Military

[Canis Lupus]

Few simple changes:

1. Fleet
- Add manpower to fleet - some fleets were large and required a lot of men


2. Army
- No cavalry - flanking penalty!
and give back the speed bonus - cavalry armies are usefull (to get in time - moving between battles to support fighting armies)
- Artillery should also give penalties if are not supported. No more artillery armies.
at least 3:1 (inf:art) should be max
- a checkbox for armies so the selected ones can be always at full maintnce/payment and always ready for action


3. Forts
change the whole logic
- instead of upkeep let the regulars occupy/garrison the forts and move in/out if needed (locked when besieged)
thats more realistic and we finally have a place for them in times of peace
it would also allow to have leaders defending them (king-general locked in a castle should give significant penalty and force AI to move his whole army to rescue him)
- max garrison level to defend should remain but you could also be able to store more troops there behind the walls - locked but ready for sortie (and able to rotate those on the walls if they suffer to many losses)
OTOH the penalty should be large (starving) but it would save armies if you want to prevent them from being destoryed in a battle

 

[lolada]

1. Fleet
- Add manpower to fleet - some fleets were large and required a lot of men

- Its not realistic but its probably for the best that navy doesn't use manpower. Manpower is too constrained already and it would lead the players not to build navy at all - navy is not very important in too many cases already. I am not against it, but if they are gonna do it than its not simple. It needs to be done properly, not just adding manpower cost to ships.

2. Army

These are also not simple, but they are good suggestion. It would involve changing decently complex combat system that works quite well.

+1 for flanking penalty: its not exactly "flanking penalty" but "maneuver advantage" for the army with cavalry
+1 for unsupported artillery - they should take extra damage and die to flankers; cavalry should prioritize killing unsupported artillery over infantry in front of them
- checkbox: i don't mind it, it would be useful tho they need to teach AI to use it

extra suggestions:
- maybe add final pursuit phase where all units, especially cavalry do some extra damage
- shorten the lengths of battles significantly!!! and slow unit movements in general. Armies should not be able to support ongoing battles from 2+ provinces. (we really need to eliminate situations where France and HRE armies march 2000 km (with artillery...) to join the fight at full strength and morale and turn it around).

3. Forts

- Not sure if i like the suggestion here, i get the point but gameplay would be sketchy. Most often you wouldn't want to place anyone in forts, even when in wars, and then they lose much of value in the game. Its almost always better to use mobile defending army than forts.

I'd suggest something a bit different:

- I wouldn't mind for example forts tying up part of manpower from manpower pool when turned on. There could add a slider for a fort to scale how many men should be there. Siege progress would partly depend on number of garrisoned troups. Less men in forts than max, siege should tick faster. 100 people couldn't hold out very long even in a fort vs 10k army.

- Forts should have at least minimum garrison at all times (100 people maybe per level) *(CK2 already leave some people in holdings when you take over the province, siegers can provide first 100 men)

- +1 for your idea to hide army in a fort - forts should have holding capacity per level and if filled over the limit attrition could take effect

 

[Maq]

- Its not realistic but its probably for the best that navy doesn't use manpower. Manpower is too constrained already and it would lead the players not to build navy at all - navy is not very important in too many cases already. I am not against it, but if they are gonna do it than its not simple. It needs to be done properly, not just adding manpower cost to ships.

2. Army

These are also not simple, but they are good suggestion. It would involve changing decently complex combat system that works quite well.

+1 for flanking penalty: its not exactly "flanking penalty" but "maneuver advantage" for the army with cavalry
+1 for unsupported artillery - they should take extra damage and die to flankers; cavalry should prioritize killing unsupported artillery over infantry in front of them
- checkbox: i don't mind it, it would be useful tho they need to teach AI to use it

extra suggestions:
- maybe add final pursuit phase where all units, especially cavalry do some extra damage
- shorten the lengths of battles significantly!!! and slow unit movements in general. Armies should not be able to support ongoing battles from 2+ provinces. (we really need to eliminate situations where France and HRE armies march 2000 km (with artillery...) to join the fight at full strength and morale and turn it around).

3. Forts

- Not sure if i like the suggestion here, i get the point but gameplay would be sketchy. Most often you wouldn't want to place anyone in forts, even when in wars, and then they lose much of value in the game. Its almost always better to use mobile defending army than forts.

I'd suggest something a bit different:

- I wouldn't mind for example forts tying up part of manpower from manpower pool when turned on. There could add a slider for a fort to scale how many men should be there. Siege progress would partly depend on number of garrisoned troups. Less men in forts than max, siege should tick faster. 100 people couldn't hold out very long even in a fort vs 10k army.

- Forts should have at least minimum garrison at all times (100 people maybe per level) *(CK2 already leave some people in holdings when you take over the province, siegers can provide first 100 men)

- +1 for your idea to hide army in a fort - forts should have holding capacity per level and if filled over the limit attrition could take effect

EXCELLENT. INSPIRING!

 

[Maq]

As for naval manpower, a realistic approach is rather complicated. Navy never required as many men as land armies, however, virtually every sailor must have been extensively trained for the job. Historically, some famous naval powers (Ottomans, par example) were able to rebuild their navy after losing great naval battles (Lepanto), but failed to find and hire skilled seamen.
I think rather than eating manpower, the issue with naval personnel should be tied to naval tradition. If a country loses significant part of its navy, than it should lose the same share of naval tradition. And naval tradition should be all important for naval morale.

 

[Mattius]

Navy fix. Just... Navy fix.