Combat is as irritating as ever

[hazxan]

Having finally caved and got the game in the last Steam sale, I'm surprised by how irritating and "unfinished" the actual combat is. Especially as CK2 has received much praise as being the "best yet" by Paradox. Despite that, the combat problems that were in EU1 (released about 422 years ago) are still present, with a whole lot more besides! In summary:

The "Bouncing" army problem. A miniscule army of < 100 retreats into *your* county. You chase it with your > 1,000 army. Smash the enemy down to 50 ....and they now run back to the first county. Rinse and repeat.. (or should it be "Rinse and Retreat"?). I thought this was fixed in HOI & Vic, odd to see it worse than ever here. Simply, if an army is less that 100, it is NOT an army and should just disappear into the hills. And retreats should always be AWAY from your territory.

Even worse, when the enemy is outnumbered, say I have 2000, they have 200. Clicking to move into their county, they immediately start running towards one of mine. When I stop, they stop too. Again, this repeats like some sort of slapstick comedy routine. Is this meant to represent some "tactical challenge"? If so, I think it inappropriate at the level of geography in the game. If they fear me that much - and at odds of 10 to 1, they should - they too should just disappear into the hills. The larger army wins. The end.

Sieging. A couple of problems. Firstly, they take far too long considering the level of fort. I just saw 3,000 besieging a Bishopric consisting of a "low wall" for 3 months! I doubt if a church with a low wall would have lasted 3 days, let alone 3 months. I have no problem with a siege of a huge castle taking several months, but it seems silly that this is applied to every barony. Especially when the strength of a basic ditch and pallisade are grossly overestimated.

Other problem related to AI continually nipping into my county, realising they are not large enough to siege, then nipping back home home again. Again, repeated and repeated. As a developer myself, I just can't see it being complicated to prevent attempted siege if you're army is smaller than the garrison.

In general, historically, wars often began and ended with one climactic battle from which the loser did not recover. Surely that's not so hard to implement in the game, instead of these micromanaged, almost RTS click frenzies as the enemy gets whittled away slowly. This is the erra of Hastings (a kingdom won in 1 battle) , not the Somme!

I don't think any of this would require much dev effort, as it is really adjustments. I'm surprised there are no other comments on these issues, maybe I'm just playing it wrong? Running a 0.9 version masquerading as the latest patch. The rest of the game seems so well put together, it does seem odd that one of the basics in every EU-type game seems to have regressed.

 

[markmid]

Somedays I agree, other days I don't.

Yes its a bit vexing, and no I don't think it should be changed.

Simply put a 200 strong force should be able to outrun your 2000 man force at this time and era. It could be coded so that you can separate a smaller force ahead to delay them, sure, or modelled as such that the main army takes time to arrive while the smaller flanks fight.

Moving several thousand men should be a big deal, probably bigger than it is now tbh. Pinning down an army should take a bit of effort, I am not saying its the best system that could be created, only that one battle then you wipe out the warscore of an enemy would be a bit meh as well.

Better perhaps that you could set your army to track the other army, so it would automatically try to take the shortest route to them, even if they give you the run around and delay you. Or a 'delay' mechanic could be built into battles, as described above, where the enemy spends some time avoiding you till you pin them down.

 

[Anthropoid]

I agree that the combat in this engine is about as much fun as cutting your fingernails too close and then picking pennies out of pan full of rubbing alcohol. Yes, you slowly and surely "make some money" with each penny that you retrieve. But the whole time it stings, and you just have to ask yourself: is this really fun? I could just turn this game off and play something that is in no way irritating.

Totally agree that the game shouldn't allow the player to blitzkrieg across the map, as that is ahistorical. In this sense, the overall "effect" of the system is 'successful.' Military campaigns are slow, plodding affairs in which fairly long sieges are critical to force favorable outcomes (e.g., surrenders by the rival). As far as I'm aware sieges in this era did tend to be prolonged affairs (on the order of months or even years), as they where throughout most of history. However, I agree that the way the 'fortifications' are valued and their costs do not seem to reasonably relate to how long sieges last, nor to the effect of disparate numbers of attackers and defenders.

Some of this could possibly be adjusted by modifying numbers (making battles = more warscore; making sieges of everything but castles resolve a bit quicker; making the value of siege tech a bit stronger, etc.). But I'm afraid that at the heart of it is this: the engine is inherently lacking when it comes to combat.

The other thing that chaps my bottom about the way combat works in this game is: "battles" that last weeks or even months, instead of hours or a few days.

Of course the CAMPAIGNS in which battles cocurred by last weeks and months, but the idea that "A Battle" would take several days of "skirmishing," several days of "attack," and several days "retreat/pursuit" is just absurd.

I don't honestly play the game for combat; it is just something that you have to do to progress in the game. Sort of like picking those pennies out of rubbing alcohol, even though it burns your cuticles . . .

 

[shypixel]

For me it is all in how you look at it.

I don't have any problem with the siege mechanics. Low walls aren't what is making the siege take so long, you are trying to starve out the defenders, this takes time no matter how small the walls are or how few defenders there are. Don't feel like waiting? Assault the holding. I can guarantee you that church with low walls will fall much faster than a castle with huge ones.

As for the battles, I just think of it like this: The days and weeks are representative of the positioning and jockeying for high ground. It was completely normal in this time period for two armies to take several days in close proximity of each other trying to get every advantage before closing for battle. So the time represents that, and the elongated battle just the result at the end. I know it takes a little leap of faith in how you think about it, but it makes it work for me.

I somewhat agree on weighting the battles more heavily, ck2plus seems to do this, but imagine it in reverse... You have your armies raised, and marching, the AI catches a few units in a bad spot, and wipes them out, suddenly you are forced to surrender, even though the bulk of your armies haven't even arrived yet? That would really piss me off, I bet it would you as well...

 

[barny]

I haven't played the game in a (huge) while, so I may not remember it correctly, but aren't armies destroyed immediately if the get attacked by a force ten times as strong? Or was that a hundred times as strong?

 

[Chamboozer]

I think the #1 problem with Paradox's combat system is that armies are fixed to provinces and army A has no way to escape army B if it's set to arrive the day before army A gets to the next province. Not saying armies should be able to free-roam, but there should be some way for an army to avoid battle in those instances.

In an EUIII Ottoman game my army of 1,000 cavalry was chased into central Anatolia by an invading army of Castile. Paradox is telling me that there is no situation imaginable where an army of 1,000 cavalry could avoid being completely destroyed by an incoming army, just because they'll arrive in the same general area the day before the cavalry teleports to the next province.

 

[unmerged(218998)]

I haven't played the game in a (huge) while, so I may not remember it correctly, but aren't armies destroyed immediately if the get attacked by a force ten times as strong? Or was that a hundred times as strong?

This is true, but in Europa Universailles 3 and probably 4 too, when it comes out.

 

[Anthropoid]

I haven't played the game in a (huge) while, so I may not remember it correctly, but aren't armies destroyed immediately if the get attacked by a force ten times as strong? Or was that a hundred times as strong?

I think that patches must have fixed quite a bit of the "bouncing" and bopping and "small force vs large force" silliness that existed when the game was first released. Perhaps OP has not patched up to 1.08 patch?

For me it is all in how you look at it.

I don't have any problem with the siege mechanics. Low walls aren't what is making the siege take so long, you are trying to starve out the defenders, this takes time no matter how small the walls are or how few defenders there are. Don't feel like waiting? Assault the holding. I can guarantee you that church with low walls will fall much faster than a castle with huge ones.

This is very true. The time it takes to demoralize them is related to the time it takes them to starve out.

As for the battles, I just think of it like this: The days and weeks are representative of the positioning and jockeying for high ground. It was completely normal in this time period for two armies to take several days in close proximity of each other trying to get every advantage before closing for battle. So the time represents that, and the elongated battle just the result at the end. I know it takes a little leap of faith in how you think about it, but it makes it work for me.

This is also true, but major caveat: the game does not treat the skirmish and retreat/pursuit phases as the opening and closing theatre maneuvers before and after a battle. It treats them as PART OF "the" battle." What you are saying is that "the battle" is really meant to represent "the campaign" or "the part of the overall campaign" that led to a battle. In essence, if I understand correct, one could just replace the word "battle" with "campaign" and be happy. Unfortunately, for a game that goes to such great pains to realistically represent middle ages social and political and military dynamics this particular leap of faith is not IMO tenable.

If what we are dealing with in the "battles" are actually campaigns, then in order for them to be satisfactory there would need to be a few changes--and heck, maybe these could in fact be pulled off in a mod.

1. The terminology needs to be changed from "Skirmish, Melee, and Pursue" to something like "Manuever, Main Battle, Aftermath" or something along those lines. Main Battles would include "Skirmish, Melee, Pursue" and for the most part could stay the way they are, however, the time they take to complete whould be compressed substantially. I am not aware of any medieval "battles" that took in excess of 36 hours. Indeed, mostly they seem to reconcile in less than 12. It is true that the days and weeks preceding the battle would have seen a lot of manuevering and marching, as with after the battle. But the battle's themselves should resolve fairly quickly with respect to game pace.

2. The Manuever phase would ensue once rival formations were in the same province. By default the engine would bump itself down to 1x or even -0.5x speed because once the Maneuver phase initiated, the player would need to make some potentially quite important decisions

3. In order for all of this to work, every military formation would need to have a few 'settings' that the player could either change else which in-game factors (leader characteristics, terrain, season, army morale, etc.) would impose or modify. Examples that are used in a lot of good games are things like: A. Posture; B. Orders; C. Formation. The game that comes to mind here that is remarkably similar overall to the Clausewitz engine, but instead of being painfully tedious is instead BREATHTAKINGLY fun and exhilirating is Rise of Prussia. The combat in that game is absolutely wonderful. It manages to to model virtually every important factor in 18th century warfare (and could easily be done for medieval) while not giving the player so much control that it makes the AI unable to compete.

4. During the "Manuever" phase, the settings of the players groups (were they pursuing or moving forward carefully; were they in unorganized column or prepared for battle; were light cavalry sent ahead as scouts and were there enough of them; is the geography friendly or not?) might cause things to happen that the player can't control, for example an ambush. Or, it might give the player opportunities to engage under favorable circumstances. These decisions on the players choice could be handled in much the same way as the event popups in the game.

5. The battle itself could play out essentially the same, but the time would basically freeze, and after the battle the game would stay paused, and the player would be alerted to the final outcome. At this point, the player might again have no option (e.g., his army is routed) or might have various options (pursue and exterminate, or focus on looting the baggage train? focus on pursuing nobles/leaders and taking them ransom, or simply on destroying as many troops as possible?

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Having finally caved and got the game in the last Steam sale, I'm surprised by how irritating and "unfinished" the actual combat is.

....blablablablablabla........


I'm surprised there are no other comments on these issues, maybe I'm just playing it wrong? Running a 0.9 version masquerading as the latest patch. The rest of the game seems so well put together, it does seem odd that one of the basics in every EU-type game seems to have regressed.

Is that some form of irony or do you have the pre-release version and troll us ?
Some of your points are valid to discuss, but seeing the highlighted part i reversed my wish to comment regularly. The current one is 1.08.

Just some points:
Small armies do no harm and are better ignored, as when they are destroyed, they will replenish.
Sieges did take place that long in history pretty often.
Wars were usually not decided by one battle. The one battle wars were the exception to the rule IMHO.

Unless your king gets caught and imprisoned in battle by accident and you loose the duchy of sicily to the bloody Fatimids like it happened to me last night.

 

[hazxan]

Is that some form of irony or do you have the pre-release version and troll us ? 1.08.

Look at my date of joining! I was in at the start with EU1. Not a troll, just a Paradox addict who sometimes wonders why he bothers! I'm liking most of what I'm seeing so far, just posting in annoyance after a session of "nailing jellly to wall" type conflict in the game.

Some of your points are valid to discuss, but seeing the highlighted part i reversed my wish to comment regularly. The current one is 1.08.

Got it in the last Steam sale, a couple of weeks ago. It says 1.08. All other replies agreed that what I am seeing happens to them too. Obviously we all have our different interpretations, some also get annoyed by it, others less so. I don't think anybody would miss it if it was fixed though.

Sieges did take place that long in history pretty often.

Occasionally, yes. but not every time. Maybe some historical statistician could give the details but I would guess that multi-month sieges were a rare exception from 1066 - 1400.
eg 1203 Siege of Constantinople took 2 weeks. That's Constantinople, a megopolis of it's day, not some pallisaded village in the Scottish Highlands! I don't believe there was any "siege of London" in 1066, the entire Anglo-Saxon kingdom fell in a couple of months. Again, a large Kingdom that according to the game principles, would have hung on for years of siege drudgery. (I've not paid too much attention to what's going on in England at game start, I believe the Normans have pretty much completed the conquest. If so, that's lucky for them.)

It was sometimes a mild irritation in EU games, that every province required a siege to win it. At that scale of larger provinces, it seemed a reasonable abstraction, though. CK2 has smaller counties and 3 sieges in each, making it a real (unrealistic IMHO) PITA. I'd prefer it if defences cost a lot more and had a lot less effect, apart from the major castles

Wars were usually not decided by one battle. The one battle wars were the exception to the rule IMHO.

Yes, fair point. I still think there are too many battles required to gain land, though. I found this list of Irish battles, interesting as I'm learning the game playing Ireland and I see about as many battles in 10 years as they list in a century in real life! Some of these were actually more 'raids' than battles. Distinct lack of 2+ month sieges, too....hmy:

List_of_Irish_battles

Unless your king gets caught and imprisoned in battle by accident and you loose the duchy of sicily to the bloody Fatimids like it happened to me last night.

Yes, that sort of thing would end a war in one battle. How "by accident"?

 

[hazxan]

I agree that the combat in this engine is about as much fun as cutting your fingernails too close and then picking pennies out of pan full of rubbing alcohol. Yes, you slowly and surely "make some money" with each penny that you retrieve. But the whole time it stings, and you just have to ask yourself: is this really fun? I could just turn this game off and play something that is in no way irritating.

:rofl:

Of course the CAMPAIGNS in which battles cocurred by last weeks and months, but the idea that "A Battle" would take several days of "skirmishing," several days of "attack," and several days "retreat/pursuit" is just absurd..

Yes, that too! It was forgivable in EU1. And in HOI, actually a fair representation of combat in that era - WW2 buffs have their own lists of complaints of HOI combat, but I was Ok with it there. I really dont; see what is so difficult about having a few days delay as the armies march to meet each other (giving a chance to retreat), then the battle finished in 2 days at most. I've never been able to make much sense of that "shock/assault/fire" system anyway, it has no user control. I believe it goes right back the the Europa Universalis board game and I really hope it is not in EU4.

 

[louie97]

I wish I could just tell my army to chase a specific army and not stop till its target is destroyed.

 

[hannibal_barca]

Pitch Battles were relatively rare during this time. I think the battle system included in this game works well for the open plains i.e, it is realistic. However, 30k men attacking another 25k men in the mountains with the grand skirmishing, then the melee, and then retreat and pursuit should be modified. There is no frontage and the system assumes that all men are fighting at all times, whether on the field or in tight mountain passes which is absurd, and really gives numbers and edge in the final analysis. Hills, Mountains, Forests etc, should be more of a meat grinder and give the kill ratio privilege over to the defending army, even if significantly smaller. Tactics and traits only really apply if the armies are either the same number or close to it. In other words, in this game an Agincourt or Crecy cannot happen, nor can the Muslim Victories in 711 or those attack the Persian and eastern roman empires. The system per se is fine, they just need to modify a few things especially with terrain and frontage.

 

[keynes2.0]

Battles last for days because they want to leave the player with the option of calling for a retreat mid battle. Just handwave it away by pretending the armies maneuvered around each other and then had an actual battle in the last day or two.

 

[Anthropoid]

Battles last for days because they want to leave the player with the option of calling for a retreat mid battle. Just handwave it away by pretending the armies maneuvered around each other and then had an actual battle in the last day or two.

. . . but . . . you can't retreat can you?

You telling me you can retreat from battles once the skirmishing starts?

Even if you can, a system in which your armies had settings, and then the game paused when rival armies were in the same county would still be better. Once your forces arrived in a county with enemy forces, the engine would do a few calculations based on: the terrain; enemy posture/composition/size/leader stats/etc.; same calculations for player force.

Based on these calculations, the battle could begin immediately, it could be an ambush, or the player might have a few options for how to progress, and with different terrains offering different popup options for the player. Just as one example, a lowland plains terrain might offer: the following three alterantives:

I. The enemy has prepared a defensive position in the countryside
II. The enemy is approaching
II. The enemy column is moving by road
III. The enemy has formed up near a village

Each of these scenarios (could be plenty of other ones too) would then afford between 2 and 3 or 4 alternative actions by the player (and potentially with some only available depending on leader characteristics). For example:

I. The enemy has prepared a defensive position in the countryside
A. Approach with caution, try to pin down the enemy forces (+10% to skirmishers and archers [hidden modfier of -20% to being surprised])
B. Adopt a defensive stance and wait for the enemy to make the first move (+10% as with the defensive bonuses from terrain; -3 days pursuit [hidden modifier of +10% to being surprised])
C. Deploy Skirmishers and scouts to explore the enemies deployment (-15% to defense; +20% to being surprised [not hidden]; -2 days pursuit)

II. The enemy is approaching
A. Charge
B. Hasty defense
C. Set ambush
D. Maneuver to best defensive position

II. The enemy column is moving by road
A. Follow cautiously
B. Attempt to 'cutoff' and outmaneuver the enemy
C. Pursue at haste

III. The enemy has formed up near a village
A. Speak to the locals about setting a trap
A. Approach with caution, try to pin down the enemy forces . . .
B. Adopt a defensive stance and wait for the enemy to make the first move . . .
C. Deploy Skirmishers and scouts to explore the enemies deployment . . .

I don't have a strong enough intuitive understanding of the existing maths, traits, and dynamics in the existing combat in the game, so I can't do a great job on the specifics here. But my intent is just to point out how: even USING the existing engine (popups and RTP game play) it might be possible to add a lot of flesh and decision-making to combat so that player knowledge of the enemy leaders, their predispositions (traits could be coded perhaps to make AI prone to follow certain tactics) their force composition, etc. could inform sensible tactical decisions that then could develop into meaningful tactical advantage.

That would make it a heck of a lot more fun that rubbing alcohol treatment on the cuticles

 

[keynes2.0]

You telling me you can retreat from battles once the skirmishing starts?

Yes I am. You select your army and right click on an adjacent province. This causes your troops to immediately stop fighting and go into the retreat phase.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

I am not sure is I want to make engagements more complicated, but for sure I would not mind some more randomness. Even much smaller forces were able to route enemy and inflict enormous damage due to same ambushes or clever/lucky tactics.

keynes2.0 is right, armies were following each other. For example Teutonic army was shadowing Lithuanian-Polish army before the Battle of Grunwald for 5 days.

I look at the battles at 1 hour per turn scale. It would be a bit annoying to stop the game every time battle starts and wait for its resolution. In some way we have two different scale games running at the same time. One is strategic and another tactical (moving and positioning armies).

Sieges are actually not that bad. Like the OP at the beginning I was overwhelmed by time consumption but now I use a mixture of sieges and assaults. As a rule of thumb an efficient assault requires 10 bigger force than defenders but more is better. I simply send a group to initiate a siege. When "Assault" is available I send overwhelming force to storm castles and move the force back before attrition bites. This way campaigns could last very fast.

 

[mxu]

The combat aspect is and has always been more annoying than fun in all the Paradox's grand strategy games (ok, I haven't played much HoI series). Whack-a-mole in a grand scale! At some point I hope they'll be able to add some kind of "free movement" on the map instead of province to province movement. That and some kind of hunt-command would solve many problems.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Something that's always bothered me about war in EU3, and now CKII, is the drawn out, siege-oriented nature of it all. I'm not an expert on military history, but I recall reading about many wars where it isn't decided by methodically sieging and occupying as much of your enemy's land as you could, but a few key battles and/or strategically important sieges.

Perhaps my analysis here is wrong, but I'd certainly bet that the general model of war in EU3 and CKII doesn't match up with the general model of most real wars of their periods. Any military history buffs care to corroborate/refute?

 

[hazxan]

Something that's always bothered me about war in EU3, and now CKII, is the drawn out, siege-oriented nature of it all. I'm not an expert on military history, but I recall reading about many wars where it isn't decided by methodically sieging and occupying as much of your enemy's land as you could, but a few key battles and/or strategically important sieges.

Perhaps my analysis here is wrong, but I'd certainly bet that the general model of war in EU3 and CKII doesn't match up with the general model of most real wars of their periods. Any military history buffs care to corroborate/refute?

Pretty much how I feel too. Although it does seem a bit more justifiable with larger provinces in EU, where I would imagine the siege as abstracting "taking control" in general. Sieges are my main annoyance right now. Check this list of sieges, you don't have to be a military historian to see how unrealistic and unhistoric the current system is. Selecting a few from this era, a few weeks seems about average for the largest fortified cities. Of course most wars did not have a siege on every town...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sieges

I've just had a war where my army of 3,000 took nearly 3 years to defeat an enemy of about 400 and win 1 county! And that was pretty much a 'textbook' campaign of straight victories. Beat the enemy - that took about 4 battles of whittling them down of course, then just sitting on the county until the 3 sieges were complete. 3 years is ludicrous for what would have taken at most 3 months IRL. I understand the sense of avoiding Blitkrieg, but this has gone to the other extreme of being too slow. It would be so easy to fix. Just factor in the financial power of the defender with some random factor and if it's too low, don't do the siege.

The key thing Paradox have got totally wrong is that these mammoth sieges were just not that common. It is some sort of lazy copycat game design. a meme/myth that replicates across games of the era. Maybe the consensus of what is 'historical' is based on Hollywood films and Total War. So campaigns always end with a year long siege. I guess it may be a deliberate design element to slow the human player down against the AI, as with a realistic battle/siege mechanic, the human could probably waltz the map in a few decades.