[2.3.2] Problem with war not getting war score

[hillcf]

As Bavaria I started a claim to acquire Coruna from Aquitaine, who was also at war with France. Having lost 4 counties to me, they eventually managed to put a small army of 2100 against my 4 armies of 7000 each. Before they reached me, they won their war against France and he now has both kingdoms, as separate items. The map now shows them as France, with the French icon and still with the capital in Bordeaux.

Since then, the army of 2100 is wandering around Spain and losing, with zero losses, each county it attacks, since they are too small. But my army cannot attack them, even when I put them into a county before the French army arrives. I get the Victory display for their 'attack' on the county, but no warfare.

They also managed to build a new army of 11000, as French, which two of my armies then destroyed. But, since they managed to put the French army under a county army I got no war score for the win. Eventually, I got some war score for destroying the last 2300 of them.

This seems to be a problem with the program not allowing a war to occur, and not giving war score because the target is 'hidden' by one of its counties.

 

[Dracko81]

I suspect the small army was probably holy order, thus not allowed to fight. The larger army was probably defeated by someone elses leading army. Perhaps you had a vassal in the area and they were the primary battle leader.

Trust me I have had cases where I destroyed ~50k troops in a current game and got 0 warscore only to realise my vassal moved his retinue into the province.

Difficult to be sure without a savegame to know what was happening though.

 

[Servancour]

The smaller army sounds like it could indeed be an Holy Order that is in use (would need to look at a save game to be certain though). That would explain why you would be unable to fight it, as the army should just "lose" the battle and retreat to a nearby province. We are currently looking into improving the AI and its use of Holy Order. So hopefully this should get better in the future.

As for you second issue of not getting any warscore. Vassals of independent lieges currently doesn't provide any warscore to a war. This is intentional. However, it has the side effect of battles, that are first engaged by a vassal, not giving out any warscore. While this might not be something to be changed any time soon. We might be looking into it sometime in the future. As I know it is something that can be quite frustrating.

 

[NewbieOne]

As for you second issue of not getting any warscore. Vassals of independent lieges currently doesn't provide any warscore to a war. This is intentional. However, it has the side effect of battles, that are first engaged by a vassal, not giving out any warscore. While this might not be something to be changed any time soon. We might be looking into it sometime in the future. As I know it is something that can be quite frustrating.

Please do. I could give you a save (if I manage to recall what I named it a week or so ago) where many battles in a Byzantine-Abbassid war in Persia and/or Mesopotamia end up not providing war score because a vassal is involved. In rare instances, those vassals uncharacteristically even seen to be actively crossing into enemy (BYZ) territory, thus basically acting like a normal belligerent. Put a standard 15K caliphal stack on top of a 1K local retinue and you're out of luck. This is the standard situation. But the more problematic nonstandard situation that unfolds sometimes is how vassals sometimes come up with 15K or so stacks on their own, e.g. when duking it out over some claims or revolts of their own. Such stacks can actually combine with Abbassid liege stacks in fighting the Byzantines or crusaders. That sometimes leads to really awful numbers of troops in the theatre, like 60K of which only 20K is the liege. Not getting score from that can probably alter the outcome of a war as opposed to merely delaying the win or loss. And it's really bad in those 30K vs 30K battles.

I would suggest discouting 'first arrived' check in favour of 'owns most troops' check, so that 1K locals can't hijack 15K from liege.

A related problem exists with flank commanders changing during the battle (e.g. some landed guy with 4 Martial who only provided like 500 troops hijacks your landless 30 Martial commander of 20K troops).

Essentially, a quantitative check for control should solve most of these problems.

 

[Halcyan]

As for you second issue of not getting any warscore. Vassals of independent lieges currently doesn't provide any warscore to a war. This is intentional. However, it has the side effect of battles, that are first engaged by a vassal, not giving out any warscore. While this might not be something to be changed any time soon. We might be looking into it sometime in the future. As I know it is something that can be quite frustrating.

Yeah, this leads to some quirkiness and randomness in the results.

I have had cases where my opponent's troops are there along with either his vassals' or linked armies (allies in a different war but not my war). If I reload the scenario several times, sometimes I get warscore and sometimes I don't. By best guess is that whether or not you get warscore depends on the casualty rate and how long the battle lasts, and is determined by whether or not your enemy's troops are still there (or are obliterated) by the end of the battle. But it is weird that reloading before the battle can lead to a different outcome in terms of gaining warscore or not.

 

[NewbieOne]

This is a bit off-topic, but since you mentioned attached armies: if you attach your army to your ally's, he can use it in his other wars in which you are not a party. I've used this as an exploit from to time to time (notably in the Levant, where people are often in multiple wars of which you can only offer to help them in one at a time unless they call you), but I guess it's fair to report it after all.

 

[Dracko81]

This is a bit off-topic, but since you mentioned attached armies: if you attach your army to your ally's, he can use it in his other wars in which you are not a party. I've used this as an exploit from to time to time (notably in the Levant, where people are often in multiple wars of which you can only offer to help them in one at a time unless they call you), but I guess it's fair to report it after all.

That is not an exploit, but instead WAD. Additionally if you attach your army to another, you army will not be the leader is any battles.

 

[NewbieOne]

That is not an exploit, but instead WAD.

Nope. Multiple revolts etc. are one thing, but circumventing the usual restriction on joining some wars is a different thing. For example, you can often only join holy wars for distant rulers who are not your allies. However, by attaching a stack to their army that's headed outside of your theatre, you can influence on purpose the outcome of a war you aren't party to and aren't even qualified to join.

The typical example is that you join a holy war defence but attach a stack to them so that they can also defeat a claimant in a non-religious CB.

My typical usage is when k_Jerusalem or someone else there is targeted by more than one holy war, then rather than dealing with his enemies one by one (which would often be too late), I just attach a stack on their stack. They can then take my stack wherever they want and use it there. If I see that their plans are too risky for my army, I just detach it and from that time on I'm untouchable.

So this works like a temp gift of e.g. 10K troops for any desired use through a magic button, as opposed to travelling together in a war.

 

[Dracko81]

Yes as I said WAD. You are actively involved in a war with someone and lent them troops. If they engage someone your troops will help out. It is not like your soldiers are going to stand there and watch as their allies are killed because we didn't sign up to fight them. It has to do with logic and has been confirmed as WAD by several staff members. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to respect it.