My marshall goes to other court!
Aye! My own son and heir flees to other court despite the fact he is my marshall!
Aye! My own son and heir flees to other court despite the fact he is my marshall!
Upvote
0
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I've noticed this too. My daugher, the spymaster and my son, both in the court of Norway, suddenly had left to be part of some insignificant Italian count. Cripes.
Something similar, mark I`m still on 1.00, because I have some interesting campaigns to finish. Anyway:
- my army commanders, sometimes marshals, sometimes not, establish themselves as vassal counts of mine after taking a province in my absence.
They have some prestige and were in line to own fiefs, but far from primary heirs.
When that happens I had my maximum demesne as King of Lithuania.
Is this intentional(and why) or a bug? Does the same occur on higher patches?
Rgds, Oldtimer
- my army commanders, sometimes marshals, sometimes not, establish themselves as vassal counts of mine after taking a province in my absence.
They have some prestige and were in line to own fiefs, but far from primary heirs.
When that happens I had my maximum demesne as King of Lithuania.
Is this intentional(and why) or a bug? Does the same occur on higher patches?
Rgds, Oldtimer
well, if you are campaigning against reæigious enemies its normal for the army commander to take the province for himself, this is WAD.
An appointed marshal shouldn't be doing it though.
If you have a child ruler, conquering becomes pretty much impossible as your marshals will be leading your army and hence setup themselves as counts.
If you have a child ruler, conquering becomes pretty much impossible as your marshals will be leading your army and hence setup themselves as counts.
Solmyr said:
On the other hand the weakness of child rulers was often abused in several ways - if you want to conquer as a child ruler you'll have to 'demand back' the province and then you'll either get it or a legal claim.
On the other hand, it also is the case for adult rulers who are so injured they cannot fight (in 1.02 - in 1.01 they could fight anyhow). You may be the greatest emperor the world has ever seen and have the loyalty of millions of subjects, but your directly appointed marshal will nevertheless NOT fulfill his job but instead take over any religious enemy's province he conquers on his lords bidding and desert his job, leaving his soldiers to find their own way home - that is treason and he should be executed for it.Nikolai II said:
In my opinion, the marshal should not desert his position like that. It is unnecessarily aggravating.
...Especially since you can work around it if you have enough demesne provinces by using your anonymous commanders to lead sieges anyhow. The ONLY effect of having the marshal (and for that sake other members of your own court) steal land they conquer is to annoy the player and to cause the smart player to use the marshal and court to raise the smallest demesne forces in the kingdom with anonymous commanders leading the rest (which will do the real work). In other word, the current functionality encourages and rewards using faceless commanders rather than those with personality... That just cannot be right.
One thing is for your counts and dukes taking land for themselves, FINE, but members of your court - that is just plain aggravating.
(Standard trick, assuming more demesne provinces than your army-leading court members [i.e. most likely kingdoms only]: Click "mobilise host". Disband the anonymous commander with the least forces (province A) . Disband the marshal or other member of the court X with the largest or best army (province B). Raise a regiment in province A - it will be led by X. Repeat until the good for nothing province stealers are all leading worthless armies and go aconquering with the faceless clones)
I agree with Peter, this is something that has to change. However, I would like to have the option to select IF the commanding officer should be installed as count of province X. I'm quite sure Johan would say this would cause to much problems so I'm fine if it's removed for courtiers.. or at least your marshall.
/F
/F
Use your marshal for home province defense.
If you don't want your marshal to get the province put your character's regiment in the same army.
If your character cannot attend the festivities then your marshal deserves to take the province as payment for leading your troops.
If you don't want your marshal to get the province put your character's regiment in the same army.
If your character cannot attend the festivities then your marshal deserves to take the province as payment for leading your troops.
Sonny said:Use your marshal for home province defense.
If you don't want your marshal to get the province put your character's regiment in the same army.
If your character cannot attend the festivities then your marshal deserves to take the province as payment for leading your troops.
Sure you can play like that, but most players finds it annoying and avoid it, thus the whole thing is a non-feature. What's the point of having a kick-ass marshall (like El Cid with his 17) if you can't use him since he will leave after the first siege. Sure you can call him up and have him command troops again, but then you will losse the massive research bonus he gives.. for exmaple..
If you could select WHEN to give him land I know I would feel oblieged to do so after he has earned it.
/F
Peter Ebbesen said:
So if we remove anonymous commanders entirely?
Perhaps allowing you to 'loan' courtiers from vassals or liege, and else just not raise more troops than you have personalities for.
Perhaps just spawning new 'military' courtiers if you need them to command your armies.
No workaround then?
.
But I see the aggravation - although that 'treason' you talk about was pretty much ignored in the days - if you were on a crusade you could do nothing wrong since you were on a mission from god - and everyone and his dog that could take land, regardless of oaths or promises made, did so..
But from a game pleasure view I could see this 'courtiers take lands' as being a PITA..
In other words, treat the symptoms - not the disease?Nikolai II said:
Solution #1: Then you could prevent a vassal from using his armies because of leadership lack - ahistorical and with significant implications for new dastardly exploits.
Solution #2: Ahistorical. I don't think I have ever heard of a case when a contingent of troops could not be raised because there were no leaders.
Yes, the worthless country cousins need fellowship.
Seriously, the cure seems as bad as the disease here. Remember, those Crusaders you remember from history who carved out their own estates were people with soldiers of their own; in the CK representation that would be counts, dukes, and kings - an imperfect representation, to be sure - but one that works. Having people who have no wealth and no value on their own, who are arbitraliry assigned by the AI, take over control of land by using your personal demesne armies is an aggravating feature from a game-playing perspective that does very little good and plenty of harm.
The sharper split: Demesne forces take it (yours), vassal forces take it (theirs), would make it MUCH more interesting when deciding whether you need to use vassals or just your own demesne forces.