Historically, and realistically, numbers meant little in warfare. Tactics, commanders and a myriad of other factors such as morale, supplies etc meant more than just sheer numbers. But it seems in CK2 if an army has even 5% more troops than you and the terrain is not advantageous to you, you will lose. Period. This is the one feature that really REALLY urks me.. Am I missing something here?
Am I missing something, or do numbers mean EVERYTHING in a war?
- Thread starter King_Azzole
- Start date
-
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.
Well, it's a bit tricky. I really do hate how 10k armies led by imbecil commanders will most likely decimate an army of 7k led by gods of war, but back in CKI, an army of 500 could easily defeat vastly superior numbers if the leading general was just slightly better..
Anyways, it's been way worse than it is at current, I feel confident paradox will get around to tweaking it more
Anyways, it's been way worse than it is at current, I feel confident paradox will get around to tweaking it more
They meant little during this period of warfare, but overwhelming odds have rarely lost, and I like it that way.
When you're got a levy army fighting another levy army, numbers tend to matter most. Why? Because most levy armies are about the same. A very similar troops composition. So if two identical armies fight, the bigger one usually wins.
Terrain and generals do matter even then. Really good generals with great traits in the right terrain can help a lot. Your usual candidates -- maybe a 20% smaller force beats a bigger one.
Where it really starts to matter is with retinue armies. Then you can specialize the troop composition. With retinues backed with longbows, horse archers, or heavy cav, it's not uncommon for a smaller force to win a very lopsided batter. Because your troops are actually better.
Terrain and generals do matter even then. Really good generals with great traits in the right terrain can help a lot. Your usual candidates -- maybe a 20% smaller force beats a bigger one.
Where it really starts to matter is with retinue armies. Then you can specialize the troop composition. With retinues backed with longbows, horse archers, or heavy cav, it's not uncommon for a smaller force to win a very lopsided batter. Because your troops are actually better.
Overwhelming odds is one thing, but when a Muslim commander with 6 martial skill enters Castille leading 6k men, and I meet him with El Cid leading 4k I should not be losing that battle.. And that is not the worst of it, I have seen as little as a 5% total troop size win consistently. It just makes me cringe. I can understand that 500 men lead by a superb commander should not decimate a 6k army, but armies that are relatively close in size (say, 5-15% size difference) for all intents and purposes should be up to the commanders at the very least.
I am new to these forums and the game itself, is there a mod that rectifies this major flaw?
And that is not the worst of it, I have seen as little as a 5% total troop size win consistently. It just makes me cringe. I can understand that 500 men lead by a superb commander should not decimate a 6k army, but armies that are relatively close in size (say, 5-15% size difference) for all intents and purposes should be up to the commanders at the very least.I am new to these forums and the game itself, is there a mod that rectifies this major flaw?
First of all, you can allocate 3 commanders to an army. Put El Cid's good buddies with him.
Short of taking advantage of terrain, that's all I know, actually. Valinn can probably help more with battle mechanics.
Short of taking advantage of terrain, that's all I know, actually. Valinn can probably help more with battle mechanics.
1. Numbers don't matter that much because most of the time you don't have to defeat their stack with your stack. If you can't beat their stack, why, don't fight it! Assault/siege instead and mislead their stack.
2. If 3000 men could beat 6000 men due to factors mostly out of your control (whether there's tactical genius you can use, supplies, morale), then CK2 would SUCK. Maybe it would be fun for you for the first 20 hours of gameplay, but when you get larger, hell, you don't want to micromanage each army. That is totally out of the question.
3. If YOU can come up with some combination of influences on how to beat 6k with 3k men, then the AI should be able to do it consistently. And that would be just awful. Because either the AI can't because it's too complex to program, or because suddenly a silly revokation war means a 20 hour planning fest.
2. If 3000 men could beat 6000 men due to factors mostly out of your control (whether there's tactical genius you can use, supplies, morale), then CK2 would SUCK. Maybe it would be fun for you for the first 20 hours of gameplay, but when you get larger, hell, you don't want to micromanage each army. That is totally out of the question.
3. If YOU can come up with some combination of influences on how to beat 6k with 3k men, then the AI should be able to do it consistently. And that would be just awful. Because either the AI can't because it's too complex to program, or because suddenly a silly revokation war means a 20 hour planning fest.
History shows countless times great commanders defeating larger armies. Alexander vs Darius. Battle of Salamis. Battle of Carrhae. Battle of Chi-bi. Even medieval ages : Battle of Yarmuk. Battle of Acheloos. Agincourt.
I am not asking for a "trick" or "tactic" I can personally use to win a battle over and over, just that military commanders should make a difference. Seems now they make very little difference. Seems by the posts in this thread that my worst fears were right... I knew this game was too good to be true. Such a major flaw for me too.. sigh. Oh well maybe someone will fix it with a mod one day.
Stack your armies with retinue bowmen. Just throw caution to the wind and make all of your retinue bowmen and watch the carnage at the first stage of battle.
Mr. Sun has also said that the best battle is one which is never fought. Know the reason you're fighting this war and see if you can use intrigue to get to the same point.
What are the terrain penalties like? Are they for the army as a whole or are heavy cavalry punished in marshy areas etc?
If we're talking about retinues, it's easy. But it depends on your culture and your retinues. If you're in France or Germany, buy 3000k heavy knights and you'll win that battle every time by doing nothing because heavy cav is just so much better than anything else in the game except in certain situations horse archers. If you're in Spain, that's harder because the Spanish retinues are acknowledged to be weak.
Beyond that it's just maximizing bonuses and it's more or less common sense. If you have a general with flanker and cavalry leader, putting a bunch of cav on a flank under him can do wonders. If you have a mountain terrain leader, fighting in mountains will help a lot. If you have an organizer leader, running ahead so you get the defensive bonus and not him is a great idea. If you have a holy warrior and are fighting infidels, he'll be great. Put your inspired leader in the center flank. And so on. So there's no general advice. It depends on what tools you have -- what generals, what types of troops, and what terrain you're fighting on. I mean, I can say fight defensively in the mountains behind a river, which is often true. But if you have a high stat flat terrain leader and units types that don't get a bonus in mountains, then that's not the best idea.
So it depends. There's a lot of ways to win lopsided battles. But it depends on the tools you have available to you. But if all you have is average levy troops and average generals, then it's going to be mostly numbers.
Last edited:
Look at the tooltips during battles. They affect certain unit types in different ways. I know defense in mountains is great for archers and horse archers, but I don't think it does anything for normal cavalry at all.
Interesting. Given terrain was very important in allowing smaller polities to survive despite having massively powerful neighbours, perhaps it should have even more of a focus. Heavy horses impeded on hills, mountains, marshes and forests, likewise with heavy infantry, but not penalties against light infantry and cavalry, archers impeded in forests, advantage to heavy infantry in passes. Terrain historically decided which fighting styles would be prominent, and it would be nice to see a stronger emphasis on such in game. Would also be quite interesting if we could arrange composition by unit type, rather than just by levy.
"Military commanders should make a difference" - they do. But not if the enemy has skilled generals too. There's always 2 sides to a crushing victory. 1 with an idea, and the other who doesn't react accordingly.
So... of all those heroic battles you describe, how many happened within 400 years for the same ruler, with both armies having equal technology and standard of tactics and unit composition?
And how many people here would find this game awful if they are steamrolled within 5 years of game start because some random enemy has a 30-point-martial general who just destroys anything you throw at him?
Actually, I find it that even with levy armies, numbers may be deceiving. Just a bad streak of bad tactics(like light cavalry one, I mean, come on, even generic skirmish is better; and then there are some terribad like confused orders for low-martial generals) against some decent ones(feint comes to mind first) may tip the balance as far as by the factor of 1.5 at least (tested with saving and loading some interesting battles and comparing results). And that's before you count in terrain bonuses\penalties, flank composition, difference in generals, tech and retinue\cultural bonuses.
So, unless their 6k is superior not only in numbers, you should be able to win it at least with some luck (or save-scumming)
So, unless their 6k is superior not only in numbers, you should be able to win it at least with some luck (or save-scumming)
It has to do with what kind of soldiers you are using as well, every type of soldier unit has different types of combat they do well or poorly in. Leaders and terrain and other factors all go into a giant equation that makes up the battlefield, now considering how complicated the system is I am wondering why Paradox never implemented a weather system. storms and snow and terrible winds and fog (not fow) would also play a part in the war.
Generally the bigger army wins, but its not guaranteed. I won a battle of 7k troops vs enemy 12k, since I was sitting in a mountainous province and my king-general had good martial skill as well as the 'Unyielding' trait.