• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

ajarnlance

Second Lieutenant
62 Badges
May 27, 2010
111
56
  • For the Motherland
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • March of the Eagles
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pride of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Victoria 2
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
Love the game, probably the best paradox game yet. However, I do feel the tactical options with the battles could be improved. I would like a pre-battle screen where I could arrange the basic disposition of my army. I want to put cavalry on the flanks and heavy infantry in the center. Also I want to decide how many men are in each flank. How about the ability to set postures? For example, against a superior melee opponent I choose to use 'Fabian tactics' and try to avoid closing to melee by staying in skirmish mode as long as possible. The moors used this tactic very effectively against the heavilly armoured crusader knights in the holy land; in fact they wouldn't close for combat until the crusaders were completely exhausted. My success would depend on leader ability and compostion of the troops in my army. Alternatively I could choose to 'close with enemy asap' and push for melee quickly. Talented commanders should also be able to make more use of terrain, especially in defence. There also need to be options for encirclement (Cannae style), ambushes, outflanking an enemy etc.. Perhaps research could develop certain tactical approaches.

I am trying to avoid a situation like the one that happened to me in a recent game: my martial score 27 military genius general put my light cavalry in the center against the enemy heavy infantry. Needless to say they were massacred while my heavy infantry watched from the wings???!!! Another suggestion is to add another line/ rank in the army line up. That way the archers can go forward into the front rank during skirmish mode while they retire behind the heavy infantry during close combat. You should also be able to define a reserve that can be held back to throw in if things are desperate or to cover a retreat if things go badly. This whole area just needs more thought and attention to detail/ realism. I don't think anyone wants to see Total War style battles.. that would take too long to play a game. Just give us more control over how to fight our battles. Thanks!
 
Thanks but it looks like that game hasn't been updated for about five years. I just watched a promo for the upcoming Napoleon's Campaigns 2 and the tactical aspect of that game could easily be incorporated into CK2. It looks like it is going to be an awesome game...
 
IMO leader stats, army composition, terrain and random factor should influence battles more, because (in the demo at least) 99% of battles are won by side with more men, even if numbers are close.
 
CKII battles is all about outnumbering your enemies and then watch your armies roll on the enemy. I've never seen a stack winning against an enemy that outnumbers it by more than 50% (unless said enemy has absolutely no commander). All that non-sense with different troop type seems quite obsolete even if they supposedly have theoretically-meaningful purposes.
 
IMO leader stats, army composition, terrain and random factor should influence battles more, because (in the demo at least) 99% of battles are won by side with more men, even if numbers are close.

I believe in the latest patch the effect of leader stats and flanking bonuses were tweaked to be greater.

As for the OP, you do have far more control than you did in say Eu3. For instance you can put army units that have lighter composition on the flank (coming from cities for instance) whereas you concentrate your baronies or mercs in the middle. If you have more developed cavalry buildings in one barony, you could put that unit on a flank, leading to a greater local cavalry advantage. I'm quite pleased with how they've worked this actually.

The only thing that I don't seem to see quite as much difference from is terrain. And I'm still not sure what the effect of forest is, if any, other than perhaps making marching times longer? I'd really love a detailed list of various terrain effects more than just the tooltip effects we see in the game for hills, mountain, crossing...

(I did also like the mechanic from Eu3 where provinces consisted of percentages of terrain allowing battles in mountainous areas being fought in valleys, etc.)
 
CKII battles is all about outnumbering your enemies and then watch your armies roll on the enemy. I've never seen a stack winning against an enemy that outnumbers it by more than 50% (unless said enemy has absolutely no commander). All that non-sense with different troop type seems quite obsolete even if they supposedly have theoretically-meaningful purposes.
Difference in troop types matters. Unfortunately, due to the way buildings work, the composition of most armies is very simmilar.
Look at this battle for example.

e00j7o.jpg


This is Ireland vs Damascus. However, despite both countries being on completely opposite sides of the map, you can see that the only real difference in composition is that half of the muslim cavalry are horse archers. Beyond that, there's no substantial difference. This is even worse with battles between two western armies, because they have no horse archers, making their armies' composition almost identically. So because of this, any advantage troop types could provide, are usually cancelled out.

Now troop types can give you an advantage. For example, in this battle, I had a clear advantage in heavy cavarly, which decided the battle.

flkk92.jpg
 
Difference in troop types matters. Unfortunately, due to the way buildings work, the composition of most armies is very simmilar.
...

True story. :( More cultural variability would indeed be nice and yet I can also see the danger of balancing issues. I know I have been particularly happy though when building caballero buildings in Spain and then seeing my levies come out with the light cavalry sprite due to the sheer number of enhanced attack jinetes. I haven't played enough outside of Spain yet to know what other such culture buildings are available, my girlfriend and I are doing an MP Ireland game and I've noticed there doesn't seem to be any such thing.
 
Difference in troop types matters. Unfortunately, due to the way buildings work, the composition of most armies is very simmilar.
Look at this battle for example...
That's kind of the point. Not to mention, castles give the most and the best troops. Unless your realm is mostly consisted of cities and bishoprics, it's not going to make a huge difference. Castles are the only things I build because after some point, your income (i.e. 100+) would be so high that there isn't anything pressing you can't afford.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What bothers me most is that not only does a slight numerical advantage almost always win, the way battles work means it almost always slaughters the other side. So when the battle is over, a battle between 1300 and 1500 ends with a wiped stack of 300 and a winning stack of 1100. That seems off, no?
 
What bothers me most is that not only does a slight numerical advantage almost always win, the way battles work means it almost always slaughters the other side. So when the battle is over, a battle between 1300 and 1500 ends with a wiped stack of 300 and a winning stack of 1100. That seems off, no?

I don't think so, this is pretty well depicted. Battles weren't usually long slugfests but generally a test of mettle until one side or the other collapsed and went to rout. Actual combat deaths were few compared to the numbers cut down while they ran or taken captive or dispersed.
 
I can understand the decision not to let us decide how to deploy troops for each battle etc as we aren't meant to be that involved due to scale of the game. That said I do hope that the engine or mechanics of the game do take into account that troops from western europe are not equipped nor fight anything like troops from what we now call the middle east area. I would love to see that kind of difference modeled tbh so that campaigns of the sort run by Richard vs Saladin can occur in the game. I have played CK2 quite a bit since it was released but I haven't even bothered to participate in a Crusade yet as I have enough on my plate the last two games playing as a Count and Duke. :)

Also from what I understand most fighting done in this period consisted of a lot of unimaginative strategy between western europeans to the point that some authors are downright insulting regarding battlefield commanders of the period. Form two big blobs and run at each other and start hacking pretty much. :p I'm sure there where exceptions tho
 
True story. :( More cultural variability would indeed be nice and yet I can also see the danger of balancing issues. I know I have been particularly happy though when building caballero buildings in Spain and then seeing my levies come out with the light cavalry sprite due to the sheer number of enhanced attack jinetes. I haven't played enough outside of Spain yet to know what other such culture buildings are available, my girlfriend and I are doing an MP Ireland game and I've noticed there doesn't seem to be any such thing.
Yeah. Unfortunately, Ireland doesn't have a unique building.

It would be nice to see something like Gallóglaigh camps (heavyy infantry) or Hobelar stables (Light Cavalry) for the Irish. Though I'm sure everyone wants a unique building for some culture that doesn't have one yet :)
 
IMO leader stats, army composition, terrain and random factor should influence battles more, because (in the demo at least) 99% of battles are won by side with more men, even if numbers are close.

This. Numbers win battles. That's it. Hands down. I've seen battles where one side has three 20+ generals and they're sitting on hills only to lose to an army with three sub-12 generals and only about 20% more men.
 
I wish they could combine battles from Mount n Blade, even Total War into this game, that would be frickin awesome. I would pay 200 dollars for a game like that.
 
There's a problem with single-flank stacks winning everything with small losses. Mercenaries more so than holy orders.

This. Huge single flank armies just annihilate anything in front of them, even if they are being flanked on all sides. And numbers in general matter too much and terrain, generals, and tactics matter too little.
 
I agree Its also weird that you cant seperate the original baronies troops from the comanders thats assigned to them when u raise them while i can see some want to be witht he men you brought to the army i dont see a comander giving up a gerneralship of the right cavalry to lead his cities light infantry and archers. Also shouldnt there be some kind of tactics special to specific cultures? i just dont think id see a leon/castile general leading his 5 heavy cav against a french hold the line with 8 pikes when the iberian dude has a ton of light cav and the frenchy has a ton oh heavy cav
 
I wish they could combine battles from Mount n Blade, even Total War into this game, that would be frickin awesome. I would pay 200 dollars for a game like that.

Pipe dreams are always nice.
 
Thats exactly the one reason where the three classes power system in CK1 worked quite well. You could have different armies, by giving each class (peasants, burghers, church) different powers and by that different sets of armies. On other aspects it was rather tedious micro, but there it was really working well.