Combat outcomes. Numbers seem to be the only thing that counts.

[unmerged(439386)]

I agree with the OP, and find this aspect of the game about the biggest single negative to the fun of the game for me (perhaps it is my wargamer roots ). IMO commanders should matter *much* more than they do now, especially the army commander; besides choosing tactics they could add to morale or give direct bonuses to casualties inflicted or taken per round of combat. As is, I've sadly seen even rank 0 commanders routinely defeat far better commanders (20+ ranking) if they have a little bit of numerical superiority. Better commanders should definitely add a *big* boost to morale and perhaps reduce the morale of foes.

As with some others I'd much rather see this feature addressed in a patch than in a mod. Troop type should probably have a larger effect as well, with heavier troops generally having more staying power. Just my 2 cents, but it really seems odd for poor commanders to do so well and "great" commanders to be virtually worthless on the battlefield. Most of the rest of the game I really like, but this part could really use a big change.

 

[valrond]

I agree with the OP, and find this aspect of the game about the biggest single negative to the fun of the game for me (perhaps it is my wargamer roots ). IMO commanders should matter *much* more than they do now, especially the army commander; besides choosing tactics they could add to morale or give direct bonuses to casualties inflicted or taken per round of combat. As is, I've sadly seen even rank 0 commanders routinely defeat far better commanders (20+ ranking) if they have a little bit of numerical superiority. Better commanders should definitely add a *big* boost to morale and perhaps reduce the morale of foes.

As with some others I'd much rather see this feature addressed in a patch than in a mod. Troop type should probably have a larger effect as well, with heavier troops generally having more staying power. Just my 2 cents, but it really seems odd for poor commanders to do so well and "great" commanders to be virtually worthless on the battlefield. Most of the rest of the game I really like, but this part could really use a big change.

Agreed. Leaders matter so little that now I rarely bother with them. I just use the default ones the AI puts on my stacks unless it's a close combat.

 

[unmerged(26764)]

What makes this the worst is that it's not only that the bigger stack always wins. It slaughters the smaller stack. So 10k troops with weak leadership will not only win against 8k with great leaders, the 8k will end the battle with 400 men and the 10k will be down to 8k. This wouldn't bother people as much if it ended with both stacks mostly wiped out.

The problem seems to be that as the bigger stack starts to win, it's advantage gets bigger and bigger. The battle starts about even. Then at some point it's not 8v10 but 6v9. At this point the 6 really starts getting hammered. Then before long ts 3 v 7, and its a wipe out. And then comes pursuit. I'm not sure if this is intended and historical, but I don't like it for game play.

Finally, it would be nice if there were a lot more events for leaders during battle that gave you a reason to put certain characters in command. Not battle events. Other events. Relations boosts. Great traits. Money from loot. Things that made winning battles make the people in charge of the battle more powerful and influential, because that's why people historically did it. Expand the politics to the battlefield.

Also, why even give out prestige for winning battles when you're only going to give out .5. Half of one prestige? Hold me back. Put me in charge of that army so the prestige gravy train can roll on in.

 

[Dadekster]

One thing that would help a lot:

Make Martial influence the TIME that each phase lasts. For example if your general is much better and you have much more archers, make the skirmish phase last LONGER. That way, it would simulate a bit better the fact that he used surprise and terrain preparation to it´s maximum effect, like in Poitiers. On the other hand if he had lots of heavy cavalry the effect would be opposite, shorter skirmish phase but longer melee, to simulate that he chose plains and therefore closed faster with the enemy. Just a bonus of +1 or +2 days in each phase would make a difference.

However, my previous point still stands, if distribution of Martial is the same as it is now the blobs will be even stronger. So this will have to be adressed before any buff to Martial is done.

This is actually imo a pretty good idea and could even be expanded on. You could even give characters a skill rating for each phase as well to boost it even further. Say being able to click or mouse over the martial stat and get a breakdown of the three phases perhaps? Then picking commanders for proper slots would make me feel at least a little more involved in the battles and their outcomes.

 

[Rob de Hard]

What makes this the worst is that it's not only that the bigger stack always wins. It slaughters the smaller stack. So 10k troops with weak leadership will not only win against 8k with great leaders, the 8k will end the battle with 400 men and the 10k will be down to 8k. This wouldn't bother people as much if it ended with both stacks mostly wiped out.

The problem seems to be that as the bigger stack starts to win, it's advantage gets bigger and bigger. The battle starts about even. Then at some point it's not 8v10 but 6v9. At this point the 6 really starts getting hammered. Then before long ts 3 v 7, and its a wipe out. And then comes pursuit. I'm not sure if this is intended and historical, but I don't like it for game play.

Finally, it would be nice if there were a lot more events for leaders during battle that gave you a reason to put certain characters in command. Not battle events. Other events. Relations boosts. Great traits. Money from loot. Things that made winning battles make the people in charge of the battle more powerful and influential, because that's why people historically did it. Expand the politics to the battlefield.

Also, why even give out prestige for winning battles when you're only going to give out .5. Half of one prestige? Hold me back. Put me in charge of that army so the prestige gravy train can roll on in.

Change BATTLE_PRESTIGE_MULTIPLIER to 30-50 in defines.lua. You may also want to tweak MAINLEADER_PRESTIGE_PART = 0.50, FLANKLEADER_PRESTIGE_PART = 0.25.

Additionally ofc you can look at FLANKING_DAMAGE_BONUS and BATTLE_WARSCORE_WORTH. Finally SIEGE_WEALTH_MULTIPLIER for making winning sieges actually a viable way to pay your armies with the booty.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I think you can change the MTTH for phase changes - so the thing with more archers = longer skirmish is INDEED possible.

 

[Dadekster]

Is this the part in a thread where everyone just kinds looks at one another and sort of starts looking at their watches?

 

[Rob de Hard]

Is this the part in a thread where everyone just kinds looks at one another and sort of starts looking at their watches?

I'm looking at you. You're looking at me. We're looking at each other like we don't know what to do ..

 

[Poddster]

Is this the part in a thread where everyone just kinds looks at one another and sort of starts looking at their watches?

It's the part where Paradox come along and read it, agree and add it to their task tracker.

 

[Rob de Hard]

I forgot to add if you tweak LEADER_MARTIAL_DAMAGE_BONUS in conjunction with flank and morale buffs it works out much better for higher stat commanders. I nerfed the morale of light infantry and archers and buffed pikemen and knights too. So far so good. Here's a tweak mod someone else made (which I can't find now and can't credit grr) with a load of my own tweaks. If you change the max distance the AI will sail/travel to DOW religious enemies etc it seems to tone down the lolfrance in africa schennanigens.

I'm not pushing mods on peeps here but you can download and see for yourself the differences playing with these various values in defines.lua and other files can make (pretty huge one).

 

[Beagá]

Does it make the outcomes regarding the byzantines more historical as well? If it does I´ll certainly try it.

Also for you people who already know a bit how to mod this, is it possible to make statistics and traits more rare in certain cultures? For example, making Brilliant Strategist be much rarer with greeks than with turks?

 

[Tempestra]

I'm looking at you. You're looking at me. We're looking at each other like we don't know what to do ..

That's a great song.

 

[unmerged(382585)]

I have found the same thing as in the origional post, which bothers me slightly, but not as much as no attrition...

Yes, why is there no attrition that makes no sense at all? Many medieval (hell, even modern) armies were decimated by long-distance traveling and consequences of lack of food/water and disease. WTFWTFWTF?!

 

[James_Manring]

Yes, why is there no attrition that makes no sense at all? Many medieval (hell, even modern) armies were decimated by long-distance traveling and consequences of lack of food/water and disease. WTFWTFWTF?!

You mean no attrition for the AI or? I am constantly plagued by attrition if I have a stack larger than the support limit. I'm not quite sure what you guys are talking about.

 

[Scott1964]

I attacked my enemy with a slight disadvantage, around 200 to 250 guys, and won in my Capital. :mellow:

 

[Acularius]

Leaders are damn important. I've won wars when outnumbered by about 2000, just by sitting on a hill, and assasinating their leaders in the midst of battle.
Then watch them collapse, since most of the time you are pitting your best leaders against theirs the difference in skill isn't apparent other than the force of numbers.

 

[AllThat4Nothing]

I'm looking at you. You're looking at me. We're looking at each other like we don't know what to do ..

Oh Hello there, Seeker.

 

[unmerged(439386)]

Thanks for the mod/mod ideas, I'll have to tinker a bit and see how that works out, while hoping a patch will address this issue strongly.

I forgot to add if you tweak LEADER_MARTIAL_DAMAGE_BONUS in conjunction with flank and morale buffs it works out much better for higher stat commanders. I nerfed the morale of light infantry and archers and buffed pikemen and knights too. So far so good. Here's a tweak mod someone else made (which I can't find now and can't credit grr) with a load of my own tweaks. If you change the max distance the AI will sail/travel to DOW religious enemies etc it seems to tone down the lolfrance in africa schennanigens.

I'm not pushing mods on peeps here but you can download and see for yourself the differences playing with these various values in defines.lua and other files can make (pretty huge one).

 

[Rhion]

You mean no attrition for the AI or? I am constantly plagued by attrition if I have a stack larger than the support limit. I'm not quite sure what you guys are talking about.

There's a large disparity between early and late game when it comes to attrition.

At the start of the game, 2K is a significant force, but it won't get any attrition because the support limit isn't that low anywhere. So it feels like you're playing without attrition. Of course, later in the game, stacks grow considerably to 15-20K and then attrition becomes a factor. And the AI suffers attrition too, though it doesn't seem to know how to handle it. You can often see the AI's forces wither away due to attrition. With some sieges the AI would be a lot better off assaulting, rather than continuing the siege, however, the AI seems very reluctant to assault a castle.

 

[Beagá]

They never do it, for some odd reason.