So Seljuks decided to attack me. One of their doomstacks was lead by their sultan. I killed all of them, but the leader magically teleported to another army some 56356986472km away. How is this possible and do they plan to fix it. If I killed entire army down to 0 soldiers, the leader should die as well. It just ruined fun for me...
Killed entire army, but not the leader :C
- Thread starter Mjolnersson
- Start date
-
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.
The leader got away; like any real king or duke, he slipped away from the lost fight as soon as he could (He's too important!).
The teleporting is just mechanics.
The teleporting is just mechanics.
You killed the army, but you didn't kill all the soldiers.
There are many ways you can destroy an army: killing is only one of them. In these battles, morale matters more than pure killing ability. As you do cut down men and engage aggressively, the opposition will begin to lose heart. They aren't just fleeing the battle, a shamefrul dispray, but they desert. Many flee and avoid their old lives to hide from the shame. Some run from the battlefield and return to their homes, choosing the safety of the plough. Many flee, to be considered as losses for the battle, to reconsolidate elsewhere and rise back up as diminished levies.
So, tons of those defeated soldiers might not actually be dead, the Sultan being one of them. He fled combat, effectively removing his unit from the fight. -1 soldier, as his removal from combat counts him as a loss.
There are many ways you can destroy an army: killing is only one of them. In these battles, morale matters more than pure killing ability. As you do cut down men and engage aggressively, the opposition will begin to lose heart. They aren't just fleeing the battle, a shamefrul dispray, but they desert. Many flee and avoid their old lives to hide from the shame. Some run from the battlefield and return to their homes, choosing the safety of the plough. Many flee, to be considered as losses for the battle, to reconsolidate elsewhere and rise back up as diminished levies.
So, tons of those defeated soldiers might not actually be dead, the Sultan being one of them. He fled combat, effectively removing his unit from the fight. -1 soldier, as his removal from combat counts him as a loss.
It does make me wonder, though, about what if troop count were to be affected by +1 whenever a general is assigned...
Yeah, keep in mind the combat here is an abstraction not like a perfect replica. When it says everyone is dead it just means the army has been completely routed and ceased to exist as a cohesive, fighting unit.
I have found this rather annoying it basically reduces the inclination to go for the kill and rather turns the war siegefest.
That's realistic. It was basically impossible to "go for the kill" in medieval warfare, which tended to be very much a siegefest. The game is, if anything, too forgiving of the anti-army strategy. Most of the time, a medieval army could not force another one to give battle, unless both wanted to do so. Giving battle was to a large extent a political decision, intended to pacify vassals who were annoyed with having their lands ravaged. Or, you fight in the field to prevent a siege.
Thanks for awesome reply. I was silly, not all of them must be dead, they just fled and ceased to be army. What you said makes perfect sense.
Notice how battles go on for days, weeks or even months? Notice how the numbers of men in each army shrink each day? Don't think every single man that disappears from the army is killed or captured. Some of them are deserting too. Soldiers always desert. A battle raging is the perfect time to slip away in fact! Everybody is focused on fighting! That's what the leaders of the army are doing. When they know it's lost... they're trying (and either failing or succeeding) to leave.
I support this to a extent but what i find stupid is the randomness with which the leader manages to escape to some other army at the other side of the realm . It is just as arbitary as the mechanic that randomly chooses someone from your court to defend a particular county that is under siege and how that character invariably escapes inspite of losing it. A better way solving this random teleportation would be to make the leader take refuge in this closest friendly county and to change the siege mechanic such that telepotation is not a option .
The game seems to show things in such a binary way: X dead, Y remaining but retreating. Going MIA and desertion aren't really shown.
If you had everybody surrounded and slaughtered, then perhaps the leader's escape would have seemed implausible but otherwise leaders generally tended to escape, especially the kind of Eastern-style leaders who didn't command from the front but from the rear.
If you had everybody surrounded and slaughtered, then perhaps the leader's escape would have seemed implausible but otherwise leaders generally tended to escape, especially the kind of Eastern-style leaders who didn't command from the front but from the rear.
Deserters and fleeing individuals don't count as the cohesive unit.
If you have an army of 500, you can have 100 dead and 50 fleeing individually. The game would reflect this as 350 soldiers remaining in the group and running away.
If I can get my wife in Brittany pregnant while Crusading in the Holy Land (3 times), then I don't think teleportation is too big of a stretch.
And the game is many times too forgiving when it comes to besieging another area. The besiegers should lose at least as often as they win, regardless of the numbers- if they siege a place too long attrition should start to dial up radically due to starvation.
Sieging was indeed something that didn't always go well for a number of reasons that didn't include a relief force such as trickery by the defenders. My favorite medieval story of breaking a siege which was a town that fed the last of their grain to a pig to fatten it up then catapulted the pig over the walls, the besiegers left soon afterwards.
It wouldn't be perfect, but perhaps escaped leaders from routed armies should be unavailable for a certain amount of time. They could use the pilgrim tag or something like that, modified perhaps by the army's distance to your closest holding or other army. Scotty the CK2 transporter officer would lose his job but it could make for more exciting warfare.
This is not that inaccurate though. It was not easy to completely kill army in the medieval and older days, unless you could pin them in somewhere.
Very often wars were decided only after the fall of certain important cities/castles.
One problem in CK2 is that the second you win the first battle it pretty much guarantees a complete route of the enemy forces by just running them down. They have almost no chance to retreat and reorganize (morale) unless they retreat into mountains with a long walking time.