Some wishes regarding army movement

[0yvind]

1. Cancelling movement should not instantaneously teleport the army back to the starting point:
Instead I think it should reverse the movement so that it takes time for the army to return to the starting point. A realistic handicap for the player and the AI that cannot be so easily exploited. Paradox did implement the rule where moving more than 50% of a distance makes the army impossible to turn back, but anything before those 50% will instantly teleport the army back which is not very realistic. I think this idea could possibly either replace or work together with that mechanic.

2. Stop getting caught in battle by an army that is miles away:
Another matter related to this, is that I think there should be more to it than simply being in the same province whether or not two armies get locked in battle. The distance between the enemies can often be weeks or months, but because they're technically in the same province the battle happens. This is especially ridiculous when that province is as large as Ireland itself. I'd like to see a way to making armies having to actually catching up and at most being within 1 day's reach of each other before a combat can happen. To prevent a lot of endless boring chase the chasing army could get a speed bonus for example.

3. Movement speed:
While we're on speed bonuses - both of these suggestions would probably hugely increase the importance of having commanders with the Organizer leader trait. Regarding that trait I was wondering whether it would be better if it had more to do with terrain specialization than a flat movement boost to all kinds of terrain. Wouldn't it make sense if a commander specialized in rough terrain in addition to fighting better there, also was able to move quicker through them? It does to me. In regards to my first two suggestions this would probably have a meaningful impact on chasing armies as well, since you could end up in terrain in which your commander is either quick or slow.

Would these ideas be possible? Would they be fun? What do people think?

 

[Denkt]

Maybe have the defeated army be shattered and have to be re raised again (surviving levy placed back to their holdings) which mean losing battles take longer to recover from.

 

[Chlodio]

2. Stop getting caught in battle by an army that is miles away:

Technically pitched battles should only occur if both parties agree on it, otherwise, the other party could easily avoid confrontation, hence the saying "to give battle". Of course, when the attacker was besieging a holding and knew the enemy was coming they'd likely attempt to fight the relief army because the alternative would mean abandoning of the siege and losing all the progress.
I think an abstraction of this mentality could be made. With the following rules:

1. When the enemy would be in the progress of besieging and you would move into the province, a battle would occur, hence it would remain unchanged except that besiegers in CK3 will count as attackers in battle
   
2. When the enemy would move into a province that has your armies in it, instead of battling them, your army would auto retreat to a province that no hostile units

• If it has no province to retreat to, it would be left with no other options but to fight the enemy

Therefore battles would only occur if one of the armies is besieging (which was the nature of warfare during this period). While this would be a radical change I think it would be more historical and better for the defender, for it would kill the army chasing as you could no longer force it to fight.

 

[Denkt]

When the enemy would move into a province that has your armies in it, instead of battling them, your army would auto retreat to a province that no hostile units

It is not Always you would want that to happen, like giving up a good defensive position, so I suppose you get a choice here?

 

[Chlodio]

It is not Always you would want that to happen, like giving up a good defensive position, so I suppose you get a choice here?

The point was that the battles could only happen in besieging province, and in CK3 besiegers will always be attackers, therefore the auto-retreated troops could be ordered to return to the province which would would start the battle and count them as defenders.

 

[noknok]

my hope for ck3 is that you can play a whole character life without even raising an army and still have fun stuff to do.

1. Cancelling movement should not instantaneously teleport the army back to the starting point:
Instead I think it should reverse the movement so that it takes time for the army to return to the starting point. A realistic handicap for the player and the AI that cannot be so easily exploited. Paradox did implement the rule where moving more than 50% of a distance makes the army impossible to turn back, but anything before those 50% will instantly teleport the army back which is not very realistic. I think this idea could possibly either replace or work together with that mechanic.

2. Stop getting caught in battle by an army that is miles away:
Another matter related to this, is that I think there should be more to it than simply being in the same province whether or not two armies get locked in battle. The distance between the enemies can often be weeks or months, but because they're technically in the same province the battle happens. This is especially ridiculous when that province is as large as Ireland itself. I'd like to see a way to making armies having to actually catching up and at most being within 1 day's reach of each other before a combat can happen. To prevent a lot of endless boring chase the chasing army could get a speed bonus for example.

3. Movement speed:
While we're on speed bonuses - both of these suggestions would probably hugely increase the importance of having commanders with the Organizer leader trait. Regarding that trait I was wondering whether it would be better if it had more to do with terrain specialization than a flat movement boost to all kinds of terrain. Wouldn't it make sense if a commander specialized in rough terrain in addition to fighting better there, also was able to move quicker through them? It does to me. In regards to my first two suggestions this would probably have a meaningful impact on chasing armies as well, since you could end up in terrain in which your commander is either quick or slow.

Would these ideas be possible? Would they be fun? What do people think?

 

[tribunus_plebis]

my hope for ck3 is that you can play a whole character life without even raising an army and still have fun stuff to do.

Although it's a respectable wish, I do not hope CK3 to morph all into an RPG and abandoning the Strategy aspect. For many of us, CK series have been a success precisely because as a strategy game incorporates RPG elements to provide random narratives, which is great. However I prefer not to go into the opposite, the gaming industry is already full of RPG's for its players to enjoy, while top-quality strategy is quite scarce.

 

[Arko]

Although it's a respectable wish, I do not hope CK3 to morph all into an RPG and abandoning the Strategy aspect. For many of us, CK series have been a success precisely because as a strategy game incorporates RPG elements to provide random narratives, which is great. However I prefer not to go into the opposite, the gaming industry is already full of RPG's for its players to enjoy, while top-quality strategy is quite scarce.

I would be curious to see how the game would turn with less CB. For example no claim fabrication, only inheriting them (with claim wars still), no de jure CB, keeping claimant factions, holy wars and crusades, small conquests for pagans and muslims. The main way to gain land would then be through inheritance. I guess it would push the player to go deeper in politics and intrigue. Of course i don't see it happen BTW

 

[0yvind]

While I agree that it indeed would be nice to play a ruler a whole lifetime without war or armies (which probably will be possible to some extent), it's also a given fact that war is going to take place for some rulers, so please don't change the subject of this thread into something not regarding the mechanics of moving armies.

If people disagree with my suggestions then I'd like to read those opinions. Do you prefer it as it is in CK2 and other Paradox games? Do you have different suggestions?

 

[Austregisel]

The best solution, it will always be 2 things, without teleportation to the characters, if you are in a crusade in jerusalem, you should show an icon of yours on the map saying where you are, when you take you out of command, you will appear back going back to your capital (of course you can't see where the AI characters are), and another delay in making a command, if you are in your capital, London, and your army is being commanded by another character in jerusalem, you can send a order, saying to go to Acre, but that order would take until an envoy of yours arrived in jerusalem, in which case AI would freely command this army, if you were in charge then the order would be instantaneous. I really have no idea why they didn’t do it for CK3, I don’t really know why, and I certainly think it will be impossible to do with mods, maybe on a CK4, but I’m still hoping to do that in a future update, or maybe test it on EU5 (which doesn't have to be tested, since the focus is not on the character, maybe there is 0.0001% something about the delay in commanding the troops).

 

[Dayvit78]

1. Cancelling movement should not instantaneously teleport the army back to the starting point:
Instead I think it should reverse the movement so that it takes time for the army to return to the starting point. A realistic handicap for the player and the AI that cannot be so easily exploited. Paradox did implement the rule where moving more than 50% of a distance makes the army impossible to turn back, but anything before those 50% will instantly teleport the army back which is not very realistic. I think this idea could possibly either replace or work together with that mechanic.

2. Stop getting caught in battle by an army that is miles away:
Another matter related to this, is that I think there should be more to it than simply being in the same province whether or not two armies get locked in battle. The distance between the enemies can often be weeks or months, but because they're technically in the same province the battle happens. This is especially ridiculous when that province is as large as Ireland itself. I'd like to see a way to making armies having to actually catching up and at most being within 1 day's reach of each other before a combat can happen. To prevent a lot of endless boring chase the chasing army could get a speed bonus for example.

3. Movement speed:
While we're on speed bonuses - both of these suggestions would probably hugely increase the importance of having commanders with the Organizer leader trait. Regarding that trait I was wondering whether it would be better if it had more to do with terrain specialization than a flat movement boost to all kinds of terrain. Wouldn't it make sense if a commander specialized in rough terrain in addition to fighting better there, also was able to move quicker through them? It does to me. In regards to my first two suggestions this would probably have a meaningful impact on chasing armies as well, since you could end up in terrain in which your commander is either quick or slow.

Would these ideas be possible? Would they be fun? What do people think?

On #2, they have said that battles represent whole campaigns. So if you are in the same province, there is alot of skirmishing and raiding etc. It's not exact, but I think decent enough. Maybe they can designate more clearly what is the raiding part. And I like the idea that 2 armies decide NOT to fight each other if their commanders have that personality or you order them such.

On #3, the owner of the province should have a movement speed bonus. Not the attacker. Because the owner knows his province, he knows the roads, he gets help from locals and he doesn't have to scout as much. I do agree that commanders should have some sort of mobility rating which impacts speed. But it sucks chasing around an enemy in your own lands, and he's making my army look like Wile E. Coyote chasing the Roadrunner.

 

[PK_AZ]

I think an abstraction of this mentality could be made. With the following rules:

1. When the enemy would be in the progress of besieging and you would move into the province, a battle would occur, hence it would remain unchanged except that besiegers in CK3 will count as attackers in battle
   
2. When the enemy would move into a province that has your armies in it, instead of battling them, your army would auto retreat to a province that no hostile units

• If it has no province to retreat to, it would be left with no other options but to fight the enemy

Therefore battles would only occur if one of the armies is besieging (which was the nature of warfare during this period). While this would be a radical change I think it would be more historical and better for the defender, for it would kill the army chasing as you could no longer force it to fight.

I would rather suggest to give armies stances, like 'give enemy battle whenever he asks', 'fight on fair temrs (i.e. you are 30% stronger than enemy)", and 'just run". Maybe with different settings for 'army in the field' and 'army besieging' scenario.

 

[Logos88]

"2. Stop getting caught in battle by an army that is miles away:
Another matter related to this, is that I think there should be more to it than simply being in the same province whether or not two armies get locked in battle. The distance between the enemies can often be weeks or months, but because they're technically in the same province the battle happens. This is especially ridiculous when that province is as large as Ireland itself. I'd like to see a way to making armies having to actually catching up and at most being within 1 day's reach of each other before a combat can happen. To prevent a lot of endless boring chase the chasing army could get a speed bonus for example."

This! I remember Magna Mundi DD's.

 

[Dayvit78]

I would rather suggest to give armies stances, like 'give enemy battle whenever he asks', 'fight on fair temrs (i.e. you are 30% stronger than enemy)", and 'just run". Maybe with different settings for 'army in the field' and 'army besieging' scenario.

This would be not only more fun for the player, because he could designate different armies with different tasks, but also more historic, since that's exactly what medieval commanders were told to do too!

 

[0yvind]

The best solution, it will always be 2 things, without teleportation to the characters, if you are in a crusade in jerusalem, you should show an icon of yours on the map saying where you are, when you take you out of command, you will appear back going back to your capital (of course you can't see where the AI characters are), and another delay in making a command, if you are in your capital, London, and your army is being commanded by another character in jerusalem, you can send a order, saying to go to Acre, but that order would take until an envoy of yours arrived in jerusalem, in which case AI would freely command this army, if you were in charge then the order would be instantaneous. I really have no idea why they didn’t do it for CK3, I don’t really know why, and I certainly think it will be impossible to do with mods, maybe on a CK4, but I’m still hoping to do that in a future update, or maybe test it on EU5 (which doesn't have to be tested, since the focus is not on the character, maybe there is 0.0001% something about the delay in commanding the troops).

While I'm also intrigued by the idea of delayed messages and no teleporting characters, I'm not sure if it's a solution to the mechanics I'm discussing in this thread. It's more like a suggestion regarding a a slightly different problem.

On #2, they have said that battles represent whole campaigns. So if you are in the same province, there is alot of skirmishing and raiding etc. It's not exact, but I think decent enough. Maybe they can designate more clearly what is the raiding part. And I like the idea that 2 armies decide NOT to fight each other if their commanders have that personality or you order them such.

On #3, the owner of the province should have a movement speed bonus. Not the attacker. Because the owner knows his province, he knows the roads, he gets help from locals and he doesn't have to scout as much. I do agree that commanders should have some sort of mobility rating which impacts speed. But it sucks chasing around an enemy in your own lands, and he's making my army look like Wile E. Coyote chasing the Roadrunner.

Was this in the War DD? I'll have to read that. I guess it's too early to say anything before we learn more about it, but.. I still hope there is a certain distance limit for the raiding to be possible. Like I said earlier, it would seem strange to suddenly get harassed by an enemy army that entered the Kola province on one end, while you are (according to the tooltip) well beyond it's borders and one day away from entering the next region on the opposite end. Realistically there would be hundreds of kilometeres distance between the armies.
I suppose breaking up the large provinces into smaller ones, which Paradox are doing, could make a nice counter to this immersion breaker though.

I agree regarding the home province speed bonus for commanders. It makes sense to me.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

On #2, they have said that battles represent whole campaigns. So if you are in the same province, there is alot of skirmishing and raiding etc. It's not exact, but I think decent enough. Maybe they can designate more clearly what is the raiding part. And I like the idea that 2 armies decide NOT to fight each other if their commanders have that personality or you order them such.

The automatic battle for a week or two doesn't resemble what campaigns, even in a single county, were like historically. This is best illustrated by when ~2000 men squash ~100; in reality, the 100 could easily avoid the 2000. While they might take casualties from skirmishers, the small army would remain mostly intact (unless it was ambushed) unless the men wanted to disband.

 

[raven63]

A somewhat related suggestion: eve of battle negotiations. Right before battle starts, the **commanders** engage in negotiations. The commanders may agree to avoid confrontation in exchange for money, prisoners, a peace offer, etc. Maybe your commander can betray you in these negotiations, but that should be rare.

On second thought, I don't know if we should expect anything like that since the game itself will not have a more sophisticated peace negotiation mechanism, as far as I know.

 

[Dayvit78]

A somewhat related suggestion: eve of battle negotiations. Right before battle starts, the **commanders** engage in negotiations. The commanders may agree to avoid confrontation in exchange for money, prisoners, a peace offer, etc. Maybe your commander can betray you in these negotiations, but that should be rare.

On second thought, I don't know if we should expect anything like that since the game itself will not have a more sophisticated peace negotiation mechanism, as far as I know.

You saying that reminds me of the broken diplomacy in Total War series. For example, in both Napoleon and the new Three Kingdoms, there is an option to demand surrender when a siege begins. Obviously, you're not going to surrender and the AI never does either. So what's the point of having that option there?

Fortunately the diplomatic AI in Paradox games is way ahead of Total War. But I still wouldn't trust it to be able to respond appropriately. It sounds like a fun idea though.

 

[PeterFSR]

What about copying the idea from Stellaris, that armies can have stances like aggressive, passive, and evasive? The AI will then set these stances as needed, for example they'll set the aggressive stance only if they are confident, or desperate.
Another possible benefit is that by setting armies to passive stance, they'll be able to peacefully walk past the enemy's rebels, although this function might be more useful in EU4.

 

[raven63]

You saying that reminds me of the broken diplomacy in Total War series. For example, in both Napoleon and the new Three Kingdoms, there is an option to demand surrender when a siege begins. Obviously, you're not going to surrender and the AI never does either. So what's the point of having that option there?

Fortunately the diplomatic AI in Paradox games is way ahead of Total War. But I still wouldn't trust it to be able to respond appropriately. It sounds like a fun idea though.

Why never surrender? Because there is nothing to gain from it, so you might as well fight it out to at least inflict some damage. If you had something to gain, like safety of your nobles or whatever it would be different.

BTW, the AI in three kingdoms does surrender, a lot.