Why am I losing this fight?

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm certainly lacking the experience I have for HOI 4 and especially EU 4. One of the interactions in this game that still eludes me, even after reading on the wiki, is combat. My impression was that having 3x brilliant strategists w/o craven or other negative modifiers (only positive modifiers when mousing over the crossed sword icon) should leave me in good shape unless outnumbered or at a significant quality disadvantage. The commander in center is a "direct leader", the other two are flankers. Only other relevant modifier other than marshal stat is that one of them is a terrain expert IIRC.

So this is my setup going into a combat:



Battle itself:



I've save scummed this 5 times to try out different troop distributions. My friends tell me it's RNG, I don't buy it. I'm losing 4 out of 5 of these fights despite a numerical advantage, so the more likely conclusion is that I'm doing something wrong. That said, this is the *only* time in the run I'm encountering this issue...I've won fights routinely prior to this with less of a numerical advantage.

One thing that immediately jumps out to me, and is annoying, is that I have > 3k troops with nobody leading them on one of the flanks, with the army icon being one of my tribal vassals rather than me. I'd buy this as an explanation for why I'm losing...but why is it happening? They're ordered attached to me an following me, and after this battle all 3 of my commanders are still alive and still set like the first screenshot.

I have scummed this enough and just won the war by assaulting down provinces, but it would be useful to know the reason I'm winning or losing. Is it the lack of commander? If not, why am I losing? If so, why is the game not using an assigned commander?

 

[WomboCombo]

Are you fighting Slavs? They have crazy good defense ratings to troops in their homelands. Something like +80%.

 

[hwoosh]

I think the attachment orders are bugged, and hence the wrong commanders; it'll mess up who the battle "belongs" to as well as siege ownership. Personally I almost never use that feature for this exact reason. Usually vassals and allies do an adequate enough job of learning to attach without using the manual orders.

You could try disabling the attach order a day before entering battle, though I haven't tested it in so long that I'm not sure if that actually works.

One point to note is that the "Flanker" trait only gives you a bonus when attacking an unprotected flank; i.e., when attacking from left or right to center, or from center to left or right. So those flanker generals aren't doing much for you unless you can rout one of their flanks. You might get an edge by concentrating your forces on the enemy's weak left flank with your best flanker general ... but then again, you might also suffer when your own weak flanks collapse.

In general though, sad to say but it's hard to guarantee a win with close numbers unless you have a composition that will throw good tactics. Generals do matter, but not as much as tactics. I'd like to get a sense of how your melee phase is going, as that's when you see the really big numbers of casualties and I'm guessing that's the point at which you tend to lose the battle.

 

[Meneth]

One thing that immediately jumps out to me, and is annoying, is that I have > 3k troops with nobody leading them on one of the flanks, with the army icon being one of my tribal vassals rather than me

Sounds like a bug. Please make a post in the bug reporting forum so it can be looked into.

 

[Clsy]

can you upload your save and let we have a look

also , "flanker" trait don't mean that put them on wings will give them direct combat modifier

 

[iniudan]

From the look of it you fought defensive pagan in a county that had their religion. Never fight Slavic, Romuva, Suomenusko, West African and Bön in territory of their religion unless you vastly outnumber them. Like WomboCombo said, that give them +80% defense.

 

[iniudan]

Sounds like a bug. Please make a post in the bug reporting forum so it can be looked into.

That not a bug, the commander on that flank was a tribal ruler, when you call tribal ruler to war, they AI always try to put them as commander of their own demesne army. So when tribal it better not to use your tribal vassal as commander, as you basically lose them as commander the second you call them to war.

 

[Meneth]

That not a bug, the commander on that flank was a tribal ruler, when you call tribal ruler to war, they AI always try to put them as commander of their own demesne army. So when tribal it better not to use you tribal vassal as commander, as you basically lose them as commander the second you call them to war.

You're right; if they disappeared due to being assigned to their own army, that's indeed not a bug.
Annoying, but not a bug.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Are you fighting Slavs? They have crazy good defense ratings to troops in their homelands. Something like +80%.

I think target is Romuva religion, but I am also Slavic. Notably, this battle is taking place on my territory anyway, so if anybody should be getting that bonus it's me?

also , "flanker" trait don't mean that put them on wings will give them direct combat modifier

I'm aware, but it's still generally the best place to put them, and they're still "brilliant strategists" with no negative traits. The expectation is when I have a ~1000 man advantage on a flank with flanker trait I will typically win the flank and collapse on the center. In MOST wars, this is what happened.

I think the attachment orders are bugged, and hence the wrong commanders; it'll mess up who the battle "belongs" to as well as siege ownership. Personally I almost never use that feature for this exact reason. Usually vassals and allies do an adequate enough job of learning to attach without using the manual orders.

Sounds like a bug. Please make a post in the bug reporting forum so it can be looked into.

Sigh. I'm past this point so I don't have the save, but since I've encountered this before I can probably find one. I wish I could think of a modern strategy game that didn't have this kind of stuff happening.

From the look of it you fought defensive pagan in a county that had their religion. Never fight Slavic, Romuva, Suomenusko, West African and Bön in territory of their religion unless you vastly outnumber them. Like WomboCombo said, that give them +80% defense.

I'm also a "defensive pagan", however, and this battle is in my land. It might be Romuva rather than Slavic, which if I read the wiki correctly means that neither of us get the bonus (it's not their homeland, and not my religion).

That not a bug, the commander on that flank was a tribal ruler, when you call tribal ruler to war, they AI always try to put them as commander of their own demesne army. So when tribal it better not to use your tribal vassal as commander, as you basically lose them as commander the second you call them to war.

I'm already at war in the first screenshot. I have 3 commanders clearly assigned, so I don't think what you're describing applies here. It is not reasonable to assign 3 commanders the second before a battle then not have those 3 commanders in the battle, unless one of the commanders is killed mid-fight. That didn't happen here.

Even if he's a tribal ruler, I made no extra CTA, the AI is already grouped on my army. His own demesne is in the depicted fight. I don't think you can make a coherent case this isn't bugged :/.

 

[Zsrai]

You attacked over a river, and also "All units gain 80% to defense when fighting enemies in a province of the combatant's religion. This applies even when one is the attacker, and on territory held by another lord" from the wiki.

 

[WomboCombo]

I think target is Romuva religion, but I am also Slavic. Notably, this battle is taking place on my territory anyway, so if anybody should be getting that bonus it's me?

It depends on what the religion on the land is. Straight from the Wiki:

Only the dominant religion of the province you are standing upon matters. This means you may invade territory held by another faith, but still gain the defensive bonus so long as the battle takes place upon land of your faith.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You attacked over a river, and also "All units gain 80% to defense when fighting enemies in a province of the combatant's religion. This applies even when one is the attacker, and on territory held by another lord" from the wiki.

I see, this could indeed be the explanation then.

That said, I very obviously did *not* attack over a river. Also having a commander stolen from battle because reasons is still annoying.

 

[iniudan]

I'm also a "defensive pagan", however, and this battle is in my land. It might be Romuva rather than Slavic, which if I read the wiki correctly means that neither of us get the bonus (it's not their homeland, and not my religion).



I'm already at war in the first screenshot. I have 3 commanders clearly assigned, so I don't think what you're describing applies here. It is not reasonable to assign 3 commanders the second before a battle then not have those 3 commanders in the battle, unless one of the commanders is killed mid-fight. That didn't happen here.

Even if he's a tribal ruler, I made no extra CTA, the AI is already grouped on my army. His own demesne is in the depicted fight. I don't think you can make a coherent case this isn't bugged :/.

Homeland defensive bonus doesn't care for who hold the land. The attrition, garrison and levy bonus do on the other hand.

And the ruler switching is something the AI always do and regularly check for, your AI vassal, when themselves are at war, will always priorize leading their own army, this also apply to other then tribal, it just that the way tribal do war, it basically happen all the time.

 

[Rockphed]

You attacked over a river, and also "All units gain 80% to defense when fighting enemies in a province of the combatant's religion. This applies even when one is the attacker, and on territory held by another lord" from the wiki.

No, the other guy attacked across the river, but if the territory was the enemy religion that explains why things went pear-shaped.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Homeland defensive bonus doesn't care who hold the land.

And the ruler switching is something the AI always do and regularly check for, your AI vassal when at war will always priorize leading their own army, this also apply to other then tribal, it just that the way tribal do war, it basically happen all the time.

It shouldn't be happening. We're all in one clumped army and I have assigned the commanders. If this is a thing the game needs to be clear on it, not show me with 3 commanders then just go "nope, sorry we're going to throw a flank".

Even if this guy is leading his own army, that army is in this fight too.

Also, notice that the shield for "defenders" (which is me) is *not* my own shield (which is visible next to my ruler). This suggests that for some reason, one of my subjects is leading this battle rather than me, despite being attached to me...all the while two of my commanders are still active in the battle. It's hard to imagine this precise sequence of events was implemented intentionally.

Regardless, thanks for the tip on the religion, I thought it had to be in their territory, this is useful to know.

 

[Clsy]

You attacked over a river, and also "All units gain 80% to defense when fighting enemies in a province of the combatant's religion. This applies even when one is the attacker, and on territory held by another lord" from the wiki.

since the sieger don't occupy any holding so the OP is actually defending and the sieger will get a river crossing debuff...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

since the sieger don't occupy any holding so the OP is actually defending and the sieger will get a river crossing debuff...

There is no siege. They occupied it, I took it back, they attacked me after the siege ended. If they're sitting on an 80% defense bonus here it explains why I'm losing this particular fight, though the commander thing still bothers me.

 

[iniudan]

It shouldn't be happening. We're all in one clumped army and I have assigned the commanders. If this is a thing the game needs to be clear on it, not show me with 3 commanders then just go "nope, sorry we're going to throw a flank".

Even if this guy is leading his own army, that army is in this fight too.

Also, notice that the shield for "defenders" (which is me) is *not* my own shield (which is visible next to my ruler). This suggests that for some reason, one of my subjects is leading this battle rather than me, despite being attached to me...all the while two of my commanders are still active in the battle. It's hard to imagine this precise sequence of events was implemented intentionally.

Regardless, thanks for the tip on the religion, I thought it had to be in their territory, this is useful to know.

Defensive bonus is a unit stat bonus, not a bonus for been on the defense in a battle, basically all unit get +80% to their defense stat (it's basically equivalent to a defensive and patient commander with 16 martial).

Also the AI ruler leading is own army doesn't mean he will lead his army on the flank you want him to or that he was even on a flank, he could just be leading a unit, if AI considered he had a better commanders them himself to lead the flanks of his own army.

 

[Greybeard0815]

@Meneth
Would it be possible to tweak the game, so that empty flanks don't happen, if there is a commander anywhere in flank even if he is just leading a subunit?

One pet peeve of mine has always been that the subunit leaders don't take charge if a leader dies or there is no dedicated flank leader.

 

[Meneth]

@Meneth
Would it be possible to tweak the game, so that empty flanks don't happen, if there is a commander anywhere in flank even if he is just leading a subunit?

One pet peeve of mine has always been that the subunit leaders don't take charge if a leader dies or there is no dedicated flank leader.

Easier said than done, most likely.