• 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.

CK3 Dev Diary #18 - Men-at-Arms, Mercenaries and CBs

Hello everyone, and welcome back!

This week we’ll be talking about a lot of additional details surrounding warfare. Just a few bits and pieces that have changed since CK2.

Casus Belli
One thing that is as it ever was, however, is that you need a Casus Belli to go to war, and that CB determines what happens when the war is won (or lost!). The most common ones are for pressing claims, as you’re familiar with from CK2. In different situations there will be a different options, of course, and some are even unlocked in special ways, such as the ones unlocked by perks, as shown off in the Diplomacy Lifestyle dev diary.
Declare war view.PNG


War Declaration Cost
One thing that has changed a little is the fact that different CBs come with different “declaration costs” attached to them. This is usually Prestige or Piety, depending on whether you are starting a war against a fellow believer or someone from another faith. On the other hand, we don’t want to keep you from taking advantage of a great opportunity just because you’re missing 10 Prestige at a crucial moment, so the costs are optional, in a sense.

You can declare a war without paying its cost, at which point you’ll instead pay something bigger, such as a Level of Fame or Devotion.

Levels of Fame/Devotion brings their own benefits, so ideally you want to avoid this, but it’s not as big a problem as - say - truce breaking. It’s not going to cripple your play, just set you back a little bit in exchange for getting to raise your armies and take some new titles while your enemy is weak. This is also one of the ways that Piety and Prestige gain has become more valuable than it was in CK2. You want to use it for more stuff, and it’s always useful to have lying around!

Men-at-Arms
We have talked about armies before, where we talked about the difference between your levies and your Men-at-Arms. Your levies are your unwashed masses, indistinguishable peasants more than willing to die for the few measly pieces of gold you throw their way. Men-at-Arms, on the other hand, are more specialist troops, and the component that gives you more control over precisely how you win your wars. They are in many ways your elite troops, ready to march through mountains and marshes for you.
MaA view.PNG


You have a maximum number of Men-at-Arms regiment slots for your army, and in addition they have an upkeep cost. It’s small when they’re unraised, but the moment you have them stand up to go to war, they’ll demand a lot more pay!

Even though you can max out your MaA slots, there are other ways you can expand your army. Each MaA regiment can be increased a set number of times, to field even more of your deadly warriors. This will naturally increase their maintenance cost as well (both raised and unraised) so think twice before hiring twice as many soldiers!

There are many different types of MaA regiments, and what their type is determines a number of things, such as what terrain they are good at fighting in, and what kind of MaA Regiments they are good at countering, or get countered by. Over time, you may also be able to acquire new types of MaA Regiments. This means that the bulk of armies are likely to be quite different if you start in 867 compared to when you reach the end of the game.
Create MaA view.PNG


MaAs also include siege engines, which is one of the easiest way of speeding up your land grabs. However, siege weapons are almost useless in regular combat, and taking them uses up one of your MaA slots, so it’s a decision that has to be carefully thought through.
MaA siege engine.PNG


In addition to a standard slate of MaA types, different cultures gain access to different unique MaAs. These will vary greatly across the world, but are generally specialised in the conditions of warfare that’s typical for the culture in question.
Camel Riders.PNG


You will also be able to look at battle reports to get an indication of what kind of impact specific types of MaAs have on your battles. This can let you figure out whether your strategies are paying off, or whether it’s finally time to get some Pikemen to counter the Light Cavalry that your rival is always fielding.

So to sum it all up, Men-at-Arms are great for countering specific troop types, adjusting to specific types of terrain, and directly bolstering the number of soldiers in your army! Sometimes, strategising and countering isn’t enough, however, and that’s where Mercenaries come in!

Mercenaries
Mercenaries are familiar to any CK2 player, of course, but they have changed a little now.

First of all, you no longer pay monthly maintenance for them. Instead you pay their cost for three years up front, and then they’re yours for that time to use as you see fit. They’ll stay with you through thick and thin (although mostly the thick of battle).
Mercenary company screenshot 3.PNG


Once the three years are almost up, you’ll receive an alert warning you that the Mercenaries are about to pack up and get on their way! You’ll then have the opportunity to pay them for another three years of service. This also means that they aren't going to betray you the second you go into debt, which I know will sadden a lot of you, but this new system makes it a lot easier to keep track of what you have and don't have during war.

So Mercenaries are an expensive way of doing warfare, but sometimes it’s the only way you’ll survive. However, in order to find a Mercenary Company that fits you in both size and shape, we have a new system for generating them to make sure there's always a wide range to choose from.
Mercenary Hire view 2.PNG


Each culture generates between one and three Mercenary companies depending on the number of counties of that culture, with each additional company being bigger and more expensive than the previous one. They will also pick a county of their culture to keep as their headquarters, and will be available to be hired by anyone within a certain range of that county.

With each culture generating Mercenaries, their names and coats of arms are either picked from a generated list of names specific to their culture so that you can get historical or particularly flavourful companies in there.

On top of everything else, Mercenary companies come with one or more specific Men-at-Arms types, which means that you may want to consider not only which company is the biggest one you can afford, but which is the best suited for the war you’re about to fight.

This should all offer you a lot of varied strategies for how you go about your wars. Is it worth saving up for the CB cost or mercenary-Gold ahead of time? What Men-at-Arms should you be using against your ancestral enemies? Who would win in a fight between the the White Company and the Company of the Hat??

You’ll just have to wait until release to see...
 
  • 10Like
  • 3Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Still kinda disappointed that retinues don't exist. I still believe they should be available, as the most expensive, but also the most efficient type of an army. Levies >> Men at Arms >> Retinues. Another thing that disappoints me is the unrealistically small number of knights. Knights should be expensive and scarce, but having 10 knights in a 5000 army is ridiculous. Those types should be commanders IMHO, and knights should be an elite type of heavy cavalry or heavy infantry.
Cultural types of troops is a great addition though.
I guess most of it can be modded, so... HIP for CK3 hopefully.
The number of Knights are so small is because they are actually characters. Men at arms are basically the CK2 retinues with the major difference they are not on the map and thus can't be used to rush an enemy Before they even can raise their own levy and I suspect that is the reason why they are not on the map all the time unlike CK2.

Commanders are the name of the generals in CK3 who lead the armes while Knights just are characters that fight in battles, so two different things.

Would it be possible to include a men at arms regiment's weakness as well as its strength on the hiring screen? It's nice to know my new heavy infantry will be good against pikemen, but what will be good against them?
Yes it would be helpful but is maybe messy if Culture/regional men at arms don't follow the same counter table as regular men at arms.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Mercenary captains have a location, do they have a court? Will my personal relationship with the merc captain matter? Does the mercenary band's culture have meaningful effects? When a merc contract ends do the mercs just vanish or can they get into trouble of some kind? Does using mercs have any in game implications besides "I pay money and get soldiers"?
 
Well CK2 did not have a counter system, mercs could be raised and disbanded at will, no siege weapons, no Knights and so on.
The thing with siege weapons is that they tended to be built on the spot and moving them was difficult if not impractical, it was just far easier to bring the raw material to the siege and construct a new trebuchet. CK2 depicts this as just that, so it has no reason to depict separate siege weapons. Making siege weapons units similar to infantry is strange, I'd have preferred "engineer"-unit, for example by their nature the Mongols weren't great at sieges, but during their conquest, they collected an arsenal of skilled engineers that they kept in their ranks.
 
I hope higher level buildings will give a small amount of Men-at-Arms in addition to levies.

As for Mercs betraying you, maybe make the contract time shorter like 2 years so that it is more likely that the contract ends while the war is still ongoing.

The thing with siege weapons is that they tended to be built on the spot and moving them was difficult if not impractical, it was just far easier to bring the raw material to the siege and construct a new trebuchet. CK2 depicts this as just that, so it has no reason to depict separate siege weapons. Making siege weapons units similar to infantry is strange, I'd have preferred "engineer"-unit, for example by their nature the Mongols weren't great at sieges, but during their conquest, they collected an arsenal of skilled engineers that they kept in their ranks.

Just asume that the siege m-a-a represent the specialists and craftsmen you hired to build siege engines instead of literal siege engines being pushed around the map.
 
I hope higher level buildings will give a small amount of Men-at-Arms in addition to levies.
I don't think that would work since men at arms basically work the same way as retinues, what buildings could give in such case is allowing mroe men at arms regiments. Some buildings do make them better, like a siege workshop make all your siege Equipment better.

Just asume that the siege m-a-a represent the specialists and craftsmen you hired to build siege engines instead of literal siege engines being pushed around the map.
If they are moved they would likely be disassembled into parts.

The thing with siege weapons is that they tended to be built on the spot and moving them was difficult if not impractical, it was just far easier to bring the raw material to the siege and construct a new trebuchet. CK2 depicts this as just that, so it has no reason to depict separate siege weapons. Making siege weapons units similar to infantry is strange, I'd have preferred "engineer"-unit, for example by their nature the Mongols weren't great at sieges, but during their conquest, they collected an arsenal of skilled engineers that they kept in their ranks.
I don't think cannons could be made at the spot which required large manufactory complex and was extremely expensive to make, thus only available to the richest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, unfortunately.
If it's considered unfortunate that mercenary companies cannot be formed in CK3, and such was a mechanic available in CK2, why was that mechanic not carried over into CK3? I'm just baffled by how some content of CK2 was entirely cut for CK3.
 
If it's considered unfortunate that mercenary companies cannot be formed in CK3, and such was a mechanic available in CK2, why was that mechanic not carried over into CK3? I'm just baffled by how some content of CK2 was entirely cut for CK3.
Seems there going right back to the bare basics...
 
I like the general visual idea of it all with the art and having everything be so easy to read and relevant. But not really getting excited about anything else. I feel like the most exciting new thing of the combat system is the knights and that isn't really shown off here.

I do like that helmets for character portraits is confirmed even though I assume most assumed it'd come :p.
 
So, from the looks of the Casus Belli screen, it seems that wars will resolve themselves similarly or identically to CK2? If you're declaring for a specific claim, are you still only able to take that one claim, despite sieging out the whole country? If so, are there any other CBs that are more flexible, akin to EUIV's system for peace deals?

The rigid inflexibility of CK2's peace deals was something I was hoping would change here so I hope that's not the case.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Cool if allys actually get fame/prestige by they contribution and player also so it can motivate player actually to take part of war not just sit it out.
That already happens in CK2. You also get prestige for troops contributed to battles, flank commanders get prestige too. The questions are if it is desirable for your ally to win at all, and if the cost of dead troops, gold and the opportunity cost of not doing something else with your troops is worth a little prestige. Usually prestige, except when you need massive amounts for specific things, is not an issue in CK2.
 
If it's considered unfortunate that mercenary companies cannot be formed in CK3, and such was a mechanic available in CK2, why was that mechanic not carried over into CK3? I'm just baffled by how some content of CK2 was entirely cut for CK3.
Cause we cannot have everything from CK2 and improve mechanics from CK2 and add new mechanics and still do that in a time period where we can actually still release the game.

CK2 had like 8+ years of development, if you want everything from CK2 along with all the new things then this game would probably itself take 8 years to make and thus require a much higher price point to make up the costs which people would then instead complain about.

To every single "Why is X not in" there are generally two answers:
1. It was bad in CK2 and we don't want to port bad things just for the sake of it, we'd rather make actual fleshed out good things now or in later patches/expansions.
2. We don't have time to do everything, some things have to be sacrificed so other things can be done.

We've of course tried to prioritise the things we don't carry over so that they are things with minimal impact or minimal usage by players. Creatable mercenary companies falls into that category, it is very low impact and not a highly used feature by people.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
To every single "Why is X not in" there are generally two answers:
1. It was bad in CK2 and we don't want to port bad things just for the sake of it, we'd rather make actual fleshed out good things now or in later patches/expansions.
2. We don't have time to do everything, some things have to be sacrificed so other things can be done.

We've of course tried to prioritise the things we don't carry over so that they are things with minimal impact or minimal usage by players. Creatable mercenary companies falls into that category, it is very low impact and not a highly used feature by people.
Definitely, and there have been some things cut that I completely agree with (along with some I wish were cut, but that's beside the point). I suppose I was just puzzled some by the response - that it was considered unfortunate that it had to be cut, when it (seemingly) didn't have to be. But, I suppose I may be underestimating the effort necessary to port a feature from CK2 to CK3! Either way, thank you for the response, and I do hope my question caused no offense, for none was meant by it.
 
All of these listed features are a major YES from me. Awesome, from all POVs, although there is one question which I'm not sure if it has been answered with definite yes or no: will you be able to play as Mercenary Captain?
 
Definitely, and there have been some things cut that I completely agree with (along with some I wish were cut, but that's beside the point). I suppose I was just puzzled some by the response - that it was considered unfortunate that it had to be cut, when it (seemingly) didn't have to be. But, I suppose I may be underestimating the effort necessary to port a feature from CK2 to CK3! Either way, thank you for the response, and I do hope my question caused no offense, for none was meant by it.
No offense taken, this is just something that comes up a lot as a question and a misunderstanding about development in general in games! :D

The code of CK2 and CK3 are entirely different, you cannot copy paste over mechanics at all really, trying to do would require a lot of reworking.

Any feature needing to be cut is unfortunate, as we also want all the fun things in the game as well ;) But at the end of the day we've gotta prioritise the limited time to get the most bang of our time investment and something small and rarely used like custom mercs is just not up there
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Sounds cool!

I hope the counter system turns out to be significant and the bonuses and penalties are greatly affected by terrain. Anything that makes me think about unit composition and positioning instead of just brute numbers is a big step in the right direction for me. Most of my CK2 war strategies just boiled down to saving enough money to pay for mercs to outnumber the enemy.
 
Sounds cool!

I hope the counter system turns out to be significant and the bonuses and penalties are greatly affected by terrain. Anything that makes me think about unit composition and positioning instead of just brute numbers is a big step in the right direction for me. Most of my CK2 war strategies just boiled down to saving enough money to pay for mercs to outnumber the enemy.
They have said the counter system and terrain bonuses will be impactful. CK3 will have combat width based on the size of the defending army as well as the terrain the battle take place on. Other things is that the beseieger is now considered the attacker like in Imperator: Rome so sieges should be more risky now, also the defender can build buildings that give bonuses in battles in that duchy.

Overall it look like alot of development have been done on the combat system so it will probably be less about the numbers and more about how you use your armies, which men at arms you use, terrain and such. I think also it will be easier to understand than CK2 combat system as I don't think you will have to worry about finding the right composition for tactics.

I think people should take some time and think about the difference between CK3 and CK2 combat system before just jumping and say it is just a simplification of CK2 combat system. Because a system is easier to understand don't mean it is less strategic or simpler.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 1
Reactions:
Ugh, if there's a feature in CK2 I hate the most, it's probably the trinary win/draw/lose nature of war. A disappointment to see that is making a comeback.

Can we at least combine multiple CBs in a single war (by paying extra prestige, maybe)? Medieval European history had plenty of examples of large shifts in power and land in a single war that didn't involve pressing someone's claim. CK2 deals with them by awkwardly giving people special CBs when I'd rather a more general system.

At the very least I'd like to press all my de jure claims in a single war, so I don't have to drag my empire into a massive war with another large empire over a single barony and repeat that 4 more times, waiting out the truce timer for each, before I can use my formation decision.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Ugh, if there's a feature in CK2 I hate the most, it's probably the trinary win/draw/lose nature of war. A disappointment to see that is making a comeback.

Can we at least combine multiple CBs in a single war (by paying extra prestige, maybe)? Medieval European history had plenty of examples of large shifts in power and land in a single war that didn't involve pressing someone's claim. CK2 deals with them by awkwardly giving people special CBs when I'd rather a more general system.

At the very least I'd like to press all my de jure claims in a single war, so I don't have to drag my empire into a massive war with another large empire over a single barony and repeat that 4 more times, waiting out the truce timer for each, before I can use my formation decision.
I rather like it that you can't blob all over the place and take whatever you want when you win a war, even as defender. Now I only hope that you also can't spam holy wars like you can in CK2.
 
  • 1
Reactions: