Rationalization for single troop type MAA
- Thread starter Secret Master
- 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.
It's both, but it doesn't make sense because I'm talking about two different events in that game that happened about 30-40 years apart.
I was using chu-ko-nu prior to acquiring the innovation of advanced bowmaking. I was out conquering regular kingdoms and realms at that point.
Once I got advanced bowmaking, I swapped them out for the standard crossbowmen (due to higher attack stats on them). Right when I did that, the Mongols showed up on my doorstep, so I had to defeat them. Lots of dead cavalry that day.
Even then there is essentially zero chance that firepower based army until at least minie rifles does't end in melee. The English had dismounted men-at-arms to shield their archers. The later pike and shot armies used pikemen. The 18th century armies that finally abolished the pikemen used... bayonets.
I think scenario 1 is the most likely, but it is also a cop out one. The historical game design version of lazy writing. It's where you imagine your troops are something else than what they are to explain a questionable army composition.
- 3
- 1
See, here's the thing. In game terms, that would be literally using levies or pikemen etc to screen your crossbowmen, but they aren't being used.
There aren't invisible, assumed pikemen. There are pikemen, they're just being opt out of. It's a risk that's being taken, foregoing that defensive line, but one that is working since enough building bonuses are being used that the crossbowmen can stand on their own.
Who knows, maybe they are just attaching bayonets if anyone actually survives volleys of 9000 high-tech crossbow bolts
The best solution to this issue is to simply remove the buffs that buildings provide. Afterall, having two targeting dummies does not make you twice as good.
And how it would look? In game it would be like bunch of dudes using macineguns and mowing down the enemy. But it's really unrealistic - and not very believable.
In reality though? Well, the chinese armies had a hard time against the Mongols - the crossbows did not iirc have an effective range like that of the mongol archers.
If you only use your crossbowmen, then surely heavy cavalry and disciplined heavy infantry could do the job, especially if supported by cavalry who could harass your forces. There are of course many parameters to it, so it's hard to say, but if you aren't screened or backed up by any cavalry or dedicated infantry, then perhaps you'll have a hard time.
Should all else fail.. well, CK3 doesn't really portrait siege warfare particularly well... But you'd have some serious hard time transporting your trebuchets - or even bringing them to bear. And even if you were to make use of them, then it's still not certain that all castles would give up just because of that.
And how it would look? In game it would be like bunch of dudes using macineguns and mowing down the enemy. But it's really unrealistic - and not very believable.
In reality though? Well, the chinese armies had a hard time against the Mongols - the crossbows did not iirc have an effective range like that of the mongol archers.
If you only use your crossbowmen, then surely heavy cavalry and disciplined heavy infantry could do the job, especially if supported by cavalry who could harass your forces. There are of course many parameters to it, so it's hard to say, but if you aren't screened or backed up by any cavalry or dedicated infantry, then perhaps you'll have a hard time.
Should all else fail.. well, CK3 doesn't really portrait siege warfare particularly well... But you'd have some serious hard time transporting your trebuchets - or even bringing them to bear. And even if you were to make use of them, then it's still not certain that all castles would give up just because of that.
I'm liking this thread because it helps me justify...this:
Pretty sure this wasn't a common occurrence in medieval times, unless they had repeating rifles.
I think mono MAA armies are far too strong right now, even as I exploited them because it was the most efficient means of fighting. Levies are only used to carpet siege.
So yes, thinking each crossbow unit is like a brigade of integrated troops does help.
Pretty sure this wasn't a common occurrence in medieval times, unless they had repeating rifles.
I think mono MAA armies are far too strong right now, even as I exploited them because it was the most efficient means of fighting. Levies are only used to carpet siege.
So yes, thinking each crossbow unit is like a brigade of integrated troops does help.
I'm liking this thread because it helps me justify...this:
Pretty sure this wasn't a common occurrence in medieval times, unless they had repeating rifles.
I think mono MAA armies are far too strong right now, even as I exploited them because it was the most efficient means of fighting. Levies are only used to carpet siege.
So yes, thinking each crossbow unit is like a brigade of integrated troops does help.
Okay, when I first looked at your post, the image didn't load properly, and I just saw the trebuchets and knights. I thought you obliterated the enemy with siege equipment and knights a la AoE2.
Or something closer to this:
- 1
@Secret Master
That would be something!
No I just had 156/58 strength/defence crossbowmen! It was before they stopped doing the percentage bonuses on duchy buildings.
That would be something!
No I just had 156/58 strength/defence crossbowmen! It was before they stopped doing the percentage bonuses on duchy buildings.