The MAA vs Levy question: An idea

[Voidian]

The newest patch notes recognizes that pretty much everyone wants to get more gold instead of levies, and we know why this is the case, gold simply offers far more power than raw levies do at the moment.

So here's an idea on how to change this

1: All boosts to MAA and knights need to be removed from the game, they stack with MAA numbers and size multiplicatively creating a snowball effect the AI can't possibly hope to keep up with
2: Buildings still exist, so they need to do something to be worth the investment

So here's what I was thinking.


-Remove all base MAA slots from every character, they are all set to zero, and they never increase through tech or tiers.
-Remove all bonuses from military buildings
-Make it so each county can only have one military building
-Instead of adding bonuses each military building you control, personally, add a new MAA slot, they all start with a single regiment of size 1, each upgrade to each one of those military buildings will grant +1 size to the MAA stationed in that province, so if you have a lvl 3 stable in your capital you can recruit 300 light horsemen or 150 heavy horsemen in that slot.
-Technology acts in the same way, allowing players to build higher military building levels, which should gradually increase their MAA sizes.
-Ranks indirectly increase your MAA, as higher ranks allow you to personally control more lands, which means you can unlock more MAA

Overall I believe this could resolve the discrepancy between levies, being so weak compared to MAA reaching over 400 damage each, and it would greatly reduce the total number of MAA each player can have, meaning they'd need to worry more about their levies numbers.

As for tribals vs feudal, CK2 had a clear distinction from the kinds of troops they could field, while tribals had giant armies, feudal had better armies, so I believe tribal armies should have access to larger MAA per level BUT they should not have access to heavier troops until they feudalize, few exceptions can be made, such as the Norse and their special heavy infantry troops, but they also should have some limitation for the sake of balance.

Of course this still leaves the issue of knights, the latest patch cut their power by half, which I greatly appreciate, personally I'd rather see them act more like commanders to levy banners or even MAA slots, but that's another issue and I'd rather not mix it with this suggestion.

I'd like to hear opinions on this.

tl;dr the goal is to reduce MAA slots, MAA sizes and remove the bonuses from the game so they don't simply end up dealing thousands of times more damage than levies while avoiding having to rework the entire levy system in a single patch.

PS: Since domain = MAA slots stewardship might need to stop giving extra domain, otherwise it will be even more broken.

 

[ray243]

I think levies should be more varied in terms of their capabilities depending on culture and development in the realm. A highly militarised and economically developed society can maybe have a strong tradition of levies who are effectively as good as MAA because the realm have constantly wage wars and thus many levies are effectively veterans and those veterans are well off in terms of equipment due to all the loot and plunder they have acquired over their services but also that of their forefathers.

By contrast, MAA might not be as good due to various issues like a weaker martial tradition, poor training and funding of the professional army, lots of soldiers who didn't have war time experience and so on.

Basically we have to set up scenarios like how the Mongols are better soldiers despite being mostly levies against the Song Dynasty which had the world largest professional army but it's quality of soldiers aren't that great.

But our issue is there's currently no way to keep track of veterancy, level of equipments in armies...

 

[Apocal]

Basically we have to set up scenarios like how the Mongols are better soldiers despite being mostly levies against the Song Dynasty which had the world largest professional army but it's quality of soldiers aren't that great.

That's an easy one. The Song didn't have horses to meaningfully equip those big-ass armies while the nomads had horses out the ass. Taking from "Taxing Heaven's Storehouse" by Paul J. Smith:

In a port-mortem assessment of the Jurchen Jin conquest of North China in 1127, the equestrian and imperial adviser Lu Yihao offered a formula on the subject: "A level plain covered by shallow grass, on which horses can advance and withdraw with ease, is the perfect terrain for the use of cavalry. There one soldier on horseback can oppose ten on foot."
...
An anecdote from the end of the Sino-Jurchen war suggest that even Lu Yihao underestimated the advantage well-drilled cavalrymen enjoyed on the open plains. Following the conclusion of a peace treaty, the Jurchen sent seventeen horsemen from Kaifeng to report to their government in Hebei. Along the way they encountered a Chinese military command and his 2,000 foot soldiers, who refused to let the Jurchen messengers pass. The seventeen cavalry divided into three groups, and "seven of them came to the front and five each were disposed on the left and right wings. As they approached the government forces, the seven horsemen charged and the government soldiers retreated a little. The wings took advantage of the retreat and rode into the government forces, shooting arrows. The government forces were dispersed, and almost half the troops were lost."
...
Several years before the Jurchen conquest of North China, the Song horse supply system had fallen into disarray, inspiring the Song patriot and defender Li Gang to write that "the Jin were victorious only because they used iron-shielded cavalry, while we opposed them with foot soldiers. It is only to be expected that [our soldiers] were scattered and dispersed."

If you want to win in northern China, you need horses. If you don't have them, no cavalry. Basically, give "herd" as a resource even to sedentary states and then make them pay for their cavalry, both initial purchase and maintenance, by requiring they keep a good number around. Then make getting that herd not something you can do in just any old province. Southern China was notoriously poor as a horse breeding ground due to a certain nutrient deficiency. Horses raised there would never be strong enough to support an armored man riding them. And if you instead try to make up the deficiency with infantry, a few tweaks to the counter system would make it an extremely bad idea to attempt to just swamp them in numbers.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Abolish the men at arm system, and just go back to ck2's army structures. Way simpler, easier, and better result

 

[Apocal]

Abolish the men at arm system, and just go back to ck2's army structures. Way simpler, easier, and better result

I agree with it being a better result but I don't think it was simpler for players or easier to interact with.

 

[ray243]

That's an easy one. The Song didn't have horses to meaningfully equip those big-ass armies while the nomads had horses out the ass. Taking from "Taxing Heaven's Storehouse" by Paul J. Smith:

If you want to win in northern China, you need horses. If you don't have them, no cavalry. Basically, give "herd" as a resource even to sedentary states and then make them pay for their cavalry, both initial purchase and maintenance, by requiring they keep a good number around. Then make getting that herd not something you can do in just any old province. Southern China was notoriously poor as a horse breeding ground due to a certain nutrient deficiency. Horses raised there would never be strong enough to support an armored man riding them. And if you instead try to make up the deficiency with infantry, a few tweaks to the counter system would make it an extremely bad idea to attempt to just swamp them in numbers.

You would need a proper trade mechanic for herd, I imagine? So that will be something only chapter 5 can bring with proper trade mechanics. Right now it almost doesn't matter whether China have access to good horses, nor can you trade herd between nomad and sedentary civilisations....

 

[DeanTheDull]

I agree with it being a better result but I don't think it was simpler for players or easier to interact with.

It certainly wasn't simpler for the calculation load. The CK2 levy system was an example of a cardtricks-in-the-dark system: mechanically complicated for a result that in player practice still simplified to 'there are your Retinues (MAA), and then there is everything else,' where players kept retinues and levies as isolated as possible (flank system) and relied on MAA/retinue composition and buffing (tactics system) to outperform the AI.

For all that the levy system breaks some people's verisimilitude- which, to be clear, is reason enough to consider how it's presented- it's not actually that different from what the CK2 system resolved into. At the end of the day, CK2 levies still have an average strength, modified by an average % multiplier. You can keep tracking each individual average and multiplier, or you can consolidate into a single average.

Metaphorically, it's the difference between a complicated algebra formula, and the formula's algebraic simplified form. The former may have a lot more steps, but it's convoluted, not fundamentally different. It is the same structure, just different set-dressing / characterization.


This matters because of how both CK2 and CK3 actually approach the role of levies (CK2-style and CK3-style) in the faction system- which is to say, total numbers.

Both CK2 and CK3 approached factions from a faction threshold of relative strength. Factions can't press without sufficient relative strength. This is 75% in CK2, and 80% in CK3.

The issue is that in both games treat this as a total numbers game, not a relative-quality game. A levy [unit class] in CK2 with 0 modifiers counted as much as a retinue of the same [unit class] with XYZ% modifiers from tech/tactics/etc. In CK3, the levy counts as much as the per-unit MAA.

Ever since early CK2 made retinues/MAA the primary combat power, levies have been fundamentally a realm stability mechanic rather than a combat mechanic. Even CK2 incentivized you to not use the levies, due to offensive war penalties. As soon as you could get away with retinue-only wars, it was always superior, and also an option that the AI would not emulate.



This creates implications for if you want to trade [many weak] levies for [fewer stronger] not-levies. Any change that changes the relative number of forces is going to in turn change the realm stability dynamics across the map.

If the ruler gets relatively more forces, then the realm gets more stable- and player ruler-tier especially gets more stable, stronger, and easier, because it's harder for vassals to meet thresholds.

If the vassals get more forces, then the realm gets less stable- and the (especially AI) rulers get more fragile, prone to unrest, and vulnerable to more stable factions.


This is why it's important for any levy-proposal to reckon the role of levies into faction systems. For over a decade now, a consistent design premise has been elite, disproportionately effective ruler forces (retinues/MAA) outnumbered by weaker fodder (levies) but whose presence dominates factional instability.

'Just get rid of levies for fewer MAA, and tax those instead' is going to be an inherently player-ruler favoring blob mechanic. Decreasing absolute numbers across the board increases ruler relative power vis-a-vis their vassals, because vassal faction thresholds are an absolute numbers game. Increasing combat-effective units with coverage of the map in turn makes expansion into double-win mechanics- realms that can tax more MAA will be inherently more powerful than the realms with fewer MAA to resist with, which allows them to conquer more.

This may be preferable if you think the AI should blob more and more over time. But CK3 at a design level is not pursuing that- hence why a much more significant anti-blobbing feature, partition, is baked into so much of the game map relative to CK2. The fact that the first non-partition inheritance law for all is in the late game, and that you need to opt-in to special mechanics via culture, high-harmony clan, or elective, indicates that there is a fundamentally easier way to get blobbing AI empires if that itself was a goal.

Simply... remove top-tier partition, akin to CK2, where you basically had to opt out of top-title consolidation since top-level title was limited to elective-gavalkind.

But this isn't addressed by an army rework.

Whereas a more-MAA-with-realm-size + anti-partition mechanics has been demonstrated in the Admin government size. Which distorts the map by being an ever-blobber. Which has been, well, controversial.

An army structure change that makes that more common needs to recognize the dynamic if it's going to be credible / persuasive to game designers who know this factor is in play, but would consider an omission on such a magnitude a mark against the credibility of the proposal.

 

[naq29]

Yes I have been thinking about tying MAA size to buildings for a while.
But the thing is: AI still need to be smart enough to building military buildings because no mil building = no MAA.

My suggestion:
- keep the MAA bonus but make MAA need to be stationed in mil buildings to be recruited - which means MAAs always get bonus from their buildings.
- make base levy much stronger than base MAA.
=> so if AI build mil buildings they will get stronger MAAs. But if they don't have MAA, they still have strong levy instead of trash.

 

[Silens]

The entire military system should be brought closer to what Imperator has: units without buffs, and the only modifiers you get come from military traditions based on your integrated cultures, unlocked by actual combat experience (in a way similar to HoI4 army xp unlocking doctrines). No traditions = no buffs, and everyone is the same.

Levy composition depends on the culture you're levying, and professional armies are mid to late game tech, where you use manpower to create the composition you want.

In such a system, military buildings would increase the levy size, or give you more manpower for your later armies, but otherwise wouldn't conjure up magical buffs.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

I agree with it being a better result but I don't think it was simpler for players or easier to interact with.

Its easier to interact with than constantly restationing MaA and checking which gets the most buffs in which barony

It certainly wasn't simpler for the calculation load. The CK2 levy system was an example of a cardtricks-in-the-dark system: mechanically complicated for a result that in player practice still simplified to 'there are your Retinues (MAA), and then there is everything else,' where players kept retinues and levies as isolated as possible (flank system) and relied on MAA/retinue composition and buffing (tactics system) to outperform the AI.

For all that the levy system breaks some people's verisimilitude- which, to be clear, is reason enough to consider how it's presented- it's not actually that different from what the CK2 system resolved into. At the end of the day, CK2 levies still have an average strength, modified by an average % multiplier. You can keep tracking each individual average and multiplier, or you can consolidate into a single average.

Metaphorically, it's the difference between a complicated algebra formula, and the formula's algebraic simplified form. The former may have a lot more steps, but it's convoluted, not fundamentally different. It is the same structure, just different set-dressing / characterization.


This matters because of how both CK2 and CK3 actually approach the role of levies (CK2-style and CK3-style) in the faction system- which is to say, total numbers.

Both CK2 and CK3 approached factions from a faction threshold of relative strength. Factions can't press without sufficient relative strength. This is 75% in CK2, and 80% in CK3.

The issue is that in both games treat this as a total numbers game, not a relative-quality game. A levy [unit class] in CK2 with 0 modifiers counted as much as a retinue of the same [unit class] with XYZ% modifiers from tech/tactics/etc. In CK3, the levy counts as much as the per-unit MAA.

Ever since early CK2 made retinues/MAA the primary combat power, levies have been fundamentally a realm stability mechanic rather than a combat mechanic. Even CK2 incentivized you to not use the levies, due to offensive war penalties. As soon as you could get away with retinue-only wars, it was always superior, and also an option that the AI would not emulate.



This creates implications for if you want to trade [many weak] levies for [fewer stronger] not-levies. Any change that changes the relative number of forces is going to in turn change the realm stability dynamics across the map.

If the ruler gets relatively more forces, then the realm gets more stable- and player ruler-tier especially gets more stable, stronger, and easier, because it's harder for vassals to meet thresholds.

If the vassals get more forces, then the realm gets less stable- and the (especially AI) rulers get more fragile, prone to unrest, and vulnerable to more stable factions.


This is why it's important for any levy-proposal to reckon the role of levies into faction systems. For over a decade now, a consistent design premise has been elite, disproportionately effective ruler forces (retinues/MAA) outnumbered by weaker fodder (levies) but whose presence dominates factional instability.

'Just get rid of levies for fewer MAA, and tax those instead' is going to be an inherently player-ruler favoring blob mechanic. Decreasing absolute numbers across the board increases ruler relative power vis-a-vis their vassals, because vassal faction thresholds are an absolute numbers game. Increasing combat-effective units with coverage of the map in turn makes expansion into double-win mechanics- realms that can tax more MAA will be inherently more powerful than the realms with fewer MAA to resist with, which allows them to conquer more.

This may be preferable if you think the AI should blob more and more over time. But CK3 at a design level is not pursuing that- hence why a much more significant anti-blobbing feature, partition, is baked into so much of the game map relative to CK2. The fact that the first non-partition inheritance law for all is in the late game, and that you need to opt-in to special mechanics via culture, high-harmony clan, or elective, indicates that there is a fundamentally easier way to get blobbing AI empires if that itself was a goal.

Simply... remove top-tier partition, akin to CK2, where you basically had to opt out of top-title consolidation since top-level title was limited to elective-gavalkind.

But this isn't addressed by an army rework.

Whereas a more-MAA-with-realm-size + anti-partition mechanics has been demonstrated in the Admin government size. Which distorts the map by being an ever-blobber. Which has been, well, controversial.

An army structure change that makes that more common needs to recognize the dynamic if it's going to be credible / persuasive to game designers who know this factor is in play, but would consider an omission on such a magnitude a mark against the credibility of the proposal.

Retinues were small in early game, whilst late game you could have a standing army that fought year round, but at great expense to the state. It was great for showing how the medieval period transitioned.
Long offensive wars giving opinion maluses were a great innate anti blobbing mechanic, as it reduced both taxes and levies for the next war, in ck3 because opinion no longer matters, the malus to offensive war no longer matters. Ck2's miliatry system was so much better and its a shame paradox took the complete opposite approach

 

[ray243]

Its easier to interact with than constantly restationing MaA and checking which gets the most buffs in which barony

Retinues were small in early game, whilst late game you could have a standing army that fought year round, but at great expense to the state. It was great for showing how the medieval period transitioned.
Long offensive wars giving opinion maluses were a great innate anti blobbing mechanic, as it reduced both taxes and levies for the next war, in ck3 because opinion no longer matters, the malus to offensive war no longer matters. Ck2's miliatry system was so much better and its a shame paradox took the complete opposite approach

Raising a levy for too long should upset your feudal vassals as many of them are also farmers and labourers that the feudal lords wanted to help working on their domestic economy. A manpower penalty should occur as soldiers are spending too long away on campaigns. Levies might be more ideal when you're dealing with local/regionalised conflicts that doesn't last long.

It's like how even in modern world, or even in Hearts of Iron, your economy suffers a penalty if you have a large conscript army at war and you're taking away precious manpower that are there to provide for your economy.

HOI4 has better "logic" for the issues with "levies/conscripts" based armies fighting long war as it meant you have to deal with shortage of manpower in other economic areas than CK3. Which really shows how CK3 could do with a badly needed manpower system of some kind. Even if we don't get a full pops system, a manpower system should matter as any levied soldier meant you're taking spare manpower from other parts of your economy.

Whereas with a professional army, and one that can recruit soldiers from even outside of the empire, this means you're ensuring you don't take away manpower from local farmlands and as long as you're rich you can buy recruits from otherwise non-working manpower or foreign manpower...

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Raising a levy for too long should upset your feudal vassals as many of them are also farmers and labourers that the feudal lords wanted to help working on their domestic economy. A manpower penalty should occur as soldiers are spending too long away on campaigns. Levies might be more ideal when you're dealing with local/regionalised conflicts that doesn't last long.

It's like how even in modern world, or even in Hearts of Iron, your economy suffers a penalty if you have a large conscript army at war and you're taking away precious manpower that are there to provide for your economy.

HOI4 has better "logic" for the issues with "levies/conscripts" based armies fighting long war as it meant you have to deal with shortage of manpower in other economic areas than CK3. Which really shows how CK3 could do with a badly needed manpower system of some kind. Even if we don't get a full pops system, a manpower system should matter as any levied soldier meant you're taking spare manpower from other parts of your economy.

Whereas with a professional army, and one that can recruit soldiers from even outside of the empire, this means you're ensuring you don't take away manpower from local farmlands and as long as you're rich you can buy recruits from otherwise non-working manpower or foreign manpower...

The farming population is magnitudes greater than the levies we fight with in ck2 or 3

 

[ray243]

The farming population is magnitudes greater than the levies we fight with in ck2 or 3

The armies are always scaled downwards and aren't representative of how many troops there might exist. Hence the Byzantine army "only" being several thousand men even at its powerful early startdates.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Retinues were small in early game, whilst late game you could have a standing army that fought year round, but at great expense to the state. It was great for showing how the medieval period transitioned.

If by 'late game' you mean 'after a character lifetime or two of getting into the emperorship capital you desired and then dumping military tech points into retinue size boosts,' maybe. Otherwise- not really. Counter-to-Emperor was perfectly possible in CK2, and even if you weren't, then you could always spy on Constantinople, and really all you needed to start your decisive advantage was your long-term capital.

The CK2 technology system was pretty much a solved problem, and from any sort of optimization perspective there was basically no reason to sink military tech points into anything but military organization tech for +100% retinue cap per bonus... which of course scaled disproportionately with rank, but also with realm conquest, which in turn also provided more income tax.

Especially when compounded by the other sides of the tech spam, the econ building unlock thesholds expanding retinue size / econ support, and the viceroyalty spam for maximum opinion taxes.

Long offensive wars giving opinion maluses were a great innate anti blobbing mechanic, as it reduced both taxes and levies for the next war, in ck3 because opinion no longer matters, the malus to offensive war no longer matters. Ck2's miliatry system was so much better and its a shame paradox took the complete opposite approach

Anti-blobbing mechanics need to meaningfully hinder both the player and the AI. This was not the case, because like most bars-so-low you could step over them, the AI wouldn't. CK2 player relative growth accelerated because they knew when not to bother with levies, how to only shaft some vassal opinion, and why to chase opinion-boosting assets (like vice royalties).

As it was, it was (yet another) substantial boon to the player's expansion, by hindering AI blobbing vis-a-vis the player for the player's competitive advantage.

 

[darthfanta]

That's an easy one. The Song didn't have horses to meaningfully equip those big-ass armies while the nomads had horses out the ass. Taking from "Taxing Heaven's Storehouse" by Paul J. Smith:

If you want to win in northern China, you need horses. If you don't have them, no cavalry. Basically, give "herd" as a resource even to sedentary states and then make them pay for their cavalry, both initial purchase and maintenance, by requiring they keep a good number around. Then make getting that herd not something you can do in just any old province. Southern China was notoriously poor as a horse breeding ground due to a certain nutrient deficiency. Horses raised there would never be strong enough to support an armored man riding them. And if you instead try to make up the deficiency with infantry, a few tweaks to the counter system would make it an extremely bad idea to attempt to just swamp them in numbers.

Agree.The Song Dynasty for example simply screwed up their horse breeding program due to the bureaucrats/Imperial family being corrupt and converted a lot of stud farms into pastures for sheep or farms. Huainan,despite being in the South was a fair horse breeding ground. The Mongols themselves breed their warhorses there for example, and the rebels who later formed the Ming Dynasty seized the stud farms there to form cavalry that defeated the Mongols in the North. As for not having a certain nutrient, I think that the Song Dynasty screwed up so much that their horse raising tradition was simply FUBAR and they just didn’t have the knowledge to get it. IIRC there were even thesis written by certain Song officials against horse eugenics.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

If by 'late game' you mean 'after a character lifetime or two of getting into the emperorship capital you desired and then dumping military tech points into retinue size boosts,' maybe. Otherwise- not really. Counter-to-Emperor was perfectly possible in CK2, and even if you weren't, then you could always spy on Constantinople, and really all you needed to start your decisive advantage was your long-term capital.

The CK2 technology system was pretty much a solved problem, and from any sort of optimization perspective there was basically no reason to sink military tech points into anything but military organization tech for +100% retinue cap per bonus... which of course scaled disproportionately with rank, but also with realm conquest, which in turn also provided more income tax.

Especially when compounded by the other sides of the tech spam, the econ building unlock thesholds expanding retinue size / econ support, and the viceroyalty spam for maximum opinion taxes.



Anti-blobbing mechanics need to meaningfully hinder both the player and the AI. This was not the case, because like most bars-so-low you could step over them, the AI wouldn't. CK2 player relative growth accelerated because they knew when not to bother with levies, how to only shaft some vassal opinion, and why to chase opinion-boosting assets (like vice royalties).

As it was, it was (yet another) substantial boon to the player's expansion, by hindering AI blobbing vis-a-vis the player for the player's competitive advantage.

If you werent byz, you didnt get viceroys until very late game, so you didnt automatically get easy to keep opinion with subjects. Count to emperor was an achievement, but with the limited feudal cbs, hard to do in much of the map, so you couldnt spam retinues in your first few gens

 

[DeanTheDull]

If you werent byz, you didnt get viceroys until very late game

Not at all. If you were Byzantium, you sat your (very good) spymaster on Constantinople for the 50-point tech points, and then sank the third that went to social tech points into Majesty V and nothing else (except maybe legalism II and III) to bee-line imperial. This was notably only one level above military organization IV from the military tree, which ended pagan attrition and let you start scaling your MAA with the holy war/moral authority loop against pagan tribals.

This was more than one lifetime, but it was certainly not very late game unless we shorten the game considerably to similar 'when people get bored of winning' points.

 

[strattonthebard]

I do think the types, quality, and amount of men at arms you can raise should be more deeply tied into the demographic and economic structure of your realm. You want to field quality heavy infantry or crossbowmen? Then you want to make sure you have prosperous cities with a strong middle class capable of equipping themselves well but not being cavalry. Granting privileges to certain religious and cultural minorities in order to maintain those communities so their specific martial traditions can be called upon also sounds fun and a more engaging way to deal with culture than just converting every county you can to avoid opinion maluses.

 

[okawfj]

How about keeping the name and graphics of the MAA as flavor, but making the basic stats the same for each unit type?
Then, to create regional characteristics, you could add advantages to performance or terrain through buildings, culture, traditions, or even items.
I think that would make balancing a little easier than it is now.

 

[darthfanta]

I do think the types, quality, and amount of men at arms you can raise should be more deeply tied into the demographic and economic structure of your realm. You want to field quality heavy infantry or crossbowmen? Then you want to make sure you have prosperous cities with a strong middle class capable of equipping themselves well but not being cavalry. Granting privileges to certain religious and cultural minorities in order to maintain those communities so their specific martial traditions can be called upon also sounds fun and a more engaging way to deal with culture than just converting every county you can to avoid opinion maluses.

Those aren’t men at arms. Those are levies. Men at arms in this game are meant to replicate professional standing armies or royal guards equipped by a noble.Mind you, I want levies to be organize the way you mentioned instead of what the game currently has, which are just untrained peasants.