Doomposting in ck3 forums because I know eu5 will probably be the medieval grand strategy game I've always wanted.
- 17
- 2
- 1
-
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.
The CK2 levy system was the worst part about warfare in CK2 because you had much less control over the composition of your army and it required a lot more effort to change it.
Your army and everyone else's around you had pretty much all possible levies in it as the various buildings that granted these levies existed everywhere. So generally the bigger army always won in CK2, except for special cases like some ultra broken commander or unique kinds of levies (horse archers) or well thought out retinues.
For this reason CK2 players always preferred buying retinues, and thus we got the MAA system in CK3.
Your army and everyone else's around you had pretty much all possible levies in it as the various buildings that granted these levies existed everywhere. So generally the bigger army always won in CK2, except for special cases like some ultra broken commander or unique kinds of levies (horse archers) or well thought out retinues.
For this reason CK2 players always preferred buying retinues, and thus we got the MAA system in CK3.
- 10
- 2
- 1
- 1
The problem was more about convoluted tactics system, that's why even army composition mattered in the first place - players could trigger very strong tactics by having specific army composition. that was half the reason why retinues were so OP, you could achieve whatever composition you wanted.
With that smaller armies could crush bigger one.
This is probably the part that Devs though it was too complex (also with three flanks) and too hidden, so they streamlined it but they took it too far.
They should've reworked tactics/composition but instead we got generic "levies", superhuman knights and men at arms that AI can't handle.
- 10
- 7
Having levies be a mix of unit types which you can supplement with mercs of a type or a retinue was far more accurate to history than ck3 where levies are peasants with sticks and armies should be 1 type of MaA + siege engines. Paradox just needed to make the tactics system be more accommodating of non pure flanks, than to make armies be just retinues and mono flank
- 15
- 1
Raising levies in their provinces and bringing them together felt so natural and made sense. Levies were really fast but this was sort of a vulnerable phase.
Both games suffer from the issue of raising all troops having low risk and low cost. If raising troops was a more choisy decision I think it would improve both games a long way.
I liked CK2's army compositions a lot better. You had a real army made up from all your vassals. Not just trash and then some paid mercenaries you actually use and definitely no space marines, just commanders.
I think men at arms should become retinues again and retinues should work more like old CK2 levies but with more customizability in exchange for cost.
I also think knights should put characters in battles giving them risks of death or glory but not be individual units but rather use their stats and abilities to buff you army. I would make the buffs dilute the larger the army. So like a knight in a 300 army might have a 100% buff but in a 3000 army a 10% buff and so on. So more knights and commander characters the more buffs for your larger armies. I would also make it so vassals lend out their knights to their liege when not using them themselves.
Both games suffer from the issue of raising all troops having low risk and low cost. If raising troops was a more choisy decision I think it would improve both games a long way.
I liked CK2's army compositions a lot better. You had a real army made up from all your vassals. Not just trash and then some paid mercenaries you actually use and definitely no space marines, just commanders.
I think men at arms should become retinues again and retinues should work more like old CK2 levies but with more customizability in exchange for cost.
I also think knights should put characters in battles giving them risks of death or glory but not be individual units but rather use their stats and abilities to buff you army. I would make the buffs dilute the larger the army. So like a knight in a 300 army might have a 100% buff but in a 3000 army a 10% buff and so on. So more knights and commander characters the more buffs for your larger armies. I would also make it so vassals lend out their knights to their liege when not using them themselves.
- 12
- 1
I always thought CK2 cultures have enough space in their description boxes to at least show me in-game what their unique tactics were, but that ultimately never came true and I had to keep referring to the wiki.
- 7
- 3
So make various buildings that granted these levies not exist everywhere. Problem solved.
- 3
- 1
I think that would work well with food. In CK II, every city was a metropolis, every castle a mighty fortress, and every bishopric had an Anno 1404 imperial cathedral on steroids.
With food, you could differentiate between rural and urban areas, and they could all be the same. There would be some powerful places, like mighty capitals, where you could find everything. But other places would have to specialize.
- 2
Or just decrease income so not every holding has everything built by 1200?
- 2
I don't know why we're still dealing with the army and economy from launch. They were a bad idea then, it seems that virtually nobody likes it, and yet it has not gotten any work done. I get that they're committed to their current path for the remainder of the year, but I really hope after China they take a step back and figure out how to start turning this back into a strategy game.
- 14
- 5
- 1
This brings with it the problem that smaller countries, especially in the early stages, would be virtually incapable of waging war because they lacked the money. The constant problem is how to scale so that there isn't too little at the beginning and too much at the end?
- 2
Maybe have lower quality troops that cost less to train and maintain? Not every soldier needs expensive armour plates at game start in more undeveloped regions. You only need more armour if you're facing off against more developed and advanced powers.
You only need to be strong relative to your peers.
I would have a system instead where counties generate levies based on their development, but then buildings and cultural traditions (which can affect buildings and even raise or lower how many levies are raised by the development) then train those levies into trained levies with a small reserve left. Stationing MaA now only serves to make more trained levies of that type comparatively and perhaps minorly boosts them by max about 5%. Whenever you raise your army you initially only raise trained levies, a little checkbox or a second raising could raise untrained levies but doing so almost immediately hits your county popularity. Losing levies should hit your development and ticks off your peasants.
I also want vassal contributions to be separated and losing or raising them for too long should really anger your vassals.
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
Funny, we were discussing about the subject in the RPGCodex forums the other day.
We essentially came upon similar conclusions:
- CKII Levies > CKIII levies. CKII levies were useful for a good chunk of the game, until you could start rolling out a decent retinue. CKIII levies are only useful in the early game and after that, you're better off always maximizing your gold to build a proper retinue.
- Peasant Pitchfork Rabble Levies are effing stupid. It's essentially a stupid middle ages cliche. IRL, your average cannonfodder soldier got something like a simple spear and some leather armor, and he was a warrior who at least trained occasionally.
- The CKIII building system sidesteps the biggest issue with the CKII levies system: It always gave you an assorted grab-bag assortment of troops. Using the CKIII system, this would allow players and AI alike more control of a CKII-style levy system.
- How to get the soldier types you want from vassals? Simple, Vassal Contracts. This can have some interesting interplay with other systems. Like, why keep around a bunch of people from a different culture? Because you want THEIR Cultural Units and your contract strictly demands them to supply those to you.
- Monobuild Retinues/MAAs are stupid. IRL, a mono-build army would have been trashed so hard by any decent tactician with an equivalent army, It's not even funny. I think a mix of Infantry/Cavalry/Archers should be the minimum the average army needs to work. Obviously, this should be mostly valid for European-style armies. Things like Cavalry-heavy Steppe armies should follow different rules (say, Heavy/Light Cav/Horse Archers), and the inclusion of other unit types like Horse Archers and Elephants should make things more complex, but that's it.
- Retinues/MAAs trivialize the need to keep your vassals happy. With a big enough MAA, you no longer need to care what your vassals think. A big block of unchanging, ever-loyal soldiers is a problem in the mechanics.
I think the last one needs an intervention myself. In my opinion, the big problem of retinues/MAA is that they're totally disconnected from the CK game of characters and personal loyalties and that's stupid. They're essentially the Adeptus Custodes, when they should be more like the Praetorian Guard.
My idea: I believe the way to go is to have a Court Position for a leader of retinues, a "Master of Arms" if you will - I'm sure a medieval afficionado will find a better name. Anyway, my point is, the "Master of Arms" is meant to be the guy who leads your household troops, separate from the Marshal who leads your entire army (Your MAAs + Levies + Mercs). If the "Master of Arms" is not happy, he can screw you over - say, corrupt your MAAs to work for him rather than you, with accompanying effects (congrats you're now a puppet king, or dead).
If the MAAs become a new potential sword pointed at the player, suddenly keeping people happy becomes more important. I mean, at least keep THIS guy happy.
(it could be a function of the Marshal as well, but I think both being separate makes more sense and induces more political play - like, your Marshal should want to accumulate the functions, and doing this will make him happy, but make you more vulnerable. If Marshal doesn't have both positions, he should not be happy about it, but its less risk)
Mix with things like tech, and you can have increasingly better units in quality and quantity both.
Reminds me how your first units in Knights of Honor I and II are essentially Peasants with pitchforks and bad spears. Good for an early game rush and desperation attacks, but little else. You will start using proper soldiers as soon as possible and so will the AI.
We essentially came upon similar conclusions:
- CKII Levies > CKIII levies. CKII levies were useful for a good chunk of the game, until you could start rolling out a decent retinue. CKIII levies are only useful in the early game and after that, you're better off always maximizing your gold to build a proper retinue.
- Peasant Pitchfork Rabble Levies are effing stupid. It's essentially a stupid middle ages cliche. IRL, your average cannonfodder soldier got something like a simple spear and some leather armor, and he was a warrior who at least trained occasionally.
- The CKIII building system sidesteps the biggest issue with the CKII levies system: It always gave you an assorted grab-bag assortment of troops. Using the CKIII system, this would allow players and AI alike more control of a CKII-style levy system.
- How to get the soldier types you want from vassals? Simple, Vassal Contracts. This can have some interesting interplay with other systems. Like, why keep around a bunch of people from a different culture? Because you want THEIR Cultural Units and your contract strictly demands them to supply those to you.
- Monobuild Retinues/MAAs are stupid. IRL, a mono-build army would have been trashed so hard by any decent tactician with an equivalent army, It's not even funny. I think a mix of Infantry/Cavalry/Archers should be the minimum the average army needs to work. Obviously, this should be mostly valid for European-style armies. Things like Cavalry-heavy Steppe armies should follow different rules (say, Heavy/Light Cav/Horse Archers), and the inclusion of other unit types like Horse Archers and Elephants should make things more complex, but that's it.
- Retinues/MAAs trivialize the need to keep your vassals happy. With a big enough MAA, you no longer need to care what your vassals think. A big block of unchanging, ever-loyal soldiers is a problem in the mechanics.
I think the last one needs an intervention myself. In my opinion, the big problem of retinues/MAA is that they're totally disconnected from the CK game of characters and personal loyalties and that's stupid. They're essentially the Adeptus Custodes, when they should be more like the Praetorian Guard.
My idea: I believe the way to go is to have a Court Position for a leader of retinues, a "Master of Arms" if you will - I'm sure a medieval afficionado will find a better name. Anyway, my point is, the "Master of Arms" is meant to be the guy who leads your household troops, separate from the Marshal who leads your entire army (Your MAAs + Levies + Mercs). If the "Master of Arms" is not happy, he can screw you over - say, corrupt your MAAs to work for him rather than you, with accompanying effects (congrats you're now a puppet king, or dead).
If the MAAs become a new potential sword pointed at the player, suddenly keeping people happy becomes more important. I mean, at least keep THIS guy happy.
(it could be a function of the Marshal as well, but I think both being separate makes more sense and induces more political play - like, your Marshal should want to accumulate the functions, and doing this will make him happy, but make you more vulnerable. If Marshal doesn't have both positions, he should not be happy about it, but its less risk)
That's a pretty interesting idea. The stupid pitchfork rabble levies still exist, but throwing them in battle essentially means you're super poor/desperate.
Mix with things like tech, and you can have increasingly better units in quality and quantity both.
Reminds me how your first units in Knights of Honor I and II are essentially Peasants with pitchforks and bad spears. Good for an early game rush and desperation attacks, but little else. You will start using proper soldiers as soon as possible and so will the AI.
- 10
- 3
It's not like you couldn't become the Emperor in CK3, though. Maybe some players feel the pieces fit nicely together.
I'm actually planning to make a case for the Blood dynastic legacies but I'm still working on the history stuff and waiting for the nomad DLC excitement to blow off.
- 1