Attrition is insane...

[Akka le Vil]

Gotta to agree completely with the last post

Though six monthes, in the game, is quite short. The armies move very slowly (often 15-25 days to get from one province to another), so I would either slow the attrition, either accelerate the movement.

As a side point, I feel the siege far too short compared to the movement rate. Accelerated movement but considerable slower sieges would be good.

As for attrition, I would say that :

- Up to the supply limit of the province, a 1 % attrition.
- After the supply limit of the province, a progressive curve, where each 25 % more men than the province can supply, raise the attrition by 1 % (so if the province can support 10 000 men and you bring 12 500, you endure 2 % attrition).
- A cap limit at 5 % in plains, 7,5 % in mountains and 10 % in deserts.
- All these numbers (both the attrition level and the cap) are halved in friendly territories, and doubled in hostile territories.

How is that ?

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Akka, far too low. Low curve and low cap -> Big armies march not caring about attrition and crush everyone. I mean, 2,5 % cap at friendly territory -> 2500 men killed from a 100000 man army monthly. If I gather this 100000 men, I can win any defensive war, since my enemy has to gather an army of at least same size and suffers four times the attrition to attack me.

While that might be good with intelligent combatants, like in an MP game, though would most likely lead to static warfare, where both sides wait at their side of the border shouting insults until other's army disband due to lack of money, it's completely awful in regards to CK AI. Nor will it be interesting gameplay, since the above-detailed staticity is most likely boring.

I think most reasonable ideas are highering support limits and an attrition cap.

 

[Akka le Vil]

Akka, far too low. Low curve and low cap -> Big armies march not caring about attrition and crush everyone. I mean, 2,5 % cap at friendly territory -> 2500 men killed from a 100000 man army monthly. If I gather this 100000 men, I can win any defensive war, since my enemy has to gather an army of at least same size and suffers four times the attrition to attack me.

On the realism side, I think that suffered four times less attrition by being in friendly territory while the enemy is on hostile territory is quite logical.

On the gameplay side, I'm not sure it would be so imbalancing. It would only protect one province, the one it's on, afterall. At best, I could go back-and-forth between two-three provinces, but beyond that, the army would need to be fractionned. As the AI use a lot of armies and attack simultaneously everywhere, it's not necessarily good to use such a huge army.

On the other hand, 2,5 % max attrition seems too low, after thinking about it.
I'll change a bit the number and post them below.

I think most reasonable ideas are highering support limits and an attrition cap.

I still think that the main problem with attrition is not just that it kicks in too early, but more than anything that it can reaches such ugly numbers. It goes up too fast, and it can makes the attrition grows to a very high level with, proportionnally, not that much more troops.

I would prefer, in fact, that the support limits for provinces were LOWERED, but that the progression of attrition was MUCH LOWER too.


Here for the new numbers :
- Up to the supply limit of the province, a 1 % attrition.
- After the supply limit of the province, a progressive curve, where each 20 % more men than the province can supply, raise the attrition by 1 % (so if the province can support 10 000 men and you bring 12 000, you endure 2 % attrition).
- A cap limit at 5 % in plains, 7,5 % in mountains and 10 % in deserts.
- Attrition is halved in friendly territory, doubled in hostile territories.
- Attrition cap is half bigger in neutral territories, twice bigger in hostile territories.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

While realistically it might make sense to have attrition four times higher for attacker than defender, it will mean that offensive warfare is senseless unless you have large superiority in numbers. At least assuming relatively equally intelligent opponents.

 

[Quift]

Harder attrition, faster untis, Scooter instead of cavalry...

While realistically it might make sense to have attrition four times higher for attacker than defender, it will mean that offensive warfare is senseless unless you have large superiority in numbers. At least assuming relatively equally intelligent opponents.

Is that unrealistic? and can't it balanced with higher movement? If the armies are faster, they will suffer less attrition when attacking. And if they AI learns to make nice stacks, say divide it's army in 3-5000 units. And to never send more than half to attack.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

And if they AI learns to make nice stacks, say divide it's army in 3-5000 units. And to never send more than half to attack.

That's a big if...

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Is that unrealistic? and can't it balanced with higher movement? If the armies are faster, they will suffer less attrition when attacking.

I don't think so. Four times larger attrition still presents significant advantage to the defender, unless we turn sieges into near-instant affairs as well and by then we are already playing HOI2.

And if they AI learns to make nice stacks, say divide it's army in 3-5000 units. And to never send more than half to attack.

And AI sends small 5000 guy stacks to attack you. You gather a big 20000 stack and crush them all one by one when they set down to siege.

 

[unmerged(29883)]

What the AI can't do well is adapt its tactics dependent on the situation. It can't see the traps that you set, or realise that if you have a 20,000 stack army marching towards it, then it needs to unite its forces into a comparable size to realistically oppose you. Or, indeed, effectively co-ordinate 4 or 5 smaller stacks to attack against a single, virtually attritionless, large stack.

As Byak says, defence would become very easy under those conditions. Army speed would probably benefit the defender even further, allowing them to protect an even larger area of land with a huge army. Lowering siege times would swing the balance back towards the attacker, but they're already ahistorically low as it is. Plus, its a far from ideal solution whose only purpose would be to fix a problem that we've just created anew by ourselves.

Returning to actual numbers, rather than saying "up to support limit, 1% attrition" why not just set attrition at a minimum of 1% in all provinces and then scale it up to minimum 2% in hostile territory?

Using the scale you propose here are some trial figures assuming support limits of plains 8,000, hills 5,000, desert 3,000 (ie, working mid-game levels) - and assuming you meant that the cap was half bigger in friendly, rather than neutral, territories.

==========================================================

Friendly:

Plains: Min 0.5%, Max. 2.5% for 12,800 and over.

Hills: Min 0.5%, Max. 3.75% for 10,500 and over.

Desert: Min 0.5%, Max. 5% for 7,800 and over.

Neutral:

Plains: Min 1%, Max. 5% for 14,400 and over.

Hills: Min 1%, Max. 7.5% for 11,500 and over.

Desert: Min 1%, Max. 10% for 8,400 and over.

Hostile:

Plains: Min 2%, Max. 10% for 15,200 and over.

Hills: Min 2%, Max. 14% for 11,500 and over.

Desert: Min 2%, Max. 20% for 8,700 and over.

==========================================================

What this doesn't show is the balance between attrition for evenly matched attacker:defender forces. For an example using the Plains values (ie, the most forgiving on the attacker), the 12,800 defender forces suffering 2.5% attrition are matched with the 12,800 attacker forces suffering 7% attrition.

That's assuming that the defender is kind enough not to field several thousand more at no additional penalty to themselves. Take a look at comparable values for Desert provinces and you can see that less than 1,000 difference in troops between attacker and defender is 15% difference in attrition. Attackers would be at a ludicrous disadvantage if it took them longer than 1-2 months, to siege out a desert province with any kind of sizeable defensive army nearby - and that's just a single desert province.

Under your system, at and beyond its max. levels, any competent defender merely has to ensure that an attacking army of equal size spends more than 2 months in hostile territory and they are almost certain to win, especially if unfriendly terrain is a factor. Whilst I like the idea of having attrition treat the defender more favourable than is currently the case, I think that's going too far.

I don't have a problem with your model per se, but if it was to be implemented, the support levels would definitely need to be raised to stop that 4x attrition difference kicking in so quickly. On a side note, I notice that our suggestions ended up rather similar, as mine assumed non-province based levels of 0-2%, 1-10%, 2-20%, but with higher support levels. Actually, I rather prefer your values of 0-5% for the lowest level.

 

[unmerged(25476)]

I still think you don't need such a complicated solution to fix the problem...

I'd leave attrition and support the way it is but just have only your own forces count toward the attrition rate. The high attrition is only an issue in places where there are massive armies combined often of which only a portion are actaully in combat or ready for combat... the rest are moving/running away... remove enemy and moving armies out of the equiation and you solve the problem without risking game changing effects to the balance of supply and large armies etc....

 

[unmerged(29883)]

Its a problem even when its only your own forces. If you can't mobilise your own demense without hitting 15%+ attrition then something is quite clearly wrong - and moving several provinces in your own territory and losing half your army is again evidence of a problem.

The original cap-threshold solution is far from complicated - add attrition maximums as well as minimums and raise the supportable levels for the provinces to put attrition to more realistic levels, provided gameplay is not negatively affected.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I still think you don't need such a complicated solution to fix the problem...

I'd leave attrition and support the way it is but just have only your own forces count toward the attrition rate. The high attrition is only an issue in places where there are massive armies combined often of which only a portion are actaully in combat or ready for combat... the rest are moving/running away... remove enemy and moving armies out of the equiation and you solve the problem without risking game changing effects to the balance of supply and large armies etc....

yea but they are still attempting eating the same food your army is eating as wel. Support limits are not one-side support limits they are enitre province support limits. Thus when you have a huge battle, there's gonna be some major casualties afterword as the province's ability to feed the populous is not only strained, but broken.

Raising the support limit is fine as long as we don't go and raise the mas number of troops one can raise at the same time. That would defeat the purpose.

The only cap i'm in favor of is one at 99% and that if armies are below the support level attrition should be much lower than it is now.

Another thing that could also be looked at is having poor/stuggling and prosperous/rich provinces decrease/increase attrition respectively (as well as at the same time addressing the problem with getting excess money in pillaging poor and stuggling provinces as opposed to normal provinces)

 

[Gebhard Blucher]

Waging wars in this game is a joke anyway. Attrition is only part of the problem. As long as the AI can field 100k-200k troops for a year and never run deficits while you quickly go bankrupt trying to support an army a tiny fraction of that, then there is hardly a point in it.

 

[Lurken]

Waging wars in this game is a joke anyway. Attrition is only part of the problem. As long as the AI can field 100k-200k troops for a year and never run deficits while you quickly go bankrupt trying to support an army a tiny fraction of that, then there is hardly a point in it.

Well....give the AI a break. The Ai can hardly ever outsmart you, so he have to outbrute you. It is a matter of balance. And admit...you still beat the AI, right?

 

[Gebhard Blucher]

Well....give the AI a break. The Ai can hardly ever outsmart you, so he have to outbrute you. It is a matter of balance. And admit...you still beat the AI, right?

Naples game. My ally France is attacked by the monstrous HRE. One of my goals is to become King of Italy (currently held by the HRE). I've got decent manpower (about 1/2 of the HRE's) and income (3x-4x as much as the HRE) and money in the bank (HRE is basically broke). I figure France and I could together maybe chip away at this unholy HRE. I make some decent gains early on. I check and notice France has been smashed, but I might still be able to get a province or two...wrong. HRE isn't hearing anything I have to say. Pretty soon massive stacks of 10-20k armies start pouring in to the Italian peninsula. Both my gold and manpower reserves are soon depleted. I'm incurring a large debt now. Events are starting to tear my kingdom apart. HRE should have been broke a long, long time ago and his armies disbanded from lack of pay but he's sitting there at 0 gold despite a huge deficit.

What's the point of continuing? I should've won that war months, maybe even a year ago but because the ai gets free troops he can just keep going, and going, and going like an evil Energizer Bunny on steroids. My king, marshal and commanders were all fantastic. I was gaining stunning victories for a while against superior numbers. Attrition and the constant chipping away of my forces left my army in tatters while he still had reserves to draw on.

I didn't win that war and I don't see how I could've when the AI doesn't have to play by the rules and knows it (as he wasn't accepting peace when I was ahead).

 

[Hagie Sophia]

Looks like this has been discussed pretty well, so I'm only going to add a couple small things.

First, I think a general increasing of supportable troop levels should be done throughout Anatolia. This was historically a very rich area and provided much of the manpower for the Eastern Roman Empire. Friend and foe alike should be able to move through there much more comfortably than, say, though the Levant, North Africa, Arabia, Western Europe, etc.

Second, it does seem a bit ridiculous that a province can provide a number of troops that it can't subsequently support in optimal conditions. With halfway decent stewardship, the Byzantion regiment is routinely so large that it starts out with 16+% attrition from day 1 of a campaign. This leads me to want to leave them in reserve, but this also leaves the Emperor at home, which means I have a hard time waging war against Muslim enemies since invariably my marshall and other important courtiers lead Imperial armies deep into enemy territory, claiming counties for themselves which, of course, removes them from my service (of course, this is another complaint of mine...Byzantine generals weren't leading crusades to conquer territory for themselves like their European contemporaries were...they were merely reclaiming lost Imperial territory, so these lands should automatically revert to the demense of the Emperor...). I am not aware of any other provinces with this particular problem, but it does cause some real annoyance to the Byzantine player.

Obviously, these aren't game-breaking issues, but as has been pointed out on several occasions in this thread, it does affect the fun factor quite a bit at times. Is there something we can edit on our end in one of the game's data files that can help alleviate some of the without having to wait for a new patch or beta?

 

[unmerged(3746)]

I would just like to add that playing as a crusader state in the middle east is damn impossible if you have a legitimately strong enemy. For example, mobilizing your 16K garrison in Alexandria causing you to have a 10K garrison before it can even get to sea, and an 8k garrison, if you're lucky, traveling through Tripoli to Acre to Jersualem. Meanwhile, any army mobilizing in a home province, no matter how rich, immediately starts getting nailed with 10% attrition.

This has its strategic points when you're facing the Seljuk Turks and hope that you can manipulate the attrition for a victory (granted, that'll never happen because the Muslims never, ever, ever make peace and, as long as they have larger troop base, will eventually resupply while you go broke and can't pay for your fortresses.) However, when the Ilkhanate decides to mosey into Jerusalem with 0 attrition and you immediately get 125% attrition, you might as well be fighting panzer divisions.

The cap needs to be done immediately. I wish someone would do a mod in the meantime while we wait for Johan; it still irks me endlessly that well over a year since the game came out, we still don't have a game free of beta-level game-ending nonsense.

 

[Hagie Sophia]

For what it's worth, I was just reading some Norwich, and he describes a campaign of Basil (II, I think?) where he moves 17,000 men from Constantinople to Antioch in 17 days with no mention of any attrition. These were mounted soldiers, true, but his entire army consisted of 40,000 men, which is WAY larger than what you normally find in CK, again, with no mention of massive losses due to shortages of food and water or desertion. And this was only in the late 900's or early 1000's, just a few decades before CK time period. Basil was also fighting the Bulgars with an army described as impervious to weather conditions...no mention of losing masses of men to whatever.

The Emperor, raising his own personal soldiers, shouldn't lose 2/3 of his troops travelling form Constantinople to Antioch.

 

[semaphore]

Well, you can try editting the province improvements file and give road networks -0.5 for attrition or something......

But there really ought to be some modifications that ties in the size of the regiment and the size of troops supported together more reasonably.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

For what it's worth, I was just reading some Norwich, and he describes a campaign of Basil (II, I think?) where he moves 17,000 men from Constantinople to Antioch in 17 days with no mention of any attrition. These were mounted soldiers, true, but his entire army consisted of 40,000 men, which is WAY larger than what you normally find in CK, again, with no mention of massive losses due to shortages of food and water or desertion. And this was only in the late 900's or early 1000's, just a few decades before CK time period. Basil was also fighting the Bulgars with an army described as impervious to weather conditions...no mention of losing masses of men to whatever.

The Emperor, raising his own personal soldiers, shouldn't lose 2/3 of his troops travelling form Constantinople to Antioch.

Well he didn't move 17,000 men. He started with 40,000 men and reached Antioch with 17,000 men. Not that the other 23,000 men died, but the rest became straglers/deserted who weren't able to keep up with the emperor.

 

[Sera]

I would just like to add that playing as a crusader state in the middle east is damn impossible if you have a legitimately strong enemy. For example, mobilizing your 16K garrison in Alexandria causing you to have a 10K garrison before it can even get to sea, and an 8k garrison, if you're lucky, traveling through Tripoli to Acre to Jersualem. Meanwhile, any army mobilizing in a home province, no matter how rich, immediately starts getting nailed with 10% attrition.

This has its strategic points when you're facing the Seljuk Turks and hope that you can manipulate the attrition for a victory (granted, that'll never happen because the Muslims never, ever, ever make peace and, as long as they have larger troop base, will eventually resupply while you go broke and can't pay for your fortresses.) However, when the Ilkhanate decides to mosey into Jerusalem with 0 attrition and you immediately get 125% attrition, you might as well be fighting panzer divisions.

The cap needs to be done immediately. I wish someone would do a mod in the meantime while we wait for Johan; it still irks me endlessly that well over a year since the game came out, we still don't have a game free of beta-level game-ending nonsense.

/signed