• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

CK3 Dev Diary #18 - Men-at-Arms, Mercenaries and CBs

Hello everyone, and welcome back!

This week we’ll be talking about a lot of additional details surrounding warfare. Just a few bits and pieces that have changed since CK2.

Casus Belli
One thing that is as it ever was, however, is that you need a Casus Belli to go to war, and that CB determines what happens when the war is won (or lost!). The most common ones are for pressing claims, as you’re familiar with from CK2. In different situations there will be a different options, of course, and some are even unlocked in special ways, such as the ones unlocked by perks, as shown off in the Diplomacy Lifestyle dev diary.
Declare war view.PNG


War Declaration Cost
One thing that has changed a little is the fact that different CBs come with different “declaration costs” attached to them. This is usually Prestige or Piety, depending on whether you are starting a war against a fellow believer or someone from another faith. On the other hand, we don’t want to keep you from taking advantage of a great opportunity just because you’re missing 10 Prestige at a crucial moment, so the costs are optional, in a sense.

You can declare a war without paying its cost, at which point you’ll instead pay something bigger, such as a Level of Fame or Devotion.

Levels of Fame/Devotion brings their own benefits, so ideally you want to avoid this, but it’s not as big a problem as - say - truce breaking. It’s not going to cripple your play, just set you back a little bit in exchange for getting to raise your armies and take some new titles while your enemy is weak. This is also one of the ways that Piety and Prestige gain has become more valuable than it was in CK2. You want to use it for more stuff, and it’s always useful to have lying around!

Men-at-Arms
We have talked about armies before, where we talked about the difference between your levies and your Men-at-Arms. Your levies are your unwashed masses, indistinguishable peasants more than willing to die for the few measly pieces of gold you throw their way. Men-at-Arms, on the other hand, are more specialist troops, and the component that gives you more control over precisely how you win your wars. They are in many ways your elite troops, ready to march through mountains and marshes for you.
MaA view.PNG


You have a maximum number of Men-at-Arms regiment slots for your army, and in addition they have an upkeep cost. It’s small when they’re unraised, but the moment you have them stand up to go to war, they’ll demand a lot more pay!

Even though you can max out your MaA slots, there are other ways you can expand your army. Each MaA regiment can be increased a set number of times, to field even more of your deadly warriors. This will naturally increase their maintenance cost as well (both raised and unraised) so think twice before hiring twice as many soldiers!

There are many different types of MaA regiments, and what their type is determines a number of things, such as what terrain they are good at fighting in, and what kind of MaA Regiments they are good at countering, or get countered by. Over time, you may also be able to acquire new types of MaA Regiments. This means that the bulk of armies are likely to be quite different if you start in 867 compared to when you reach the end of the game.
Create MaA view.PNG


MaAs also include siege engines, which is one of the easiest way of speeding up your land grabs. However, siege weapons are almost useless in regular combat, and taking them uses up one of your MaA slots, so it’s a decision that has to be carefully thought through.
MaA siege engine.PNG


In addition to a standard slate of MaA types, different cultures gain access to different unique MaAs. These will vary greatly across the world, but are generally specialised in the conditions of warfare that’s typical for the culture in question.
Camel Riders.PNG


You will also be able to look at battle reports to get an indication of what kind of impact specific types of MaAs have on your battles. This can let you figure out whether your strategies are paying off, or whether it’s finally time to get some Pikemen to counter the Light Cavalry that your rival is always fielding.

So to sum it all up, Men-at-Arms are great for countering specific troop types, adjusting to specific types of terrain, and directly bolstering the number of soldiers in your army! Sometimes, strategising and countering isn’t enough, however, and that’s where Mercenaries come in!

Mercenaries
Mercenaries are familiar to any CK2 player, of course, but they have changed a little now.

First of all, you no longer pay monthly maintenance for them. Instead you pay their cost for three years up front, and then they’re yours for that time to use as you see fit. They’ll stay with you through thick and thin (although mostly the thick of battle).
Mercenary company screenshot 3.PNG


Once the three years are almost up, you’ll receive an alert warning you that the Mercenaries are about to pack up and get on their way! You’ll then have the opportunity to pay them for another three years of service. This also means that they aren't going to betray you the second you go into debt, which I know will sadden a lot of you, but this new system makes it a lot easier to keep track of what you have and don't have during war.

So Mercenaries are an expensive way of doing warfare, but sometimes it’s the only way you’ll survive. However, in order to find a Mercenary Company that fits you in both size and shape, we have a new system for generating them to make sure there's always a wide range to choose from.
Mercenary Hire view 2.PNG


Each culture generates between one and three Mercenary companies depending on the number of counties of that culture, with each additional company being bigger and more expensive than the previous one. They will also pick a county of their culture to keep as their headquarters, and will be available to be hired by anyone within a certain range of that county.

With each culture generating Mercenaries, their names and coats of arms are either picked from a generated list of names specific to their culture so that you can get historical or particularly flavourful companies in there.

On top of everything else, Mercenary companies come with one or more specific Men-at-Arms types, which means that you may want to consider not only which company is the biggest one you can afford, but which is the best suited for the war you’re about to fight.

This should all offer you a lot of varied strategies for how you go about your wars. Is it worth saving up for the CB cost or mercenary-Gold ahead of time? What Men-at-Arms should you be using against your ancestral enemies? Who would win in a fight between the the White Company and the Company of the Hat??

You’ll just have to wait until release to see...
 
  • 10Like
  • 3Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Big no there, dawg.
Because you have already paid them three years in advance, which is actually worse for you than paying them per month.

Nice change to mercenaries, but without any risk of them betraying you they seem a bit too good to be true. What are those tilted squares next to the troop numbers? Bottom one is red and some of the icons are bigger too.
Quality of the army, like if you have alot of levy your army will be considered low quality, but I assume if half your army is Heavy cavalry that the quality will be much higher.
 
The retinue system combined with the levy system makes far, far more sense than having this half-assed "unwashed masses" nonsense combined with what is essentially a retinue system. You can't tell me this is how feudalism works!


I'm curious as to how you think the 'feudalism' worked. In reality, anything much like 'levies' or 'unwashed masses' did not exist in medieval armies, at least outside of something you might describe as a 'city militia,' but even those had ties to guilds, prominent families, lords, etc. Mercenaries were a standard part of any substantial army in the time period. You simply had to compensate people to put their lives on the line. Wars were often rather small affairs, with armies composed of hundreds to a few thousands. The Capetians went basically two centuries without fighting a major battle, yet increased their prestige and power the entire time, and here, for me at least, resides the problem. There is little to do outside of warring. Politics in this period is fascinating and complex, and of course you can truly replicate it, but there is very little to suggest it in the game. The great lords of 'France,' operated more or less independently of the Capetians for centuries, yet in a game like this, you are either under control or rebelling to replace the King, which is fairly absurd. The neat hierarchy of middle school textbooks simply didn't exist. You couldn't simply revoke a vassals land, because vassalage was far more complex than that. Land, even of a vassal, was often held free and clear of legal obligations to the 'superior' lord. The knights, men at arms and mercenaries seem like a step forward on the whole, though I wish they would think harder about the 'unwashed masses.' Anyone, one thing I agree with is a cost of prestige of going to war seems a bit ridiculous. I hope they reconsider this 'casus belli' idea, because while of course many lords look for justification for their actions, they were often based on the most flimsy of pretexts and depended more of your relationships with the surrounding powers, religious authorities, etc. William's claim to England was a joke, but the Pope gave him encouragement because the English Church at that time was out of favor with the reforming ideals becoming popular on the Continent.
 
Anyone, one thing I agree with is a cost of prestige of going to war seems a bit ridiculous. I hope they reconsider this 'casus belli' idea, because while of course many lords look for justification for their actions, they were often based on the most flimsy of pretexts and depended more of your relationships with the surrounding powers, religious authorities, etc. William's claim to England was a joke, but the Pope gave him encouragement because the English Church at that time was out of favor with the reforming ideals becoming popular on the Continent.
I would suspect that CB is more about justfication of war internally than international, like give a reason for your own people to go to war. The rest of the realms probably more care about that nobody gets too powerful or become a threat to them, but someone like William the conqueror probably won't chance the political landscape much on the international level as it is basically something like a coup.
 
people who complain/hate things are more likely to post than people who approve of it, personally I like a lot of what I see and hope other stuff is changed prior to release
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I love to nitpick, so shouldn't it be named the county of Görlitz, so with an umlaut?

Also I notice some peculiar naming conventions, where the counties/provinces in Silesia/Poland have German names, like Sprottau or Grünberg (on the map also without the umlaut). But then there is Lubsko, as the name of a county in the HRE.


There also seems to be a lack of historical countynames, I hardly see one on this map at all. Spreewald f.e is a weird name to use for a county.
From the dev diaries we've seen, I think that province names has definitely not yet been a focus of their work.
 
The problem with CK2 in my honest opinion is how easy it is to become the god emperor of mankind, and how boring it is when you get to a high position with barely anything to do. I could see being emperor meaning time to do a lot of lawmaking and shaping the empire, focusing internally rather than externally. But theres not a lot of internal stuff you can do. So you just conquer more to get less bored and keep getting stronger.

Still an incredibly fun game. But I play the game like an RPG and see it as one, and it makes me wonder if the RPG aspects help hold up the rather limp and weak aspects of the game.

I can't wait to see how CK3 handles this. I do like the more rpg aspects since that's exactly my jam. But also wonder how the whole part of you being a ruler, nobility/royalty aspect is played on.
 
View attachment 554991

does this mean you're obfuscating troop numbers now? or is this only on this screen?
will this also count allied troops, like in the recent EU4 change?
Actually I think we should not be able to know enemy army strengths i comparison to yours unless you have a spy in that army, reporting numbers and quality. Also a scout system for your army should also help reporting how your odds are against a nearby army. Oh well, maybe later.
 
Actually I think we should not be able to know enemy army strengths i comparison to yours unless you have a spy in that army, reporting numbers and quality. Also a scout system for your army should also help reporting how your odds are against a nearby army. Oh well, maybe later.
One developer said for Imperator: Rome that the reason why you got to see the exact numbers was probably because they wanted to be fair to the player or something like that since the ai otherwise would cheat here.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If it's considered unfortunate that mercenary companies cannot be formed in CK3, and such was a mechanic available in CK2, why was that mechanic not carried over into CK3? I'm just baffled by how some content of CK2 was entirely cut for CK3.
Maybe they will release DLC in the future, with the price of only 19.99€!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The problem with CK2 in my honest opinion is how easy it is to become the god emperor of mankind, and how boring it is when you get to a high position with barely anything to do. I could see being emperor meaning time to do a lot of lawmaking and shaping the empire, focusing internally rather than externally. But theres not a lot of internal stuff you can do. So you just conquer more to get less bored and keep getting stronger.
Yes it is a issue you see in pretty much all paradox games and many other games as well. The more you expand the stronger you get which make further expansion easier which make the game more boring.
 
Hmm that is true, good point. DAMN IT AI!
It was like a year ago so I may misremember and the developer was not one of the game designers so it was a bit of a guess by the developer. However it was something with they wanted to make information clear for the players, so they probably could make more sound decisions;)
 
Thats what we call on CK2 (and CK3 pbly) for exemple :

holy war
invasion
border dispute
conquest
etc...



you can push multiple casus belli on CK2 already and CK3 probably
You can press multiple claims, but only ones of the same type. I.E. You can press multiple personal claims, but you can't press personal claims, vassal claims, and holy war CBs all at the same time, for example. I did say this quite explicitly in my post.

And yes, I am aware of those CBs. I literally mentioned them in the same post you replied to, after all. There are some CBs that allow you to claim more than a single province, and having easy access to those CBs basically serves as a stand-in for having a proper system allowing you to claim more territory. You aren't going to use a CB for a single province when you have one automatically for that province or duchy, so it only makes the idea of CBs redundant, since you can't combine different CBs in the same way.

While there are CBs that allow you to take whatever land you occupy, those often end up being pretty overpowered since there's nothing like warscore cost for taking provinces, as there is in EU4 or Imperator, for example. As such you can conquer a vast empire in a single war, which runs entirely contrary to the otherwise deliberately piecemeal nature of wars. A proper war/peace treaty system would include warscore costs for taking provinces, and prevent incredibly unbalanced stuff from happening.

The most fundamental thing which you fail to mention is that there is simply no way for anyone fighting a defensive war to claim land from their enemy, even if they totally occupied them. This, yet again, is something that a proper war/peace treaty system would fix.

A proper system like that would also allow for additional terms to be imposed on a defeated ruler, such as releasing their vassals, breaking alliances, surrendering their own claims on territory, paying annual tribute, marrying an heir off, converting, and more, all of which would make sense and be great to have.

That sort of flexibility is something that the current CB/war system just doesn't have at all, and I think it's a great shame, particularly since all those options would be fun and interesting to see, and are entirely in keeping with the RPG elements of CK3, as well as being historically accurate.
 
Last edited:
Yes it is a issue you see in pretty much all paradox games and many other games as well. The more you expand the stronger you get which make further expansion easier which make the game more boring.
Goal shouldn't be expansion so much as improving what you have. You expand to have more resources to improve your empire and so on. I'd be super hyped for more detailed law making as honestly being able to shape even basic laws plays in the roleplaying aspects of being a ruler. Perhaps if you are centralized enough.

I guess I'd just love it if your characters realm was as much a character as the people.
 
Will you guys consider introducing a more accurate representation of complex feudal relations? For example English holdings in France still being vassals of the French crown?
 
For every good change it seems there are 2 bad ones.
I think that's a little unfair. Plenty of stuff seems to be a major step forward, such as skills, and the improved RP options for characters and dynasties, as well as the way that religion is handled. Equally, on the campaign map, separating holdings into their own sub-provinces is a change that makes sense.

In my view the worst things are what they've left the same from CK2, and which I think developing CK3 allowed them the greatest freedom to change, like the simplistic and linear nature of feudal relationships, or the way that CBs and wars are rigid and don't allow for imposing terms or claiming other land.
 
Will you guys consider introducing a more accurate representation of complex feudal relations? For example English holdings in France still being vassals of the French crown?
While I personally would love to see something like that, I think they've decided to more or less leave the system the same as it was in CK2. So, while Normandy might be De Jure territory of France, it will be functionally independent and part of England.

I can't deny that I'm quite disappointed by this, but I also understand that it would be enormously difficult to come up with a system to properly represent those sorts of ambiguities, so I get why they haven't decided to try and change things.
 
Last edited:
@Voffvoffhunden I don't think this question have been asked but how much Control do you have over your army composition:
  • Like can you select exactly which knights you want in each of your army
  • Is it possible to select how much levy you want in an army, like may you need a full men at arms army to reduce supply limit while keeping peak combat effectivness
  • I suspect each men at arms regiment can be move into a separate army, do levy also work on a regiment basis or is it just a single bulk or tied to each county like CK2?
I guess I'd just love it if your characters realm was as much a character as the people.
Well the issues in CK2 is that realms are really just a bunch of characters and can be quite unstable, however in CK3 you will have dynastic legacies and more dynastic interactions.
 
Last edited: