Can someone please explain to me the combat system

[hannibal_barca]

I have played all the EU and Ageod games, I still cannot understand the combat system in CKII. I know there is no difference in attacking or defending unless there is terrain. How do my generals select the combat tactic? By the majority troop type in their wing? If there is a link to an indepth explanation of the numbers under the hood, please give me the link. It seems like combat is pretty much just massing numbers. If the numbers are even or close to it, then it seems the generals and special abilites matter. 3k or 4k troops over or under, and it'll break.

 

[Ancilliu]

Yap, thats it.You explained it quite well. You just have to take into account, that light infantry will not survive againt heavy. Than, no archers will also doom your army. Heavy Cavallery will take down Infantry quickly and is also flawed against Pikemen. The worst case I ever experienced was a rebel army size 4k wich i accidentially attacked with a heavy 1500men army incl. archers and a good General. Additionally I got "never surrender" as a perk. I nearly lost 50 men and killed the rebels, because most of them were Light infantry.
So the types of troops do matter, but thats it.
The only thing I am not sure about is, if it helps to combine at least 3 armys to one stack, because in combat view, you then have 3 flanks.
But to sum it up: Since in the early mids in the game the troop-types should begin to equal each others, its pretty much about numbers, yes. Otherwise I would think, that it would be much to complicated... imagine raising every type of troops in every single County... I am working on creating the arabian empire... every war annoys me, because I have to manage 140k troops.

 

[Zireael]

Not true. Ever since 1.07, I've seen 8k defeat 15k and the like.

 

[Grubnessul]

Not true. Ever since 1.07, I've seen 8k defeat 15k and the like.

Really? I've yet to see a majority lose.

 

[monsterfurby]

Really? I've yet to see a majority lose.

I can confirm what Zireael is saying - there have been more cases where a larger army loses lately. Ability of leaders as well as troop balance among the flanks seem to play a larger role now.

 

[unmerged(88697)]

The system is very simple. You take these guys here, move them over there. Then, those guys come over here. Then when it happens there's a melee' and archers shoot and stuff.

 

[monsterfurby]

Strategically, you ALWAYS want to have the larger army (by at least 25%) when going into battle, except for the following cases:

- you need to stall for time (to replenish levies/call allies into war/gather troops)*
- you can't possibly win, but need to inflict losses just large enough to prevent a siege
- you can't possibly win, but need to get rid of one of your courtiers
- you can't possibly win, but want a shot at killing the enemy leader
- both armies are evenly matched in numbers, but you have better leaders, troops AND morale

That does not mean, though, that the larger army is always a guarantee of victory. Most casualties happen during a rout - if your generals retreat due to low morale, your troop strength WILL melt like ice cubes in the Sahara.

* - stalling for time is very important here, as one huge block of troops is always superior to many smaller ones (this is pre-maneuver-warfare, folks), and even small armies are quite capable of that since the damage inflicted during the skirmish phase is really low. Unfortunately, they are usually crushed entirely after a couple of encounters.

 

[stars2heaven]

I've noticed more minority victories lately as well. The most infuriating examples is when a stack of 2k rebels utterly annihilates my stack of 5k sent to squash them. I also won a huge victory with my retenues over the AI when his stack of 18k units jumped my 11k retinue. I lost maybe 2k and his stack was reduced to almost nothing. Generals and unit composition won the day.

 

[Mutineer]

Ok, combat system now.

Combat consiste of 3 phases, skirmish, melee, route.
Skirmish - archers of all sort are primary units.
Melee infantry or cav are primary units.
rout light cav is primary units.

Bonuses and penalties depends on terran of defender and action of attacker. For example, landing form ship give penalty to attack, crossin river bonus to defence, terran - bonus to defence or effect of generals.

Generals are most impotant seens 1.8. Use apropriate generals. general skill do not hav direct effect on combat any more, general special abilities do. However, skills actually even more impotant, as skills define how optimim tacktics general will choise in each phase. If specisl bonuses or terran effect give like +20 bonus/penalty each, apropriate tackik can give 200% bonus to some units. For example, in skirmish phase for army consisted mostly from infantry shield wall is a the best tacktics.

Pay attention does general special attributes apply to centre or to flank. Pay attaention to use apropriate terran bonuses of generals. Pay attacnting to use attacking or defending bonuses of general.

 

[Cymsdale]

Ok, combat system now.

Combat consiste of 3 phases, skirmish, melee, route.
Skirmish - archers of all sort are primary units.
Melee infantry or cav are primary units.
rout light cav is primary units.

Bonuses and penalties depends on terran of defender and action of attacker. For example, landing form ship give penalty to attack, crossin river bonus to defence, terran - bonus to defence or effect of generals.

Generals are most impotant seens 1.8. Use apropriate generals. general skill do not hav direct effect on combat any more, general special abilities do. However, skills actually even more impotant, as skills define how optimim tacktics general will choise in each phase. If specisl bonuses or terran effect give like +20 bonus/penalty each, apropriate tackik can give 200% bonus to some units. For example, in skirmish phase for army consisted mostly from infantry shield wall is a the best tacktics.

Pay attention does general special attributes apply to centre or to flank. Pay attaention to use apropriate terran bonuses of generals. Pay attacnting to use attacking or defending bonuses of general.

If the general does not have that little combat bonus icon on his character screen (the one whose tooltip denotes bonuses and penalty from traits), does his martial ability matter in the slightest?

 

[Mutineer]

yes, it does, It define his probability to choise best tacktics. For example I show, if your general have +20 martial, he practically allway will choise correct tacktics.
Trait like experimentality, is practically increase martial ability for purpouse to choising tacktics by 30%.

 

[Cymsdale]

yes, it does, It define his probability to choise best tacktics. For example I show, if your general have +20 martial, he practically allway will choise correct tacktics.
Trait like experimentality, is practically increase martial ability for purpouse to choising tacktics by 30%.

Does Experimenter mean he has 30% chance to pick better tactic? The tooltip implies that 30% he just picks a random one, which I thought sounded more like a penalty.

"Hey guys, let's try forming a shield wall during the pursuit phase.... oh I guess that wasn't very useful."

 

[Mutineer]

I believe it increase chance of picking best tacktics.

 

[Dracko81]

You want Generals with those 4 traits. Ensure when appointing generals they have high martial and preferably 2 of those traits.

If you can also organise these generals to have combat strategies also - flat terrain etc - then make sure you use them to your advantage.

Since 1.07 you can easily defeat armies twice your size, without the use of terrain and only using smart general choices. I have defeated armies over 4x the size with terrain bonuses and smart general choices.

 

[hannibal_barca]

I don't know. I was defending a mountain pass with a 15k against 30k aztecs with mediocre generals, I lost the battles fast. I don't know why they don't up the mountain defense bonus. Its a god damn mountain, with passes. No way 30k can just steam roll a 15k army through mountain passes if lead by competent generals. It seems the battle engine makes sense for plains and level land, (the grand skirmishing, and then charging and pursuit) but in hills and mountains it just doesn't seem like heavy calvary and grand skirmishing should carry the day.

 

[Justin Pace]

modifier = {
factor = 1.5
flank_has_leader = yes
leader = {
martial = 16
}
heavy_troops = {
who = knights
value = 0.4

This is for the Crouched Lance tactic. Does this mean that a general with 16 martial will do this tactic only if 40% of his heavy troops are knights?

 

[unmerged(88697)]

Let me apologize briefly, I'm on 1.07 and the system is better than I thought. Commanders are now interchangeable--I did not know that before (sometimes pays to read ALL the release notes). I use to simply dismiss levies under the king since he's generally too important to be leading army's. Now with the click of a button one can re-assign commanders and the King return to the palace where he belongs.

So, now paying more attention to the combat abilities of commanders, especially those merc commanders (I don't like craven, no no no).

Question now comes up--how to breed those commander traits? (Possibly another thread on this subject?)

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Let me apologize briefly, I'm on 1.07 and the system is better than I thought. Commanders are now interchangeable--I did not know that before (sometimes pays to read ALL the release notes). I use to simply dismiss levies under the king since he's generally too important to be leading army's. Now with the click of a button one can re-assign commanders and the King return to the palace where he belongs.

This has always been the case, you just need crown authority to be above "autonomous vassals". Otherwise your own vassals won't give a rats ass about your wishes on who should lead the flanks.