Combat incredibly lopsided?

[Ixal]

Is it just me or are pretty much all troops except archers and horse archers useless?
From watching my battles is seems that most of them, even the large/long ones are already decided during the skitmish phase (no wonder considering how long it takes).
That means all troops weal during skirmish (Heavy Infantry) is a liability.

[Zednaught]

I defintiely agree that the skirmish phase takes way too long, causing too many casualties and crucially depleting morale by a ton. It makes skirmishes seem like the deciding phase of the battle, which was not at all historically accurate, at least in Europe. Both casualties done and morale damage should be greatly reduced in the skirmish phase.


Where it gets tricky is that other cultures, particularly those that fought as mounted archers, could wreck armies while avoiding hand to hand combat.

[Black Kalev]

Im really sorry, but if you actually think that only archers and horse archers are viable then you really need to look up how combat works.

[Langkard]

It all depends on the mix of units in the army. Non-retinue armies are usually a mix of melee and skirmish and sometimes chase (light cav) units. Yes, the archer type units seem to be (and are somewhat) overpowered because they do so much damage in the skirmish phase and sieges. But cavalry gets 5 different combat tactics (the various charges) which switch the combat phase to melee where the foot archers are at a disadvantage. And any flank which has more than 60% foot archers is in trouble because the Undefended Flank tactic will fire for the enemy most of the time during skirmish. All foot archer armies will get destroyed by Undefended Flank. For all-archer armies, only the Altaic-led horse archers are viable.

Retinues are a different matter altogether. A proper retinue mix by the player will crush just about everything else. Less than 60% archers to avoid Undefended Flank, less than 10% heavy infantry so that Shield Wall will not trigger (which keeps the archer volley or massive volley from triggering) and the rest made up of pikes and light infantry for defensive bonuses. The AI tends to use 100% of one type in retinues, which only really works for non-archers or horse archers and can be easily countered by the player with skirmish phase units plus defense units and generic light skirmishers.

Horse archers have an extra advantage over foot archers with the Retreat and Ambush tactic, only available to Altaic cultures. It resets the combat phase back to skirmish, making them deadly.

Despite all of that, a good general with a good skill can overcome most disadvantages. And having any flank with a general in command of it who has less than 7 martial is a recipe for disaster, since very bad tactics will always trigger.

http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Combat_tactics

[Zorlond]

Langkard's given some good advice, here, although I'd say one can skip Heavy Inf entirely and just use Light to provide 'meat shield' support. Plus, bring some Cavalry Retinues, their Pursuit stats are absolute murder.

There's also something else to consider. Each type of Retinue has it's own bonuses just from being that type. Devs used to only apply these bonuses to the culture-specific Retinues, but now it applies to all of them.

Shock and Skirmish Retinues, for instance, are just Archers and Heavy Inf, just different amounts. But they also have different bonuses. Shock Retinues give 20% bonus to Archer's attack, and 10% bonus to Heavy Inf's attack and defense. But Skirmish Retinues give the 10% defense bonus to the Archers instead (the others are the same).

This is why Cavalry Retniues are murder at pursuit. 20% bonus to Light Cav's attack and defense. Not much can survive that. And the Light Skirmish gives Light Inf 20% to defense and morale, which is why they make such good meat shields (in addition to the Archer bonuses).

Of course, these bonuses only apply to these specific soldiers, and are averaged in with your regular troops (if applicable), but it's all in addition to any bonuses your tech gives, making Retinues seriously powerful. Which makes perfect sense, these guys are your professional soldiers, you other troops are more like Reserves, guys who can fight but have other jobs when not in the army.

[Dυєlρωη]

Norse Army Mostly Heavy Infantry + Berserker Charge = GGWP

In all seriousness tho I can sum up combat pretty simply to win you want to have superior numbers, Better Generals leading your lines and Don't be attacking over a River or up a mountain.

When defending you want to find a river crossing or mountain so you can use that bonus against the enemy.

Also its super Important to check your leaders stats you might have a guy with 15 martial leading your right flank but what if he's a coward and has Consumption. Somtimes a Brave General with 10 Martial in good health would be a better choice.

[Peahatche]

archers are definatly useful and 6000 retunue archers are a powerful backbone in my army for taking over ireland and now on my way to scotland. already capable of giving england a bloody nose if I choose the battle ground

[3Bizmark]

Originally posted by Peahatche:

archers are definatly useful and 6000 retunue archers are a powerful backbone in my army for taking over ireland and now on my way to scotland. already capable of giving england a bloody nose if I choose the battle ground

Are you Welsh or Irish?

I think the English and Welsh can have extra bonuses with longbowmen retinues.

[Ixal]

Originally posted by 3Bizmark:

Originally posted by Peahatche:

archers are definatly useful and 6000 retunue archers are a powerful backbone in my army for taking over ireland and now on my way to scotland. already capable of giving england a bloody nose if I choose the battle ground

Are you Welsh or Irish?

I think the English and Welsh can have extra bonuses with longbowmen retinues.

Their generals can also get a super longbow attack during skirmish (+350% archer offense) which practically ensures that that the enemy does not even get into melee or just with a sliver of morale left. Just avoid the 60% mark.

But even without that, most combats I have seen were decided in the skirmish phase, even the close ones. That the melee did turn it around was very rare.

[Zorlond]

Originally posted by 3Bizmark:

Originally posted by Peahatche:

archers are definatly useful and 6000 retunue archers are a powerful backbone in my army for taking over ireland and now on my way to scotland. already capable of giving england a bloody nose if I choose the battle ground

Are you Welsh or Irish?

I think the English and Welsh can have extra bonuses with longbowmen retinues.

English/Welsh culture unit is indeed 250 Archers, with +20% offense, +10% defense. Kinda vanilla for me.

The Irish get 200 Heavy Inf, with a whopping +40% defense, and +20% morale.

[VoiD]

Wow good to read this.

I always felt like CK2 combat was just "bigger stack wins and chases down the weaker stack until it's gone", looks like I couldn't be more wrong.

This looks like it had the potential to have more combat depth than EU4 combat, it just needed some rule changes to make it happen, maybe a max combat width, proper retreats, etc...

I've been spamming cataphract retinues as the byzantine emperor, starting to wonder if it's as good as I thought it was, I mean, it seems to take down regular enemy armies 3x larger than my retinues but still..

[Peahatche]

Originally posted by Zorlond:

Originally posted by 3Bizmark:

Are you Welsh or Irish?

I think the English and Welsh can have extra bonuses with longbowmen retinues.

English/Welsh culture unit is indeed 250 Archers, with +20% offense, +10% defense. Kinda vanilla for me.

The Irish get 200 Heavy Inf, with a whopping +40% defense, and +20% morale.

yep welsh but to suvive you have to go abroad before the english king relises how small you are (and his vassels are even worse)

morale isn't much good with a arrow between your eyes

[Thundercracker]

Originally posted by Voidian:

Wow good to read this.

I always felt like CK2 combat was just "bigger stack wins and chases down the weaker stack until it's gone", looks like I couldn't be more wrong.

This looks like it had the potential to have more combat depth than EU4 combat, it just needed some rule changes to make it happen, maybe a max combat width, proper retreats, etc...

I've been spamming cataphract retinues as the byzantine emperor, starting to wonder if it's as good as I thought it was, I mean, it seems to take down regular enemy armies 3x larger than my retinues but still..

heavy cav. many old armies were built around their charge. in the pre-gunpowder world, few things were as devistating as a wall of horse, steel, and lance came crashing over everything at a full gallop.

you might do a little better with cataphacts in the center, with the flanks being made of a mix of shock and skirmish units. that way you'll get some power to take down seiges. pre-1000 ad, i've found that a stack that has more archers than a holding has defenders can safely assault the holding with acceptable losses.

i was trying the full cataphact thing with amalfi. i have since started an abbasid game. because i do not like camel cav (is there some devistating super tactic with them? i dont see the point of ever supporting them) i went 50-50 shock and skirmish (gives equal number of heavy infantry and archers).

those retanues were doing at least as well as my all knight units in a german culture..... but were much much cheaper. and because they had more subunits to make the same number of troops, shock/skirmish armies will reinforce faster (but at a higher monthly cost).

[Langkard]

Originally posted by Voidian:

Wow good to read this.

I always felt like CK2 combat was just "bigger stack wins and chases down the weaker stack until it's gone", looks like I couldn't be more wrong.

This looks like it had the potential to have more combat depth than EU4 combat, it just needed some rule changes to make it happen, maybe a max combat width, proper retreats, etc...

I've been spamming cataphract retinues as the byzantine emperor, starting to wonder if it's as good as I thought it was, I mean, it seems to take down regular enemy armies 3x larger than my retinues but still..

Cataphracts are still in the top retinue unit lists. Mostly because they combine the advantages of heavy cavalry with the advantages of horse archers. The horse archer portion of the cataphract units rules in skirmish phase like all archer units and in sieges too, since sieges are considered to be skirmish phase. The heavy cav part does more damage than archers in melee phase taking care of anything left over from skirmish. Both parts of the retinue being mounted means that that excel at the final pursuit phase too.

If you come across a Norman/Frankish/Occitan general willing to join your court, use him instead of your own Greek generals. This is because the Normans et. al. get the Couched Lance combat tactic which is +420% bonus versus the Greek general Embolon Charge which is only 240%. It isn't that important, but every little advantage helps.

Originally posted by LORD GALVATRON:

heavy cav. many old armies were built around their charge. in the pre-gunpowder world, few things were as devistating as a wall of horse, steel, and lance came crashing over everything at a full gallop.

you might do a little better with cataphacts in the center, with the flanks being made of a mix of shock and skirmish units. that way you'll get some power to take down seiges. pre-1000 ad, i've found that a stack that has more archers than a holding has defenders can safely assault the holding with acceptable losses.

i was trying the full cataphact thing with amalfi. i have since started an abbasid game. because i do not like camel cav (is there some devistating super tactic with them? i dont see the point of ever supporting them) i went 50-50 shock and skirmish (gives equal number of heavy infantry and archers).

those retanues were doing at least as well as my all knight units in a german culture..... but were much much cheaper. and because they had more subunits to make the same number of troops, shock/skirmish armies will reinforce faster (but at a higher monthly cost).

Arab cultures using 100% camels have made it to the top retinue lists. The only unit you really want to avoid is Mongol horse archers. Even though they're light cavalry, camels do almost as much damage as cataphracts and knights, but have similar defensive numbers. Add to that the fact that camel retinues are cheaper, so you can have almost 3 times as many under your retinue cap, and camels come out ahead in the numbers. And no unit does as well as camel riders in the pursuit phase. Just avoid going up against Mongol horse archers with them, because the Mongols get a tactic to refresh back to skirmish phase which will wear down the non-archer camel riders. So when the Mongols arrive, switch to the below non-English/Welsh archer + pikes + heavy infantry.


All of the above comes from the excellent work of a guy in the CK2 reddit threads who wrote the original optimum retinue calculations for gamefaq. His latest numbers are about 3 months old and so might not match up to the most recent DLC and patches. The list has changes several times as patches nerfed light infantry (they were way overpowered right after the Charlemagne DLC was released) and new calculations as a result.

http://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/2hfsxb/optimum_retinue_calculations_revisited/

Basically the top retinues are:

1. English/Welsh longbows mixed with pikes in a mix of 48.2% pikes and 57.2% archers (10000 retinue points = 3000 pikes and 4000 longbows = 10 generic defense rretinues + 4 longbow)

-or-

For non-English/Welsh players an alternate mix is generic skirmish and generic defense in a mix of 34.3% pikes, 57.2% archers and 8.5% heavy infantry. (2400 pikes, 4000 archers, 600 heavy infantry = 7000 total = 10000 retinue points)

2. Camel Riders at 100% with an Arab general - almost as good as the above.

3. Scottish/Italian pikes at 100% with same culture general.

4. Cataphracts 100% with Norman/Occitan/Frankish general.

5. Cataphracts 100% with Greek general.

Horse archers 100% doesn't quite make the top 5, then heavy infantry 100%, followed by the other cultural mixes of light cav (like the Iberians) and 100% knights coming in dead last because they have low skirmish phase damage and the combat tactics triggered aren't reliable.