Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

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

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69864 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10587 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
Show only dev responses
palmtree

palmtree

Second Lieutenant
104 Badges
May 17, 2006
115
0
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Rome Gold
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Victoria 2
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2 Collection
While I can clearly see the work Paradox has done with the battles my experience in the game has been tat the outcomes are far less varied than in EU3. A force that outnumbers the enemy will win almost every time. There are exceptions, of course, but they're rare. If 14k men face off against 12k men then the superior numbers will win. In EU3 a highly skilled general could make up the difference but I never see that happening in CK2.

The only time I have ever seen a force of inferior numbers win on a regular basis was when I hired the templars on a crusade and there is no way to get anywhere near their numbers of heavy cavalry in an army as a player.

Historical battles in this time did not hinge purely on numbers, a skilled commander with 10k troops could beat twice their number in favourable circumstances but in CK2 this just never happens. Numbers should count, but skill should count too. Right now even a slight advantage in numbers will allow almost any army to win. What I want, most of all, is more variance. Make the underdog win once in a while.
 
change the flank leader bonus in defines.lua to 0.03 (from 0.02 at the moment as of 1.03b). Apart from making leaders matter more, it also means that if you send a one-flank army of mercs up against an equally sized army of three flanks, you're still in trouble.

After I did this, it changed my game a lot. All of a sudden you're desperately searching for good leaders. And if you're up against an army led by Saladin and his two cousins, you're scared.
 
Type of troops actually matter. Lots of light infantry against other, stronger troop types often means the army with the more solid troops wins. Morale matters as well, so build those buildings that give morale bonuses. Leaders are also important, but not as much as in many other Paradox titles. Take the Crusading Orders for instance . . . I see them constantly take on larger forces and win. Not double their number, but bigger.
 
Your opinion is erroneous, sir.

When it comes to battle it does matter not only what numbers do you have but also where do you have them. If your army lacks light troops, you'll have serious troubles withstanding the skirmish phase or you'll take heavy loses in it. But once the fight gets to meele, you'll have your say unless the opponent has enough heavy troops or yours were seriously beaten in skirmish.

Another thing is troops arrangement. My favourite tactic is to cumulate greater number of people on one flank while leaving the middle and other flank with only core troops that can hold off for a longer while. this way I can rout usually one enemy's flank and support my others.

Last but not least are the leaders. Leader's skills determine what tactics he choses and how quickly he can react adapting his tactics to enemy's moves.
 
That's been my experience as well, but I actually kind of like it. The last Paradox game I played was EU:Rome, and the dice roll system in that game made me want to rip my hair out. The dice rolls were all that mattered; you could have an army substantially larger than you opponent's with a better general and two bad dice rolls could completely demolish your army.

At least under this regime you can plan and forecast what will happen in a given engagement.
 
combat_tactics.txt

There is skirmish, melee and pursuit phase.
Martial skill and troop compostition have a serious effect on the tactics used, but the actual benefits are rather limited.
I guess even terrain is more important than combat randomness (although I remember I lost one out of several dozen major battles due to bad tactic selection).
 
onetthome said:
There's a skirmish phase? I thought it was just two armies standing and trading. Where is this stuff written? I did all the tutorials and had no idea of that.
Click to expand...

If you click your army during a battle you'll se whats going on down there. Moreover, each flank can go from skirmish to meele regardless what other flanks are doing.
No idea what are these dependant on though...
 
I have found the same thing as in the origional post, which bothers me slightly, but not as much as no attrition and HRE Crusade for spain!


richelieu1628 said:
change the flank leader bonus in defines.lua to 0.03 (from 0.02 at the moment as of 1.03b). Apart from making leaders matter more, it also means that if you send a one-flank army of mercs up against an equally sized army of three flanks, you're still in trouble.

After I did this, it changed my game a lot. All of a sudden you're desperately searching for good leaders. And if you're up against an army led by Saladin and his two cousins, you're scared.
Click to expand...

This seems quite a good idea, maybe some hot fixes for things should be put together in the mod forum?
 
Psyborg said:
Your opinion is erroneous, sir.

When it comes to battle it does matter not only what numbers do you have but also where do you have them. If your army lacks light troops, you'll have serious troubles withstanding the skirmish phase or you'll take heavy loses in it. But once the fight gets to meele, you'll have your say unless the opponent has enough heavy troops or yours were seriously beaten in skirmish.

Another thing is troops arrangement. My favourite tactic is to cumulate greater number of people on one flank while leaving the middle and other flank with only core troops that can hold off for a longer while. this way I can rout usually one enemy's flank and support my others.

Last but not least are the leaders. Leader's skills determine what tactics he choses and how quickly he can react adapting his tactics to enemy's moves.
Click to expand...

My opinion is based on fighting hundreds of battles in CK2. I can see all the bonuses for flanking and skirmishing and the tactics play out, I know the modifiers, but they are just not enough to counter superior numbers and that is a problem. The only armies I have ever seen capable of beating superior numbers are the crusading orders and that's because they have a core of a lot of heavy knights, something that no player army will ever be able to match.

I would like for it to be possible, on rare occasions, for a small but well-led army to beat an opposing force of 1.5 times their numbers or more. In the current system that is just not something that ever happens.
 
The Andy-Man said:
I have found the same thing as in the origional post, which bothers me slightly, but not as much as no attrition and HRE Crusade for spain!




This seems quite a good idea, maybe some hot fixes for things should be put together in the mod forum?
Click to expand...

While I love messing around with mods I would prefer it if Paradox would adress this issue directly. They went to a lot of trouble with the new battle system and I'd like to see them refine it to a point where it can produce more interesting results.
 
palmtree said:
The only armies I have ever seen capable of beating superior numbers are the crusading orders and that's because they have a core of a lot of heavy knights, something that no player army will ever be able to match.
Click to expand...
The core of heavy cavalry is important, but it also helps that the orders tend to show up in a single mega-flank. I've seen other super-single-flank armies beat superior numbers without heavy cavalry.
 
When a 10,000 strong army led by a skill 25 marshal will regularly lose to a 12,000 strong army led by skill 10 counts special traits wouldn't matter in the slightest.
 
palmtree said:
When a 10,000 strong army led by a skill 25 marshal will regularly lose to a 12,000 strong army led by skill 10 counts special traits wouldn't matter in the slightest.
Click to expand...

This is very true. Especially because European history is chockful of exactly the opposite. About every single of our countries has stories like this that we learn in school. Great battles won against all odds, due to terrain, troop composition and placement, and especially the skill of their leader.

I too am a bit disappointed at how battles outcomes in CKII are so easy to predict. I certainly don't expect to see miracle outcomes every 20 or 30 or even 100 battles. But it has at least become very clear after looking at many surviving stacks of two large armies after their fought, that troop numbers are having too much weight in the current algorithms.
 
palmtree said:
When a 10,000 strong army led by a skill 25 marshal will regularly lose to a 12,000 strong army led by skill 10 counts special traits wouldn't matter in the slightest.
Click to expand...

This will ONLY happen if the 25 marshall is attacking in bad terrain. Else, if defending in good terrain 90% times he WILL win.

Biggest problem with combat is the levy and reinforcement system (with enemies that ressurect their whole army if you destroy it completely), not Martial giving too few bonuses.
 
Well, I think I know where the "only numbers matter" part comes from. Generally, if you are fighting similar-culture and thus similarly equipped armies, it ends up being a numbers battle. I played as Connaught and Moray first, so I basically fought other Scotsmen, Irishmen and the occasional english invasion (which always won due to crushing english numerical superiority).
Then I played as Kiev and suddenly it turned out taht fighting very different armies is quite a game-changer.
 
I agree with palmtree.What I´ve seen in my 30 hours of multiplayer gameplay that always the bigger armies win the battles.I would like a completly different combat system.Not just size of an army should count...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back