Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
They can't siege a castle that has a larger garrison than their army size. Not that it stops them trying.
Also why do you care about them sieging holdings? As long as you can siege quicker than they can, you'll win the tug of warscore. If anything the real problem is that the AI rarely has siege engines early game, so just having 10 onagers in your men at arms means you can carve up half of their kingdom while they're still sitting outside your capital.
Enemy army is about to retake a holding I have in his territory. I am busy fighting another war, but I split off an army and send them in to smash the enemy army which is successful, but still I get a message saying I have lost the war and I have paid nearly 400 gold!!! WTF?
If the devs can't make the war system more logical and transparent, then I will stop playing the game. I was thinking about buying the expansions but now I'll wait till they have revised or upgraded the war system.
Also, I've noticed the name of the game is making sure their armies don't join with their allies, because they will death stack pretty fast.
Recommend you raid the F out of enemies before declaring war, they won't call allies for raids.
Also, consider that warfare of the this time was more about domination than blood baths. If you stomp them on a tile that has favorable terrain for you, just stay there and let them run back to their cities and come back for another stomping with less guys.
Oh and don't forget you can go sit on one of your cities for a second to recoup some men.
Yes
I'm not going to read the rest of the post because none of this is correct.
1.) The amount of losses taken by the AI depends on multiple factors, but mainly how quickly you win the battle. If you win it during the initial phase, the army is completely wiped. This can be affected by commander skill, men at arms, army size, etc. This has nothing to do with whether "you" are the one losing, or if it's the AI.
2.) You definitely do not have to "chase them around the map". Winning a war is not only about winning battles, you can start sieging war targets and the enemy capital instead. It's also entirely possible to disband your army and re-raise it when the enemy decides to come back (by then it will probably be exhausted of supplies).
Like others said, perhaps you fought against commanders with great Martial stats and perks, good army compositions, beneficial terrain, etc.
If the enemy has a lot of 'screen' and you don't have much 'pursuit', you won't inflict many losses in the pursuit phase, so the enemy will save a lot of lives when escaping.
There are also commander traits dealing directly with fatalities — reductions to friendly fatal casualties, increases to enemy fatal casualties.
As for splitting off and running away in multiple directions, I think perhaps you fought aainst multiple enemy armies stacked in one county rather than a single enemy army. A single enemy army shouldn't split into multiple units.
I haven't noticed a problem with war score awards for battles other than in huge-scale wars, but even then, not really. I wonder what sort of scenario you were facing, but I can imagine that inflicting very few casualties perhaps led to you not getting much war score after winning.
Having to chase the enemy around the map is often a pain, especially if you fight against several independently operating enemy forces without having the luxury of being able to split your forces. Meaning they can split but you can't, so you have to keep chasing them.
Generally, being masters at running away probably means they have commanders with the right traits or perks or better technology (Horseshoes), so they are faster than you. That can be a pain.
If you have the numerical advantage and can make your capital reasonably safe, instead of chasing the enemy down try to capture their counties. They can't drag the war forever if you take their stuff from them. Win one or two battles and siege a bunch of counties, and you'll normally quickly get a lot of warscore.
Next, sieging the capital often allows you to take prisoners from the opponent's family.
Winning battles often allows you to take opponents prisoner.
If fighting against factions, sieging down one of them or capturing him/her in battle removes him/her from the war. This is the way to deal with factions (attacking you or your allies) rather than chasing their armies around the map. I'm not sure if this also works against non-vassals in non-faction wars, but it's worth trying, if only just to find out.
Sometimes AI seems to have an advantage in co-ordination and other aspects of control. If that is the case and if you have an AI ally, try attaching your army to your AI ally's army. Especially whenever your allies seem to be passively waiting for you to move, so they can follow — if you, in that case, attach to them instead, they will take over the initiative and who knows, maybe come up with something useful. Your ally's AI is still AI just like your opponent's, so maybe it will have an easier time reading the enemy AI's mind and reacting properly.
Sieges as your friends. Make sure you have plenty of goons and enough siege machines, as modern as possible, and you will win sieges quickly, meaning less chasing around the map.
Siege machines are expensive, but they pay back. This is because:
1. Shorter sieges means less time your army is up, so fewer months of upkeep to pay. Getting some machines may be less expensive than paying the upkeep for your entire army through long sieges.
2. Capturing counties quickly ends your wars faster.
3. It also allows you to reduce attrition, meaning fewer cases when you have to hire additional mercs, use piety on a holy order, retreat and regroup or white-peace out of the war. Also less time for the enemy to get new allies in the middle of the war. And less exposure to wars being declared on you by other neighbours waiting for an opportunity.
4. More control. You dictate the pace of the war and choose the place. You take it to them and they lose if they don't respond to what you are doing, which is occupying their capital and their counties one after another. So you're gonna the active and they reactive, rather than the other way round. Having the initiative makes a world of difference.
Also, as a rule, don't start wars you aren't sure you can win, wars that are unpredictable, gamey etc. Don't fight if you have a defenceless capital — fortify it first. Get better allies. Try to win the war before you start it.
If that's not wars you choose but wars people declare on you, then consider where you expand and how you consolidate. Expanding too quickly can in fact stretch you thin and leave you overextended and vulnerable to attacks.
***
Bottom line:
1. Focus on winning the war, not on defeating the enemy armies.
2. Meaning numerical advantage (you + allies), siege artillery, quality army (including knights).
3. Don't neglect your fortifications, especially in the capital city.
4. Don't be dragged into a back-and-forth dance. Sometimes you need to continue with sieges in enemy territory, even though the enemy will successfully siege some of your stuff or defeat an allied army during that time. But — other than protecting your capital — you have to proceed toward meeting the war goals, can't keep getting distracted all the time.
Generally think of wars as the execution of a planned, purposeful operation that is achieving the war goals, which usually means control of specified territory. So make sure you have enough goons and toys to get that territory, and go get that territory. Fight the enemy army as it gets in your way — if it does. Sometimes it won't even. For example you can get 100% war score vs a small enemy by sieging all of his 2 or 3 counties with good siege machines while he's trying to capture your capital with poor machines or no machines. Or sailing, or marching, or whatever. Which you only really need to worry about if your capital doesn't have a good fort level and garrison size.
***
Edit: I play the way I wrote and generally with success. I'm not some kind of war magician who analyses everything down to the last detail and optimizes a lot, which is not necessary in this game unless you put yourself in a very challenging situation.
Edit 2: I agree, however, that some tweaks could be made to AI in order to cut down on the dance/chase and reduce the problem of AI coalitions generally being able to split forces better than coalitions involving the human player, or troll-style AI moves, unless the shenanigans are in-character for the rulers and commanders involved.
Yeah. Heirs are worth 50% war score, and then the capital is also worth some. At worst you have enough score to white-peace out if they are about to capture your capital or smash your army (for example by bringing a powerful ally in unexpectedly) and with 60-70% war score already in your pocket you can siege some two or three counties and be done with the war, much of the time.
Non-heirs are worth very little score or none at all, but they are often worth much in gold. This means you avoid debt and can keep up with the war for a longer time, and the opposite for your enemy if he/she has to pay ransoms.
Obviously, occupying the enemy's land also reduces the enemy's income, with the same effect.
So like I said, go get the land you declared the war for — if on the offensive.
If you're defending, you have less sense of direction, admittedly, less of a clear idea what to do, less of a game plan. Depending on the situation, either wait it out (make them come to you) or turn the table on them and just go get their capital and adjacent counties.
But if you're defending, it's often best not to march/sail too far away. Make the enemy sail to you and pay the transport cost, not you. Attack them after they disembark, with the negative modifier limiting their combat fitness.
Just make sure you don't end up outnumbered while waiting passively in your homeland. This can happen if your AI allies go out after the enemy and split up while the attacker and his allies all gang up on you and your land. This sort of situation is avoided by taking the war to your enemy (the opposite of the previous strategy of a lazy, passive defender who has the clock on his/her side).
Looking back at my wars, you sometimes get punished for venturing too far away (not only as the defender) in ways that expose your capital to sieges you can't break in time. This is a realistic danger in coalition wars — plenty of allies on each side with low supply limits, meaning armies will split — in which you individually cannot hope to win against two or three combined enemy stacks.
lol do this as well, I'm always like cool another peasant revolt, now I get another awesome fighter in a couple of years. This probably should change.
My only hesitation with recruiting these guys from prison is it seems like 2/3 of the time they are villainous, always worried that they'll backstab me.
This is super gamey though. Why would this dude who wanted to depose you now suddenly risk his life fighting for you.
Also why is his head still attached to his body?
Assuming you come across the right enemy. This is a dangerous gamble because if the enemy counters you, you've completely negated the bulk of your fighting force. Your mighty men-at-arms who should be dealing 30 damage per tick are now dealing 3 per tick, while your enemy is dealing between 15 and 45 per tick with their men-at-arms.