Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Battles in CK

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
unmerged(485)

unmerged(485)

Advocatus Sancti Sepulcri
Nov 24, 2000
9.971
0
We have, I'm sure, all been disappointed in EU I & II because our favorite battles/wars have not turned out like we had dreamed of when we first read about the game.

While most of the historical wars won't happen in CK because it appears to be a bit more free form than EU, do you expect the battles to be more like what you imagine them or do you think they will be somewhat dry statistical accounts of battle like EU II?

Whatcha think?

:)
 
No, I was not disappointed.

EU is a grand strategic level game, I did not expect more nor less from grand strategy. I cannot expect to play such a game AND control the battles without entering micromanagement madness.

Drakken
 
Originally posted by Drakken
No, I was not disappointed.

EU is a grand strategic level game, I did not expect more nor less from grand strategy. I cannot expect to play such a game AND control the battles without entering micromanagement madness.

Drakken
Click to expand...

I was thinking more of the way which battles proceeded and the results rather than if you could have more tactical control (which in CK you should have to a limited degree).:)
 
Originally posted by Trip
While I think that there will be some new nuances to combat, I figure the good ol' EU engine where you scrape together as many men as you can and throw them into the melee will remain. ;)
Click to expand...

You probably are right about the melee - which is good because that style of combat fits more closely with the CK period than it does with the EU time frame (especially the later EU time frame).

What i was getting at was - do you feel that the battles will happen more in line with how they went historically. Not that the specific named battles will happen at all but in general will there be a Manzikert-like battle and would it be possible for the same results happen? Will there be an Agincourt-like battle where French cavalry will try to ride down English soldiers only to get cut down by arrows?

To me and, from what I have read on the forum, many folks were disappointed with the feeling of the battles in both EU games and I was wondering if the atmosphere of battle will be different in CK.

:)
 
Well, i hope that there i have at least some control over the battleplans of my army commander. Otherwise it might be wise to create an army that is similar to the one on the winning side at Agincourt, aka lots of archers and other infantry.

Maybe we can give the army commander some advise such as, "Do NOT trample our own infantry in your haste to kill those pesky english archers"

Or maybe we can choose more loose battle plans in which we give certain orders in advance and then the commader caries them out.
 
Originally posted by Lethke
W..........................

Maybe we can give the army commander some advise such as, "Do NOT trample our own infantry in your haste to kill those pesky english archers"

...............
Click to expand...

:D :D I love that battle plan!!:D Hope Sergei reads this and puts it into the game.:)
 
Originally posted by Sonny
You probably are right about the melee - which is good because that style of combat fits more closely with the CK period than it does with the EU time frame (especially the later EU time frame).

What i was getting at was - do you feel that the battles will happen more in line with how they went historically. Not that the specific named battles will happen at all but in general will there be a Manzikert-like battle and would it be possible for the same results happen? Will there be an Agincourt-like battle where French cavalry will try to ride down English soldiers only to get cut down by arrows?

To me and, from what I have read on the forum, many folks were disappointed with the feeling of the battles in both EU games and I was wondering if the atmosphere of battle will be different in CK.

:)
Click to expand...
I actually doubt that.

I figure the battle system will be nearly identical to that of EU with light cav and archers added in... let's hope I'm wrong. ;)
 
Originally posted by Trip
I actually doubt that.

I figure the battle system will be nearly identical to that of EU with light cav and archers added in... let's hope I'm wrong. ;)
Click to expand...

Hope you are wrong too.;) :) I'm sure the system will be an improvement over EU II since there are more unit types and there are tactical options for commanders. Plus HOI has improved combat resolution and depiction so perhaps CK will take a lesson from HOI too.:)
 
I assume you'll get a combat matrix to play with, which will have greater advantages if you decide to take advantage of the particular position you've put yourself in (terrain and troop types). I'm thinking EiA here. So defend behind rivers, or split your forces if you have soemone you can trust.

There should be a problem with sending a less than trustworthy noble out where he can watch teh battle and pick teh side he'd like (or expect) to win.
 
For the CK period though, besiege should be the more frequently used word since there wree many more sieges than pitched battles. Of couse if we play this game the way we play EU II there will probably be more pitched battles than sieges.:D

In EU II have you ever lifted a siege because an enemy army was aproaching? I don't believe I ever have. Since there was no possibility for the garrison to sally forth and join the fray and once lifted the siege had to be begun from the beginning there seemed to be no reason to be threatened by a relieving army.:)
 
Depends on how many troops were attacking... ;)

But usually, no... if they've already started moving, it's not like you're going to be able to get away in time...

But yes, pitched battles or not, I hope that the battle system is very detailed. :) More than just EU with archers. :D
 
True Sonny, but there were many other features in sieges, for instances you could stablish lines of circumvallation and contravallation, so that in case of being attacked you wiould be the one in a fortified position, furthermore, there tipically 2 besieging forces, 1 smaller surrounding the fortress while there was a covering army protecting enemy approaches . But overall, I miss in EU2 the more frequently used tactic to lift an enemy siege, that is, to cut its supply line or simply threatening to do that.
 
Originally posted by Aryaman
True Sonny, but there were many other features in sieges, for instances you could stablish lines of circumvallation and contravallation, so that in case of being attacked you wiould be the one in a fortified position, furthermore, there tipically 2 besieging forces, 1 smaller surrounding the fortress while there was a covering army protecting enemy approaches . But overall, I miss in EU2 the more frequently used tactic to lift an enemy siege, that is, to cut its supply line or simply threatening to do that.
Click to expand...

circumvallation and contravallation in CK period :confused:
 
The Romans could do that but in the middle ages warfare was much less sophisticated. But I guess that is exactly what you wanted to say.
 
At the beginning of what was to be the Third Crusade the King of Jerusalem (later reinforced by Phillip II and Richard I), while besieging Acre, built outward facing fortifications to repel attacks from Saladin's relieving forces. And it worked. So it is not totally unheard of in the CK period.:)
 
I too would love to see an improvement in the management of battles. In EUII it was quite frustrating to see your army (including a recognised general) just dissapear when fighting a smaller and less military advanced army for no apparrent reason!!

Being able to give simple orders would improve things over the EUII throw the troope into the melee engine.

But would it require a random chance of disobedience from impetuous troops to simulate a lack of discipline?

i.e The Saxons would have defeated the Normans at Hastings if they'd been more disciplined. Though seriously tired and depleted from a forced march south following the battle of Stamford Bridge, where Harold defeated Hardrada, his small army took position on a hill at Hastings to face the Normans. The Normans eventually broke and fled. Unfortunately for Harold his Saxon Houscarls ran down the hill after them. Once caught in the open the Norman cavalry was able to rally and turn what looked like a certain defeat into victory.
 
What I was trying to get at is - will folks be upset if their 5000 man army can't defeat 15000 or so enemy? Or how many posts will someone make complaining about how their 15000 "flower of ______(favorite name inserted here) chivalry were all killed by 5000 tired, hungry enemy troops.

And will this type of battle/result even come about in CK? On the one hand you surely want to be able to create historical outcomes while on the other hand you don't want this type of results to occur too frequently.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back