• 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.
Ears up folks, it's time for another Legacy of Rome and patch 1.07 dev diary! This time, I'll reveal what we've done to rebalance combat. All these things are actually in patch 1.07, so you'll get them whether you buy the DLC or not.

To give you some background, we were never entirely happy with the combat system in the game; the outcome was too dependent on numerical advantage and there was little you could do to affect it beside throwing more troops into the fray. Part of the problem was simply the lack of proper random elements. This was fixed in patch 1.06 with more varied, decisive and longer lasting combat tactics. Another issue was that the composition of the Holding levies was largely beyond your control; all you could do was try to focus on Cavalry buildings in your own Holdings if you wanted to try having more Cavalry on the flanks in battle. We have addressed this in part with more specific unit type buildings and cultural versions of buildings. The major fix though, is the Retinue system in Legacy of Rome. Lastly, we realized that the most important tactical consideration for players, and something they can influence, is the choice of commander and the effect he has on the battle. In patch 1.06, we added a new type of trait called "Leadership Traits", and now we're adding even more of them:

  • Flat Terrain Expert
  • Rough Terrain Expert
  • Mountain Expert
  • Desert Expert
  • Holy Warrior
  • Unyielding

LoR_03_Holy_Warrior.jpg

The choice of flank leader for the right role is now an important tactical choice with a real effect on the outcome of the battle.

We've also tweaked the combat tactics and unit types a bit more, and made sure that pure archer flanks are not imbalanced, knights are slightly less overpowered, etc. Oh, and all cultures now have a cultural building, but some cultures have the same as others.

Lastly, though not exactly related, I should probably mention that the military AI has been improved a lot, to focus on what's important and avoid attrition.

Hmm, that was a bit short, but it's all I have for you today. Next time: Orthodoxy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It has be ages since I made a single comment, but this one calls for it - if I had a 1000 votes on all matters concering CK2, I would use them all to back Leviathan07's suggestions.
 
It has be ages since I made a single comment, but this one calls for it - if I had a 1000 votes on all matters concering CK2, I would use them all to back Leviathan07's suggestions.

I second that, great suggestions that would expand on gameplay giving improved choices and reduced hassles, while being realistic to boot. (regardless of which commander was placed in control of an army, it wasn't a trivial matter that could be done daily to replace him, any landed noble would be angry if a courtier or to a lesser degree a lower rank vassal than themselves were picked over them. For most of history political influence has been the largest factor in deciding who leads battles.)
 
I second that, great suggestions that would expand on gameplay giving improved choices and reduced hassles, while being realistic to boot. (regardless of which commander was placed in control of an army, it wasn't a trivial matter that could be done daily to replace him, any landed noble would be angry if a courtier or to a lesser degree a lower rank vassal than themselves were picked over them. For most of history political influence has been the largest factor in deciding who leads battles.)
Yeah - I'm even surprised they did not implement this in the original CK2 release.

If you look at history books even in the 17th century the people who lead the armies of, say, Philippe of Spain, Queen Elizabeth or Emperor Ferdinand II are all high ranking nobles. Sometimes the king might have elevated them shortly before the appointment (making them dukes of this or that place) but it's almost always that feudal rank = military rank.

a nice addition would be,the way generals are appointed.

How where they appointed in real life?I guess,firstly based on the influence they had with the king,no?Maybe this can be simulated
In real life the nobles would either pick one of their own (the most experienced / the most respected / the highest ranked) or the king would politely ask one of them (the most experienced / the most respected / the highest ranked) to lead. Most likely though the king will take command himself, and have his most powerful and experienced nobles around him. He would give command of the flanks (where the king cannot command in person due to distance) to one of the high ranking nobles - someone he knows can command the obedience of the other commanders on that flank.

The feudal system is very hierarchical and a noble's position is based on birth and on the military power he brings to a battlefield, largely. The king cannot simply go around this by "appointing" some random guy as a commander over a feudal army. A duke who brings 3,000 men to battle does not listen to a mere courtier, regardless of what honors the king has bestowed on the man. It would be degrading for the duke to let himself be commanded like that. Even if the courtier is an experienced warrior (a guest or refugee from a far away country) the duke can't really let himself be seen by his own retainers as taking commands from him.

"Influence with the king" would matter only little. Basically, "influence" is already what you are exercising when you pick one of the 5-8 highest ranking lords as your commander. It does not extend much beyond that. If you're not a high ranking noble but you are in command of an army, then this is because the king gave you command over his own forces (i.e. made you his marshal), before he sent you to meet up with the other lords. Your authority comes from the fact that you bring forces to the battlefield (the king's forces) not because he gave you a patent or a medal.

When I mentioned honorary "general" ranks could be added to allow you to elevate someone higher than what his feudal rank would permit, I was thinking about this as just a tool for modders who feel that this is too constricting. Maybe you might want to make a mod where the king is an all-powerful, Chinese style absolute monarch. Or you might want to mod some court titles to "elevate" their holder within the feudal system - for example, a count who serves as the king's marshal could "rank" as a duke if you gave the marshal title additional generalship points.

But within the feudal time frame that CK2 is about I don't think this would be part of the game. You're not playing a Napoleonic army where the emperor's word is law - you're playing a medieval realm where law and custom are much higher than the king.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if you guys remember that all of these relate to a feature that was cut out from the development floor.
After all, didn't they even promote it in one of the dev diaries? Something to the effect of "be careful who you assign to lead. Letting a mere courtier lead would make your dukes angry" (VERY much paraphrased of course).
And then in one of the post-release dev diaries they stated that they cut it out because it was either unnecessary or frustrating for the testers (or something to that effect. I can't find the damned link :laugh:).
 
When I mentioned honorary "general" ranks could be added to allow you to elevate someone higher than what his feudal rank would permit, I was thinking about this as just a tool for modders who feel that this is too constricting. Maybe you might want to make a mod where the king is an all-powerful, Chinese style absolute monarch. Or you might want to mod some court titles to "elevate" their holder within the feudal system - for example, a count who serves as the king's marshal could "rank" as a duke if you gave the marshal title additional generalship points.

This is one of the most important features that would make the system work. If you do not want an imbecile Duke commanding your army flank, pay attention whom do you declare connétable next time, for example.
 
Implementing what Leviathan is suggesting would make battles (strategically) far more interesting. Right now it's just whack-a-mole with superior numbers.
 
It has be ages since I made a single comment, but this one calls for it - if I had a 1000 votes on all matters concering CK2, I would use them all to back Leviathan07's suggestions.

Fourthing.....

I am totally in agreement and in the same boat.

I would also like to add an option that may pop for the champions to be chosen when there is a battle between armies and a champion vs champion event may pop....


"Boagrius!!!".............................."Achilles!"

would be most excellent. Fourthing sounds weird, second thirding!


Oo also had a thought where a leader steps forward and if you choose someone else to fight he is unhappy. Winner of fight gets prestige! and les ladies
 
Last edited: