Will CK3 be more consistent with what armies are hostile?

[Skales]

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.

It can turn war and it feels very wrong yes. But I would argue that it is not as non-sensical when you think about what actually has to be happening on the ground. Even in modern wars, there's a lot of crossfire when a lot of factions are involved, some of them might not even be technically at war. In a medieval world where this type of division does not even exist, you will probably just fight whoever the leader of the army you are attached to orders you to fight.

 

[tului]

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.

The closest thing I could think of would be something like if another European ruler's army showed up at the siege of Jerusalem and wanted to bring one of the besieging leaders army to battle. Although given it was a siege the others would likely look poorly on it. Maybe more accurate would be if they tried to bring battle while they were en route to Jerusalem. Any ideas how you think they'd have handled it? Personally I think it would depend on who wanted to attack and politics on multiple levels so there isn't any one size answer

 

[Leyrann]

It can turn war and it feels very wrong yes. But I would argue that it is not as non-sensical when you think about what actually has to be happening on the ground. Even in modern wars, there's a lot of crossfire when a lot of factions are involved, some of them might not even be technically at war. In a medieval world where this type of division does not even exist, you will probably just fight whoever the leader of the army you are attached to orders you to fight.

Then make it easy to understand and consistent, and have it be that someone who joins one war automatically joins all wars.

Or not, because once you put it that way you realize how little sense this interaction makes.

 

[tului]

Then make it easy to understand and consistent, and have it be that someone who joins one war automatically joins all wars.

Or not, because once you put it that way you realize how little sense this interaction makes.

Oh yea, i agree the units should either be hostile as soon as they join in a third party war or not be able to combat your units at all.

 

[Skales]

Then make it easy to understand and consistent, and have it be that someone who joins one war automatically joins all wars.

Or not, because once you put it that way you realize how little sense this interaction makes.

It is currently very consistent, though not exactly easy to understand at first glance.

That interaction would not make that much sense considering the Holy war (which as mentioned, is 99.999% of reasons this ever happens anyway) might end. Though some kind system showing 'secondary belligerents' might work.

 

[Riamus]

I'm curious regarding real life medieval wars... If the armies joined up, were they commanded separately or was one commander put in charge as kind of a commander of commanders type thing? If that is the case, that commander could then use all troops even if they weren't officially at war with you.

 

[Skales]

I'm curious regarding real life medieval wars... If the armies joined up, were they commanded separately or was one commander put in charge as kind of a commander of commanders type thing? If that is the case, that commander could then use all troops even if they weren't officially at war with you.

It would depend heavily from war to war, commander to commander, army to army. Though I will once again say that 'officially at war' is more of an invention and would not really be a thing. The rulers would likely not see is as 'Ok so our ally nation A, is at war with X,Z and Y, we are at war with X and Y.'

 

[Leyrann]

Oh hey look it's going to happen again.

Granted, West Francia is the suzerain of Lotharingia, so he can be called into the war nonetheless, but currently that isn't yet the case.

 

[Grubnessul]

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.

While annoying as the player, for me as anonymous reader on the interwebs its an amusing at a GoT like level.