My larger army always gets defeated... CK3 is broken

[Supply Side Jesus]

I really dislike that in CK3 commander makes such huge difference. I might as well not fight wars unless I have 20+ power commander, because I will end up losing to much smaller armies. Also terrain disadvantages and man-at-arms counters make no sense to me. Why my archers are countered by enemy archers, and somehow I am left at disadvantage? We both have archers?

[Crim]

Originally posted by Someguyinhere:

Originally posted by Talamare:

Weird video to post for the context. That's pretty cool video tho. The context is the effectiveness against heavier metal armor, right?

Also, being countered doesn't mean they will win
Light Infantry have like 1/3 as much stats as Heavy Infantry

If you actually think a thrown javelin will pierce a properly made, hardened steel suit of armor in the late medieval period when it can deflect crossbow bolts and even heavy arrows from a 150 pound warbow depending on the angle of the strike, OOF.

It's amazing how many people play this game who know about battles and some kings, but don't actually know anything about Historical European Martial Arts or the tools used in the battle.

That's neat
Except Heavy Infantry in the game starts in Tribal, which I think the ingame tooltip says starting year 500.
What you're likely referring was common basically at the very last few years of the game

[totalwar360]

you are just a crybaby boy heavy infantry is the best unit in game have you ever look at the numbers in battle ? light infantry remaining is 0 from 100 and heavy infantry is 90 from 100 in head on fight
heavy infantry has no terrain malus lol its the best unit actualy

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by glythe:

Originally posted by Messsucher:

The most stupid thing is light infantry countering heavy infantry.

Pardon me for interjecting here a moment but perhaps you should do a little research.

The Roman Legion was a juggernaut. It was excellent at fighting a horde of enemy troops who were told to hold the line. It was not suited to fight against "hit and run" tactics of more mobile enemies. You see this same tactic being effective over and over again.... almost as if it maybe worked? The American revolution and Vietnam should ring a few bells.

Why did Scotland last as long as it did? Because mobile troops with ranged weapons can kill levies and disorganized troops (especially by luring them into bad terrain). Spend 5 minutes and look up a quick history of Robert Bruce. He started a civil war in Scotland and then after winning that through guerrilla tactics pushed down into England and eventually won a brief independence.

Originally posted by Dedmoin:

This rock paper scissor mechanic is very simplified and does not exist in real life.

At the end of the day you have to remember the game has mechanics that increase diversity. Would you rather it be that heavy infantry is just better but costs more? If that were so why would you ever make light infantry? As it stands the game has a nice mix of units with possible strategy to make different ideas work.

You also need to be extremely careful when looking at reproduction equipment for testing purposes. Let's go back to our Roman friends for a minute. The scorpion was basically a giant field crossbow. Our version uses a metal coil spring that was too sophisticated for our ancestors. They used sinews to get the same effect which is pretty incredible.

Too far back? Let's look at our armor making friends in the 14th century. A suit of plate is great until someone throws a javelin at your exposed underarm.

Querilla tactics are a different matter of course. Naturally you need mobile troops there. Else you would not stand a chance. Guerilla is cat & mouse. But when armies clash guerilla does not work anymore. You get slaughtered and enemy spearheads through. That's why you do guerilla in the first place, so that you don't become slaughtered.

Vietnam was Iraq where Vietnamese went in practice querilla. GL in trying to find them in the jungle. The same happened in Afghanistan. Less developed and more self sustaining rural land can go guerilla, making it successfully cat & mouse with light troops. But in CK2 the castle is stormed and then people are told that you have a new king, enjoy, and resistance is simulated as control of a country.

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by VoiD:

tbh the LI complaint makes sense, toe to toe they stand no chance against heavy infantry.

So here's a suggestion: take away the counter bonus for LI, but instead give it a much larger bonus for fighting in the forests, if terrain allows it, they could really do some nasty hit and run tactics while being hard to catch, not in a plain open field tho, would that be a better idea, or a stupid idea?

As for counters I can imagine ranged cavalry, like horse archers being the counter for HI, while regular archers counter horse archers, some cultural cav variants could also counter heavy infantry by using javelins or something and staying mobile.

This was a very good suggestion. I would say excellent.

[Crim]

Originally posted by Messsucher:

Originally posted by VoiD:

tbh the LI complaint makes sense, toe to toe they stand no chance against heavy infantry.

So here's a suggestion: take away the counter bonus for LI, but instead give it a much larger bonus for fighting in the forests, if terrain allows it, they could really do some nasty hit and run tactics while being hard to catch, not in a plain open field tho, would that be a better idea, or a stupid idea?

As for counters I can imagine ranged cavalry, like horse archers being the counter for HI, while regular archers counter horse archers, some cultural cav variants could also counter heavy infantry by using javelins or something and staying mobile.

This was a very good suggestion. I would say excellent.

It's such an excellent idea that it's already true
Li gets massive bonuses in Forests and Jungles, like 50% stronger

[Simon]

[quote=glythe; The American revolution and Vietnam should ring a few bells.

Why did Scotland last as long as it did? Because mobile troops with ranged weapons can kill levies and disorganized troops (especially by luring them into bad terrain). Spend 5 minutes and look up a quick history of Robert Bruce. He started a civil war in Scotland and then after winning that through guerrilla tactics pushed down into England and eventually won a brief independence.


Too far back? Let's look at our armour making friends in the 14th century. A suit of plate is great until someone throws a javelin at your exposed underarm. [/quote]


In two of these cases England was at war with France which was for the best part of 800 years was reasonably considered a far greater enemy and so required England's military focus.

Historically both Scotland and the Thirteen Colonies allied with France, particularly after the reformation, which I know post-dates this, in order to prevent being overwhelmed by England and that proved to be an effective strategy as England could not effectively fight both sides at once.

Robert the Bruce had a good advantage as he was a competent leader unlike Edward II of England who was frankly a joke. Had Longshanks still been around it would have been different.

Battles like Bannockburn that made Robert the Bruce were very rare and demonstrated the English incompetence in that instance as Armoured Cavalry had no military counter until the arrival of gunpowder.

If you think the underarm javelin shot is a factor you been watching too many hollywood movies.

Logistics prevented the armouring of large numbers of infantry. Landed gentry did not spend cash on giving peasants or serfs chainmail and platemail.
The infantry may be freemen or indentured but that is about it as far as the nobles are concerned, In those days casualties in the rabble are fine as long as the day is won so quantity was generally preferred.

Constructing large quantities of iron armour in any reasonable timescale would also have been impractical so you'd reserve that for those who could afford to pay for it which again are your knights and nobles.

You are right that we have to have rock, paper, scissors in the game otherwise they have yet another balancing problem to resolve.

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by Talamare:

Originally posted by Messsucher:

This was a very good suggestion. I would say excellent.

It's such an excellent idea that it's already true
Li gets massive bonuses in Forests and Jungles, like 50% stronger

Oh yeah, tells how "important" it is to remember those bonuses. But then remove LI countering HI, or make LI counter HI in mountains and swamps only, if there is swamps in this game. Also consider making HI countering LI in open, simulating the difficulties what LI have in real against HI.

[Crim]

Originally posted by Messsucher:

Originally posted by Talamare:

It's such an excellent idea that it's already true
Li gets massive bonuses in Forests and Jungles, like 50% stronger

Oh yeah, tells how "important" it is to remember those bonuses. But then remove LI countering HI, or make LI counter HI in mountains and swamps only, if there is swamps in this game. Also consider making HI countering LI in open, simulating the difficulties what LI have in real against HI.

Wetlands probably
They could add a penalty to Heavy Infantry in Wetlands, currently they don't have any terrain modifiers

Overall, you're adding a lot of complexity for little gain

Light Infantry already loses to Heavy Infantry in a simple 1vs1, even with the Counter effects

Also, the current system is simple and elegant
Heavy > Pike > Horse > Archer > Light > Heavy

[󠀡󠀡]

Imperator rome has some nice combat mechanics, troop types are tied to resources, that would make certain units quite valuable.

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by Talamare:

Originally posted by Messsucher:

Oh yeah, tells how "important" it is to remember those bonuses. But then remove LI countering HI, or make LI counter HI in mountains and swamps only, if there is swamps in this game. Also consider making HI countering LI in open, simulating the difficulties what LI have in real against HI.

Wetlands probably
They could add a penalty to Heavy Infantry in Wetlands, currently they don't have any terrain modifiers

Overall, you're adding a lot of complexity for little gain

Light Infantry already loses to Heavy Infantry in a simple 1vs1, even with the Counter effects

Also, the current system is simple and elegant
Heavy > Pike > Horse > Archer > Light > Heavy

Yes and no, it is supposed to be "little gain" for those who want to play with earned advantages and forced disadvantages. If you don't want to, then you can just faceroll. Nobody is asking you to not faceroll or do more than faceroll.

The current system is very far from elegant. It is copy paste of the common theme. Making more profound terrain modifiers would enhance it a bit.

They should consider making it possible for the player to give AI the command of his armies, because so much "micro management" when a war begin, imagine how many times you may have to click mouse during one war!? Maybe 10 times!!! Excessive!!! All unnecessary if you could win by just clicking a button once!!!! :D :D :D

[Crim]

Originally posted by Messsucher:

Originally posted by Talamare:

Wetlands probably
They could add a penalty to Heavy Infantry in Wetlands, currently they don't have any terrain modifiers

Overall, you're adding a lot of complexity for little gain

Light Infantry already loses to Heavy Infantry in a simple 1vs1, even with the Counter effects

Also, the current system is simple and elegant
Heavy > Pike > Horse > Archer > Light > Heavy

Yes and no, it is supposed to be "little gain" for those who want to play with earned advantages and forced disadvantages. If you don't want to, then you can just faceroll. Nobody is asking you to not faceroll or do more than faceroll.

The current system is very far from elegant. It is copy paste of the common theme. Making more profound terrain modifiers would enhance it a bit.

They should consider making it possible for the player to give AI the command of his armies, because so much "micro management" when a war begin, imagine how many times you may have to click mouse during one war!? Maybe 10 times!!! Excessive!!! All unnecessary if you could win by just clicking a button once!!!! :D :D :D

Sigh what a load
Disingenuous arguments all around

It's little gains because its a narrow condition, only affecting the interaction between 2 specific unit types while in a specific location. This is completely ignoring the fact that Wetlands are extremely rare in the game with only like 3% of the map...

Even more so, this can be achieved by just adding a terrain penalty for Heavy Infantry for Wetlands, then it won't be some obscure rule that you need to remember.

Elegance means Simple with Depth, which the system does have.
Rock Paper Scissors is a trope, but its an effective basic system.

[archonsod]

Originally posted by Simon:

Battles like Bannockburn that made Robert the Bruce were very rare and demonstrated the English incompetence in that instance as Armoured Cavalry had no military counter until the arrival of gunpowder.

Crecy, Agincourt ... :P

The problem for heavy infantry is bringing the light infantry to battle in the first place. The wars with Scotland are a prime example; the majority of Scots victories were down to the English failing to pin the lighter Scottish forces in place (whether due to terrain or incompetence), as a result the Scots simply outmanoeuvred the English line and only engaged when conditions favoured them. When the Scots were defeated on the other hand it was almost always because their infantry had been effectively pinned (again, due to either incompetence or terrain) allowing the English line to engage them on their own terms. It's pretty consistent throughout the period; whether it's viking raiders against the Saxon shield wall or British raiders against French knights, the more mobile force will nearly always win largely because they're the ones dictating the terms of engagement. Even my two joke examples prove it; both Agincourt and Crecy were won by the English because they got to choose the location and terms of battle. If the French could have forced the engagement on their terms they'd both have turned out quite differently.

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by Talamare:

Originally posted by Messsucher:

Yes and no, it is supposed to be "little gain" for those who want to play with earned advantages and forced disadvantages. If you don't want to, then you can just faceroll. Nobody is asking you to not faceroll or do more than faceroll.

The current system is very far from elegant. It is copy paste of the common theme. Making more profound terrain modifiers would enhance it a bit.

They should consider making it possible for the player to give AI the command of his armies, because so much "micro management" when a war begin, imagine how many times you may have to click mouse during one war!? Maybe 10 times!!! Excessive!!! All unnecessary if you could win by just clicking a button once!!!! :D :D :D

Sigh what a load
Disingenuous arguments all around

It's little gains because its a narrow condition, only affecting the interaction between 2 specific unit types while in a specific location. This is completely ignoring the fact that Wetlands are extremely rare in the game with only like 3% of the map...

Even more so, this can be achieved by just adding a terrain penalty for Heavy Infantry for Wetlands, then it won't be some obscure rule that you need to remember.

Elegance means Simple with Depth, which the system does have.
Rock Paper Scissors is a trope, but its an effective basic system.

It does not matter. It does give you tactical choice, as a defender you can chose where you hold your ground, and get real defensive advantage based of your choice. You can even build your army be defensive to get more advantage of that choice, as you can now with bow units and mountains.

Different unit types and land effects must be more defined. They give the pieces to play with for tacticians. Facerollers can just keep facerolling CPU level, but tacticians should be able to turn the odds in battle for their favor, exactly as in real life, by taking what advantages they can. You can keep your baby factory and ninja school going in your castle, it has already been made, now we real strategy gamers need value for our share in this game.

I would call also for seasonal effects, current map is just stupid, all day the same day, summer day. Time stopped. That though can be forgiven at this time of the life of a game.

[Crim]

Originally posted by Messsucher:

Originally posted by Talamare:

Sigh what a load
Disingenuous arguments all around

It's little gains because its a narrow condition, only affecting the interaction between 2 specific unit types while in a specific location. This is completely ignoring the fact that Wetlands are extremely rare in the game with only like 3% of the map...

Even more so, this can be achieved by just adding a terrain penalty for Heavy Infantry for Wetlands, then it won't be some obscure rule that you need to remember.

Elegance means Simple with Depth, which the system does have.
Rock Paper Scissors is a trope, but its an effective basic system.

It does not matter. It does give you tactical choice, as a defender you can chose where you hold your ground, and get real defensive advantage based of your choice. You can even build your army be defensive to get more advantage of that choice, as you can now with bow units and mountains.

Different unit types and land effects must be more defined. They give the pieces to play with for tacticians. Facerollers can just keep facerolling CPU level, but tacticians should be able to turn the odds in battle for their favor, exactly as in real life, by taking what advantages they can. You can keep your baby factory and ninja school going in your castle, it has already been made, now we real strategy gamers need value for our share in this game.

I would call also for seasonal effects, current map is just stupid, all day the same day, summer day. Time stopped. That though can be forgiven at this time of the life of a game.

Sigh
It doesn't make a better game to have a literal book filled with a near endless list of narrow cases to take advantage of.

A true tactician takes a simple set of rules and maximizes those simple rules.

Which is why one of the most tactically complex games in the world basically has 2 simple rules.

See, adding rules for Seasonal would be good. That's a good entry point suggestion. Exactly how its implemented is a difficult discussion. You want it to be as simple as possible while capturing as much realism as possible.

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by Talamare:

Originally posted by Messsucher:

It does not matter. It does give you tactical choice, as a defender you can chose where you hold your ground, and get real defensive advantage based of your choice. You can even build your army be defensive to get more advantage of that choice, as you can now with bow units and mountains.

Different unit types and land effects must be more defined. They give the pieces to play with for tacticians. Facerollers can just keep facerolling CPU level, but tacticians should be able to turn the odds in battle for their favor, exactly as in real life, by taking what advantages they can. You can keep your baby factory and ninja school going in your castle, it has already been made, now we real strategy gamers need value for our share in this game.

I would call also for seasonal effects, current map is just stupid, all day the same day, summer day. Time stopped. That though can be forgiven at this time of the life of a game.

Sigh
It doesn't make a better game to have a literal book filled with a near endless list of narrow cases to take advantage of.

A true tactician takes a simple set of rules and maximizes those simple rules.

Which is why one of the most tactically complex games in the world basically has 2 simple rules.

See, adding rules for Seasonal would be good. That's a good entry point suggestion. Exactly how its implemented is a difficult discussion. You want it to be as simple as possible while capturing as much realism as possible.

No, it is you who want it to be simple as possible, not me. If we play a board game I am fine with simple games, but if there is a computer to do all the math I want complex games. There is exceptions, though, like XCOM, which have sort of fast paced flow.