Paradox: Please remove Shattered Retreat and Coalitions

[Bortron]

I like the shattered retreat; it is more realistic than chasing down an army until it is annihilated with 100% causality rates. You are not supposed to chase the shattered army all over the map; start sieging a province instead.

I do not yet have an opinion on coalitions, but I suspect people having problems are expanding too fast, which is just as ahistorical as the pope joining a coalition with a bunch of Muslims. It should be pointed out that their were some very unexpected alliances during this time frame; the Crusaders and the Mongols were at one time in a sort of alliance against the Islamic Caliphates, although they were never able to effectively coordinate a joint military operation.

 

[StJimmyRocks92]

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.

Someone on Reddit did an experiment to see how intense coalitions could get. In the 1066 start as the HRE, they consoled in a a claim on the ERE, pressed it, and got so much infamy that the game would end before it it was gone and pretty much everyone in the world except Hungary was in a coalition against them.

 

[sonofliber]

Also a little known historic fact, harold actually manage to beat william the bastard in battle, but this one retreated to his welsh allies territories, which he didnt have an alliance with, and escaped harlod wrath

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

While I don't like wars decided in 1 battle at all, it should really be relatie. If I have 900 troops and they have 600 and win, it's okay if 500 of them survive and run away. If I have 1500 troops and they have 400, chasing them around is annoying. But maybe it's just a matter of rethinking finances, to have a secure coffers instead of trying to get a lucky win that wipes their stack.

As to coalitions, it's ridiculous to see the entirety of North Africa, Spain, Italy, England, and Germany form coalitions against Francia because they took Saxony. Is Empire AI even equipped to deal with making sure they don't get a coalition formed on them?

 

[jpinard]

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.

Let me give you an example in my last game. I'm king of half of Spain. I declare war on a 5 county region next to me bordering Francel. I smash his army and take over 2 counties. Wars core is 100% FOREVER yet I can't get him to surrender that one county I spdeclared war for. If I try and give him terms, surrender is not an option.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

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.

This is exactly the sort of crazy thing we saw with ping-pong armies. Why on earth would they bring this back? Have they forgotten their own history?

 

[Yxklyx]

Let me give you an example in my last game. I'm king of half of Spain. I declare war on a 5 county region next to me bordering Francel. I smash his army and take over 2 counties. Wars core is 100% FOREVER yet I can't get him to surrender that one county I spdeclared war for. If I try and give him terms, surrender is not an option.

I've seen this before - it happens when the other realm has some counties controlled by a third party and another war. Don't recall the specifics though.

 

[Dracko81]

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.

History isn't really relevant though, because you can't simulate that for every case. Your clearly in the camp of I don't like it because I don't like it and nothing will change my mind.

Someone on Reddit did an experiment to see how intense coalitions could get. In the 1066 start as the HRE, they consoled in a a claim on the ERE, pressed it, and got so much infamy that the game would end before it it was gone and pretty much everyone in the world except Hungary was in a coalition against them.

That is literally impossible. Unless they have modded the game in some way.

Let me give you an example in my last game. I'm king of half of Spain. I declare war on a 5 county region next to me bordering Francel. I smash his army and take over 2 counties. Wars core is 100% FOREVER yet I can't get him to surrender that one county I spdeclared war for. If I try and give him terms, surrender is not an option.

Wait you have 100% warscore and you can't press peace? That sounds like a bug and nothing to do with shattered retreat.

 

[Dracko81]

I've seen this before - it happens when the other realm has some counties controlled by a third party and another war. Don't recall the specifics though.

That would only be the case for someone rebelling against you, there is no case that would stop you from doing it in an offensive war. The Rebelling case is where a rebel(who is still your vassal) has been occupied by a third party, you need to kick out the third party to end the rebellion. Shows you have the power to protect them etc etc.

 

[Cetan]

That is literally impossible. Unless they have modded the game in some way.

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

 

[Dracko81]

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.

0.19% infamy a month. That is just over 44 years, so the game will not be over before the infamy has decayed. Did you notice how it capped at 100%?

Literally impossible to gain enough infamy to never decaying before end of game in that circumstance, unless you mod.

 

[AllThat4Nothing]

Yeah. Coalitions.

Just no.

Why is Novgorod going to give a hoot if Socotra attacks Sa'na? And then get together with Burgundy, Mali and Amalfi to do something about it?

 

[Dracko81]

Why is Novgorod going to give a hoot if Socotra attacks Sa'na? And then get together with Burgundy, Mali and Amalfi to do something about it?

Did this happen or are you just trying to create some strawman argument based on others peoples claims?

 

[Steel_atlas]

Did this happen or are you just trying to create some strawman argument based on others peoples claims?

Its not that, see my CM thread. Almost all of europe unites against charlie both pagan and catholic.

 

[Dracko81]

Its not that, see my CM thread. Almost all of europe unites against charlie both pagan and catholic.

A little bit of a difference between CM and Socotra though. Socotra taking one province and having Mali and Amalfi making a coalition is a complete strawman. Completely false to try and make the mechanic sound worse than it actually is.

 

[TheAnguishedOne]

I don't want the mechanics to be taken out, just reworked. Make the armies retreat to a logical province. As for coalitions, implement some limits on who can join together. It doesn't make much sense for the Pope to join a coalition with the Caliph against a fellow Christian.

 

[Cetan]

0.19% infamy a month. That is just over 44 years, so the game will not be over before the infamy has decayed. Did you notice how it capped at 100%?

I and many made the assumption that, given it listed 700+%, that it would roll over as with most other numbers in CK2.

However, this does not undermine the point that is being made: why is all of Christianity forming a coalition with the Muslim and Pagan world to fight? Is the Pope's crowning of Charlemagne and others not a claim on "Rome"? Why is he in the coalition as well? It's just absurdities on absurdities. In context, a restored Roman Empire from either end is probably something the entire world would fear...

...but sticking to the game mechanics, I don't think it really makes sense to have religious enemies all over the world dogpiling the bad boy in the same alliance.

 

[nijis]

I certainly would not want to go back to the old system. Shattered Retreat reflects much better the dynamics of medieval wars, although I still think the system can and should be improved.

Marching around the enemy's countryside, snapping up smaller armies and hounding them to their destruction, has as far as I know absolutely no basis in history. It was extremely difficult to force an unwilling foe to give battle. An army that had no chance of winning could simply march away - an army in column, after all, moves much faster than an army in battle array. You could harass a moving army, but unless you got between it and its water or food source, it was very difficult to make it fight. When armies gave battle, it was for strategic reasons (ie, to break a siege) or political ones (if you declined, your vassals would wander off.)

You will find very few historical examples of lop-sided battles, where one side had no hope of victory. If it did not have a hope, it would not be there.

Wars should be decided by a few pitched battles fought on relatively even terms, and damage to the enemy's territory - sieges and raids. CK2 isn't quite there yet. But Shattered Retreat is a step in the right direction.

 

[Steel_atlas]

I and many made the assumption that, given it listed 700+%, that it would roll over as with most other numbers in CK2.

However, this does not undermine the point that is being made: why is all of Christianity forming a coalition with the Muslim and Pagan world to fight? Is the Pope's crowning of Charlemagne and others not a claim on "Rome"? Why is he in the coalition as well? It's just absurdities on absurdities. In context, a restored Roman Empire from either end is probably something the entire world would fear...

...but sticking to the game mechanics, I don't think it really makes sense to have religious enemies all over the world dogpiling the bad boy.

I dunno maybe Charlie, the AI version at least, needs something extra as a mass coalition of Pagans and English OPM seems very ahistorical.

I dont think Coalitions are bad its just they dont work very well, Abbablob is doing its thing and it doesnt have any coalitions formed against partly because vassals do a lot of the conquering.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

History isn't really relevant though, because you can't simulate that for every case. Your clearly in the camp of I don't like it because I don't like it and nothing will change my mind.

History is relevant if your game purports to be about human - as opposed to, say, Martian - history. And no one is arguing for historical fidelity in all circumstances.

But shattered - not just defeated, but routed - armies marching hundreds of miles deeper into hostile territory and somehow miraculously recovering there is completely silly with no basis at all in historical plausibility. It's the sort of craziness we saw with ping-pong armies before they fixed it.

And, you're right, nothing will convince me that makes the game better. We have more than a decade of complaints here that suggest otherwise.

Again. I'm not opposed to the concept. But there are better, less lazy, ways to accomplish it.