Inability of rulers to control legions is quite big problem

[religiousphanatic]

like it is in title, did anyone managed to have ruler as commander of legions . I find it quite problematic with current loyalty system , to give more power base to fragile characters which are born being disloyal. And ofc i dont find this working how it should be cause in those times armies was controled mostly by rulers

 

[IsaacCAT]

like it is in title, did anyone managed to have ruler as commander of legions . I find it quite problematic with current loyalty system , to give more power base to fragile characters which are born being disloyal. And ofc i dont find this working how it should be cause in those times armies was controled mostly by rulers

Rulers command levies
Legates command legions

EDITED: The game uses this mechanism to promote that characters leading legions threaten rulers.

I agree that your rulers should be able to command a legion, but with an increased chance of the governor of your capital having a lot of power base.

 

[religiousphanatic]

hehe was expecting that its impossible, well i guess on shelf you go

 

[Lord Lambert]

I do find it a touch awkward when, for example, Pyrrhus cannot command the army he historically did command.

 

[IsaacCAT]

hehe was expecting that its impossible, well i guess on shelf you go

Before release I thought that the majority of players will mix levies + legions for the best result.

When you go together, your resulting army may be commanded by your ruler.

 

[religiousphanatic]

I do find it a touch awkward when, for example, Pyrrhus cannot command the army he historically did command.

for me this is enough not to play anymore until its its reworked

 

[religiousphanatic]

Rulers command levies
Legates command legions

I think there are many cases in history where characters leading legions threaten rulers

thats ok for Rome but persian immortals for example ware under direct control of ruler . no legates or some random dude , it was imperial army

 

[Lord Lambert]

for me this is enough not to play anymore until its its reworked

It's not as big a deal for me, but certainly I think it is something that should be changed.

 

[religiousphanatic]

It's not as big a deal for me, but certainly I think it is something that should be changed.

it will drag bunch of new problems in cause of disbalance of power base, your ruler will have way lower power base then late game sized legion generals (100+ cohorts ) cause ruler will have no army + buffs on cohort loyalties which as it looks become loyal easier then before will i expect destroy the bribe option in character interaction , this will be all what you will have to do.

 

[Lord Lambert]

it will drag bunch of new problems in cause of disbalance of power base, your ruler will have way lower power base then late game sized legion generals (100+ cohorts ) cause ruler will have no army + buffs on cohort loyalties which as it looks become loyal easier then before will i expect destroy the bribe option in character interaction , this will be all what you will have to do.

I dont see this as an inherantly bad thing.

 

[religiousphanatic]

I dont see this as an inherantly bad thing.

we will see, im not sure for 100% , i will try to bypass it somehow

 

[IsaacCAT]

we will see, im not sure for 100% , i will try to bypass it somehow

This is not beta testing, this is brute testing. And I fully approve.

 

[religiousphanatic]

This is not beta testing, this is brute testing. And I fully approve.

haha idk, for now it looks the same like before, at least for me

https://imgur.com/mZRUxHT

XD

 

[dakapes]

Another implication is that it would be more difficult to money-pillage enemy unprotected lands with legions.
only levies will have this privilige?

 

[nachinus]

thats ok for Rome but persian immortals for example ware under direct control of ruler . no legates or some random dude , it was imperial army

It's not ok for Rome either because Consuls tipically commanded armies in the wars of the republic.

 

[Dayvit78]

Also, isn't it that only commanders of Legions can get Triumphs? If that's the case, then how can my ruler get a Triumph?

 

[religiousphanatic]

Also, isn't it that only commanders of Legions can get Triumphs? If that's the case, then how can my ruler get a Triumph?

bruh, because old systems are not syncronised with new ones . like generic missions which are asking for 2 theaters even if you are limited to build one

im interested is bug with athens fixed where you need 6000% of senatorial influence to go in dictatorship ,, ( via mission) it has been reported 1 year ago

 

[Doldenberg]

I've also noticed that and I certainly see both sides of the coin here.

One option here might be that the capital legion can be commanded by the ruler why the rest can not. So larger empires still have generals that become threatening while you can also have a professional royal army. (a major point of the professionalization of armies at least in monarchies was after all to have a centralized power base not dependent on the loyalty of those providing the levies) Right now we have this weird state where Levies are directly tied to the monarch and super reliable while creating an explicit Royal Army creates a problem.
One could obviously see the general of a legion as a sort of "captain of the guard" technically who might usurp power. But that should be an explicit result of player decisions where you delegate the Royal Guard to such a person, rather than the default. So you could choose to either appoint a general or the ruler directly, and if it's the ruler there might be additional focus on the tribunes potentially being disloyal.

I do assume the whole thing is a problem on account of the ruler also being the capital governor though - who would lead the levy then?

 

[Nostalgium]

I 100% agree that rulers should be able to lead at least the Capital legion - I mean, we talk about Alexander the Great's conquests, not his indirect oversight of the conquest of Persia by his Generals - but I'd also like to see a two-tier loyalty system. A few of the -5% Cohort Loyalty Chance things I feel could be revised to give the cohorts a chance to build STATE loyalty rather than CHARACTER loyalty. In this system, a cohort loyal to the State would add to the power base of the ruler, where one loyal to a character would add to his.

I do assume the whole thing is a problem on account of the ruler also being the capital governor though - who would lead the levy then?

You could have a redudancy where a relevant minister - like the guy in charge of generating military experience - commanded the capital levy if the ruler was unable.

Edit from the future:
I made a suggestion elaborating on my ideas for a relevant minister that you can find here.

 

[religiousphanatic]

I 100% agree that rulers should be able to lead at least the Capital legion - I mean, we talk about Alexander the Great's conquests, not his indirect oversight of the conquest of Persia by his Generals - but I'd also like to see a two-tier loyalty system. A few of the -5% Cohort Loyalty Chance things I feel could be revised to give the cohorts a chance to build STATE loyalty rather than CHARACTER loyalty. In this system, a cohort loyal to the State would add to the power base of the ruler, where one loyal to a character would add to his.



You could have a redudancy where a relevant minister - like the guy in charge of generating military experience - commanded the capital levy if the ruler was unable.

very very nice suggestion !!! respect