I fully agree with you and others in this thread, but it cracks me up that people here hate the micro-heavy war system, yet in Victoria 3, people want a return to the micro-heavy war system.
- 1
Warfare: Historical accuracy
- Thread starter sandro chronicler
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
yeah I was with the Victoria 3 devs from the start on that change. The problem is more with the finer details of the implementation than anything else. That said, I definitely think armies in the medieval era should be represented as singular units as opposed to the fronts of Vicky.
- 6
- 1
I'm sure some/many CK3 players like the micro-heavy system and will complain if CK3 ever moves to less micro-heavy system. It's just that they currently have the system they enjoy so there is no reason for them to post regularly about it.
It gives the topic a bit of a catch-22 feel for the devs, I am sure. Especially with the possibility that some-to-many of those who don't like the current setup also won't like its replacement should they come up with one.
- 2
And those that are unhappy are always louder in their complaining than those who enjoy the change and play the game.
- 3
- 1
I basically agree, but I think it's also critical to address the knight/MAA/levy power disparity. Playing revolt whack-a-mole is incredibly frustrating when you, as the top liege, have significantly more troops but also a significantly weaker military because knights and MAA scale more with numbers of involved rulers than with the power of the involved rulers. That's especially true when the involved rulers are of your same culture. It is very dumb being an emperor who can call on ~25 knights and having to fight four dukes who can each call on ~16 knights when knights make up the bulk of the killing power of an army.
- 5
- 3
I'd just be happy if I never have to hunt down another peasant rebel stack ever again.
You're a bunch of random, angry peasants, who have finally reached a breaking point and are going to rise up against your oppressors!
If you are going to go ahead and force me to raise my army to fight you, the least you could do is stand and fight. Not immediately run away, or worse, get on a boat and sit there indefinitely waiting for an opening.
You're a bunch of random, angry peasants, who have finally reached a breaking point and are going to rise up against your oppressors!
If you are going to go ahead and force me to raise my army to fight you, the least you could do is stand and fight. Not immediately run away, or worse, get on a boat and sit there indefinitely waiting for an opening.
- 8
Embarking costs money and peasant revolts shouldn't be able to do it (unless maybe the culture has a nautical tradition like Dexterous Fishermen or something).
- 4
Unfortunately, Paradox has other games with Manpower, and Manpower is universally meme'd on and hated in those games.I did post my suggestion here:
Idea for a new levy system
I see a lot of people dislike the current levy system because they are worse than Men at arms. Also, they are the same everywhere, killing regional diversity (Mongols use peasants with pitchforks instead of well trained horse archers)...forum.paradoxplaza.com
- 3
- 2
That strikes me as less of a bug and more of a feature. Crusader Kings is designed to be structurally unstable, and a part of that is the disproportionate military power at lower levels in order to facilitate the overthrow of unpopular higher-level rulers. Rulers have many advantages as is- military asymetry in favor of the vassals in different ways is a key balancer against that, and is in keeping with the primary challenge of the game in keeping one's power bases controlled.
- 4
- 2
Which is non-existent as CK3 is currently constructed. True guerilla warfare would never have a hostile army attack your army or even present itself as a discrete army. It would be countless small groups destroying your infrastructure and ambushing your troops constantly.
The Control mechanic does a poor job of that as it is easily boosted, way too predictable, and represents administrative control more than anything.
The only Paradox game that comes close to displaying guerilla warfare in a satisfactory way is Hoi 4.
- 8
- 1
- 1
To be clear, I don't think it's a bug; it's just a design choice I disagree with. Personally, I'd like to see relationships with knights matter, with knights choosing to sit out or switch sides based on their opinion of the liege and the vassal.
There's a broader discussion to be had about the tools available for power base control, but I don't think this thread is the right place for it.
- 5
Not to hijack but I have wanted a loyalty system in this game since launch. Vassals or knights defecting means you actually have to care for them
- 4
- 1
- 1
Here is important to remember that it's really big difference between "part time" and professional* (by medieval standards) warriors. As a good example we have battle of Visby. This was relatively affluent region, and archaeological findings confirm that local militia had somewhat decent equipment. Furthermore, as this are Baltic, raids and counter-raids was common in the area, so this farmers had some experience. Nevertheless, when facing professional feudal army they was utterly annihilated.
*important to note that many successful sergeants-at-arms arranged for employment for their sons, thus creatine dynasties of soldiers, trained from childhood not unlike knights they served.
Battle of golden spurs often called example when militia defeated knightly cavalry, but there important to remember that this was urban militia of ultra-rich cities, they was holding very defensive ground, and that, eventually, they lost this war. (and this militia are counted among MaA anyway..)
You can buff levies with army-wide bonuses, like from accolades or metalworkers tradition (however, with basic 10 toughness, i not sure how it's 5% bonus will be rounded...)
Technically longbowmen was peasant (yeoman) militia, just unusually well trained thank to government arranged competitions (+ their effectiveness often exaggerated - in most of battles of hundred year war they fought on advantageous terrane). And it wasn't infantry, but dismounted cavalry. Similarly most of french cavalry fought dismounted. But this point i left for later.
Nomadic horse archers are undoubtedly iconic, but it important to remember that they also had melee light and heavy cavalry. Additionally, many successful nomadic states had more sedentary tributaries - both states and as scattered settlements in their own territory - which could provide some infantry if required. Like for sieges or fighting in difficult terrain.
This i completely agree with.
That's what i talked about under "feudalism" entry. Realistically in such situation emperor would have access to knights/MaA of his loyal vassals (and this vassals themselves if they are knights).
- 4
And armies running around in circles that is highly accurate in historical medievil warfare!
- 1
Gold is already too powerful in this game, according to some. Making levies worse is probably not the way to go.
The game is in pretty dire need of deflationary pricing truthfully. Its too easy to get a lot of gold very quickly.
5. cavalry
So, many people here already know that, while early medieval european warfare was dominated by infantry, since Carolingian times cavalry became supreme force on the battlefield. (in Eastern Europe Alans and Bolgarse started to rely on heavy cavalry even earlier). Not everybody realising how much dominant cavalry was (myth about peasant levies undoubtedly was a factor). Arguably carolingian army (real feudal army, not counting garnisons and militya) was entirely made from cavalry (numbers are debatable, remember...). Things stayed that way for most of High Middle Ages (_, _, _ - note how unexpected militia resistance was in last example). In fact, in one case chronicler describe use of foot (dismounted?) sergeants in battle as some sort of groundbreaking innovation
Here important to remember that knights and sergeants WILL fight on foot* if required, like during sieges (on both sides) or in uneven terrain. In other words "Armored Footmen" often wasn't footmen at all.
Interestingly, there also number of examples when infantry was mentioned by chronists as part of knightly army yet did nothing in battle itself, or when commanders attempted to use cavalry only and use infantry only as last resort. In some cases there clarification that foot forces present were just armed servants, guarding camp/baggage train. And presumably other support forces (archers/crossbowmen also usually counted among foot troops, separation of melee infantry is modern videogame concept).After all, medieval warfare was characterised by sieges, and while knights would assault walls, they definitely wouldn't dig trenches or cobble ladders
Another interesting thing, scottish schiltron are quite famous example of infantry successfully resisting cavalry, and it often depicted as scottish commoner militia fighting snobbish english aristocrats, utilising underdog narrative (i heard that many in Scotland dont like such depictions, since in reality Scotland was affluent and highly developed feudal kingdom too). Truth is, often schiltrons was formed from dismounted knights (note composition of scottish army) - they had inferior horses, often slightly lighter equipment and less experience in mounted combat, so they improvised.
*here we have interesting trend in french doctrine. At Crécy they used series of classic cavalry charges, which was defeated in large part thank to superior position of english. Modern tests show that longbows aren't nearly as effective against good armor as many believe, but presumably was perfectly effective against unarmored horses. And daggers and short swords of archers was proved quite effective against knights that has just fallen from horses... At Poitiers, where english again had superior position, they at first attacked mounted, then continued their futile attacks on foot. At Agincourt almost all of their cavalry dismounted and charged on foot (uphill, on muddy terrain...), with even more disastrous results. Then, at Verneuil, they (and their scottish allies) dismounted again, while hired milanese knights attacked mounted, but this time with armored horses. They charged through english line like bunch of bowling balls, then started to rob their camp, assuming that battle already won. Had french followed their attack with old fashioned charge this would be the case, but instead english had time to regroup, and defeat them.
Notably, after that french returned to older doctrine, and used it more or less successfully until the end of 16th century...
So, many people here already know that, while early medieval european warfare was dominated by infantry, since Carolingian times cavalry became supreme force on the battlefield. (in Eastern Europe Alans and Bolgarse started to rely on heavy cavalry even earlier). Not everybody realising how much dominant cavalry was (myth about peasant levies undoubtedly was a factor). Arguably carolingian army (real feudal army, not counting garnisons and militya) was entirely made from cavalry (numbers are debatable, remember...). Things stayed that way for most of High Middle Ages (_, _, _ - note how unexpected militia resistance was in last example). In fact, in one case chronicler describe use of foot (dismounted?) sergeants in battle as some sort of groundbreaking innovation
Here important to remember that knights and sergeants WILL fight on foot* if required, like during sieges (on both sides) or in uneven terrain. In other words "Armored Footmen" often wasn't footmen at all.
Interestingly, there also number of examples when infantry was mentioned by chronists as part of knightly army yet did nothing in battle itself, or when commanders attempted to use cavalry only and use infantry only as last resort. In some cases there clarification that foot forces present were just armed servants, guarding camp/baggage train. And presumably other support forces (archers/crossbowmen also usually counted among foot troops, separation of melee infantry is modern videogame concept).After all, medieval warfare was characterised by sieges, and while knights would assault walls, they definitely wouldn't dig trenches or cobble ladders
Another interesting thing, scottish schiltron are quite famous example of infantry successfully resisting cavalry, and it often depicted as scottish commoner militia fighting snobbish english aristocrats, utilising underdog narrative (i heard that many in Scotland dont like such depictions, since in reality Scotland was affluent and highly developed feudal kingdom too). Truth is, often schiltrons was formed from dismounted knights (note composition of scottish army) - they had inferior horses, often slightly lighter equipment and less experience in mounted combat, so they improvised.
*here we have interesting trend in french doctrine. At Crécy they used series of classic cavalry charges, which was defeated in large part thank to superior position of english. Modern tests show that longbows aren't nearly as effective against good armor as many believe, but presumably was perfectly effective against unarmored horses. And daggers and short swords of archers was proved quite effective against knights that has just fallen from horses... At Poitiers, where english again had superior position, they at first attacked mounted, then continued their futile attacks on foot. At Agincourt almost all of their cavalry dismounted and charged on foot (uphill, on muddy terrain...), with even more disastrous results. Then, at Verneuil, they (and their scottish allies) dismounted again, while hired milanese knights attacked mounted, but this time with armored horses. They charged through english line like bunch of bowling balls, then started to rob their camp, assuming that battle already won. Had french followed their attack with old fashioned charge this would be the case, but instead english had time to regroup, and defeat them.
Notably, after that french returned to older doctrine, and used it more or less successfully until the end of 16th century...
- 2
- 1
It is very much plausible that many of these sources you are citing are confusing mounted infantry (infantry who maneuver with horses) and cavalry (solders who fight on horseback). Early Germans (IE likely tactics Franks inherited) were noted by Romans for their use of mounted infantry. Mounted infantry are known to be quite prevalent in history outside of this and the game does not make a distinction between mounted infantry and marching infantry. It is quite plausible that the role of cavalry is overstated as to the untrained eye mounted infantry look like cavalry, even if they're never intended to fight on horseback.
It is clear that heavy cavalry in-game are meant to be heavily armored, fighting mostly with lance (read description) and as you note, these soldiers can also fight dismounted With that in mind even in non-ideal terrain, CK3 heavy cavalry will have more toughness and damage than heavy infantry, with their damage only going lower than heavy infantry if they are heavily countered. This seems to represent this ability just fine (if you take issue with the "countering" aspect, I point again to my argument that MAA are less about equipment, more about formation and unit tactics, a dismounted heavy cavalryman still does not have the formation experience of a trained heavy infantryman).
Is there a specific realism/gameplay change you're looking for? I can't find it in your post, the game seems fine to me in this regard.
It is clear that heavy cavalry in-game are meant to be heavily armored, fighting mostly with lance (read description) and as you note, these soldiers can also fight dismounted With that in mind even in non-ideal terrain, CK3 heavy cavalry will have more toughness and damage than heavy infantry, with their damage only going lower than heavy infantry if they are heavily countered. This seems to represent this ability just fine (if you take issue with the "countering" aspect, I point again to my argument that MAA are less about equipment, more about formation and unit tactics, a dismounted heavy cavalryman still does not have the formation experience of a trained heavy infantryman).
Is there a specific realism/gameplay change you're looking for? I can't find it in your post, the game seems fine to me in this regard.
- 3
Most of this battles has explicit cavalry charges in descriptions. Considering that chroniclers typically was quite surprised when infantry was able tu repel such charge, it make sense that most rulers would rely primarily on cavalry. Notably, even in late middle ages and shortly after (period from which we have somewhat more reliable sources), when foot troops demonstrated their mettle, ccavalry still was used as main attack. For example aforementioned gendarmes was initially accompanied by medium cavalryman and two mounted archers (who also was equipped for melee combat on foot), but later archers was replaced with more medium cavalrymen. Similarly, we have example of germanic crusaders in hussite wars, who used armies composed almost entirely from heavy cavalry (with mixed results...). Further to the east Poland/Lithuania/PLC also used heavy cavalry based armies even centuries after middle ages.
I see several things that could be changed, preferably in modular/customizable way. But my time right now are limited...