Maybe combat is decided by a card game?

[CiaoGamer]

The combat is for the most part fair. Any personal experience to the contrary is probably confirmation bias. You just notice the times when a battle swings against you much more than when you pull off the same rubbish reversal on the AI.

 

[richie05]

combat in this game is all numbers. its insanely simple.

 

[Lord_P]

Perhaps if we added more events when your ruler is leading the army in battle? Those events could affect the result of the battle. For example:

"Our lines are weakening. The enemy forces have surrounded us, cutting away the possibility of escaping."

Try to break through the lines and escape the battle.
-70% chance of it working, you escape the battle unscathed.
-20% your escape is halted and you are captured.
-10% you are killed while trying to escape.
-Also 15% chance of getting craven

"Stand your ground, men!"
-Gain 100 prestige
-50% chance you turn the tide of the battle, "songs will be sung of this day", gain another 100 prestige
-30% chance you fail and are captured
-20% you are killed while defending heroically, gain 50 prestige
-Receive Brave

"CHARGE!"
-Requires Brave
-Gain 150 prestige
-60% chance you turn the tide of battle, gain 200 prestige
-20% your forces are victorious but you are killed in the charge, gain 100 prestige
-20% your forces are defeated and you die in the charge, gain 50 prestige

Or something like that.

 

[Hyena Dandy]

I'd certainly love some more in-battle decisions. But as it is, I've not got a lot of issues. I've found that if I look at where the combat is going to take place, my numbers, and the generals... I tcan turn out alright.

I do sometimes like to up the effect a general's martial will have even MORE, though, to ensure a great general is a HUGE deal, but honestly, as it is, it's been fine.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Some general traits suck too. Lisp, stutter, slothful and shy open up some pretty bad tactics...

 

[Anzi]

I suggest you mod the marshal section of the job_titles.txt file so that female commanders can be enabled. I know it will go against the cultural norms of Medieval Europe; but this is CK2, not the History Channel. You'll need every 10+ general you can get when you're up against enemy doomstacks. If the price of keeping your throne is either your wife and or daughter(s) potentially being maimed or killed in battle, so be it. You can also remarry and have more children. Don't let traditional gender roles keep you from utilizing good commanders, thus leading to a potential game over. Remember the aim of CK2 is the survival of your dynasty and realm by any means necessary.

No need to cheat, just go Cathar! They can have female commanders. Of course there are downsides to being a heretic, but I find that good way to balance the fact that you have approximately 100% more commander choices.

 

[mr.boguss]

Especially when you throw in National bonuses like Prussia's +infinity discipline. If you've got lower discipline than your opponent, then you might need a ridiculously higher number of troops to avoid higher losses than him, even when you win battles.

But discipline in History is exactly what makes the difference. Talking about Prussia, just think about what did Friderick II against the austrians with a very smaller army. Also according to modern historiography what granted Europe a global dominance wasn't the technological advantage but more trained and discilpined troops that could defeat the outnumbering non-western armies

 

[Chevaresqye]

Combats are really what disapoint me with paradox grand strategy games, and ck2 is the worst.
I think they should improve it, maybe like Endless Space with playing cards (Attack, defense, tactics, charge, long-range...).
I find combats boring and you can't know why you lose or win except with terrain modifications.

Eu4 has the worst combat. CKII system has a lot of potential, but devs is still busy messing with how player play rather than invest time on the more important thing.

 

[CaptainChiatrol]

With no control over what tactics your own character picks when leading his own troops I can't say it feels anything other then random.

I don't want to be able to tell my vassals what tactics to use because they never listened to me before BUT when I lead troops I'd like to have some control somewhere. (even though constant massive longbow volley use would be broken)

 

[Wurner]

Something that bugs me: when two armies clash and fight, there is never a 'stalemate' result, always a victor. The loser then flees to a neighboring province and the victor pretty much always pursues and catches up, over and over thus leading to near or total annihilation of one army.

Wouldn't it be more fun if the armies could sometimes engage, disengage, regain morale and go at it again? Not just the old 'win first fight then reengage the loser into oblivion' every time?

I'd like it if there was a way for both the player and the AI to have a good chance to disengage and not get caught again immediately by the opposing army.

 

[mr.boguss]

Something that bugs me: when two armies clash and fight, there is never a 'stalemate' result, always a victor. The loser then flees to a neighboring province and the victor pretty much always pursues and catches up, over and over thus leading to near or total annihilation of one army.

Wouldn't it be more fun if the armies could sometimes engage, disengage, regain morale and go at it again? Not just the old 'win first fight then reengage the loser into oblivion' every time?

I'd like it if there was a way for both the player and the AI to have a good chance to disengage and not get caught again immediately by the opposing army.

I think the same why retreat should result in a total loss of morale when i decide to (it's called "strategic retreat")
Also what i don't like is this new 1 unit at time recruiting system (the old EU II recruitment had more sense)

 

[Kumicho]

The problem with CK 2 combat is that it has a veery steep learning curve and the real strategic elements dont exsist untill you can get large amount of retinues.

But when your fighting with levies its really just a numbers game.

Pretty much this.

Eh, sorta. There's tactical choices (how you want to fight, whether using the terrain to your advantage or not), there's obviously picking advantageous generals, and yes, there is UNIT decision! If you're a norse pagan and leading an army of Light Infantry you're going to get creamed by Charlemagne and his heavy infantry/knights/etc. And yes, the AI knows this, and will still attack you when heavily outnumbered if your troops are weak. Before deciding to attack an enemy (or allow him to attack you), check what units he has. If he has plenty of HI and HC, and you're mostly light troops, run!! If he has half his army marked as ST (ie, Special Troops like Horse Archers) run away even faster.

The other thing is that you have some control over your personal demesne levies when you're building up your holdings and creating retinues. For example, you can focus on light troops for your retinues (to siege and assault holdings), while focusing on heavy troops (Heavy Infantry, Pikemen) in your demesne. That will ensure that you're well-rounded for for Skirmish and Melee, and then deal with the fact that your enemy might escape later on. In other words, don't build up any Militia Training Grounds/Mustering Grounds/Militia Quarters until you've maxed out the heavy troops. Or go the other route, and do a Heavy Infantry retinue and focus on light troops from your demesne. Or if you've got a cavalry retinue like Caballeros, focus on those for your retinue, and start by building stables. That way you will have the advantage of rolling advantageous tactics when you combine your retinue and personal levies.