Suggestion/Idea - Fortified stance

[Axis89]

Hello, before I begin explaining I would like to say that construcitve criticism, ideas building on top of this idea or alternate solutions are welcome, but if you just disagree I would appreciate it if you just click disagree instead of creating a discussion when your mind is alreeady set. BUT please do click disagree to show your disagreement, and hopefully click agree or write alternate solutions or small tweaks.

If you agree, or agree somewhat, please click agree and leave a comment as it makes the thread visible to Paradox.
(All above is just a wish, if you want to argue with people, I cant tell you not to )

SO THE IDEA

Fortified stance, you might think about total war armies encampment etc, but my idea is that your armies can use existing castles to strengthen its position for battle.
Simply put, in addition to terrain, a castle could boost your defensive bonus a lot, making it possible to win battles you wouldnt in open battle.
This way a weaker nation which does not have terrain advantages like mountains, and mountain passes can hold out longer or even survive the war IF it has enough forces combined with enough fortress level.

WHATS THE CATCH?
So whats the catch you might think, this alone is over powered, and acts like another terrain bonus or a "hidden army count" you might think(Or you might think of something else, but how would I know).
Well, firstly I thought that a castle level(Castle size/level etc like in CK2) has a certain army limit it can hide behind its walls.
So if you have a 2300 man army and the castle can hold 1800, well then you have to decide if its better to fight in open battle somewhere good, or leave 500 men outside as a separate army.
The idea is that the more you invest in castle building(And at the right spots) the bigger the advantage at a defensive war.

THATS IT?
Nope, other ideas to counter the great advantage of fighting in fortified stance is that you cannot move for a certain time(A month?), and after a battle that timer resets again so that a fortified army cannot pursue, and the fortified army wont be able to "rund down enemy" at the end of an battle, but it will make the attackers pack up and leave the province to lick their wounds.
Lastly, if the attackers do win the battle the fortified army gets stackwiped, and all characters gets either killed or captured, except some few lucky who managed to escape somehow, either disguised as a comoner, or through a secret tunnel etc(Low chance though).

WHY?
Well, as mentioned it will make certain provinces and nations who would get steamrolled have a chance at defending themselves IF they invest in the defensive structures. It also makes the player have a tactical choice, and investing in castles at chokepoints will create an even bigger strategic value in terms of game play.
So build your castle in that mountain pass, or build that fortress at the river crossing, important city or whatever, and dont lose it!

I NEED YOUR HELP!
Now this is rough, but now I need your insight and ideas, what other negatives do we need to balance the benefits? How big should the benefit be?
Discuss, be polite, tweak, adjust or propose alternate ideas even, but most important, keep posting here and vote, as that makes this visible to Paradox if you do like this to be seen

Thank you for your time!

 

[Cyhort]

I'll give this a tentative like. I don't think this is a necessary mechanic, but it could be an interesting one if done right. My concern is that it would change the meta of the game so much that playing it as currently intended might become difficult/impossible. That said, I'm basing this off how I personally play CK2 (running down armies and cutting off reinforcements while sieging capitals), and I already know a lot of that won't be possible in 3 the way it is in 2. So I could be wrong.

 

[Axis89]

I'll give this a tentative like. I don't think this is a necessary mechanic, but it could be an interesting one if done right. My concern is that it would change the meta of the game so much that playing it as currently intended might become difficult/impossible. That said, I'm basing this off how I personally play CK2 (running down armies and cutting off reinforcements while sieging capitals), and I already know a lot of that won't be possible in 3 the way it is in 2. So I could be wrong.

Appreciate your tentative support, please come back here if you have ideas on how it could work or how you personally would want it to work.

One thing is that Paradox have told us that a Stand and fight mechanic will be in place, where the A.I will pick a favorable spot and stay for a month every noewand then, so maybe making the A.I have a little more tools to actually stand and fight will create some good challenges in medieval warfare.

 

[Ezumiyr]

That's not really how medieval warfare worked, though.
Generally armies agreed for a battleground and gathered there, then fought and saw who was winning. Then they stopped before everyone was killed, and declared a victor.

If anything, battles should be changed so that they aren't fought til the last man. Stackwipe in particular doesn't make any sense in a medieval context.

Gameplay-wise, I also fear that this suggestion would make wars more tedious. armies would look each other in the eyes, the attacker refusing to attack as long as the defender remains within their castles. It would encourage turtleing, which is satisfying for a few players, but also boring. And it would likely be easily exploitable against the AI.

Overall I don't perceive the need for it, and the suggestion feels like it was written by a EU4 player. Let's keep in mind that we aren't playing as nations, and the game isn't about map painting through endless wars that completely wipe out entire countries. In CK3 we have a series of claims, and wars can be decided after a few battles only. If the enemies need to siege some counties, it can be costly for them. That's a completely different system from EU4 where you manage manpower and occupy entire countries to grab as much as possible.

 

[Axis89]

That's not really how medieval warfare worked, though.
Generally armies agreed for a battleground and gathered there, then fought and saw who was winning. Then they stopped before everyone was killed, and declared a victor.

If anything, battles should be changed so that they aren't fought til the last man. Stackwipe in particular doesn't make any sense in a medieval context.

Gameplay-wise, I also fear that this suggestion would make wars more tedious. armies would look each other in the eyes, the attacker refusing to attack as long as the defender remains within their castles. It would encourage turtleing, which is satisfying for a few players, but also boring. And it would likely be easily exploitable against the AI.

Overall I don't perceive the need for it, and the suggestion feels like it was written by a EU4 player. Let's keep in mind that we aren't playing as nations, and the game isn't about map painting through endless wars that completely wipe out entire countries. In CK3 we have a series of claims, and wars can be decided after a few battles only. If the enemies need to siege some counties, it can be costly for them. That's a completely different system from EU4 where you manage manpower and occupy entire countries to grab as much as possible.

Although I appreciate your opinion here, you do come with some baseless accusations to make a point for your opinion. Saying I am an EU3 players, that the idea would satisfy a few players, reminding me and others that the true value of the game lies somewhere else. You just come accross as arrogant, and your arguments are shallow.

But yes, your subjective opinion that it wont be to your liking because it might make the game play tedious, and AI might not understand it is legit, though it is based on IF, IF it isnt worked out right the AI might be exploited etc. But yes, IF thats the case then it will be a problem.

One more thing, you refer to what medieval warfare is, and narrate a very narrow perspective, it might be correct, but the description is so narrow it wont fit all medieval combat, from all areas and ages.
What you describe is for example very well known to happen in Italy for example, but then again, medieval combat encompasses battles between viking chiefs in Scandinavia, crusade/jihad battles, reconquista, middle eastern warfare and Ghengis Khan. The last one wasnt exactly famous for sparing people and being "civil" in warfare.
So basically you described one single mosaic piece, not the whole mosaic artwork.

BUT I would love to hear your alternate idea, or construcitve criticism for this to work, and also, if you dont like the idea anyway, please vote disagree

Kind regards
A CK1, CK2 and future CK3 player.

 

[Riamus]

If anything, battles should be changed so that they aren't fought til the last man. Stackwipe in particular doesn't make any sense in a medieval context.

Other than rebels, how often do you see an entire army killed in a battle in CK2? Unless one side has virtually no soldiers, the fight will typically end with one side running away. Now, maybe a different gameplay rule changes this (I have shattered retreat enabled in my games, for example, and haven't tried changing that setting), but I don't think that's the case. Even if it is a game rule, then you could still easily play the game without what you're describing.

 

[elvain]

I think this is already included in the fact that the defender - the army, which is in the province first - has a defensive bonus against the attacker, especially if we consider that the terrain is said to play much larger role.

 

[klopkr]

I like this idea but I'm not sure a stance is what I'd like to see as much as an option to garrison troops in castles and therefore only they can choose to engage in combat until the castle is seiged down with large bonuses to the castle.

Basically you would set an army to garrison a castle making it significantly better defended and will cause large amount of attrition to seigers but with a shorter length of time before it runs out of supplies. The trade off is if you lose the seige your whole army is getting wiped.

The gambit is essentially to spend manpower to significantly buff castles so as to make them too pricey to siege with the downside being a huge loss of your manpower and armies if your gambit fails.

Perfect for small defensible realms fighting on short borders. Also for keeping out raiders who will get bored and look for easier targets.

 

[Axis89]

That's not really how medieval warfare worked, though.
Generally armies agreed for a battleground and gathered there, then fought and saw who was winning. Then they stopped before everyone was killed, and declared a victor.

If anything, battles should be changed so that they aren't fought til the last man. Stackwipe in particular doesn't make any sense in a medieval context.

Gameplay-wise, I also fear that this suggestion would make wars more tedious. armies would look each other in the eyes, the attacker refusing to attack as long as the defender remains within their castles. It would encourage turtleing, which is satisfying for a few players, but also boring. And it would likely be easily exploitable against the AI.

Overall I don't perceive the need for it, and the suggestion feels like it was written by a EU4 player. Let's keep in mind that we aren't playing as nations, and the game isn't about map painting through endless wars that completely wipe out entire countries. In CK3 we have a series of claims, and wars can be decided after a few battles only. If the enemies need to siege some counties, it can be costly for them. That's a completely different system from EU4 where you manage manpower and occupy entire countries to grab as much as possible.

Although I appreciate your opinion here, you do come with some baseless accusations to make a point for your opinion. Saying I am an EU3 players, that the idea would satisfy a few players, reminding me and others that the true value of the game lies somewhere else. You just come accross as arrogant, and your arguments are shallow.

But yes, your subjective opinion that it wont be to your liking because it might make the game play tedious, and AI might not understand it is legit, though it is based on IF, IF it isnt worked out right the AI might be exploited etc. But yes, IF thats the case then it will be a problem.

One more thing, you refer to what medieval warfare is, and narrate a very narrow perspective, it might be correct, but the description is so narrow it wont fit all medieval combat, from all areas and ages.
What you describe is for example very well known to happen in Italy for example, but then again, medieval combat encompasses battles between viking chiefs in Scandinavia, crusade/jihad battles, reconquista, middle eastern warfare and Ghengis Khan. The last one wasnt exactly famous for sparing people and being "civil" in warfare.
So basically you described one single mosaic piece, not the whole mosaic artwork.

BUT I would love to hear your alternate idea, or construcitve criticism for this to work, and also, if you dont like the idea anyway, please vote disagree

Kind regards
A CK1, CK2 and future CK3 player.

I like this idea but I'm not sure a stance is what I'd like to see as much as an option to garrison troops in castles and therefore only they can choose to engage in combat until the castle is seiged down with large bonuses to the castle.

Basically you would set an army to garrison a castle making it significantly better defended and will cause large amount of attrition to seigers but with a shorter length of time before it runs out of supplies. The trade off is if you lose the seige your whole army is getting wiped.

The gambit is essentially to spend manpower to significantly buff castles so as to make them too pricey to siege with the downside being a huge loss of your manpower and armies if your gambit fails.

Perfect for small defensible realms fighting on short borders. Also for keeping out raiders who will get bored and look for easier targets.

Hmm thats also an interesting approach, that could work too, adding actual manpower(And maybe type of soldiers levy/manatarms/knights) to the castle in addition to the garrison, making it much harder to assault.
Id would also like to see a building type which stores food, so you could invest in hold out time before running out, not being the same as defensiveness. Maybe.

But couldnt castles and fort also boost defensiveness in open battles, or increase chance of escaping a losing battle more likely? (Escaping the chase/run down phase)

 

[klopkr]

But couldnt castles and fort also boost defensiveness in open battles, or increase chance of escaping a losing battle more likely? (Escaping the chase/run down phase)

I agree. If there was an option to retreat back into castles when you lose a battle, even the one in the province you fought in that would be realistic and a great additional dimension to this.

 

[InvisibleBison]

But couldnt castles and fort also boost defensiveness in open battles, or increase chance of escaping a losing battle more likely? (Escaping the chase/run down phase)

In theory, but I think most armies are going to be too big to fit into most castles.

 

[Axis89]

In theory, but I think most armies are going to be too big to fit into most castles.

Yes thats why the size of that castle equals how many can be saved. Also, even the biggest castles/fortresses have a limit to what they can support. So this is both an investment but it isnt a perfect save all men solution either.

 

[philanthropic19]

I disagree because:

1. Medieval castles are things that you don't want to assault. Instead, you lay siege to them. This is precisely because the castle is a strong defensive position and the attacker is likely to suffer a large number of casualties trying to assault it.
2. So if the defender's army is "fortified" in a castle, the attacker should simply siege it (like they already do in-game).
3. As far as I remember from CK2, if you don't raise the levies of a holding, the levies count towards the garrison and hence the attacker needs a larger army to successfully siege the holding. This kinda serves as the "fortified" nature of said levies. Perhaps a similar situation is in CK3 as well.