Hello guys!

So today we will be talking about some changes we have made to make our combat less bloody, which has particularly been an issue since patch 2.4. We have also worked on making the outcome of entire wars not be decided in one stroke by whomever happens to have pissed off Lady Fortuna...

First off, we have adopted the “shattered retreat” from EU4, meaning when an army is defeated it will run back to somewhere relatively safe so that the enemy can’t keep ping-ponging it until it is annihilated. Peasant rabble that rises against your enlightened and glorious rule, however, will immediately disperse on defeat so you don’t have to chase them down. But nobles within your realm that betray you and revolt will try and run for a safe haven.

The second feature we have added is that while your damaged army is at home it will reinforce its levies directly (rather than the Holding garrison), meaning you can choose if you want to employ the garrisoned levies immediately by dismissing and re-raising your levies, or decide it is too risky (since your army will then be split all over your Kingdom and be easy pickings for the enemy) and instead choose to have your army stand back and rest for a while and be slowly refilled with troops instead.

The equation for how losses were calculated has also been changed. Before, it was based on the troops getting damaged by almost exponential amounts. This could, in some cases, cause really ridiculous damage like 2 million casualties, when it was armies of thousands fighting each other. This has been changed, and the associated values tweaked severely to prevent the crazy casualties yet still ensure that enough soldiers die in battles. For math nerds this is how it works now:

Spoiler

Defending means here the unit taking damage, both units will be defending and attacking at the same time and does not denote who initiated the combat. DamagePerMan is a value calculated as a even distribution of the total damage each soldier takes.

((DamagePerMan * AmountOfDefendingTroops) / DefenseValue) * AmountOfDefendingTroops = LossesInTroops

Has been changed to

(DamagePerMan * AmountOfDefendingTroops) / DefenseValue = LossesInTroops

Not a very big change but it does have profound effects on the result.

Beside simple combat mechanic changes there have been some improvements and bug fixes to the AI to give players a better challenge, focusing mostly on making allied AIs coordinate better between themselves. Oh, and the Mongol AI has been given its balls back, making them a lot more aggressive than they ever were before...

You asked for it….

 

[Groogy]

And strong Mongols, I like it.

Not strong, we made them more aggressive, there were various modifiers like "Oh I am getting old so I shouldn't expand" and stuff the AI thinks about. You know pesky problems the Mongols don't have.

 

[Talq]

DmUa could you please stop the quote spam? Its not as easy to read as you think it is, and whatever point you think you are making has been long since lost.

 

[Zolotaya]

Thank you for the DD, Groogy.

I am neutral in feelings towards the featured shattered armies and replenishment mechanics. I am positively inclined towards the more aggressive horde ai (assuming the aggressive behavior is not limited to Mongol culture only).

My view will ultimately depend on implementation. The shattered armies and replenishment features seems ideal to be influenced by the leaders in charge of the armies in the field.

• Will a commander with the Strategist focus have an advantage in retreating over a commander with the Wroth trait?
• Will a commander with the Craven trait react differently than a commander with the Brave trait?
• Will an Organizer have an advantage over others with retreat and/or reinforcements?
• Will a Winter Soldier have advantages in Winter to both retreat and replenishment?

These systematic tie-ins will be essential to make or break the final deployment and the utility of older features within the new systems may prove key. I really need more info here because the vision is exiting but as always the final details are what matters here.

 

[Ilyasviel]

Honestly, I'm disappointed by these changes. The only one that I like is the more aggressive mongols, because right now they are ridiculous.

Shattered retreat and less casualties are bad, because completely destroying an army is usually the only way to win a war against an opponent stronger than you. If you can't do this, they will just keep replenishing their manpower over and over again until you have nothing left, and since the wars will take so long, you'll run out of money way before them, so you won't even be able to win through mercs.

As for armies reinforcing on their own, that sounds like a good change in general, but the problem is that i sometime keep my levies raised during war just in case while letting the warscore go up, but I don't want them reinforcing because it will cost me more money for nothing. If this feature is implemented, could we at least get a "don't reinforce" button for every armies?

 

[Castorem]

Oh, and the Mongol AI has been given its balls back

That's all I wanted to hear. Finally. Thank you Paradox.

 

[Shebaloso]

The reinforcement changes are great!

But why is this "shattered retreat" a thing? I mean, aren't battles in this game supposed to be much more decisive than in eu4? Perhaps it's just me, but i very much liked the old mechanics. I had to think very carefully where and when i would be engaging an enemy army, if there was a river crossing or defensible terrain to allow a feasible retreat, and so forth. In a game where there is no "manpower" such as this one, battles become pretty much irrelevant with this change. I don't know if i like this at all

 

[Korashy]

Hopefully this means that the Mongols won't somehow lose while carving out land from the dominant nomads. In my current game, it was ridiculous to see the Mongols lose to the Ughyur despite having 3 times the troops.



In my opinion shattered retreat is better than having to disperse and reraise levies because my force cannot out run my opponents, especially since the AI cannot do it.

Fight Abbassids around Jerusalem, shattered retreat all the way to India, if EU IV is any indication of what's going to happen.

 

[Tufto]

Excellent! I've always been fond of the shattered retreat mechanic, so I like this addition.

And proper Mongol AI is fantastic! I am already looking forward to the hundreds of whiny threads about how powerful the Mongols are again because they invaded Poland/Russia/Persia that's the kind of Mongol power we really need. I want to defend against a proper apocalyptic army, damnit .

 

[Groogy]

To make it extra clear, the nomads/mongols have gotten no bonuses at all. I just told the AI to not be so nice. The Ai is not smarter, the ai don't get any cheats. I just simply changed the modifiers to make it stop being a coward.

 

[Ilyasviel]

- last time i checked CK2 and EU4 were strategy games and not lotteries were you just sit and wait till you eventually win... maybe win. Having mechanics that allows you to ether be prepared or even preventing rebellion is much better for strategy game that just sitting and doing nothing.

Having to react to unexpected things is also a part of grand strategy. Not everything should be known to a ruler of a realm.

 

[Ilyasviel]

- sure, those 2 millions of peasant rebels that appear out of thin air and destroy your army just when you were preparing to fight against abbasids is super unexpected, especially if it was the only province with unrest. Dont bullshit me, please, here are difference between something truly unexpected and plain bullshit. Claiming that ruler somehow did not knowed that here are peasant uprising brewing in realm when at the same time he is perfectly knows that nobles conspire against him via faction menu is second.

Well, first of all, there's no rebellion anywhere near 2 millions. They're just a few thousands, and they're always made of weak light infantry, so they're easy to defeat. If you get crushed by a peasant army, you were going to get crushed by the Abbasids anyway.

Secondly, you can already tell where rebels will spawn by looking at the rebel mapmode. You just don't know exactly when they will, or if they ever will. I find this system pretty reasonable. It makes way more sense than knowing almost exactly when there will be a rebellion.

 

[Groogy]

Why does groogy have more icons than me?

Because I am pro.

 

[richvh]

- players cant do jack about RR now at all, dont pretend that they can

The marshal has a task that reduces revolt risk, so your argument is demonstrably false.

 

[Nirmara]

While were at it, could we get that armies can't abort movement when they have moved halfway to their destination?

 

[Groogy]

For first I didn't say reinforcing troops doesn't exist. Secondly the link you provided at first were anecdotal in the sense that the person reporting it felt it unjust that the enemy army kept persisting to exist after given time having nothing to do with the issue at hand. Event spawned troops that reinforce is an old thing that has existed in CK2 since the beginning that has been phased out over time, Saxons however does not have reinforcing event spawned troops, neither does the mongols.

The second link you provided is also anecdotal from impression as first part of thread says they stopped reinforcing at inheritance(even though that is not an actual thing) but last post says they kept reinforcing upon inheritance. If you have a specific case where event spawned troops reinforce when they shouldn't, then report that specific case.

Also if you are linking random threads to try and strengthen your point, please don¨t, so far they have spoken against what you want to convey. If you have a specific issue you want to detail and make us aware of, make a bug report with specifics and the QA team will be on it like vultures. They love making my day miserable.

 

[Groogy]

One alternative idea would be to literally 'shatter' the defeated army into several groups of differing sizes (which is also realistic given actual warfare). The winning army would then need to strategically decide which units to pursue. The defeated player is still on the back foot because she needs to regather the army, but that is balanced by the extra 'insurance' of some of the shattered army surviving instead of the whole shebang being wiped out, as it happens often currently.

Gameplay goes over realism here, Shattering as in the sense of splitting the army will completely kill your nation, both in EU4 and in CK2 and will not be anything we will even consider adding.

 

[MCBC6]

Does it means that, in a most unfortunate course of action, I'd get the old AI back if I were to cut it off?

Oh you Byzantines and your castration

 

[raven63]

We have also worked on making the outcome of entire wars not be decided in one stroke by whomever happens to have pissed off Lady Fortuna...

But...decisiveness of battles has always been one of my favorite aspects of ck2. Granted you've not talked in detail about what you guys are doing, but that deciseiveness and slight unpredictability is what keeps adrenaline rushing in my veins, and it is what gives the AI a little bit of a fighting chance against me.

 

[Korashy]

I saw this coming a few weeks ago and I still hate it. Shattered retreat is annoying as hell, especially since the AI can keep pulling units out of their ass.