Enemy armies doing a shattered retreat become ethereal and can walk right through hostile forces.

[BeingDS]

So I'm aware that armies that are defeated now do a shattered retreat where they run several provinces away to lick their wounds. However, I've noticed what I feel must be a bug with this feature, as armies doing a shattered retreat seem to be able to walk right through provinces where I have other armies stationed without stopping to fight them.

It seems like this must be a bug, since retreating armies are now essentially invincible.

 

[Servancour]

WAD. Armies that are shattered will ignore any hostile troops for as long as they shattering. Once they reach their designated province, hostile troops will be free to engage them again.

 

[BeingDS]

What was the thought process behind that? It seems extremely unrealistic. I understand that the point is to reduce the decisiveness of battles, but how does it improve gameplay to do that by giving retreating armies magic fairy powers to walk right through prepared enemy positions?

 

[Korashy]

What was the thought process behind that? It seems extremely unrealistic. I understand that the point is to reduce the decisiveness of battles, but how does it improve gameplay to do that by giving retreating armies magic fairy powers to walk right through prepared enemy positions?

It's the same way in EUIV and it still makes no sense.

 

[Sindai]

What was the thought process behind that? It seems extremely unrealistic. I understand that the point is to reduce the decisiveness of battles, but how does it improve gameplay to do that by giving retreating armies magic fairy powers to walk right through prepared enemy positions?

Because if you could just catch the shattered army with another army the mechanic would be pointless.

 

[BeingDS]

Because if you could just catch the shattered army with another army the mechanic would be pointless.

How so? In order for it to work, you have to have another/other army/armies that is/are both already in position and large enough. Players who manage to outmaneuver and surround their enemy with superior forces should be rewarded, not punished.

This system disincentivizes thoughtful strategy (is a Grand Strategy game, no less) and makes no sense on top of that. It's another board-gamey, poorly-implemented, immersion-wrecker. Paradox needs to do a better job at figuring out how to alter mechanics in ways that are immersive and make sense.

 

[Blackwolfpt]

This has always been the case in EU IV. Shattered armies can't be engaged in battle. I get what you are saying, but it would be too easy exploitable. You would just park tiny armies around the battle and the army wouldn't be able to shatter anywhere. Then when the battle started you would just reinforce with the other armies.

I know it's unrealistic, but it's for gameplay purposes. Crusader Kings II is still a video game and some compromises must be done.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

It would be fine if shattered armies only moved, say, four provinces. Then it would give the AI/Player time to get out of the way and make an ordered retreat or turn and fight. As it is a shattered army that loses a battle will retreat all the way to a home province. In extreme cases you could have an English army in the Holy Land be defeated in Jerusalem and retreat all the way back to Flanders before getting stuck due to lack of a land bridge when in reality the furthest such an army would likely run would be Constantinople.

 

[Dracko81]

It would be fine if shattered armies only moved, say, four provinces. Then it would give the AI/Player time to get out of the way and make an ordered retreat or turn and fight. As it is a shattered army that loses a battle will retreat all the way to a home province. In extreme cases you could have an English army in the Holy Land be defeated in Jerusalem and retreat all the way back to Flanders before getting stuck due to lack of a land bridge when in reality the furthest such an army would likely run would be Constantinople.

Do you have an example of that happening? From what I seen they do retreat the ERE or the nearest realm. They don't retreat to Flanders.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

No, in fact, I do not have an example. However, it's a possible example depending of the relations between the English and the Byzantines. For example, the Byzantine Empire could be on the ropes facing defeat at the hands of the same Crusaders assaulting Jerusalem.

The point is that, historically, in this period armies would retreat to a "safe" distance from the advancing army rather than simple to friendly territory. Armies might skirmish back and forth and if the attack faced a defeat they would retreat along their line of advance, not leave the theatre entirely. For one thing the more logistical situation would mean an army would need to stop hole up and forage at regular intervals, rather than just conduct a two-month forced march

I wasn't a fan of the old system where the AI would march one province only to be pounced on again but this goes too far the other way and needs some toning down.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Feel free to ignore - but I've always pictured a "shattered" army as no longer an army - rather it is 1,000 guys running away anyway they can. They aren't moving in a column, they are just moving like regular yokels in the region. Like if I was a soldier standing in a formation in battle, attacking me is pretty straight forward. But if I'm a soldier who has broken ranks and ditched, hiding my armor and my weapon, I'd essentially just look like a well-off traveler and nothing more. It's not like I'm sitting around and regrouping then retreating.

I saw it suggested, and highly agree, that a shattered army should face high attrition while they retreat to represent soldiers who desert, are arrested, or just never make it back to the regrouping point.

 

[Hecaton]

WAD. Armies that are shattered will ignore any hostile troops for as long as they shattering. Once they reach their designated province, hostile troops will be free to engage them again.

Wow, that's bad design.

 

[Korashy]

Feel free to ignore - but I've always pictured a "shattered" army as no longer an army - rather it is 1,000 guys running away anyway they can. They aren't moving in a column, they are just moving like regular yokels in the region. Like if I was a soldier standing in a formation in battle, attacking me is pretty straight forward. But if I'm a soldier who has broken ranks and ditched, hiding my armor and my weapon, I'd essentially just look like a well-off traveler and nothing more. It's not like I'm sitting around and regrouping then retreating.

I saw it suggested, and highly agree, that a shattered army should face high attrition while they retreat to represent soldiers who desert, are arrested, or just never make it back to the regrouping point.

This is what I had suggested in the DD. Considering that most of the troops are probably peasants that don't even want to particularly want to fight in the first place, it makes sense that they'd disappear as soon as the have the opportunity. But realistically, if they wanted to make warfare slower to allow people to recover, then they need to make supplying large troops in enemy provinces (and even your own) harder, and having the seasons have much more of an effect. Currently nothing represents campaign seasons and that most armies stayed in a single location over the winter months, until the next campaign season.

edit: Also lack of peasants during Harvest season (due to being dragged off to war) having huge economic impacts etc.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

I also agree that there should be massive attrition on shattered retreats for CK2, due mainly to desertion.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Feel free to ignore - but I've always pictured a "shattered" army as no longer an army - rather it is 1,000 guys running away anyway they can. They aren't moving in a column, they are just moving like regular yokels in the region. Like if I was a soldier standing in a formation in battle, attacking me is pretty straight forward. But if I'm a soldier who has broken ranks and ditched, hiding my armor and my weapon, I'd essentially just look like a well-off traveler and nothing more. It's not like I'm sitting around and regrouping then retreating.

I saw it suggested, and highly agree, that a shattered army should face high attrition while they retreat to represent soldiers who desert, are arrested, or just never make it back to the regrouping point.

If that were the case, that it was "every man for himself" then the army would just be gone - the end - war over - 100% warscore.

As it is that's not how it works, and I just watched my Italian Army walk all the war back to Dyrachion from Chios when I accidentally clicked the wrong army and made them disengage. That army didn't "shatter" it withdrew, in good order with high morale but because I lost the battle it counted as shattered, so it walked through the friendly territory of my fellow Byzantine vassals and stopped at the first province I owned. It was, I think, a six province walk with no one pursuing.

 

[Maeldun]

It's the same way in EUIV and it still makes no sense.

It looks like it makes about as much sense as allowing armies to walk across the St. George's Channel. It's either done for game mechanics (i.e. compensating for A.I.) or an active attempt to make wars more tedious for the player. If armies are going to be invulnerable for the duration of such a long retreat, they should suffer extreme attrition while doing so. Otherwise, this is simply an onerous addition to the game's combat system that nobody wants or needs.

 

[CSAGeneral]

It makes sense; these provinces are huge, not small enough for a few thousand men to block all routes through it. The shattered men take care to avoid the enemy army and thus the mechanic. They eventually tire out in the province they end up in and can be caught.

 

[BeingDS]

Feel free to ignore - but I've always pictured a "shattered" army as no longer an army - rather it is 1,000 guys running away anyway they can. They aren't moving in a column, they are just moving like regular yokels in the region. Like if I was a soldier standing in a formation in battle, attacking me is pretty straight forward. But if I'm a soldier who has broken ranks and ditched, hiding my armor and my weapon, I'd essentially just look like a well-off traveler and nothing more. It's not like I'm sitting around and regrouping then retreating.

I saw it suggested, and highly agree, that a shattered army should face high attrition while they retreat to represent soldiers who desert, are arrested, or just never make it back to the regrouping point.

Yes. A 15% per week attrition rate would fix this whole thing, especially if armies that "shatter" actually shattered on the map. I think each levy component should become a separate unit and they should all hare off in different directions... or if they're near the province where they were raised from, move toward there.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Yes. A 15% per week attrition rate would fix this whole thing, especially if armies that "shatter" actually shattered on the map. I think each levy component should become a separate unit and they should all hare off in different directions... or if they're near the province where they were raised from, move toward there.

I think we're getting that first bit, so time to rejoice?

 

[Hecaton]

I think we're getting that first bit, so time to rejoice?

Not really. It just means they added a whole bunch of complexity and wasted a whole bunch of time and money to make battles decisive again.