Combat has always been the weakest part of Paradox games, simply because numbers are always what matters. A good general and good terrain can tip the balance in some situations, but they are never decisive factors. Which they should be.
Battles like Agincourt and Didgori simply aren't feasible in this Crusader Kings, because it's all about the numbers. I appreciate that these are very rare occurrences, but numbers have never been the key to victory in battles. They cause blobs in EU3, and result in the destruction of somewhere like Georgia very early on in the game, while in reality lasted until after the game's timespan ended.
The real problem, I think, is that terrain and generalship don't play enough of a role. If a defender has an army of 4000, has a mountainous defensive bonus, and generals of, say, 12 martial on average, against an attacker of 6000 with generals of, say, 4 of less martial, the latter army will win. I've seen it happen. It annoys me greatly.
Something needs to be fixed here. I'd suggest massively upping the bonuses accorded to generalship and terrain, but I know nothing about game design. Thoughts?
Battles like Agincourt and Didgori simply aren't feasible in this Crusader Kings, because it's all about the numbers. I appreciate that these are very rare occurrences, but numbers have never been the key to victory in battles. They cause blobs in EU3, and result in the destruction of somewhere like Georgia very early on in the game, while in reality lasted until after the game's timespan ended.
The real problem, I think, is that terrain and generalship don't play enough of a role. If a defender has an army of 4000, has a mountainous defensive bonus, and generals of, say, 12 martial on average, against an attacker of 6000 with generals of, say, 4 of less martial, the latter army will win. I've seen it happen. It annoys me greatly.
Something needs to be fixed here. I'd suggest massively upping the bonuses accorded to generalship and terrain, but I know nothing about game design. Thoughts?
