Since the developers live in a place with "severe" winters, I guess they won't get this thing wrong...
Winter attrition game-breakingly broken
- Thread starter Thor1138
- 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.
Not attacking isn't an option when other people attack you. I was unable to defend my de jure Perm territories because the provinces in the middle suck.
I like the feature as a whole, but some areas are just not really feasible. Not being able to support your decidedly not giant army in your own homeland is silly.
Last edited:
Nope
Wait, yes: I think this was some French guy outraged by the Russian winter. Did he not propose that Russia should fix its weather?
But they haven't done this as of today! A terrible situation, it makes invading Russia unbalanced. Someone failed in WW2 again, i think.
But whom to blame? Putin? God?
So someone fix this issue in real-live, first.
In the far north east its virtually impossible to wage war until you have a high enough supply limit bonus. The sieges last an entire year and your army gets annihilated by the supply limit cause it drops to less than 300 sometimes. Because it takes forever to move you literally have less than a month of siege time and the rest is moving away from the damned stack so that you don't lose all your troops. Worse than that you can't break up prestige troops so that 2500 stack dies first.
Yeah, real-life winter is OP. Just ask those New Yorkers who got stuck in it a few days ago.So someone fix this issue in real-live, first.
And it's not even December.
Spent a long time in the early 2000s in the Army, and choosing between desert summers or mountain winters is a no-brainer. I'll roast alive before I ever freeze. Even with the best gear it sucks to be encamped in winter conditions.
This. If the game were truly realistic you wouldn't be able to fight in winter at all except in warm climates.
OP: Perhaps the reason you can't march your troops hundreds of miles in winter in a cold climate and have them survive is that in the time-frame of the game, you wouldn't have been able to march your troops hundreds of miles in winter in a cold climate and have them survive (or not desert at the very least).
I like the winter mechanics overall, but maybe the penalty shouldn't apply to troops that are travelling in their own territory.
I've never once suffered winter attrition and have been able to completely ignore it so far.
But you would think the locals are better equipped and more accustomed to the winter than foreign invaders. Perhaps a smaller penalty.
No they still should, but it should be at a severely decelerated rate. Like 15% for native northerners, 45% for Africans and Arabs, and 30% for middle Europe. Or something like this.
I'm confused. The OP says they had no way of preventing the losses, have they tried looking at the date?
I lost the best part of 30,000 retinue troops to winter attrition in a campaign in Italy - the lesson I learned was to send mercenaries.
The change is good. I like it.
I lost the best part of 30,000 retinue troops to winter attrition in a campaign in Italy - the lesson I learned was to send mercenaries.
The change is good. I like it.
I don't really care. I don't feel CK2 is anywhere realistic at modelling warfare anyway. For example, right now you can just muster troop on the border or even cross into other's land without any diplomatic consequences. Adding attrition does not make it much more immersive.
Gameplay wise it's just a nuisance: now you have to pay attention to something else! Well I guess additional challenge can be fun.
Either way I don't care. "Gamebreaking" is too overused these days.
Gameplay wise it's just a nuisance: now you have to pay attention to something else! Well I guess additional challenge can be fun.
Either way I don't care. "Gamebreaking" is too overused these days.
you just have to be more... strategic? That's the name of the game. You can see the force limits of every province just by clicking on them, so you know how large of an army it can sustain. Use the info to your advantage!
Anyone feel sieges last too long? Especially now that we have seasons.
Here's a list of sieges that covers the ck2 period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sieges
You can see they generally only last a couple months and the ones in this game are the crazy long special cases almost all the time.
There's a reason the empires weren't falling over each other trying to get Perm.
In reality, the settling of Perm (of civilized folk) didn't even begin until well after the time period of this game.
You shouldn't be ABLE TO march armies through the northern Russian forests dude...
A good way to "solve" the issue would remove or severely reduce the attrition if you are not moving in controlled territory. Your army takes shelter and must wait until Spring until it can continue the campaign. That way you have a reasonably realistic system that isn't completely punishing.
Yeah.. CK2 isn't Risk. You're not just out there coloring the map.
I love the new winter system. And I wish the AI paid a bit more attention to it; I find myself baiting them into winter attacks now.
I love the new winter system. And I wish the AI paid a bit more attention to it; I find myself baiting them into winter attacks now.