Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[fantadomat]

Shattered Retreat >>> Ping Pong

No,it doesn't,it is retarded mechanic like coalitions! Clearly you have poor taste!

 

[Werdna's Revenge]

Shattered Retreat has the kernel of a good idea, but the shittiest implementation possible.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Shattered Retreat has the kernel of a good idea, but the shittiest implementation possible.

Army is defeated and everyone runs away like headless chickens to the other side of the country.

Would work better if it was possible for leaders to try and rally the army while its running.

 

[Space Satan]

During medieval period there were such thing as Impenetrable Castle, which were taken by tricks and treachery only, but never with direct assault or siege. And during Henry II most "castles" were wooden shit with moat at best. And even in their case they were mostly starved, not assaulted.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

Will there be shattered retreat?

Yes, but your council will have to clear it with President Erdogan first.

This is what you're sure to hear at the border.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[AwesomeButton]

The screenshots look like PDX let their diversity quota empoyees rewrite the engine. What a clusterfuck. Hard pass.

 

[Chunkyman]

During medieval period there were such thing as Impenetrable Castle, which were taken by tricks and treachery only, but never with direct assault or siege. And during Henry II most "castles" were wooden shit with moat at best. And even in their case they were mostly starved, not assaulted.

If I pour enough money into my castle I want it to be an absolute nightmare to try and take. That doesn't mean it's impenetrable, just that it's extremely fortified to the point that you're either going to spend a year trying to starve me out or lose 10,000 men storming the walls.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Quiz time: How many sieges in the whole Middle ages have lasted a year (or more)?

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

Quiz time: How many sieges in the whole Middle ages have lasted a year (or more)?

Quick search didn't bring up very many. The Byzantines held Philadelphia against the Turks for 12 years before the city fell in 1390. The Venetians managed to hold out against the Turks for 8 years at Thessalonica about half a century later. Calais siege in 1346 was almost a year long, at around 330 days.

There were also a few long sieges during the Japanese Feudal wars, but those were in the 1500s, not really in the middle age era. Screw it, I'm tired of hunting. I'll go with the 2 I could find.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Quiz time: How many sieges in the whole Middle ages have lasted a year (or more)?

Quick search didn't bring up very many. The Byzantines held Philadelphia against the Turks for 12 years before the city fell in 1390. The Venetians managed to hold out against the Turks for 8 years at Thessalonica about half a century later. Calais siege in 1346 was almost a year long, at around 330 days.

There were also a few long sieges during the Japanese Feudal wars, but those were in the 1500s, not really in the middle age era. Screw it, I'm tired of hunting. I'll go with the 2 I could find.

Of these, only Calais can count as a proper siege. Citation needed on Philadelphia. As far as I know Philadelphia was taken in 1390 without serious trouble. Thessaloniki was a blockade, not a real tight siege, and the city was being resupplied which allowed it to hold on for that long.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

Quiz time: How many sieges in the whole Middle ages have lasted a year (or more)?

Quick search didn't bring up very many. The Byzantines held Philadelphia against the Turks for 12 years before the city fell in 1390. The Venetians managed to hold out against the Turks for 8 years at Thessalonica about half a century later. Calais siege in 1346 was almost a year long, at around 330 days.

There were also a few long sieges during the Japanese Feudal wars, but those were in the 1500s, not really in the middle age era. Screw it, I'm tired of hunting. I'll go with the 2 I could find.

Of these, only Calais can count as a proper siege. Citation needed on Philadelphia. As far as I know Philadelphia was taken in 1390 without serious trouble. Thessaloniki was a blockade, not a real tight siege, and the city was being resupplied which allowed it to hold on for that long.

https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/ancient/the-5-longest-sieges-in-history/

2. Fall of Philadelphia 1378 – 1390

When the Byzantine civil war turned disastrous, the Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos promised the city of Philadelphia to the Turks. However, the residents of Philadelphia were not so keen on this idea and managed to resist the invaders for an impressive 12 years before the city was finally taken by the Turkish forces.

 

[Preben]

Philadelphia wasn't a proper siege. Rather, the residents of the city were largely left to their own devices, including farming, and subjected only to low intensity raids and harassment.

 

[Spectacle]

In the early middle ages very few armies could stay in the field for more than a couple of months at a time. A castle only needed to hold out a while until the besiegers were forced to return home.

 

[Makabb]

They put baronies on the map but noy playable....... bad decision (or probably leaving on purpose for future DLC knowing paradox )

 

[AwesomeButton]

Quiz time: How many sieges in the whole Middle ages have lasted a year (or more)?

Quick search didn't bring up very many. The Byzantines held Philadelphia against the Turks for 12 years before the city fell in 1390. The Venetians managed to hold out against the Turks for 8 years at Thessalonica about half a century later. Calais siege in 1346 was almost a year long, at around 330 days.

There were also a few long sieges during the Japanese Feudal wars, but those were in the 1500s, not really in the middle age era. Screw it, I'm tired of hunting. I'll go with the 2 I could find.

Of these, only Calais can count as a proper siege. Citation needed on Philadelphia. As far as I know Philadelphia was taken in 1390 without serious trouble. Thessaloniki was a blockade, not a real tight siege, and the city was being resupplied which allowed it to hold on for that long.

https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/ancient/the-5-longest-sieges-in-history/

2. Fall of Philadelphia 1378 – 1390

When the Byzantine civil war turned disastrous, the Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos promised the city of Philadelphia to the Turks. However, the residents of Philadelphia were not so keen on this idea and managed to resist the invaders for an impressive 12 years before the city was finally taken by the Turkish forces.

They really did resist, as in, the city remained nominally independent, although fully encircled by lands subordinate to the Ottomans. However, they had made no attempt to take it prior to 1390 that I know of. It was not "under siege" and communications were not cut.

 

[Preben]

(or probably leaving on purpose for future DLC knowing paradox )

Congratulations, Sherlock!

 

[Beastro]

If I pour enough money into my castle I want it to be an absolute nightmare to try and take. That doesn't mean it's impenetrable, just that it's extremely fortified to the point that you're either going to spend a year trying to starve me out or lose 10,000 men storming the walls.

Depends on what kinda castle it is. But I can recall the warfare William of the Conqueror faced after his minority that resulted in several small castles holding him up for half a year or more at a time.

That's the trouble with CK, that even small castles are a major obstacle that they can't seem to work around. I just see this a new version of shit and probably worse than CK2s issue of siege being too easy.

In the early middle ages very few armies could stay in the field for more than a couple of months at a time. A castle only needed to hold out a while until the besiegers were forced to return home.

A big problem with CK2 at least, is logistics isn't translated into the game. At most it's reduced to a simple hit to your funds which ignores the problem of food and such that attrition can't account for.

A huge accomplishment of William's came simply waiting for the chance to invade England: He ordered his men and the large amount of mercenaries he'd hired to not harass or seize any goods from the locals they were camped by in Normandy. They spent a good few months waiting for both their invasion fleet to finish being built and for any news of changes that would allow for an opportunity to cross over.

His ability to pull this off was crucial and Harold failed at it on his end. He disbanded much of the fyrd and sent it back because he couldn't sustain it in Southeastern England anylonger. Same went for having his fleet on the Southeastern coast. Much of the fyrd, cept his core from Wessex, was sent back home and the fleet was sent back to the Thames to recover, then he moved north with his best men which finally allow William the opening he was ready to act upon.

Had his men and mercs started trouble it would have threatened his chances of invading and it's a testament to his character and the esteem of others that everyone under him obeyed his commands and suffered for them in the immediate term.

The thing is, I don't think that could be replicated in at least CK2, as all you need to do in Paradox games to avoid attrition is to spread your army out into smaller forces in other provinces which ignores hard counters like food, things which in EU result in silliness like large armies staying intact rushing across the Sahara or Amazon instead of collapsing from massive loss of life.

 

[vonAchdorf]

Easy fix: Pagan territory attrition levels everywhere.

 

[attackfighter]

Nah, a decent province could support > 10k soldiers easily. It's just that, once all the food was pillaged... all the food would be pillaged, so maintaining an army in the same place for a really long time would be nonviable without supply routes. The proper mechanic would be one in which supply limits become reduced over time as local food stores are depleted, and where maintaining an army thereafter in the same place requires both a friendly route from which food can be shipped as well as an upkeep cost in gold to reflect the cost of paying for that food and its transportation. Moving away from rivers, coasts, and friendly territory would cause that cost to rise precipitously. Some really crappy forms of government could lack the organizational ability to establish supply routes altogether, while slightly less crappy forms could establish them but at an increased cost to reflect their deficient administrations. Well-organized states like the Ottoman Empire could get them at the cheapest cost, which would still be substantial.

 

[34scell]

A single siege might not last that long, but there were a lot more castles than what is represented in the game.

 

[Life of the Party]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...3-dev-diary-04-development-buildings.1283865/

 

[Jason Liang]

Interesting. Makes you appreciate the Siege of Troy even more

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

The thing is, I don't think that could be replicated in at least CK2, as all you need to do in Paradox games to avoid attrition is to spread your army out into smaller forces in other provinces which ignores hard counters like food, things which in EU result in silliness like large armies staying intact rushing across the Sahara or Amazon instead of collapsing from massive loss of life.

I once rage-quitted an EU4 game that was going great, because the Ottomans somehow charged at my glorious Portuguese Empire's territories, namely a bunch of desert... across miles and miles of Scorched Earth Sahara Desert with a 150k army. They barely felt it. In the early 1500s.

SAHARA DESERT. SCORCHED.

150k men walking across around five scorched earth sahara desert provinces

THE SAHARA FUCKING DESERT!

 

[Jason Liang]

sigh you wouldn't believe the good byzantine men I lost marching north through Siberia and east through Afghanistan in EU2 and EU3. Russia is brutal.