Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Control of your and your vassals' troops

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
unmerged(24840)

unmerged(24840)

First Lieutenant
Jan 19, 2004
238
0
www.nufc.com
I think at least part of this post might've been asked/answered before but I might as well ask, to clarify.

As a King, if you are given the services of your Dukes' and Counts' troops, who controls them - you or the AI? Its not clear in the AARs, for instance, if its role playing or game play when its talked about various generals having their troops do this and that.

Secondly, as a Count, say, if your services are requested and you agree, am I right in saying you will control your own troops and noone elses?

Finally, as a Duke, you agree to aid and call up your men and also call on your vassals' troops - who controls those? Just to be pedantic, you also control your own troops?

I expect you will control your own and any of your vassals' troops, in these scenarios. There are good arguments for most ways of handling this - game vs. simulation sort of thing so I'm interested to know.

Thanks for any response.
 
Last edited:
I've wondered about this, I got the impression that from info released you only control the troops from your demense (hence why it's important to have some). The AARs haven't really clarified this point either, in a way I kind of hope you don't control your vassals' troops to make it a bit harder/challenging.
 
Iblis said:
I've wondered about this, I got the impression that from info released you only control the troops from your demense (hence why it's important to have some). The AARs haven't really clarified this point either, in a way I kind of hope you don't control your vassals' troops to make it a bit harder/challenging.
Click to expand...

I pretty much feel that way, I can well understand people though (including Paradox as, in terms of the wider market, I imagine total control in generally preferred to realistic restrictions. A bit like setting the stadium hot dog prices, for CM/FM fans), who'd say that you could potentially be left without a lot of game in various instances (due to you not having a much land/many troops, them all dieing and you being left to watch AI vs. AI) and the risk of AI dodginess (either leaving them standing still (which may have been fixed, in fairness) or just not attacking as a unit - for instance, when you want to merge two blocks of 1500 troops to fight 2500 of the enemy and instead getting picked off in a couple of nibbles).

As I say, its a realism vs. game issue. It can be fun to work with the challenges of the time but if not done well, it could mess the game up, leaving full control the safer option.
 
I kind of hope the player has control of his vassal's troops...I remember in EU2, there were few things more annoying than watching a country invade a territory, besiege, then lift it 2 days later, retreat, rinse and repeat...A lot of countries that had a chance at being major players threw it all away with that "tactic"......Imagine how much worse it will be if your vassal counts' and dukes' troops do the same thing. :eek:
 
Last edited:
From the Henry Plantagenet AAR I got the impression that the player was only in control of troops directly under him while vassals fought independantly. At least it seemed that Richard (Henry's son and vassal) pretty much minded his own business.
Maybe it will be possible to choose whether to have direct command of troops or let the vassals do the job?
 
kehnn said:
I kind of hope the player has control of his vassal's troops...I remember in EU2, there were few things more annoying than watching a country invade a territory, besiege, then lift it 2 days later, retreat, rinse and repeat...A lot of countries that had a chance at being major players threw it all away with that "tactic"......Imagine how much worse it will be if your vassal counts' and dukes' troops do the same thing. :eek:
Click to expand...

Precisely

beowulf said:
From the Henry Plantagenet AAR I got the impression that the player was only in control of troops directly under him while vassals fought independantly. At least it seemed that Richard (Henry's son and vassal) pretty much minded his own business.
Maybe it will be possible to choose whether to have direct command of troops or let the vassals do the job?
Click to expand...

That's how it sounded, but a new arrival could get the same idea from many EU2 AARs, where for the tale's sake, people speak from the perspective of the King. Not only that, but they can jump in and out of character without informing you, which would make it even worse.

I very much like the idea of being able to choose, but I expect that ones for CK2...
 
I wonder if it will be possible to have more or less control?... like for instance you can ask your vassal to do something specific ("Go to province X and perform a siege"), and then they will carry it out (or not) depending on their loyalty.
 
I suspect what it means is you have no control over your vassals troops. However if you place the call to arms and he pledges his troops to you then you have full control as if they were your own.
 
beowulf said:
I wonder if it will be possible to have more or less control?... like for instance you can ask your vassal to do something specific ("Go to province X and perform a siege"), and then they will carry it out (or not) depending on their loyalty.
Click to expand...

Thats what I thought, though, at the moment, I'm still amazed to think there was even the slightest possibility of having an option of one or the other. I'd thought it would be great, but didn't hold out any hope for it.
 
From what Havard says, is sounds as though it is a bit like in Victoria where a state can choose to give you expeditionary forces to control.

Maybe, per default, the vassals' troops are controled by themselves, but if they choose to do so they can hand over that control to you?

EDIT: if you read the Hungarian AAR there is a higly ambitious noble who takes a few provinces and declares himself count in these new territories. I could easily imagaine that an ambitious fellow such as him would never let anyone but himelf controll his troops. In case he was 'autonomous' that could explain why it was so hard for 'the king' to make that vassal participate in the sieges and battles the king thought was important ...
 
barretta said:
I suspect what it means is you have no control over your vassals troops. However if you place the call to arms and he pledges his troops to you then you have full control as if they were your own.
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand - you don't have any control over a vassals' troops but you do if he gives you them?

I think I'm saying the same as you when I say, it could be that in some instances a vassal will be so loyal and trusting in your/the Kings' abilities that he'll grant you military control in wartime, but if you're/the King is a bad leader and the vassal isn't totally loyal, he'll want to make sure his troops don't get slaughtered for, what is in his eyes, the unworthy cause of an unworthy King, under the command of anyone other than himself.
 
Martinus said:
Why dont you guys wait a month and find out? ;)
Click to expand...

Are you insane? Or blessed with some absurd level of patience??? - Which I guess is the same!

No, we are true fans. We have no patience. We want it all and we want it now!!! Tell us everything! NOW!!!
 
Ironside said:
I don't quite understand - you don't have any control over a vassals' troops but you do if he gives you them?

I think I'm saying the same as you when I say, it could be that in some instances a vassal will be so loyal and trusting in your/the Kings' abilities that he'll grant you military control in wartime, but if you're/the King is a bad leader and the vassal isn't totally loyal, he'll want to make sure his troops don't get slaughtered for, what is in his eyes, the unworthy cause of an unworthy King, under the command of anyone other than himself.
Click to expand...

I think we are on the same page. I am thinking that in peace time he controls his own troops and should he want to engage them in a private war (not one started by his liege) he will do so and then he will control them. However if his liege requests him to provide troops for "the kingdom's war" this is where the loyalty kicks in. He can refuse the request and fear his liege's anger or answer the call. When he answers the call they become like Victoria's expeditionary forces and therefore under the liege's control (as Sikker said).

However I prefer your suggestion about unworthy etc.. and in fact you don't always have control but I doubt it.

And yes we could and will likely have to wait a month to find out (as per Martinus).
 
Thucydides said:
You outright enjoy being enigmatic, don't you?!?! :p
Click to expand...
Maybe he does...

...and maybe he doesn't. :D

As to the thread topic, I would think that's one that Johan would have to answer directly if you're to find out before the game hits the shelves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back