Paradox: Please remove Shattered Retreat and Coalitions

[draqsko]

What we think of as retreat in the modern day just couldn't happen with Medieval levies.

You imagine some... highly trained and motivated army, when really what you had was an armed gang of people who really, really didn't want to be there. Once they fled from combat, they were not running from the battle they were running from the war. An "orderly retreat" with such a force will very quickly collapse into a total route even with trained and disciplined troops. With a levy, it's almost a guarantee.

No sane general would all but ensure his army's destruction - remember, something like 90% of casualties from enemy action happen after the battle and during the route. Point of fact, fighting to the "crushing defeat" you describe increases the odds of the enemy routing and getting massacred. Running in this day and age meant getting chopped to pieces quite brutally: in order to run, you must turn your undefended back to the men carrying pointy sticks.

That's my issue with Shattered Retreat, it's not even close to what would happen to a levy based army system. Units that found themselves shattered generally were eliminated as a fighting force, even if all the men didn't actually die. Not since the Roman legions, and not until Cromwell's New Model Army were shattered units able to reform and come back to fight again. In fact, that is what made the New Model Army so powerful at the time, the unit cohesion and ability to reform after charges and pursuits were extremely atypical of the time.

 

[Bortron]

You clearly have no clue about how the 100 year war unfolded no? It was literally a collection of several wars with years of peace in between. Each stage had one major battle deciding everything: Crecy in 1346 followed by the Plauge and a renwed English victory at Poitiers in 1356, Azincourt in 1415, etc. Only two stages of the war were protracted: the Guesclin offensives and the French Reconquista after Joan of Arc got them reanimated.

The war could be divided up into "phases" but each of those phases are years or decades in length with only brief periods of peace. The battle of Agincourt took place at the beginning of the phase called the "Lancastrian War" which lasted about 38 years. So yeah, I think it is you that has no clue how the war unfolded. The French lost the battle, regrouped, continued to wage war; pretty similar to how the new shattered retreat mechanic works, wouldn't you say?

Edit: Oh, and it should be noted that the French while losing the first major battle eventually won the Lancastrian war.

 

[draqsko]

The war could be divided up into "phases" but each of those phases are years or decades in length with only brief periods of peace. The battle of Agincourt took place at the beginning of the phase called the "Lancastrian War" which lasted about 38 years. So yeah, I think it is you that has no clue how the war unfolded. The French lost the battle, regrouped, continued to wage war; pretty similar to how the new shattered retreat mechanic works, wouldn't you say?

You need to brush up on your history.

After the Battle of Agincourt, the English went back to England for over 18 months. There was no war between the English and the French for a year and a half afterwards, until the English decided to go back to France to take advantage of Burgundy and Armagnac fighting each other instead of against English holdings.

The French not only lost the battle, they also lost most of their senior leadership at Agincourt and the flower of French nobility was cut down enabling the English to take over nearly half of France afterwards until Joan of Arc turned what was a dry dynastic struggle into a nationalistic struggle.

 

[Damocles]

It's a poorly considered and poorly implemented mechanic. I disliked it in EUIV. I dislike it here. It also treats armies more as if they were WWII divisions with reinforcement and such, rather than how they were in the medieval ages...where one crushing loss really would disband your whole force (See Manzikert for example).

The whole recruiting aspect is insanely anachronistic as well. Again, treating armies like they were fielded by 19th or 18th century nation states.

 

[Damocles]

If you want to make the point that medieval wars were decided in a single brief confrontation you probably shouldn't use examples from the 100 years war... because, as the name suggests, it took a 100 years to resolve... and there were thousands of separate confrontations, and dozens of major battles. You literally could not have used a worst example to make your point. Did everyone take stupid pills today or something?

Did you take a stupid pill? It might've been called a 100 years war, but it was anything but. No more than the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union was a 50 year war. The decisive campaigns of the war were actually surprisingly short and sharply decided by medieval standards.

The war could be divided up into "phases" but each of those phases are years or decades in length with only brief periods of peace. The battle of Agincourt took place at the beginning of the phase called the "Lancastrian War" which lasted about 38 years. So yeah, I think it is you that has no clue how the war unfolded. The French lost the battle, regrouped, continued to wage war; pretty similar to how the new shattered retreat mechanic works, wouldn't you say?

Edit: Oh, and it should be noted that the French while losing the first major battle eventually won the Lancastrian war.

You have no idea what you're talking about. It wasn't AT ALL like the shattered retreat mechanic. lol.

 

[Bortron]

TIL the Hundred Year War wasn't really a war, it was just a couple battles after which everyone went home and nothing interesting happened. Thanks for the history lesson guys.

 

[Damocles]

TIL the Hundred Year War wasn't really a war, it was just a couple battles after which everyone went home and nothing interesting happened. Thanks for the history lesson guys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Hundred_Years'_War

You'll notice that there was a major battle or campaign only about once a generation, for the most part. Much of it was simmering low-key regional violence/intrigue (Breton Succession) or proxy fighting while an official peace treaty reigned, which is not even remotely represented by the Paradox war system.

Hell, there were a couple 25 or 40 year stretches where nothing much happened at all, and I'm sure anyone living in either England or France at the time would be shocked to learn they were in a war.

 

[Ranjid]

TIL the Hundred Year War wasn't really a war, it was just a couple battles after which everyone went home and nothing interesting happened. Thanks for the history lesson guys.

You sure are a sore loser. Instead of admitting your lack of knowledge about a centuries old war, you behave like a little brat. How about showing at least some dignity?

 

[Bortron]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Hundred_Years'_War

You'll notice that there was a major battle or campaign only about once a generation, for the most part. Much of it was simmering low-key regional violence/intrigue (Breton Succession) or proxy fighting while an official peace treaty reigned, which is not even remotely represented by the Paradox war system.

Hell, there were a couple 25 or 40 year stretches where nothing much happened at all, and I'm sure anyone living in either England or France at the time would be shocked to learn they were in a war. No more than America and the Russians considered themselves at war ov

Right so the chevauchee's never happened and the English didn't lay seige to half of France. Got it. They just fought a little battle now and then where they killed 100% of the French army and declared victory. Thanks for letting me know. I was under the mistaken impression that half of France was utterly devastated. I am relived to discover that they didn't even know the war was happening.

 

[Finnway]

devs add a feature that massively changes the way a core component of the game works and many customers complain about it being tedious as hell and makes the game less fun. DON'T COMPLAIN IT'S WAD!!!!!!!!!!!! what a great response.

You dramatically overestimate the amount of people complaining, and their percentage of CK2's overall playerbase.

You say it's tedious as hell... yet fail to realize that's the whole friggin point of the change.

 

[Bortron]

You sure are a sore loser. Instead of admitting your lack of knowledge about a centuries old war, you behave like a little brat. How about showing at least some dignity?

Except that I am 100% correct. The English occupied half of France and engaged in thousands of conflicts and hundreds of seige actions; it is not really a matter for debate. There were even a couple naval engagements. Anyone that would use the 100 years war to justify their assertion that medieval wars were decided in a single battle does not know anything about the 100 years war. Go back to playing Civ with the peasants.

 

[draqsko]

Right so the chevauchee's never happened and the English didn't lay seige to half of France. Got it. They just fought a little battle now and then where they killed 100% of the French army and declared victory. Thanks for letting me know. I was under the mistaken impression that half of France was utterly devastated. I am relived to discover that they didn't even know the war was happening.

Historians commonly divide the war into three phases separated by truces: the Edwardian Era War (1337–1360); the Caroline War (1369–1389); and the Lancastrian War (1415–1453). Contemporary conflicts in neighbouring areas, which were directly related to this conflict, included the War of the Breton Succession (1341–1364), the Castilian Civil War (1366–1369), the War of the Two Peters (1356–1375) in Aragon, and the 1383–85 Crisis in Portugal. Later historians invented the term "Hundred Years' War" as a periodization to encompass all of these events, thus constructing the longest military conflict in history.

Yeah, so it wasn't all one war, nor was it only confined to England and France.

PS. Also, the English didn't lay siege to half of France, since a quarter of it was already theirs by birthright.

 

[Damocles]

Right so the chevauchee's never happened and the English didn't lay seige to half of France. Got it. They just fought a little battle now and then where they killed 100% of the French army and declared victory. Thanks for letting me know. I was under the mistaken impression that half of France was utterly devastated. I am relived to discover that they didn't even know the war was happening.

Are you even for real? By your logic, we should be treating the Vietnam War or World War II as if it happened yesterday. This is a 120 year period of history. Entire generations passed without any serious fighting on the continent. I feel more stupid for having engaged with you. You would do yourself a great service by reading a few wikipedia articles. Because you haven't even reached that level of being informed about it yet.

 

[Bortron]

Are you even for real? By your logic, we should be treating the Vietnam War or World War II as if it happened yesterday. This is a 120 year period of history. Entire generations passed without any serious fighting on the continent.

That is simply not true. Most of France was a war zone during much of the conflict. There was near constant raiding, which were referred to as "chevauchee's" and multiple seiges going on at any one time. Even when there was "peace" the mercenaries and individual English units would just keep raiding anyway. There were peaceful periods, but they were brief. It was nearly 120 years of almost constant conflict. To top it off, the French lost nearly every major battle yet still won the war. There is no better example to refute that medieval wars were decided in a single battle.

 

[Takekaze]

I don't mind the coalitions, but chasing a peasant rebellion around the map for several YEARS is ludicrous.

 

[zyphial]

That is simply not true. Most of France was a war zone during much of the conflict. There was near constant raiding, which were referred to as "chevauchee's" and multiple seiges going on at any one time. Even when there was "peace" the mercenaries and individual English units would just keep raiding anyway. There were peaceful periods, but they were brief. It was nearly 120 years of almost constant conflict. To top it off, the French lost nearly every major battle yet still won the war. There is no better example to refute that medieval wars were decided in a single battle.

If a single example is sufficient to prove anything, then Stamford Bridge or worse Maznikert should really end all discussion entirely. And that's assuming I agree with your assessment that the HYW was continuous... and I don't.

 

[Bortron]

I don't mind the coalitions, but chasing a peasant rebellion around the map for several YEARS is ludicrous.

The peasants are supposed to disperse I thought. You might have a bug.

 

[jfoytek]

They need to completely rework conclave!!!

coalitions
retreat
and education all need to be removed as there all broken and terrible and do not enhance the game in slightest!!!!

I have never actually hated a DLC before until now!

 

[Takekaze]

The peasants are supposed to disperse I thought. You might have a bug.

Hmmm, alright. Time to piss off peasants in another county and see what they do.

 

[Bortron]

If a single example is sufficient to prove anything, then Stamford Bridge or worse Maznikert should really end all discussion entirely. And that's assuming I agree with your assessment that the HYW was continuous... and I don't.

Stamford Bridge is an OK example, but it was a very unusual situation. Maznikert is not a good example, as the Seljuks and Byzantines had multiple battles besides that one, and the Byzantines continued to fight for 237 years after that battle, although I will grant it was fairly decisive at the time. If I was debating your position the Battle of Hastings is the best example.