+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Should military campaigns involved rulers more intensely?

  1. #1

    Should military campaigns involved rulers more intensely?

    Before I use do this trick where I will raise all my troops except me and my heir, because I don't want me or my heir to get wounded, maimed or god forbid killed. I then go on to conquer the world while me and my heir sit on their fat asses and partying it up in the palace.

    But I've been think that in the medieval times the kings and dukes and even HREmperors will most likely lead armies themselves, due to the notion of fedualism, it is really expected that all military endeavors for a particular nation will be spearheaded by its ruler. (This may not be the case for ERE and the caliphates, but I believe the early Islamic Caliphates' rapid expansion was due to the early Caliphs all being exceptional commanders and generals, and the Caliphates' later downfall was their reliance on their slave armies (Mamluks, etc), and even the historically expansionist ERE emperors had to have been at least competent military planners and macro-strategists).

    So I think to make it more fun and challenging (and also to make more use of of the tutored skillset) to have a participation of a ruler in the campaigning army vastly deterministic of an army's morale and effectiveness. So maybe something like if your ruler is not campaigning alongside with the army then there will be a massive morale tank or other combat or logistic malus. Also IF you do decide to campaign then your nobles at home will more likely plot against you or each other as was the historical case when kings go to war. Also I think there should be a regent when you go on campaign (maybe your wife or mother) and they may or may not conspire against you (also historical common), and ultimately this should serve as a trade-off of whether you should expand often or be a more peaceful ruler (serving as a balance for those who want to WC). This is classically the case of many Crusader kings (heyoo) such as Richard Lionheart of England and Louis VII of France who despite being excellent generals or pious crusaders were considered subpar rulers because they were away from their domain for a great deal of time.

    Also I think the additional military modifiers (like aggressive leader, planner, flanker, etc) to a ruler and all army leader should play a greater role. Think about it, a army of 20000 with really bad commanders (think mastermind theologian or elusive shadow types) should have no chance against an army of 10000 leaded by a brilliant general type. I think there should be a mod or fix that lets you check up on enemy army leaders and make your decision to engage based on that.

    I know I may be RPing a bit here but I really do think this adds to the depth of the game, since it limits non-stop expansion for players. any thoughts?

  2. #2
    General Fawr's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneVictoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,412
    There are plenty of occasions where a ruler wasn't a great commander and would delegate without too much hastle. Even if its as simple as the English king fighing in France and delegating the defense of the north (against Scotland) to someone else. Just because the Scottish king was fighing an English duke/count/bishop didn't mean that the English troops were all demoralised.

    Maybe it could be modified by traits though (proud leaders would want to command their largest army). Proud dukes wouldn't like being placed under a count, etc

    To me the main problem with the battles at the moment is that it assumes that an army of 20000 has all its men on the front line against and army of 5000, when really the size of the smaller army (+ terrain) would limit how many people could be in the front line.

  3. #3
    Colonel Beric Dondarion's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneMount & Blade: Warband
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Gunnerkrigg Court
    Posts
    1,193
    I would love it. I was reading up on a book about the de Hautevilles and in the battle of Cerami, Robert Guiscard and 150 knights(and squires so maybe more like 600 in all) destroyed an army of 20,000 Saracens.
    Who put the stars in the sky? Coyote will say he did it himself, and it is not a lie.

    You should probably be reading Gunnerkrigg Court.

  4. #4
    Lt. General Jorlaan's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest Hour
    MagickaNaval War: Arctic CircleVictoria: RevolutionsSemper FiSword of the Stars II
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessMount & Blade: WarbandWarlock: Master of the Arcane
    Mount & Blade: With Fire and SwordRise of Prussia500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,287
    My main problem is with how often my ruler gets wounded or killed in battle, especially if he's a king or higher. You may have seen lesser vassals actually on the front line, but most kings "led from behind". One must stand back and observe a battle to know what is going on and to direct strategy. Lesser vassals would be expected to lead their men on the field, but even those as high as duke could just be in the rear not really fighting, or only riding in once the battle is nearing its end.
    There are of course fighting kings, but not many that would go headlong into the middle.

  5. #5
    The ability to have 'stances' for characters in command of an army has been something that I've wished for. When a character is fighting THE battle that will determine the fate of the kingdom it makes sense that the king and the upper echelons of royalty would be on the field. On the other hand the idea that the King would directly lead the force moving to beat some sense into an unruly Count from the front rank is a bit harder to stomach. An option that would allow for characters to lead from the rear, severely reducing the chance for wound/maim/kill events to fire at the cost of a reduced chance for martial skill gain and say perhaps a 25% penalty to their military leadership while in that mode I think would be a sound tradeoff.

  6. #6
    Captain Karensky's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IIFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    MagickaSemper FiWar of the Roses500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order
    War of the Vikings

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorlaan View Post
    My main problem is with how often my ruler gets wounded or killed in battle, especially if he's a king or higher. You may have seen lesser vassals actually on the front line, but most kings "led from behind". One must stand back and observe a battle to know what is going on and to direct strategy. Lesser vassals would be expected to lead their men on the field, but even those as high as duke could just be in the rear not really fighting, or only riding in once the battle is nearing its end.
    There are of course fighting kings, but not many that would go headlong into the middle.
    One such excpetion would be Alexander the Great.
    Also bear in mind that the 'crack force' of the Middle Ages was made up of the nobility - the knights. The best equipped would be the waelthiest would be among the highest ranking. You don't want to waste such a force.
    Of course not every Duke or King was fighting in the front ranks, but they sure took part most of the time.

  7. #7
    Field Marshal grommile's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDivine WindHearts of Iron III CollectionMarch of the EaglesVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Northampton, England (in 237)
    Posts
    6,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Beric Dondarion View Post
    I would love it. I was reading up on a book about the de Hautevilles and in the battle of Cerami, Robert Guiscard and 150 knights(and squires so maybe more like 600 in all) destroyed an army of 20,000 Saracens.
    I'd be interested to see what a Muslim, rather than Christian, account of that battle says about the size of the Muslim force.
    If you think someone's trolling, PM a moderator.

    Ask your quick modding questions in the appropriate place

  8. #8
    Colonel Beric Dondarion's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneMount & Blade: Warband
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Gunnerkrigg Court
    Posts
    1,193
    Quote Originally Posted by grommile View Post
    I'd be interested to see what a Muslim, rather than Christian, account of that battle says about the size of the Muslim force.
    The Norman's claim they saw Saint George himself on the battlefield. So maybe the numbers were a lie, but maybe not, as every Muslim force in Sicily and some from Africa gathered to siege Troina and push the Norman's out of Sicily.

    And i've yet to find an actual muslim account of it.
    Who put the stars in the sky? Coyote will say he did it himself, and it is not a lie.

    You should probably be reading Gunnerkrigg Court.

  9. #9
    Field Marshal Moltke's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Beric Dondarion View Post
    I would love it. I was reading up on a book about the de Hautevilles and in the battle of Cerami, Robert Guiscard and 150 knights(and squires so maybe more like 600 in all) destroyed an army of 20,000 Saracens.
    Ha, in Crusader Kings that battle would have lasted 1 second, and Robert Guiscard would be in a Muslim prison.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beric Dondarion View Post
    The Norman's claim they saw Saint George himself on the battlefield. So maybe the numbers were a lie, but maybe not, as every Muslim force in Sicily and some from Africa gathered to siege Troina and push the Norman's out of Sicily.

    And i've yet to find an actual muslim account of it.
    They were too ashamed to write it down, obviously.

  10. #10
    Perhaps the king could be designated a military leader (or not). If he is designated a military leader, he can't be removed from the armies and the player controls the military campaign. If he is not, he is sitting in his castles (and doing more important things) while AI is handling military campaign. That would also allow to delegate the war to AI.

  11. #11
    Field Marshal grommile's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDivine WindHearts of Iron III CollectionMarch of the EaglesVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Northampton, England (in 237)
    Posts
    6,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Beric Dondarion View Post
    The Norman's claim they saw Saint George himself on the battlefield.
    Yeah, that's kinda why I want to see a Muslim account. Methodological naturalism and all that.
    If you think someone's trolling, PM a moderator.

    Ask your quick modding questions in the appropriate place

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by grommile View Post
    I'd be interested to see what a Muslim, rather than Christian, account of that battle says about the size of the Muslim force.
    If Christian account of that battle is to be trusted there wouldn't be anyone left to write Muslim account

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts