Leader in Merged Stacks

[Anthropoid]

I cannot figure out what the criterion are which the app is applying in determining the commander of a merged stack. For example I'm playing France.

Obviously if you merge with the Liege of a set of vassals, the Liege is the overall commander, but what bout when you merge vassals without the liege there?

Is the oldest guy? Highest prestige vassal? Highest martial?

If it is the highest martial guy, is it only his martial or both his and his marshal's martial?

Is it better to just move them all in a group but unmerged the way the AI seems to prefer to do?

 

[jordarkelf]

In order of preference:
-Monarch regardless of martial skill
-Any marshall regardless of martial skill
-Male courtmember with highest (adjusted by traits) martial skill
-Male courtmember with second highest (adjusted by traits) martial skill
-etc.

'Monarch' is any title holder: king, duke, count, bishop, etc..
On merging armies, it appears to be so that highest rank takes the siege, so a count could take the siege away from a king's marshall (if the king is not present), but this seems to have changed in DV, where usually the siege starter keeps the siege as long as he does not move from it or shuffle his armies while sieging.

All of these must be valid: over 16, and not having disabling traits like war_invalid.

I always merge my stacks, but asides from how this affects attrition (will be equally taken from all armies in the stack rather than individually) I don't know what other benefits it has over ease of move.

 

[Anthropoid]

Thanks Jordarkelf.

So in effect, if I have a high martial Marshal, and I want him to lead more than one regiment, he needs to merge with a regiment that is not led by any Monarch (King, Duke, Count or Bishophric). That is kinda annoying when you have hired this guy to be a Marshal because he has a 15 martial and then when it comes time to form an army, some lame-o 3 martial Count gets to take over the army

This would be something I'd hope they'd change in a CK2. Perhaps giving command to someone who isn't at the top of the basic hierarchy should cause an immediate negative hit on the offended Monarch's loyalty and then also a cumulatively daily hit, but I would think that the liege would've been able to impose his will on who commands an army, wouldn't he?

 

[TempestDK]

Thanks Jordarkelf.

So in effect, if I have a high martial Marshal, and I want him to lead more than one regiment, he needs to merge with a regiment that is not led by any Monarch (King, Duke, Count or Bishophric). That is kinda annoying when you have hired this guy to be a Marshal because he has a 15 martial and then when it comes time to form an army, some lame-o 3 martial Count gets to take over the army

This would be something I'd hope they'd change in a CK2. Perhaps giving command to someone who isn't at the top of the basic hierarchy should cause an immediate negative hit on the offended Monarch's loyalty and then also a cumulatively daily hit, but I would think that the liege would've been able to impose his will on who commands an army, wouldn't he?

I am sure he would ... and I am also sure that something will be done about that in CK2. At least I hope I can re-arrange my army commanders as I see fit ... at least who leads the merged stacks.