Maybe combat is decided by a card game?

[gradea]

So, I'm a big Paradox fan. Mount and Blade, Sword of the Stars, and of course, the meta series CK is a part of. I have to ask though, why, oh why, with all these paid DLC options out, is the core combat STILL so broken? I'm talking Civilizations 2 "Pikemen defeat a battle ship" broken. I wish to give some examples. All armies are made up of a random assortment of men, in roughly equal proportion because, out side of retinues, and some hire-able forces, that's all you get. Also, these are all with me as Norse Pagans.

An army 1/3rd my size (~1.7k vs a little over 5k), attacked me over a river, inferior command (I had higher martial on all sides). I lost. A quick look revealed no great tech difference either.

I was attack by an army over twice my size, same tech and unit comp, inferior commanders on my side (No commanders on my side vs commanders on his), had the rough terrain bonus, but won handily.

I have lost count of the numerous, NUMEROUS times battles just suddenly, violently swing in favor of one side or another, sometimes with casualties being 30 to 1 or higher per day. It's... obscene. The combat seems completely random, with the only hope being throw SO MANY men at the enemy (irrespective of type) that you can absorb the insane turns of fate.

I understand there is, nominally, a reason. "Oh, I get a bonus in this combat phase!"... But I think a 30,000% bonus might be a bit high.

When combat swings violently in ways that are totally independent of player input, when saving and reloading the exact same battle is the difference between a crushing defeat, and total victory... you've done something very, VERY wrong.

 

[Allastair]

Maybe RNG just hate us, players?

 

[Finnishviking]

Honestly i like the fact the combat is so random because well it kinda was like that back then and since we are only controlling our own charicters only and the fact that you can't win every battle just means the game is that one little bit harder

 

[Yxklyx]

EU4 made some marked improvements in Combat. I wish they would incorporate some of these into CK 2 - maybe not until CK 3 though.

 

[Picchen]

Combats are really what disapoint me with paradox grand strategy games, and ck2 is the worst.
I think they should improve it, maybe like Endless Space with playing cards (Attack, defense, tactics, charge, long-range...).
I find combats boring and you can't know why you lose or win except with terrain modifications.

 

[Korashy]

Combat isn't that random if you understand how and when and why tactics are chosen for each flank/the center. Martial stat is important, but traits and culture are much more important.

 

[Simplethunder]

I really find it a shame that the combat works the way it works in CK2. I avoid it. Mostly due to it's randomness.
If you want to try something different or are just getting too frustrated by "unfair" losses, try defensive tactics for a change. Win by sieging. Takes a lot of time, but it's a very different approach to medieval warfare. One that lies a lot closer to reality than every war being decided by a pitched battle.

 

[mr.boguss]

Exactly medieval warfare was BASED on sieges and raids on nemey lands.

 

[Rognvaldr19]

I have to say that I like the fighting style in CKII, it's all about tactics, what troops you use, if the terrain is going to work in your favour, how good your generals are, the attrition in different territories and soon even the weather you face. It may be pretty arbitrary in certain ways but it is a simulation and not the real thing (as much as we wish it was).

 

[Steel_atlas]

The problem with CK 2 combat is that it has a veery steep learning curve and the real strategic elements dont exsist untill you can get large amount of retinues.

But when your fighting with levies its really just a numbers game.

 

[Korashy]

The problem with CK 2 combat is that it has a veery steep learning curve and the real strategic elements dont exsist untill you can get large amount of retinues.

But when your fighting with levies its really just a numbers game.

Pretty much this.

 

[DesNibelungen]

Read up on the battle of Agincourt. Then come back and tell us how medieval warfare should be more organized and logical.

 

[Korashy]

Read up on the battle of Agincourt. Then come back and tell us how medieval warfare should be more organized and logical.

I don't think Agincourt is a good comparison to the average medieval battle.

 

[Mauer]

I just wish there was an option to make certain holdings focus or certain unit types rather than depending on retinues, and to a smaller extent mercenaries, to make proper use of battle tactics and commander traits.

I still think it's better than EU4's optimal unit type ratios and straight forward stacking of morale and discipline bonuses.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I just wish there was an option to make certain holdings focus or certain unit types rather than depending on retinues, and to a smaller extent mercenaries, to make proper use of battle tactics and commander traits.

I still think it's better than EU4's optimal unit type ratios and straight forward stacking of morale and discipline bonuses.

To an extent you can affect the proportions of your levy early on by which buildings you build. Later on of course once you begin to fill out the options in your holdings it gets a bit samey.
How would you make certain holdings focus on particular units? As it stands at the moment everything is buildable in a particular holding type with the exception of cultural units, which are obviously restricted.

 

[DeaTh-ShiNoBi]

I've quite extensively looked at the combat tactics file and examined it. What makes combat so random in this game is the extremely overpowering "rock-paper-scissors" aspect of it. Each tactic group has another tactic group that counters it. This counter gives a 100% damage modifier to the flank (in addition to what the tactic already does), which is far superior to any tactic's regular bonuses. I'm fairly certain that martial skill of generals has no role in determining whether the general picks a tactic that counters their opponent or not. This 100% damage bonus is pretty overwhelming, and overshadows any other factors that may be affecting the battle, such as terrain, skill of generals, and quality of tactic (i.e. "Superior Charge tactic" or "Failed Charge tactic"). This is why you may find very surprising battle results, at times.

Was this intended? Who knows. Other people in this thread have already mentioned that battles in Medieval warfare were pretty uncertain, at best. The best way to avoid ridiculous swings in battle due to tactic countering is to bring more units to a battle than necessary. Never commit to a battle on plains with similar numbers as your opponent unless you really need to take a risk because it's pretty much a 50-50 tossup whether you'll win or not, and that isn't unrealistic in the slightest. On plains, make sure you have at least 25-50% more troops than your opponent, or more, and if you're attacking into a terrain penalty, go with no less than 50% higher numbers, or better yet, double their numbers or more. If you're defending with a terrain advantage, then you can afford to have slightly less numbers than the opponent, but don't overrate the terrain too much. You can easily lose a battle where your opponent attacked over a river into mountains if you have more than 20% less troops than them. It all comes down to practicality. Don't commit to battles without certainty that you'll win. Battles were very rare in Medieval warfare, and this is why.

As for combat in CK2 versus combat in EU4, I think I like CK2's combat better, but there are some aspects of EU4's combat that I would like to see in this game. For one, defending in mountains can seem a little weak in CK2, at times. All units in CK2 can attack at once, so if the enemy is attacking you with double your number in the mountains, you're bound to lose, hard, and you probably wont' even inflict many casualties on the enemy. This is where I prefer the system in EU4 that limited the scope of the battle in mountains, such that a small army defending in the mountains might not win against a huge army, but at least they'll inflict an appropriately large amount of casualties.

Other aspects of EU4's combat, are much worse, I think. I don't like how terrain penalties are applied in EU4. They can be stacked to the point where units can be dealing practically 0 damage, and I think it's a bit silly, at times. For instance, if you're getting a -4 penalty to shock and your general sucks (let's say he has 0 shock), then you might not even be able to defeat a stack of 1000 infantry with 5000 infantry because yours aren't dealing any damage. In addition, I dislike how discipline works in EU4, and stacking it can be a bit overpowered. Especially when you throw in National bonuses like Prussia's +infinity discipline. If you've got lower discipline than your opponent, then you might need a ridiculously higher number of troops to avoid higher losses than him, even when you win battles.

 

[Korashy]

I've quite extensively looked at the combat tactics file and examined it. What makes combat so random in this game is the extremely overpowering "rock-paper-scissors" aspect of it. Each tactic group has another tactic group that counters it. This counter gives a 100% damage modifier to the flank (in addition to what the tactic already does), which is far superior to any tactic's regular bonuses. I'm fairly certain that martial skill of generals has no role in determining whether the general picks a tactic that counters their opponent or not. This 100% damage bonus is pretty overwhelming, and overshadows any other factors that may be affecting the battle, such as terrain, skill of generals, and quality of tactic (i.e. "Superior Charge tactic" or "Failed Charge tactic"). This is why you may find very surprising battle results, at times.

Was this intended? Who knows. Other people in this thread have already mentioned that battles in Medieval warfare were pretty uncertain, at best. The best way to avoid ridiculous swings in battle due to tactic countering is to bring more units to a battle than necessary. Never commit to a battle on plains with similar numbers as your opponent unless you really need to take a risk because it's pretty much a 50-50 tossup whether you'll win or not, and that isn't unrealistic in the slightest. On plains, make sure you have at least 25-50% more troops than your opponent, or more, and if you're attacking into a terrain penalty, go with no less than 50% higher numbers, or better yet, double their numbers or more. If you're defending with a terrain advantage, then you can afford to have slightly less numbers than the opponent, but don't overrate the terrain too much. You can easily lose a battle where your opponent attacked over a river into mountains if you have more than 20% less troops than them. It all comes down to practicality. Don't commit to battles without certainty that you'll win. Battles were very rare in Medieval warfare, and this is why.

Martial impacts probability of the tactics chosen and unlock/bars certain tactics. Usually marshal of 16 allows you to roll the best tactics as long as you fulfil other conditions. Low marshal "unlocks" terrible tactics.

 

[DeaTh-ShiNoBi]

Martial impacts probability of the tactics chosen and unlock/bars certain tactics. Usually marshal of 16 allows you to roll the best tactics as long as you fulfil other conditions. Low marshal "unlocks" terrible tactics.

Yes I realize this is true, but that doesn't change the tactic group, which is the important part. Your general might choose "Superior Charge Tactic," but if your opponent chooses "Failed Stand Fast tactic," then you are going to get crushed.

 

[darthfanta]

Honestly,battles were a bit random in the past. Luck was an enormous factor. Careful planning can mitigate this to some extent though.

 

[Mike Louis]

Combat in CK2 is mostly decided by two things: numbers and perhaps more importantly, the quality of your commanders. 10+ martial stat leaders don't grow on trees, so therefore as an independent ruler it's important to pick the best person to lead your troops if your character isn't going to lead them his/herself. It also important to educate your potential future commanders while they're children so that you'll have decent to excellent commanders every generation. Now my last point will be ahistorical, but it can mean the difference between keeping your realm and game over. I suggest you mod the marshal section of the job_titles.txt file so that female commanders can be enabled. I know it will go against the cultural norms of Medieval Europe; but this is CK2, not the History Channel. You'll need every 10+ general you can get when you're up against enemy doomstacks. If the price of keeping your throne is either your wife and or daughter(s) potentially being maimed or killed in battle, so be it. You can always remarry and have more children. Don't let traditional gender roles keep you from utilizing good commanders, thus leading to a potential game over. Remember the aim of CK2 is the survival of your dynasty and realm by any means necessary.