Does anyone think that retinues should have some kind of upkeep?

[Galaahd]

I certainly do.

Honestly, retinues are, for big kingdoms, the "I win" button. And once they reach top capacity, they cost NOTHING. As the Byzantines, I was able to have a stack of 21k standing cataphracts. 0 upkeep. It isn't realistic nor historical.
The way I see it, right now retinues only favour big kingdoms. CK 2 already had a problem with blobs, now they even have big free stacks :blink:

 

[fletcherreed]

It's nice until you lose some troops. Then that stack cost 100 gold a month to reinforce. If you don't have 1000g saved up, you're going into the red. That lack of funds modifier is killer.

 

[Grubnessul]

It could be a bit more balanced between keeping them in the field and reinforcing them. Those horses want food too!

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

It's nice until you lose some troops. Then that stack cost 100 gold a month to reinforce. If you don't have 1000g saved up, you're going into the red. That lack of funds modifier is killer.

You can set it so they reinforce slower for less cost.

 

[Silverbow]

Losing 300/month or 150/month, neither is nice. All just because some fool's army decides to cross your capital and your retinue gets attritioned.

 

[Isaios]

I'd be in favor of continous upkeep rather than only reinforcing cost. But I also would like Retinues to work more like vassalised or owned Mercenary titles.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

In hindsight I think they were a bad idea, and almost totally ahistorical for this period. They're very 'gamey' and take a lot of the fun out of managing levies during a war, which ought to be expensive and tedious (hence they had to sent home after a certain period).

If you start in 1337 as England then you can spam almost countless retinues and afford them easily.

 

[riknap]

to be fair, why do we have to assume that standing troops in the feudal period are paid like professional armies? can't the reinforcement cost represent the expenses of giving each soldier a plot of land to support himself, while still being directly the men of the liege?

still, the side note is that upkeep should at least represent logistics, since I doubt stationing 10,000 men in the border with your constant rivals was realistic for the time period
then again, on a side note, the scale of the game's manpower is rather unrealistic itself. population is irrelevant and only holding buildings matter, which consequently affects retinue sizes

 

[Agrippa43]

Yes, the Retinue System is riddiculous. An average "retinue" or household troops for a King was about 100 Knights. Not a 30,000 standing army.

The best way to fix it is unchecking the box at the menu.

Hey paradox can I have a refund?

 

[Arizal]

Yes, the Retinue System is riddiculous. An average "retinue" or household troops for a King was about 100 Knights

This! Those standing armies are against the principle of CK2 as I saw it. I know it is harsh, but I have come to think of it after a game where I conquered Hungary with only my retinue. But Paradox would never remove entirely a feature of a game, less a feature they added in a patch and an expansion claiming it was a major change for the best.

Now, it could be true that some kingdoms had standing armies. Maybe the Byzantine army before Manzikert could be counted in. However, as I know history, the HRE, France and England didn't have one, since they had to ask their vassals to provide the troops. Retinues should have upkeep costs, angry vassals issues (those are their troops!) and cost like hell. If you want to play EU3-IV before time, you should have to have a small kingdom practically living from pillage or a large empire capable to feed all those people. Then you could resemble a mercenary State like Prussia (like 200 years after the end-ame) or a great empire like Rome (more than 600 years before the beginning of the game, as I say the Byzantine could be counted in until some point in history).

Basically, you would need a last step of crown authority to let your vassals agree that you have standing troops, otherwise you are just exploiting a feature to pass above your vassal heads.

 

[NewbieOne]

Retinues are all right and very feudal-like. Princes and important lords had entire households and moved from one castle or vassal to the next, "riding circuit" as it were, and they had an entire court moving with them, including an armed retinue. Everybody had at least some household troups and IMHO the sizes are about okay from what I've been able to see in a 13th century game. If anything, a fixed capital is problematic. Especially for the earlier period. Around 1066, druzhina-style retinues ("druzhina" is basically translation of "retinue") should be old-fashioned but not out of the imagination, while in later castle age scutage and professional armies began to dominate and knighthood became a reward instead of a job, with thosecaricatural permasquires holding actual castles (!).

In the game, you can stabilise your situation with minimum feudal levy and higher feudal tax, avoiding "levies raised too long" if you manage to put together a retinue that wins you wars on its own, just like republics use mercs. You can still add levies later if you have a healthy margin of opinion. Obviously, demesne is always okay unless you're small enough to have barons DoW you.

 

[Hackworthy]

In hindsight I think they were a bad idea, and almost totally ahistorical for this period. They're very 'gamey' and take a lot of the fun out of managing levies during a war, which ought to be expensive and tedious (hence they had to sent home after a certain period).

If you start in 1337 as England then you can spam almost countless retinues and afford them easily.

It can get ridiculous, yes, but a lord having his own household retinue is absolutely not ahistorical.

 

[NewbieOne]

It can get ridiculous, yes, but a lord having his own household retinue is absolutely not ahistorical.

It would be ahistorical for nobles not to have one. No retinue means you can't even hold your castle(s) until the levies gather up.

 

[Arko]

I personaly mod them out.

 

[Agrippa43]

It can get ridiculous, yes, but a lord having his own household retinue is absolutely not ahistorical.

HA! A Lord or King's household retinue was about a 100 at most...not 30,000

 

[Agrippa43]

It would be ahistorical for nobles not to have one. No retinue means you can't even hold your castle(s) until the levies gather up.

The Lord's castle retinue is already represented in the garrison given for each castle.

 

[Isaios]

I wonder where people get these numbers. They feel pulled straight out of... Well, some sauce might be nice.

 

[Haccoude]

HA! A Lord or King's household retinue was about a 100 at most...not 30,000

No... The Norman DUKE of Sicily had a household retinue of landless knights numbering in the hundreds. By the time of the Hundred Years' War both France and England had a core army of professional troops which the levies acted as support for.

The retinue limit is much too high (as are the amount of levies) and it seems strange they don't cost any upkeep except to replenish losses, but the existence of retinues in CK2 is historically accurate.

 

[Grubnessul]

In another thread, I posted the suggestion of making retinues size depend on your primary title. Sounds like the best way to limit the size of the retinue.

 

[Arizal]

I think the defenders of retinues have a point. I like the idea of retinues being a moving capital, but then we would have to make disappear the capital and saying that if your retinue is destroyed, it is as bad as your capital being taken. However, I think it should be much less powerful. I really think that if retinues were the heart of the army, they couldn't be it by themselves. Lieges had to call their hosts at some point, otherwise those wouldn't be feudal wars.

Maybe retinues should come only from the actual demesne of the liege and be elite troops better than normal levies, with local levies less numerous if raised. Since your demesne is normally around 10 provinces at the middle of the game, retinues wouldn't be extra-powerful and would be composed of troops loyal only to their liege, with the possibility of taking vassals retinue when you summon their levies. Just an idea like that.