When Did CK2 Become Benny Hill?

[Fishman786]

Medieval wars were sometimes won with battles, pitched battles were very decisive in the middle ages. However, they didn't happen very often for various reasons. CKII is very unrealistic in these regards, since combatants will keep raising new forces even after a decisive blow has been struck, two armies occupying the same province will inevitably clash and every single siege either lasts many months or ends in a bloody assault.

This is mainly due to the AI, rather than any deeper issue with the combat. A player understands that their army is necessary in order for them to maintain power and won't risk throwing it all away just to defend a single county, and a player understands that besieged castles are basically already occupied if they have no army left to drive the enemy out. When a player loses a significant battle they prefer to cut their losses early and surrender, unless they're trying to repel an attack that will leave them landless. The AI does not understand this, and will treat every single war as if they're the Soviets fighting the Nazis. It's also problematic that there is no way to negotiate the surrender of a besieged fortress early, and no way to actually avoid combat with enemy armies in the same province.

At the moment, siege assaults (and to an extent sieges in general) are very costly affairs to be avoided at all costs, whereas battles are a great low-risk way to gain warscore. It should really be the other way around. Sieges should be frequent and usually relatively bloodless, assaults should be much less costly if the attacker significantly outnumbers the defenders, sieges should count for war-score even if the holding in question is not yet taken and actual clashes between armies need to be very risky affairs that can change the entire outcome of the war. In CKII, armies are the source of all political power, it's impossible to rule without loyal soldiers to back you up, and the rules of warfare need to recognise that.

 

[BrokenSky]

That would not be retreat but desertion.

Desertion would be if they disbanded and were gone. This is them going back to their respective provinces as levies which can be re-raised, rather than sitting around to get re-stomped over and over.

But like I said, it's a side-grade to the current system, better in that it doesn't feel as stupid as the whole benny hill thing, but worse in that it makes it a little harder to come back after a major loss (but only a little harder), and it does make it take longer/harder to siege your castles when they have their levies added to the defenders.

At the moment, siege assaults (and to an extent sieges in general) are very costly affairs to be avoided at all costs, whereas battles are a great low-risk way to gain warscore. It should really be the other way around. Sieges should be frequent and usually relatively bloodless, assaults should be much less costly if the attacker significantly outnumbers the defenders, sieges should count for war-score even if the holding in question is not yet taken and actual clashes between armies need to be very risky affairs that can change the entire outcome of the war. In CKII, armies are the source of all political power, it's impossible to rule without loyal soldiers to back you up, and the rules of warfare need to recognise that.

I disagree that assaults should be less costly (though I agree with everything else you said); the point of the fortifications is that you can effectively defend against forces half a dozen times larger than you or more; I feel like assaults should be painful and costly ... if the assault actually happens. In this hypothetical scenario I am advocating, when you launch an assault there is a chance that the defenders would surrender outright before the assault happens (possibly at some benefit to the defender, for example considerably reduced loss of prosperity due to occupation), with the chance modified by the comparative strengths of attacker and defender, the martial skill of the attacking and defending leaders, fort level and traits like brave (more likely to fight), craven (more likely to surrender), lunatic (more random), zealot (more likely to fight vs. religious enemies) etc. Having overwhelming numbers should make victory by surrender very likely except against very skilled enemy generals. In the event of the assault going ahead though, a skilled enemy commander should be able to make you pay dearly for assaulting, even with a high ratio of attackers.

but yeah, aside from that I agree that sieges should be far less costly to the defender (e.g. does not drain levy pool on occupation) and the attacker (less attrition, often getting events which sap your army) and battles should be both rarer (the AI actually values it's army) and more costly (reduced levy restore speed).

 

[_Perun_]

Desertion would be if they disbanded and were gone.

I dare to disagree, my fellow CK2 player. It would be more like "So I lost my motivation to fight, I am going to desert my duty and go back to the barracks of my hometown where the fire is warm and the roasted meet is tasty, not to mention girls. Hopefully nobody will notice I no longer defend the kingdom".
Being stomped over and over again, like without the shattered retreat is the worst. Being raised anywhere, even far away in the mountains after two months retreat has always some kind of strategic importance.

 

[Fishman786]

I dare to disagree, my fellow CK2 player. It would be more like "So I lost my motivation to fight, I am going to desert my duty and go back to the barracks of my hometown where the fire is warm and the roasted meet is tasty, not to mention girls. Hopefully nobody will notice I no longer defend the kingdom".
Being stomped over and over again, like without the shattered retreat is the worst. Being raised anywhere, even far away in the mountains after two months retreat has always some kind of strategic importance.

If you deserted, why would you return to your barracks and risk getting brutally punished? You'd run off to some town somewhere and lie low making nails or looking after pigs.

 

[BrokenSky]

I dare to disagree, my fellow CK2 player. It would be more like "So I lost my motivation to fight, I am going to desert my duty and go back to the barracks of my hometown where the fire is warm and the roasted meet is tasty, not to mention girls. Hopefully nobody will notice I no longer defend the kingdom".
Being stomped over and over again, like without the shattered retreat is the worst. Being raised anywhere, even far away in the mountains after two months retreat has always some kind of strategic importance.

Oh right. Sorry, I meant mechanically. Fluff wise it's desertion or dereliction of duty or something similar yes (presumably the noble deserts and goes home, taking what's left of his levy with him).

 

[_Perun_]

If you deserted, why would you return to your barracks and risk getting brutally punished? You'd run off to some town somewhere and lie low making nails or looking after pigs.

I believe real deserters in the middle ages were neither going to their barracks nor looking after pigs but becoming brigands. I wonder how that could be simulated in the game?
With increased revolt risk along the retreat routes?
Edit: actually, an effect similar to riding would do, I think.

 

[Fishman786]

Desertion would be if they disbanded and were gone. This is them going back to their respective provinces as levies which can be re-raised, rather than sitting around to get re-stomped over and over.

But like I said, it's a side-grade to the current system, better in that it doesn't feel as stupid as the whole benny hill thing, but worse in that it makes it a little harder to come back after a major loss (but only a little harder), and it does make it take longer/harder to siege your castles when they have their levies added to the defenders.



I disagree that assaults should be less costly (though I agree with everything else you said); the point of the fortifications is that you can effectively defend against forces half a dozen times larger than you or more; I feel like assaults should be painful and costly ... if the assault actually happens. In this hypothetical scenario I am advocating, when you launch an assault there is a chance that the defenders would surrender outright before the assault happens (possibly at some benefit to the defender, for example considerably reduced loss of prosperity due to occupation), with the chance modified by the comparative strengths of attacker and defender, the martial skill of the attacking and defending leaders, fort level and traits like brave (more likely to fight), craven (more likely to surrender), lunatic (more random), zealot (more likely to fight vs. religious enemies) etc. Having overwhelming numbers should make victory by surrender very likely except against very skilled enemy generals. In the event of the assault going ahead though, a skilled enemy commander should be able to make you pay dearly for assaulting, even with a high ratio of attackers.

but yeah, aside from that I agree that sieges should be far less costly to the defender (e.g. does not drain levy pool on occupation) and the attacker (less attrition, often getting events which sap your army) and battles should be both rarer (the AI actually values it's army) and more costly (reduced levy restore speed).

I think sieges could be integrated into the diplomatic system. In order to get a surrender you send an offer to the opposing character (ie the owner of the fortress or the commander of the army) and they will be more or less likely to accept based on a number of different factors, ie traits, how well the war is going, whether or not you've sweetened the deal with some gold etc.

And the thing about armies needing to actually choose to engage if they're in the same province could be solved by making it impossible to attack moving armies, which is fairly realistic. Armies would have three 'stances', besieging, raiding or moving, and moving armies would be invulnerable. Perhaps in some areas there could be exceptions, like in narrow straits or passes where the armies need to engage to pass through. And very good generals would get a chance to ambush or trap enemies and force them to fight.

If sieges were easier and getting a battle was harder, warfare would become much more realistic as it would mainly involve harrying enemy lands until they offer terms, whilst simultaneously trying to chase their raiders away from your territory.

 

[BrokenSky]

I think sieges could be integrated into the diplomatic system. In order to get a surrender you send an offer to the opposing character (ie the owner of the fortress or the commander of the army) and they will be more or less likely to accept based on a number of different factors, ie traits, how well the war is going, whether or not you've sweetened the deal with some gold etc.

And the thing about armies needing to actually choose to engage if they're in the same province could be solved by making it impossible to attack moving armies, which is fairly realistic. Armies would have three 'stances', besieging, raiding or moving, and moving armies would be invulnerable. Perhaps in some areas there could be exceptions, like in narrow straits or passes where the armies need to engage to pass through. And very good generals would get a chance to ambush or trap enemies and force them to fight.

If sieges were easier and getting a battle was harder, warfare would become much more realistic as it would mainly involve harrying enemy lands until they offer terms, whilst simultaneously trying to chase their raiders away from your territory.

River crossings too (battle of Tewkesbury for example).

 

[Fishman786]

River crossings too (battle of Tewkesbury for example).

Virtually every province has a river crossing though, there are too many rivers for this to work.

 

[Dudas Drakaan]

You'll have the option to turn shattered retreat off next patch without affecting ironman.

To be honest, that one change alone would improve my experience greatly. If they actually fix the bugs this time, it might even be worth coming back.

Ironically, from all the responses on this post, it seems most of you actually agree with me despite the marks on my original post. CK2 was at one point my favorite game of all time. I come back and find it irreversibly changed and I cannot change it back. The fact that it was changed post release (not during early access) represents a serious problem to me. The game that exists now is not the game that I loved 1 year ago - and I will never be able to play that game again as, it seems from my discussion with a few modders, the changes are hard-coded (vassal limits being another thing I would rather not exist).

I realize that most people who even bother to come to these forums anymore are die-hard fans of CK2 and Paradox. Hopefully, at some point, you guys will realize that negativity can be productive and just because someone is being negative they aren't expressing blind hatred. The only reason I am spending time writing this post is because I want the game that I fell in love with.

I know a lot of people love EU 4 and also love CK2, but I was never one of those people. I do not like EU 4 - but even though I do not like EU 4, I do not wish to change it to make it like some other game. I want both games to exist and to be completely distinct from one another.

 

[Fishman786]

To be honest, that one change alone would improve my experience greatly. If they actually fix the bugs this time, it might even be worth coming back.

Ironically, from all the responses on this post, it seems most of you actually agree with me despite the marks on my original post. CK2 was at one point my favorite game at all time. I come back and find it irreversibly changed and I cannot change it back. The fact that it was changed post release (not during early access) represents a serious problem to me. The game that exists now is not the game that I loved 1 year ago - and I will never be able to play that game again as, it seems from my discussion with a few modders, the changes are hard-coded (vassal limits being another thing I would rather not exist).

I realize that most people who even bother to come to these forums anymore are die-hard fans of CK2 and Paradox. Hopefully, at some point, you guys will realize that negativity can be productive and just because someone is being negative they aren't expressing blind hatred. The only reason I am spending time writing this post is because I want the game that I fell in love with.

I know a lot of people love EU 4 and also love CK2, but I was never one of those people. I do not like EU 4 - but even though I do not like EU 4, I do not wish to change it to make it like some other game. I want both games to exist and to be completely distinct from one another.

You can change it by rolling back to an earlier patch. Go to Steam, right-click on the game in your library, select 'properties' and go to the 'betas' tab. Under there there's a drop-down menu with a list of previous patches. This will roll the game back to exactly how it was when you enjoyed it the most.

NOT that this is a solution to bad design choices of course, but it's possible.

 

[Urzhail64]

Manzikert wasn't decisive for the Turks. The massive chaos in the Byzantine state hierarchy and the series of rebellions by ambitious generals that followed Manzikert was what allowed them to take all of Anatolia in 10 years. And it wasn't a linear war that lead to the take-over of Anatolia. Most of the Turks that moved in did so without the supervision or consent of Alp Arslan and later Malik Shah in Baghdad. They were roving bands of Turkish tribal warriors who were notoriously un-controllable and as the Byzantine generals bled their armies dry in rebellion after rebellion they even started employing them further and further west as reinforcements in the vain hope that they would be better at controlling them, than the Muslim powers had been. Cut to a couple of years later and these Turks establish a realm centered on Nikaea

Horns of Hattin wasn't decisive either. Saladin still had to siege down Crusader Castle after Crusader Castle and when the Third Crusade arrived 3 years after Hattin, Antioch, Krak des Chevaliers, Tripoli, Tyre and Acre was still holding out. So many users on the forum have a tendency to wildly inflate the importance of Battles.

Not that ping-ponging is perfect of course, but stack-swiping from before was at the very least equally bad and immensely exploitable.

Guy de Luisgnan sort of redeemed himself for the disaster at Hattin by besieging Acre long enough for the Third Crusade led by Richard the Lion-Heart and Phillipe Augustus to reach his siege lines. For his efforts, Guy received Cyprus from Richard Lionheart. By all accounts the Siege of Acre was a exceptionally brutal siege for both besieger and beseiged alike resembling Alesia in some respects with the Christian siegers between the Saracen defenders in Acre and a Saracen army outside led by Saladin. The march that followed the fall of Acre would reach it's climax at Arsuf.

 

[Aquae Sulis]

Out of genuine curiosity has there been any time in CK2's time period where the defeated army withdrew across half a country in the meantime wandering through the lands of a handful of independent Dukes/Chiefs/Petty Kings etc. to return home, be defeated and repeat the process again?

I could understand sensible retreat - back a couple of provinces to the key remaining settlement.

But this wandering around half of Europe through others people's land...

Half the time they wander through lands of those hostile to them. If you're retreating you're not getting to get much sustenance from those who dislike you.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

....

I could understand sensible retreat - back a couple of provinces to the key remaining settlement.

But this wandering around half of Europe through others people's land...

Half the time they wander through lands of those hostile to them. If you're retreating you're not getting to get much sustenance from those who dislike you.

That's not the shattered retreat anymore since 2.5.2.

Probaly you refer to the buggy army AI movement instead, evading stronger armies and not walking back straight, but instead in circles, which can be huge.
Like running around the whole baltic in one circle or even the mediterranean.

Another issue is the armies instead of sticking to its sieges attacking every single small enemy force
around them instead of continuing the siege. That's how i saw a decadence revolt lose which lost a third of its army through events happening over the time.

I hope that's what Doomdark refered to (as well among others) when he said that he had improved the AI a bit already.


..aside from the by now old classic of an army and ships raised , but not moving when the army doesn't fit on the fleet, only costing money.
It seems to fix itself over time when there is a land connection, but not sure how and if it makes more sense.

 

[Mixxer5]

Medieval wars were very rarely won in battles.
Siege their holdings down.

Ok, mostly it was by capturing castles and scattering enemy forces, not annihilating them- fine. But in this case (enemy fleeing from one side of Cyprus to another) it's simply stupid- these forces are broken, have nowhere to run, don't get any supplies and constant fleeing should make them surrender.

Even in EU4 shattered retreat is somewhat idiotic, since enemy can flee across half the Europe, somehow avoiding enemy troops and even regaining morale every month. So winning battles has way too small impact for state of war.

 

[Aquae Sulis]

That's not the shattered retreat anymore since 2.5.2.

Probaly you refer to the buggy army AI movement instead, evading stronger armies and not walking back straight, but instead in circles, which can be huge.
Like running around the whole baltic in one circle or even the mediterranean.

What is the shattered retreat now then? I mean, how is it supposed to work...

When I played yesterday (with latest patch), I attacked my neighbouring tribe, best them in their most northerly province and then they proceeded to wander around Northern East-Europe with that white flag - instead of moving one (or two) provinces South (both unsieged).

 

[Legionary Guard]

On a somewhat-related note, I find my defeated armies routing not back to my 600-realm-size glorious empire, but through my glorious empire to Count Buttf*ck's one-holding OPM in the middle of Arabia.

 

[StJimmyRocks92]

I believe real deserters in the middle ages were neither going to their barracks nor looking after pigs but becoming brigands. I wonder how that could be simulated in the game?
With increased revolt risk along the retreat routes?
Edit: actually, an effect similar to riding would do, I think.

It could be a province modifier like thieves guild or whatever, or maybe create a mercenary band that could do some raiding in the area.

Also, I'm still of the mind that shattered retreat should be something that has a chance not happen, not that happens every time, and that Military Organization tech increases the chances for it to happen (maybe max tech would give it a 100% chance).

 

[Urzhail64]

If I can, I try to edit the shattered retreat range to 1-2 provinces at most.

 

[klopkr]

For islands like cyprus, krete, and that other one off spain. Just keep a small stack on the second province. They'll auto route to death.