Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

#ThoughtsInMyOtin (wine)
Ugh, I have mixed feelings about retinues.  On the plus side, they take away a lot of the micro of managing an empire or large kingdom.  The levy system is pretty awkward, though arguably by design.  Raising levies for a dozen rebellions a year is tedious, but there's always a reason for those rebellions.  In a way, the levy system is supposed to make wars more of a hassle for the player.

But really only in a meta way.  Lords don't care if you raise and lower their levies a hundred times in an instant.  The troops don't care either, even though their teleporting (as long as they're in friendly lands).
* There ought to be a flat relations cost for raising the levies, and meager gold cost for raising personal levies (a fee for deputies going out to summon the men, and shrinkage on their equipment)
** Declaring war should totally be possible with raised levies
** Relations hit and gold fee for having levies over time would be balanced to match

Then there are retinues.  They charge absolutely no upkeep, only hiring fees.  And they can magically hire reinforcements in the middle of fuckmenistan.  It's fine to declare war with them "raised", heck even if they're on the border (and 1 day from entering the enemy country).

They are, essentially, "Good job being a king, here's a time and effort saver on your world conquest attempt".  And they're kinda all backwards.  Professional soldiers should cost over time as opposed to on-hire.  To misquote the Imperial Guard: "Training a man is easy, retaining him will be hard".
* Recruiting into the retinue should be cheap, but slow
* Retinues should charge more upkeep than levies.
** I don't see why there should be some magic cap on how many men I'm allowed to pay, if I have the gold.

Just some thoughts, back to drinking.

[Quartz_Mace]

Retinues due cost (although minuscule) upkeep cost all the time and cost a heck of a lot to reinforce (which can only be done at 2.5% of the unit per month), so they are still expensive to maintain, at least if you're taking losses with them. But yeah, they do have quite a few problems. The cap system really doesn't make much sense either.

Personally, if I'm of a Norse group, I always use Housecarls. Pure heavy infantry badassey. (200 men each +40% offense +10% morale, very good). These guys can wipe the floor if you keep them in their own unpolluted flank with someone with heavy infantry leader and berserker trait leading them. During defense, they will shield wall during skirmish, keeping troops and morale well intact, and wether defending or attacking, they will destroy in the melee phase using tactics such as berserker charge, advance, and others that boost heavy infantry. Once clearing the opposing flank, they will then clean up a flank next to theirs with an added (and huge) flanking bonus.

[Rolan7]

Oh right, I guess they started costing an upkeep a couple months or so ago.  And yeah they cost a ton to hire reinforcements, but it's still weird.

Also I was going to suggest that they only reinforce in coastal counties, or bordering friendly counties.

I always, always use skirmish retinues.  I've got very little faith in the combat system...  And more skirmishers = faster storming of holdings.  Which is practically all you have to do once you're a king (or okay, to be fair, an emperor).  Crush helplessly small revolts, pathetic enemy armies, and storm a hundred holdings because they don't know when they've lost.

[mainiac]

** I don't see why there should be some magic cap on how many men I'm allowed to pay, if I have the gold.

And where are they supposed to come from?  Where does their gear come from?  The military industrial complex of Rome is less then a distant memory, they literally didn't even have a conception of the underlying production and recruiting efforts.  As such the number of retinues you can recruit is already unrealistically high.

[WealthyRadish]

The easiest strategy to have a high retinue cap is to start every character with scholarly focus, do the "build observatory" decision/event chain for loads of military tech points (while the spymaster stays stealing tech in Constantinople), and not spend any of it until you're rich and big enough that there aren't any holding upgrades (or new cities to build) worth spending money on. Then you can dump like 4000+ mil points into the military organization tech, providing a large modifier to your total holding count.

[Rolan7]

** I don't see why there should be some magic cap on how many men I'm allowed to pay, if I have the gold.

And where are they supposed to come from?  Where does their gear come from?  The military industrial complex of Rome is less then a distant memory, they literally didn't even have a conception of the underlying production and recruiting efforts.  As such the number of retinues you can recruit is already unrealistically high.

The people come from that mystical population pool which spawns countless armed rebellions, hero armies, and levies.  The difference is, this cause actually pays.
Equipment only explains why the reinforcement rate is capped, not the total size.  The logistics issues of feeding the army are simulated with the supply system, and maintenance cost.  And I think that cost ought to be higher, instead of the hiring cost and reinforcement cost.

[mainiac]

Just because one thing is unrealistic doesn't mean other things should be unrealistic.

And equipment does justify a total cap.  Equipment in this period needed to be replaced frequently.

[Teneb]

So there was another teaser "dev diary". The only actual mechanics thing in it was this screenshot

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Looks like EU4 shattered retreat is now a thing.

[WealthyRadish]

On the one hand battles have always been a bit of a joke, since one victory means a certain stackwipe of that army unless another one comes along to reinforce. On the other hand, EU4 shattered retreat is a really irritating mechanic, with the total invulnerability and no way to intercept or encircle (along with the constant mental minigame of understanding the algorithm enough to predict their destination).

That said, in CKII armies typically take much more damage and don't reinforce like EU4 (except retinues, but even that's typically slower), so I think it'll end up being of little consequence, and not nearly as bad as EU4 ping-ponging.

[pisskop]

What is this mechanic?  No more predictable pathing and such?

[WealthyRadish]

In EU4, if an army retreats from a battle they will be incapable of fighting (meaning you can't intercept them and finish them off, even with an army waiting in their path), they'll move at a much faster speed (making it difficult to chase), and they'll recover morale (but not reinforce). Once they reach their target province, they can be fought again. The player can't control the army while it's in retreat, and often they can't pick the province they'll retreat to unless they order the retreat early and it's a valid destination (which is rather obtuse, and will often lead to armies retreating a very long distance).

[USEC_OFFICER]

So isn't that similar to what currently happens in CK2? Or am I missing some crucial point of information here? Like the target province being several provinces away from the battle?

[pisskop]

So what we have now, but farther away?

pedit ^^

I cant tell you how often I lose a stack of retinue because I dont know where the enemy reinforcing doomstack is.  Though I recognize the current system as better for me than the ai.

[WealthyRadish]

I can't remember the max distance, and I don't think it's in the defines, but it's upwards of like 15 provinces (and the army moves 50% faster).

[pisskop]

Thats far.  they should suffer attrition while in that mode.  deserters, infection, no food, no supplies, etc.