The defeated levies would often times just go home. I'm not sure a stackwipe and forcing the player to re-summon levies to reassemble the army would be any fun.
Feed back on some of the new DLC's
- Thread starter Red Barron
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The defeated levies would often times just go home. I'm not sure a stackwipe and forcing the player to re-summon levies to reassemble the army would be any fun.
I cannot speak on that topic as I do not know the casualty rates of those conflicts, but they were at the ass-end of the Middle Ages and warfare then was vastly different than it was during the bulk of the era.
"War's over. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here."
Last edited:
- 1
You need only read up on Byzantine and Arab conflicts throughout the time period to realise that decisive victories did not necessarily result in territorial gains or swift counter victories and reversals.
- 2
- 1
Basically you'd have the winner follow the loser around until a stack wipe. If you ambushed them, you'd win in no time.
- 1
- 1
Indeed but the arguement was about the validity of singular decisive victories determining the outcomes of wars which was the case before the introduction of shattered retreats.
No harm done.
Edit: I see now you were responding to RX2000 in your original post, not me. Sorry about the confusion.
Last edited:
I guess Reapers Due is the newest so here is my feedback on Reapers Due:
Isn't that exactly what happened before shattered retreat was enabled? You'd end up in a spiral where one army was continually fleeing but would constantly be caught and beaten over and over again.
- 4
Why shattered retreat was a poor design for CK2:
- Casualty calculations were too unsatisfying.
- There are no forts to block the movement like in EU4, so there is no strategy involved to back up reinforce the armies while forts buying you time.
- Morale bonus for retreating armies!? So they can never be wiped!?
- Second and Third point combines and creates wild goose chase all around the map( world). Keep trying to kill the armies.
- All these points sums up and creates the biggest annoyance in the history of CK2: cancer battles at mid & late game, as armies getting larger and larger.
- Winning battles too unsatisfying.
- Casualty calculations were too unsatisfying.
- There are no forts to block the movement like in EU4, so there is no strategy involved to back up reinforce the armies while forts buying you time.
- Morale bonus for retreating armies!? So they can never be wiped!?
- Second and Third point combines and creates wild goose chase all around the map( world). Keep trying to kill the armies.
- All these points sums up and creates the biggest annoyance in the history of CK2: cancer battles at mid & late game, as armies getting larger and larger.
- Winning battles too unsatisfying.
- 3
- 2
Conclave is a must buy in my opinion. All the negativity about it really came from the content patch so there's no reason to avoid it. HL is only really good if you like playing in the steppe.
- 4
- 1
- 1
Yea pretty much. I think ping ponging in a tiny area is preferable to the Benny Hill situation that goes on now tho where you literally chase them across 5 counties.
I don't see what the big deal is about shattered retreat. It was way worse than it is now, for sure, but it's not too bad anymore. I usually don't bother chasing their army after the first battle. I take a important holding while they, usually, and slowly, make their way back to the same area... take the holding, destroy the army again. No point in chasing them down unless your realm is huge and they have interest in sieging an entirely different part of it. In that case, just leave a second army with enough troops to take a holding and then go after them.
- 2
This Guy gets it, pitched battles were extremely rare during the CK2 era (at least during the Middle ages proper), heck it seem that the new patch will add a cap to the amount of war score that can be gained from battles, forcing the player to actually siege, and has the game continues siege takes more time, giving more time for one side to replenish it's forces (think Hundred years war), making wars less one sided dice rolls.
For first 200-300 years not chasing armies could be a thing. As armies getting bigger defeating a 100-150K stack is still a threat with current build. Therefore you have to chase that "retreating" army to the end of the world.
I'm pretty sure there already is a cap for warscore gained through battles. At least if you're the attacker. I know that I've been the attacker in a war, and then seen my warscore from battles cap at 75%.
- 2