How will Bulgaria be able to defeated the Byzantine Empire like it did in the war 913-927?

[Denkt]

I think stuff like the Byzantine-Bulgarian wars which was about as often won by Bulgaria as the Byzantines tell quite a big issue with how CK2 military system work, it is simply too favorable for the stronger side compared to history. Often a weaker side, like Bulgaria, or England during the hundred year war was able to take Control over significant parts of a stronger realms territory and win victories even when significantly outnumbered which in turn lead to those conquests.

A larger realm could generally not mobilize its whole army against one foe because it have large borders, when Basill II invaded Bulgaria, it was only with like 30 000 and meanwhile the Byzantines was also fighting to the east but such situation seldom happen in CK2 as the ai probably don't know just how exposed a nation is.

This ability for large realms to field its whole army against one small realm at a time make it very hard for the small realms to even survive, yet alone win a war.

I think the ai should be more aggressive to realms that have lost wars and alot its army, like scavengers which I think is pretty realistic as well. This mean if you take alot of risks and lose a war really badly you may lose even more, which mean you have more reason to give up early and save your army even if you could win the war but end up with a very weak army, which would be disastrous.

 

[Limbojack]

I agree, but would like to add some other suggestions as well:

1) make vassal management harder for the higher tiers, so that managing kings as an emperor is harder than managing dukes as a King, and managing counts as a Duke.
2) make vassal opinion matter a lot more when it comes to both tax and soldiers.
3) make it so that vassals contribute more troops in defensive wars.
4) reduce the tax generated by holdings who's had their levies raised as their workers are gone, making large wars costlier.
5) add the "looted" penalty to both raided and occupied holdings, and increase the time it takes for that penalty to disappear, making wars costlier.
6) give a small combat bonus to whoever owns the title where the battle takes place (a home advantage for knowing the terrain etc), which would benefit smaller realms.
7) increase the time it takes to replenish your levies and MaAs.

I'm curious to see how CK3 manages the internal struggle of larger realms, and if they've managed to implement anything to stop the snowballing.

 

[r3xm0rt1s]

I agree, but would like to add some other suggestions as well:

1) make vassal management harder for the higher tiers, so that managing kings as an emperor is harder than managing dukes as a King, and managing counts as a Duke.
2) make vassal opinion matter a lot more when it comes to both tax and soldiers.
3) make it so that vassals contribute more troops in defensive wars.
4) reduce the tax generated by holdings who's had their levies raised as their workers are gone, making large wars costlier.
5) add the "looted" penalty to both raided and occupied holdings, and increase the time it takes for that penalty to disappear, making wars costlier.
6) give a small combat bonus to whoever owns the title where the battle takes place (a home advantage for knowing the terrain etc), which would benefit smaller realms.
7) increase the time it takes to replenish your levies and MaAs.

I'm curious to see how CK3 manages the internal struggle of larger realms, and if they've managed to implement anything to stop the snowballing.

5 is already in CK2. 1. Is in there already, but that may just be my personal experience.

Typically managing a larger realm in CK2 requires more work of the player, though to large degree it is making more of the same obviously correct decisions.

In my experience #7 is the way to go. Levies replenish much slower in AGOT mod and it really makes me consider if I can afford to fight that war, even if I am almost certain I will win. In vanilla CK2 the only similar thing I can think of is bleeding troops to conquer worthless high attrition provinces.

 

[Limbojack]

5 is already in CK2. 1. Is in there already, but that may just be my personal experience.

No, it's not. A country gets the "looted" penalty after having been raided or the "new administration" penalty if change owner because of a war, but there's no economical penalty to a county that has been sieged down but don't change owner. Well, that's not entirely true as every sieging army begins to take from the "free loot" of the county in which they're sieging, and that affects the economy somewhat, but that debuff isn't that huge or lasts that long. Maybe such a penalty is part of one of the mods you're using or something?

Typically managing a larger realm in CK2 requires more work of the player, though to large degree it is making more of the same obviously correct decisions.

I would disagree with this. Retinues increase with realm size, so that's usually enough to keep all your vassals either out of factions unless you're trying to piss them off. Once I become a King, or even more so when an Emperor, I never experience any vassal revolts or faction problems because of my many retinues and many holdings (which the player are much better at developing than the AI).

Levies replenish much slower in AGOT mod and it really makes me consider if I can afford to fight that war, even if I am almost certain I will win

I haven't tried the AGOT mod, but that's the effect I want to achieve. Wars should be costly and risky, so good if that mod manages to do exactly that.

 

[Limbojack]

Oh, nevermind. It's shown on the holding income, not the county UI. Hmm, I guess it's a good thing that CK3 has a better UI than CK2. But the 38% should be increased, and the length should be doubled.

 

[Andrzej I]

This ability for large realms to field its whole army against one small realm at a time make it very hard for the small realms to even survive, yet alone win a war.

Definitely agreed there. As proposed above by @Limbojack, making levies replenish slower would go a long way towards making wars a costlier affair. Perhaps raised soldiers should cost a fair bit more, too (also proposed by Limbojack in a bit of a novel way, which I support!), so that large empires have to weigh out the cost of raising their entire state's armed forces. As such, though, the AI would need to be taught how to conduct more limited wars, rather than having every war be a total war, marshaling all armed forces against a foe and such.

 

[Denkt]

I'm not sure why Byzantine Empire often lost so badly against Bulgaria, probably there is alot of factors but ambushes seems to have been particular effective against the Byzantines. By the end of the war I mentioned the Bulgarians had basically taken over all territories all the way to Constantinople and greatly damage Byzantines military, it only really turned in Byzantines favor once the Russians invaded Bulgaria but even in a weaker state it still dealt a massive defeat to Basill II at Trajan's Gate which lead to a 3 year long civil war in the Byzantine Empire, eventually Basil II managed to subdue Bulgaria but it took like 4 decades with Byzantine suffer multiple defeats and 150 years later it had revolted and managed to defeat the Latin Empire who conquered constantinople and Epirus who broke a Peace treaty with Bulgaria.

I don't know how this could be represented in the game, I don't know if there was any big difference between the Byzantine and Bulgarian military, I would suspect they would be quite similar. Byzantines had to fight on the east but Bulgaria also had other enemies than just the Byzantines and these was sometimes allied with the Byzantines. However in CK2 I don't think you risk much from moving all your levies to one direction which is probably not that realistic and Obviously is a big problem for smaller realms who have big issues with fighting an empire at full strength rather than a part of the empire's military which is probably more closer to reality.

 

[Kaiserjagen]

Good topic Denkt. This is a very solid example that raises a potential issue with the gameplay of CK3 as we've known it in CK2.

From my understanding, the Bulgarians maintained a very effective core of cavalry for centuries after their arrival across the Danube and maintained a martial tradition that kept them effective in the field against Byzantium despite the latter's vast resources. Meanwhile, the Byzantines' best armies in Anatolia were kept occupied as the enemies to the East were always seen as a much bigger existential threat to the Empire than the Bulgarians who the Byzantines kind of viewed as squatters on less-valuable land (at least this is what they told themselves to justify the Bulgarians continued success against them). It wasn't until the mid-10th century when this balance became disrupted, Byzantium started outright conquering eastward while simultaneously developing increasingly effective and more powerful armies. The length of the war with Basil II from my understanding had less to do with resources or the size/competency of the Byzantine army and more to do with the guerrilla tactics employed by the post-Sviatoslav Bulgarian rump state. The geography of the Balkans made guerilla fighting a viable tactic and the Bulgarians avoided open battle because a full Byzantine field army really couldn't be matched in a pitched battle by any state nearby at this point in history.

I have no idea how one would simulate this kind of thing in the game without making the player feel gimped or frustrated. Perhaps the increased emphasis on composition and terrain could make it possible for Bulgarian armies to fight Byzantine armies in the right conditions, and even when used by AI (unlikely).

 

[Denkt]

The game seems to have the Tools for guerrilla warfare. The besieger is considered the attack, you can build defensive Marches which give combat bonuses in that duchy and the game have combat width which make smaller armies more effective since the larger army can't necessarily use its numerical superiority.

You also have the men at arms system with counters and terrain bonuses so if you have alot of forest you maybe want alot of skrimishers or whatever get bonus in the forest.

Obviously how well the ai use these system is something to see.

 

[Trinita132]

They already answered this question.

Bulgaria will have more advantagous feudal contracts unlike Byzantine Empire. It will make Bulgaria stronger than Byzantine Empire.

 

[Limbojack]

the game have combat width which make smaller armies more effective since the larger army can't necessarily use its numerical superiority.

I'm curious to see how the implementation of combat width will affect battles in CK3, but I'm fairly certain it'll still be a numbers game unless there's a huge difference in troop quality.

2000 MaA might beat 4000 levied troops, I don't know exactly how effective MaA's are supposed to be compared to levies, but 2:1 doesn't seem too crazy considering one Knight will be equal to 200 levies-ish (the number is from older DD), but I would be surprised to see such a difference in troop quality for the AI. And since the MaA cap is dependent on size and wealth, Byz should be able to have larger MaA companies than Bulgaria does...

The problem with the Byzantines is that if they're too strong, they'll snowball everything and everywhere while if they're too weak, they'll die off within a few generations.

 

[Denkt]

I'm curious to see how the implementation of combat width will affect battles in CK3, but I'm fairly certain it'll still be a numbers game unless there's a huge difference in troop quality.

Yes combat width favors quality alot more and you can proably expect battles to be less onesided than in CK2, especially when there is a lage difference in number, Assuming the smaller army is the defender as it is the defender that determine combat width.

2000 MaA might beat 4000 levied troops, I don't know exactly how effective MaA's are supposed to be compared to levies,

Given how expensive men at arms look to be I assume the difference is quite big, 2k Heavy infantry would probably destroy 4k levy in pretty much any situation but especially if they are the defender and thus can deny the levy to use their numerical superiority.

And since the MaA cap is dependent on size and wealth, Byz should be able to have larger MaA companies than Bulgaria does...

Yes but I suspect here is there you should look at terrain and such, Byzantine maybe will favor building an army that is effective in the middle east given it is the biggest threat and thus would favor men at arms that is maybe not suited for the terrain in Bulgaria while Bulgaria would focus all resources on building up an effective army for their terrain, also if Bulgaria is defending against the byzantine empire they can also take advantage of stuff like the duchy march building that give defensive bonuses.

The ai should be able to know which men at arms it should get, for example a realm that is mostly mountains should maybe not get Heavy cavalry but one that is mostly plains should get Heavy cavalry.

The problem with the Byzantines is that if they're too strong, they'll snowball everything and everywhere while if they're too weak, they'll die off within a few generations.

Yes it is a issue, mostly defending need to be easier than attacking which would reduce the ability for the large empires to expand and if the suffer a big defeat, it could lead to internal as well as external problem that keep them in check.

 

[AndrejK]

One issue I think ought to be raised. That it is not merely upon the top liege to defend the realm: also all vassals affected ought to take part in their defensive wars, after all they are protecting their lands. Quite often I be seen the Armenian vassals of the Byzzies just sit and wait for the Turks to siege them down.
Also, vassals bordering the contested title should join in wars, after all it is in their interest to expand the realm that direction as well

 

[Wixelt]

One issue I think ought to be raised. That it is not merely upon the top liege to defend the realm: also all vassals affected ought to take part in their defensive wars, after all they are protecting their lands. Quite often I be seen the Armenian vassals of the Byzzies just sit and wait for the Turks to siege them down.
Also, vassals bordering the contested title should join in wars, after all it is in their interest to expand the realm that direction as well

The liege is usually raising plenty of troops from vassals that the latter has to pay for, usually more than usual due to the vassal opinion modifier for defending their titles.

 

[Denkt]

One issue I think ought to be raised. That it is not merely upon the top liege to defend the realm: also all vassals affected ought to take part in their defensive wars, after all they are protecting their lands. Quite often I be seen the Armenian vassals of the Byzzies just sit and wait for the Turks to siege them down.
Also, vassals bordering the contested title should join in wars, after all it is in their interest to expand the realm that direction as well

Yes a vassal whose titles are under threat should probably join the liege as a ally which would also mean they would use their men at arms if they have some.

 

[Limbojack]

The liege is usually raising plenty of troops from vassals that the latter has to pay for, usually more than usual due to the vassal opinion modifier for defending their titles.

If your liege is being attacked over your titles, one would think that you would go all-in to support your liege in that war by calling up your own army as well, perhaps spend some money of mercs too if the fight seems a bit hopeless. Even if the vassal has an opinion of -100 with their liege, they should do everything in their power to win that war. Well, that's what I believe I'd do if it happened to me anyway.

 

[zagy20]

Perhaps if there was some way for levies to eventually taper off the larger a realm gets representing the difficulty of mobilising and maintaining large forces. Rather than just raising a massive army that steamrolls everything in front of it, perhaps larger empires should get a massive boost to how fast armies can replenish, or have a seperate manpower pool that feeds back into the primary one. That way they may only marginally outnumber an enemy army from a much smaller kingdom but if they lose a battle it doesn't matter as much because they can wear the enemy down through repeated battles. Conversely it would give a smaller kingdom a fighting chance but would also force them to be much smarter strategically as a single lost decisive battle could cripple them.

 

[squirrelinaround]

There's a lot of countries with this issue. Guerrilla warfare and scorched earth tactics also aren't shown.

 

[Axis89]

I think stuff like the Byzantine-Bulgarian wars which was about as often won by Bulgaria as the Byzantines tell quite a big issue with how CK2 military system work, it is simply too favorable for the stronger side compared to history. Often a weaker side, like Bulgaria, or England during the hundred year war was able to take Control over significant parts of a stronger realms territory and win victories even when significantly outnumbered which in turn lead to those conquests.

A larger realm could generally not mobilize its whole army against one foe because it have large borders, when Basill II invaded Bulgaria, it was only with like 30 000 and meanwhile the Byzantines was also fighting to the east but such situation seldom happen in CK2 as the ai probably don't know just how exposed a nation is.

This ability for large realms to field its whole army against one small realm at a time make it very hard for the small realms to even survive, yet alone win a war.

I think the ai should be more aggressive to realms that have lost wars and alot its army, like scavengers which I think is pretty realistic as well. This mean if you take alot of risks and lose a war really badly you may lose even more, which mean you have more reason to give up early and save your army even if you could win the war but end up with a very weak army, which would be disastrous.

Two simple things could do a lot.
1: Make the general's skill, and his advisors(2 next in command characters) have a HUGE impact on outcome.
2: Make military organization and tradition/culture have a lot more importance. If you have a more or less professional army, expensicve, trained and with companies/legions/armies with a long history it should negate a lot if you have a mediocre army. But losing that army should cost you more than money, irreplaceable soldiers and experience.
Of course a newlty raised levy army/peasent army could do magic with a legendary general, knowing how to counter a lot, and with terrain like mountains and forests could create ambushes, choke points, guerilla warfare... But a mediocre commander/general with a peasent army would struggle hard against a mediocre commander/general with a professional/experienced army.

My thoughts at least.

 

[J.B.]

This game could possibly use the addition of Victoria II style populations, for detailing the amounts of experienced military manpower there is, versus recruits, and those in-between, existing at any time in the ruler's military capabilities. This dynamic to depict the military experience of veterans, versus less effective recruits, combined with utilizing the geography of the area a battle takes place, and the generals' and officers' experiences in handling such terrains, should have great impacts upon battles, although I don't think overcoming enemies with much larger armies should always mean victory, as the Romans during the 10th century may have simply lacked leadership skills as well as manpower in that part of the Empire in handling the Bulgarian war, whereas the Bulgarians could have had more veterans and better leaders serving their forces. In addition to the normal military skill level, and duel experience, perhaps a new battlefield experience modifier could apply to characters, similar to duel experience?