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?

[glythe]

Początkowo opublikowane przez VoiD:

aren't supposed to, they were supposed to be low quality troops, and lots of numbers, that's why they eventually have to bite the bullet and go feudal, it's the opposite of what you said otherwise it implies a broken ballance, they shouldn't be able to pick scissors AND rock.

Right now people are complaining when they go feudal because there is no upside, even after the nasty transition, tribal armies are cheaper, stronger and more numerous than feudal for a long, long time, and even late game the difference isn't that great.

Unless a person is aiming to go for the very endate of the game, it's often a really bad idea to go feudal, it's not worth anything for 200++ years, possibly the entire game.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Imagine if I said let's play paper rock scissors for a 100$ steam gift card but you aren't allowed to pick scissors.


Maybe I'm missing something but from what I have seen the early start period has an advantage to being a tribe while the middle period has an advantage for feudal.

Long term I prefer a feudal nation over a tribal one from what I have seen so far. There might need to be a few tweaks to balance gigantic tribal army hordes.

[Crim]

Początkowo opublikowane przez glythe:

Początkowo opublikowane przez VoiD:

aren't supposed to, they were supposed to be low quality troops, and lots of numbers, that's why they eventually have to bite the bullet and go feudal, it's the opposite of what you said otherwise it implies a broken ballance, they shouldn't be able to pick scissors AND rock.

Right now people are complaining when they go feudal because there is no upside, even after the nasty transition, tribal armies are cheaper, stronger and more numerous than feudal for a long, long time, and even late game the difference isn't that great.

Unless a person is aiming to go for the very endate of the game, it's often a really bad idea to go feudal, it's not worth anything for 200++ years, possibly the entire game.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Imagine if I said let's play paper rock scissors for a 100$ steam gift card but you aren't allowed to pick scissors.


Maybe I'm missing something but from what I have seen the early start period has an advantage to being a tribe while the middle period has an advantage for feudal.

Long term I prefer a feudal nation over a tribal one from what I have seen so far. There might need to be a few tweaks to balance gigantic tribal army hordes.

An easy improvement to the current Tribal Death Stack is to reduce Levy from 20% per Prestige to 15% per Prestige

Which would result in 25% less Levies at max.

[NewbieOne]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Messsucher:

The most stupid thing is light infantry countering heavy infantry. I have been thinking it can be some sort of new dev problem. Have to use rock, paper & scissors because they heard youtuber saying it is cool, and they have played Pokemon, then could not figure what can counter heavy infantry and chose "lol light infantry counter it because they can just run fast around it". Really. I have seen one fanboy in these forums explaining me light infantry counter because they run fast around it in circles. It is not like heavy infantry could then just wait and let light infantry exhaust itself, while cavalry crush light infantry. It is combined medieval arms, long before modern warfare combined arms. You can put your Pokemon simplified and arbitrary rock, paper, & scissors to where it belong, that is somewhere were sun does not shine.

Agreed.

And I've had the 'new developer problem' impression about Paradox numerous times through CK2's cycle.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Crimson Bolt:

CK3 isn't broken...you just have no idea what you are doing which is obvious from your statement.Archers don't counter archers (and even if they did that would be a reasonable counter all things considered.

CK2 was stupid as far as combat went...big numbers win...thats just about it.

In CK3 there is actual strategy based on men at arms counters and how you buff them with buildings.

Look, I'm a big critic of flaws in CK2, and I got bullied by Paradox employees for criticizing their game and calling them no longer a professional company at some point coinciding with a critical mass of bugs and design flaws with the DLCs piling up. But after 6000 hours playing, believe me when I say it's not all about big numbers winning.

Compositions, tactics, upgrades, commanders and terrains all mattered. I saw a lot of larger armiers lose to smaller armies in CK2.

[Lane]

People keep imagining some plate armor clad heavy troops when talking about heavy infantry. Technology you get to unlock heavy infantry in the game is called quilted armor. Get some perspective first. In the era you start plate armor did not even exist.

[NewbieOne]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dedmoin:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Talamare:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMVgpYenYcg

If light infantry (which actually is not pure skirmish troops but mixed types of weapons) would be so superior, why would anybody in history even bother to raise heavy infantry.
Historic fights are not CoD online shooters where jumping in circles while shooting gives an advantage over inexperienced opponents.
Following this rule knights and cataphract would be just useless sitting ducks instead of ancient warmachines.

Javelineers only have very few attempts to throw, carrying only short javelins because of weight.
After this they are easy prey for enemies with heavier armor, bigger shields, heavier and bigger weapons, so basically prey for everyone else on the battlefield.

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

Historically, heavier infantry was the counter to lighter infantry and not to pikemen. More armour made you harder to kill, so you could keep killing. That made you need fewer warriors to win.

Eventually the armour got cumbersome and you couldn't run as fast and as long as someone who had none, given equal levels of fitness and training. Sure. But the idea of light infantry as a counter to heavy infantry can't really stand. Completing the rock-paper-scissors circle shouldn't trump everything else.

[NewbieOne]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Lane:

People keep imagining some plate armor clad heavy troops when talking about heavy infantry. Technology you get to unlock heavy infantry in the game is called quilted armor. Get some perspective first. In the era you start plate armor did not even exist.

Heavy is heavy. What matters is how much it weighs. And chain, scale, banded mail, lamellar mail and all that jazz were very much existent in the period. Outfitting your goons in chain mail or some other metal jumpsuit was simply the matter of being able to afford it.

So was plate. Plate existed already in Bronze Age and probably even Copper Age before it. It wasn't unknown in 867 or 1066, just not mainstream.

[Crim]

Początkowo opublikowane przez NewbieOne:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Lane:

People keep imagining some plate armor clad heavy troops when talking about heavy infantry. Technology you get to unlock heavy infantry in the game is called quilted armor. Get some perspective first. In the era you start plate armor did not even exist.

Heavy is heavy. What matters is how much it weighs. And chain, scale, banded mail, lamellar mail and all that jazz were very much existent in the period. Outfitting your goons in chain mail or some other metal jumpsuit was simply the matter of being able to afford it.

So was plate. Plate existed already in Bronze Age and probably even Copper Age before it. It wasn't unknown in 867 or 1066, just not mainstream.

Neat
Well the game specifically says Heavy Armor is Linen/Cotton

[titanopteryx]

Light footmen are actually of the class skirmisher. The same buildings that increase the effectiveness of archers also effect them. I'm pretty sure they're a type of range unit rather than melee infantry.

[Lane]

Początkowo opublikowane przez NewbieOne:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Lane:

People keep imagining some plate armor clad heavy troops when talking about heavy infantry. Technology you get to unlock heavy infantry in the game is called quilted armor. Get some perspective first. In the era you start plate armor did not even exist.

Heavy is heavy. What matters is how much it weighs. And chain, scale, banded mail, lamellar mail and all that jazz were very much existent in the period. Outfitting your goons in chain mail or some other metal jumpsuit was simply the matter of being able to afford it.

So was plate. Plate existed already in Bronze Age and probably even Copper Age before it. It wasn't unknown in 867 or 1066, just not mainstream.

First of all, no it did not exist. At least not in a way everyone imagines it, a suit of plate armor. A metal plate tucked in under a shirt does not count.

Second, the point still stands. Light footman throwing a javelin could easily penetrate everything you listed.

[pi73r]

Początkowo opublikowane przez 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?

You must be really bad at the game or losing on purpose. In 99% of the cases the bigger army will win.
And even if it didn't it's a good thing the game is not just a unit number game. Commanders and terrain should be deciding factor since it's the game about personalities.

[FERNANDO MUSLERA]

nice

[forrestomintero]

Very much necro, but I think this debate has largely missed the point of the light infantry countering heavy mechanic. The effect of the counter mechanic is only that a unit that's been effectively countered does less damage. A unit that has been countered does 45% less damage at a 1-1 manpower ratio, capped at 90% less with a 2-1 manpower ratio favoring the countering unit. So the point of light infantry countering heavy isn't that the light infantry are better suited to fighting heavy infantry 1 on 1. The point is that they make it harder for heavy infantry to function. remember that this is all intended to be in the context of larger mixed unit battles. In other words light infantry isn't necessarily directly countering the heavy infantry in a 1 on 1 fight. It's more that it's making it easier for your other units to win.

[HisShadowX]

Numbers do not mean everything the person in charge and training of the troops means everything.

Lets talk about the battle between the Romans and the Defenders of Albion. The Romans has 15k well the Queen of the forces of Albion (Think England) had over 250k.

The Romans overwhelming won this battle through superior tactics.

The Albion Warriors had large two handed broadswords which packs power but are slow and take time to hit. The Romans used a short blade which its main purpose was to thrust.

The Albion Warriors fought spread out but the Romans fought in units and the person in the front of the line would fight for a couple minutes until the Officer would whistle in which the front trooper would fall back to the end of the line and wait his turn to fight in front thus a refreshed Solider.

The Romans created a wedge formation in which all the Legions became one living moving sword.

This caused the Albion Warriors to get mowed down and those in the middle trampled by fleeing soldiers and from there Albion Women and children who came to watch the battle were killed by fleeing Albion Warriors.

The battle was such an amazing win the Emperor of Rome felt bad because they won and killed so many people with ease. The female queen committed suicide and that is how Britannia was formed.

So yes a commander can make a difference.

[The Former]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Messsucher:

The most stupid thing is light infantry countering heavy infantry. I have been thinking it can be some sort of new dev problem. Have to use rock, paper & scissors because they heard youtuber saying it is cool, and they have played Pokemon, then could not figure what can counter heavy infantry and chose "lol light infantry counter it because they can just run fast around it". Really. I have seen one fanboy in these forums explaining me light infantry counter because they run fast around it in circles. It is not like heavy infantry could then just wait and let light infantry exhaust itself, while cavalry crush light infantry. It is combined medieval arms, long before modern warfare combined arms. You can put your Pokemon simplified and arbitrary rock, paper, & scissors to where it belong, that is somewhere were sun does not shine.

Light infantry are skirmishers. Skirmishers have traditionally fared well against heavily armored troops. That's why skirmishers remained present on the battlefield from the age of the manipular legion all the way through World War I.

Javelins are made to stick into shields and make them unwieldy. Lighter armor means they can keep at range and harass heavier troops more easily, and they tire more slowly. Lighter kit in general allows them to adapt more easily to emerging situations. If heavier armor were better in every situation, no army reformation would have ever lightened armor, yet many did. With good reason.

I'm fairly sure "they could run circles around heavy infantry" is a figure of speech, by the way. All that means is that they're much more agile.

[The Former]

As far as you, OP...

If your archers are countered by enemy archers, you're up against a specialized cultural unit of archers, likely with longer historical range. Terrain disadvantages have made plenty of sense to me, you'd need to tell me which ones specifically trouble you before I could explain the logic.

And as far as commanders, this isn't true at all. Better commanders certainly have an advantage, but I've seen plenty of less skill commanders win battles. They didn't always even need numerical superiority. I hate to boil my reply down to "get good", but... It sounds like you need to learn how to take full advantage of the game's strategic elements if you want to win battles consistently.