Rulers should be allowed to lead legions

[Ares Enyalios]

Since there is no suggestion thread yet but enough people seeing this as rather bad, i therefore created this thread. Previous discussion here:

Inability of rulers to control legions is quite big problem

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...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Summary: Right now, nation leadern can't command legions which is stupid because Consuls were the leaders of the Legions and in the Hellnistic Empires there was basically only one professional army and that was exclusively lead by the king himself!

 

[IsaacCAT]

I am not against it, but if the Consul or King is commanding the Legion, the capital Region should be governed by a Character that will increase significantly its power base. Making civil war more probable and dangerous.

 

[Nostalgium]

I am not against it, but if the Consul or King is commanding the Legion, the capital Region should be governed by a Character that will increase significantly its power base. Making civil war more probable and dangerous.

I feel this kind of misses the mark a bit - were there really that many civil wars in pre-Marian Rome because the Consuls were leading their armies? Were there many civil wars in Greece while the Kings were on campaign? Especially in monarchies, it was straight up expected that the ruler lead their armies and accompany them in the field. Maybe not always from the front, like Alexander did, but surely a king who sat in his palace at home wouldn't be as well-loved as the one who actually marched off to war?

EDIT FROM THE FUTURE:
I've since this made a suggestion elaborating on how both the user demand for rulers leading legions and the design requirement to disallow pooling all the powerbase into a permanently 100% loyal character through the inclusion of Regencies, here. It was largely based on reflections from discussion in this thread.

 

[Bovrick]

I feel this kind of misses the mark a bit - were there really that many civil wars in pre-Marian Rome because the Consuls were leading their armies? Were there many civil wars in Greece while the Kings were on campaign? Especially in monarchies, it was straight up expected that the ruler lead their armies and accompany them in the field. Maybe not always from the front, like Alexander did, but surely a king who sat in his palace at home wouldn't be as well-loved as the one who actually marched off to war?

I mean Greece wasn't exactly calm when Alexander pissed off east, was it?

 

[religiousphanatic]

I mean Greece wasn't exactly calm when Alexander pissed off east, was it?

it was more rebbelions then civil wars at that point, over here everything is civil war, baby , infant, low loyalty, 16 year old pleb with 30 power base, even heads of family should not have that kind of power base if they did nothing or if they are nobodies

 

[Bovrick]

it was more rebbelions then civil wars at that point, over here everything is civil war, baby , infant, low loyalty, 16 year old pleb with 30 power base, even heads of family should not have that kind of power base if they did nothing or if they are nobodies

True, but the capital region very much did fall under the control of the governing family when he passed away too. I don't know, it just seems fairly logical that they wouldn't be the one governing a place if they're off campaigning elsewhere.

 

[Ares Enyalios]

I feel this kind of misses the mark a bit - were there really that many civil wars in pre-Marian Rome because the Consuls were leading their armies? Were there many civil wars in Greece while the Kings were on campaign? Especially in monarchies, it was straight up expected that the ruler lead their armies and accompany them in the field. Maybe not always from the front, like Alexander did, but surely a king who sat in his palace at home wouldn't be as well-loved as the one who actually marched off to war?

Actually it was expected that the ruler would lead from the front. Even after creating their empire, those kings were essentially legitimized by their army.

Never again in history you have in another culture such a huge number of kings dying in the field. The later Ptolemies are an exception that misslead the statistic but all in all roughly half of the hellenistic rulers died of injuries they got while fielding an army.

 

[Nostalgium]

To clarify; I don't disagree with the "governing should fall to someone else", just that they shouldn't necessarily get a big power base boost or be more likely to trigger civil wars unless they are already disloyal, corrupt, or something happens to the campaigning ruler.

 

[IsaacCAT]

To clarify; I don't disagree with the "governing should fall to someone else", just that they shouldn't necessarily get a big power base boost or be more likely to trigger civil wars unless they are already disloyal, corrupt, or something happens to the campaigning ruler.

We agree on that. Any character being uplifted to governor of the capital region will have an increase of the power base. If that character would become not loyal, then a civil war will be more probable due to its big power base, that is it.

A monarch may put its pretender on the governorship. What I do not want to see is an all mighty character doing all the roles.

 

[Bovrick]

I mean when a governor raises and leads the levies he still acts as the governor of the province, cant really see why the nation leader cant lead an legion and still be the governor

when you raise the levies at the capital region the leader still acts as the governor of that province

That's a fair point. I guess some of us are just trying to make sure you can't excessively collect Powerbase under a single character, as it undermines the internal politics game.

 

[religiousphanatic]

like i have suspected , leading the levies and governor position game doesnt consider like a job for the ruling family ( read ruler) so you have to invent one more job from somewhere. All in all update is really refreshing but i have a feeling that it was not tested how new mechanic works with old ones, maximum what was tested is AI behavior in observe mode :S

 

[Mike Louis]

If we could be allowed to choose who would lead the levies, it could free up the more military oriented rulers to command the legion. Non military oriented rulers could then be subbed out of levy command for a general (the devs could make a new job slot called commander whose function would be to take command of levies in place of the ruler) while remaining the governor of the province.

 

[chr0me]

In 1.5 when the ruler of a Monarchy lead an army during war, their consort would sometimes ask to govern in their stead until they returned. Perhaps, in 2.0 when a ruler of a monarchy decides to lead a legion their consort becomes governor of their province until they return.

For a republic, you could choose which consul leads a legion while the other governs the capital province while at war assuming you wanted either leading an army.

I think this would be a better compromise of not wanting the leader of a country hogging all the powerbase, you'd want to make sure the consort or co-consul was loyal before appointing your ruler to a legion.

 

[KassandrosF]

In 1.5 when the ruler of a Monarchy lead an army during war, their consort would sometimes ask to govern in their stead until they returned. Perhaps, in 2.0 when a ruler of a monarchy decides to lead a legion their consort becomes governor of their province until they return.

For a republic, you could choose which consul leads a legion while the other governs the capital province while at war assuming you wanted either leading an army.

I think this would be a better compromise of not wanting the leader of a country hogging all the powerbase, you'd want to make sure the consort or co-consul was loyal before appointing your ruler to a legion.

agree with the consort part, would incentivate the ruler to get married so the capital region doesnt go ungoverned, for republics would only work for aristocratic republics since those are the ones with dual consuls, i guess a penalty to the capital region would suffice, or apointing a temporal governor until the war ends, maybe one of the offices that uses finesse as its stat

 

[Nostalgium]

As a little aside on rulers leading levies, I yesterday realized that if you split a Capital levy, your ruler leads all of them. Simultaneously. So I had my King of Armenia sack cities in Caucasus and Persia within days of eachother yesterday. Fun times.

 

[IsaacCAT]

As a little aside on rulers leading levies, I yesterday realized that if you split a Capital levy, your ruler leads all of them. Simultaneously. So I had my King of Armenia sack cities in Caucasus and Persia within days of eachother yesterday. Fun times.

I do not like that. As I have said in this other thread:

The martial bonus of the General is too decisive. I do not like this abstraction and how they have implemented in game.

If you are able to split your armies, they have to have a commander each one or go without it. At is the case with legions with legates and tribunes.

After thinking about it I would prefer to be able to split levies but not appoint a commander. The governor will command one of the armies and the others will be without general.

 

[Nostalgium]

The worst thing is if you have a god-tier general as governor of a province, you can split his levy into numerous components and attach other levies to it. As battle general seems to be picked by martial skill if more than one commander is present in a stack, this lets your best general simultaneously command all armies in the field. It's not an ideal situation, TBH. But probably best saved for another thread - this one's not even about levies, really.

 

[Martocticvs]

Yep, disagree with @Arheo on this one. It was a normal thing for rulers to lead armies during this time, and they would absolutely be the best the country could muster, not just a bunch of farmers (assuming they had anything like legions at all). Kings, Consuls, whatever.

Maybe the way to do this is to keep the legions and levies as they are, but add a Ruler Commands option. Selecting this would keep the legate in post, but the ruler would be added in a special job slot above him. The legate would probably get a slight loyalty penalty for being overshadowed by the ruler (IF he was in the post already). Importantly, when chosing to do this, the ruler MUST appoint a governer to look after his home territories whilst he commands the army. Obviously in this state the ruler will be treated as the legion commander for battle purposes, etc.

There could also then be the chance of problems when the ruler returns home to relieve his temporary steward.

For Rome of course, you should be able to chose for either or both of the consuls to command legions. If only one is commanding, the other takes on the governing role of the other in addition to his own (power base increase, etc). If they both go, all Office holders get a boost to their powerbase, simulating the senate taking over the consul's duties.

 

[religiousphanatic]

Yep, disagree with @Arheo on this one. It was a normal thing for rulers to lead armies during this time, and they would absolutely be the best the country could muster, not just a bunch of farmers (assuming they had anything like legions at all). Kings, Consuls, whatever.

Maybe the way to do this is to keep the legions and levies as they are, but add a Ruler Commands option. Selecting this would keep the legate in post, but the ruler would be added in a special job slot above him. The legate would probably get a slight loyalty penalty for being overshadowed by the ruler (IF he was in the post already). Importantly, when chosing to do this, the ruler MUST appoint a governer to look after his home territories whilst he commands the army. Obviously in this state the ruler will be treated as the legion commander for battle purposes, etc.

There could also then be the chance of problems when the ruler returns home to relieve his temporary steward.

For Rome of course, you should be able to chose for either or both of the consuls to command legions. If only one is commanding, the other takes on the governing role of the other in addition to his own (power base increase, etc). If they both go, all Office holders get a boost to their powerbase, simulating the senate taking over the consul's duties.

one more thing which i did forgot to mention is that rulers governorship is not accounted as a job for some reason, few stuff is behind it, first , he cant have a job if he cant control legions cause governorship doesnt count, he cant have a tech job , he is not a army leader hes not a governor, who is he and why role of the King is reduced to hes just there ,

2nd thing is you now need to invent one additional job for your family not to be scorned

so if hes not a governor hes not a leader, who is he, why we cannot remove him from this governorship , whats the point of having him at all, is he supposed to be just a statman or what, perk mule , i really dont see what is the role of ruler anymore, hes there just because hahah

most importantly, hes not a governor , hes not a army leader so hes power base is reduced to being nobody on the other hand family heads received more undeserved power without doing anything

Ireally tried to play the game, 4000 hours i have alltogether but this now i simply cannot ( tried 6 restarts ) , i have seen so much wrong stuff that simply im going to play some other game.. And for the end OMFG civil wars are totaly and utterly broken , like never before and i literally mean like never before.

 

[SavvyLad]

This may already have been said...but if not then I have a solution, at least for Monarchies: a regent (or his/her consort?). If the issue is mechanistic. and the worry is what to do (game wise) when the King is in command and thus not ruling, then a regent is the natural choice for a mechanical remedy. When the King is going on campaign at the head of his army, he should have a regent in place who rules from the capitol in his stead. You can designate someone for this task beforehand. Of course...there could always be a risk that things happen while the King is away. Maybe the regent is an incompetent fool. Maybe he is a treacherous rat who tries to take over. All of that can be part of the risk of putting the King in charge of a military force.

Now I know the situation will be a bit different for Rome, with two consuls, but as I understand it perhaps that can be the solution. Since the 2nd consul acts primarily as a stat booster for the primary one (like the royal consorts), if the first is out on campaign maybe the 2nd takes primary charge until the primary returns from the conflict. Of course, this would have the potential for more political intrigues. The consul already heads the levies of Latium when they are raised. So if the other issue is who should command them, then perhaps a chosen general can be put in place temporarily to lead them (should the primary Consul be leading a legion instead). Interestingly...the Co-Consul CAN lead fleets on his own while in office....

Altogether though...I can see the mechanistic concerns from PDXs standpoint. Rome won't get actual, standing legions in the game until the Marian Reforms law is passed, as it was in reality, so having consuls be able to potentially lead them shouldn't be a big deal until later in the game anyway. In the previous hundreds of years of Roman history prior to Marius, they just raised and fielded ad-hoc legions of levied troops as needed. This doesn't mean that they were all "peasants" however. I think some players need to get the medieval sentiments from CK2 and CK3 out of their head. In the Ancient World, and particularly where Rome was concerned, levy does not equal BAD. Your levies aren't just illiterate peasants with pitchforks who suck and act as cannon fodder.

The ranks of the Roman Army, from the early slingers and skirmishing troops, right on up to the Triarii and Equites were all "levies" - as in they didn't remain organized and as a standing force AFTER a particular war had ended. All of the troops, of both high and low quality, were levied temporarily. Now here, in this game, governors lead the outlying regions' levies, and their potential to act disloyally is a big part of the game's intrigue. So they should NOT be able to command your field legions. In the same way, the Consul leads the capitol province levies, as I said above. So really what the game is driving at mechanistically is for the generals granted command of a permanent, professional, standing legion who AREN'T office holders, to be able to accumulate political power on their own via their legions. This is in the vein of Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, etc. None were consuls when leading their forces (I think). The goal of the legions in the game is to act as both military forces, obviously, but also as vehicles of political intrigue for men like these.

In that sense, I don't blame PDX for walling off generalship of them from national leaders. This is because these people ALREADY have power. They are already in charge. The "consular legions" of old whom the two co-consuls themselves took on campaigns against the Samnites, Carthaginians, Macedonians, etc, are already moddled by having the consul lead the capitol levies. As I explained, they weren't standing forces. If we truly tried to model an accurate Roman military-political structure in this game, it would be...difficult. Consuls only had ONE YEAR terms; that's why it says at the top "In the Year of the X and Y" or what have you (the two consuls' names). Obviously however, for the game's sake, five years is what is easy to deal with. Otherwise, you'd be constantly bombarded 24/7 in every in-game year with political intrigue. If the events had the same rate of firing as they do now with five year terms, whole Senates would come and go and many years of administration would role by with hardly a notice and no intrigue or events. You would have nothing or you'd be driven insane. PLUS - you would need WAY MORE CHARACTERS to faithfully do this one-year turnover, especially given the ten year prohibition on the re-election of consuls. So in conclusion, I get why having national leaders lead the game legions could be very tricky...and I don't see it as a huge issue. But, perhaps looking at the Consorts, Co-Consuls, or some other kind of regent could offer a reasonable solution for both camps.