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

 

[TheArchMede]

While I like the idea of Wing Commanders, the battles it brings to my mind are those of Cromwell and Rupert, with Cromwell turning his Ironsides onto the King's centre after winning on his flank, while Rupert is off in search of loot after winning on the other flank. I don't like the idea that you can choose anyone. It wouldn't just annoy the higher ranking magnates, it would cause a loss of morale in the troops too. The men of the Count of Pontefract will fight at their best for the Count of Pontefract, or the Duke of York, or the King of England, but the men of the Duke of York will not fight their best for the Count of Pontefract.

If the King of England wants the men of the Duke of York to fight under the command of the Count of Pontefract, he has to give the Count of Pontefract a suitable title. The Duke of York should not get pissed off because the Count of Pontefract has been given command over him in a battle, the Count of Wakefield (previously the Duke of York) should get pissed off because his title has been taken off him and given to the Count of Pontefract, now the Duke of York and selected out of the available Dukes to lead a wing. Maybe the Marshall of England can be put in command of a wing regardless of other titles, but otherwise the choice should be only available when the rank is equal.

Phase influencing looks very promising. Controlling the phases was very important, but the point of the skirmish was not to draw it out as long as possible, but rather to provoke the opposition into charging too soon and losing impetous before melee. The great Christian victories come when the Knights are kept under control and charge a disorganised advancing foe at short range. The defeats come when the Knights lose patience and charge an organised foe which is still at long range. For example, Agincourt: initially the armies form up about 3/4 mile apart, but the strategical situation means the English have to attack. The English advance slowly to skirmish range, reorganise and start skirmishing. The French are provoked into attacking but are exhausted by charging 300 yards and easily knocked down and killed or taken prisoner by the time they reach the English line. The French lose, not because they get killed by being stuck full of arrows during a long skirmish phase, but because they lose patience and charge from too far away, and are too tired to fight effectively when they reach melee. While the archers did a lot of killing, it was with axes and daggers after the French had routed, rather than with arrows while the French were advancing.

I would like to see a rout phase that is a lot more damaging than the other phases. Turning your back on an armed enemy is extremely dangerous. The rout phase shouldn't be a couple of days at normal casualty rates, it should be a couple of days at high, and in the case of cavalry chasing infantry, extremely high casualty rates. I would distinguish between retreating and routing units. If troops are ordered to retreat rather than routing, they should suffer a morale loss, but if they are still have positive morale after that, they should take the normal rather the rout damage. A rout without friendly support to retreat on should normally result in unit elimination.

Skirmish should be mostly about morale, melee a combination, and rout where the casualties come from. Unless you have a castle to hide in, or sufficiently large reinforcements to fall back on, retreat should merely make the ultimate defeat worse due to not being able to recover the morale loss from ordering it.

I'd like to see province fortifications, not just as a way of imposing a time delay on conquest, but a way of sheltering an army that didn't want to fight yet.

 

[iron0037]

I loved reading this Dev Diary and am thrilled to see that combat will be more nuanced and hopefully realistic in CK2 compared to EU3. I don't know if there remains a window of opportunity to influence game mechanics, but I had a couple of suggestions for further refinements to the combat engine.

1) Slightly randomize province arrival date.
Troops cannot be guaranteed to march several hundred miles and arrive exactly on the date planned. Weather, logistical issues, and random happenstance oftentimes caused armies to arrive later and occasionally earlier than expected. By randomizing the arrival date slightly, this would add a bit of realism and chance to army movement.

2) Add additional phases to combat: seek/avoid, maneuver, and posture.
It always struck me as odd that immediately upon entering a province, combat ensues between two armies. In reality, a province is pretty big. It takes some time to find the enemy. Certain commanders may have no interest in engaging the enemy and may actively move within the province to avoid confrontation. In the mean time, armies could suffer attrition and the local countryside would suffer from foraging/pillaging.

Once located, historically, there could be a protracted period of maneuvering and standoff between two armies. Good commanders would seek advantageous positions. Certain commanders may opt not to take the initiative and advance upon the target, waiting for attrition to take place or reinforcements to arrive.

3) Add a concept of rear units.
I'm still a little fuzzy on the mechanics of a left, center, and right to an army. Why would you ever expose your archers directly to the enemy by placing them on the front lines? If you have infantry and cavalry, wouldn't you place them in front and put your archers in the rear? In that case, you could have a center line with a front of knights strong at melee but a rear of archers skilled at skirmishing. What's an enemy commander to do at that point?

4) Add the threat of army defection.
After reading The Alexiad, I learned that medieval combat was wrought with turncoat armies. Scrupulous mercenaries and greedy vassals would oftentimes switch sides for the promise of some coinage. Is there any chance of such a mechanic being put in place? A component of an army might either leave the field or join the enemy?

 

[RedRooster81]

Aye, mercenaries could pull a defection at the last, opportune moment. Could be part of the plots and intrigue event series. And other battle events like, "You suddenly find yourself all alone on the battlefield...." Or from the other side, "Your liege has isolated himself on the field. It would be a good time for betrayal."

Adding reserves would be a nice touch, too. If you are a flank commander, I expect that you will be able to make decisions yourself. The mixed units are a bit of a concern. If you have cavalry facing your light infantry, things might not turn too well for you.

On the commander issue, rank should play a big role. Having a simple knight of obscure origins be made commander should cause some events to be possible, for defection or desertion, but any prince of the blood should be able to do so, or the marshal of the realm, or a duke.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

3) Add a concept of rear units.
I'm still a little fuzzy on the mechanics of a left, center, and right to an army. Why would you ever expose your archers directly to the enemy by placing them on the front lines? If you have infantry and cavalry, wouldn't you place them in front and put your archers in the rear? In that case, you could have a center line with a front of knights strong at melee but a rear of archers skilled at skirmishing. What's an enemy commander to do at that point?

archers are not artillery, they need to see the enemy in order to aim well and they don't really reach very far. The 300m charging distance you mentioned for the French knights at Agincourt is not much shorter than the range at which trained archers would engage their targets. You put them right there with the pikemen or the shieldwall, at the front line or at the flank, not a ways behind them.

 

[unmerged(193360)]

It seems like many people haven't understood that a unit isn't something like the "1st Lincolnshire Archers" with 3000 longbowmen, it's like the "Lincolnshire Regiment" with 500 light infantry, 700 heavy infantry, 1000 archers and 300 knights. Tactical considerations such as whether the archers should stand in front of or behind the infantry is outside the scope of the player's role in this grand strategy game, we assume that the character in command of that wing of the army will deploy the troops to the best of his ability.

 

[WanderingKnight]

Oh it's GREAT! I like it, I like it. So realistic - with left and right wings and centar, and it will be so much fun to play.
This is the best improvement from CK so far I could read. Bonus plus from me to developer, for idea how the troops will get reinforcment (with mercenary or orders - great).
Also such a good idea for Navy and transportation system. You'll eather have to move your armies true land with permition or not from kingdoms that you pass or you will have to have a lot of seeside provinces to raise enough ships. It will definetly affect realistic look of the map (no more Praha Sheikdom).
Keep up the good works!

 

[peregrino05]

well well well...soon please?

 

[King of Men]

One thing that confuses me slightly: The combat model seems a bit schizophrenic. On the one hand, it will take several days - weeks? - of game time to resolve, presumably indicating that it is actually a campaign fought over a long period, with maneuvers and battles offered and bridges broken and stuff. On the other hand the resolution all seems inspired by tactics - wings, charges, combat events.

A possible abstraction model to resolve this: The actual fighting is in fact taking place over one day, presumably the last day before one army retreats. But to represent that initial strategic-maneuvering phase, and incidentally to give the player time to retreat if he likes, this single day of combat is represented as stretching over weeks. So if an ingame Battle of Essex goes from March 1st to March 15th, this means that the armies enter Essex on the first, they spend some time marching and countermarching (or just trying to find each other!), and then on March 15th they have a battle that includes all the phases the player has been seeing since March 1st. Does that make sense?

 

[Sinbuster]

6) It allows us the possibility of adding naval combat in the future.

And why would you want to do that Doomdark?

Republics anyone?

 

[Grubnessul]

Or the Arab naval attack on Constantinople.

 

[Keinwyn]

I don't like the idea that you can choose anyone [as wing commander]. It wouldn't just annoy the higher ranking magnates, it would cause a loss of morale in the troops too. The men of the Count of Pontefract will fight at their best for the Count of Pontefract, or the Duke of York, or the King of England, but the men of the Duke of York will not fight their best for the Count of Pontefract.

I disagree; the men of the Duke of York will still be fighting for the Duke of York. It's just the Duke will be taking battle orders from the Count of Pontefract. This could even represent a situation where the Duke is the titular commander, but strategic decisions are being made by the Count. It is also possible to have a situation where the Count of P is actually substantially more influential than the Duke of Y.

I think it should be ok if the current system stands but maybe add some events that fire where a character is unhappy being under the command of someone else. Naturally these can take personality, friends/rivals and social status into account.

2) Add additional phases to combat: seek/avoid, maneuver, and posture.
It always struck me as odd that immediately upon entering a province, combat ensues between two armies. In reality, a province is pretty big. It takes some time to find the enemy. Certain commanders may have no interest in engaging the enemy and may actively move within the province to avoid confrontation. In the mean time, armies could suffer attrition and the local countryside would suffer from foraging/pillaging.

Once located, historically, there could be a protracted period of maneuvering and standoff between two armies. Good commanders would seek advantageous positions. Certain commanders may opt not to take the initiative and advance upon the target, waiting for attrition to take place or reinforcements to arrive.

Doesn't the fact that combat lasts a few weeks/month already represent that? The fact that the phases are all those of the actual battle just means the player has some form of control over the battle which wouldn't be possible unless they paused the game and the battle took place outside of game time.

 

[SaberHRE]

There should however some penalty for the player to appoint a nobleman of lower rank as a commander, while his titular superiors are present. So If Sir John Constable, courtier with martial 18 is officially commander of the centre, where also duke of Norfolk and earl of oxford are present, the player should have decreased relationship points towards Norfolk and Oxford.

Also People put too much hope into these new battle "tactics".

While a novelty for Paradox interactive games, it still remains a grand strategy game, and I doubt tactics will play such a crucial role.

 

[unmerged(340133)]

There should however some penalty for the player to appoint a nobleman of lower rank as a commander, while his titular superiors are present. So If Sir John Constable, courtier with martial 18 is officially commander of the centre, where also duke of Norfolk and earl of oxford are present, the player should have decreased relationship points towards Norfolk and Oxford.

Also People put too much hope into these new battle "tactics".

While a novelty for Paradox interactive games, it still remains a grand strategy game, and I doubt tactics will play such a crucial role.

Unless he is a marshal.

 

[Keinwyn]

There should however some penalty for the player to appoint a nobleman of lower rank as a commander, while his titular superiors are present. So If Sir John Constable, courtier with martial 18 is officially commander of the centre, where also duke of Norfolk and earl of oxford are present, the player should have decreased relationship points towards Norfolk and Oxford.

Also People put too much hope into these new battle "tactics".

While a novelty for Paradox interactive games, it still remains a grand strategy game, and I doubt tactics will play such a crucial role.

Whilst I agree, I think that should depend on traits eg. a modest coward is not going to mind, even be grateful to not be in charge. Which is why I think doing it via event would be best. (I am presuming events can trigger a relations modifier)

Unless he is a marshal.

Or indeed "Steward" or "Chancellor" both were positions with a great deal of weight.
Possibly even the Bishop courtier (depending on his name and the roll he represents - in CK he seemed to represent to some extent the senior bishop in your demesne)

 

[unmerged(340133)]

A duke is not happy if a landless.steward or chancellor.assumes command, but a marshall should always be justified. BTW go hushovd!

 

[Keinwyn]

A duke is not happy if a landless.steward or chancellor.assumes command, but a marshall should always be justified. BTW go hushovd!

Well that depends exactly uppon what they are supposed to represent, and this applies to the marshall too. Are they the de facto or de jure holders of the position? Or both?

And I would point out that it is quite unlikely that your office holders will be landless as you can appoint your vassals to the position.

 

[Jia Xu]

I hope naval combat is added in an expansion at some point. I'd be happy even with a really simplistic naval system with only two ship types (transport and war ship I suppose). As it stands now if the Malik of the Maghreb decides to invade Northumbria, there's nothing to stop him from landing in England. His ships can pass southern and western England unopposed and the Moroccans would have to be sent back after a land battle in Northumbria. That seems a little silly to me. Naval combat would be a boon to prevent the abuse of transports, IMO.

 

[themendios]

I think no naval combat is missing a chance for power to not be solely 'the amount of troops you can raise'. As well as defense. England just hopping over to France or the Ottomans simply appearing at the gates of Constantinople at will would have probably made a minor difference historically, for example.

As well as variety of characters, a naval combat skill/trait or even stat to complement martial would be another nice branch.

 

[Nick B II]

Well that depends exactly uppon what they are supposed to represent, and this applies to the marshall too. Are they the de facto or de jure holders of the position? Or both?

And I would point out that it is quite unlikely that your office holders will be landless as you can appoint your vassals to the position.

And if you're truly RPing a Medieval monarch your wonderful Steward will be at least a Baron, because no self-respecting Medieval Monarch would all such an important servant to remain landless. Ideally at least a Count, but only a Duke if he was really good and served you for like 30 years. So if you're doing what you're supposed to do, and you've got land to give away, having punk vassals disobey your cabinet should only be a problem if you have no land to give away. And if you have no land to give away you've screwed up.

IMO no cabinet member should be high-ranking enough to take command without pissing off Dukes. After all now that you can make your Cabinet members into Dukes, the fact that you haven't made your Marshall one should be a problem for you. A Duke taking orders from an un-landed noble with no Cabinet rank should cause more problems then an un-landed Marshall, Steward, or Chancellor, but it should still be there.

The more likely occurrence is you getting yourself into a big-ass war, leaving the Duke of Somewheresville at home because he's a really crappy soldier, only to be invaded by the a neighbor. At which point you have the following options:

1) Half-assed defense led by competent courtier, with no support from Somewhereville. Note that by "competent" I mean like Mil 7-12, and no bad traits. If he was a Mil 25 genius he'd be at the front with you.

2) Adequate defense led by the Duke. The pro is this would make the Duke more loyal (you're trusting him, giving him a position of great responsibility, which he can use to win glory for his House), the con is there's a reason you didn't give him a chance to win glory in the main theatre.

3) Adequate defense led by competent courtier, including al troops the Duke of Somewheresville can raise. Which will piss off the Duke, who can a) decide the insult requires he join the enemy, b) decide not to fight at all, c) fight badly, or d) go along with it like a good little vassal.

Nick

 

[King of Men]

I think people are putting too much emphasis on the rank-consciousness of feudal magnates. This is a development of somewhat later times, when the feudal titles had gotten a bit further away from their warrior-chieftain origins. The Duke of York is not necessarily the superior of the Count of Pontefract on the battlefield; it is not as though one is a general and the other is a captain in a modern army. It is more as though the count is the duke's tenant - a peacetime, not a wartime, relationship. If both I and my landlord are in the National Guard, it is quite possible that I'll be giving him orders. (Admittedly NG rank tends to correlate with social rank, but still.)

This is not to say that there can't be jealousies and competing for the honour of leading the right wing; as late as Culloden the Highlanders (at least in bitter after-action squabbling over the blame of defeat) thought that the hereditary right of the McDonalds to lead the right flank, and Sweet Princeling Charlie's putting them on the left, had been a factor in the slowness of their charge. But feudal rank should not be a major factor in such jostling for precedence; magnates who personally lift swords and sweat in rusty armour on a field of battle are not going to be much impressed by titles. Personal reputation for courage and leadership in war should be much more important.