Suggestion: Prevent ruler from leading troops button

A definite 'no' from me, at least for the vassalage case. Fighting in your liege's wars is part of the feudal contract. For the case of an independent ruler, I don't have anything against such a button, but don't really see a need for it either.

I think mortality in battles is pretty OK, too low if anything. On average, before taking traits into account, there's less than one in two hundred chance per combat pulse (ten days of combat). I.e. a ruler can lead troops for over five years of constant battle before on average dying (or becoming incapable). Definitely a risk worth taking for the piety and prestige, in many situations.

ChildeR said:

A definite 'no' from me, at least for the vassalage case. Fighting in your liege's wars is part of the feudal contract. For the case of an independent ruler, I don't have anything against such a button, but don't really see a need for it either.

I think mortality in battles is pretty OK, too low if anything. On average, before taking traits into account, there's less than one in two hundred chance per combat pulse (ten days of combat). I.e. a ruler can lead troops for over five years of constant battle before on average dying (or becoming incapable). Definitely a risk worth taking for the piety and prestige, in many situations.

Click to expand...

My opinion:

From a historical/numbers perspective, you are absolutely correct. It isn't often, and it isn't a huge problem.
But something is definitely wrong. The problem isn't with the logic of history of the event, but its impact on the game.

Obvious statement: Games should reward players for good play, and punish them for poor play.

Your liege's battles are something that the player has no control over, does not directly benefit from, and cannot opt-out of. Punishing the player by killing their character for a mistake that was not theirs just feels cheap, for the same reason a noble dying of Natural Causes™ at the age of 17 feels cheap. It's not ahistorical, and it's not common enough to be game-breaking, but when it happens it feels memorably unfair.

This is the type of situation where I feel that creating a fun game trumps historical accuracy. Not to the point where I think players should be able to opt-out of fighting entirely and without consequence, but there should at least be a decision: Do I risk my life fighting for my liege like a True Christian Knight, or do I accept dishonor as the cost of security?

swm said:

Obvious statement: Games should reward players for good play, and punish them for poor play.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's that simple for a sandbox game like CK2, where there optimally is no correct way to play.

A more general statement would be: the game should create outcomes that lead to having fun. IMO that includes a lot of 'unfair' stuff that you need to overcome. They may even be unfun at first blush, but the challenges they create lead to having fun later. Mortality is a part of this: without sudden and unexpected deaths, succession would almost never be a challenge.

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...

JSmith0730 said:

That's one of those times when it's OK to reload.

Click to expand...

No, this is what makes the game fun. It's boring when you get your way.

ChildeR said:

I'm not sure it's that simple for a sandbox game like CK2

Click to expand...

It's not quite that simple. Take for example the Comet event in EU3. That was punishing the player for no reason like this, but the difference is that -1 Stability is an irritant; Succession at the wrong time can mean Game Over.

ChildeR said:

without sudden and unexpected deaths, succession would almost never be a challenge.

Click to expand...

And I'm not suggesting that unexpected deaths leave the equation, I'm suggesting that the player be able to make a choice: Security and Dishonor, remembering of course that dishonor leads lower opinions which can be a risk on their own (Factions), or Risk.
I think it's be an interesting strategic choice: Risk alienating your liege and vassals (plus giving negative traits like Craven are always an option) to guarantee your personal safety.

The bottom line: While planning for the unexpected is certainly part of the fun, being able to avoid situations where you know there's danger (like a battle) at a cost is an equally important strategic decision that I think the player should be able to make.

I suppose the real question is how much should the sandbox allow us.

I agree it is in my feudal contract to serve my liege lord in his battles, but it is also in my nature to want to stay alive. The point I am trying to make here is that currently there are gamey ways of wiggling out of this contract (like raise your castle levy and appoint yourself as the leader during a war. that way, you won't be available).

It's also in my contract to not plot against my liege, but the game lets me do that without breaking it. So what we really want is a way to do it that sounds logical and RP-able.

Even though I can understand the frustration of some players, I'm not in favour of such an option. The game, especially the feudal variant, tries to represent the system of vassalage in some way. Vassals were obliged to support their liege, including military, in return for his protection and their fiefs. However the same thing is also true for the liege, an adult able liege was expected to lead* his army (*= in some cases this might have been in name only, but he was expected to be present).
Now the chance of getting killed on the battle field might have two components, a random component, which can happen whether it is a loss or a victory, and another component, which increases depending on the scale of the loss.

Thus IMHO adding the proposed option seems gamey to me and at least for me, it wouldn't be much fun. If implemented, it IMHO should come with grave negative consequences, since as swm wrote:

Obvious statement: Games should reward players for good play, and punish them for poor play.

Click to expand...

I agree. In fact i'd like to be able to have a button (like in the Council menu) as part of the vassal page as well, so when i'm on the char sheet of a particular vassal i can select for them never to be at the head of an army.

Did they make death of your combat leaders more likely in that last patch? I'm certainly seeing many more 'incapable'/badly wounded/killed army leaders in my game since updating to that last patch. If so just a small tweak down in what ever variable is responsible would be nice, it is good to die in combat, just maybe not as often as currently?

Also when at war with another nation/kingdom etc, as long as i have my martial not active training troops etc, i can see him being one of the leaders of my armies (after my ruler normally), but when i'm just being raided by vikings etc, i can not seem to get my best leaders into my armies at all? Even if they are not doing anything else? Why is that? Oh and i don't have enough provinces to cycle through them all until i get my leader of martial as head of an army, so i can't use that trick.

swm said:

The bottom line: While planning for the unexpected is certainly part of the fun, being able to avoid situations where you know there's danger (like a battle) at a cost is an equally important strategic decision that I think the player should be able to make.

Click to expand...

I think that decision is a good idea for when you are in control – i.e. when you are independent. There could be some sort of negative consequence to not leading your troops when you can, not only positives for doing so. However, that decision can still be taken out of your hands when you are in vassalage (and not autonomous). It's not like there are very many downsides to playing a vassal, and any gameplay differences between the (or any) two situations lead to more replay value.

ChildeR said:

I think that decision is a good idea for when you are in control – i.e. when you are independent. There could be some sort of negative consequence to not leading your troops when you can, not only positives for doing so. However, that decision can still be taken out of your hands when you are in vassalage (and not autonomous). It's not like there are very many downsides to playing a vassal, and any gameplay differences between the (or any) two situations lead to more replay value.

Click to expand...

Crown authority is of course another factor. On High an Absolute, this should be impossible. It's the player's fault for letting their liege trample their rights to that point (punishment for poor play). On medium, I feel that the penalties should be greater (Possibly even giving the liege the ability to arrest the vassal for desertion). On limited and autonomous though, the player should definitely have this option.

If it happens, I see this as being implemented as an event that fires when your liege tries to put you in command of an army.

Event Text: "Your liege has evidently heard of your tactical skills. He has asked you to lead an army personally."
Option A: Of course I will honor my obligations! Effects: You take command of the army.
Option B: I will send my marshal instead. Effects: +10 opinion with your marshal. -20 opinion with your liege. Liege is prompted whether to accept the marshal or demand the vassal come himself (Repeats this event with option B removed, vassal loses 500 prestige).
Option C: I refuse to risk my life in his battle! Effects: -30 Opinion with your liege, -15 with all other rulers. Gain Craven, Gain Cynical. Gain "Coward" giving -5 Diplomacy for 3 years. Lose 1000 prestige.
Option D: (Available to Ill/Wounded/Maimed/Incapable/[Disease] characters or characters older than 70) Ask for an exception for medical reasons. Effects: Same as marshal, but without the opinion drop.

When you refuse with option C, the liege cannot ask again until Coward expires.

What do you guys think?

Thure said:

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.

Click to expand...

Rulers who lead from the rear only die from freak accidents or by being overwhelmed during a catastrophic loss. Rulers who rule from the front are at much higher risk.

As it is now, you can leave your ruler at home when you wage war independently, without any penalty, so your liege shouldn't be able to force you to lead troops.

End of story.

Lessing said:

As it is now, you can leave your ruler at home when you wage war independently, without any penalty, so your liege shouldn't be able to force you to lead troops.

End of story.

Click to expand...

No. This was the reason of vasallity. The ruler lends you and your family the land. But for this you have to serve him military. If you don't do it... He should have the chance to ban you without penalties. This is how vassalage work. It's not like you own the land and can do whatever you like. It's still the land of the king and he only lend it to you for some compensating measures. I remember a German oath:

"Deine Feinde sind meine Feinde, deine Freunde sind meine Freunde. Ich will dir allzeit treu und gegenwärtig sein, wenn du mich brauchst."
(Your enemies are my enemies, your friends are my friends. I want to be loyal and present if you need me.)

Thure said:

No. This was the reason of vasallity. The ruler lends you and your family the land

Click to expand...

Dude, I dont give 2 flying ****s for historicity.

Fact: You can raise your vassal troops WITHOUT putting your vassal rulers into command.
Fact: You can raise troops while not commanding them personally, WITHOUT penalty.
Fact: If your liege raises your levies, he puts you in command.
Fact: If you have raised a small contingent of your own troops at all times and put yourself in command and stay put, you can evade your liege's "wish" to command a fighting army and thus manually game the system.

From this follows logically that if your liege raises your troops, you should NOT be put in command automatically. It's asymmetrical compared to when you raise troops vs when your liege raises troops, and it can be prevented easily and not even in a gamey way.

Lessing said:

Dude, I dont give 2 flying ****s for historicity.

Click to expand...

Then you should play a fantasy game... CK2 is about history and the middle ages. And you shouldn't have the ability too put your ruler in the castle and survive for 100 years, because you cn avoid problems (wars of the liege etc.).

It's the same point if some people want a "I don't sleep with my wife" buttom. It would exploid the system.

And i'm not strict against this system... But if ou add it, there should be huge penalties. There were some rulers who didn't rise her army for the liege or fight for them (Henry he Lion for exemple). But this rulers had big problems with there liege. It's not his wish, it's his command and your responsibility for the land you rule. So it should be highly penalised if it would be possible.

swm said:

This.

I also wish my liege would be smarter with who he sends. He sends me to lead an army and sieges, even though I have 2 martial skill. Why?

Click to expand...

Is he sending you off with a proper army to fight with winning odds, or is he sending you off with a "band" to fight the enemy horde by yourself? If it's the former, he's stupid, if it's the latter... well I think your liege may be trying to kill you.

Lessing said:

Fact: If you have raised a small contingent of your own troops at all times and put yourself in command and stay put, you can evade your liege's "wish" to command a fighting army and thus manually game the system.

From this follows logically that if your liege raises your troops, you should NOT be put in command automatically. It's asymmetrical compared to when you raise troops vs when your liege raises troops, and it can be prevented easily and not even in a gamey way.

Click to expand...

I consider this part of the Problem - your Ruler should be able to raise you at any time. I don't think the Retinues system was created so your characters can no longer be raised in war .

If we should ever get the option to refuse (which did happen in history) it should come with casus belli for the liege - especially under high/asbolute crown auhtority.

Lessing said:

If you have raised a small contingent of your own troops at all times and put yourself in command and stay put, you can evade your liege's "wish" to command a fighting army and thus manually game the system.

Click to expand...

This is what should be fixed.

My personal preference is that in general a character shouldn't be too much at risk unless his flank is routing. Basically never dying in battle. Unless... he is Brave, Berserker or has one of the 'active' command traits (Cavalry/HI/LI Leader). While medieval rulers who entered the battlefield often partook in actual fighting, they generally didn't enter the fight until they saw some decisive chance/event. Before that he would send in first the basic troops and later the more powerful ones, before finally entering himself.
Bouvines is a great example as the French king thought he saw a weakness in the allied line and charged early on. Of course he was wrong and nearly got cut off, but it was pretty obvious that he would not have charged the enemy centre with his bodyguards and highest ranked vassals under normal circumstances.
Based on that, perhaps Arbitrary and Wroth should also grant a risk to die in regular fighting.

Medieval rulers didn't lead from the front as much as believed. But they did so more than in ancient times, which is why I want the risk to be tied to the martial traits. A flankleader can't control 20,000 troops if he is busy leading the first echelon in harassing the enemy alongside his few Light Cavalry.

So, greater chance for death in routing flank, but less in regular combat unless certain traits are active (I know that already several traits do lead to greater risks).

Regarding the refusal to serve one has to remember that the AI vassals already does this. If they don't like you, they send their Marshal in their stead. Why shouldn't the player be able to do the same if the opinion is low enough? This, however, is without active input, so perhaps an event that asks the player if he wants to send the Marshal in his stead?

[EDIT]
ChildeR I'm pretty certain that deaths are calculated per day in battle. I have killed enemies several days in a row, and suffered deaths on my side at odd intervals that do not coincide with any combat event, tactic change or any set day.

Kraxis said:

[EDIT]
ChildeR I'm pretty certain that deaths are calculated per day in battle. I have killed enemies several days in a row, and suffered deaths on my side at odd intervals that do not coincide with any combat event, tactic change or any set day.

Click to expand...

Troops die every day, but leader characters can only die from events, which are fired every ten days. (In vanilla; it's DAYS_BETWEEN_COMBAT_EVENTS = 10 in defines.lua so any mods you use may change it.)

I did mean characters, I hope I didn't come as implying I meant troopdeaths.

The number of cornered enemies seem to fit that you have to fight at least 10 days, that much I agree with (I can't remember having killed an enemy leading an army/flank that was crushed at once), however once passed it seems that the system actually calculates per day, but only triggers once ten days have passed. Basically laying dormant.