It makes the game a little easier for the loser, and a little harder for the winner.
In the end, it equilibrates the whole thing, and there is certainly less rage-quit.
- 8
- 2
Paradox: Please remove Shattered Retreat and Coalitions
- Thread starter Soilus
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
In the end, it equilibrates the whole thing, and there is certainly less rage-quit.
As I said, I don't mind the concept. But the present implimentation, which really amounts to no more then unsquashing a long-standing bug that they finally killed to much acclaim, is not the way to go. There are far better, more nuanced ways to accomplish the same thing that won't prompt a rage-quit either way.
- 6
What about the mechanic is it that is the problem? You say the current implementation but are never really quite precise other than saying it is an old bug. Which is a fallacy to begin with but whatever.
Even that example isn't enough. Because under the old system they still have the exact same issue. They will lose. Also smaller realms typically don't flee that far, from what I have seen.
- 5
- 1
Coalitions don't seem too bothersome in EUIV at the moment. Some religious contradictions still happen, but I'm mostly happy with it. There should be no room for that in CK2. The coalitions should be vastly, vastly limited in scope just because that kind of thinking was not prevalent in the time period. Time, distance, and cultural and religious differences just didn't make it a thing. The Umayads took almost the whole of Iberia without much intervention on the part of the Franks. It only became the Franks' problem when the Moors passed the Pyrenees, and then the Frankish/Christian lords banded together, and it didn't concern any German princes. Persia and Mali being in the same coalition is just a broken system. The Islamic Caliphate spread across the Middle East and North Africa almost unopposed. Christians could barely get their act together even when they wanted to in the Crusades to stop it, and there was still no truly unified front.
- 27
You're new. You don't remember the bad old days of ping-pong armies. Do a search for the term in the forum for virtually any Paradox game from the original EU until the initial release of CK2, and you'll see hundreds of posts on the subject. Trust me, this isn't progress.
The specific problem with the mechanic is that you see intact armies retreating over long distances, often in completely nonsensical directions. (Think Lee retreating after Gettysburg to Boston.)
I'm sure they can tweak it, just like they tweaked the ping-pong bug for years. But why bring it back at all? There are far better ways to acheive the same thing.
- 13
- 3
At least they have seemingly made it very modifiable. As said above, you can just turn off if you dislike it, as i will do it. Very annoying feature.
- 3
- 1
Maybe a type of organization bar should be added that replenishes at much slower rate than the moral bar. The idea being that every time a battle is lost (moral to 0 or what ever) the organization level should drop and if it reaches zero after the end of a battle the army is forced to disband. Being that this is in the medieval (and early) ages this bar should start small and grow dependent upon military tech, vassal loyalty, martial of commander, government type etc. but still should pretty small overall. The idea is that I should only have to maybe ping-pong an army stack once or twice before their organization is completely gone, not 10 times to kill what was a 1k stack at one point. And in the case of overwhelming odds (4 to 1 or more) there should be a hefty increase to the amount or organization depleted so that my 10k stack can wipe even with minimal or moderate casualties, a 800 or 1k army in a single battle.
Anyways that is just me thinking of a possible solution to this. The biggest problem however remains the 1000km shattered retreat (exaggeration here but you get it) and the fact it honestly doesn't fit with the time period of ckII. The mechanic feels lazily implemented and I would prefer something completely different to how it is here in Conclave or at least tuned better than it is here.
Anyways that is just me thinking of a possible solution to this. The biggest problem however remains the 1000km shattered retreat (exaggeration here but you get it) and the fact it honestly doesn't fit with the time period of ckII. The mechanic feels lazily implemented and I would prefer something completely different to how it is here in Conclave or at least tuned better than it is here.
- 2
But at this rate you'll never be able to take a county. In my last game it too forever to get someone to surrender a single of county out of his holdings when he was beaten and destroyed. Not It feels like I'll never be able to get him to relinquish lands via battle. Or does the eneny surrender before they hit 100% now?
- 2
- 1
HAHAHAHA
OMG You really do live up to that name of the unsure. Wow I am laughing so hard.
** Calm yourself, clear your mind **
Firstly I don't know anything about American History, other than the major footnotes. Because outside of this side won and they were fighting over this the rest is just filler.
Can you give some specific examples in a game where you are seeing armies flee in nonsensical directions?
The main reason to my understanding is because you literally could Blitzkrieg across borders win a battle, siege a few holdings and be done. The addition of less bloody combat(less value in battles), along with shattered retreat means you now actually are encouraged to siege holdings. Additionally on that assaulting wasn't a problem because you destroyed their army already, now their army is still there and is replenishing so that ability is no hampered. It also means that allies now have time to mobilise and move into a position to support you, where as previously you could win before allies arrived to help.
It moves the deciding factors of winning a war from the very first battle further into the war, so that an early victory doesn't decide the outcome of a war.
- 11
- 7
Started out as an Irish count, and my 1.5k army defeated the 1.5k army of another Irish count. That defeated army retreated all the way into England, crossing the (new to me at least) strait from Ireland to Wales and it kept running. It got better though as the enemy recruit a whole 9 more troops and sent them marching off in the direction of England as well (presumably to link up with the defeated army).
I gave chase, of course, and got smacked by some random 4k rebel stack that suddenly appeared in Wales.
I don't have particularly strong views on shattered retreat but that's liable to change if this is what we can expect of it.
I gave chase, of course, and got smacked by some random 4k rebel stack that suddenly appeared in Wales.
I don't have particularly strong views on shattered retreat but that's liable to change if this is what we can expect of it.
- 5
- 1
I would rather have Shattered Retreats be changed in the following ways, rather then remove them entirely;
- Forts stop shattered retreats. I'm not suggesting this because that's how it works in EU4, but rather because it makes the most sense. A fort, being a sign of active low-level military presence, would likely force a fleeing army to halt. It's not perfect, but shattered retreats are awful anyway, so this would probably have to be the best workaround.
- If a Shattered Retreat moves into a province with a enemy army in it, then battle occurs normally. IE: A retreating army shouldn't be able to somehow avoid a secondary army waiting for it to flee from the battlefield. Cutting off a fleeing enemy that attempts to retreat across a river and get promptly slaughtered should be a thing.
- If the leading commander of a hostile nation has the proper leader trait, then his army could interact with the shattered army as normal. This could allow for, say, a commander with the Rough Terrain Leader trait to track down and interfere with a army fleeing through a hilly or forested area.
- 'Unlanded' rebels that are hostile to all, such as peasant revolts, attack shattered armies as normal. Giving that 'shattered' armies are disorganized messes, other disorganized messes could be able to fight them. In larger realms in civil wars, this could allow for such sights as a band of religious fanatics tearing apart the fleeing armies of a rebellious duke. Mobs should be able to deal with mobs, basically.
- Forts stop shattered retreats. I'm not suggesting this because that's how it works in EU4, but rather because it makes the most sense. A fort, being a sign of active low-level military presence, would likely force a fleeing army to halt. It's not perfect, but shattered retreats are awful anyway, so this would probably have to be the best workaround.
- If a Shattered Retreat moves into a province with a enemy army in it, then battle occurs normally. IE: A retreating army shouldn't be able to somehow avoid a secondary army waiting for it to flee from the battlefield. Cutting off a fleeing enemy that attempts to retreat across a river and get promptly slaughtered should be a thing.
- If the leading commander of a hostile nation has the proper leader trait, then his army could interact with the shattered army as normal. This could allow for, say, a commander with the Rough Terrain Leader trait to track down and interfere with a army fleeing through a hilly or forested area.
- 'Unlanded' rebels that are hostile to all, such as peasant revolts, attack shattered armies as normal. Giving that 'shattered' armies are disorganized messes, other disorganized messes could be able to fight them. In larger realms in civil wars, this could allow for such sights as a band of religious fanatics tearing apart the fleeing armies of a rebellious duke. Mobs should be able to deal with mobs, basically.
Last edited:
- 12
I don't understand what you are saying. Each side has the ability to gain 200%+ in warscore. 75% from battles and 125% from occupation plus ticking if you have all of the target occupied. Typically the 125% is balanced on the tax income of each holding cities being the best source of warscore and easier, but never the first to siege. Additionally though a holy war for a duchy skews the warscore toward those holdings (not sure on the numbers exactly never bothered to do the maths), but it is probably double or triple weighted with income. Along with ticking this means you don't usually need to even win a battle to win wars.
And yes the enemy surrenders before 100% warscore, they always have. You probably never see it because you try to end wars as soon as possible. But I had Italy surrender in a war to me with 60% warscore and no battles had taken place with 2.5.1. This was after 1 year and 2 months, so I'm sure what you mean overall.
- 9
- 4
Precisely. It doesn't work and it doesn't fit the period - not even a little bit.
- 10
- 1
You are new compared to me. More verbose, perhaps, but new.
EDIT: I apologize for sounding condescencing. You've obviously invested a great deal of time into Paradox games. But, really, this is a serious step in a direction that sends chills down the spines of many long-time fans. It's really a very bad idea.
Last edited:
- 5
- 3
Someone else posted this one up on the reddit
I don't mind the idea, but this is just stupid.
- 15
I decided to test the new shattered-retreat with Duke William's invasion of Normandy, and my God, I had a really bad time.
After I sent my troops to England, Harold Godwinson sent his army to Normandy. So I sent my army back to Normandy, defeated him, and his army runs all the way to Brittany. I chased him there, defeated the army a second time, and this time Harold retreated to Lower France. I chased him down again, and defeated him a third time. Then Harold's army ran all the way back to his ships and went back to the middle of England! I finally defeated Harold's army there (about two or three more battles), and I didn't even bother touching Harald Hardrada's army.
As it has already been established, the Shattered Retreat armies have a boosted speed, and they are untouchable. I think neither of these make sense.
Ultimately, I think Shattered Retreats should be either removed or fixed.
As for coalitions, I have not really seen them in action, but I believe they too need to be fixed after what I have read about them.
After I sent my troops to England, Harold Godwinson sent his army to Normandy. So I sent my army back to Normandy, defeated him, and his army runs all the way to Brittany. I chased him there, defeated the army a second time, and this time Harold retreated to Lower France. I chased him down again, and defeated him a third time. Then Harold's army ran all the way back to his ships and went back to the middle of England! I finally defeated Harold's army there (about two or three more battles), and I didn't even bother touching Harald Hardrada's army.
As it has already been established, the Shattered Retreat armies have a boosted speed, and they are untouchable. I think neither of these make sense.
Ultimately, I think Shattered Retreats should be either removed or fixed.
As for coalitions, I have not really seen them in action, but I believe they too need to be fixed after what I have read about them.
- 15
- 2
- 1
But winning the very first battle was ALWAYS the strategy in the era depicted by the game. This isn't the era of professional armies and the science of logistics. It's a feudal levy of a few men at arms and a bunch of farmers. There rarely was a second battle.
What did happen, though, is that the armies evaporated - turned back into the peasant levies they were - and the survivors went home. If the king survived, he and his core men at arms regrouped and, over time, rallied men to their standard again. The game could easily replicate that through the recruitment mechanic.
The real limitation on crushing victories over a large realm was not the ability of a defeated army to flee intact to some remote hideout. Instead, it was the inability of the victor to set off on a sustained invasion over long distances, especially with enemy castles in his rear. If you want to make wars harder and more realistic, make attrition and upkeep higher. Or perhaps add the zone of control feature to castles. Or use the new council features in Conclave to add war exhaustion and dissent ("I want to take my men home!") mechanics.
There are far, far better ways to do this that better fit the era and actually utilize the nice features already in the game. Dusting off an old bug isn't the way.
- 34
- 1