or a large technology disparity.Īnd there's also the possibility that your commanders just happen to have some combination of culture, traits, martial ability or whatever that, combined with your unit composition and possibly culture, they enable some incredibly ♥♥♥♥♥♥ tactics. Which leads me onto the size of the map compared to that game.There are far, far too many possible reasons to make detailed attempts at answering at the moment, especially given that you have somehwat substandard documenting of exactly what is going on (no picture of the battle in progress, for instance, let alone pictures of the commanders or the like). One thing of note with the Raj of India dlc you get to play the factions on the indian sub continent which is some thing you can't do in Medieval 2 (good game though that is is). Speaking of EU4 compare that to how in complete Empire is compared to EU. Using the EU4 converter DLC you can import your converted CK2 game file into EU4. There are no end goals apart from the ones that you aim for yourself and not set by arbetry victory conditions alone. ![]() The later Total Wars in the franchise are better in this regard than the early ones. No trepassing armies without a declaration of war or asking for access. Though in Rome 2 it's not bad but in here it's miles ahead in scope. Not saying you can't achieve good things in Med2 becuase it's miles better than in Rome 1 just that Paradox diplomacy is much more mature than than Creative Assembly. The ultimate aim for the gameplaty of Total War is Total War however sandbaox you try to play. The diplomacy is pretty good and is in depth that Total War doesn't. Important differrance is that in CK2 you are playing a dynasty rather than a faction as you would in Total War. Speaking as someone who plays alot of Total War just a few thoughts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |