Will CK3 be more consistent with what armies are hostile?

[Leyrann]

I just came across what I consider the single most annoying situation in CK2, it's perhaps best if I just outline what was happening:

I'm playing as Leon in 1066, and I'm fighting a war for my claim on Castille. Halfway through this war, some Muslim king declares a Holy War on Castille. The king of Galicia joins the defensive Holy War.

So far so good. I already beat Castille's army, and there's just 1k troops still alive while I have 3k troops on my side. I'm not hostile with Galicia stack of 5k, so everything's going to be fine.

Except, no. If Galicia's troops are by themselves, they're neutral, and won't fight me. However, if they instead attach to Castille's army, they are suddenly included in battles.

In CK3, will armies that are not hostile to one another actually not fight one another? Because this is a really shitty situation where it feels like you're just getting screwed by wonky mechanics, rather than taking a bad war or anything. Like, if I start a badly chosen Holy War or don't check someone's allies, that's my fault if I lose. But if a participant in a different war, that is literally not involved in the war I am fighting makes me lose my war, that doesn't many any damn sense.

Edit: And a related issue, I just attacked a stack that was a mix of my opponent and a neutral party (I was attacking the king, and both the king and duke were sieging to quell a peasant revolt), and I had to fight both and got no warscore for it - even though I decimated the army of the opposing ruler in the battle. Would like to see this work more intuitively as well. Perhaps only ending up fighting the army you're actually at war with, and definitely getting warscore for beating that army. I thought only one army was hostile here, but it was both, so rewriting: A related issue, I attacked a king, and both that king and a vassal duke were sieging a holding taken by a peasant revolt. The duke was of course hostile to me because I was attacking the king, however I got no warscore for winning the battle against the both of them because his army was there, as he was not a participant in my war - even though the king was also there with his army.

 

[philanthropic19]

I agree. Similar stuff has happened to me during my CK2 playthroughs and it is wrong and very annoying. I hope CK3 does not suffer from this issue.

 

[Froggie]

I always felt like this was broken in CK2. Winning a war and your enemy joins another war and their allies in that war wreck you. Cultural/Religious uprisings also fall into this category.

 

[Duditsfireguy]

Well I don't think any king is going to be appreciative of you attacking a fellow christian who's defending against heathens, you're not forced to continue the attack you can white peace and wait to lay claim or inherit it by marriage.

 

[Leyrann]

Well I don't think any king is going to be appreciative of you attacking a fellow christian who's defending against heathens, you're not forced to continue the attack you can white peace and wait to lay claim or inherit it by marriage.

Well, yeah, duh.

But this mechanic works the exact same when everyone is of the same faith.

 

[philanthropic19]

Well I don't think any king is going to be appreciative of you attacking a fellow christian who's defending against heathens, you're not forced to continue the attack you can white peace and wait to lay claim or inherit it by marriage.

Not appreciative =/= at war. Otherwise the two armies would have been hostile even when not attached to the target's army. The point is that it is a broken mechanic because it makes two armies which are otherwise not hostile suddenly fight one another just because one army is attached to an army which is hostile to the first one.

 

[Duditsfireguy]

Not appreciative =/= at war. Otherwise the two armies would have been hostile even when not attached to the target's army. The point is that it is a broken mechanic because it makes two armies which are otherwise not hostile suddenly fight one another just because one army is attached to an army which is hostile to the first one.

That king is allied with the one defending against heathens, you attacking that king = attacking them. In what world would an allied army not support each other? it's not broken at all, again you have the choice of white peace if it's such a big problem and wait into later or inherit by marriage don't be upset at the game for making a logical decision.

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

Anyone with actual historical cases would like to chime in? Were there double wars in history where this happened? I would imagine if I'm already taken up arms to help a country to fight against a holy war I may as well help them with their other wars, may be for a price, unless I'm like really reluctant when I joined. Which won't be the case, if I'm that reluctant I should have refused to join already.

 

[philanthropic19]

That king is allied with the one defending against heathens, you attacking that king = attacking them. In what world would an allied army not support each other? it's not broken at all, again you have the choice of white peace if it's such a big problem and wait into later or inherit by marriage don't be upset at the game for making a logical decision.

No they are not allied. You have misunderstood the situation. The other ruler joined the war because they are being attacked in a Holy War and rulers of the same faith can offer to join to defend in such a war. If they had been allied they would have joined the war when the player declared war on the target in the first place. Plus, please note that when the two armies are not "attached" the joining ruler is NOT hostile to the player's armies. Hence your point about being allied doesn't apply.

 

[Duditsfireguy]

No they are not allied. You have misunderstood the situation. The other ruler joined the war because they are being attacked in a Holy War and rulers of the same faith can offer to join to defend in such a war. If they had been allied they would have joined the war when the player declared war on the target in the first place. Plus, please note that when the two armies are not "attached" the joining ruler is NOT hostile to the player's armies. Hence your point about being allied doesn't apply.

I know you're talking about holy wars it doesn't change the fact both sides are allied together in that war and as you mentioned attached together they would fight against you. This is logical why would an ally not support against some rogue king attacking a fellow christian defending against heathens?

 

[Riamus]

No they are not allied. You have misunderstood the situation. The other ruler joined the war because they are being attacked in a Holy War and rulers of the same faith can offer to join to defend in such a war. If they had been allied they would have joined the war when the player declared war on the target in the first place. Plus, please note that when the two armies are not "attached" the joining ruler is NOT hostile to the player's armies. Hence your point about being allied doesn't apply.

Although I agree that the way it works could definitely be improved, consider how the game was set up for when you ask to join another's war. You have the choice of which war as well as all wars. At least, I'm almost positive that all wars was an option ... I haven't tried joining a war in quite awhile. So it could be that the AI also has the choice. If that's true, then there's nothing wrong with them becoming hostile to you if they join all wars, but would be wrong if they only join the defensive holy war.

But, as I said, this does end up being very annoying when it happens. Whether or not it deserves a chance, I'm not sure. I also got really annoyed when realm peace was declared when I'm close to winning a war and then I'm stuck waiting 5 years to start the war again. Although annoying, I don't think that needs changed.

 

[Froggie]

I know you're talking about holy wars it doesn't change the fact both sides are allied together in that war and as you mentioned attached together they would fight against you. This is logical why would an ally not support against some rogue king attacking a fellow christian defending against heathens?

Because a lot of the time the war would be say:

- A Christian King defending against Pagan religious war.
- Primary Pagan Ruler attacker then joins another war with a Christian King as an ally.
- Christian King fights Christian King in a religious takeover war (who could have +100 opinion of you).

Different scenario that often occurred in CK2 would be that:
- You are a Pagan King
- Peasant revolt occurs in neighbouring Christian state (leader is pagan revolting against christian ruler due to religious instability)
- They are hostile to you and all other rulers of their faith...

 

[Leyrann]

Although I agree that the way it works could definitely be improved, consider how the game was set up for when you ask to join another's war. You have the choice of which war as well as all wars. At least, I'm almost positive that all wars was an option ... I haven't tried joining a war in quite awhile. So it could be that the AI also has the choice. If that's true, then there's nothing wrong with them becoming hostile to you if they join all wars, but would be wrong if they only join the defensive holy war.

But he did not join all wars. He only joined the Holy War. He was not hostile towards me - until attached.

 

[Heiliges Thüringens Reich]

YES! Please, PDX, no more of that!

 

[prymcik]

But he did not join all wars. He only joined the Holy War. He was not hostile towards me - until attached.

I don't know if they are being thick on purpose or not but I completely understand what you mean. This has happened to me on numerous occasions where I (an Anglo Saxon Catholic) would declare a county claim war on the Duke of Mercia, at about 50% warscore Ragnar declared a prepared invasion of England on Mercia. Everyone around me then joined Mercia in this defensive war, none of their armies are hostile to me, but as soon as they come together and attach to the army of The Duke OF Mercia they will fight me. So no it isn't working as intended, it shouldn't happen full stop.

 

[tului]

One solution would be putting a pre-battle check on any attached armies and the enemy army they're engaging. If they wouldn't be hostile while unattached, detach them and just have them sit in the province as a neutral party.

 

[Skales]

Honestly, I was never sure how to feel about it. On the one hand, it can feel quite illogical a times and can screw you over. On the other hand, it does make a bit of sense that if the troops are literally attached (therefore essentially under direct command) they would fight in battles like any other troops, right? If you see an enemy army a chunk of the army will not just detach itself, sit this one out and see their ally destroyed. Especially not in the medieval times where the system of who is technically at war etc was not nearly as rigid as presented in-game.

Edit: Also, 99% of times something like this happens is in the case of Holy wars, which does make even more sense, as described by people above.

 

[Leyrann]

Honestly, I was never sure how to feel about it. On the one hand, it can feel quite illogical a times and can screw you over. On the other hand, it does make a bit of sense that if the troops are literally attached (therefore essentially under direct command) they would fight in battles like any other troops, right? If you see an enemy army a chunk of the army will not just detach itself, sit this one out and see their ally destroyed. Especially not in the medieval times where the system of who is technically at war etc was not nearly as rigid as presented in-game.

Part of the issue is also that it can turn a war that you're supposed to win. You straight up have a larger army, you're winning, but this happens and suddenly your army is decimated (more than, if taken literally). You can write long paragraphs to try and justify it, but it's an extremely annoying interaction that's questionable in it's validity at best.

 

[tului]

Honestly, I was never sure how to feel about it. On the one hand, it can feel quite illogical a times and can screw you over. On the other hand, it does make a bit of sense that if the troops are literally attached (therefore essentially under direct command) they would fight in battles like any other troops, right? If you see an enemy army a chunk of the army will not just detach itself, sit this one out and see their ally destroyed. Especially not in the medieval times where the system of who is technically at war etc was not nearly as rigid as presented in-game.

Edit: Also, 99% of times something like this happens is in the case of Holy wars, which does make even more sense, as described by people above.

This is where I'd need historical examples. Obviously if an Army is set on the field of battle and you charge them all would probably defend themselves but I can't help but think it'd be more like the "attached army" would be camped seperate though maybe not super far away. The guy moving to attack sends a messenger "We attack the King you're camped with on the morrow and as it is our rightful claim on X, please let us know your intentions." Certainly the leader being attacked may also try to convince the attached army's leader to assist via various means.

edit - and if working as intended I'd say mark them as hostile at all times so the attacker can plan ahead.

 

[Skales]

This is where I'd need historical examples. Obviously if an Army is set on the field of battle and you charge them all would probably defend themselves but I can't help but think it'd be more like the "attached army" would be camped seperate though maybe not super far away. The guy moving to attack sends a messenger "We attack the King you're camped with on the morrow and as it is our rightful claim on X, please let us know your intentions." Certainly the leader being attacked may also try to convince the attached army's leader to assist via various means.

There are no historical examples of anything like the type of thing that happens in CK2. Because medieval wars were not such a tightly organized affair of who is at war with who. You would more than likely have a general idea of who you are fighting. But if we were to actually look at real medieval wars for verification of CK2 or CK3 systems, we would find that the whole thing needs to be scrapped in favour of something more natural.