Paradox: Please remove Shattered Retreat and Coalitions

[Swuul]

But the shattered retreat "feature" is nothing new. It's an old bug revived. We've had literally years of experience with it.

No it is not. Please stop repeating this, it is not true and you are smart enough to know it.

 

[CassCD]

And here I am, a veteran EUIV player, bemusedly watching the CK2 players fly into the anticipated mess of complaints. You lot think you have it hard. . In EUIV, we have forts that exert zone of control. Meaning, you literally can't pursue shattered armies in many circumstances. Coalitions fire if you take two provinces in the HRE. And just as with us, you'll get used to it. Such is the cycle of new features that hinder easy conquests in Paradox games.

 

[elpibeuruguayo]

No it is not. Please stop repeating this, it is not true and you are smart enough to know it.

You dont know ping pong armies from previous paradox games?

 

[Cetan]

I wish Forts did something interesting in CK2...

 

[Leecros]

In EUIV, we have forts that exert zone of control. Meaning, you literally can't pursue shattered armies in many circumstances.

I swear to this day that forts were changed in EUIV to stop the complaining players that were chasing shattered armies all across Europe.

You were never meant to chase around shattered armies in either game. That's why they retreat so quickly, that's why they retreat so far and that's why you can't catch them in whatever province they retreat to until they finish their shattered retreat. While i do think that there should be something where if an enemy army retreats into a province you already have an army in it, then the enemy army will get caught; i doubt that'll ever happen in either game.

As far as infamy goes, it started the same way in EUIV. I don't doubt that eventually it'll be re-balanced out to be more reasonable.

 

[Robert II]

Bitch, bitch, bitch.

Hey guys, whine all you want that you can no longer get WC in 12 months from your Zunbil OPM but guess what - the mechanism is here to stay. Get over it (and yourselves).

FWIW - we have a perfect RL parallel of what would happen if the HRE absorbed the ERE - Charles V. Spain and the HRE unite and every nation in Europe went apeshit - so much so that Charles had to abdicate in the end. Now THAT is infamy in action. (cue "B-b-but that's 100 years outside our timeline" complaint. Talk to the hand, I could care less).

I've just played around 3 hours of Conclave as the Despotate of Trebizond and have ZERO issues with the new mechanics - I lost one big battle and was able to save my army via SR, then got stuck in three wars at the same time and had armies shattering and returning continuously, I still managed to White Peace one war and win the other two. Learn to adapt to the new system and you will have ZERO issues, try to pain the map your favourite colour and keep on whining, your tears will do no good.

I for one welcome our new SR and Infamy overlords.

Why is complaining a bad thing anyway? A bit of bitching is a good thing otherwise the forum is just a big circle jerk were we all sit around and talk about how great ck2 and paradox is before covering ourselves in sticky white stuff.

 

[ozfighter]

another day another broken paradox dlc

no, I wont be forking out money for this until its finished, ck2 gets little enough love as it is.

we're not your beta testers

 

[Swuul]

You dont know ping pong armies from previous paradox games?

Yes I do. I notice you are new here (as Olaf the Unsure would put it ) . If you would bother to search the forums, you would notice quite a few posts from me made about the ping-pong armies over the years. Shattered retreat is nothing at all like ping-pong armies. It is, in essence, the exact opposite.

1) If you gave a ping-pong time to not be retreating or in battle when the month changed (when morale, organisation and reinforcements are recieved), the ping-pong army was back in full strength immediatly. You *needed* to defeat ping-pong armies, so you *had to* chase them around, because if you didn't, next month they would be back on you with vengeance. You couldn't win wars without giving the ping-pong armies everlasting chase.

2) With Shattered Retreat the opposing force is out for months. There is absolutely zero need to give chase to a Shattered army, because you will win the war while the shattered army is gone for months (you don't have to siege down all walls, the AI seems to be well aware its army is shattered and the war is lost as your troops run rampart in their lands). On the other hand, if your opponent has allies who prevent you from winning the war during the time the shattered army is reorganising, then you weren't really prepared for the war. And if you prefer to go and chase the shattered army instead of winning the war, then the problem is not in the game, but in something which is about 20 inches from your screen

Essentially, wars are now won after *one* won battle if you are fighting against a weaker enemy, but you can not anymore stomp-roll over weaker neighbours who have strong allies. This is a *huge* improvement to how CK2 was before. If you however insist on chasing around small armies instead of winning the war, then you need to re-think your strategy.

 

[Manic Eskimo]

2) With Shattered Retreat the opposing force is out for months. There is absolutely zero need to give chase to a Shattered army, because you will win the war while the shattered army is gone for months (you don't have to siege down all walls, the AI seems to be well aware its army is shattered and the war is lost as your troops run rampart in their lands). On the other hand, if your opponent has allies who prevent you from winning the war during the time the shattered army is reorganising, then you weren't really prepared for the war. And if you prefer to go and chase the shattered army instead of winning the war, then the problem is not in the game, but in something which is about 20 inches from your screen

That's an offensive war you're describing but what about a defensive war? Say you've got 5 defensive wars going on all against small enemies all sieging different provinces. You have to destroy the armies completely otherwise they'll be sieging another province. You don't have time to siege their provinces, you have to deal with the threats, which are the besieging armies. You have to wipe them out. I made a similar thread earlier where I said "shattered retreat is slightly annoying in an offensive war but potentially devastating in a defensive war."

The changes I'd like to see would be a lower ratio for outnumbered destruction of an army. It looks like it's 10-1 currently. Instead of 1000 destroys >100 I'd like to see 1000 destroys >500.

Limit the shattered retreat to within home territory. So when an army retreats it goes home. Not half way across the map in the opposite direction.

Up the casualties from battles.

Three simple changes that would not make the new features suck.

 

[Rags17]

Why is complaining a bad thing anyway? A bit of bitching is a good thing otherwise the forum is just a big circle jerk were we all sit around and talk about how great ck2 and paradox is before covering ourselves in sticky white stuff.

Thank you for your polite response to my impassioned rant ! I did NOT see that coming !

Just try to look at shattered retreat via it's effect rather than its mechanics. What it does is make a losing army effectively disappear from the map for a number of months, and then reappear 3-4 zones away. In my (admittedly rather limited) experience this works. In my war against Genoa for Cherson I drove off their local forces then spent the rest of the time sieging down their city - it would have been far less effective to chase that invisible army. When their main force showed up I lost a battle in turn yet was able to run away (all the way to Trebizond !), reform my forces and then come back for the win.

Someone else on this thread recommended simply taking the army off the map, this would have the same effect but I likes actually seeing where the shattered forces are going - if I DID want to see where in the steppes they ended up I could at least follow them, at least until they got too far away.

I haven't experienced infamy yet, I can see how there may be an issues but I think we will need to have a lot more player experience until we can pass any judgment.

 

[Robert II]

Thank you for your polite response to my impassioned rant ! I did NOT see that coming !

Just try to look at shattered retreat via it's effect rather than its mechanics. What it does is make a losing army effectively disappear from the map for a number of months, and then reappear 3-4 zones away. In my (admittedly rather limited) experience this works. In my war against Genoa for Cherson I drove off their local forces then spent the rest of the time sieging down their city - it would have been far less effective to chase that invisible army. When their main force showed up I lost a battle in turn yet was able to run away (all the way to Trebizond !), reform my forces and then come back for the win.

Someone else on this thread recommended simply taking the army off the map, this would have the same effect but I likes actually seeing where the shattered forces are going - if I DID want to see where in the steppes they ended up I could at least follow them, at least until they got too far away.

I haven't experienced infamy yet, I can see how there may be an issues but I think we will need to have a lot more player experience until we can pass any judgment.

I actually don't mind shattered retreat it helped me win against Heinrich Salian and his German hordes in my Conclave practice game with France. Infamy seems broke currently but it's a ck2 DLC and it just wouldn't be the same without something in need of a massive rebalance.

Was that first bit sarcasm or do you actually find me talking about circle jerks and cum a polite response?

 

[BD13]

I like the idea of both features but don't like the execution at this point. I am not a fan of the shattered retreat for many of the reasons already pointed out. That being said... For me the bigger problem is the coalitions. It seems the whole purpose at this point is to make the game harder. When things get harder just for the sake of being harder it breaks the immersion for me.

Playing as the ERE (have not reached de jure empire borders) I quickly got 40 infamy for declaring a total of two wars. 1 holy war in Armenia and 1 de jure claim. Christians/Tengri/Sunni from all corners of the empire joining the same coalition seems broken. Even the Umayyads joined in from Spain...

I think the main issue is that everyone is forced to join the same generic coalition. I would understand and even appreciate three separate religion specific coalitions. Even if the whole world joined up against me under these different coalitions it would make more sense. If we absolutely needed multi religion coalitions I would appreciate if they were at least semi region specific. I am really not trying to be hate new things guy but I see this as game breaking right now and I think a fine tuned coalition feature could be a lot of fun.

 

[Swuul]

That's an offensive war you're describing but what about a defensive war? Say you've got 5 defensive wars going on all against small enemies all sieging different provinces. You have to destroy the armies completely otherwise they'll be sieging another province. You don't have time to siege their provinces, you have to deal with the threats, which are the besieging armies. You have to wipe them out. I made a similar thread earlier where I said "shattered retreat is slightly annoying in an offensive war but potentially devastating in a defensive war.".

It would be a valid point, if it wasn't untrue In a defensive war, where you have no claims on the enemies, you do not need to siege anything. Especially the scenario you describe above; you face lots of small armies, so what do you need to do? You bash them each, and they are gone for months. If the aggressor is unable to take any land, if the aggressor lose all battles, you will win (you would have 75% WS very soon against the aggressor, and as you know the aggressor will take white peace when starting to close -50% WS) they will fold . There is *zero* need to go hunt for the shattered armies in this case; in fact, if you do give chase to shattered armies, you might very likely succeed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Sure, if you attempt to grab something for yourself in a war which started as a defensive war, then things change. But it isn't a defensive war then anymore, is it?

 

[Rostan]

And here I am, a veteran EUIV player, bemusedly watching the CK2 players fly into the anticipated mess of complaints. You lot think you have it hard. . In EUIV, we have forts that exert zone of control. Meaning, you literally can't pursue shattered armies in many circumstances. Coalitions fire if you take two provinces in the HRE. And just as with us, you'll get used to it. Such is the cycle of new features that hinder easy conquests in Paradox games.

Paradox is lucky it has a near-monopoly on "historical" grand strategy games (if you can call global cross-cultural world wars in 1200 "historical"), because for some reason they have this wish to see people play the game THEIR way. I gave Conclave a good review initially, but the coalition mechanic is a big no, so I ended up asking for a refund and reverting to a previous version of the game. Sadly, like with EU4, I have reached the limit for which I can be bothered to put up with Paradox´s railroading. And I am sad because both for "Cossacks" and for "Conclave", I simply love some of the new features. Sadly, they are lumped together with some nasty ahistorical game-wrecking drivel, which is usually in the free patch, not giving players a choice.

I can live with shattered retreat, but will never buy or use a version that gives you infamy if you attack opponents of other religions or has global scale coalitions a la EU4 (they are ahistorical even then, let alone in a medieval themed game).

 

[TheKingofWinter]

shattered retreat makes no sense with the levy system anyway. it makes more sense with the proffesional armies of EU4, but as everyone whos played CK2 since charlemagne came out could tell you, paradox hates it when you try and keep a standing force in this game. shattered retreat is something i could see being great if you actually only got it if you have a decently sized retinue among your defeated army. that would actually reward players for using the now horribly underpowered retinue. instead its an arbitrary game mechanic that makes no sense at all.

 

[Robert II]

shattered retreat makes no sense with the levy system anyway. it makes more sense with the proffesional armies of EU4, but as everyone whos played CK2 since charlemagne came out could tell you, paradox hates it when you try and keep a standing force in this game. shattered retreat is something i could see being great if you actually only got it if you have a decently sized retinue among your defeated army. that would actually reward players for using the now horribly underpowered retinue. instead its an arbitrary game mechanic that makes no sense at all.

Retinues underpowered are you playing the same game as me?

 

[Manic Eskimo]

It would be a valid point, if it wasn't untrue In a defensive war, where you have no claims on the enemies, you do not need to siege anything. Especially the scenario you describe above; you face lots of small armies, so what do you need to do? You bash them each, and they are gone for months. If the aggressor is unable to take any land, if the aggressor lose all battles, you will win (you would have 75% WS very soon against the aggressor, and as you know the aggressor will take white peace when starting to close -50% WS) they will fold . There is *zero* need to go hunt for the shattered armies in this case; in fact, if you do give chase to shattered armies, you might very likely succeed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Sure, if you attempt to grab something for yourself in a war which started as a defensive war, then things change. But it isn't a defensive war then anymore, is it?

Except they're not gone for months are they? No they're not they retreat back three provinces while you march to the other side of the demesne to get the next whack-o-mole. By the time you've got to that battle the one you've just defeated is back sieging the same province. They still have enough men to do so because they reduced battle casualties and because you've done so little damage you got about 2 war score. meanwhile you've got the same situation going on in 3 other places. They're going to eventually win the sieges meaning your income goes down and you can't sustain your armies.

Also cut the snark. It's not big and it's not clever.

 

[Swuul]

Except they're not gone for months are they? No they're not they retreat back three provinces while you march to the other side of the demesne to get the next whack-o-mole. By the time you've got to that battle the one you've just defeated is back sieging the same province. They still have enough men to do so because they reduced battle casualties and because you've done so little damage you got about 2 war score. meanwhile you've got the same situation going on in 3 other places. They're going to eventually win the sieges meaning your income goes down and you can't sustain your armies.

You mean you have less forces than the enemy, and they are able to slowly whittle you? Or that you have way more troops, but prefer to have your forces in one big stack instead of splitting the army to chunks which easily can defeat these small armies?

You have to decide your scenario. Are you fighting against many weak enemies who together are stronger than you, or who together are weaker than you. If you are fighting against a stronger enemy, hire mercs. If you are fighting against a weaker enemy, beat the pulp out of them.

Also cut the snark. You can't change goal-posts all the time, it is not clever.

 

[Rags17]

I actually don't mind shattered retreat it helped me win against Heinrich Salian and his German hordes in my Conclave practice game with France. Infamy seems broke currently but it's a ck2 DLC and it just wouldn't be the same without something in need of a massive rebalance.

Was that first bit sarcasm or do you actually find me talking about circle jerks and cum a polite response?

No that was serious. I got a bit cheesed off at all the whining about the new mechanics when we all have less than 24 hours max under the new system and basically didn't edit my post before posting.

 

[sauced]

Without a doubt the worst DLC they have produced so far, if i want broken coalitions, i will play Europa Universalis.

I rolled back my game to 2.4.5 until coalitions are removed.