Paradox: Please remove Shattered Retreat and Coalitions

[Deathwatch]

Shattered retreats as fine, as long as it is logical. Heck, shattered retreat is logical.

Shattered retreats mechanic that have to be fixed/added :

• Defeated armies could only fall back to provinces that they control.
• Defeated armies will take massive attrition and morale damage during the retreat. The damage to the morale and the number of soldiers should be higher than the attrition rate taken if the winner army marches through the same region.
• Rebellion/hosts should not have shattered retreats if they don't control a province.
• The speed of the retreat should be reduced. Armies that have huge number of Heavy Soldiers should have smaller retreat speed, and higher attrition rate than Light Soldiers/Archers when retreating. It's hard to keep running while encased in a heavy plate armor.
• Organized retreat should be possible, with far lower attrition rate, but faster speed than what we have now.

Regarding coalition, I think it will be fixed soon. There are ample evidence in Reddit or other places that conquering simple duchies could trigger multi-religion coalition spanning the whole globe. The "range" of the coalition should NOT be diplomatic range, because diplomatic range is too big. For instance, England should not care if HRE takes a duchy from Poland. Hungary may care, the Rus may care, the French should care less, the Denmark should care less, the England and the Byzantine should not care at all. The range of the coalition should be X county away from the aforementioned county, or X duchies away from the aforementioned duchy, but it should not trigger the World War I for only a lowly duchy.

Inter-religion coalition, while exists in our history, is an extraordinary measure, not a common occurrence.

Also, some other mechanic should be considered.
Scotland invades England, and wins some duchy, thus starting coalition against Scotland.
On the current logic, France will join England against Scotland.
But in reality, France could be happy as the act of weakening England by Scotland is beneficial to France.
The petty kingdoms there would logically join the coalition, but they should still be wary, as England is also a possible threat to them in the future.

In short, if nation A invades nation B, nation C may be support nation A, and nation D may support nation B.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

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

Maybe for the next DLC they could sell an ice pick that you drive into your thigh every time you launch the game.

 

[Ranjid]

Also, some other mechanic should be considered.
Scotland invades England, and wins some duchy, thus starting coalition against Scotland.
On the current logic, France will join England against Scotland.
But in reality, France could be happy as the act of weakening England by Scotland is beneficial to France.
The petty kingdoms there would logically join the coalition, but they should still be wary, as England is also a possible threat to them in the future.

In short, if nation A invades nation B, nation C may be support nation A, and nation D may support nation B.

That would require title-bound rivals and a threat values for all your neighbours. You know, like in EUIV. Which I could just play instead, if I wanted such a gameplay. Coalitions and SR are nonsensical in EUIV - prior to ~1700 at least. But in CKII they are pure lunacy.

 

[Dracko81]

Also, some other mechanic should be considered.
Scotland invades England, and wins some duchy, thus starting coalition against Scotland.
On the current logic, France will join England against Scotland.
But in reality, France could be happy as the act of weakening England by Scotland is beneficial to France.
The petty kingdoms there would logically join the coalition, but they should still be wary, as England is also a possible threat to them in the future.

In short, if nation A invades nation B, nation C may be support nation A, and nation D may support nation B.

Slight problem, firstly with your example. Scotland getting enough infamy from taking a duchy from England is not likely to happen - unless they are Huge already or have other infamy points - but assuming there is enough infamy to get 25% to start a coalition. The likelihood of France joining are minute because they are too big. France would need to be 90% the size of Scotland. So the example doesn't really hold up.

But assuming that it was somehow possible because France is small and Scotland has taken most of the British Isles. Yea they are going to join a faction against them, because Scotland just smashed and took an entire duchy off another Kingdom. Doesn't mean they like the target who lost the duchy any better, the enemy of my enemy and all that.

 

[philanthropic19]

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!

Coalitions and Shattered Retreat are NOT part of the "Conclave DLC". These 2 mechanics are part of the "Patch". Just saying so that there is no misunderstanding.

 

[philanthropic19]

Found this in the other "Clarifiying Coalitions" thread. I think this guy has a strong and valid point.

Coalitions belong in EU4, not in CK2. Plain and simple. I said it on Reddit and I'll say it here - the idea of a coalition is one that only makes sense in the timeframe of EU4.

CK2 is about ruling as the leader of a dynasty and governing your realm and managing your vassals. It is a game of titles, the people who hold them, and the land bound to them, and the management of these.

EU4 is about advancing the interests of a nation-state. There is no tier of titles that link up into higher titles or split off into lower ones. There is merely land up for grabs between regional powers in the struggle for dominance.

A coalition is a group of nation-states that feels that their mutual national interests are at risk of being subjugated by an upstart power. It involves state bureaucracies and institutions and nationalism and lots of little intricate forces and entities that work in tandem to propel a nation-state forward. This is the Napoleonic Wars, this is the Thirty Years' War, this is the Italian Wars, all of which happen in EU4's timeframe. The philosophy behind this style of governance and diplomacy came from people like Machiavelli and other writers in the renaissance, initially applied to the Italian city-states, eventually applied to powers like France and Austria and Spain and England, with great success.

However, this philosophy is NOT within the timeframe of CK2. CK2 focuses on the feudal contract, vassalage and lordship, families vying for power against rival families, calling in their family members and whatnot to assist them. It's more akin to mafiosos, while EU4 is more like corporate interactions.

To put it simply, in the CK2 timeframe a feudal ruler wouldn't give a rat's patootie if some other realm hundreds of miles away was getting big; after all, the ruling families of the two realms weren't interacting, there was no marriage or possibility of inheritance, there may be some sort of trade between merchants but the bourgeoisie weren't influential enough in this time period to have monarchs care about what they thought. Realms did not have the necessary bureaucratic infrastructure or diplomatic mechanisms to even consider forming a coalition. There was no benefit to their House, they were not being called to the defense of a family member or a trusted ally, therefore who cared? It's just simply not the same mindset as there was in the renaissance. Furthermore, if someone was pressing their claim to a title, that was their right to do so, after all, it's about family, they share the same ancestor as the holder of the title, there's no problem with it.

The notable exceptions to this were times such as the Mongols, where there actually WERE groups of realms which worked together to combat them when they were pushing into places such as Hungary and Poland, but a), this was an EXCEEDINGLY RARE OCCASION. As in, the Mongols were considered an existential threat to entire kingdoms in Europe, and, as far as the Christians knew, meant their downfall to a horrific Pagan foe. And b), they were STILL nowhere near the size of coalitions in their current state. The coalition was, if I recall correctly, three, maybe four realms in size? It was Hungary, Poland, and I wanna say the Pope and the Holy Roman Empire as well, though my memory is fuzzy.

This is why it's immersion-breaking, and frankly, not suitable to this time period. It makes perfect sense in EU4, but not in CK2.

Not to mention all the silliness about rulers of your religion joining in the defense of a heathen in a Holy War...

 

[TheKingofWinter]

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.

yeah, after generations of rebuilding their strength following agnicourt, not two or three years as portrayed in game. in game you can rebuild a broken shattered retreated army in a year or two, not the 10 years minimum that such a loss would take in the real life. also, back to the 100 years, war, you seem to believe that the new armies the french got to replace their old one was composed of the same guys. it wasnt. oh, sure there were some poor saps who after finaly managing to work their way back home, only to be forcibly recruited again. but most didnt. the new armies that replaced them were composed of the next generation, new mercenaries and so on. and even when old guys that had been on previous campaigns were forced into new ones, this happened years after. NOT TWO TO FIVE MONTHS!!!

also, the 100 years war was a rather unique medival war, as most wars WERE over in just that one battle. my reason for bringing it up as an example to begin with, was to show just long time it took for a broken army to get its shit together. several generations as opposed to in game two years at absolute most.

the thing is that there arent wars in CK2 that lasts as long as the hundred years war. sure there might be a few oddballs where small wars have an unconclusive winner, but youre not going to have an ingame war between england and france(or say, byzantium and a muslim blob) that will last for 10 years, unless the player purposfully makes one for whatever reason.

as has been said before, shattered retreat belongs in eu4, where wars are supposed to last for years upon years upon years. not ck2 where wars generally arent supposed to last more than 5 years at absolute most.

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

What's wrong with shattered retreat?

 

[TheKingofWinter]

What's wrong with shattered retreat?

they are completely ahistorical for the time period.
the mechanic itself doesnt really force you to change your tactics, it just makes chasing down enemy troops take far far far longer than it should.
it gives retreating armies massive bonuses(which also doesnt make any sense) that makes chasing them down take much longer than it needs to be.
the mechanic is given to any force that isnt completely obliterated, meaning that if one man survived, he'll eventually regather an army of thousands.
and probably more imporant than all of that.... it adds no fun, entertainment, challenge or anything other than making what should be simple, a chore. and that is probably its greatest sin of all. if it added immense needed depth to the combat system or made the game more fun, i could forgive it its ahistorical flaws, but it DOESNT. AT ALL.

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

they are completely ahistorical for the time period.
the mechanic itself doesnt really force you to change your tactics, it just makes chasing down enemy troops take far far far longer than it should.
it gives retreating armies massive bonuses(which also doesnt make any sense) that makes chasing them down take much longer than it needs to be.
the mechanic is given to any force that isnt completely obliterated, meaning that if one man survived, he'll eventually regather an army of thousands.
and probably more imporant than all of that.... it adds no fun, entertainment, challenge or anything other than making what should be simple, a chore. and that is probably its greatest sin of all. if it added immense needed depth to the combat system or made the game more fun, i could forgive it its ahistorical flaws, but it DOESNT. AT ALL.

Idk that sounds pretty historical to me.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

Idk that sounds pretty historical to me.

sure, for the EU4 period maybe, but in the medival era, armies were made up of levies, not soliders, and they could handle retreat. AT ALL. sure there might have been a few incredible commanders that managed to hold their men together, but in 99 out of 100 cases, a retreat, even an ordered one, would end up with the army withering away in the night as men desserted. levies simply werent soliders, they werent even payed to be there. they had no mental training to handle battle, and not very good training with arms. all their experience they got from actual fighting, rather than battle drills. which means that if you live long enough and dont break, you eventually get good at your job. but most guys didnt live that long, or didnt spend enough time in the field to become decent soliders. most of the cases, they were called to battle, the king gathered his strenght, there was one or maybe a couple large scale battles, then if they won, they might participate in a siege or two before going home. if they lost, the army was almost always scattered and the commander had the rather difficult task of tryign to regather them again. which rareely happened to such an extent that most of the survivors got together into a new army. usually most simply desserted and tried making their way home.

hence, shattered retreat should happen if, and ONLY if the leader is fucking amazing. and even then it shouldnt be a certainty, because no matter how good a commander you were, with an army made up of levies, there should always be more likely that the army breaks rather than holds lines and makes a actual strategic retreat. if shattered retreat was exclusive to retinue armies, i dont think anyone would have a problem, because those are soliders, which would make far more sense to hold their lines. but because every army has it, it simply doesnt make any sense.

 

[Alliegorical]

I would tweak coalitions just a bit: I wouldn't change infamy acquisition or decay, and I wouldn't change how people join it; I'd simply make it so that when you attack someone in your coalition, only coalition members in the same religion group should join the war.

Shattered retreat is great. Pursuit attack is finally valuable. Want to inflict devastating casualties after a victory? Get more light cavalry; it works.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

I would tweak coalitions just a bit: I wouldn't change infamy acquisition or decay, and I wouldn't change how people join it; I'd simply make it so that when you attack someone in your coalition, only coalition members in the same religion group should join the war.

Shattered retreat is great. Pursuit attack is finally valuable. Want to inflict devastating casualties after a victory? Get more light cavalry; it works.

a nice argument. unfortunatly its not quite true, if you really do wanna destroy the enemy army, there is nothing stopping you from doing so with an army with more combat suited retinue. it takes longer time, true, but who would waste their entire precious retinue points on exclusively dealing with the follow up to combat? maybe if there still was at least a hint of complexity to retinues, i might have agreed completely, but after their massive nerf following charlemagne, its simply not intelligent to use any points for any other force than the one you use for combat itself.

 

[Alliegorical]

a nice argument. unfortunatly its not quite true, if you really do wanna destroy the enemy army, there is nothing stopping you from doing so with an army with more combat suited retinue. it takes longer time, true, but who would waste their entire precious retinue points on exclusively dealing with the follow up to combat? maybe if there still was at least a hint of complexity to retinues, i might have agreed completely, but after their massive nerf following charlemagne, its simply not intelligent to use any points for any other force than the one you use for combat itself.

I never said anything about retinues. You can buy cav-heavy merc armies (I've found that just a few of those nomad merc outfits can make a huge difference), or prioritize stables in your demesne. I've found that shattered retreat is most dangerous when fighting against factions (because the best way to defeat a powerful faction is to defeat its armies in detail before they have a chance to merge together), and that's the only time I generally use my personal levies or mercs. I haven't bothered with cav retinues.

 

[philanthropic19]

The devs seem to have heard the complaints and are working on tweaking Coalitions and Shattered Retreat. Read the post from Doomdark (Henrik Fåhraeus) here:

Hi everyone!

I hope you are all busy playing Conclave, and I wish to give a huge thanks to everyone who has bought this latest expansion! Thanks to you all, we are still able to keep supporting and developing Crusader Kings II; which will actually turn 4 years old on Valentine’s Day!

Rest assured that we are listening to all constructive feedback both here on our own forums and elsewhere, and are already hard at work preparing a fairly major update. In particular, I find that a lot of comments concerning the new Coalition mechanics and the intricacies of “Shattered Retreats” merit our immediate attention. You can expect us to address the following issues very soon:

Coalitions:

• 25% Infamy threshold issues (Coalition formation should be a far more gradual process depending on your Infamy level.)
• Immersion/realism issues concerning distance and differences in religion.
• Coalitions should be purely defensive (no exceptions or extra rules.)
• There should be reasonable caps on Infamy gain and lowest possible Infamy decay rates.

(Btw, Coalitions were primarily added to make the game more challenging for huge, aggressively expanding player realms. That intention should serve as the primary measuring stick for the system.)

Shattered Retreats:

• Raiders should not bother you anymore if defeated once.
• You should get much more War Score from winning battles in general, and even more for winning battles against Adventurers.
• Retreating armies should be in trouble in neutral and hostile provinces (perhaps through attrition.)
• Bugs will be fixed with where armies retreat.

(The main intention with the Shattered Retreat mechanic is to keep countries viable and able to bounce back even after losing a major battle or two. Though you should not be able to easily “blitz” a country, neither should wars drag out for much longer than necessary.)

Other issues will be fixed down the line. For example, we are also looking at fleshing out and improving the new Education system.

So, keep the faith and let’s make the game better together!

 

[Brendan728]

I have no opinion on coalitions yet, but HOLY SHIT is shattered retreat annoying.

I love chasing a 100-man unit of my rebelling vassal around the map forever with my 2000 mercenaries. Not.

Why do you need 2000 mercs to take care of 100 rebels? Are you that bad at the game?

 

[shulima]

Why do you need 2000 mercs to take care of 100 rebels? Are you that bad at the game?

*rolls eyes* Because there were no smaller units available, and after the frst two battles 100 was what was left of the enemy.

 

[heliostellar]

Maybe for the next DLC they could sell an ice pick that you drive into your thigh every time you launch the game.

They'll have to charge $19.99 for that one

 

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

I had my army retreat from stockholm all the way north to the polar circle....
If anything shattered retreat should be limited by distance, not by provinces.

 

[King Anund]

Please Paradox, do not remove them. Just balance them.