• 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 #3 - War

Greetings!

War. What is it good for? You may ask. A whole lot I’d say. You can use it to press that juicy Claim you have been holding on to for a while, or perhaps you’d rather use it to put the unbelievers to the sword. Whichever strikes your fancy. The topic of the day is war, and more specifically, how we go about waging war.

I aim to give you an overview of how wars will be fought. I will not go into details about CBs or anything like that this time. Bear in mind that the game is still very much in development and everything talked about here is subject to change.

Let’s start by taking a look at what an army is made up of. Just like in Crusader Kings 2, the bulk of your armies consists of Levies. Levies in Crusader Kings 3 are made up of their own unit type, simply called Levy. These are essentially conscripted peasants forced to do your bidding and are not very impressive on their own. In great numbers, however, they are an efficient meat shield meant to complement the troops of your armies that have a far higher impact: Men-at-Arms.

dd_03_armynumbers.png


Men-at-Arms are the equivalent to the Retinues of CK2. They are trained troops that come in several different unit types which excel in their given role. There are base variations available for everyone to recruit, such as Light Cavalry and Heavy Infantry, but the really interesting ones are usually unique to certain cultures or specific regions of the map, though all have their own stats and uses. Speaking of stats, there are four different values present on a Men-at-Arms regiment that you need to keep track off:

Damage - This is obviously the amount of damage a single soldier of this type is able to inflict on the opponent.

Toughness - This is how much damage a soldier can take.

Pursuit - In the aftermath of a battle (more on this below), Pursuit increases the amount of damage you can inflict upon a routing enemy.

Screen - The opposite of Pursuit, Screen allows you to protect fleeing soldiers from being killed.

dd_03_pikemen.png


Not all Men-at-Arms are equal. You will have access to a few immediately from the start and unlock access to additional regiment types as you progress throughout the game. Some will be similar to each other, but may be tailored towards a certain terrain type. Others may just be a straight upgrade, but will in those cases be much more expensive than their weaker counterpart.

Men-at-Arms allow you to customize your army for any given situation. If you know where or who you will fight, certain Men-at-Arms will be far superior. Is there a lot of hilly terrain in your region? Then Archers are the way to go. Are you facing a lot of cavalry? Bring Pikemen! A smaller army will stand a much higher chance of winning if you bring a Men-at-Arm type that counters those of the enemy. When a regiment is countered, it’s efficiency in battle will be lowered, with its Damage output significantly reduced. If the countered regiment is greatly outnumbered by the countering type, efficiency will reduce even further. There’s a limit to how much a Men-at-Arm’s Damage can be reduced though, as to not make your expensive troops completely useless.

Next we have a special kind of Men-at-Arms: Siege Weapons. Medieval warfare was all about sieges. Castles and sieges are very iconic for the time frame, so we felt that it was necessary to have that properly represented. You’ll start off with access to a rather weak catapult, but it will still allow you to besiege holdings faster than without one. Later on, you’ll unlock improved siege weapons, such as trebuchets, that are able to speed up sieges significantly.

dd_03_siegeweapons.png


You can only own a certain number of Men-at-Arms regiments at any given time, so choose carefully which troops you decide to recruit!

Levies and Men-at-Arms are not the only soldiers available to you. As a ruler, you have a number of Knights at your disposal. These are the vassals and courtiers of your realm with a high Prowess, which is the equivalent to Combat Rating in CK2, and represents how good a character is at fighting and is used when they participate in battles. You can normally only have a few dedicated Knights, but there are various ways to increase the number of Knights, as well as their effectiveness.

dd_03_knight.png


Finally, we have the Commander. An army can only have a single Commander, who uses his Martial skill to improve the troops under his command. There are plenty of different commander traits available, which either have a direct effect on battles, such as terrain bonuses, or give the Commander bonuses outside of battles. One such example is the ability to have supply last longer (more on this below).

dd_03_commanders.png


dd_03_holywarrior.png


With armies out of the way, let’s have a look at battles! At the very start of any battle, a combat width is set that decides how many troops are able to fight each other at the same time. The width is set to the relative size of the defender, depending on the terrain type you are fighting in, being larger in flat and open terrain, and smaller in rough terrain and mountains. I would generally advise against attacking larger armies in plains for example...

The single most important part of a battle is Advantage, which is essentially a modifier that increases the damage of all troops on either side. When a battle starts, all sources of Advantage is taken into consideration. It can come from traits, terrain, buildings, etc. but most importantly, the Martial skill of your Commander. All of these are added together for both sides of the battle. The difference is then added as the Advantage bonus for the side with the higher Advantage.

Example: Your army has a total Advantage of 40, and attacks an enemy army that has a lousy total of 10. This means that you will have an Advantage bonus of 30 during the battle, which then translates into a rather significant damage bonus for your troops.

In addition to the starting Advantage, each Commander also makes a roll every few days in an attempt to increase their Advantage or even it out. This tug of war can be further expanded by various modifiers and traits. For example, the trait ‘Cautious Leader’ will decrease your potential max roll, but also increase your lowest possible roll, trading a high potential for a higher average. These exist to make even battles a tad bit unpredictable, but will rarely be the deciding factor.

Soldiers on the combat line damage the enemy on every tick. When a soldier “dies”, he will be considered to be either a Casualty, or to be Routed. Casualties, you guessed it, are considered dead and will have to be replenished over time. Routed soldiers, on the other hand, are troops that are injured or fled the battle and are added back to the army once the battle is resolved. Battles are resolved once either side runs out of fighting troops.

Once the battle is won, it enters the Aftermath phase which lasts for a few days. This is when the victor has the opportunity to chase down and kill any survivors (the Routed troops). As mentioned earlier, this is the time for certain Men-at-Arms to shine. With a high Pursuit you can kill a larger amount of the enemy to really capitalize on your victory. Alternatively, you can have a high amount of Screen to make losing battles less penalizing. Keep in mind that battles will grant you a fairly limited amount of War Score. Which brings us to sieges!

Besieging and occupying enemy holdings is the main way of gaining War Score and winning wars. As mentioned in lats week's map dev diary, Baronies are their own provinces. You will not have to siege all of them in order to occupy a full county or seize your War Goal, only fortified holdings have to be besieged. Castles and County Capitals are all fortified by default, with how difficult it is to besiege these holdings being decided by their Fort Level. Fort Level can be increased by certain buildings and modifiers.

Each Fort level increases the amount of Siege Progress you need to get before it gets occupied. You gain a base amount of Siege Progress every tick, which can be increased further by heavily outnumbering the garrison or having Siege Weapons. This constant progress won’t change over the course of a siege. It allows you to know what the maximum duration of the siege will be and you can take that into account as you plan your next move. Sieges also have what we call ‘siege events’, which occur with a fixed interval, and can make the siege progress faster by giving you a one time Siege Progress bonus, or increase your base Siege Progress. Siege Weapons are required to get the ‘breached walls’ event, which in turn allow you to directly assault the holding. This is a risky maneuver since it will cost you troops, at the benefit of vastly increasing your daily Siege Progress.

Being attacked while besieging a holding will make you the attacker of the battle, making you lose out on any usual defender bonuses you would get from the terrain. Sieges are therefore slightly riskier, and assaulting the holding to gain control of it before the enemy attacks might well be worth the cost.

A few final words on moving armies around. As I mentioned briefly in last week’s DD thread, major rivers have designated fords for crossing. You can no longer cross them freely as in CK2, and will often have to move your army to find a good place to cross. Beware though, crossing a major river will make you lose Advantage should you engage an enemy in battle on the other side, making river crossings for perfect places to catch your opponent. Along with the increased amount of Impassable Terrain, there are plenty of bottlenecks that you can use to your advantage (pun intended).

Have you ever been annoyed by walking into a province just for a short while in CK2, only to go above the Supply Limit and lose a bunch of troops? Fear not. Armies now carry an amount of Supply with them. Supply is drained whenever armies are in Baronies with a lower Supply Limit than their size. You can therefore safely march through a few Baronies with a low Supply Limit without troops dying. If you army runs out of Supply however, it will start to take attrition and lose troops over time. Supply is increased as long as you are below the Supply Limit in territory you control. Beware though, your army might not take attrition on low Supply, but it will suffer an Advantage Penalty in battles!

Chasing armies deep into enemy land is certainly not recommended. Marching into a County controlled by the enemy, that doesn’t border anything you control and is not on the coast, will make your army take a single and quite significant attrition hit. If you have a huge amount of troops to spare though, then perhaps you don’t need to worry about it.

Phew. That turned out to be a bit lengthier than expected. I hope you’ve gotten a fairly good (although slightly summarized) picture of what to expect when waging war in Crusader Kings 3!
 
Last edited:
  • 13Like
  • 3
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm necro'ing this thread rather than post a new one.

I notice in the FAQ that naval combat, as expected, will not be included "at launch". Now, I am not keen on seeing standing navies or anything of that nature in this period. Nor do I wish to have yet another stack battling another only on a blue rather than a green/brown tile. It makes little sense historically (yes, with some exceptions e.g. Sluys or the Venetian-Genoese tussles) and it just adds more clicks in the clickfest that is war in Paradox games.

But, there are two extremely annoying ahistorical problems with the current "anyone can embark an army and sail it across the seas with only some attrition to worry about" model

(a) The "Sheikdom of Praha" complex, i.e. armies coming from a long way away comparatively unmolested even though a sea is in the middle. This includes the player who only has to worry about levying/hiring enough ships to embark his troops.

(b) The "Olafdur the Relentless keeps raiding the Rialto/Constantinople/Genoa hex again and again" insanity: in which raiding (generally Norse) forces keep attacking the historically most amphibiously protected hexes because they're also the wealthiest.

I think that the solution can be simple: a coastal/navigable river hex may be "fortified" by the owner investing in abstracted "naval defences". These incur extra (and substantial, depending on the investment) losses to hostile fleets passing through them, including those of raiders. By losses I mean on ships on top of the usual attrition on carried land forces. These ships are lost randomly, by a factor that is affected by the level of naval fortification. What is lost is whole individual ships (or several of those) rather than the EU4-style "percentage of a ship damaged". So, if a player or the AI wants to amphibiously attack a defended coastal hex, then a chance of so many % per day should be braved for each ship brought in. If the roll fails the ship sinks. If the ships that survive are fewer than necessary to carry the troops on board then that percentage of the troops is also lost. Coastal hexes with naval defences should also interdict the reinforcement of enemy troops by a % depending on the level of defences, until the defended coastal baronies are lost.

The naval fortification should also be an ongoing rather than one-off cost, unlike land defences. It represents the maintenance of coastwatchers, coastal vessels, ammunition and maintenance for the sailors, Greek fire supplies for those lucky enough to have them, and even whole historical fleets (e.g. the Cibbhyraeoton theme) that were charged with coastal defences. These should be kept up as well as built up. The build up should take some (a lot of) time to reach a useful defence level, thus deterring "moving the proverbial slider up and down in case of a war" ploy. Also, each investment should be done per hex, not per country. So, the more naval hexes one ones, the harder it is to defend them all due to the associated cost. So, a rich Venice should have no problem swatting away the proverbial Olafdur the Relentless coming to plunder it from Iceland if it pours enough cash on the defences of its single lagoon hex so as to maintain a good defence level. By the time Olafdur manages to unload his berserkers, enough ships will have been lost as to result in only himself and another 12 dudes surviving the ordeal. A struggling 8th Century Byzantium on the other hand would find it hard to get the cash to prevent an Arab army landing on Crete or Sicily while keeping the Bosphorus safe as well.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm necro'ing this thread rather than post a new one.

I notice in the FAQ that naval combat, as expected, will not be included "at launch". Now, I am not keen on seeing standing navies or anything of that nature in this period. Nor do I wish to have yet another stack battling another only on a blue rather than a green/brown tile. It makes little sense historically (yes, with some exceptions e.g. Sluys or the Venetian-Genoese tussles) and it just adds more clicks in the clickfest that is war in Paradox games.

But, there are two extremely annoying ahistorical problems with the current "anyone can embark an army and sail it across the seas with only some attrition to worry about" model

(a) The "Sheikdom of Praha" complex, i.e. armies coming from a long way away comparatively unmolested even though a sea is in the middle. This includes the player who only has to worry about levying/hiring enough ships to embark his troops.

(b) The "Olafdur the Relentless keeps raiding the Rialto/Constantinople/Genoa hex again and again" insanity: in which raiding (generally Norse) forces keep attacking the historically most amphibiously protected hexes because they're also the wealthiest.

I think that the solution can be simple: a coastal/navigable river hex may be "fortified" by the owner investing in abstracted "naval defences". These incur extra (and substantial, depending on the investment) losses to hostile fleets passing through them, including those of raiders. By losses I mean on ships on top of the usual attrition on carried land forces. These ships are lost randomly, by a factor that is affected by the level of naval fortification. What is lost is whole individual ships (or several of those) rather than the EU4-style "percentage of a ship damaged". So, if a player or the AI wants to amphibiously attack a defended coastal hex, then a chance of so many % per day should be braved for each ship brought in. If the roll fails the ship sinks. If the ships that survive are fewer than necessary to carry the troops on board then that percentage of the troops is also lost. Coastal hexes with naval defences should also interdict the reinforcement of enemy troops by a % depending on the level of defences, until the defended coastal baronies are lost.

The naval fortification should also be an ongoing rather than one-off cost, unlike land defences. It represents the maintenance of coastwatchers, coastal vessels, ammunition and maintenance for the sailors, Greek fire supplies for those lucky enough to have them, and even whole historical fleets (e.g. the Cibbhyraeoton theme) that were charged with coastal defences. These should be kept up as well as built up. The build up should take some (a lot of) time to reach a useful defence level, thus deterring "moving the proverbial slider up and down in case of a war" ploy. Also, each investment should be done per hex, not per country. So, the more naval hexes one ones, the harder it is to defend them all due to the associated cost. So, a rich Venice should have no problem swatting away the proverbial Olafdur the Relentless coming to plunder it from Iceland if it pours enough cash on the defences of its single lagoon hex so as to maintain a good defence level. By the time Olafdur manages to unload his berserkers, enough ships will have been lost as to result in only himself and another 12 dudes surviving the ordeal. A struggling 8th Century Byzantium on the other hand would find it hard to get the cash to prevent an Arab army landing on Crete or Sicily while keeping the Bosphorus safe as well.

They are not only not including naval combat, they are not including navies at all (troops move over water by spending money to "hire" ships for the passage) as far as I know.
 
They are not only not including naval combat, they are not including navies at all (troops move over water by spending money to "hire" ships for the passage) as far as I know.
Yes with our current knowledge it seems to be the case, but we have to wait for the DD about navies to actually know for sure how seaborn transportation will work.
 
Yes with our current knowledge it seems to be the case, but we have to wait for the DD about navies to actually know for sure how seaborn transportation will work.
There won't be one - why would there be?
 
They are not only not including naval combat, they are not including navies at all (troops move over water by spending money to "hire" ships for the passage) as far as I know.

So basically we're back to CK1 mechanics. Welcome back Sheikdom of Praha!

Joking aside, I don't have a problem with abstracting naval mechanics. My suggestion above does just that. So, I don't have a problem with doing away with hired (or levied) ships and doing the usual multiplication by 1000 to see whether my troops fit. It is a fiddly, annoying mechanic which is also pointless considering there is no way you can interdict these fleets in CK2.

The point remains: you can't just use costs (money and attrition) to deter the frivolous naval movement of troops that leads to the Shiekdom of Praha phenomenon. You also have to give the chance to the owners of coastal hexes to also throw money and/or other resources to influence the attrition of amphibiously moving enemies and to prevent their reinforcement.

EDIT: To use the obvious Crusades example (for what is after all "Crusader" Kings). In 1095 the First Crusade didn't just pay money to move amphibiously on Jaffa and on to Jerusalem. The Fatimid fleet would have something to say on that. They had to trek all the way across Europe, Anatolia and Syria first. Even the crusades of 1101 went via the land route, even though Jerusalem had fallen.

Having to worry about reinforcement-interdicting defended coastal hexes will also prevent some of the deep inland strikes that you often see AI (and player) hosts undertake.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for posting in a very old thread, but I'm only just now catching up with CK3. I notice the image of the second-tier sieg weapon is a Petraria Articanus, which was a ahistorical 19th century invention (in an engraving by Gustave Doré). There is no evidence of a catapult of this design ever existing, and all replicas (like you can see in several castles in France, sadly) have been shown to not work. Can we get something actually realistic between the onager and the trebuchet? Maybe a fixed-wounterweight early trebuchet?
 
Chasing armies deep into enemy land is certainly not recommended. Marching into a County controlled by the enemy, that doesn’t border anything you control and is not on the coast, will make your army take a single and quite significant attrition hit. If you have a huge amount of troops to spare though, then perhaps you don’t need to worry about it.

I am just rereading this Dev Diary. Does "single quite significant attrition hit" mean an immediate loss of troops the moment you stray into a distant enemy county or is it simply a large increase in the attrition %? I imagine it is the latter.
 
If we change gender roles will we be able to call them "Women at arms"
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
The naval fortification should also be an ongoing rather than one-off cost, unlike land defences. It represents the maintenance of coastwatchers, coastal vessels, ammunition and maintenance for the sailors, Greek fire supplies for those lucky enough to have them, and even whole historical fleets (e.g. the Cibbhyraeoton theme) that were charged with coastal defences.
Post generally agreed. However, I think there should be a maintenance cost for land defenses too. If holding your land is expensive, you would be a lot more less likely too expand, after all.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
So basically we're back to CK1 mechanics. Welcome back Sheikdom of Praha!

Joking aside, I don't have a problem with abstracting naval mechanics. My suggestion above does just that. So, I don't have a problem with doing away with hired (or levied) ships and doing the usual multiplication by 1000 to see whether my troops fit. It is a fiddly, annoying mechanic which is also pointless considering there is no way you can interdict these fleets in CK2.

The point remains: you can't just use costs (money and attrition) to deter the frivolous naval movement of troops that leads to the Shiekdom of Praha phenomenon. You also have to give the chance to the owners of coastal hexes to also throw money and/or other resources to influence the attrition of amphibiously moving enemies and to prevent their reinforcement.

EDIT: To use the obvious Crusades example (for what is after all "Crusader" Kings). In 1095 the First Crusade didn't just pay money to move amphibiously on Jaffa and on to Jerusalem. The Fatimid fleet would have something to say on that. They had to trek all the way across Europe, Anatolia and Syria first. Even the crusades of 1101 went via the land route, even though Jerusalem had fallen.

Having to worry about reinforcement-interdicting defended coastal hexes will also prevent some of the deep inland strikes that you often see AI (and player) hosts undertake.
This could be turned into a good mechanic. You could have a pool of ships that you could hire from your own lands at a discounted price, and then available mercenary ships from nearby lands that you would have to pay full-price for. That way you would still want to develop your coastline if you want some force projection, but without the annoying clicky-work of levying boats in each province, clicking them over to where your doomstack is, and then consolidating them so your doomstack can board.
 
If there is only one commander per battle now, how will this effect morale if they are killed? And if flanks were such an important part of medieval battles, why would you remove flank commanders?
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If there is only one commander per battle now, how will this effect morale if they are killed? And if flanks were such an important part of medieval battles, why would you remove flank commanders?

Agreed. It seems a little late to comment on it here (maybe worth making a specific new thread?) but three battle (flanks) groups were being done as early as the battle of Hastings in the 1000s (at least on the Norman side) and as late as the Wars of the Roses in the 1400s. It seems weird to leave something like that out.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
No ships, no wings, no battle tactics. It's like I'm back in 2004. I'm pretty disappointed that the game took 2 steps back in combat when it's one of the most important aspects of the series. I was about to pre-order, but decided against it for now. Maybe I'll check a demo if that happens. The game needed further improvement of battles rather than abstracting and omitting what CKII had.
 
  • 10
Reactions:
No ships, no wings, no battle tactics. It's like I'm back in 2004. I'm pretty disappointed that the game took 2 steps back in combat when it's one of the most important aspects of the series. I was about to pre-order, but decided against it for now. Maybe I'll check a demo if that happens. The game needed further improvement of battles rather than abstracting and omitting what CKII had.
The battles *are* improved in some ways.

The flanks system was gameable to a ridiculous extent, but it required a lot of fiddling to do so, making it unfun to do so. (Single composition stacks of the right troop, right culture commander, make sure nothing pollutes the purity of the flank.... death on legs).
The tactics system broke if you looked at it funny, or dared to replace a flank commander with the wrong person - suddenly all your elite soldiers of the retinue forgot how to do their special tactic *even if they had individually attached commanders of their culture* - and you couldn't set up the replacement commander ahead of time so that your longbowmen (or whatever) would have their command structure know how to use them.
For that matter, not being able to teach your Norman lord how to use English and Welsh archers was a problem in and of itself.


Ships added nothing tactical to the game, so them being gone is a good thing, because it reduces the micromanagement involved in army movement for much the same result.


Advantage is now cleaner, the modifiers for combat are cleaner.

Now, I'll have to fight a few battles to get the full feel for it, but mostly the battle system so far seems to have mostly cleaned out the rubbish and gone back to a solid core.
 
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
It's way easier to 'game' the new system, just stack advantage, build retinues, put ONE commander with big martial value. I don't see how it's less gameable than before. It's as shallow as it gets. Any detractors of the previous system could be addressed in a new game rather than saying "people are more interested in assassinating babies anyway, just copy & paste battles from EU".

Moreover, features in a historical game should never ever be cut based on a "added nothing tactical" mindset, this is not Starcraft. Whoosh, now the troops magically teleport over sea by buying tickets shouldn't ever happen in a Paradox game anymore at the zenith of their budget. Sea zones aren't wormholes. Ship combat however less often, existed. Countries had navies.

Combat didn't go back to a solid core, it went back to an ankle-deep puddle. It's now "big number=attack - small number=run".
 
  • 9
Reactions:
It's way easier to 'game' the new system, just stack advantage, build retinues, put ONE commander with big martial value. I don't see how it's less gameable than before. It's as shallow as it gets. Any detractors of the previous system could be addressed in a new game rather than saying "people are more interested in assassinating babies anyway, just copy & paste battles from EU".

Moreover, features in a historical game should never ever be cut based on a "added nothing tactical" mindset, this is not Starcraft. Whoosh, now the troops magically teleport over sea by buying tickets shouldn't ever happen in a Paradox game anymore at the zenith of their budget. Sea zones aren't wormholes. Ship combat however less often, existed. Countries had navies.

Combat didn't go back to a solid core, it went back to an ankle-deep puddle. It's now "big number=attack - small number=run".
I feel you are very severely wrong.
You've ignored the way that units counter each other and have different roles.
The battles *aren't* cut and paste from EUIV, not in the slightest.

Just building retinues (which don't exist as such) won't help if you build the wrong ones, or use them in the wrong terrain.

And bad features *should* be cut. Especially ones that end up with a ton of micromanagement.

Troops don't teleport.
Sea combat was rare in most locations on the CK3 map during this period, and didn't have a universal model.
Most countries didn't have significant navies in the period, even ones with significant coastline, generally preferring to hire/press and equip merchant vessels.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Whoosh, now the troops magically teleport over sea by buying tickets shouldn't ever happen in a Paradox game anymore at the zenith of their budget. Sea zones aren't wormholes.
I think you've misunderstood things here. The troops still have to embark the ships and move across the sea. There is no teleportation or wormholes. :)
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions: