Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Suggestion: Prevent ruler from leading troops button

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.
Crusader Kings II 69872 Bug Reports 19709 User Modifications 10589 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6362 After Action Reports
Eyeseeyou

Eyeseeyou

Sergeant
8 Badges
Aug 9, 2009
63
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Semper Fi
  • 500k Club
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 Sign-up
I know there is a such a button for council members but why not for kings, whose death has a lot bigger impact on the game? The only way to do it is to select him as a general and press resign every single time you raise troops, so it gets tiresome and repetitive quickly and if you forget about it, you're king is now dead. I know it's historical for kings to lead troops but people just resign them anyways, it can be complete and utterly devastating to have your ruler die when you're the head a of a large empire.
 
+1

This option should be available for heirs as well. And most especially if your character is a vassal, there should be a similar toggle to prevent your liege from sending you off to kill the Turks in the mountains.
 
That would be nice especially if it had build in -10 relation hit for the liege if you are the vassal or the vassals if you are the liege.
 
definantly allow this when playing as a vassal.

Nothing is more annoying than breeding warrior-kings and seeying them get abused by the AI liege lord...

It wouldn't be so bad if the dude actualy rewarded me or let me ransom the prisoners I so hardly fought for. But nooooo! he has to risk my life while he's sitting back taking it easy and walks away with all my effort...rawrrr....

Just give me -25 opinion for refusing to serve him personaly or something and let my marshal or some other stooge substitute me for his crazy campaigns of AI land grabs.
 
In my games, if my ruler doesn't have a martial education, he/she "stays in the rear with the gear," to quote the marine lieutenant from the movie Full Metal Jacket.
 
Does my AI vassal with 20 martial and Organizer, who I personally landed for his service in war, get to do this to me? Should I make a thread about it when it happens?

I don't like it when my liege sends me off on every insane war he chooses to fight, but I consider it part of the price of being bigger than his next 3 dukes combined. If I'm contributing 1/4 to 1/2 of his total armies, he damned well better give me a command. It's already too easy to opt out of leading, even if your character is Brave and Proud.
 
The_Blind_One said:
definantly allow this when playing as a vassal.

Nothing is more annoying than breeding warrior-kings and seeying them get abused by the AI liege lord...

It wouldn't be so bad if the dude actualy rewarded me or let me ransom the prisoners I so hardly fought for. But nooooo! he has to risk my life while he's sitting back taking it easy and walks away with all my effort...rawrrr....

Just give me -25 opinion for refusing to serve him personaly or something and let my marshal or some other stooge substitute me for his crazy campaigns of AI land grabs.
Click to expand...

This. So much this. If my character has been fighting wars for you for the past twenty years, (and getting really good trait/opinion boosting events at that) throw me a duchy now and then, eh? I don't always want to play ERE to get some free land.
 
I had this perfect ruler that I bred. It took me a couple generations to bred this guy. I was planning on using him to go independent from my liege. He was a genius, skilled tactician, temperate, honest, brave, zealous, patient, ambitious, diligant, and gregarious. I was just waiting for a plot to go off when my liege decided to go to war and I died in one of the first battles leading his army and ended up having to play as his 2 year old son.
 
Mr_jon3s said:
I had this perfect ruler that I bred. It took me a couple generations to bred this guy. I was planning on using him to go independent from my liege. He was a genius, skilled tactician, temperate, honest, brave, zealous, patient, ambitious, diligant, and gregarious. I was just waiting for a plot to go off when my liege decided to go to war and I died in one of the first battles leading his army and ended up having to play as his 2 year old son.
Click to expand...

That's one of those times when it's OK to reload. :p
 
Would it be historically accurate for a vassal though? I was given to understand that the point of vassalage is that you gain the liege's protection, but in return for serving him in battle when he needs it. IMO freely bailing out of fighting would be heavily frowned upon unless there were mitigating circumstances (infirmity or disability, for example).

For kings it is a bit more of a grey area since they were probably expected to lead the armies (and you don't want the armies of the realm becoming loyal to someone else through extended service...) but on the other hand, you're the king. You can do what you like.
 
Your ruler shouldn't die in a battle unless it is a catastrophic loss. That's what guards and crap are for.

Since I mostly play independent and I never raise my own troops after the first 20 years, I dont have a probem with this. It still pisses me off though.
 
Gladness said:
Does my AI vassal with 20 martial and Organizer, who I personally landed for his service in war, get to do this to me? Should I make a thread about it when it happens?

I don't like it when my liege sends me off on every insane war he chooses to fight, but I consider it part of the price of being bigger than his next 3 dukes combined. If I'm contributing 1/4 to 1/2 of his total armies, he damned well better give me a command. It's already too easy to opt out of leading, even if your character is Brave and Proud.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I would hate it if it happened to me as the top liege. So, let's see... We need a mechanic for this.

Whenever you appoint a leader, an event should fire for the person if he is a landed vassal. Basically the event says, "Your liege wants you to command an army into battle." The vassal can either "Gladly assume command" or "Refuse". Refusal can result in a 25% chance of gaining craven. (We must also find a way to make it such that refusal automatically resigns the leader and makes him ineligible for further command during the current war.) Acceptance means an instant opinion bonus with your liege.
 
imperium3 said:
Would it be historically accurate for a vassal though? I was given to understand that the point of vassalage is that you gain the liege's protection, but in return for serving him in battle when he needs it. IMO freely bailing out of fighting would be heavily frowned upon unless there were mitigating circumstances (infirmity or disability, for example).

For kings it is a bit more of a grey area since they were probably expected to lead the armies (and you don't want the armies of the realm becoming loyal to someone else through extended service...) but on the other hand, you're the king. You can do what you like.
Click to expand...

This. vasallship means that you have to serve the liege military for the land you gain. If you don't fight, it would allow the liege to bann you from your office.

This was one of the problems of Henry the Lion.
 
I understand the motivation behind adding such an option, but I don't think it will add much gameplay. The best character death I've had in a long while has got to be Berserkerganing into the enemy Heavy Cavalry block, dying gloriously for victory. A good three hours were spent fixing that death and preparing for the future. A good three hours of great gameplay.
 
Lessing said:
Your ruler shouldn't die in a battle unless it is a catastrophic loss. That's what guards and crap are for.

Since I mostly play independent and I never raise my own troops after the first 20 years, I dont have a probem with this. It still pisses me off though.
Click to expand...

Eh... Harold Godwinsson? I wouldn't call the Battle of Hastings a 'catastrophic loss'. It was a important battle and a Anglo-Saxon loss... But the catastroph was the death of Harold.
 
Thure said:
Eh... Harold Godwinsson? I wouldn't call the Battle of Hastings a 'catastrophic loss'. It was a important battle and a Anglo-Saxon loss... But the catastroph was the death of Harold.
Click to expand...

Not every random freak chance needs to be represented in the game. If you want your ruler to do hand-to-hand fighting, let him do it and risk his life. If you don't want to, then don't.

Paradox didn't model getting hit by a lightning either. That's what the average life expectancy is for.
 
Lessing said:
Not every random freak chance needs to be represented in the game. If you want your ruler to do hand-to-hand fighting, let him do it and risk his life. If you don't want to, then don't.

Paradox didn't model getting hit by a lightning either. That's what the average life expectancy is for.
Click to expand...

Harold Godwinssons death isn't about a random freak... I'm sure there more rulers who died in battle without a catastrophical loss. At this time rulers lead the armies herself. I don't understand, why they shouldn't die in battles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back