Combat

[Aries666]

I have started to notice a trend in my games. Generally as I build up I go with an entirely light infantry retinue (because the AI mostly looks at numbers when considering factions and war decs). As time progresses and I get 200-250 years into the game so 900-1000AD I really start to struggle with battles. A good case of this was yesterday I lost a few battles were of 15k (me) vs 10k that I would lose. The composition would be nearly identical except I would have several thousand more light infantry (from the retinue), all my commanders would be >16 martial and the AI had none, I would also be defending in mountains and get totally creamed.

My knowledge of the combat system isn't great but I am guessing this was down to tactic selections but I don't get why I should be losing these battles because we have the same amount of heavy infantry, cavalry etc but I just have way more light infantry. In any case at this point I usually start creating a heavier retinue and it usually helps. However, should I even be losing these battles and are tactics too influential on combat to the point that they overcome terrain, good commanders and numerical superiority?

 

[RagingJaws]

Light Infantry is garbage. Literally.

A blinded, inbred, maimed, frail, weak, and incapable commander could hold his own in a 1v1 against a LI troop.

 

[Aries666]

Light Infantry is garbage. Literally.

A blinded, inbred, maimed, frail, weak, and incapable commander could hold his own in a 1v1 against a LI troop.

I know light infantry is poor but your are missing what I said, these battles are equal numbers in other troop types but I have more light infantry. I am not trying to win battles with loads of light infantry vs heavy infantry.

 

[RagingJaws]

I know light infantry is poor but your are missing what I said, these battles are equal numbers in other troop types but I have more light infantry. I am not trying to win battles with loads of light infantry vs heavy infantry.

I didn't say poor. I said garbage. Archers are better light infantry than light infantry itself.

There are other reasons to lose battles outside of poor troops though:

• Bad commanders. Tactics can lose or win a battle and having the right traits+tactics can be devastating. This applies on both sides. You can look up them on the wiki.
• Poor battlefields. Attacking an entrenched (Hill, River, Crossing) or Religious (Defensive Pagan Homeland) enemy can be ruinous on the casualties.
• Flanks are very important. Having a well balanced force is sometimes the way to go but other times it's better to overload a side and take advantage of a flanking bonus, especially with an "Aggressive" and "Flanker" commander. It all depends on the situation.

 

[Slating]

probably you feint instead of shieldwall giving a bonus to light infantery and penalty to heavy.
http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Combat_tactics

 

[Aries666]

I didn't say poor. I said garbage. Archers are better light infantry than light infantry itself.

There are other reasons to lose battles outside of poor troops though:

• Bad commanders. Tactics can lose or win a battle and having the right traits+tactics can be devastating. This applies on both sides. You can look up them on the wiki.
• Poor battlefields. Attacking an entrenched (Hill, River, Crossing) or Religious (Defensive Pagan Homeland) enemy can be ruinous on the casualties.
• Flanks are very important. Having a well balanced force is sometimes the way to go but other times it's better to overload a side and take advantage of a flanking bonus, especially with an "Aggressive" and "Flanker" commander. It all depends on the situation.

Did you read my original post? I had good commanders they didn't have any and I was defending in mountains.

 

[Sirrobert1]

Tactics work by giving bonuses to some troops, and penalties to others. Troop composition is a major factor in deciding what tactics to pick.
It's possible that your large group of LI is causing the AI to pick a tactic that favours LI, thus screwing over the rest of your army enough that the enemy can win.

 

[RagingJaws]

Did you read my original post? I had good commanders they didn't have any and I was defending in mountains.

I did read your post. Especially the part where you admitted your knowledge of the system wasn't that great.

Are you sure you should be so confident that your commanders were actually "good"? Unless you give an example, I'm going to assume that you just stuck the highest martial commanders at your disposal as the flank leaders and decided that was good enough. Which is almost never the case, not counting the malus of being weight down by trash troops.

 

[Aries666]

I did read your post. Especially the part where you admitted your knowledge of the system wasn't that great.

Are you sure you should be so confident that your commanders were actually "good"? Unless you give an example, I'm going to assume that you just stuck the highest martial commanders at your disposal as the flank leaders and decided that was good enough. Which is almost never the case, not counting the malus of being weight down by trash troops.

They were all >16 martial, brilliant strategists I didn't check what modifiers they had such as flanker. In any case if commanders were that important why did the AI who had no commanders do so well?

 

[PK_AZ]

I guess ir's because morale. If wiki is correct, every killed soldier, be it knight, archer or garbage, means -6 to morale. Because LI die in big number, you get more morale hits that you will get without any LI. And because LI contribution for army morale is so low(1 point per infantryman I think) they just do not have any "standing power", so any army ligh infantry-heavy also do not have it.

 

[Aries666]

Tactics work by giving bonuses to some troops, and penalties to others. Troop composition is a major factor in deciding what tactics to pick.
It's possible that your large group of LI is causing the AI to pick a tactic that favours LI, thus screwing over the rest of your army enough that the enemy can win.

This is what I thought was the case especially as there aren't many tactics picks for an army with lots of LI. However, that begs the question are tactics too powerful relative to other factors?

 

[RagingJaws]

They were all >16 martial, brilliant strategists I didn't check what modifiers they had such as flanker. In any case if commanders were that important why did the AI who had no commanders do so well?

I don't believe you, with the scant details of the situation at hand.

This is what I thought was the case especially as there aren't many tactics picks for an army with lots of LI. However, that begs the question are tactics too powerful relative to other factors?

No. The combat system is good but not great, primarily because costs per unit are not balanced well enough compared to their effectiveness in combat. I think this link is still relevant for the current game version: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...4c7AywsLr2m6fsvcusWQfORf0/edit#gid=1985786964

Pikeman are supreme.

 

[Aries666]

I don't believe you, with the scant details of the situation at hand.



No. The combat system is good but not great, primarily because costs per unit are not balanced well enough compared to their effectiveness in combat. I think this link is still relevant for the current game version: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...4c7AywsLr2m6fsvcusWQfORf0/edit#gid=1985786964

Pikeman are supreme.

You can choose to believe whatever you like. Are you just trying to annoy me with supremely unhelpful comments like:

Light Infantry is garbage. Literally.

A blinded, inbred, maimed, frail, weak, and incapable commander could hold his own in a 1v1 against a LI troop.

Then a whole bunch of attitude. Why are you even bothering to comment?

 

[Sirrobert1]

They were all >16 martial, brilliant strategists I didn't check what modifiers they had such as flanker. In any case if commanders were that important why did the AI who had no commanders do so well?

A coward commander (and coward is a trait many commanders get through being commander) can be worse than no commander.

This is what I thought was the case especially as there aren't many tactics picks for an army with lots of LI. However, that begs the question are tactics too powerful relative to other factors?

Tactics are massive. In Total War, I could crush any army 5 times my size with the right tactics.
The problem isn't how powerful they are. The problem is that, with regular levies, they are completely random (but for both, so no problem), but with Retinues thrown into the mix, they are suddenly game changers.

 

[RagingJaws]

Ugh. I'm not trying to annoy. That was my attempt at being funny.

I have been helpful but I'm getting the feeling that you're quite dismissive of anything being said, mind already decided on the erroneous idea that tactics are too strong. If you want me to be more helpful, I'd like to see what sort of commanders you're using in these battles that go so terribly for you. I can't be much more helpful than I've already been without more information.

 

[Aries666]

Ugh. I'm not trying to annoy. That was my attempt at being funny.

I have been helpful but I'm getting the feeling that you're quite dismissive of anything being said, mind already decided on the erroneous idea that tactics are too strong. If you want me to be more helpful, I'd like to see what sort of commanders you're using in these battles that go so terribly for you. I can't be much more helpful than I've already been without more information.

Fair enough, humour does not come over easily on forums. I cannot give more info as I am not at home.

 

[Arsonik]

I don't believe you, with the scant details of the situation at hand.



No. The combat system is good but not great, primarily because costs per unit are not balanced well enough compared to their effectiveness in combat. I think this link is still relevant for the current game version: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...4c7AywsLr2m6fsvcusWQfORf0/edit#gid=1985786964

Pikeman are supreme.

Well, if he is playing under Conclave and the newest patch, then no. It isn't relevant.

 

[RagingJaws]

Well, if he is playing under Conclave and the newest patch, then no. It isn't relevant.

How so? I just skimmed the patch notes for 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, I didn't see any changes in the numbers for individual tactics/troops. Only thing I've found was a correction for some tactics not checking martial skill of the commander.

 

[sigeena]

With LI, you need to win hard in skirmish. Otherwise, once in melee, they're just meatballs. The ideal tactic to pull is Feint (Skirmish).

In fact, if you're LI-heavy, you can't even use too good a general. Take note that Martial 16 and higher is likely to trigger Shieldwall in skirmish, defensive in nature. Martial 12-15 actually favours Feint over Shieldwall

If you did a Shieldwall, consider retreating once you enter Melee.

You need to consider changing your retinue. The hardest hitting retinue remains the Knights if you can get access. Get it in mixed in forms of 74% LC and 26% HC. With Martial 16, you'll trigger Harass in Skirmish, maximising your 74% LC, and likely some charge in Melee. Don't worry if it looks smaller than the opposing flank, it's very survivable, and punches helluva hard.

 

[Arsonik]

How so? I just skimmed the patch notes for 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, I didn't see any changes in the numbers for individual tactics/troops. Only thing I've found was a correction for some tactics not checking martial skill of the commander.

My understanding is morale was significantly changed as well. Don't take it from me though. I haven't done any number crunching in either version. But there was a lengthy discussion about it after Conclave was released. There is another thread as well that I believe is linked somewhere in this one.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-in-2-5-2-practical-tests-and-results.941226/

Much of the results are very similar admittedly depending on whose source you look at. My main gripe is semantics. It would have been more genuine to me if you had said "similar" or "comparable".