Why am I losing this fight?

[Clsy]

maybe you guys are right all the time is the 80% defensive bonus

the right flank with same amount of damage
but the OP side take about a double losses

possibly OP conquer the province but didnt covert the faith form ROMUVA to SLAVIC so that the evemy get the defensive bouns which the OP side dont

 

[hwoosh]

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.

Relevant commander traits are way more important than raw martial, as in sure you already know. For that battle I'd take a 10 martial patient light infantry leader + flat terrain expert over a 24 martial flanker + cavalry expert any day.

 

[iniudan]

Relevant commander traits are way more important than raw martial, as in sure you already know. For that battle I'd take a 10 martial patient light infantry leader + flat terrain expert over a 24 martial flanker + cavalry expert any day.

Maybe with early game tribal, but with Polish culture that 24 commander is a freaking Perun's avatar, once you start getting your cavalry rolling.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Relevant commander traits are way more important than raw martial, as in sure you already know. For that battle I'd take a 10 martial patient light infantry leader + flat terrain expert over a 24 martial flanker + cavalry expert any day.

So would I, if one were available. Still, flanker is pretty nice with numerical advantages because you often break one of the two flanks in skirmish phase.

Brilliant strategist matters quite a bit also, as it makes useful tactics being selected more likely. As tribal everyone is still light infantry focused (everyone's throwing prestige around for 2500 of the stuff and holdings have little else) so it's not as devastating as it can be once there are proper levies involved, but even light infantry get a healthy boost from good tactics rather than bad or generic ones.

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.

I understand what you're saying at this point, but it's still an unacceptable implementation and any coherent standard for what "bug" means in software would conclude it's bugged. Letting me put a commander in the slot (while said allied army is raised), keeping it there as I move the army around, then not actually using the commander specifically micromanaged to be in that spot come the battle is a clear example of the UI actively misrepresenting what will occur.

Is this like the CK2 version of the EU 4 bug where you declare offensively into a coalition, the game lies about what will happen with members that join against you, and despite 6+ reports by multiple people nobody cares and it stays that way for years? How is this kind of thing considered okay? If I can't have him fight in the battle as my commander, why am I allowed to place him there pre-battle and why does the game represent him identically to other commanders until the fighting actually starts?

 

[WJS]

What I'm seeing is this:

• You're crossing a river to attack them. That'll make your side vulnerable.
• You beat them with light infantry, but they match you for heavy infantry and cavalry, with only a slight reduction in archers. That sets them up to be better prepared for war.
• Yes, you're fighting in your own lands, but you're fighitng in Zhmudz, which is most likely still de jure Lithuania, and quite possibly still Romuva land. Check the religion map view to confirm. If it's Romuva, they're getting the defense bonus.

Strategies to overtake this:

• Send your chaplain to convert the province. It's not likely that it will flip during the siege, but you never know. Maybe you're lucky.
• Don't fight in Zhmudz. March to Yatvyagi, siege down the occupation, and make them come to you and eat the river crossing penalty.
• Let them occupy Zhmudz, and win it back when they move on to the next province. As long as the war score isn't -100%, and it won't be if you haven't fought yet, you'll still be able to win the war.
• Pay attention to religion. Romuva is especially hard to uproot, but it can be done. I've got a Slavic run that had rendered Romuva extinct by the 900s.
• If you absolutely, positively need to fight them in Zhmudz, march to Scalovia or Vilnius first and then on to Zhmudz, to avoid the river penalty. But really, this gets you the chance to siege down other lands along the way.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You're crossing a river to attack them. That'll make your side vulnerable.

I'm the defender, I crossed nothing! I already said so earlier too and it's shown clearly in the screenshot.

It's pretty well established here that religion was likely the culprit in this case (absent that boost I'm pretty sure they just get their flank outmanned by 1k crushed and they collapse), and I already said I just scummed the save a sixth time and won the war by assaulting the heck out of the enemy's provinces. At this point I'm mostly complaining about the commander switch bug.

 

[Rockphed]

What I'm seeing is this:

• You're crossing a river to attack them. That'll make your side vulnerable.
• You beat them with light infantry, but they match you for heavy infantry and cavalry, with only a slight reduction in archers. That sets them up to be better prepared for war.
• Yes, you're fighting in your own lands, but you're fighitng in Zhmudz, which is most likely still de jure Lithuania, and quite possibly still Romuva land. Check the religion map view to confirm. If it's Romuva, they're getting the defense bonus.

You have the two sides flipped. His side has 7800 troops and is defending (and has a green box). The other side is attacking over a river and has a red box.

 

[WJS]

Okay, so it's a defensive battle, so no river penalty (it just confused me since the Lithuanians were already there in the first photo). But still, everything else stands.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Okay, so it's a defensive battle, so no river penalty (it just confused me since the Lithuanians were already there in the first photo). But still, everything else stands.

I don't think the heavy infantry would matter, absent the religious defense boost. They have ~170 advantage there but are 200 behind in archers and 1000 behind in light infantry. Without 80% defense boost they get their pants pulled down in skirmish phase (especially if attaching a commander actually works properly), and as soon as that right flank breaks it's over.

With 80% defense they last longer and the poor melee phase of light infantry/archers fails them despite numbers. Aside from my center I had (or should have had) significant commander advantage too. I won many fights like this in the same game, so it's almost entirely explained by not realizing they get the religion boost on that province despite me holding it and the commander bug.

 

[WomboCombo]

I don't think the heavy infantry would matter, absent the religious defense boost. They have ~170 advantage there but are 200 behind in archers and 1000 behind in light infantry. Without 80% defense boost they get their pants pulled down in skirmish phase (especially if attaching a commander actually works properly), and as soon as that right flank breaks it's over.

With 80% defense they last longer and the poor melee phase of light infantry/archers fails them despite numbers. Aside from my center I had (or should have had) significant commander advantage too. I won many fights like this in the same game, so it's almost entirely explained by not realizing they get the religion boost on that province despite me holding it and the commander bug.

Heavy Infantry decimate Tribals for the most part, as Heavy Infantry are the core of Feudal Armies and are about 20:1 in strength in Melee Phase vs. Light Infantry. Unless you're fighting Defensive Pagans in their Homeland. Then you need to outnumber them pretty handily.

 

[iniudan]

I understand what you're saying at this point, but it's still an unacceptable implementation and any coherent standard for what "bug" means in software would conclude it's bugged. Letting me put a commander in the slot (while said allied army is raised), keeping it there as I move the army around, then not actually using the commander specifically micromanaged to be in that spot come the battle is a clear example of the UI actively misrepresenting what will occur.

Is this like the CK2 version of the EU 4 bug where you declare offensively into a coalition, the game lies about what will happen with members that join against you, and despite 6+ reports by multiple people nobody cares and it stays that way for years? How is this kind of thing considered okay? If I can't have him fight in the battle as my commander, why am I allowed to place him there pre-battle and why does the game represent him identically to other commanders until the fighting actually starts?

The problem mainly come down the AI been unable manage all aspect of the commander position properly, it not a bug, it just an annoying quirk. The AI just always prioritize itself over the player, as unlike the player it is unable to reject been a commander and will only dismiss for very restricted reason. Accept been a commander for you AI liege for example, then try to lead your own demesne army, you will notice the AI keep calling you can to it own army if in need of a commander.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Heavy Infantry decimate Tribals for the most part, as Heavy Infantry are the core of Feudal Armies and are about 20:1 in strength in Melee Phase vs. Light Infantry. Unless you're fighting Defensive Pagans in their Homeland. Then you need to outnumber them pretty handily.

In this scenario we're talking big advantage numerically, enough that the relatively small numbers of heavy infantry will suffer non-trivial casualties in skirmish phase, as will the outnumbered and also-poor enemy infantry (big morale hit).

The AI isn't so great about picking generals that will use shield wall, further cutting into the relative advantage of small numbers of HI. It's not like someone is running around with 1000 HI on just one front in a battle with 5k.

Or to put it another way: despite the 80% boost to my enemy's defense, this fight was close each time with < 1/5 morale bar for the enemy, close enough that I actually won it on this province outright once in five tries. Now imagine what happens if they have 80% less defense and the same combat ensues.

The problem mainly come down the AI been unable manage all aspect of the commander position properly, it not a bug, it just an annoying quirk.

No. It's a bug. The UI represents something, then something else happens. Unless you hold that UI misleading the player is intentional (and that would be some awful bit of degenerate design, I will give devs more credit than this), it can and should be regarded as a bug. It doesn't matter what the intended functionality of the mechanic is.

If the UI represents X commander is on Y flank, the ensuing battle should not have X commander somewhere else. If X commander is somewhere else with no indication that such will occur, then you have either a UI bug or a mechanical bug. You're asserting the mechanic is not bugged, therefore the UI is bugged.

 

[Dragatus]

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?

The most likely reason why you're losing the battle is because the attacker is Romuva and so is the province. That 80% defense bonus is huge.

For the second question, let me demonstrate with a screenshot of my own.

Note the order in which the armies present in Cill Dara are displayed. The big enemy stack was the last to enter the province so it appears at the very bottom of the list. The local count's retinue was there first and is at the top of the list. Basically armies are ordered in the order in which they entered the province.

What is happening is that the vassal was in the province first with the local levy. But that vassal is still at war with the attacker, so when attacker entered the province it triggered a battle with the vassal, whose army was on top of the list. That explains why the vassal's banner is shown for the army instead of the liege's.

Then the army of the liege joined the vassal's fight, but on the right flank the vassal has more troops than the liege (quite possibly the entire levy from the local tribe is 1 unit placed on the right flank), so the combined flank uses the commander of the vassal's troops, but those troops had no commander assigned so there is no commander.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The most likely reason why you're losing the battle is because the attacker is Romuva and so is the province. That 80% defense bonus is huge.

If you follow the thread to this point you'll see that others helpfully pointed this out also and I agree, it's almost certainly the primary explanation for why I lost the fight!

Then the army of the liege joined the vassal's fight, but on the right flank the vassal has more troops than the liege

This isn't the case, 100% certain. That flank has on a bit more than 3k, and 2500 (or very close to this) are from the "recruit tribal army" action for 500 prestige. Nobody in my realm has a levy with that many bodies, not even me. The rest may well have transpired as you describe, but there's no requirement that the subject's army be larger if it's the case.

It's not a bug

See my argument above. It's a bug. Take your pick whether it's a mechanical or UI bug. Consensus seems to be that the mechanic is working as intended, if true (likely so) then UI is bugged.

It is not acceptable to display "X is commander of these troops" then not do it, when in every other case that is represented it does do it. That's not how functional UI works.

 

[Dragatus]

This isn't the case, 100% certain. That flank has on a bit more than 3k, and 2500 (or very close to this) are from the "recruit tribal army" action for 500 prestige. Nobody in my realm has a levy with that many bodies, not even me. The rest may well have transpired as you describe, but there's no requirement that the subject's army be larger if it's the case.

In that case it seems that the game uses order of joining the battle to determine commander.

 

[iniudan]

No. It's a bug. The UI represents something, then something else happens. Unless you hold that UI misleading the player is intentional (and that would be some awful bit of degenerate design, I will give devs more credit than this), it can and should be regarded as a bug. It doesn't matter what the intended functionality of the mechanic is.

If the UI represents X commander is on Y flank, the ensuing battle should not have X commander somewhere else. If X commander is somewhere else with no indication that such will occur, then you have either a UI bug or a mechanical bug. You're asserting the mechanic is not bugged, therefore the UI is bugged.

It not a bug, the commander assignment routine probably just triggered very close to the battle start and you didn't notice or you were looking and it happen on same day the battle started. Like I told you never assign, as commander, vassal who are at war, which for tribal that is the moment you press the call everyone button, they can't be relied upon, as they prioritize they own army not yours, it not a bug it working as intended, it just fucking annoying.

 

[iniudan]

Then the army of the liege joined the vassal's fight, but on the right flank the vassal has more troops than the liege (quite possibly the entire levy from the local tribe is 1 unit placed on the right flank), so the combined flank uses the commander of the vassal's troops, but those troops had no commander assigned so there is no commander.

Pretty sure if there is no commander and an other arrive they take the flank command, the no commander is only if he is killed or none was on that flank to start with.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It not a bug, the commander assignment routine probably just triggered very close to the battle start and you didn't notice or you were looking and it happen on same day the battle started. Like I told you never assign, as commander, vassal who are at war, which for tribal that is the moment you press the call everyone button, they can't be relied upon, as they prioritize they own army not yours, it not a bug it working as intended, it just fucking annoying.

I had the army selected with commander pre-battle.

Like I told you, the UI can't be showing that one thing will happen and then do another thing. That it might happen on the day the battle starts is irrelevant. You get identical UI information, and pre-battle feedback --> inconsistent outcomes for a reason the game does not make apparent.

That. Is. Bugged. UI.

And that is objectively the case unless the devs roll up in here and claim the inconsistent/misleading UI is intentional. That is literally the only way one can coherently conclude this is not a bugged interaction. The UI is part of the game.

I'm not a betting man, but I wouldn't put money on that. Would you?

 

[faiuwle]

There was nothing wrong with the UI. You assigned him to the flank, he was there, and then he unassigned himself later to lead his own stack. The devs have already showed up to say it was WAD.

 

[Gans]

And it worked that way since the very beginning so he better gets used to it.... and the character finder is useful for a friggin reason. That said if he ever gets into fight with a horde with their retinues, nothing will save his army