Michael Gladius

AI should definitely have a toggle-feature mentality. Toggle features are great because they are individually simple and intuitive, but allow for a large number of combos. Some combos can be balanced trade-offs, while others can minimax for devastating results. A toggle mentality means that the AI can switch gears quickly, rather than being committed to a single course of action. If I open myself to a devastating counterattack, then the AI should switch gears to try and win quickly. If the AI has no hope of winning, it should respond with trying to force a draw. The AI should also prioritize elite troops over basic ones. IRL, small elite armies were the norm, and filling the ranks with lesser troops was usually last-minute & temporary. If the AI is not in immediate danger, it should spend its resources on producing and maintaining elite troops and unique regional units rather than spamming massive cookie-cutter “swordsman” armies, like the Napoleonic period. After a war, lesser units should be the first to be disbanded. The AI should prioritize archers for garrisons. In the first game, garrisons were random and often poorly-suited to defense. Since the town guards were so good, I always maxed out archers as garrisons, and this combo annihilated many AI armies. AI should also focus on raiding regions it does not plan to conquer, and minimize raiding those it does plan to conquer. Small cavalry armies are good for this, and devastating an enemy’s backyard while conquering his front is a great way to pay for a war, both in-game and IRL. Masses of footmen should stick to sieges, while cavalry raids and reinforces field battles as a Quick Reaction Force (QRF).

I'd absolutely accept a compromise. Lots of Armies were surprised because they failed to perform reconnaissance or pull security, and plenty of armies didn't make this mistake. The dispersed units in attentive armies could also be marching back towards the camp when the battle starts, rather than moving away or standing still. Experience could be a factor in readiness, as well as camp/column organization. Leadership traits/skills should also be a factor, since medieval armies were personal rather than professional. Attrition/fatigue/low food supply should also be a way to ensure every player doesn't just toggle on the "attentive" setting- tired armies are more interested in rest/eating than vigilance.

In the original game, an army that came under attack whilst pillaging a province feature would start the battle like a normal battle, with their units in a big blob. Basically, no different from a regular field battle. Yet, intuition would suggest that the pillagers would be spread out, to cover more ground and not waste time over-pillaging a single peasant hut. This starting condition would also make tactical battles under such conditions more interesting, since they'd be a race between the pillagers to concentrate and their counterattackers trying to destroy them in detail.

Since my "minor castles" post was referenced, I'd like to chime in: Minor castles/fortifications should be included because they allow smaller numbers of troops to win against larger forces. We see this in the crusades, when the Crusaders had few knights and small garrisons. Tiny kingdoms would thus be able to leverage them against attackers. The first benefit can be a trade-off: truly conquering a province after military victory is a cultural matter. This will hopefully be costly. Yet if one takes the minor castles, this could grant a discount to the final cost of conquering the province. So if one likes sieges, he can spend lots of time on them and enjoy a lower culture-conquest cost at the end. If he hates sieges, he can dump his efforts into one battle and then spend more time on maxxing out his cultural advantages. The second trade-off can be siege attrition. Leaving small castles in the rear of a besieging army was incredibly dangerous IRL because they could launch raids against the besiegers. Leaving them unmolested could increase attrition to the attackers, and taking them could decrease this added-on attrition. The third advantage of small castles is they can serve as supply depots and give vision/intelligence into an enemy province. If my army is not in the province, there is fog of war over it. If I take a small castle, though, I would be able to see a portion of the province, and stockpile supplies there for a longer campaign. Shorter supply lines and greater intelligence (should be tied into spies as well) make campaigning easier. A fourth advantage of small castles is the rebel/resistance mechanic suggested above. I proposed forts as a way for loyalists to rally in rebellion, but using them to suppress rebellions is also a good idea. It should work both ways. Fifth, I'd also suggest making non-military province features fortify-able. Monasteries, villages, and farms could gain towers/blockhouses, pallisades, and garrisons. Not as strong as a castle, but definitely something to defend.

Will there be any semblance of organization in the camps and marching columns? The old game was incredibly random, and the new game should at least give some option for organizing how one enters battle. Take the Battle of Arsuf, for instance. Richard the Lionheart won because he organized his column a certain way, putting reliable troops at the points where he expected the fiercest fighting. Medieval armies weren't mobs, and the organization of a camp/column can affect supply consumption, speed, etc.

Nope! Because it doesn't have to be "more of the same." Here's how: Taking over a province is a cultural matter, and military means are not the be-all, end-all. However, having small castles be a factor gives players a choice: avoid extra sieges and pay higher cultural costs, or capture them and get discounts. Having it be a trade-off between taking castles (which was far more common IRL than field battles) and going for a pure-cultural blitz makes the game more integrated.

In RTS games, flanking damage needs to be a major factor- turning flanks can be devastating, and cavalry striking from the oblique or rear is terrifying.

Bridges are massively important in war, and there should be a "bridge crossing" battle type to balance out the river crossings battles. Towers would make more sense here than a random crossing spot.

In the original game, it was possible to fortify camps with towers, and it'd be nice if the same could be done to farms, villages, mosques, etc. in the new game. There wouldn't be walls, but they'd have towers. Same with bridges and river crossings. Same with garrisoning- placing one unit into the town as a garrison (without a marshall) would help protect from raids. When an attack begins, it'd be like attacking an encamped army.

In the old game, when a province feature was pillaged it was rebuilt automatically, but without any sense of progress. In the new game, it'd be nice if automatic reconstruction had a timer, or if it could be sped up with money.

A good mechanic to add when protecting one's provinces from invasion is to evacuate the villagers to the fortresses. This would cut off production and lower happiness, but would reduce the amount of loot taken by pillaging and the amount of time needed to rebuild them.

I made another post about this:

In the original game the battle maps were very pretty, and I'd like to propose two upgrades: denser terrain and seasonal terrain. The first one is necessary because most battles were not fought in a featureless field. They were fought in dense agricultural terrain: pastures, orchards, crop fields, etc. Most of the flat land in the middle ages was cultivated, so the empty battlefields seen in movies were few and far between. Agricultural terrain (both fields and villages) offers a lot of terrain masking benefits, and can provide cover for ambushes. Seasonal terrain is also desirable, both for aesthetics and functionality. Springtime crop fields will be open and not offer masking, autumn will denude tree cover, and snow will slow everybody down, while also making frozen marshes and rivers passable on foot. Even in the desert, the dry season will increase the risk of wildfires, and the hottest months will tire soldiers faster.Medieval armies needed to plan for the weather just as much as modern armies.

Historically, armies on the marched in a column, and deployed into lines only when battle was imminent. In the first game, armies march as a jumbled mob and their deployment at the start of battle is highly random. I'd like to suggest an intuitive fix. When an army is in camp (not in town), the player would be given the ability to select it and decide the order of march. This is a simple "1st, 2nd, 3rd" choice, but when the battle screen begins the troops will be arrayed in that order, one behind the other, allowing players some control over where their units are at the start of battle. The player could also choose the orientation of units' tents within the camp, based on the direction from which they expect to be attacked.

Nope. Heavy armor for infantry is necessary even with shields (only at the end of the middle ages do we see armor allowing men to fight without shields). Arrows, glancing attacks, and a hundred other things can injure a guy in battle. The point is to escape with no injuries.

Big battles should be more like a deck-building experience (same as the royal court). If my good soldiers are limited in numbers, then I won't use them as aggressively. In the original game, I could easily mobilize bigger armies than Napoleon in Russia and could replace them without disrupting my economy. I'd be ok with preventing knights from re-mounting once they're on foot. Plenty of historical battles where they did, and stayed on foot until the pursuit.

In most wars, battles are a test of nerves. Unlike in films, where armies fight to extinction like the Japanese in Iwo Jima, most battles historically were resolved by one side running away and the defeated army would often join their conquerors. 10% casualties were considered high, even as late as the 19th Century. So there needs to be an intimidation mechanic in-game. Charges were a common way to test the enemy's nerves, as most people prefer to be the hammer than the anvil. The best way to counter a charge was usually (no pun intended) to counter-charge, as it would force the other side to feel the same terror. Cavalry were more intimidating than infantry, for obvious reasons.

I would pair it with an ABCD personnel system, so that only a fraction of the population can be knights in the first place. Medieval warfare was fought by small military castes, not mass mobilization. Hilly and forested terrain would also be terrible for cavalry maneuvers/charges. Obstacles like stakes/caltrops or circled wagons also thwarted cavalry action.

In the DevDiary on religion, the developers mentioned that some buildings don't change when the religion of a province changes- namely, churches and mosques inside of towns/castles. This will result in stability problems and other forms of tension, but it'd be nice if there was a way to convert these as a deliberate (rather than automatic) effort. The Dome of the Rock and the Hagia Sophia are prime examples of churches converted into mosques, and many pagan shrines became churches in Europe.

Yay! Most soldiers back in the day were taken prisoner rather than slaughtered to the last man, so this is a welcome addition.

In most RTS games, units carry only one weapon, and no backup weapons, to create a rock-paper-scissors setup. Luckily, some RTS games have units which can toggle between weapons, and this ability should be introduced for all units. Spearmen and archers alike carried swords, axes, clubs, etc. because if the formation was broken, then the team-fighting weapons would be less useful in a pinch. Movies like to portray battles as being comprised of hundreds of duels, but IRL war is a team effort. For info-tainment:

They rarely appeared and were ten times as expensive as organic troops.

In the first game, there were basic, unarmored spearmen (including local variants like desert spearmen) and armored halberdiers. There was no middle option for heavy spearmen, even though heavy archers were available and two types of heavy spearmen (one by that name and the other was men-at-arms). The new game will need to include heavy spearmen since they certainly did exist.

One of the big advantages of cavalry in the Middle Ages was that it was dual-purpose. Mounted men were useful in a ton of situations, but they could also dismount and fight on foot if the situation warranted it. Cavalry should have this ability in-game to increase their importance.

In the base game, mercs were super-expensive, and only really useful for the nation-specific units. Otherwise, it was easier to just build an organic army. This is the inverse of history: standing armies were far more expensive than mercs. So how can this be reflected in a balanced manner? Simple: mercs are cheaper than their build-able counterparts, but have wages like marshals. IRL, mercenaries were very useful in the short-term, and typically jettisoned once the war was over. Having them cost wages like marshals would incentivize players to get rid of them in the long run. They additionally would not be able to replenish their numbers like organically-raised units. So there's a trade-off.