Time again for my monthly (well, roughly) pastime of developer diary writing! Last month, I might have mentioned plots and intrigue, but I think I'll hold off on that a bit more... Instead, let's talk about units and the combat system.

Like in the first Crusader Kings, military units are of variable size and composition. Each can contain any number of each of the seven troop types (light and heavy infantry, pike men, light cavalry, knights, archers and horse archers.) Most units are raised from a corresponding settlement (castle, church or city), their size and composition dependent on the improvements constructed there. Others belong to a mercenary group or holy order, etc. Units are discrete and cannot be merged or split into smaller parts, though of course they can be grouped together in armies. The basic system should be familiar to anyone who has played the original Crusader Kings.



Combat, however, is different from our other games. As soon as they are grouped together in a larger army, units are are assigned to one of three positions; left flank, center, or right flank. This is done automatically, but can be altered manually by players so inclined. On the battlefield, each position fights separately - normally against the corresponding part of the enemy army. Combat between positions is divided into three phases; skirmish, melee and pursue/flee. My left flank can be skirmishing against the enemy's right flank while my center is locked in melee, etc. The seven unit types have different strengths and weaknesses, so that for example archers excel at skirmish and knights at melee. The leader of each flank (a character), will pick combat tactics, which determines if his position should strive to close for melee, or avoid melee, etc. When an enemy position breaks, it will flee, and the pursue phase ensues. The longer the phase lasts, the more losses that contingent will sustain, but on the other hand, the pursuing force will not be assisting against the remaining enemy positions - also a tactical decision by the flank commander. Combat tactics are similar to the combat events of Rome, but more developed. (Btw, combat tactics are fully moddable.)



Apart from combat tactics, there are also more traditional combat events, for example when commanders get wounded, killed or imprisoned, or when they improve on their martial skills. Sieges work in a similar fashion, but emphasizing morale loss, and with a different set of combat tactics. A commander with a high Intrigue skill might even manage to bribe some defenders into opening the gates. What about fleets? Unlike CK, ships do exist in Crusader Kings II, similar to the galleys in Rome. They are raised like normal troop levies in coastal provinces, but can only be used to transport troops - not to fight or block straits (large scale naval battles in the period were rare to say the least.)



Oh, I almost forgot to mention that if an army is victorious, all commanders will bask in the glory and gain prestige. Conversely, the shame of defeat results in prestige loss. So, choosing to lead the army yourself can be profitable in terms of prestige, but of course, war is a dangerous business...

Enjoy the screenies and stay tuned for the next dev diary - sometime in August.



Henrik Fåhraeus, Associate Producer and CKII Project Lead

 

[HiddenWolf]

This game is shaping up to be the most awesome in PI history. It is now officially on my Most Wanted list!

The combat mechanics sound great. I've always felt that the simple pile-up of troops in EU3 and V2 was lacking, as it amounts to a simple game of calculus of "bigger army wins" when tech is about equal. I'm also frequently frustrated by the huge effect the dice role can have relative to the quality of the armies and the terrain modifiers. Then again, if the effect of the dice were less, battles would become even more predictable and boring. Hence the fact that I'm still conflicted about the combat systems, even though I've been playing PI games for many years now.

 

[performer]

Yes, the EU III-dice are annoying. I'm glad to see that they don't make it into CK 2.

 

[HMAS-Nameless]

How are you going to model stuff like the huge Byzantine Navy? It was an integral part of the Byzantine Empire and lead its defense for 1000 years or so and some historians say it is a major reason why the Byzantine Empire surivived as long as it did. Also I do recall the English mounting a huge naval campaign in the English Channel during the Hundred Years War. Maybe it may be an idea to add very expensive naval units at the end of the game's timeframe that can fight it eachother but cannot fight cogs. If battleships are expensive then only powerful kingdoms will build them and there wouldn't be alot of them. Byzantines could start with them maybe?

 

[TempestDK]

How are you going to model stuff like the huge Byzantine Navy? It was an integral part of the Byzantine Empire and lead its defense for 1000 years or so and some historians say it is a major reason why the Byzantine Empire surivived as long as it did. Also I do recall the English mounting a huge naval campaign in the English Channel during the Hundred Years War. Maybe it may be an idea to add very expensive naval units at the end of the game's timeframe that can fight it eachother but cannot fight cogs. If battleships are expensive then only powerful kingdoms will build them and there wouldn't be alot of them. Byzantines could start with them maybe?

If these expensive ships can't fight troop transport ships, then what would be the reason for having them?? .... since I doubt that they will include port blockades etc., there would be no reason to fear a french mega-armada as England.

The naval aspect in CK has always been very simplified, as there seemed to be little reason to make something more sophisticated for an age where there were few naval powers and naval battle weren't exactly commonplace. In Ck2 they have changed it so now you actually need to have ships available to move troops across the seas.

Edit: This would also require PI to create a naval AI to a very minor aspect of the game.

 

[Grubnessul]

IIRC (I read Luttwak's "The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire some time ago), the Byzantine navy mainly operated in defence. So it could be abstracted as an attrition modifier for Byzantine ruled sea provinces for countries at war with the Empire?

 

[ssj18vegeta]

Will there be viewable combat modifiers like in vic2 (i.e. terrain, river crossing, etc.)? I can't see them in the combat screen.

 

[SaberHRE]

While I applaud the new combat tactics, very important issues are still left out.

Sieges.

As important if not more the most important aspect of medieval warfare. Leaving the system to what it was in CK1 would be a big mistake. Please tell us sieges have been improved on.

Hiring and maintaining troops.

If CK2 will still insist on the fact that feudal levies will be fighting in field for an infinite amount of time (EVEN FOR PAY) would be unprogressive. While you guys did a great job on mercenaries, you must implement other systems of recruit other than feudal levy, because by 1250s most armies of Europe were raised in methods other than feudal levy. So your system only works for half the game period.

 

[TheArchMede]

IIRC (I read Luttwak's "The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire some time ago), the Byzantine navy mainly operated in defence. So it could be abstracted as an attrition modifier for Byzantine ruled sea provinces for countries at war with the Empire?

Just as long as attrition is a lot nastier than the typical hull degradation effect used in other games. 5% attrition for 19 months shouldn't be a 100% chance of a badly damaged ship arriving at the other end, it should be a virtual certainty that it sank somewhere along the way. Putting your army on a fleet should mean taking a chance that the whole lot sinks the moment the fleet leaves home waters.

 

[TempestDK]

While I applaud the new combat tactics, very important issues are still left out.

Sieges.

As important if not more the most important aspect of medieval warfare. Leaving the system to what it was in CK1 would be a big mistake. Please tell us sieges have been improved on.

Hiring and maintaining troops.

If CK2 will still insist on the fact that feudal levies will be fighting in field for an infinite amount of time (EVEN FOR PAY) would be unprogressive. While you guys did a great job on mercenaries, you must implement other systems of recruit other than feudal levy, because by 1250s most armies of Europe were raised in methods other than feudal levy. So your system only works for half the game period.

Well, the devs have posted several replies regarding how sieges are going to work in this thread. But I think they will get more into it in the Warfare DD thay have planned at some point.

 

[Negru Voda]

Will there be anything to gain from carefully choosing flank arrangements?

As in, I would use pikes and bows center, so as to hold back and delay the center, while I would focus on cav perhaps on the flanks.

Would there be a case in which my cav flanks win the enemy flanks, and then encircle the enemy circle for devastating effects?

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Gotta remember that, when they say 'unit', they don't USUALLY mean an even 5000 Heavy Infantry, and that's your unit! That seems special for Mercenaries. What they mean is a feudal levy of mixed troops. In CK1, the only control you had over what constitutes a given levy is the power and loyalty of any of the given classes in a given province: Peasants, Burghers, Nobles, and Clergy. Of course, you could attempt to change this by giving another more power, but I've personally never bothered to do this. Too much effort to do that over a whole empire! I hope they've changed how that specific system works in CKII, or taken it out altogether. Worthless system that it was.
But yeah, you wouldn't be able to necessarily put cavalry on the flanks, but you could put a levy that is cavalry-heavy on the flanks, and a levy that is pikes+bows heavy in the center. But you don't get that sort of control: like they said in the DD, you can't split up a feudal levy!

 

[unmerged(209891)]

It's good to hear you are at least trying to address pingponging, its a dumb feature that shows up in almost every paradox strategy game an really hurts the immersion factor.

 

[SaberHRE]

Well, the devs have posted several replies regarding how sieges are going to work in this thread. But I think they will get more into it in the Warfare DD thay have planned at some point.

They have, but like I said they've haven't addressed the main questions. As of now we still don't know if the permanent garrison is hired or automatically attached as in all games(a system I deem obsolete).

The garrison levies are apparently(? to my understand levied by the vassal AI) raised on chance based on traits.

So whats missing out on the siege? The effect of weather, the supplies of the besieging and besieged, and most importantly still no news on siege equipment.

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

This looks really awesome! I like the enhanced combat system you are going with. Though I have 3 things I'd like to say.

1. Are you able to merge more than 3 units together? If you do, what are the other units doing? Will they do nothing? Rush in when someone flees?

2. Let's say you have one stack of 4 units, and another stack of 3 units, and they are both in the same province. What happens? Does only one fight while the other sits there? If you lose with your first army will the other just jump on the enemy immediately?

3. And somewhat related to this, I like how there is the center and the 2 flanks in battle. Why not add a reserve to it? A unit in the back that jumps in when needed.

1. As mentioned in the OP, you can select which commander is who is leader of the respective "flank". So that would suggest that having more than 3 units in one army is possible. As you could select your 14 Marshal courtier over a 4 Marshal Duke as head of the left flank. Now what the duke's unit will be doing I am not so sure.

Yea what will his unit be doing? Will they just be combined into the various flanks and center?

 

[unmerged(283694)]

Can. Not. Wait.
I always enjoyed Rome's combat so it's nice to see elements appear in this game. I have to say CKII will be far superior from what I'm reading.

One question: In very large armies which means a second line of troops appear, can these be organised in a similar fashion? I'd very much like to position my archers behind a shieldwall or at least keep my general safe!

 

[RedRooster81]

Can. Not. Wait.
I always enjoyed Rome's combat so it's nice to see elements appear in this game. I have to say CKII will be far superior from what I'm reading.

One question: In very large armies which means a second line of troops appear, can these be organised in a similar fashion? I'd very much like to position my archers behind a shieldwall or at least keep my general safe!

Good point. It would be nice to have tactical options available. If you have a mix of heavy infantry and archers you could do a shield wall, but if you have mounted archers and light cavalry, you could do a sort of Parthian shot, with ambushes and the like. It would also be cool if you could have a council of war with your two wingmen (pun intended) to determine how to take on the next battle or to discuss how the siege is going. Events, at least, maybe with special mercenary companies or the like with sappers or artillerymen.

EDIT: I'm also interested in how sieges will work, in terms of who will be in charge of defending a barony. If you have more than one barony, will you be able to name castellans or are they drawn from your pool of male courtiers (that is, if you are in your capital, say London, but your barony in Norfolk is under siege, who will defend it)? In the screenshot, it seems that the Duke of York (or Earl of York) is defending his capital. If he is mobilized for war and far from home, who would take up the role?

 

[UniversalWolf]

Combat, however, is different from our other games. As soon as they are grouped together in a larger army, units are are assigned to one of three positions; left flank, center, or right flank. This is done automatically, but can be altered manually by players so inclined. On the battlefield, each position fights separately - normally against the corresponding part of the enemy army. Combat between positions is divided into three phases; skirmish, melee and pursue/flee. My left flank can be skirmishing against the enemy's right flank while my center is locked in melee, etc.

That sounds awesome. I could see this type of combat mechanic migrating to Rome II as well.

 

[Nick B II]

How are you going to model stuff like the huge Byzantine Navy? It was an integral part of the Byzantine Empire and lead its defense for 1000 years or so and some historians say it is a major reason why the Byzantine Empire surivived as long as it did. Also I do recall the English mounting a huge naval campaign in the English Channel during the Hundred Years War.

AFAIK they aren't gonna model anybody's Navy, and they aren't gonna model the battle of Sluys.

They'll get quite a bit of what they want by default. For example the French King's desmene includes no coastal provinces, which means he has no ship-levies, so he won't be able to invade England unless his coastal vassals (Brittany, Aquitane, Normandy, and Flanders) really like him. Or Toulluse really likes him and doesn't mind a long-ass trip the Gibralter.

To an extent this will work for the Byzantines. The only people in their general region who have ships and troops will be them, so the only people able to invade coastal provinces at will will be them. At least until the Turks seize a few coastal provinces of their own...

Nick

 

[Inteuniso]

How are you going to model stuff like the huge Byzantine Navy? It was an integral part of the Byzantine Empire and lead its defense for 1000 years or so and some historians say it is a major reason why the Byzantine Empire surivived as long as it did. Also I do recall the English mounting a huge naval campaign in the English Channel during the Hundred Years War. Maybe it may be an idea to add very expensive naval units at the end of the game's timeframe that can fight it eachother but cannot fight cogs. If battleships are expensive then only powerful kingdoms will build them and there wouldn't be alot of them. Byzantines could start with them maybe?

If you read the article, the Byzantine Empire's navy has declined by the start date, and they have begun to rely on Venetian and Genoese ships by this time. However, playing as the Byzantines, I would love an event chain that would "build back" this navy, and would basically give you events any time an enemy was in a sea province bordering your own, allowing you to destroy their ships. Not naval combat per se, but still modeling the Byzantine navy.

 

[TheArchMede]

AFAIK they aren't gonna model anybody's Navy, and they aren't gonna model the battle of Sluys.
...
Nick

Sluys is an army battle. It was fought in port not at sea. Whether or not it is modelled depends on how amphibious attacks are dealt with. If fleets as well as armies are at risk in attacks on ports, then the battle of Sluys is modelled. The ships themselves don't fight in this era, but when they carry an army that can fight on them if the right situation arises. If the loser loses their fleet as well as their troops, then you have Sluys possible in the game.

Sluys is a one-off because the important people in feudal Europe fought on horseback, which they couldn't do on ships. (Horses not only can't fight on board, they require significant recovery time after transportation, so they are no good for amphibious operations either.) This is why you find the major fleets are in the hands of republics and vikings. Their major fighting force isn't cavalry. England had a major fleet in 1065, and even inland areas were required to provide ships and men for it. Harold fought many campaigns by sea before he became king and Edward took the fleet on annual manoevers even when he wasn't actually campaigning. William chose not to keep that fleet. Central obligations to provide ships and men to the King became local ones to provide horses and men to the Lord. The difference being that the Saxons fought on foot and could fight effectively from their ships, but the Normans fought on horse, and required recovery time after transporting their horses by sea before they were effective.

Ideally there would be some sort of choice available. You could put an emphasis on knights, and be strong locally, but unable to project force any distance at speed, or put an emphasis on infantry, and be able to use ships to project force a considerable distance at a high speed. What we probably will get is amphibious knights zipping across the sea in a completely anachronistic manner. Knights should have their morale trashed by a sea voyage to represent the recovery time their warhorses need.