Grand Strategy

[RedRooster81]

Okay, let's talk grand strategy, the stuff of warfare. Whatever you guys want. For me:

first, are there going to be EU-style missions to direct the AI to historically plausible actions? This could be specific to certain realms. The Fatimids could attempt to recapture Ifriqiya (Africa; that is, Libya, Tripoli, and Tunisia today); the Byzantines could be directed towards the Levant and southern Italy (once and if they deal with the Seljuks); and so on.

second, some basic tactical stuff. In CK1, the AI threw small units against my big massed armies of operation, literally down to the last man in some cases. Maybe there should be an option to send the levies home and produce a guerrilla campaign, wherein generals would have a chance of being assassinated, supply lines cut (very tenuous in many cases), and other acts of sabotage and attrition (so called Fabian warfare in those days, after the Roman legate who defeated Spartacus).

finally, before anything else (then, why is this third, RedRooster, why?): councils of war, among a liege and his vassals: this could be worked through the estates, providing money for a particular war goal, and troops and other forms of support.

 

[Zsrai]

My main (current) strategy gripe is: Please, please do something about vassals declaring war constantly on the big bad enemy the overlord is fighting. When I play CK1, I hate watching the Byzantine Empire collapse in Asia Minor because every 1 province count and duke declare (very, very stupidly) on the Seljuks and get eaten. It's a problem in the HRE to a lesser extent as well. And, of course, whenever my own kingdom becomes big enough and all my stupid vassals declare on my enemy and I end up losing 1/4-1/2 of my vassals.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

i'm with Zsrai on the annoyance of the vassal Count of Backwater declaring war on The Biggest Enemy Empire On The Map.

That's linked to crusades too. Notwithstanding whatever diplomatic relations they themselves had... in the context of a war or crusade, what they're doing is either chipping in to their liege's military campaign. i mean... did Saladin ever get spammed with diplomatic correspondence from every Baron, Viscount, and Margraf whenever hostilities flared up? Since CK2 is supposed to be more character-focused, i hope individual courtiers arrive with contingents drawn from their own domains like they are obligated to do... rather than just sorta flaky allies who often get into more trouble than they're worth.

Also... i'd also like a few 'instant-battles'. i am sure there were many drawn-out sieges and running manouevre battles... but sometimes it would be good to just have forces collide and in one go have the battle results pop up. Probably not gonna happen but it'd be a nice change from the Street Fighter 'health meter' approach where it's essentially attrition grinding the opposition down to zero men or morale. i.e. more historic pitched battles on a single day grinding trench-warfare attrition campaigns.

imho that might also help simulate the Mongols, who weren't just some oversize megastack. In CK1, throwing a steady stream of 1k, 2k, 5k, 10k, detachments at them would grind down even a full-fledged Golden Horde. Then you took the single wooden fort in their 'home' province before the stack could return. Drowning them in the blood of your knights and peasants shouldn't be such a surefire recipe for success.

 

[Enravota]

I don't think the stacks of doom are ahistoric. Most medieval wars were fought with a limited number of battles and sieges. It may get expensive to keep for long a feudal army in the field so the strategy was mostly do or die. Generals were usually evading decisive battle when expecting reinforcements.

 

[Legolas]

Some control over what your vassals are doing (tactically, at least; although probably strategically as well). I'm not talking direct control; rather, a systems whereby an overlord can set goals for his vassals and the vassals would then aim to reach those goals would be very nice. I think something like that is implemented in HoI3:SF, but I never played it, so I'm not sure.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

I think there could be specific realm laws defining the amount of freedom and autonomy vassals have (laws that could eventually be broken, just as well). Traits should also influence if vassals obey war commands and general states of peace or are more adventurous and prone to start their own wars.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

I don't think the stacks of doom are ahistoric. Most medieval wars were fought with a limited number of battles and sieges. It may get expensive to keep for long a feudal army in the field so the strategy was mostly do or die. Generals were usually evading decisive battle when expecting reinforcements.

Perhaps they aren't. But in CK1, all the Mongols really had was that and attrition.

And it really wasn't much of a doomstack once you knew that the way to beat it was to just throw a lot troops at... the morale would go down and once it broke, you just had to take one province.

Or say... the Battle of Hastings. Was it one day or did it take a week?

 

[RedRooster81]

I agree that vassals declaring wars is a problem, a big one. Maybe your vassals should have to petition you to declare war on someone outside your realm (we already seem to have wars between your vassals confirmed already). I'm not really sure how often (probably not) a viscount declared war on a major power and expected his king to back him up on it. In CK1, it is often a strategy not to get involved in the early crusades (I usually have enough religious enemies to fight just across the border), so having a count in Italy who can only muster 85 men declare war on the Seljuk Turks is more than a little annoying. (Another point: I hope that the improved naval system limits how much Muslim rulers can move around. Sure Fatimid Egypt was previously quite a naval power, but I don't think that the Seljuks were known for their amphibious operations, in Flanders.)

War being such a big deal for the era, there should be some kind of mechanism for communicating war goals. This could be as simple as the diplomatic option "Discuss strategy." Then, you can agree on a target for all allies to aim for. I would favor AI vassals having control over their own armies, but with direction from their lieges. So the King of France in Paris could tell the Duke of Aquitaine "Go attack Jaca with your forces." The same would work for crusades, where if you were not there on the ground, you did not know the result for months. But that goes to being maybe too real. So let's just keep up our suspension of disbelief on the assumption that every count, sheik, and prince-bishop did have a satellite phone in 1066...

On battles, a lot of medieval warfare was quick, because of the seasonal nature of combat and the difficulty of fighting far from home. I'm still in favor of using mercenaries for overseas or trans-alpine operations, so long as the money and/or pillage keeps coming.

Finally, what do you guys think about reinforcements? For me the biggest advance in EU3 over EU2 were the reinforcing regiments, which made attrition somewhat more palatable.

 

[unmerged(109046)]

The AI behaves suicidally rather often in CK, and I think that will be fixed in CK2, as we've been told there's not a single bit of old AI left in the game. Now your vassals should fear something that's 20 times as big as them - perhaps they will propose to give you their troops in hopes of getting something in return - like, county of Namur or some gold at least.

And the missions - I think it's fair to expect the stuff that Paradox heavily uses in their newer games (decisions, missions) will be there in CK2.

 

[unmerged(155641)]

And vassals declaring independence in every country is just so annoying. Worst of all the liege don't do a shit about it. Completely destroys the whole map to have independent counties and duchies in England and France for an example.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

I agree that vassals declaring wars is a problem, a big one. Maybe your vassals should have to petition you to declare war on someone outside your realm (we already seem to have wars between your vassals confirmed already). I'm not really sure how often (probably not) a viscount declared war on a major power and expected his king to back him up on it. In CK1, it is often a strategy not to get involved in the early crusades (I usually have enough religious enemies to fight just across the border), so having a count in Italy who can only muster 85 men declare war on the Seljuk Turks is more than a little annoying. (Another point: I hope that the improved naval system limits how much Muslim rulers can move around. Sure Fatimid Egypt was previously quite a naval power, but I don't think that the Seljuks were known for their amphibious operations, in Flanders.)

War being such a big deal for the era, there should be some kind of mechanism for communicating war goals. This could be as simple as the diplomatic option "Discuss strategy." Then, you can agree on a target for all allies to aim for. I would favor AI vassals having control over their own armies, but with direction from their lieges. So the King of France in Paris could tell the Duke of Aquitaine "Go attack Jaca with your forces." The same would work for crusades, where if you were not there on the ground, you did not know the result for months. But that goes to being maybe too real. So let's just keep up our suspension of disbelief on the assumption that every count, sheik, and prince-bishop did have a satellite phone in 1066...

On battles, a lot of medieval warfare was quick, because of the seasonal nature of combat and the difficulty of fighting far from home. I'm still in favor of using mercenaries for overseas or trans-alpine operations, so long as the money and/or pillage keeps coming.

Finally, what do you guys think about reinforcements? For me the biggest advance in EU3 over EU2 were the reinforcing regiments, which made attrition somewhat more palatable.

i like the idea of War Goals. They'd also be useful in instances of Realm Duress. An uprising could either be aimed at completely taking over every scrap of the king's territory, and his crown. (i.e. standard CK1 scenario) Or maybe assorted vassals just want to force a succession, weaken the royal prerogative, change the ruling laws, etc.

i do not like the idea of gimping Muslim naval capacity. i'd rather it start at the source, i.e. the declaration of war from a count in with 85 men in Italy dragging all the Seljuk realm into war with the entire Holy Roman Empire. i.e. courtiers going on crusade, not counties drawing entire states into war.

 

[RedRooster81]

i do not like the idea of gimping Muslim naval capacity. i'd rather it start at the source, i.e. the declaration of war from a count in with 85 men in Italy dragging all the Seljuk realm into war with the entire Holy Roman Empire. i.e. courtiers going on crusade, not counties drawing entire states into war.

My problem was having land-based empires (like the Seljuks were at least in the XI century) be able to range far and wide. If the Turks go to war, it should be by land routes, which make more sense any way. So conceivably once the Byzantine Empire crumbles, the Seljuks will then threaten Croatia, Hungary, the HRE. Same goes for largely land-based Christian realms. I guess it goes to naval capacity and naval tradition. Or of course being able to hire merchant vessels from republics, something that I assume the Sultan of the Seljuk Empire would have a hard time doing, unless he could exploit some rivalry between Venice and the Byzantines for example.

But some Muslim powers like the Fatimids and their successor states in Tripolitania and the Maghreb like the Zirid dynasty should not have the same problem. These Muslim states had rather recently controlled parts of southern Italy, Sicily, and parts of Provence even (in the X-early XI century), so no problem with them invading Iberia, Croatia, anywhere else in the Mediterranean. Having port facilities in your coastal provinces, some kind of naval tradition (which inland folk should not have much of), and the resources to keep a transport fleet at sea or find someone willing to lend theirs should be prerequisites for any state interested in overseas conquest. In more modern times, land-based empires had a hard time keeping their various dominions connected by water (a challenge that Spain and the Ottomans both had to confront in the XVI century). There also should be some kind of naval range, based on similar factors, but I'll leave it to the devs to figure out this problem. There has been already a lot of discussion of this sort of thing on the forum, and I don't want to make this thread another debate over naval units.

 

[Melichai]

(so called Fabian warfare in those days, after the Roman legate who defeated Spartacus).

I heard there was a historical inaccuracy in this thread, luckily someone called the Wiki Police. Fabius earned his renown by defeating Hannibal Barca by avoiding fighting him - probably the smartest strategy when faced with a near invincable tactical genius. Spartacus was defeated by Crassus, though Pompey claimed the credit. To Crassus' great annoyance.

As for grand strategy, and related to the guerilla warfare idea, I think its incredibly important to have a differentiation between high intensity warfare (large concentrated armies fighting pitched battles and sieging castles) vs. low intensity warfare ( near ritualistic raiding between neighbours, carried on by local forces/noble retinues). This might also resolve the problem of a backwater count declaring war on the greatest empire in the known world and getting curbstomped. If their declarations are more in the style of low level intensity raiding and counter raiding, the stakes might similarly be limited to loot/pillaging/prestige vs. actual loss of control over the province. A vassal shouldnt call in his liege to defend against border raiding (afterall, if he cant defend his lands against some minor raids, by what right does he hold them his rivals might think) , which avoids escalation.

 

[unmerged(226921)]

I heard there was a historical inaccuracy in this thread, luckily someone called the Wiki Police. Fabius earned his renown by defeating Hannibal Barca by avoiding fighting him - probably the smartest strategy when faced with a near invincable tactical genius. Spartacus was defeated by Crassus, though Pompey claimed the credit. To Crassus' great annoyance.

As for grand strategy, and related to the guerilla warfare idea, I think its incredibly important to have a differentiation between high intensity warfare (large concentrated armies fighting pitched battles and sieging castles) vs. low intensity warfare ( near ritualistic raiding between neighbours, carried on by local forces/noble retinues). This might also resolve the problem of a backwater count declaring war on the greatest empire in the known world and getting curbstomped. If their declarations are more in the style of low level intensity raiding and counter raiding, the stakes might similarly be limited to loot/pillaging/prestige vs. actual loss of control over the province. A vassal shouldnt call in his liege to defend against border raiding (afterall, if he cant defend his lands against some minor raids, by what right does he hold them his rivals might think) , which avoids escalation.

I like this suggestion alot! While you won't gain lands from doing this (it mostly being a way to gain extra income via shady means), you also won't lose your lands.

The Great

 

[RedRooster81]

I heard there was a historical inaccuracy in this thread, luckily someone called the Wiki Police. Fabius earned his renown by defeating Hannibal Barca by avoiding fighting him - probably the smartest strategy when faced with a near invincable tactical genius. Spartacus was defeated by Crassus, though Pompey claimed the credit. To Crassus' great annoyance.

As for grand strategy, and related to the guerilla warfare idea, I think its incredibly important to have a differentiation between high intensity warfare (large concentrated armies fighting pitched battles and sieging castles) vs. low intensity warfare ( near ritualistic raiding between neighbours, carried on by local forces/noble retinues). This might also resolve the problem of a backwater count declaring war on the greatest empire in the known world and getting curbstomped. If their declarations are more in the style of low level intensity raiding and counter raiding, the stakes might similarly be limited to loot/pillaging/prestige vs. actual loss of control over the province. A vassal shouldnt call in his liege to defend against border raiding (afterall, if he cant defend his lands against some minor raids, by what right does he hold them his rivals might think) , which avoids escalation.

Someone was paying attention. Good. Have an e-bonbon. >O<

I'm looking forward to barons fighting each other in my counties and hopefully across the borders, too.

What I was getting at is wearing down invaders when the defenders are hopelessly outmatched. I think in frontier areas that you should also get regular border raid events, and when your vassals are doing it, you get a cut of the proceeds, after tithes, of course.

As a bonus, there should also be the possibility of neighbors getting involved, especially if the guy beating up on your neighbor is a religious enemy with whom you have bad relations.

 

[RedRooster81]

I like this suggestion alot! While you won't gain lands from doing this (it mostly being a way to gain extra income via shady means), you also won't lose your lands.

The Great

I don't think that land should trade hands that much, not as much as in CK1 for sure. Border raids should be pretty common, though, as should seaborne smash-and-grabs. So a nearby province gets a negative modifier for a while (looted_province I guess), while you get a bit of cash and maybe your vassals, too. And go a step further, and you've got a little protection racket going as littoral and riparian provinces pay up instead of face your raiders.

 

[unmerged(226921)]

I don't think that land should trade hands that much, not as much as in CK1 for sure. Border raids should be pretty common, though, as should seaborne smash-and-grabs. So a nearby province gets a negative modifier for a while (looted_province I guess), while you get a bit of cash and maybe your vassals, too. And go a step further, and you've got a little protection racket going as littoral and riparian provinces pay up instead of face your raiders.

It's fairly historical as well. It's important to remember many nobles spent most of their time making the lives of other nobles within their own realm hell. This is, aside from the King being a warlord, the original intention of a medieval King - to be an arbiter between his feuding nobility.

The Great

 

[Zsrai]

In the raiding vein... I hope there are more ways to declare war than spending prestige to grab claims on a title. There have been times in CK1 where I just want to vassalize a single province count, but I can't flex my ducal muscles enough to scare him into it without going into a full blown war and claiming his lands.

I want to just be able to beat down a count in battle and have him acknowledge my as his liege (without having to spend a few months sieging his castle), or raid a poorly regarded neighbor without having to have claims on his lands first, etc. And be raided, and beaten down, etc myself!

 

[RedRooster81]

IIRC there will be feuds that you can work out without throwing half of Christendom into war. Raids seems to be something that folks here are interested in, so hopefully the devs will take note. Not much more to say on raids until the game comes out I guess, but in EU3 you could do raids or something similar by event or decision: check out The Dark Years mod fore that game: there are for example Viking raids if you live in a coastal area. You get a popup telling you, for example, "Vikings have attacked <province_name>" then choices to send help to rebuild or let them suffer (so either a long-term or short-term modifier to provincial wealth, pop growth, etc.)

 

[Panjer]

I'm kind of in favour of an AI system that refreshes its goals every time it gets a new leader. If Manuel III dies in battle after spending his entire life fighting the Seljuks his heir might continue his dream or make peace and turn his attention to the Balkans. If a crusader becomes a lord the AI will prioritize crusades etc etc.