Carpet sieging to end large wars quickly should not be possible

[Cuthuthulu]

What are the rebels demanding?

He probably owes them money.

 

[dk753]

Victoria 2 has a 50% cap on warscore from battles, forcing you to actually occupy territory as well. CK3 should do something similiar with sieges.

 

[Secuter]

Victoria 2 has a 50% cap on warscore from battles, forcing you to actually occupy territory as well. CK3 should do something similiar with sieges.

Why? I mean, if you occupy enough of the land and has taken most of the fortifications, then what should some army wandering around somewhere matter?

No, instead the peace treaty system should be revamped. It shouldn't be an *instant* win. Nor should the system create a All or Nothing situation, as is currently the case. The AI never knows when to quit a fight for instance.

Generally, I feel like both CK2 and CK3 has an issue in weighting the score of each province a bit too high.

 

[Adonnus100]

Well for those asking I was fighting a huge crusade which is why my army wasn't prepared for the peasant revolt (also my income was 100 per month when my troops aren't raised. I was just at war for ages defending ofc). It just seems a bit unrealistic that even though my army is fine, they can say "Woops! Too late! You were distracted and I stole your kingdom" and I gots to go home. Why would any ruler accept that?

 

[Ivashanko]

Oh, certainly - and part of it too is because war wasn't nearly as clear cut as CK style, with formal declarations and the like.

A count could raise an army, go siege and conquer a city - and then it might take years/decades for a ruler to decide to go do something about it.

For something like that southern italy situation, I'd personally prefer to allow border warfare without the upper liege *always* getting involved - I think something like that could allow for the gradual eating away at the edges of a weak/distant kingdom/empire, but it's a tough needle to thread.

My biggest disappointment with CK3 will forever be that they tied titles to characters and not to territory. It makes sub-national warfare, which I'd argue is essential for capturing the zeitgeist of the Medieval Ages, absolutely impossible.

 

[Ezumiyr]

Yes. Wars shouldn't work at all like they do now.

We can only hope that the experimentations on Victoria 3, the new Situations of Stellaris, and the court system of Royal Court will end up influencing a new war mechanic where we don't do stupid chases with the AI and end up sieging half a realm... especially when we're just conquering a county.

The game desperately needs a reasonable war mechanics that treat wars as situations. Only raiding should involve chases.

 

[YellowPress]

Yes. Wars shouldn't work at all like they do now.

We can only hope that the experimentations on Victoria 3, the new Situations of Stellaris, and the court system of Royal Court will end up influencing a new war mechanic where we don't do stupid chases with the AI and end up sieging half a realm... especially when we're just conquering a county.

The game desperately needs a reasonable war mechanics that treat wars as situations. Only raiding should involve chases.

"stupid chases" where you can engage for high ws or just sit at the border and siege for some ws, hmm can't have tactical decisions like that ofc lets automate everything

 

[YellowPress]

Well for those asking I was fighting a huge crusade which is why my army wasn't prepared for the peasant revolt (also my income was 100 per month when my troops aren't raised

Were you using all your levies? Was that it? Were you not ransoming off those captured?

. I was just at war for ages defending ofc). It just seems a bit unrealistic that even though my army is fine, they can say "Woops! Too late! You were distracted and I stole your kingdom" and I gots to go home. Why would any ruler accept that?

They wouldn't, but you should have a claim after the war so can go back and take everything
Also dont disband troops whilst at war unless you're sure itll be 7 months or more to sail to wherever your army is next needed. The mass debt is also one reason for the peasant revolt, which makes sense considering how often byz had to reconquer its own territory after stuff was lost during a succession crisis or economic weakness

 

[Rinholm]

I was bringing together a large army of about 60k to fight a 100k Crusader army in England. But it took time to assemble since it was fighting a rebellion. By the time it got together my warscore was -90%. I won a battle and killed 10k of them, but they just took another 2 castles, boom, all of England is gone, despite the fact that my huge army is completely intact and only barely arrived. This was less than a year after the crusade began.

Is it just me, or should there be a better way to do this, I remember there was some limit in CK2 where if you didn't fight a major battle for the first 24 months the warscore was capped at 99%. Being able to win any war just by carpet sieging while their armies are in a different place feels like a cheese, the defender should get some time to properly use their army at least. Especially if they are actually winning battles, "oh that's it guys, we are winning battles, we have our whole army right here, but they took another few castles, we lost now let's go home". I mean come on.

Well for those asking I was fighting a huge crusade which is why my army wasn't prepared for the peasant revolt (also my income was 100 per month when my troops aren't raised. I was just at war for ages defending ofc). It just seems a bit unrealistic that even though my army is fine, they can say "Woops! Too late! You were distracted and I stole your kingdom" and I gots to go home. Why would any ruler accept that?

Im confused as to how you got into this situation, which war happened first, what were you defending against for ages, why did it take so long to raise your troops?

 

[Hanger_18]

It's stupid af. Imagine, 60k men are winning battles, the war is barely a year old. Then because some fort to the north of them surrender, and they all say "ok let's quit, we we winning battles but let's just go home now. It's all over!"

If you don't think that is really dumb then I don't know what to say. It's hard to offer resistance when your army is on the other side of the realm and takes 7 months to even assemble but I see you didn't address that point.

I imagine them being far away and doing nothing. you were busy dealing with a rebellion, they took advantage of it. You didn't split the army to get there faster either.