Please make this possible. Sometimes I just really don't want my King or my Martial to be involved in a particularly bloody fight. In these circumstances I think allowing me to pick which the Characters in my court go to war would be helpful.
-
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.
If your King and/or Marshall deliberately avoids a battle that promises to be particularly bloody, they should get the "Coward" trait. And your troops in the battle should suffer a major penalty to their morale.
In general, because of the way troops were raised in those days,I don't think that you should have a lot of control over who leads your armies.
In general, because of the way troops were raised in those days,I don't think that you should have a lot of control over who leads your armies.
I would like this. It was really annoying when you merged an army led by your high martial score Marshal with an army from your martial score 1 Count and the Count led the army. 
I'm not sure I want this either. I don't want to have too much control over military aspects. That's one of the great things about CK. This and no naval warfare.
The OP seems to be requesting this to keep his ruler out of harms way. It would give the player an edge over the AI that probably wouldn't use the feature in the same manner. It would also be unrealistic as rulers were (mostly) needed to lead their armies.
If decision between whether the rulers leads or not needs to be made at all, it should be done by the game. Cowardly ruler should stay more often at home and induce a prestige penalty on himself and morale penalty on his armies. Valorous ruler should enter battles more often.
I still say let people pick who leads their armies, but give a healthy bonus for a King leading the army, and so forth. I believe people's morale would be higher if the leader of their nation is leading them into battle, rather than some general. On top of that, winning battles gives you positive traits that can boost your ruler's statistics up, which his kids have a chance to inherit if they go that route. So sure, a ruler can sit at home spinning his thumbs, but he won't get anything from it. Perhaps if the King goes along he gets a +20% to pillaging, which is also another plus, otherwise if he's not there people will grab more because he's not there to witness it.
I'd like to be able to choose who commands my personal regiments. I should have little choice over who leads my vassals' regiments, though I would have final say in merged armies.
I highly doubt that I, as a liege, would be able to tell my vassal that the count he chose to lead one of his regiments is unfit to be in my army, and order him to change him to somone more capable.
I guess if I have to use my vassals' armies, I am stuck with what they give me.
I highly doubt that I, as a liege, would be able to tell my vassal that the count he chose to lead one of his regiments is unfit to be in my army, and order him to change him to somone more capable.
I guess if I have to use my vassals' armies, I am stuck with what they give me.
With a feature like this I think it'd be good if some courtiers would actively seek and request command of regiments, even if their martial stat suggests they'd be terrible at it. I think Rome had an "ambition" system like this that added some real spice.
I wouldn't use this feature, as I'd feel it betray the era. In CK1 it was the highest ranking noble who took command, which, if memory serves me right, was pretty historical. So if you had a moron with alot ducal titles, he'd outrank the military genius who only owned one. Now this could prove disastorous, but if one could just pick the best man for the job, warfare would become rather easy...
I think i would be great, infact wiith ck1 happened thet my heir dead and i said: who decided that he would have gone to battle? So i lost the game
I agree with this, which is why I think you should not be able to change commanders on vassal regiments, but only on personal demesne armies, where I think you should have full control.
Maybe when armies are merged, the highest-ranking commander takes over, so if you merge the regiments of your highly capable but landless son and your inept duke, the duke takes command.
If they have same rank, the one with highest martial ranking takes command.
I think that is like it works in CK, except you have no control over who commands each of your personal regiments, which is what I would like to see.
You can already as of CK1 split your army and remove your king/marshal if you're afraid of their poor health. Granted, that means that any army led by one of your vassals will steal the siege, as it were, but that's the price you pay for ensuring the long life of your cowardly ruler.
I don't think this needs any changing.
.png){kind=avatar}
definetly no
your ruler is the militar chief of his lands, seconded by his marshall and a few knights/captains (sub functions in the court ?)
your ruler is the militar chief of his lands, seconded by his marshall and a few knights/captains (sub functions in the court ?)
Hell no. This ain't sissy kings from EUIII, who can sit home while someone else is leading zee army into the battle. CK kings were the men, with beards and mustaches, hairy, filthy and brutal Lead the way - let the dice roll and if destiny of the king is to get owned on battlefield and for the player to loose the game - so be it.
In short - no other people leading armies.
Lead the way - let the dice roll and if destiny of the king is to get owned on battlefield and for the player to loose the game - so be it.In short - no other people leading armies.
Does that include the crazy kings who thought they were made of glass?
(Yeah i'm looking at you Charles VI! (the actual king, not a forum member if one exists))
(Yeah i'm looking at you Charles VI! (the actual king, not a forum member if one exists))