• 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.
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.

Crusader Kings II Alpha - Harold vs Harald.jpg

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.)

Crusader Kings II Alpha - Siege of York.jpg

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.)

Crusader Kings II Alpha - Battle of York.jpg

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
 
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.

Somehow, i think my suberbreed of advisorsof MINE court get better stats than the inbreed dukes
 
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.

Good point. It should be a matter of prestige and proven worth. But then again you have your proud, untested jerks who show up in their shiny armor and demand the place of honor. Commanding a flank or better the middle during a decisive battle will give a great deal of prestige, so it should be something sought after. It might be too hard to model in the game, but whoever leads the siege should get first dibs on the spoils.

I'm also wondering for PC vassals, what role we will have in our AI lieges' wars. In CK1, all you could do was sit back and watch your character march his levies across the map. Will we have much input on where our armies go or at least what decisions to make during battles and sieges?
 
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.
Nick

Exactly, the biggest problem with not letting Dukes be in position of command, makes him bereft of the possible glory he can win.

Concerning state positions/crown offices I never give anything to my marshals, stewards, chancellors, God forbid the day I'd give a spy master any valuable land. It's just Machiavellian common instinct. People who are already in position of power, and to whom you deliberately give the means of resources, might not be so loyal...

Historically too, positions of Marshal or Constable (any equivalents of commander or commander-in-chief) were given to men or lower or even obscure origin, while chancellor and stewards were given to clergy members because they couldn't inherit.

But going back on the combat consequences, I like Keinwyn's suggestion where traits should have an effect on how the AI reacts.

So a loyal Duke might only take a very small penalty to relationship to liege, if he is put under command of a man of lower birth.

A pride and vain duke will take a huge penalty hit, while a cowardly duke will take no hit at all, even refuse command if given.
 
I'm also wondering for PC vassals, what role we will have in our AI lieges' wars. In CK1, all you could do was sit back and watch your character march his levies across the map. Will we have much input on where our armies go or at least what decisions to make during battles and sieges?

Agreed. It would be good to give the player a little more input so it's not so boring watching your troops march all the way to who-knows-where. And more importantly, the CK AI makes for a terrible general. Piecemeal attacks and interminably roundabout marching routes are not good gameplay.

Also -- if your liege makes you his marshal... do you get to lead his armies and make the key decisions?
 
Agreed. It would be good to give the player a little more input so it's not so boring watching your troops march all the way to who-knows-where. And more importantly, the CK AI makes for a terrible general. Piecemeal attacks and interminably roundabout marching routes are not good gameplay.

Also -- if your liege makes you his marshal... do you get to lead his armies and make the key decisions?
Totally agree. After all, you're playing as the character not the nation itself. If you're the king's marshall, you should be the king's marshall.
 
Exactly, the biggest problem with not letting Dukes be in position of command, makes him bereft of the possible glory he can win.

Concerning state positions/crown offices I never give anything to my marshals, stewards, chancellors, God forbid the day I'd give a spy master any valuable land. It's just Machiavellian common instinct. People who are already in position of power, and to whom you deliberately give the means of resources, might not be so loyal...

Historically too, positions of Marshal or Constable (any equivalents of commander or commander-in-chief) were given to men or lower or even obscure origin, while chancellor and stewards were given to clergy members because they couldn't inherit.

That was true of medieval Castile. The position of royal constable (alférez) tended to fall to the king's favorite, the guy he really felt that he could trust, and in the XIV century a civil war was fought because the nobility hated the king's constable. So you end up with the problem of whether to appoint a high noble, ideally a member of the royal family, to that position or someone who has only gotten ahead in life because of your friendship. And there is something to be said for that, and for using foreigners or lower native nobility (or even commoners) to toss your patronage to. Alfonso VI of Leon favored Jewish castellans (and Moorish concubines), Edward II of England had his French favorites, and so forth. And this continued into the modern age, with crown favorites like Manuel de Godoy. And within the royal family, you could play one son off the other and leave the inheritance a bit in confusion. Like in EU Rome, there could be ambitions to become marshal or have so-and-so named marshal, which if done with some nuance could be interesting, with two high nobles showing up just before a battle to demand that their patron the Duke of York be named marshal or they were going home.
 
6) It allows us the possibility of adding naval combat in the future.
Hell yaeh!
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.
And why would that be?
So the man of "Count of Pontefract" wouldn`t fight beter whan lead by someone with better martial skill or better comander "reputation"?
I doubt. At least it shouldn`t depend on "title", but on skill.
 
And why would that be?
So the man of "Count of Pontefract" wouldn`t fight beter whan lead by someone with better martial skill or better comander "reputation"?
I doubt. At least it shouldn`t depend on "title", but on skill.
The Count of Pontefract's men will not fight for anyone but the Count of Pontefract. That's why they're the Count of Pontefract's men.

If the Count of Pontefract is pissed off because some commoner has been put over him he's not likely to be very enthusiastic, which means that in turn his men won't be very enthusiastic.

Which means the debate has to be over whether it's Medieval for the Count of Pontefract to be pissed at having to obey a non-titled character, or a Baron-tier character.

Nick
 
Hell yaeh!

And why would that be?
So the man of "Count of Pontefract" wouldn`t fight beter whan lead by someone with better martial skill or better comander "reputation"?
I doubt. At least it shouldn`t depend on "title", but on skill.

Skill and title go together in the feudal mindset. You deserve your position in life because of your martial prowess. Others accept your position in life because of your martial prowess. Favour a count over a duke in the line of command and you are saying there is something wrong with the Duke, that the Duke doesn't really deserve to be a Duke, and that will piss off all the Duke's men as well as the Duke. In the feudal world there should not be counts that are better warriors than dukes. Its rather like the effect of intrigue on desmesne in DV. Intrigue is only half as useful to a count as a duke and only half as useful to as duke as a king. Martial should work in a similar way in battle. A lower ranking commander just can't use his stat to command to full effect because people just won't take him as seriously. MIL 18 count beats MIL 11 Duke in a joust, but in matters of command 11 beats 18/2 = 9.

Feudal ties are not just about land, they are about land in exchange for military service. Those lower down the scale are servants not leaders. Reverse the natural order and you upset everybody, not just the individuals directly affected.
 
Indeed. A peasant who killed a knight in battle would more often be punished for killing a nobleman than being rewarded for his skill.

Meritocracy was a word unknown.
 
Feudal ties are not just about land, they are about land in exchange for military service. Those lower down the scale are servants not leaders. Reverse the natural order and you upset everybody, not just the individuals directly affected.

I see what you are meaning here. It is like feudal rank translates to later military ranks, so a count is like a born colonel, a duke is a born brigadier, and any prince of the blood is a born field marshal. (Kind of clunky, but that is the gist of it as I see it.) So if you gather your military leaders, who are your vassals, there is an expectation that the command will go to the field marshal, and putting a lieutenant in charge of your strategic battle when your Pattons, MacArthurs, and Mongomerys are gathered in your command tent will lead to some bad blood, similar to replacing council members in CK1.
 
The Count of Pontefract's men will not fight for anyone but the Count of Pontefract. That's why they're the Count of Pontefract's men.

If the Count of Pontefract is pissed off because some commoner has been put over him he's not likely to be very enthusiastic, which means that in turn his men won't be very enthusiastic.

Which means the debate has to be over whether it's Medieval for the Count of Pontefract to be pissed at having to obey a non-titled character, or a Baron-tier character.

Nick

But from what I understand, if the count of pontefract is not commanding, then his unit is also not in the fight? 3 levees make an army. Center, 2 flanks. I just don't understand yet how command works and if there's a limit to the number of 'levees' that creates an army.
 
But from what I understand, if the count of pontefract is not commanding, then his unit is also not in the fight? 3 levees make an army. Center, 2 flanks. I just don't understand yet how command works and if there's a limit to the number of 'levees' that creates an army.

But the count will fight for his liege. If his liege is a duke his army and him will fight in the flank. If his liege is the king, he will fight for him and his army in the center
 
But from what I understand, if the count of pontefract is not commanding, then his unit is also not in the fight? 3 levees make an army. Center, 2 flanks. I just don't understand yet how command works and if there's a limit to the number of 'levees' that creates an army.

As I understand it there are three slots for regiments. Two flanks, and the center. If there are three or fewer regiments the Count of Pontefract will be the only commander in one of those three slots, so he'll command at least a flank. But he'll prefer to command the center. If there are more then three regiments the Count might not command a flank. It's confirmed he won't like being commanded by a landless knight. What's unknown is how pissed he'll get.

As I think about it I am coming to the conclusion this won't be an issue for small armies. A Duke is likely to have a stronger regiment then a Count or Baron, which means he'll almost always be the logical choice for command of the Center because sending him to a flank would also send your best regiment to the flank.

Nick
 
Now I'd say that if you mobilize your entire realm's levies, then there will be more than three regiments in your combined army (unless you are the King of Navarra ;)), so my understanding of the DD and the devs' other comments is that you will then split the army into three equal parts, each to be commanded by a different character: the King in the middle and one commander each to his left and right. Otherwise, like at Hastings, only three regiments will fight it out at a time. I don't know what would happen if two allied armies are there at the same time.
 
Now I'd say that if you mobilize your entire realm's levies, then there will be more than three regiments in your combined army (unless you are the King of Navarra ;)), so my understanding of the DD and the devs' other comments is that you will then split the army into three equal parts, each to be commanded by a different character: the King in the middle and one commander each to his left and right. Otherwise, like at Hastings, only three regiments will fight it out at a time. I don't know what would happen if two allied armies are there at the same time.

How often in CK1 did you have armies of more then three regiments?

I almost never did. Attrition was bitch in CK1, so having an army of 5-6 regiments meant that a) the regiments were tiny or b) I was about to fight a huge battle and would only experience crippling attrition for a month or two. Most of the time I had siege armies of a 2-5k, and those armies were (mostly) under three regiments. IIRC half the time they were one or two regiments.

Granted CK2 may be much different. But if attrition works the same, and regiment sizes don't shrink, it'll be suicide to have a 5-6 regiment army running around the map for months. You'll be better off with two three-regiment armies that never spend the month in the same province, but can support each-other in combat.

The biggest flaw in this line of reasoning is that it's entirely possible that regiments are smaller, because instead of representing every soldier in a CK-County they represent those troops a CK2 Barony is willing to send you. If that
s the case a reasonable siege army is gonna have more like six regiments, which means you;ve got more potential for putting a Baron in charge of an Army with a Duke in it.

Another potential flaw is that the devs could've reworked attrition. But they haven't said that, it's present in their other games, and they seemed to be quite happy with the results in CK1. So IMO this flaw is less likely to torpedo my argument then the other one.

Nick
 
Skill and title go together in the feudal mindset. You deserve your position in life because of your martial prowess. Others accept your position in life because of your martial prowess. Favour a count over a duke in the line of command and you are saying there is something wrong with the Duke, that the Duke doesn't really deserve to be a Duke, and that will piss off all the Duke's men as well as the Duke. In the feudal world there should not be counts that are better warriors than dukes. Its rather like the effect of intrigue on desmesne in DV. Intrigue is only half as useful to a count as a duke and only half as useful to as duke as a king. Martial should work in a similar way in battle. A lower ranking commander just can't use his stat to command to full effect because people just won't take him as seriously. MIL 18 count beats MIL 11 Duke in a joust, but in matters of command 11 beats 18/2 = 9.

This is wrong. Feudal ties do not work like that in the CK period; although perhaps they did in the Viking era, when titles were a lot more fluid and less hereditary. In the High Middle Ages feudal rank was hereditary, and thus was not directly tied to military skill; and everyone knew it.
 
Nick, thanks for the advice on strategy, but I actually kept pretty big armies in the field, five or six regiments strong usually, upwards from 10,000 men, and did very well for myself. I did a lot of blitzing, which was good for the kind of frontier warfare that I usually was engaged in. So I gather together three or four corps of 10k each in well-provisioned provinces then cross the border or cross the sea and overwhelm the enemy. Of course I was blessed with very lucrative provinces like Valencia, Toledo, and Cordoba, who each fielded rather large levies to begin with.

Warfare will likely be a much more strenuous affair in CK2, more like EU3 in terms of sieges and strategic battles (though not entirely so). In CK1, you only had to take the enemy's demesne provinces, and it did not matter if he held a similar number of yours. I also think that levy numbers will be scaled down, which might prove more realistic.
 
Last edited:
Off-topic for a moment: If the devs are still reading, assuming we're getting the Warfare DD next month, would it be possible to do a DD on Emperors in September? Also, how long until weekly DDs start?