Why do I keep loosing battles?

[Pineirin]

Hello guys.
When i play Crusader Kings II, I'm usually afraid of battles, as I feel that I loose always when I have less troups, usually when I have the same and sometimes when I have more.
The problem is that, today, my army of 18000 men attacked an army of 13000 men, there where no terrain penalties of buffs for anyone, my 3 generals where decent (18, 17, 14) and my troups where, in theory, better quality (cataphract retinue and varangian guard).
I did not only lost the battle, but my casualties where 10000 and their's where 3000. I don't understand how did I lost 3 times more men, I praise the gods when I kill twice as many enemies in a battles where my numbers are huge compared to the enemy ones.
Can someone give me advice on how to win battles, at least when I should? This disaster and other similar ones took place in the melee phase of the combat.

 

[Ixalmaris]

We do need some more information like a screenshot during a battle.
Combat in CK2 is far more complex than it looks at first glance and a lot of factors like troop and flank compositions, rolled tactics and countertactics etc. can influence the outcome.

As for why you lost so much more, many casulties happen during the rout and as you were fleeing only you had high casulties. Also, melee causes more casulties than ranged.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Greek characters fighting in Anatolia and Thrace tend to have a particularly rough time of it because they are often facing Turks with large numbers of Horse Archers and Light Cavalry. As an Altaic Culture the Turks can roll "Retreat and Ambush Tactic" which allows them to revert combat to Skirmish where their Horse Archers and Light Cav can do more damage than your heavy Cav and Heavy Infantry. The high propotion of mounted skirmish troops also encourages "Harrass-Swarm" which makes said troops even more effective.

You can get around this by fighting in Woodlands or Mountains, which prevents these tactics from firing. Doing so will reduce the effectiveness of your own horse archers, too, but that's less of a problem for you because they're a smaller proportion of your army.

You can also try to beat the Turks at their own game by hiring the Alan Riders and combining them with Cataphracts, or you can try a hard counter by hiring Swiss mercenaries to form your centre.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Might want to tighten up knowledge of tactics if they're loose. Wiki has a pretty good section on it, learning what units cause what tactics and influence that has on army.

 

[Pineirin]

Greek characters fighting in Anatolia and Thrace tend to have a particularly rough time of it because they are often facing Turks with large numbers of Horse Archers and Light Cavalry. As an Altaic Culture the Turks can roll "Retreat and Ambush Tactic" which allows them to revert combat to Skirmish where their Horse Archers and Light Cav can do more damage than your heavy Cav and Heavy Infantry. The high propotion of mounted skirmish troops also encourages "Harrass-Swarm" which makes said troops even more effective.

You can get around this by fighting in Woodlands or Mountains, which prevents these tactics from firing. Doing so will reduce the effectiveness of your own horse archers, too, but that's less of a problem for you because they're a smaller proportion of your army.

You can also try to beat the Turks at their own game by hiring the Alan Riders and combining them with Cataphracts, or you can try a hard counter by hiring Swiss mercenaries to form your centre.

Nope it was, against a revel army in a fatal civil war, not turks.
My question is: What should I consider, in general, to max my army effectiveness? For example, I know in EUIV I must max infantery + 4 cav in early and fill de first line with infantery and the second with artillery in late (thank you Reman).

 

[Dimitri Cosmos]

It's hard to answer your question without knowing all the details, but there other things to consider, when it comes to battles, aside from the generals and the size of the armies, such as:

• Retinues are generally stronger than regular levies;
• Military tech provides additional bonuses to certain types of units
• Certain buildings provide additional bonuses to certain types of units
• Fighting on a hill or a mountain gives a bonus to the defender
• Crossing a river gives a penalty to the attacker
• If a ruler is personally leading an army, it gives a morale boost (units fight longer before retreating, if they are losing, and they make the enemy retreat faster, if they are winning)
• Flanking gives a bonus (for example, if an enemy side flank has made your opposing side flank to retreat, it can now harass your centre, which mean that both the enemy's centre and side flank are attacking your centre flank).
• Religion can give bonus to attack or defense (for example, unreformed Tengri religion and Unrelenting doctrine give 10% to the attack)
• If you have previously lost a battle and the enemy has won one, the morale of the respective units will be higher, which will make them fight better
• Also, freshly called up units have low or no morale at all. Morale is built over time.
• War sacrifices provide bonuses to pagans
• Battle sacrifices provide bonuses to pagans
• Also, when appointing generals, not only their martial skill determine the outcome and tactics, but also their specialization and personality traits (check Wiki for more details)*
• There are special event troops, which are either stronger or weaker than regular levies
• Mercenaries are generally stronger than regular levies (at least, the initial ones)
• Holy Orders are generally stronger than regular levies
• Certain types of units are stronger against certain other types of units, for example, pikemen are effective against horsemen
• Different types of units excel at different phases of the battle (e.g., light infantry and archers excel at the skirmish phase, heavy infantry excels at the melee phase, cavalry excels at the pursuit phase)
• Certain province modifiers can also provide bonuses to troops
  
• Certain artifacts can provide bonuses, too
• Fighting far away from your realm can melt your troops due to attrition
• And probably some other things that I've forgotten to mention

I generally don't use commanders who have less than 20 skill points in martial. You can use your marshal to upgrade your commanders, if you don't have access to better ones in the "Search character" tab.

* Although I'd say worrying about all the traits is too much of micromanagement. Just make sure to appoint the right generals to the right units,e.g., cavalry leaders to cavalry, siege leaders to one of the flanks when sieging and so on.

 

[Ixalmaris]

Tactics play a big part in combat (when the armies are evenly matched) as they replace the die roll in EU4. And what tactics you can use depends on the military skill of your commanders, your army composition as many tactics require a specific ratio of troop types and sometimes even culture of the commander.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Best I can tell marshal values of over 16 don't do anything in battle beyond what you get at 16 marshal. You'd much rather avoid bad traits like lisp/wroth/craven, a 25 skill commander with one of these is worse than a 16 skill commander without any bad traits for tactics.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Best I can tell marshal values of over 16 don't do anything in battle beyond what you get at 16 marshal. You'd much rather avoid bad traits like lisp/wroth/craven, a 25 skill commander with one of these is worse than a 16 skill commander without any bad traits for tactics.

High Martial enhances the moralle of a flank, increases the benefits of tactics and decreases the negatives.

This is a multiplier and can become very important when the general is the high 20's and up as at that point he basically can't roll "bad" tactics because his inate geniusnullifies whatever is bad about them.

 

[Dimitri Cosmos]

Best I can tell marshal values of over 16 don't do anything in battle beyond what you get at 16 marshal. You'd much rather avoid bad traits like lisp/wroth/craven, a 25 skill commander with one of these is worse than a 16 skill commander without any bad traits for tactics.

I don't know about that. I had won battles where I was outnumbered by at least 50% and had won battles without losing a soldier against equal sized armies. I'm pretty sure it was because of my generals, tech and other bonuses. It wasn't happening to me with generals with a lesser martial skill. So, I'll trust SirgurdStormhand's word on that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't know about that. I had won battles where I was outnumbered by at least 50% and had won battles without losing a soldier against equal sized armies. I'm pretty sure it was because of my generals, tech and other bonuses. It wasn't happening to me with generals with a lesser martial skill. So, I'll trust SirgurdStormhand's word on that.

I mean to imply that there is a break point at 16, after which the benefits of additional skill are either nothing or marginal. I've not put 50 martial on the same guy to see how he performs on a flank though, so I can't rule out the possibility that it doesn't add up in terms of morale. The wiki doesn't say anything about that though.

When it comes to tactics selection, the benefits stop at 16.

Another part of the equation is that the AI does not optimize its commanders this way, so will often have junk leading its flanks. I've won fights with light infantry + archers against barely fewer proper feudal levies and taken nearly no casualties too. It's par for the course with such commander disparity.

This is a multiplier and can become very important when the general is the high 20's and up as at that point he basically can't roll "bad" tactics because his inate geniusnullifies whatever is bad about them.

For tactics giving -100% or more I find it hard to believe that raw martial stats overcome that penalty completely. Something like "confused orders" is extremely punitive, so much that it would ruin even very high martial ratings compared to 16 for that battle.

Unless you're fishing for culture-specific tactics you're generally fine grabbing 3 guys with 16+ skill and no bad traits and slapping them on each flank. Though if you have options like "flanker", "leading center", inspiring leader + zealot or defender, or unit-specific or terrain-specific bonuses you can use these are also worth getting.

 

[Castimirr]

Their martial skill magnifies the effects of their leadership traits generally. Like Seige Leader is "+40%" but if they have a martial in the 20s or 30s, the real effect is much, much higher. If you hover over the icon that sums up their combat effects, you can see what effect, if any, their ability is having on their traits.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

I mean to imply that there is a break point at 16, after which the benefits of additional skill are either nothing or marginal. I've not put 50 martial on the same guy to see how he performs on a flank though, so I can't rule out the possibility that it doesn't add up in terms of morale. The wiki doesn't say anything about that though.

When it comes to tactics selection, the benefits stop at 16.

Another part of the equation is that the AI does not optimize its commanders this way, so will often have junk leading its flanks. I've won fights with light infantry + archers against barely fewer proper feudal levies and taken nearly no casualties too. It's par for the course with such commander disparity.



For tactics giving -100% or more I find it hard to believe that raw martial stats overcome that penalty completely. Something like "confused orders" is extremely punitive, so much that it would ruin even very high martial ratings compared to 16 for that battle.

Unless you're fishing for culture-specific tactics you're generally fine grabbing 3 guys with 16+ skill and no bad traits and slapping them on each flank. Though if you have options like "flanker", "leading center", inspiring leader + zealot or defender, or unit-specific or terrain-specific bonuses you can use these are also worth getting.

At 20 Martial negative impacts cease to apply, at that point the bonus applied by a tactic is multiplied by 2, at 30 it is 2.5 and at 40 it is 3. At 19 Martial the negative impacts are multiplied by 0.905, i.e they are reduced by just under 10%. Above 20 the suitability of a tactic is determined by how much of your army it buffs.

So, for example, For a Shy leader with a Martial of 20 Timid Advance grants +240% attack to Pikemen and +240% affinity against Stand Fast. A Cruel leader of 20 Martial who uses Charge Through Own Skirmishers gains 600% bonus to Heavy Cavalry Attack and 360% to both Light Cavalry and Camels, with no negative effects.

The same general with 40 Martial (an outlier but it happens) will get a 900% bonus to Heavy Cavalry Attack and no downside using Charge Through Own Skirmishers.

So, yes, Martial higher than 90 really does matter, a lot.

https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Commander#Combat_modifiers

 

[TheMeInTeam]

At 20 Martial negative impacts cease to apply, at that point the bonus applied by a tactic is multiplied by 2, at 30 it is 2.5 and at 40 it is 3. At 19 Martial the negative impacts are multiplied by 0.905, i.e they are reduced by just under 10%. Above 20 the suitability of a tactic is determined by how much of your army it buffs.

So, for example, For a Shy leader with a Martial of 20 Timid Advance grants +240% attack to Pikemen and +240% affinity against Stand Fast. A Cruel leader of 20 Martial who uses Charge Through Own Skirmishers gains 600% bonus to Heavy Cavalry Attack and 360% to both Light Cavalry and Camels, with no negative effects.

The same general with 40 Martial (an outlier but it happens) will get a 900% bonus to Heavy Cavalry Attack and no downside using Charge Through Own Skirmishers.

So, yes, Martial higher than 90 really does matter, a lot.

https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Commander#Combat_modifiers

Ah, I missed that part. It's very helpful to know...seems I can squeeze even more ridiculousness. Thanks!

Seems you still want to avoid bad traits where possible (gouges the bonus even further), but not avoid a really high martial command commander unless you have others that are similarly high w/o negative traits.