Army morale as a value have been removed, what do you think about that?

[Denkt]

It have been mentioned in the discord, armies in CK3 will not have morale like in other paradox games and from what you can read from the warfare DD, battles will last to all Soldiers on one side have been killed or routed. For some reason this don't seems to be mentioned in the faq.

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.

So what do you think about this change?

 

[aantia]

Interesting. Seems like it might just be a semantic distinction, depending on how it's implemented (e.g. you could still have 'morale bonuses' by adding a % of routed troops back into the fight).

 

[Morrowind3]

Not sure how to consolidate this

armies in CK3 will not have morale like in other paradox games

with this

or routed.

I'm with Aantia that it's likely just a semantic change and perhaps mechanical rewrite but in essence morale remains.

 

[Denkt]

Interesting. Seems like it might just be a semantic distinction, depending on how it's implemented (e.g. you could still have 'morale bonuses' by adding a % of routed troops back into the fight).

The difference from what I understand is in other paradox games the morale is a numerical value separate from army strength so an defeated army will have low morale and have to recover. In CK3 this will not be the case but you can probably add stuff like more enemies routed or so but there wont be a numerical morale value anymore.

I don't know when routed troops become unrouted, immediately after battle or over time which would be more like how it work with morale in other paradox games. For example instead of 10% morale recovery per month, CK3 could have 10% of the army strength become unrouted each month which would have similar effect, but it could impact battles since the routed troops may still increase combat width while not actually participating in the battle.

 

[aantia]

Ah, I see.
So it sounds like the differences will be that you:
(1) don't have to wait to recover after a battle; you just complete your shattered retreat and then can immediately act
and (2) morale won't affect the combat skill of your troops.

 

[Denkt]

(1) don't have to wait to recover after a battle; you just complete your shattered retreat and then can immediately act

That is not known, as I said units may become unrouted over time, not instantly after battle.

and (2) morale won't affect the combat skill of your troops.

True but the routed troops wont fight which weaken your army.

In Imperator: Rome even low morale armies still deal the same amount of damage as full morale armies, simply they wont fight for as long but in CK3, if units stay routed they wont even fight at all which is actually a rather big difference, especially if the routed troops still Count for combat width calculations.

CK3 also have like CK2 pursue after combat in which the retreating army suffer additional damage.

 

[Atalvyr]

I could imagine that some units are also more likely to rout enemies versus kill them.

Something like cavalry can pursue effectively, so they should produce more kills than routs. On the other hand, heavy infantry would have more difficulty chasing down enemies, so they should produce more routs than kills. That would reproduce the CK2 balance where pikemen are efficient for beating the enemy in battle, but unless you bring light infantry or cavalry you will just be chasing the same routed troops around instead of dispatching them for good.

As Denkt also said; routed troops are out of the fight but not dead. They could rejoin your forces over time, similar to an army regaining morale.

 

[Denkt]

I could imagine that some units are also more likely to rout enemies versus kill them.

Don't seems like that:

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.

 

[Atalvyr]

But isn't that exactly what "Pursuit" implies? Damage inflicted on routing enemies would mean less routed enemies and more dead ones.

I assume the pursuit value for Men-at-Arms is poor, so they would be able to do Damage versus the enemy Toughness. This would make some enemies die and others rout. Without much Pursuit stat, those routed enemies would not be converted to dead enemies, especially if the enemy has a lot of Screen stat is his army. If Light Infantry is good a screening (not too much of stretch), that would produce the exact scenario of Men-at-Arms chasing the enemy around, but due to their poor Pursuit stat and the enemy Screen stat, they would not be able to effectively turn those routed enemies into dead enemies.

 

[Denkt]

But isn't that exactly what "Pursuit" implies? Damage inflicted on routing enemies would mean less routed enemies and more dead ones.

I thought you mean kill vs routing during battle since pursuit take place after the battle from what I understand.

 

[Atalvyr]

I thought you mean kill vs routing during battle since pursuit take place after the battle from what I understand.

Well, I guess that depends on whether you count the "Aftermath" step as part of the battle or not. I am still thinking along the lines of CK2's "Skirmish/Melee/Pursuit" phases, where chasing down the enemy is part of the battle itself.

Though since there does not appear to be a Skirmish value anymore, I guess that the three phases are now one combat phase plus "Aftermath"?

 

[Denkt]

As I understand it there will first be a battle to either side retreat, skrimish and melee phases are no longer separate but men at arms now counter each other and do better in certain terrain types. After the battle the victor will pursue the defeated side to cause more losses.