Could We Please Have a Random Element to Combat?

I disbelieve that adding in additional factors is beyond the engine. We should have a weather map mode and temperature, mud, ice and snow modifiers, as well as an infrastructure mapmode. Let me think about this.

1. More Attrition factors:

- range from closest base / supply train (in number of days)
- more terrain attrition (esp. in mountain, desert, etc), yeah, I know it can be really annoying for the player, but it's only fair, IMO...
- climate and seasonal changes (snow, ice, rain, scorching sun, etc)


2. More troop-category specific penalties due to terrain (Heavy Cavalry in the Alps should be rendered useless, for example, or in marshes)


3. Better morale for locals (A local army has better knowledge of the terrain than the invader, which should provide a significant advantage in battle)


4. More random events, like in sieges:

- more commander's competence/incompetence
- strategic moves when commander is skilled enough, suicidal moves when commander is incompetent or mad
- psychological warfare (enthusiasm, demoralisation, rumors, ...)


5. Exponential maintenance costs

- for larger armies,
- or for distant wars (So that an AI Empire couldn't spam the totality of its Doomstacks for each and every ally or minor war at the other side of the map, except, maybe, for crusades and jihads?)

Having roll of dice to decide the battle would be plain silly. I'll admit that I would probably fall from my chair and choke to laughter if my ruler would beat 3000 Turks with few dozen men and after that I would get event with the picture of Richard IV from Blackadder after the returned from Crusade where he armed with rusty potato knife fought his way through hordes of Turks. That would be priceless but not that good in long run game-wise.


There's randomness with the effect of battles. I have got splendid plans ruined when my ruler has managed to get himself killed in battle or died soon to his wounds. Civil war in the middle of foreign invasion just spices things up the atmosphere "nicely".

The game needs more battle and siege events that are related to commanders skills & traits. I could accept some limitations of free choice to make the immersion of better. For example commander with brave/diligent/just/proud/zealous/wroth/crusader traits would have higher chance for duel event popping up where he would be asked to duel with the commander of the enemy army/fortress that being sieged and there would be high penalties (high prestige/piety loss + chance for getting craven/slothful traits) for refusal.

And like others have mentioned defense should be seriously boosted, terrain and attrition should mean a lot more. Defending army (even if it would be considerably smaller than the attacking force) should have way better changes of winning the battle if the terrain favors it: mountains, forests (especially against cavalry), against ambitious assault, rivers. At the current state they have too small effect. The commander traits were step to the right direction but lots of extra stuff needs to be added and tweaked to make the combat better. Weather effects would probably be outside the scope of game engine but still lot of stuff could be added to spice and make the battles to make more sense.

About climate/weather, apparently Paradox initially intended to handle climate, at least in graphical terms, since there is an empty file called "climate.txt" in Crusader Kings II\map.
Wonder if that meant "seasonal changes", changing weather, or attrition modifiers, and why it's been left empty so far.

I thought id Throw my opinion in in my Current game, i had all three of my commanders leading the battle at 20martial or above with an army of 3000 vs an army of 1000 and lost many times. So i restarted thinking this is bull there commanders are in the 10-12 range how are they winning, so when i restarted they managed to get allies to help them so now it was 3000vs5000+ and i ended up winning yet they still outnumbered me when they retreated but because of the moral drop i was constantly able to win. I guess my point is that it does have some randomness to it. yet to me it seems thats just what it is random, it has nothing to do with skill or anything, because i had way more Heavy and light cavalry. So i think they should just add another dice to the battle to account for commander skill with a higher roll showing a higher chance of winning. or just make it so that the modifiers for having more martial skill makes u vastly better, cause really ive seen battles where a commander with a 18 lost to smaller army with a weaker commander.

Molossis said:

I thought id Throw my opinion in in my Current game, i had all three of my commanders leading the battle at 20martial or above with an army of 3000 vs an army of 1000 and lost many times. So i restarted thinking this is bull there commanders are in the 10-12 range how are they winning, so when i restarted they managed to get allies to help them so now it was 3000vs5000+ and i ended up winning yet they still outnumbered me when they retreated but because of the moral drop i was constantly able to win. I guess my point is that it does have some randomness to it. yet to me it seems thats just what it is random, it has nothing to do with skill or anything, because i had way more Heavy and light cavalry. So i think they should just add another dice to the battle to account for commander skill with a higher roll showing a higher chance of winning. or just make it so that the modifiers for having more martial skill makes u vastly better, cause really ive seen battles where a commander with a 18 lost to smaller army with a weaker commander.

Click to expand...

There are so many factors involved, like the formation and flank organization. You probably attacked over a river, which can make things like that happen.

Even if nothing else, the morale of the men is always going to be slightly random IRL, therefore it should be as well ingame. I certainly think a completely random +/- 0-10% or 0-20% factor would be fine and it should be ingame if something similar isn't already (random tactics doesn't count).

liamgamer55 said:

Even if nothing else, the morale of the men is always going to be slightly random IRL, therefore it should be as well ingame. I certainly think a completely random +/- 0-10% or 0-20% factor would be fine and it should be ingame if something similar isn't already (random tactics doesn't count).

Click to expand...

IRL, morale depends on training, and individual mettle. That can't possibly be simulated in game, but I prefer to play Risk when I want to rely on luck.

No. I understand wanting combat to be less predictable, especially in close battles, but we should try to do that through actual simulation of more real life conditions rather than considering a completely random variable.

Just adding a random bit to battles isn't a very good idea as it could lead to -really- weird results. What might be cool is actually adding random mini-events to battles that might have temporary bonuses or affect certain troop types. For example, a sudden rain would make it harder for archers to fire or heavy infantry to move, but this would affect -both- sides, so troop composition would matter there. The armies could also get mini-events like "lucky flank," where you manage to flank an enemy group thanks to some luck on the battlefield; certain leader attributes would make these more or less likely, of course. The effects of these events would be short (a few days at most) and really only cause a difference in losses, but it would add a bit of randomness.

Overall, I think having a random element in battle would be cool, but just having both sides roll dice is too simplistic and would have too many issues.

I must completely agree with the OP in the sense that the system needs some fixing, although inserting a non-disguised "dice roll" might upset many people. Still,
as of today I think that the military aspect of the game is really lacking (and sure, it is a dynastic simulator, but war, at least in my games, it always a very relevant aspect: I could play say without heresy or legitimizing a bastard, but I wouldn't without warfare).
I too rarely saw smaller armies win, but usually it is holy orders with so much more heavy cavalry than the enemy, or very evenly matched forces with some river crossing modifier.
Without hoping in a rewrite of the combat system (something that I see as very unlikely), I would argue that as of today the best way to give an element of randomness to combat would be to increase even more the effect of combat modifiers (who are probably the intended dice roll). I never really had much interest in them so I actually can't say to know them well, but I guess that they must not be so much decisive, either because their effetct is too weak or because they last too shortly.
What I mean is that in a scenario of 5k vs 7k (and as of today, 7k will totally destroy 5k), 7k would, with both sides getting average tactics, beat 5k. However, if 5k gets a good-very good tactics without 7k getting it, there it might be a chance of victory for the lesser side. maybe 5k would get an average roll, but then 7k gets a completely horrible roll and 5k still manages to win. Or maybe, 7k gets the best tactics and 5k the worst, with 5k being completely defeated.
I think this solution should work, because A) doesn't require engine rewrite, B)is moddable, so doesn't need to be enforced on all and C) having better commanders will help increase the odds, so is not too wild. I am not too good at modding CK2 so I don't feel I can undertake such task, but I am sure somebody else might feel the same and be good at modding. Or I might just learn

Attrition needs to be improved too I guess, and maybe slow down morale recover. Or any other ideas to eliminate doomstack-vs-doomstack fight. As of today, the game's fighting aspect is fit only for a masculinist: wins the one with the bigger...army

Marconius said:

Just adding a random bit to battles isn't a very good idea as it could lead to -really- weird results. What might be cool is actually adding random mini-events to battles that might have temporary bonuses or affect certain troop types. For example, a sudden rain would make it harder for archers to fire or heavy infantry to move, but this would affect -both- sides, so troop composition would matter there. The armies could also get mini-events like "lucky flank," where you manage to flank an enemy group thanks to some luck on the battlefield; certain leader attributes would make these more or less likely, of course. The effects of these events would be short (a few days at most) and really only cause a difference in losses, but it would add a bit of randomness.

Overall, I think having a random element in battle would be cool, but just having both sides roll dice is too simplistic and would have too many issues.

Click to expand...

Thats what i was trying to explain but failed at it. haha, i think that the higher your martial skill the higher chance that you should get like mini events in the game that help with victory, with that being said that doesnt mean that if you martial is 25 you wont always get a flanking event but compared to a 10-15 martial you should get it like 20% more or something. that would allow even much smaller armies to at least have a decent chance of winning or an army with lots of heavy cavalry facing a large army of archers and light infantry to win.

I feel like some of the most important battles in history are impossible in CK II - it's the likely outcome every time. Why couldn't a local general hit with a devistating ambush? Set up in front of a local marsh?

Incidents at the start of the battle would be good, especially for the aggressor to decide wither to attack or not: the defender knowing what he's chosen/ the attacker perhaps uncertain of what is really going to happen.