What's the point to have Pyrrhos ?

[Ulysse15]

What is the point to have Pyrrhos as your ruler, one of the greatest general of his generation if you can't even make him the leader of your legion ???
The fact that, after some event (killing of Neoptolemos, the assassination of my previous general), the only general that a can appoint for my legion is a 1 martial random guy ! In all of my kingdom, with a Pyrrhos at 14 martial ! That broke totaly my immersion...
This is a total fail of the 2.0 because before we were able to choose our king as our general in chief. Is it possible to change that in a futur maj ?

Thank you

 

[Daft]

It's been a bit of a downer for the community in general, so I suppose the team is probably at the very least looking at possible solutions. But I have no inside info though.

 

[II_Paulus_II]

What is the point to have Pyrrhos as your ruler, one of the greatest general of his generation if you can't even make him the leader of your legion ???
The fact that, after some event (killing of Neoptolemos, the assassination of my previous general), the only general that a can appoint for my legion is a 1 martial random guy ! In all of my kingdom, with a Pyrrhos at 14 martial ! That broke totaly my immersion...
This is a total fail of the 2.0 because before we were able to choose our king as our general in chief. Is it possible to change that in a futur maj ?

Thank you

There is a mod on steam that allows you to appoint the ruler as commander.

Steam Workshop::Commander Kings

steamcommunity.com

 

[LordSkorpio]

It's a clear sign that they don't test the game before patches... They would have been aware of this problem the moment one of them actually played with a monarchy. I was going to play a Epirus campaign after I finish the current one, but seeing this, I better wait.

 

[Gurkhal]

I would think the reason for is a balance so that you can't easily lock down your one legion with your monarch and never worry about a general's loyalty. Of course in the warlike ancient world most rulers were probably involved with military affairs in some way or another and thus it may be a balance consideration that came out really weird when compared to history.

 

[Seleukos.I.Nikator]

No, you can't call it a bug. It's their design choice which is, in a way, a consequence of a rule that the head of state - be it a monarch, consul, etc. - is always in charge of the capital region. But that's understandable why such a design choice is so unpopular in light of how the levies and standing armies work in the game now.

What concerns monarchies, the idea of having a regent while the king is on campaign, as implemented by Master of Experts in his mod, is a very good one, I think.

 

[Limbojack]

It's a clear sign that they don't test the game before patches... They would have been aware of this problem the moment one of them actually played with a monarchy. I was going to play a Epirus campaign after I finish the current one, but seeing this, I better wait.

This isn't a bug, and they were aware of it before the patch was released. Apparently, letting the ruler lead a legion brings with it a couple of other issues - but that being said, I hope they manage to fix it because it is pretty immersion-breaking.

 

[LordSkorpio]

This isn't a bug, and they were aware of it before the patch was released. Apparently, letting the ruler lead a legion brings with it a couple of other issues - but that being said, I hope they manage to fix it because it is pretty immersion-breaking.

Yeah, I know it's not a bug. What I meant is if they actually tested, they would have seen it makes no sense, specially for factions like Epirus, which I refuse to play as long as I can't use Pyrrhus as commander.

 

[Numahr]

The thing about historical games is that your intricate game design should still be able to express the "flavor" of the era you are depicting.

The Hellenistic period, directly influenced by Alexander the Great's epic saga, is right about Kings leading armies to heroic victories and conquests, following the model set by this glorious predecessor.

So yes, it appears clear to me that rulers should be able to lead armies, out of respect for the time period being portrayed by the game. If design makes it technically impossible, then it is an indication that design deserves revision.

 

[charals]

I think it boils down to the fact that this game is the best alpha i have ever played...

In a more serious note. This weird choice reminds me of how one the most interesting(historically and gameplaywise ) factions, used to be lazily called phrygia for like a whole year and was not even able to form macedon. Just some design decisions that ignore any roleplaying/history based reasoning in favor of making some arbitrary game system function.

Also some advice.Just switch the law to bigger levies and delete the legion as long as you have Pyrrhos, you get by faaaaar the better results.

 

[scriptkiddy]

I don’t get it; he is leading your capital province levies, aren’t they even larger than the legion you‘re able to raise?

 

[charals]

I don’t get it; he is leading your capital province levies, aren’t they even larger than the legion you‘re able to raise?

Yes but given that the legion is supposed to represent the nations best and proffesional soldiers, it historically makes sense to have the ruler lead it. Also you dont get money from sacking cities from the legion since the ruler is not leading them.

 

[Undead Martyr]

Aristocratic monarchies and republics should probsbly allow their leaders to command legions. It would be a good way to give governments some extra flavor.

 

[Daft]

Isn't the real issue that they have a legion at all? Isn't it just a weird abstraction of the historical army he used, which suppose was a levy complemented with mercenaries and allied troops?

Why can other nations than Rome even raise legions? (I assume they are called legions because people keep calling them that).

 

[Bovrick]

Why can other nations than Rome even raise legions?

Because standing professional armies weren't a Roman invention.

 

[MagisterMundi]

Isn't the real issue that they have a legion at all? Isn't it just a weird abstraction of the historical army he used, which suppose was a levy complemented with mercenaries and allied troops?

Why can other nations than Rome even raise legions? (I assume they are called legions because people keep calling them that).

Legions is just the Latin name for professional standing armies, and Rome was not the only nation with professional standing armies.

Edit: @Bovrick beat me to it.

 

[trewajg]

As a Legion represents a standing army, I don't understand how you can complain that your ruler should not only be responsible full time for a professional standing army operating outside your realm but also be in charge of the realm. I do agree with the ones asking that there should be regent like mechanics so you could actually leave your nation in control of another character and leave you available to lead a legion, as I believe happened many times in Rome.

 

[svalan_i_dalen]

What concerns monarchies, the idea of having a regent while the king is on campaign, as implemented by Master of Experts in his mod, is a very good one, I think.

How does it handle when regent goes disloyal?

 

[svalan_i_dalen]

Legions is just the Latin name for professional standing armies, and Rome was not the only nation with professional standing armies.

Edit: @Bovrick beat me to it.

A roman legion is not an army. Operationally it is similar to a modern division. A field army consist of multiple legions.

 

[Daft]

Because standing professional armies weren't a Roman invention.

Yeah, I get that, but they weren't legions in the Roman sense. And did Pyrrhus command a professional army historically? Did they even have one?

Oh, and to clarify, I'm not arguing that no other nation had professional armies. Few if any other than Rome referred to them as "Legio"? I know what it means, I just think that part of this issue with rulers not being able to command legions is in part a problem of abstraction. I could see the king or whatever commanding ALL armies, but now we have two separate things in legions (commanded by legates) and then separate small levies commanded by governors and the ruler. Nothing that represents field armies composed of several legions. The abstraction is IMO broken wonky on that level.

Pyrrhus even commanded his Italian allies if I understand things correctly.