Battle system grievances.

[Battle bunny]

I'm playing CK 1.08 without LoR. So far, it seems that I love everything about the game, except for this damn battle system. You know what I really hate about it? One decisive battle essentially decides it all. If you lose it, then you can say goodbye to your whole army, because the enemy can then chase you all over the country while you can do precisely nothing about it except for disbanding and re-raising the levies. That, of course, is no solution either: you get less soldiers next time around and then they're still scattered, while the enemy can just move that one stack all around your provinces and destroy your freshly raised levies piecemeal. The problem, to me, seems to be that supply limits are way too high, even on the kingdom/empire level most armies can be bunched together into one stack and they will suffer little to no attrition (what little they do suffer in some provinces will not even matter in the long run unless it's a very close match).
I miss the Europa Universalis games, where attrition was a killer and you always had to split your army up or lose it quite fast to attrition... though I think CKII's attrition mechanics are better in and of themselves, they will only work if there is some other way of not losing the whole war over one battle. There should be some way to outrun your pursuers and regroup, really. This problem is most apparent with faction revolts, where the factions always cheat and get an army as big as the liege when the faction already has numerical parity or advantage. I don't get why that happens either, or why such a dramatic amount of free reinforcements... but that's another subject.
So, is the situation the same in LoR too? I know that there are these retinues, but from what I've gathered the combat system itself isn't really different. Which is a shame, because what I have to deal with here just doesn't work well.

 

[delra]

One decisive battle essentially decides it all.

As it did in real history. Hastings, Manzikert, Tannenberg, Kalka River, ... hundred more?

and they will suffer little to no attrition

War is more fun this way. Asking for more attrition is asking for more headache. Headache for AI as well. Bunching your armies together and challenging enemy for a grand battle is more fun way of resolving issues than carpeting the map with tiny siege stacks - which high attrition inevitably leads to. I don't want to navigate a thousand tiny freaking stacks of levies, I want my big army to beat or be beaten in one battle, then figure out what to do next, siege or surrender.

There should be some way to outrun your pursuers and regroup, really.

It's called ping-pong, and almost everyone hates it with a passion.

why such a dramatic amount of free reinforcements.

To make civil wars more challenging, to equalize chances against the liege so they do have a shot at winning?

the combat system itself isn't really different

Why change something that's good?

One aspect of this grand battle design you're overlooking is the bigger role of good commanders, if you have one shot and one shot only, if you have just one big stack of troops as opposed to ten smaller stacks, the three commanders you choose are far more relevant and it pays off much more to read through their traits and combat modifiers, to see where to place them and make sure they don't cave in, or do something reckless.

If you had carpeting and ping-pong like in EU3, you'd also have a hundred small armies, and those commanding them would not matter all that much.

 

[Battle bunny]

War is more fun this way. Asking for more attrition is asking for more headache. Headache for AI as well. Bunching your armies together and challenging enemy for a grand battle is more fun way of resolving issues than carpeting the map with tiny siege stacks - which high attrition inevitably leads to. I don't want to navigate a thousand tiny freaking stacks of levies, I want my big army to beat or be beaten in one battle, then figure out what to do next, siege or surrender.

There are problems with this, though. First of all, there is little skill involved if the war is decided as soon as it starts, which is the case unless the two sides are very evenly matched. Quantity usually wins out. In addition, our definition of fun also seems to be different. If all war boils down to is one battle, every single time, reliably, no matter what the nature of the war is, then I'm not having too much fun.

It's called ping-pong, and almost everyone hates it with a passion.

Surely you have to agree that something needs to be done about it, then?

To make civil wars more challenging, to equalize chances against the liege so they do have a shot at winning?

What about my shot at winning? In my game with Hungary, I'm now up to the 1220s. I've had quite a few succession crises before, and I haven't been able to win one yet without several mercenary companies and/or powerful allies intervening. Several of these succession crises are bad enough without the free troops - often my forces are equal to those of the rebels before the free reinforcements are spawned. Surely these need to be toned down, or alternatively, the faction system needs to be reformed in such a way that only really hated monarchs would have to deal with such powerful rebellions. I mean, even if it's just one or two counts or dukes supporting a prince, with decent relations with everyone else every rebellion eventually ends up with 3/4ths of my country trying to piss me off.

Why change something that's good?

Now you're being condescending.

 

[delra]

there is little skill involved if the war is decided as soon as it starts

I haven't been able to win one yet without several mercenary companies and/or powerful allies intervening

This two statements contradict each other. You actually need skill to win wars - superior planning of alliances and finances, not to mention over the decades rigging the feudal structure of your country in a way that gives you clear advantage against your vassals and ensures your long reign. Many countries start in serious vassal trouble, Scotland, Poland, Hungary, France, Almoravids even - it takes some skill and planning to alleviate that. And that's a part of the challenge in this game.

Surely you have to agree that something needs to be done about it, then?

I hate ping-pong and carpeting with a passion and am on record bashing Vicky2 and Eu3 for their warfare. CK2 is a breath of relief for me, armies are easy to raise and send to battle, and wars are decided fairly fast without too much tangling with the interface. I don't want to play chess with units, not at this scale, it's too much effort and too much annoyance and it burns me out very quickly.

In Vicky2 there's a very elaborate encirclement system where you need to beat enemy in a situation where his armies are surrounded to vaporize his units - and it takes skill and effort and is often challenging. But AI can't deal with it, and the whole system becomes a massive exploit for the player, so when I eventually win after all that massive effort of moving tiny parts around, I feel I cheated anyway - as I know I just outplayed AI which is not equipped to deal with it.

Same thing with attrition, if your armies disappear before they reach the target, you are going to split them into smaller stacks. Then you will bait AI into attacking one of them and jump that AI from multiple directions, exploiting your way into winning that one decisive battle. Or just wait for AI to burn its stack with attrition as it can't handle it very well. You will do a lot of menial interface work - and the reward for it will be feeling you just beat AI at something AI is not programmed to do well. High attrition plagues Vicky2 warfare terribly. Pretty much ruins it as a fun way of spending your free time.

Now you're being condescending.

s/being//? I know I am a terrible person, doesn't make my point any less valid - this game is more fun with less ping-pong, carpeting and attrition, compared to Eu3 or Vicky2 warfare it's really amazing. I consider those three things to be design plagues of past games, and I actually root for Paradox to never go back to them in the future after the success CK2 has been. If someone is trying to carry this plagues to new games, I'm going to protest

 

[unmerged(43723)]

Couldn't agree more with Delra. The ping- pong battles of previous Paradox titles were really tedious. And disagreeing isn't the same as being condescending..