Should army professionalism be represented?

[Denkt]

https://deremilitari.org/2013/12/the-development-of-battle-tactics-in-the-hundred-years-war/
Here it is mentioned that the English army was quite professionalised in mid 1300s and had a combat effectivness that France could only rarely meet even one hundred years later.

Even if France was richer and had much more Manpower, English seems to have been able to organized their armies and use their limited resources much more effectively, so should this be represented in some way? It seems quite important to be honest.

 

[viola]

Aren't Men-At-Arms (that is, retinues) meant for that?

 

[Denkt]

Aren't Men-At-Arms (that is, retinues) meant for that?

In that case France would probably simply greatly overwhelm the English and that is probably not the only case. You would probably have to give the English technological advantages and maybe martial focused dynasty with high martial skills to get the hundred year war success, but quite alot of their success seems to be based on the ability of their Soldiers which is stuff like men at arms and Technologies.

 

[Limbojack]

Professionalism, or expertise, should be implemented somehow, but I'm not sure how it should work. The "drill army, gain exp" button is pretty boring, but if they absolutely want to go that route the exp gain should be heavily influenced by the general, the knights and their traits and martial prowess.

But since this would require you to take men from the fields in order to drill, the drilling should not only cost more money but should reduce the output of the baronies. Men at arms should however keep a rather high professionalism, as they are professional soldiers.

 

[Denkt]

It is hard because you need to know what for example was right with the English system and what was wrong with the French military system during hundred years war but looking at the battles it seems the main advantage the English had was that their armies seems to operate alot more united while the French ones seems more disorganized, like if they was several armies or something like that which allowed the English even when outnumbered to actually not really fight outnumbered.

Given that combat width depend on the defender you can have the situation above since the famous English victories was when they defended and in game terms it would be they who get to set combat width and Assuming their army, leader is better quality or more suited for the terrain they probably can win with quite a margin.

I suspect it can be said say that the English spammed military buildings, focused on military technology and Everything else on military bonuses while the French did not but I don't know how that would work in the game or what would happen in the game if someone did that while the more powerful don't do that.

But since this would require you to take men from the fields in order to drill, the drilling should not only cost more money but should reduce the output of the baronies. Men at arms should however keep a rather high professionalism, as they are professional soldiers.

I think drilling could be best represented by buildings like archery ranges which boost levy performance.​

 

[viola]

Frankly, I think that the different advantages that certain kinds of men-at-arms have against other men-at-arms units, the current combat system and Feudal politics should be enough to represent that situation in decent enough terms.

It's pointless to expect an exact representation of what happened because the combat system of Crusader Kings 3 is meant to represent warfare across hundreds of years and across all of Western Eurasia, it can't be about making sure that the Hundred Years War is represented very well.

 

[Limbojack]

I would prefer a more dynamic approach to professionalism, where the experience was gained through action and not a static building giving a flat bonus to efficiency. Maybe a compromise would be to allow buildings to add a low, flat bonus while actions like drilling, battles etc allowed this bonus to increase.

 

[Denkt]

It's pointless to expect an exact representation of what happened because the combat system of Crusader Kings 3 is meant to represent warfare across hundreds of years and across all of Western Eurasia, it can't be about making sure that the Hundred Years War is represented very well.

However is there any unique aspect of the hundred years war which make it not applicable on warfare of the time period in general? Sure armies may look different and work differently but stuff like professionalism matters no matter where you are.​

 

[viola]

However is there any unique aspect of the hundred years war which make it not applicable on warfare of the time period in general? Sure armies may look different and work differently but stuff like professionalism matters no matter where you are.​

I think investing in a specialized force of men-at-arms works well enough to represent an effort at professionalism in a generic context.

 

[Arko]

Nobility was the fighting class, dedicating their like to it. Knights were professional BTW.
What you ask for is standing armies, wrong era for most regions.

 

[Limbojack]

What you ask for is standing armies

I don't think that's what Denkt is talking about. It's more about trained peasants (that's at least what I would like) I believe.

 

[Arona]

There could be some kind of professionalism or military tradition.

Will be nice if player can rename a units, like Kings Guard, Beaver Caps, Wind blower or any other unique name. And each unit gets tradition/professionalism in fighting, and different level like veteran, elits, royals have adional bonuses on morale and other fighting stats. But if unit loses troops then they need to replenish professionalism back to current stage. And if unit gets totally destroyed then all progress is gone only fear is what AI would do. Player can plan and smetimes save up almost dead units and keep progress going but ai mostly only thinks to win current war. This would give aplayer significant advatage in long term, tradition what has been buided up in hundread years, and will continue until even one troop has been surviving to pass knowledge to newer generation.

 

[Denkt]

I think investing in a specialized force of men-at-arms works well enough to represent an effort at professionalism in a generic context.

We don't know too much about how men at arms work, especially what limit how many you can have. But you may be correct. I'm not sure if you can separate Knights, men at arms and levies from each other but maybe you can field an pure men at arms army if you have the Money to do so?

I suspect the men at arms limit wiill be similar as retinue limit in CK2 but it Obviously could work differently like being directly tied to how many levies you can recruit which would make increasing your levy size more important than in CK2 but I don't know.

Nobility was the fighting class, dedicating their like to it. Knights were professional BTW.
What you ask for is standing armies, wrong era for most regions.

Knights are characters in CK3, after that you have men at arms and levies. I don't know what the definition of standing armies actually is but many armies even today tend to operate with some sort of conscription with some sort of professional compartment which don't sound too different from medieval armies, also medieval armies tended to also include mercenary compartment which may be some sort of professionals. Armies of the past like the roman or saxon housecarls may have had other duties than just fighting like being used for administration and tax Collection since armies was maybe what states often was based around in the past.

I don't think that's what Denkt is talking about. It's more about trained peasants (that's at least what I would like) I believe.

I doubt you can describe armies of like hundred years war as CK3 levies https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/agincourt/0/steps/8842

As can be seen at 1415 the English army used horses for mobility (even the Archers was expected to have atleast 1 horse) and was paied what look like substantial wages. Obviously this may not be true for earlier English armies. The 1415 English army invading France would in CK3 terms probably be all men at arms and probably rather mobile due to using horses. Mobilty may be a reason why you would want a pure men at arms army since levies would maybe slow down your army, assuming the game actually have different movement speed depending on units like in Imperator: Rome.

 

[Limbojack]

I doubt you can describe armies of like hundred years war as CK3 levies

Well, most nobles fought as cavalry making almost all infantry and ranged units in the armies either mercs or levies. Most men-at-arms also served as heavy armored cavalry.

That being said, mercs were to various degrees professional troops, and levies could become pretty professional through battle experience.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/medieval/land-forces-hundred-years-war.html

 

[Denkt]

However CK3 levies unlike CK2 levies are just faceless levies, no troop types or anything behind it.

 

[Limbojack]

However CK3 levies unlike CK2 levies are just faceless levies, no troop types or anything behind it.

Yeah, something that greatly annoys me. It feels like a quick fix, and I am pretty sure it will feel a lot worse than the levies of CK2.

 

[Denkt]

Maybe you convert levies into men at arms and levies are just basically Manpower which you can field but they do poorly and if you want an actual useful army you have to convert them into men at arms which do make some sense.

This mean if you are poor you are stuck with poor levies but a very rich state can field full men at arms armies without any levies and perform much better. It also add a good way to limit men at arms since it would be directly tied to how many levies you can have at maximum which is rather logical.

 

[viola]

I think the decision to make levies just be "levies" was an attempt at making the different unit types matter more actually.

In CK2 when you raised your levies you'd end up with a giant mess of all unit types mixed together: light infantry, heavy infantry, archers, cavalry, etc.
Stuff like cultural buildings and retinues served to make so you could partially control the components of this mess by increasing the quantity of certain unit types, also retinues offered the additional advantage of being always available (useful for fast wars against weak enemies) and cultural buildings offered bonuses to whatever unit types a certain culture favored.

In CK3 when you raise your levies instead you only get "levies", that is, an undefined kind of soldiers that are likely to be either peasants taken from their farms, soldiers raised from your vassals that lack the experience and equipment of proper men-at-arms or whatever other kind of lower skilled fighting force. The old unit types from CK2 are now used to represent Men-at-Arms, which seems to be intended as a more professional force and the stuff that gives the proper punching power to your army while your faceless levies support them with numbers. Since the number of Men-at-Arms is going to be quite smaller now I assume that the choice between different unit types to raise is going to be much more meaningful one rather just be a bunch of random stats thrown at you together every time you raise your vassals' levies.

 

[Denkt]

From what I have read levies is just a very basic type of men at arms in CK3 with very poor combat performance, men at arms work like levies in that they don't exist on the map all time. I think it is quite reasonable that you should be able to convert levies into proper men at arms and that probably would together with Money work best as a limitation on how many men at arms you can possibly have.

Even among the men at arms there will be different quality levels which cost more, but given that levies are basically the Manpower it make alot of sense that your army size is limited by how many levies it can recruit and men at arms is just a conversion of levies into higher quality units.

 

[viola]

From what I have read levies is just a very basic type of men at arms in CK3 with very poor combat performance, men at arms work like levies in that they don't exist on the map all time. I think it is quite reasonable that you should be able to convert levies into proper men at arms and that probably would together with Money work best as a limitation on how many men at arms you can possibly have.

Even among the men at arms there will be different quality levels which cost more, but given that levies are basically the Manpower it make alot of sense that your army size is limited by how many levies it can recruit and men at arms is just a conversion of levies into higher quality units.

I don't think I've seen the idea of levies been handled like they're manpower anywhere.

I'm not sure if it's been clarified whether men-at-arms are going to be standing armies like retinues, always available on the map, or something you have to raise, but so far my understanding is that levies and men-at-arms are two very different kinds of military units.