Attrition is insane...

[Akka le Vil]

Well, I'm not sure it's a change from the beta patch, as I've started to play with it. But in my game, I've found the attrition to be completely mad.

I mean, I like the concept of attrition. It's a bit a trademark of Paradox, it's realistic and prevent a lot of unrealist things we can see in most other games, with units standing in the middle of nowhere for decades without penalties, ok.

But here, it's gone WAY WAY overboard. I'm often needing to concentrate a bit my forces (considering that battles are often resolved in 4-5 days, I can't really wait for the battle to start and send reinforcements, they would arrive weeks late). And as soon as you're a bit concentrated anywhere else than into your rich heartland, you endure completely ridiculous amount of attrition.

I've routinely taken 20 to 30 % attrition A MONTH, with an army of barely 10-12 thousands soldiers and a support level at max :wacko:
I mean, ok attrition in these times was bad, but clearly not to such a point. Having a third of my entire army evaporating just because I spent 10 days into a province but it was the 31 of the month, is absurd and irritating.
My worst ennemy in war isn't the foe, it's the invisible attrition-monster, which probably amount of 75 % of my losses (the "make whole regiments disappear after a victory becayse they routed during the fight but not after a defeat" being for 15 % of the other losses, and the actual fighting being for the 10 %, which is funny in a not-funny-at-all way).

Gosh, the Crusaders, which were famous for the high attrition they suffered, managed to go from western europe into Jerusalem with more than 20 000 soldiers, and they still had some left at the end... If I would dare to do the same, with half that force I would be reduced to half again before going through two provinces :wacko:


That attrition should reduce slowly the numbers of a military troop, ok. That it should worn out big army with time, ok. But that it slaughters the whole army of a king in two days, when the supply payment is at max, now that's dowright ridiculous and frustrating. I can't even move my army a bit without taking huge losses that makes big battles look as a relief and a way to reduce my soldiers' deaths :wacko:


So, well, I'm pretty sure that there is plenty of hardcore players that will laugh and say that the game is too easy as it is and that if anything, attrition shoudl be increased, at least for the player.
But well, sorry, I'm not a hardcore player, ok I'm bad, I play in "very easy", and I'd like for us masochist-challenged (if there is any but me ? Hello ?) to have attrition back to something more realist and allowing to actually WAGE WAR rather than simply doing a "who the attrition will kill first ?" kind of "game" (considering that we can't really try to hold longer than the bankrupcy-immune AI :-\). I can only imagine how much a pain it will be if I ever see the immune-to-attrition-Horde.

All in all, what I'd find more logical, realistic, and playable, if the attrition level would be kept the same... but for the YEAR, not the month (not that attrition should kick in once a year, but the level of attrition we actually see is for a year, and so one-twelveth of it each month, so a 12 % attrition level would kill 1 % of your soldiers each month).
For a max-supplied, max-supported army, it does seem very reasonable to me. And we'll then perhaps see wars when attrition doesn't do ALL the work, and let some for the actual fighting.

 

[Barkdreg]

I agree

 

[Calantyr]

As it is, armies cost an insane ammount of money. Waging a war will bankrupt you very quickly. Fair enough.

However on top of that, if you DO manage to save up a load of money your army will disintergrate before you manage to send them anywhere anyway.

I don't bother crusading any more. Hell I don't attack anyone unless they are in the province next door to me. Anything else costs far too much, and you'll end up with nearly all of them dying to attrition anyway. Even at full support.

 

[unmerged(46403)]

i agree, and i've already said it. Attrition is indeed insane. It's never actually stopped me, but that'sm only because i make a point of centralising as much as the bloody demesne penatly allows me to, breaking up up my duchies so all vassals answer directly to me, etc, and then going and picking on someone whose army will still be hopeless outnumbered even if i lose half of mine on the way there.

 

[unmerged(29883)]

We had a revival of the attrition discussion fairly recently, but I'm feeling kind, so I'll give a brief rundown of some of the prevailing thought amongst those of us who don't find attrition to be *too* excessive, and some suggestions to avoid it being excessive in-game. In a lengthy campaign, or one fought over long distance, attrition can be a major problem, but I rarely notice it on small-scale, nearby warfare.

Speaking historically, most of the CK era is in the age where professional armies were still relatively rare. Mercenaries were a notable feature of war, but quite often the majority of most armies would be made up from people drawn from their normal jobs and put onto the battlefield. Major castles might have a permanent garrison of somewhere between 20-100 men. Most knights would keep themselves in good condition and quite a few men-at-arms would find employ as guards and generally not lose out on all their training, but most of the rest of a potential army would generally be brought together maybe once or twice a month for a bit of drill - archers expected to do a bit of practice at weekends, etc.

When these kind of armies formed and marched, it wasn't so much an army as a town on the move, especially when figures of 10,000+ are considered. In 1066, armies of that size could rarely hope to support themselves adequately once away from home. Imagine the logistical problems of trying to supply 10,000 men half a country away when your only sensible methods of transportation of heavy goods are by slow-moving wagons pulled by plough horses, or by sea, which was a far more expensive method, far less reliable and prone to blockading.

These problems would be surmountable while in friendly, or friendly-neutral territory, but the minute you hit enemy territory, its a different story. Trying to do that in particularly hilly, or mountainous terrain, and you're already asking for a disaster, especially if there is no sensible road network to at least vaguely help with getting supplies in and out.

In terms of what you can do to prevent it, how on earth were you getting 20-30% attrition short of marching your full 12,000 army into enemy territory in the Alps while they were pillaged and struggling? I've never seen attrition *that* bad before.

If army size is the problem, try splitting the army into smaller segments and either march them on different routes or in sequence. Both have advantages - different routes can help you outflank the enemy's main force and skirmish favourably against his vassals, or begin sieging behind him, leaving him nowhere to run to and regroup. On the other hand, marching in sequence means that your reinforcements should arrive in time should the first army encounter a force that is too large to be defeated.

If the attrition is because of the state of the provinces that you're marching through / sieging then there's not quite so much you can do, except where possible not use large armies in places where you expect that 10%+ will die per month. If its your own provinces, then road networks and any buildings which increase supply limit, such as castles, are the order of the day.

Part of the trick to really effective warfare in CK is not so much uniting armies into one big, undefeatable force. Sure, it works, but attrition can and often will be your undoing - especially against another player. Someone with a 10,000 army might crush me in battle, but 5 x 2,000 armies can pillage his land and siege away while he tries to chase any single army down. Even if one is sacrificed in war, the others should (hopefully) occupy the provinces that they went for. After that, I'm happy to lead the 10,000 army on a merry dance of attrition through burned-out wastelands whose castles are held by me.

Since any kind of peace settlement requires him to liberate his provinces, I know exactly where he has to go (and how much it'll hurt him), so I get to pick the eventual battlefield. Meanwhile, I'm happy to let him march his vast army around, suffering unhealthy amounts of attrition each month while my own escapes with very little. Eventually, I'll fight him head on with superior numbers.

If he cottons on and splits his army up, then the battle gets interesting and starts depending a lot more on strategy, good marshals, etc. Which, I think, is rather the point. Also, it could quite easily go either way at any moment, which is where a tactical peace settlement comes into its own.

What I will say is that I sympathise. When I first started playing CK, I went for the large army, decisive battle route. I still do, if the enemy is small, nearby and needs a swift, brutal kicking - but again, only if I can afford the attrition losses. Whilst using smaller forces more tactically does lead to making more mistakes (I'll be the first to admit that I've made tactical blunders and misjudgements that have been highly embarrasing), its also more fun and, from an attrition point of view, more effective - and, when you get it right, even more devastating.

To slash the rates of attrition would mean that skirmishing strategies would be grossly ineffective, and victories would generally come down to who put the largest army in the right place at the right time. Or, more likely, who fielded the largest army in the first place.

Seriously, get attrition on your side and you'll find it can be a deadly weapon all on its own.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Excellent post Woz Early.

I'd like to add that Roads are of vital importance regarding attrition. In a normal plains province, you can keep some 4000 men with no attrition. With road in same province, the limit goes up to more than 10000. With extensive road network it goes up to over 30000. So do some reconnaissance, check out which provinces have roads and which don't. Send the really big armies only in those lands which have extensive road networks and have smaller troops conquer provinces with no roads.

And when travelling far away, like going on crusade, never travel in one single huge stack, but instead in small troops that concentrate again near the enemy territory.

 

[unmerged(46403)]

But you are resorting to flagrantly ahistorical tactics. You couldn't co-ordinate several armies once they got out of sight of each other in the middle ages, therefore it was exceedingly rare for even two separate forces to be fielded, and unheard-of for your five armies to take the field separately and resort to guerilla tactics.

Hence, attrition is insane because it dosn't allow the entire host of 10-20 thousand men a decent-sized kingdom could raise to fight together.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

It's not ahistorical. Medieval logisitics couldn't support huge armies. So many times king and his vassals had planned that they would meet in certain place at a certain date and then united their forces for a big battle against enemy. Sometimes some duke or two were late and joined the battle when it was already started.

And not all medieval warfare was like: huge army wandering through enemy country and destroying everything on it's way. Many times there were one or more bigger armies and then huge number smaller armies which pillaged nearby areas and collect resources for bigger armies. Typical medieval warfare is more small bands raiding and looting than big battles and huge sieges.

 

[Akka le Vil]

Well, Woz Early, what you advise is actually more or less what I'm already doing.
I mean, if I didn't, I simply wouldn't be able to win.

But the problem isn't here. Playing with attrition can be fun when done correctly, but on the whole, it's just destroying my pleasure. This and the "win and you lose most of your army" bug - I can't believe nobody has seen this one - just make waging war an excruciating pain in the ass. I've even resorted twice to use the "byzantine" cheat to force peace because I was so stuffed with all the charade.

The second problem, is that, even realistically and historically, it's completely bogus and ridiculous. No army goes down by a fifth in one month, except in exceptionnally dire conditions (and in one month, a real army could at least do more than travel barely one province like in the game, which not only has an insane attrition effect, but make it worse by making troops take age to move, hence taking longer the attrition). Attrition was a nuisance, but in the game, it's simply the main killer of any armed force, and it slaughter at a speed that is beyond absurd.

When something is both hurting the fun and the historical accuracy, both in so large measure, it's usually that there is a serious problem. If you manage to handle all this with fun, more power to you. For me, it's only a long painful trial which make me more afraid of war than the ennemy itself.


And to answer you question :

I've got attrition rate of 27 % in Antioch, with an army of 10 000 soldiers. Quite insane. I had to bring all these people here for a battle against the Emirate of Tripoli.
I won, but by then it was the 17 or 18 of the month, so no way to escape of the province, nor to break up the army in more manageable pieces. Result : while the big battle left me practically unharmed, I lost practically one third of my forces with this hit.

Fighting in south Italy some decades later, I also had commonly 10-15 % attrition level, with the come-and-go successions of fights against Germany.

No, sorry. Realistic attrition would be fun, but this isn't realistic, it's ridiculous.
They should drastically tone done the losses (I stay with the "same level of attrition, but by year"), and add a morale penalty to armies suffering from large attrition - making them more vulnerable to skirmishes and fights.

That would be much less irritating - provided they don't go overboard again with the morale loss, of course...

 

[unmerged(46403)]

It's not ahistorical. Medieval logisitics couldn't support huge armies. So many times king and his vassals had planned that they would meet in certain place at a certain date and then united their forces for a big battle against enemy.

Emphasis mine. In what way is that the guerrilla tactics of separating your armies in five and then using scorched earth to decimate the ennemy by attrition during a wild goose chase proposed by Woz Early? It would have worked if medieval generals had been able to communicate rapidly over large distances, and if they could have had reasonably accurate knowledge of enemy positions. The Mongols, but really no-one else, more or less achieved the first condition with their arrow-riders; but no-one ever achieved the second. In fact, it was not uncommon for two armies actively hunting for each other to miss each other, even when they were less than day's march apart.

 

[Akka le Vil]

It's not ahistorical. Medieval logisitics couldn't support huge armies. So many times king and his vassals had planned that they would meet in certain place at a certain date and then united their forces for a big battle against enemy. Sometimes some duke or two were late and joined the battle when it was already started.

Hu, well, it's often what I do.
The little problem being, once the battle is over, you end up with this big pile of men stacked into the same province and then BLAM, one quarter vanish into the attrition void before you can get out of the vortex.

 

[Brownbeard]

the only real problem with attrition is when the mongols show up and you have to deal with their 'stack of doom' army ranging between 70 and 150k and suffering no attrition whatsoever, you just cannot muster an army big enough in one place without losing it instantly to attrition. one of the more frustrating wad bugs in the game which can only be circumvented through exploits. and thats the best way to spoiling a game.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Akka le Vil, I'm really quite baffled how you end up with 27% attrition for a troop of 10000 men. I really doubt I've ever had that kind of attrition for so small army.

 

[Riddermark]

werent medieval battles between christians usually reduced to this:
2 kingdoms gather their armies and look for 1 ig fight - whoever wins dictates the peace rules. At least thats what the late byza-bulg wars were so i guess it wouldn't be very different in the west too.

 

[Jerzy_I]

Akka le Vil, I'm really quite baffled how you end up with 27% attrition for a troop of 10000 men. I really doubt I've ever had that kind of attrition for so small army.

This usually happens because the enemy forces are added in too so the province could be trying to support near twenty thousand assuming near equal numbers.

As Woz said its best to split armies into smaller groups. Unless your fighting one of the super nations 2k-3k is more than enough troops for the job.

As commander you should keep an eye out for good ground to fight in....ie full road networks in provinces.

The mongols are another story but i think the attrition rate is okay for most cases in the game. If your trying to march a city worth of people in one group through mountains or desert they die.....

 

[Akka le Vil]

Akka le Vil, I'm really quite baffled how you end up with 27% attrition for a troop of 10000 men. I really doubt I've ever had that kind of attrition for so small army.

Well, trust me, I was even more.

But even 10 % is still HUGE. I usually suffer less damages in a battle (except if I win and lose 9000 out of 9700 men to the "regiments fled during winning battle, so regiments destroyed" thing). Attrition should slowly wear out, not be the main killer.

I'll try to take screenshots if you like.

 

[Jerzy_I]

Well, trust me, I was even more.

But even 10 % is still HUGE. I usually suffer less damages in a battle (except if I win and lose 9000 ou or 9700 men to the "regiments fled during winning battle, so regiments destroyed" thing). Attrition should slowly wear out, not be the main killer.

I'll try to take screenshots if you like.

More soldiers died due to attrition than in battle. Disease was the main killer not enemy action.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

I personally think that only problem with attrition is that it's not capped anywhere. At worst I've seen almost 90% attrition, when we had two armies of 35000 in a single province in an MP game.

Attrition caps are most likely 1.06 request and any significant difference between the cap for friendly and hostile territory would just create new exploits. For a cap, I think 20% would be nice.

Akka le Vil, remember that attrition also represent desertions, so if you are getting 27% attrition in Antioch, it doesn't necessarily mean that quarter of your troops are starving away, but that you are facing significant desertions for the lack of food or other supplies.

 

[Akka le Vil]

More soldiers died due to attrition than in battle. Disease was the main killer not enemy action.

Yeah, diseases that reduce any army over 10 000 to one half of its size each quarter. I remember seeing that everywhere in history

I personally think that only problem with attrition is that it's not capped anywhere. At worst I've seen almost 90% attrition, when we had two armies of 35000 in a single province in an MP game.

That's also a problem. It should be capped at 5 % in plains and 10 % in mountains/desert.
But it also needs a slower curve.

Attrition caps are most likely 1.06 request and any significant difference between the cap for friendly and hostile territory would just create new exploits. For a cap, I think 20% would be nice.

Gosh. One fifth of the army each month. Do you realize how huge it is ?

Akka le Vil, remember that attrition also represent desertions, so if you are getting 27% attrition in Antioch, it doesn't necessarily mean that quarter of your troops are starving away, but that you are facing significant desertions for the lack of food or other supplies.

With support put at max, and being on a neighbouring province, I should NOT have such a dire situation that an army as small as 10 000 (when I have a total supposed manpower over 60 000) is lose one man out of four in ten days. Sorry, it's just ridiculous.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I personally think that only problem with attrition is that it's not capped anywhere. At worst I've seen almost 90% attrition, when we had two armies of 35000 in a single province in an MP game.

Attrition caps are most likely 1.06 request and any significant difference between the cap for friendly and hostile territory would just create new exploits. For a cap, I think 20% would be nice.

Akka le Vil, remember that attrition also represent desertions, so if you are getting 27% attrition in Antioch, it doesn't necessarily mean that quarter of your troops are starving away, but that you are facing significant desertions for the lack of food or other supplies.

Well i'm not sure if 20% is a good number. 70 000 troops in one province is an awful lot to support, in addition to supporting the everyone else that tags along with the armies and everyone in the province who lives there.

Note i did once long ago see an attrition rate of 118% in a province with ~100 000 men, plauge, smallpox and dynesteria, no "good" imporvements, but all three negative ones, looted and revolting.