Insta-army on conquest discussion (renamed)

[Dearmad]

Fix How Armies Work Please:

I think when you take a country the standing army of the place should remain in control of whoever is last commanding them. It is WAY too easy to lead out the Alexandrian army, then sneak into Alexandria, take the town and find yourself controlling 6000+ men all at once. Stupid in fact.

Also, when you first take a country, and catch their men in the country (meaning the counties regiment is not called up and under the control of your enemy) it should SET TO 0 instantly, so YOU begin with an army of 0 men from that country that has to refill undfer your control. This way you can't sack venice or Alexandria and gain 12000 men all at once- that is just silly. Sure you'll have the potential for those men eventually but it'll take time to call them up.

Make sense?

As it is now, instant 6000 armies and instantly taking them away from your enemy makes the game all too easy in warfare. In order to win their loyalty you need to hold the country for a time, and defeat them in the field.

 

[Vharzul]

Well I see one problem with your idea or what ever it is, that is as it stand right now manpower generates slowely as it is, you could be waiting like 20-10 years or more to get even half that ammount of manpower dont know why refilling armies is set so slow but, its annoying. Plus if you do take say Alexandria, and that 6000 manpower gose back to alexandira, that at least 6000 enbemy soldier less out of posible 15-20 thausand all togather

but I do see were your coming from, but from were I see and in my opinion its not viable at this time due to manpower generating is extreamly slow as it is.

 

[Zander]

You definitely shouldn't get any armies that are currently in the field - that's a problem in EU2, too. As for the manpower, that's harder to say; maybe the current manpower could be reduced by some fraction, but not to 0? After all, presumably some of the young lads of the province would be willing to sign up with anyone who would pay them.

 

[Dearmad]

Zander: That's a great idea- here's how I think it could work:

You get 75% of the army if your REP is totally honorable down to 0% if your REP is totally dishonorable, with tarnished and the other settings being like 50% or so... That would add some stategy into it, and reward you if you're maintaining honor. It also would make sens that the army would want to join you if your honorbale and not if you're not. Also it could be modified by your ethnicity/religion- so I can't get 6000+ muslims to follow my Frankish King of Naples by simply saying, "Let's go kill your former friends, my -uh- brothers!"

But Getting the armies totally and instantly makes conquering WAY too easy- I've taken 90% of north africa in 1 year playing on normal due to this- and taking Alexandria should NOT be so easy (see my other thread about the AI not handling large armies well).

IF the armies disappear from your enemy when you take a province then AT LEAST you shouldn't also GAIN that army instantly- it makes conquering too easy....

Bottom line is, it's a game killer since it's so easy to master the map in this way- take Venice, Alaxandria and you've 12000 men instantly. That is seriously flawed! And take in consideration with your enemy LOSING that many men it's like doubling them!

 

[FrEDa]

Yes, I noticed this as well when observing the AI. Later I started using the tactic and it works wonders. It's not just that you rob the enemy of his troops by taking the province, but if his army is busy sieging some province (thus not weakened) you get his fresh troops teleported by magic back to the original province of the regiment, ready to serve you

The AI doesn't understand this, which is part of the reason I think, that defensive wars are always lost by the AI, in AI vs. AI battles (see Iberia for example).

 

[unmerged(14031)]

true this is a problem that should be dealt with somehow

 

[Dearmad]

That actually could explain a lot about what's going in Spain and other places too... Yup the AI doesn't do well defensively at all.

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Yes, I noticed this as well when observing the AI. Later I started using the tactic and it works wonders. It's not just that you rob the enemy of his troops by taking the province, but if his army is busy sieging some province (thus not weakened) you get his fresh troops teleported by magic back to the original province of the regiment, ready to serve you

The AI doesn't understand this, which is part of the reason I think, that defensive wars are always lost by the AI, in AI vs. AI battles (see Iberia for example).

As always Freda, you make good observations, this one though looks pretty troubling.

So if I am understanding your post, if the owner of a province is sieging another 3rd party province, and you take his province from which the sieging troops are drawn, they stop the seige and appear in the province you just took?

If thats true, thats one hell of an exploit and should be eliminated not tweeked.

 

[FrEDa]

As always Freda, you make good observations, this one though looks pretty troubling.

So if I am understanding your post, if the owner of a province is sieging another 3rd party province, and you take his province from which the sieging troops are drawn, they stop the seige and appear in the province you just took?

If thats true, thats one hell of an exploit and should be eliminated not tweeked.

Yes.

And since they don't use their vassal troops well, you can waltz on and eat him up. Then when the entity crumbles, take out his vassals one by one..

It's ideal when a nation declares war on a vassal of yours, just sit back and wait a while.. send out the troops. 1 click before they land (to avoid prestige penalty) declare war. His troops are (normaly) on their way to your vassal (or yours) and won't be able to backtrace break your siege (even if 3>1) if you have 2000+ troops.

Since you get very detailed info on enemy troops (Commander, # , province) it's wise to pick of his big guns first. Great Intel..

If he has vassals near his demense, he'll call them up.. but not move them (well it happens some time, not coordinated though).

Edit : Works on Normal/Normal and Hard/Furious
/F

 

[unmerged(7415)]

I agree with the idea in this thread.

Granted, when a city falls to you, the soldiers from there may be likely to desert from their current duties. However, might they not also rally with a resolve to liberate their homes? This would depend on their feelings toward their ruler, I think, and also towards the invader.

A defensive war likely becomes dynamically unstable if what I read here is true. Given the general premise of CK is to punish a player for making offensive wars, the player should not be rewarded with free troops for doing so. It runs contradictory to a main design theme. As it is in EU2, you should get the manpower, but not the men.

In defense of the designers, there are plenty of historical examples of troops suddenly switching sides. However, there seems to have always been some underlying reason for doing so. It was not (given the nature of Feudalism) the norm. Should a player reconquer a city of their own religion and culture, then a few defectors might make sense. Still... not 100%, and probably less than 33%.

Any proposal to address this problem should certainly take the culture and religion of the defecting troops into account. I also agree that there should be no spontaneous teleporting of defectors. Do we suppose that their lords and masters would be content to see them suddenly leave with all their weapons and in full supply. I think not.

 

[unmerged(14031)]

Basically the AI has to be made to know this

defend home province at all cost

when home province is undersiege, the away army should be immediately be disbanded and used to defend home province! (of course check the siege size first, dont disband if there are only 50 guys sieging)

 

[unmerged(12746)]

In defense of the designers, there are plenty of historical examples of troops suddenly switching sides. However, there seems to have always been some underlying reason for doing so. It was not (given the nature of Feudalism) the norm. Should a player reconquer a city of their own religion and culture, then a few defectors might make sense. Still... not 100%, and probably less than 33%.

Any proposal to address this problem should certainly take the culture and religion of the defecting troops into account. I also agree that there should be no spontaneous teleporting of defectors. Do we suppose that their lords and masters would be content to see them suddenly leave with all their weapons and in full supply. I think not.

True as this is there needs to be something to remedy this, or its truly one hell of an exploit. I would think a 25% defection would be reasonable, but the last thing I want to do is penalize the AI in any game. As I dont have the game I am in the dark as to why the armies dont continue to seige? Once the province is gone that they come from thats it, its not like in 1066 there was a wonderful communication system, one could make an argument that the troops wouldnt even know if thier home province was conquered.

When you conquer the home province do you instantly own it? or is thier a peace settlement like in EUII? If there is a peace settlement then the troops ought to be able to continue the siege and maybe win, thereby giving thier liege a possible new home province by which they can be stationed.

 

[unmerged(19220)]

Hail,
The ENEMY army/regiments should NOT leave at ALL! This is really unrealistic period! In fact IF Kingdom X was with at war with Kingdom Y and lands or the nominal capitol of King Y fell to King X they would not IN FACT instantly disband OR transfer thier loyality to the NEW deedholder...that is just brain dead and goes against all that transpired in the period. Places, pieces of geography were NOT the CORNERSTONE of a realm but in fact usually it was the King, duke, count etc that was the pivot that all things revolved upon, IF they died in battle YES! I can see this shift of loyalitys, but a king whom had a intact army WAS the state at that time. Even IF you took his lands as long as he was physically capable of maintaining a army in the field he presented the gravest threat to the opposing claimant. Imagine IF William had not won at Hastings. IF the battle had in fact been a tactical defeat for the english King he simply would have fallen back with his army and resisted William as best he could BUT if London had fallen in the mean entire regiments of his army would NOT have defected to William enmass and supported William instead. That is beyond comprehension. Remember the regiments are composed of nobles that are calling up thier levys to serve the royal host. These regimental leaders would have had a vested interest in remaining loyal to thier leige lord until all appeared lost OR they had low loyality to begin with. Having regiments magically switch sides in the middle of a war is simply not acceptable to the period or reality...In FACT, the regiment should not even disband until ONE GAME YEAR has elapsed, and by this I mean that the original holder of the province should still retain control of that regiment for a year UNLESS he is dead, to reflect the fact that levys would have in reality stuck to thier lord until all appeared lost, EVEN IF the home province they were raised from was captured, and then replenish from 0 to reflect the rebuilding of low level vassal loyalitys and the reformation of military forces in that region. I use 1 year as a general timeframe for the following reason, maintaining armys in the field during this period beyond the typical 40 days of field service offered by vassals to thier lieges was very expensive and only a very rich noble or one well versed in foraging could have stayed in the field beyond this time frame.
Sheytan

 

[FrEDa]

True as this is there needs to be something to remedy this, or its truly one hell of an exploit. I would think a 25% defection would be reasonable, but the last thing I want to do is penalize the AI in any game. As I dont have the game I am in the dark as to why the armies dont continue to seige? Once the province is gone that they come from thats it, its not like in 1066 there was a wonderful communication system, one could make an argument that the troops wouldnt even know if thier home province was conquered.

When you conquer the home province do you instantly own it? or is thier a peace settlement like in EUII? If there is a peace settlement then the troops ought to be able to continue the siege and maybe win, thereby giving thier liege a possible new home province by which they can be stationed.

I can't say for sure if it works vs. Christian nations, I've only conquered one and I didn't notice it (took 20 seconds). Could be an isolated problem for Pagan/Religious enemy conquests..

/F

 

[unmerged(12746)]

I can't say for sure if it works vs. Christian nations, I've only conquered one and I didn't notice it (took 20 seconds). Could be an isolated problem for Pagan/Religious enemy conquests..

/F

That would be a big test Freda, if its exclusive to Pagans and religous enemies then its still a problem but lowers in extreme.

Under any circumstance though, the foriegn army shouldnt teleport 100 % strength back to thier home province which is now under your control, pagan, religious foe or not...

Obviously it bares more testing, and if infact its a glaring issue (which if this can happen to Chrisitans to, it is) then it will get a lot of attention.

I am assuming your playing with 1.01? This seems to me something that certainly would have come up during beta testing, someone must have noted it, I would be curious about that. Maybe MR T will see this, or Demetrios and shed a little light, if they can.

 

[Demetrios]

I can't say that I've personally noticed it. But then again, I have tended to more or less destroy the army of the state I'm attacking. When I take the province in question, the potential manpower there tends to be uselessly low until it slowly builds back up...

 

[unmerged(6777)]

There are various factors at work here.

yes, I agree that it stands the potential of being one heck of an exploit as it is currently implemented (I was discussing this last week with one of the developers in fact) and I suspect that some sort of change will be looked at.

There are several critical things to consider intitially, the most important factor being whether the province has actually changed alliegence or not. In the case of a co-religionist taking control of it, the regiment should remain under the control of the owner of the province (rather than its controller) but should have its maintenence capped at 50% and it should gradually reduce in size (effectively a desertion rate). This rate should be dependent on the prestige and BB of the province owner, possibly modified by the province controller's prestige. Other factors that might be taken into consideration would the the military stats of the owner, the piety of the owner, etc. At some point, if the province continues to be controlled by the enemy, the regiment should disband itself or at least lose all of its morale and become useless.

If the province subsequently changes ownership due to peace terms, the regiment should be automatically disbanded and its size should be set to whatever it is at the time that the change of ownership occured.

The case where the province changes ownership at the same time that it changes control is a completely different scenario. I agree that it should suffer penalties and/or loss, but I'm, not sure that it would be reset to zero. From a game mechanics POV I think that it *must* become the property of the new province owner (i.e. if you've just taken one of the demesne provinces of an emir and he's still in existence then he won't be able to keep using the regiment since it is simply not a workable option in the program code). That part of the possible exploit simply *can't* be eliminated without massive recoding. However in instances where it is still a large force, it should most certainly not become something that can be easily turned against its former owner. The easiest way to code this would be to reduce the regiment size (as was suggested above) according to some formula that would include modifiers for the new owner's stats. I would think that a baseline reduction of 50% would be reasonable. If the new ruler has high prestige, high military stats, etc then perhaps he could gain a bit more than this. If he has poor military stats or low prestige then it should be less. Arguably, if he has high prestige the regiment size should be *reduced* (since they aren't co-religionists). If he has a trait such as "crusader" or "zealous" then it should take a big hit in size. If he has the trait "skeptical" or "excomminicated" then he should gain a bonus to its size.

If further discussion (meaning constructive critisism and polite suggestions) ensues in this thread then perhaps a proposal could be taken to the developers or, if really productive, then I'll ask Johan to read through it in depth. If we have lots of "this is such shit" comments then I won't bother asking Johan to read through it. <--- yes, that's a hint.

 

[FrEDa]

Mt.T

Would it be possible (to your knowledge) to increase the amount of troops in the remaining regiments for that nation/dynasty when a regiment is disbanded due to the province being conquered? If so, that's a possibility (with modifiers as you discussed) that would let the defender keep some of the troops. Although this should only happen if they're in the same region as another regiment (my opinion).

Also, if this is possible, how will that effect the receiving regiments troops when disbanded. Say a regiment from a province A has 200.. gets +2000 from a force-disbanded other regiment (province B).. would it revert back to 200 (for province A) when disbanded itself or would that have to be added also?

Also, what effect would this have on upkeep for the strengthened regiment? Should it be 100%... ?

Otherwise your comments on how things should be and modified seems wise.

/F

 

[Dearmad]

Well I agree very much with the Mr. T's sentiment in the above post. Further I'd like to stress that across cultures AND religions should be taken into account. I'm thinking of two specific places where this exploit is too easy: Venice and Alexandria. Those two places can affect the shape of the world very easily when under the control of one person.

I think for Venice there should be special rules since it's a republic against using all those soldiers so quickly. The hits you take on how full the army will be should be severe when a Feudal society takes over a republican one.

Also, I've noticed the "loyalty" of the people in new places taken over is always 100%. In fact I've yet to see how loyalty ever really changes unless you do some really POOR choosing in your tax settings. This speaks to the "realisitc" arguement (which isn't the same as the what's fun in the game arguement), but shouldn't it take more time than a day for venice and other provinces to be at 100% loyalty when some petty Neapolitan King takes them over?

So, when my Norman Catholics take over a moslem province, there should be practically NO ONE from that province who will EVER want to serve- the maximum % of men typical to a place should be something like 33% and in this case start at 0% for at least a year. Think about it- who ARE all these people in Alaxandria willing to serve some Norman king? Once the province is the same religion: +33%, once it's the same culture: +33.3% = 100%

Something similar should happen for the republics.

As it is now in the game getting a toehold into moslem africa and the near east is way too easy. There are no manpower problems like the real crusader's faced. It wasn't resources, it was people- not enough soldiers to fight because the soldiers mostly came from the homelands, not the new places.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

FrEDa

I do not know if that's possible. Certainly not from any event script that is available, and it might not be possible to achieve it in the source code either. (By which I mean that it might be too complex to code, rather than it being "impossible".) Your proposal has some merit, though, if it could be done. If it can't, it might be possible to do by adding a "special" regiment - much in the way that mercenaries work.

From a support standpoint it wouldn't pose any problems since the the support is calculated on an ongoing basis and is based on the current regiment size (or would work as per mecenaries if that approach had tp be used). I would also assume that be "oversized" wouldn't be an issue either. Disbanding *would* be an issue, so perhaps the better line of reasoning would be to tackle this by having the former regiment split into a "province" component that is automatically disbanded and becomes availabel to the new province owner, and a "mercenary" component that is assigned to the province's former owner (if he still holds a demesne of any kind).