Combat outcomes. Numbers seem to be the only thing that counts.

[N Katsyev]

Even if the outcome (win/loss) of battles is pretty well pre-determined by size, other effects do indeed matter. Attacking across a river into the mountains will still make you suffer unnecessary losses even if you will "win". I think there's some polishing to be done, but it is a great battle system with a ton of potential.

[Rob de Hard]

Even if the outcome (win/loss) of battles is pretty well pre-determined by size, other effects do indeed matter. Attacking across a river into the mountains will still make you suffer unnecessary losses even if you will "win". I think there's some polishing to be done, but it is a great battle system with a ton of potential.

100% agree. I think that CK2 in it's entirity falls in to this category at the moment. It is an amazing release candidate with obviously a lot of polishing left to do. Which I am sure we'll get in coming months and expansions.

Don't forget also that a lot of people are waiting for it to be 'more complete' before they start their grand modification projects. Its early days.

[palmtree]

The potential is there, I mean I really like the changes they made to the battle system. Hell, I even find myself wishing that they'd actually treat grand battles like the pivotal events they are and do event chains around them or hail the victorious general or stuff like that. But that means that someone, preferably Paradox, actually has to go to work on the combat system including buildings and army composition until it provides battle outcomes where the underdog has a chance of winning.

[S0ny B1ack]

This is actually imo a pretty good idea and could even be expanded on. You could even give characters a skill rating for each phase as well to boost it even further. Say being able to click or mouse over the martial stat and get a breakdown of the three phases perhaps? Then picking commanders for proper slots would make me feel at least a little more involved in the battles and their outcomes.

I think that i've read somewhere (not 100% sure though) that certain traits can affect if a leader tries to make a phase last longer - i think that it has been said taht for example a coward will try to stay in the skirmish phase for longer, while a brave character might "rush" into close combat.

But as i said i'm not sure on that, so please correct me if i'm wrong

[AllThat4Nothing]

I understand that there are modifiers to unit types, and I have seen firsthand how geographical features can greatly benefit the defender and severly hamper the attacker (medieval amphibious beach assaults...), but, on the whole, it really does seem that for the most part, more numbers = win. Personally I'm ok with that. CKII isn't a HoI clone, nor should it be.

[Fargham]

I strongly disagree with the OP. I have found numerous situations in which morale, terrain, leader abilities and technology allow my 10k army to defeat a 15k stack. I too have 'hundreds' of battles that I have watched. The fight is close, and one I try to avoid at all costs, but generally parts of the lesser army start fleeing earlier than mine, and that is enough to turn the battle in my favor. Additionally, I have had the opposite happen, where a leader died and I didn't notice, a 18k army crossed a river and was destroyed by a well led 14k stack. Technology was similar in this case, unfortunately i wasn't paying attention to the pause/unpause popups and the army crossed over when I should have stopped them.

[AllThat4Nothing]

I strongly disagree with the OP. I have found numerous situations in which morale, terrain, leader abilities and technology allow my 10k army to defeat a 15k stack

no offense but I find that difficult to believe. maybe our definitions of "numerous" aren't quite the same...