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
Yes that might have worked. But its not very realistic. They shoud be expensive. If you can make an entire army totally made of mercenaries and use it to take over large areas of land. That is a broken game.
You need to stop seeing it as a time period about destroying the enemy's army. Truth is open battles were very rare for the time period. Most wars were won by long boring seiges. When you initially weaken the enemy army what you need to do is start seiging their capital or a close county right away so you can get war score while their army is mindlessely running around in retreat. If you chase them then that right there is where you're messing up. Use that time to get a head-start, since normally the AI will then try to seige you while you seige them. Once you finish seige you can go battle their army again and repeat until you win the war.
Yes that's why I agree mercenary change was good. But the levy change kind of annoys me partly because realistically levies didn't have nice equipment paid for them. They had cheap stuff and a lot of times in poorer countries used their farming equipment. That and they weren't even paid well, if at all. Their lords normally didn't have to pay them, the peasants were obligated to answer the call to arms in return for being allowed to live on the land. Just like nobles were obligated to answer the King's call and be able to rally up an army for the King.
The price of feeding them also gets subtracted by the fact that armies hunted for food or were provided free food by villages nearby.
The time period worked in a way where the cost of an army a lot of times was extremely cheap levy wise. If anything all the cost is in food, and the amount they make you pay just seems absurd relative to how little your countries actually make from taxes. Retinues are realistically done in my opinion as are fact that vassals pay for their levies that they provide you.
I don't even care about the armies I just burn down multiple counties rapidly due to out teching my oponents siege tech.
you only need 1 major victory (the first fight) and then 1-2 occupations to 100% most wars. later on with crusades and jihads its all about occupation. Killing troops caps at 75% warscore, occupation is 100.
What I do is quickly try and get the Seige Leader trait thing. That makes me seige really quickly. The new patch/DLC from Reaper's Due makes getting traits much quicker. I focus military tech on units so I don't lose too many troops in battles. Since once you get less troops than enemy you often times lost the war unless you figure out a comeback.
You appear to be missing the point. The "truth" and "historical fact," are rather irrelevant. Historical details are out the window the second you unpause the game. I would not expect armies to retreat half a continent over just to regroup and launch an attack again--which is my problem with Shattered retreat.
Furthermore, it isn't good strategy to "start sieging their capital right away," as a blanket strategy. If the enemy has thousands of troops left, whittling them down to something inconsequential is exactly what you should be doing in many cases. There are exceptions, because of course its not that simple--such as say, if you're fighting a tribal nation or if it's a small nation that you can put in the ground with naught more than a few county occupations. If you're fighting, for example, the Umayyads as Asturias, you don't want that giant enemy force of thousands to come back and attack you or immediately turn around and siege your counties while your main army is busy--you want to run them down and disable them for a while so they can't turn the war on its head. Not chasing them is a mistake in this case. The same can be said for most cases of fighting a nation significantly larger than your own.
Sure, if my enemy is say, the Pope with one or two counties in total in Charlemagne, sieging down his capital will get me the victory pretty quickly and it doesn't matter what he does--unless I only have one or two counties myself.
that being said, I balance them for the most part, so its not like I have seige 5 with heavy infantry 2. I just upgrade organisation then seige then my culture troop, then whatever after until going back to organisation for the next tier.
Historically when an army lost a battle that severely(as in not retreating by choice but literally being forced to run or die) the armies had to regroup back to friendly territory. They needed to gather up their army again, get more supplies, etc. They couldn't just stay near the enemy after being pushed away. Shattered Retreat portrays the behavior of how armies worked realistically in my opinion.
Completely incorrect. Your only goal army wise should be maintaining more troops than your enemy. From there it's a series of hitting their army back and seiging. Because the AI will always seige you if they have less troops. Which both delays them and weakens them while you're seiging them. If you hit their army before you seiged then you have the headstart. Getting the capital is smart if it's near your troops because it's worth the most warscore and often times produces the most enemy levies. Once it's out of the way you pretty much won the war assuming you followed the entire strategy. I only go to war with people I am stronger than and normally have strong allies in case someone attacks me before I'm ready. So I almost never have weaker armies. If you do have less troops you need to either rely on mercenaries, high martial skill and technology, or try and let your enemy weaken themselves sieging you and probably do some hit and runs on them with small troops where you lead them out of your counties so they can't finish a seige. You should also try to seige them if you can without being attacked.
The only time it's a mistake to not chase them down is when you are fighting the MULTIPLE muslim countries in Spain. Meaning the normal 1066 start date. Because they often will keep getting more people joining their side, meaning more troops. So your goal then is to keep their armies from getting 10k or more and overwhelming you. To do that you need to chase them down big time. Often though that won't be enough and you'll need allies. From my experience it took saving up 1000 or more gold then using mercenaries to take all of Spain starting as Castile. Even relying on France as early as I wanted to attack often didn't work since France seems weak at that time. Only having 6k - 12k troops.
I upgrade in order of my points. Like I don't save points for specific researching. I spend them whenever I can and choose things I view as most important first.
I felt better with shattered retreat on and organizer commander to chase fleeing enemy, except cases where enemy army runs through armies hostile to me.
Ya it honestly doesn't make any strategic sense to try and chase after a fleeing army because like they have no interest in fighting so it wastes a boat load of time. That's why Shattered Retreat makes more sense on rather than off. Because turn it off and armies don't run as far but still got low morale lol
I tend to abuse it though and wait for them to have like half morale then I get another easy win to train my commanders with.
"Friendly territory" =/= "Half a continent away," as I have already said. The mechanic does not simulate a retreat very well in the context of CK2's pre-existing mechanics. Which is why it does not appear very well thought out under the original and later-patched implementation.
Uh. No, not really. If you're just trying to maintain a baseline level of having more troops than your enemy, then you're asking for trouble. The A.I will always be better than you at troop and resource management, and if you let it have anything near equal to you, then chances are that you're going to overlook something and get plowed into oblivion a short period later. And furthermore, you gain a ****-ton of warscore if you wreck the initial army and chase it down. This grows even more pertinent the larger the enemy nation is, because sieging down counties will not give nearly as much warscore. Such as, once more, my example with Asturias vs the Umayyads. You'll also have every chance to lose troops when sieging down your enemy as well, giving them another potential advantage. Lastly, if you wreck the main force to tatters, you can split up your armies and start carpet-sieging and get that phase of war to pass all the more quickly.
Sure, sieging your enemies without being attacked is nice. If you're smaller than them, however, then you're going to be in for a bad time if they come 'round the opposite side of your nation and start sieging you--racking up proportionally higher warscore the longer and more they get to do this. If your enemy is huge, you also have to act quickly in the event that they cannot gather all of their levies in one place, and defeating them early on can be critical--and delay further action while you are free to get started on the aforementioned sieging.
Your entire strategy seems to be predicated on going to war that you have a clear advantage over. That's fine. But it renders your walls of text entirely pointless, because, frankly, if someone needs a guide on how to defeat smaller and weaker nations than themselves, then they need a refresher on how the game works, as it's not really worth discussion. If you have an advantage, it's already intuitive--win maybe one decisive battle, then start sieging and you're done. If you're smaller and are at a disadvantage--winning decisive battles and eliminating big, threatening stacks will net you more warscore and diminish the threat to your territory both. Chasing down an enemy is important in some cases. It's contextual, not as universal as your choice of words insists.