Should commanders be paid a substantial wage?

[Denkt]

Here you can get some idea about wages for an medieval army: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/agincourt/0/steps/8842

In CK2 being a commander to your liege seldom is particular rewarding while carrying risks and other issues so being a commander could mean better payment compared to CK2 and maybe higher payment for higher rank (however that can cause other issues). Also this would encourage characters to lead their armies themself rather than having to pay for a commander.

 

[Dlin369]

I think being a commander should give you some opportunities to level up your martial skill, gain/lose from your liege after winning/losing major battles, and put pressure on your liege to reward you with land/privleges/etc after a particularly successful war (not giving you anything will cause a loss of prestige for the liege)

 

[Denkt]

I think being a commander should give you some opportunities to level up your martial skill, gain/lose from your liege after winning/losing major battles, and put pressure on your liege to reward you with land/privleges/etc after a particularly successful war (not giving you anything will cause a loss of prestige for the liege)

You can also make it so that the commander get the prisoners taken (if they are not important enough/give warscore) and maybe have loot money after battles which is given to the victory just like you get prestige and piety in CK2.

 

[Gurkhal]

In my opinion this should be a difference between a feudal lord as a commander and a professional soldier.

The professional will likely be better and more loyal than the feudal lord, as long as the professional soldiers gets his rather high pay. But a feudal lord has his own income and so don't need the king's money in the same way and can be flattered and such with court titles and prestigeous honors that a professional soldier probably wouldn't care much for. But on the other hand the feudal lord is also predisposed to political intrigue which a professional soldier is less likley to indulge in.

Hence I would envision that the game will start with lords based on feudal titles as commanders but as the economy grows these tend to be overtaken by the more expensive but most often better professional soldiers. Note that a duke or a knight can still be a professional soldier, but its probably more likely we'll be speaking about minor nobility or well-off commoners as the likely background and the ducal castle as an unlikely background for a professional commander in the king's service and pay.

 

[Woifee]

As vassal it’s my duty to serve as commander. Not inly a duty but a huge honor to do so. I should lead charge in every battle. No payment needed.

But of course it’s the right of every soldier and commander to take loot and force himself upon the women of the conquered town.

So leading an army should grant prestige, not doing so is shameful and get you a malus. Also some gold rewards for besieged holdings.

 

[Woifee]

Also marching with armies is a social gathering. Noblemen in the same army should get social events, become friends, rivals, get hooks, have an easier time plotting or might even jump start a faction against an absent king sitting in his comfy castle not fulfilling his duty leading the army himself.

 

[Will Steel]

Every minor title should be paid a wage, including any commanders. Every council member should be paid a high wage. And it should all come out of lord's treasury, scaled to his rank.

Also marching with armies is a social gathering. Noblemen in the same army should get social events, become friends, rivals, get hooks, have an easier time plotting or might even jump start a faction against an absent king sitting in his comfy castle not fulfilling his duty leading the army himself.

Completely agreed. In fact, this was present in CK1, where the best way to make friends with other lords was to go on campaigns and battles together (which was guaranteed due to the fact that all lords would personally lead their levies and joined the larger army, there were no courtier commanders).

 

[noknok]

I think being a commander should give you some opportunities to level up your martial skill, gain/lose from your liege after winning/losing major battles, and put pressure on your liege to reward you with land/privleges/etc after a particularly successful war (not giving you anything will cause a loss of prestige for the liege)

so true about the rewards from liege. The ck2 AI kings usually dish out titles with no consideration to how much their subjects contributed to a war. This is totally unhistorical. If you step in and save the kingdom at great expense to yourself, you don’t get a reward and not even better opinion from liege.

 

[Gurkhal]

so true about the rewards from liege. The ck2 AI kings usually dish out titles with no consideration to how much their subjects contributed to a war. This is totally unhistorical. If you step in and save the kingdom at great expense to yourself, you don’t get a reward and not even better opinion from liege.

That seems extremely realistic.

 

[Ezumiyr]

It would make sense to pay commanders, but I'm unsure that noble commanders in particular would be paid during the war. They were most likely be paid afterwards, and possibly with favours and/or lands sometimes.
Also, it seems to me that we're paying armies as a whole during a war (with a monthly gold cost). So paying your commanders is probably already abstracted in some way, and we would just need to give some money to commanders to make that change happen.

The professional will likely be better and more loyal than the feudal lord

Feudal lords were professional warriors (and warlords) before anything else. It was the original point of the feudal system. Giving lands and favours to your fellow warriors so they remain loyal and fight to protect the land and the people. With the money and ressources, they could hire soldiers and get better weapons.

And it's actually one of the main difference with city lords of all kinds and theocratic governments. Feudal lords are warriors.

 

[noknok]

perhaps after a war, if you don’t pay a commander, you lose prestige and opinion and if you pay them, you get prestige and opinion.

also, sometimes in those times I think allies and subjects got nothing from helping out in a war, they were just paid by being ‘allowed’ to loot as they went.

The impression I got from history books was that sometimes the top lord would expect to have all the loot handed over to him and he doled it out to his subjects for their war contributions.

I wonder if perhaps a few different systems for rewarding commanders might be good and the type of system you have would be based on your culture.

They were most likely be paid afterwards, and possibly with favours and/or lands sometimes.

 

[Gurkhal]

Feudal lords were professional warriors (and warlords) before anything else. It was the original point of the feudal system. Giving lands and favours to your fellow warriors so they remain loyal and fight to protect the land and the people. With the money and ressources, they could hire soldiers and get better weapons.

And it's actually one of the main difference with city lords of all kinds and theocratic governments. Feudal lords are warriors.

Since this risk diverging the thread into OT semantics I'll just conclude that I strongly disagree with you. Although I would like to take you on for this issues, I'll let it rest so as to not get the thread OT.