Paradox: Please remove Shattered Retreat and Coalitions

[Leecros]

Bottom line: If Paradox wants to make the game more challenging, I fully support that. But if they do it in a way that just kills the fun of the game (hint: chasing lightning-fast armies around Europe - armies you've already defeated 10 times - to desperately try to win a war 3% at a time is not fun) then I can't say I'm interested.

Perhaps you should take that as a hint that you're not supposed to chase the armies around Europe.

Take the time you've gained by defeating their army to siege down land, recover your own forces, or take defensive positions. You know that chasing shattered armies around isn't constructive. You know you're only going to get a handful of warscore for beating that army and all the while, you're taking. So why are you still trying the same tactics that worked before, when the dynamics of the war has changed so drastically to make that tactic less feasible.


I'm not supporting or against shattered retreat here. Although i am generally of the opinion that they're a bit silly in CKII. However, so many of the complaints i'm seeing can be broken down into "My old tactics aren't working and aren't fun to use anymore. Change the game back so i can still use them that way."

I sort of see it as a failing of Crusader Kings itself for promoting so much warmongering in the game for so long. The game isn't supposed to be about conquering the world or even Europe. It's just as much about growing a strong dynasty and the politics of the time just as much as warring over land.




Question: and i'm legitimately asking, because I don't know.

How much, if any, infamy does one get from inheriting a kingdom or empire?
Not getting a claim and pressing it militarily. Actually Inheriting it.

 

[AllThat4Nothing]

But I've played the game for years though? Just haven't registered here.

Right. You misunderstand. I was taking a stab at people who look at dates and post count and base their responses off of that.

 

[p0sTpWnEd]

Rude.

The problem with blobs is that blobbing begets blobbing - it is a feedback cycle. By introducing a braking mechanism into the cycle, a new counterblobbing mechanism can rear its head.

If I'm trapped between the HRE and the Umayyads, I can't blob like I can if I'm nomads surrounded by one county tribes. The braking mechanism has the effect of equalising the sizes of blobs in the long run, which makes for a more interesting and tactical endgame.

Whether that is what is currently occurring in game is debatable, but the argument that it takes a blob to stop a blob is sound (which does not preclude the possibility of blobs also collapsing in on themselves as an alternative mechanism).

Too bad you can no longer win a war against a massive enemy like the HRE or Umayyads because their armies will just shattered retreat until they doomstack together.

 

[Robert II]

Too bad you can no longer win a war against a massive enemy like the HRE or Umayyads because their armies will just shattered retreat until they doomstack together.

I beat the hre in 3 out of 4 wars yesterday as 1066 France. 2 of the wins due to shattered retreat giving me a second chance.

 

[p0sTpWnEd]

Perhaps you should take that as a hint that you're not supposed to chase the armies around Europe.

Take the time you've gained by defeating their army to siege down land, recover your own forces, or take defensive positions. You know that chasing shattered armies around isn't constructive. You know you're only going to get a handful of warscore for beating that army and all the while, you're taking. So why are you still trying the same tactics that worked before, when the dynamics of the war has changed so drastically to make that tactic less feasible.


I'm not supporting or against shattered retreat here. Although i am generally of the opinion that they're a bit silly in CKII. However, so many of the complaints i'm seeing can be broken down into "My old tactics aren't working and aren't fun to use anymore. Change the game back so i can still use them that way."

I sort of see it as a failing of Crusader Kings itself for promoting so much warmongering in the game for so long. The game isn't supposed to be about conquering the world or even Europe. It's just as much about growing a strong dynasty and the politics of the time just as much as warring over land.

Here's the problem. Let's say you're playing as Asturias, and you're trying to win a war against Umayyad. You wait for the right moment to strike, while they're busy fighting some rebels for instance, and their army is busy elsewhere. So you time it perfectly and declare war, and Umayyad as a result can only spare a couple thousand troops to fight you. Using defensive bonuses smartly you manage to win a couple decisive battles against their smaller armies.

But now, instead of destroying these armies, you kill a few hundred guys, and they just retreat, group together into a massive doomstack, and kill you. The only way to avoid this is to destroy each little army by chasing it around Iberia desperately trying to finish it off, or at least kill enough enemies to make the battles worthwhile.

It's not fun, but it's your only option if you're fighting as a smaller power.

 

[DeadHalf]

Widely hated is an overstatement. They were badly implemented at first, but now both those mechanics are quite sensibly implemented in EUIV and are good parts of the game. No more retreats across half of Asia and coalitions form under reasonable conditions only. The game is definitely richer because those features exist.

So the issue here in how these features have been implemented in CK2 apparently. (Can't speak from personal experience, as haven't played enough of Conclave as yet). Unfortunate that the lessons learned over multiple patches in EUIV haven't been applied here, but they will be in time I'm sure.

Well that's great that you think they're good parts of the game. I think that they're terrible parts of the game, and every time I've tried to go back and play EU4, I immediately remember why I hated it so much and stop.

Shattered retreat makes the combat feel awful. It feels like nothing you do has any impact on the outcome of the war, and you're just spinning wheels until you or the enemy runs out of manpower. It sucks every bit of fun out of the game.

 

[Ritmas]

Neither happened. and they are not invincible, simply they don't engage in combat. Fact, that you can slaughter an army down to 0 is as unrealistic.

Only if you interpret like that, game doesn't show you killed, maimed, lost, deserted etc.

 

[Leecros]

Here's the problem. Let's say you're playing as Asturias, and you're trying to win a war against Umayyad. You wait for the right moment to strike, while they're busy fighting some rebels for instance, and their army is busy elsewhere. So you time it perfectly and declare war, and Umayyad as a result can only spare a couple thousand troops to fight you. Using defensive bonuses smartly you manage to win a couple decisive battles against their smaller armies.

But now, instead of destroying these armies, you kill a few hundred guys, and they just retreat, group together into a massive doomstack, and kill you. The only way to avoid this is to destroy each little army by chasing it around Iberia desperately trying to finish it off, or at least kill enough enemies to make the battles worthwhile.

It's not fun, but it's your only option if you're fighting as a smaller power.

How often did a much weaker side defeat a much more powerful side historically during the time period? I'm only going to guess that it's not very often without the help of mercenaries and allies. In that situation, you're not waiting to strike the Umayyads when they're busy(unless they're REALLY REALLY busy) but organizing marriages and alliances to unite against them.

I won a couple of wars against the Umayyads like that as Navarra in the most recent patch.

 

[p0sTpWnEd]

How often did a much weaker side defeat a much more powerful side historically during the time period? I'm only going to guess that it's not very often without the help of mercenaries and allies. In that situation, you're not waiting to strike the Umayyads when they're busy(unless they're REALLY REALLY busy) but organizing marriages and alliances to unite against them.

I won a couple of wars against the Umayyads like that as Navarra in the most recent patch.

My problem, like I said, isn't that it's more challenging. My problem is that it's not fun. Sure, you can wait around and try to build the funds for mercenaries or have a few daughters and wait 16 years until they get married, but that's going to get kind of boring, compared to being able to use timing and tactics to sometimes win upset victories.

 

[Leecros]

My problem, like I said, isn't that it's more challenging. My problem is that it's not fun. Sure, you can wait around and try to build the funds for mercenaries or have a few daughters and wait 16 years until they get married, but that's going to get kind of boring, compared to being able to use timing and tactics to sometimes win upset victories.

the problem is that before you could use timing and tactics to always win upset victories. You could take a nation like Saxony in the Charlemagne start and stomp around Francia eating little stacks of armies and win the war against them...easily. I've done it before.

This is why i mentioned in my post that it's more of a failing of CKII in general for not making Politics and Dynasty play a bit more interesting. Both of those played major roles back then, but often players put them by the wayside because they're less interesting than warring and they just put the rest of that stuff in the background while they lead armies across the land.


Now alliances are more important than ever and players are finding that they can't just warmonger their way to victory...

 

[p0sTpWnEd]

the problem is that before you could use timing and tactics to always win upset victories. You could take a nation like Saxony in the Charlemagne start and stomp around Francia eating little stacks of armies and win the war against them...easily. I've done it before.

This is why i mentioned in my post that it's more of a failing of CKII in general for not making Politics and Dynasty play a bit more interesting. Both of those played major roles back then, but often players put them by the wayside because they're less interesting than warring and they just put the rest of that stuff in the background while they lead armies across the land.


Now alliances are more important than ever...

You're right that it was too easy to win lopsided wars before. But I feel like making it almost impossible for smaller powers to win wars against larger powers, without the help of allies, simply because their armies become invincible, was the wrong solution.

It's the same with the coalitions. Blobbing easily was a problem, so Paradox basically just added a cooldown on offensive wars. Sure, it's technically a solution to the problem, but is it the best solution? More importantly, is it a fun solution?

 

[DeadHalf]

the problem is that before you could use timing and tactics to always win upset victories. You could take a nation like Saxony in the Charlemagne start and stomp around Francia eating little stacks of armies and win the war against them...easily. I've done it before.

I don't see why that's a problem. If you're smart, and you know how to play the game well, you can accomplish really crazy things. It's a video game, that's the point. Why even have a combat system if you just want wars to always conclude with the most statistically likely outcome?

That's the problem with shattered retreat, it turns the combat into a spreadsheet game. Compare your relative numbers. Are your numbers higher than his numbers? Okay then you can go to war and probably win, but only win as easily as the delta between you and him.

 

[Leecros]

You're right that it was too easy to win lopsided wars before. But I feel like making it almost impossible for smaller powers to win wars against larger powers, without the help of allies, simply because their armies become invincible, was the wrong solution.

I don't see why that's a problem. If you're smart, and you know how to play the game well, you can accomplish really crazy things. It's a video game, that's the point. Why even have a combat system if you just want wars to always conclude with the most statistically likely outcome?

You still can win as a small power and still accomplish crazy things. It just takes a bit more thought and patience than before.

 

[DeadHalf]

You still can win as a small power and still accomplish crazy things. It just takes a bit more thought and patience than before.

It requires more patience for the greater drudgery of the combat system, no argument there.

 

[Perico del Puñalico]

It seems that I have been playing in the oposite way to everyone. I don't see the point of "with Shattered Retrat don't chase, start a siege".

I have always based my conquers in sieges and very rarely chased an army before the patch. Once I won a battle, then I started the siege as the defeated army was not a threat and would take a lot to reinforce.

Now the mechanics is completely different, If I siege after the battle, the "defeated" army will return reinforced before I would be able to finish the siege. So I have found that the best working strategy for me is to chase defeated armies before they are reinforced, and once the armies are completely defeated, start the siege (maybe I split to start the siege before if I have enough troops).

Even more: what would you siege when you face an adventurer with no realms? What would you siege if you are defending against someone that is far?

I found myself chasing armies with this patch, and not before.

For me, Shattered Retreat encourages chasing armies, and not sieges.

 

[Leecros]

It requires more patience for the greater drudgery of the combat system, no argument there.

You have issues with the mechanic itself and won't even play EUIV because of it. i'm not going to sit here and believe that i can change your mind with whatever contrived argument i can come up with. For what it's worth, i do find shattered retreat kind of silly in the Crusader Kings setting.

However, i disagree with the sentiment that Coalitions and Shattered Retreat is the end of CKII and the game is now unplayable. I find it playable and am enjoying the other additions that conclave provided quite a lot. I went back to playing a catholic for awhile. A catholic! I haven't played a catholic since Sons of Abraham was released, because i found them so dull(and found them dull after SoA). Now my marriages and alliances are actually important and necessary to the survival of my tiny nation.

It's like diplomacy is relevant again(for once)...

 

[p0sTpWnEd]

You have issues with the mechanic itself and won't even play EUIV because of it. i'm not going to sit here and believe that i can change your mind with whatever contrived argument i can come up with. For what it's worth, i do find shattered retreat kind of silly in the Crusader Kings setting.

However, i disagree with the sentiment that Coalitions and Shattered Retreat is the end of CKII and the game is now unplayable. I find it playable and am enjoying the other additions that conclave provided quite a lot. I went back to playing a catholic for awhile. A catholic! I haven't played a catholic since Sons of Abraham was released, because i found them so dull(and found them dull after SoA). Now my marriages and alliances are actually important and necessary to the survival of my tiny nation.

It's like diplomacy is relevant again(for once)...

I love EU4 and I have hundreds of hours playing it. SR works in EU4 because of the massive penalty for losing a battle (mostly due to manpower depletion). It does not work in CK2, and was implemented as poorly as I could imagine.

 

[Leecros]

I love EU4 and I have hundreds of hours playing it. SR works in EU4 because of the massive penalty for losing a battle (mostly due to manpower depletion). It does not work in CK2, and was implemented as poorly as I could imagine.

The mechanic is still in its infancy. Even in EUIV where it worked better, it took months and months for it to get tweaked into a more reasonable state. I agree that it's poorly implemented now, but I don't think it's impossible for it to be changed into something more reasonable.

 

[p0sTpWnEd]

The mechanic is still in its infancy. Even in EUIV where it worked better, it took months and months for it to get tweaked into a more reasonable state. I agree that it's poorly implemented now, but I don't think it's impossible for it to be changed into something more reasonable.

Me neither. The only reason I'm even focusing on it is because I want it fixed ASAP, not in months. Game's just not that fun for my wife and I in the meantime. Judging by the response of other people on here and reddit (even allowing for circlejerk bandwagoning margin) I'm not alone.

 

[Afinati]

I literally recreated his screenshots.

charinfo
claim e_byzantium
Declare War, Claim on Byzantine Empire
play 1732
Surrender to HRE
play 1316
Accept Surrender
F11
Unpause
Pause
Coalitions View
F11

The Fatimids joined for a month too, but left. I also find it funny that I got the same outcome with Hungary.
Here is the redditor's gallery: http://imgur.com/a/bMgSK

This should never be possible in CK2. It's possibly the most immersion-breaking thing I can imagine. Here's who cares enough to declare a war if the HRE gobbles the Byzantines: the pope, the Venetians, maybe southern Italy, anybody bordering the Byzantines to take advantage of the political instability (and not because they're ... lol ... angry about it).