What I think are important war mechanics that should be added:
Here are a few more suggestions that would make this game more realistic:
- In the 'Hundred Years War', the entire thing revolved around the 'Chevauchée' which is the raiding of surrounding countryside and towns to both weaken the enemy and pay for the army. At the start of the war the kingdom of England was very poor, just as barren as modern day Norway. But it became very rich through the constant raiding of the French landscape. The French did the same to the English when they could, devastating the English coastal areas (burning Plymouth for example about 4 times) but could not as much when their navy was destroyed in the 'Battle of Sluys'. The kingdom of France beforehand was very rich but became the opposite so much so that it influenced their central government collapsing after the 'Battle of Poitiers'.
- A good way to develop the war mechanics of the game would be to add an option to expand the tile the army is on to reveal different terrains you could situate your army on that would give various buffs and debuffs. For example, small hills could offer advantages to archers and forests could put penalties on horses for both the attacker and the defender. This could be developed to enable the player to ambush the enemy or encircle the main enemy force or flank with cavalry etc. I'm suggesting something simple like a square grid with different terrains on it to make battles something fun in the game.
- Logistics is something lightly touched on in Ck2 in which an army may experience attrition when going into Scandinavia or mountain ranges. I think this should be developed so that it becomes something the player can control as it was very important during military campaigns. Logistics became a large problem in the Crusades for example when the Crusaders' first priority was to capture ports so they could import food or to capture the cities they were besieging as fast as possible so they could gain access to their supplies. This was a serious issue as the crusaders were having to resort at times to eating their own horses to not starve to death. 'Charlemagne' at nearly all points during his campaigns into Saxony, Avars ect had at least 12,000 oxen carrying carts to supply his soldiers. Including this can also go hand-in-hand with other features such as adding an option to raid supply routes of an army or using the scorched earth policy as was done many times in history to avoid the very pivotal land battles.
- Organisation though might be the most important factor to an army of them all as a large and powerful army is nothing without its cohesion. I really think this should be a factor in the armies in Ck2 as history has repeated itself over and over proving in the end numbers could mean nothing in a battle. This could make battles truly as pivotal as they were viewed in the medieval era. Yet in Ck2 battles are just a matter of whether you have more soldiers or your commander at times is very good. Yet you cannot get battles in which the heavily outmatched force wins the battle. Examples during the medieval era include the battles of: Crecy, Agincourt, Bouvines, Vaslui, outside Antioch (First Crusade), Baia, Muret ect.
- Another important feature that should be added in this game that has been completely left out is naval battles. They proved to be quiet pivotal in the 'Hundred Years War' or typically in defense against Jihads. They should also yet again not be a matter of numbers as wind direction, current and composition should be the deciding factors as proven in Sluys and Salamis.
Here are a few more suggestions that would make this game more realistic:
- The king of the realm in the medieval era would usually heavily influence the equipment his army would use. 'Charlemagne' for example over the course of his reign started using heavy cavalry which was very unheard of so early in the medieval ages. Franks beforehand were usually limited to being spearmen when conscripted as they were expected to buy all of the equipment. Horses were very expensive and 'Charlemagne' almost halved the price of horses during his reign from 12 to 7 solidi. What I'm suggesting here is that there should be an option to modify the army comps somehow without having to build specialized barracks for them.
- An expansion on the previous point, armour and weaponry should be influenced over the culture and time period in which it is built. For example, the Gothic plate armour and the Italian plate armour were very different and indeed used by people as the name suggests. I notice how the portraits of characters in battle are always restricted to the nasal helmet which is very inaccurate as well as a generalized model for armies being used all the time, still quiet restrictive to the time period even with the dlc. It would be quiet cool is more representations of what they actually had was added.
- Implementing a participants system within armies so that people who are in charge of the levies raised can be added to it. This would fit in with the reality of medieval warfare as this would bring a larger possibility that characters important to the realm may be captured or killed in battle. Ransoming lords captured in battle was very common in the medieval era and all sorts of random people made small fortunes in this business. Deaths of multitudes of counts and dukes was also very common. In the current game this is touched on minimally with one character being captured around every 10 battles or a duel event that can kill one of the commanders. I'm suggesting it should be a lot more likely that the capturing or deaths of many lords could happen. This could be shown to the player in a list on the battle summary.
- Making the capturing of a king a lot more devastating for the realm which the king controls. During the 'Hundred Years War', at the end of the 'Battle of Poitiers 1356' the French king, 'John II' and his son were both captured. This led to the central government collapsing and they had to pay a ridiculously large ransom to gain him back in the 'Treaty of Brétigny' in which at one point they would give 3 million crowns (a lot of money) and a third of the landmass of France in return for the king. In the end they paid only the 3 million crowns. In this game I captured the Holy Roman Emperor in battle once and I could only sell him back (hoping the price would be very large) for a measly 300 credits.
- Allowing players to bribe invaders or raiders to leave (as was commonly done in the viking age in Europe and especially in Britain, a famous example including the 'Siege of Paris 845' in which 'Charles the Bald' offered 2 and a half tonnes of silver and gold to 'Ragnarr Lodbrok' in exchange for him and his army to leave the defeaten Paris). In the current game this is touched on but I reckon an option for offering gold would be worthwhile.
- In the medieval era it was rather common for the king to find himself without an heir. This was mainly because in that era only one in two babies would survive past the age of one. I know implementing this would lower the performance of the game but if Paradox just makes child death a possibility it would just be a little something that adds onto the already realistic game and makes it much more annoying. Also things such as deformities that affected people like possibly 'Ivar the Boneless' (could've reflected his impotence) and Charlemagne's first son 'Pepin the Hunchback'.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
