Characters Wealth & Loyalty

[GurenGaaze]

Imperator: Rome.. Johan. (unsure if I should tag him/you or not) We have already had a development diary about characters, wealth and loyalty. And in that characters pay for their own loyal troops. (which, if it's alot, will make the character disloyal I assume)
How are you planning to tackle the issue in EU:Rome where a character can be -7000 in depth, and still pay for his troops, holding on to their loyalty, which in turn keeps the character disloyal? (Which also means you don't want to use him, which is reasonable considering he's disloyal.)

https://imgur.com/QbZMJU6 (Imgur picture to illustrate my point.)

 

[Nikolai]

(Would like to upload a picture which illustrates my point perfectly from EU:Rome. But i'm not allowed to?)

Imgur is your friend.

 

[GurenGaaze]

Imgur is your friend.

I don't get it. Why would I use Imgur again?

 

[Nikolai]

I don't get it. Why would I use Imgur again?

To upload the picture you needed to prove your point.

 

[GurenGaaze]

To upload the picture you needed to prove your point.

I guess this will have to do. Thanks.

 

[Johan]

In Imperator, if a character cant afford to pay his or her troops, then they will no longer be loyal.

 

[wingren013]

In Imperator, if a character cant afford to pay his or her troops, then they will no longer be loyal.

Is that instant or is there a grace period? Or perhaps a %chance each month/day?

 

[Denkt]

In Imperator, if a character cant afford to pay his or her troops, then they will no longer be loyal.

Will the ruler be able to use government Money to pay loyal troops?

 

[GurenGaaze]

Just guessing. But I suspect the ruler gets wages for his ruler "job" which he then uses to pay his own troops, if he's not corrupt.

 

[Johan]

Is that instant or is there a grace period? Or perhaps a %chance each month/day?

He'll lose those he cant pay that month.

 

[Johan]

Just guessing. But I suspect the ruler gets wages for his ruler "job" which he then uses to pay his own troops, if he's not corrupt.

Yes

 

[cristofolmc]

In Imperator, if a character cant afford to pay his or her troops, then they will no longer be loyal.

How much can they affor then if they only hold a city? Or can you give more cities/lands to different families so they'd be able to pay more troops of their own eventually? Because you didnt explain exactly how land assignment works for characters in the devdiarie where you announce that.

 

[Cheexsta]

This is great news.

 

[Es57]

In Imperator, if a character cant afford to pay his or her troops, then they will no longer be loyal.

"His or her troops" ?

Was there any example of female generals during the game's time period ?

 

[Batano]

"His or her troops" ?

Was there any example of female generals during the game's time period ?

Yes and 5 minutes of looking could have answered that question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare#3rd_century_BC

And that is just warfare, not including Rulers of regions that would hand direct command to lower ranks (but the game might not portray the lower rank and would thus depict the female character).

 

[BobbyDylan]

Yes and 5 minutes of looking could have answered that question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare#3rd_century_BC

And that is just warfare, not including Rulers of regions that would hand direct command to lower ranks (but the game might not portray the lower rank and would thus depict the female character).

Ok, so in 100 years, there were 13, one of which was fictional, one was Chinese (and out of scope of the game), One was effectively an orderly (Construction and nursing), three nebulously states that women "helped with the defence" and does not mention women in leadership roles, One threw a tile allowing a man to kill an enemy and one is listed as a generals consort.

If that's the extent of it, then I just hope their spawn rates reflect this reality.

 

[Esben_DRK]

Ok, so in 100 years, there were 13, one of which was fictional, one was Chinese (and out of scope of the game), One was effectively an orderly (constitutions and nursing), three nebulously states that women "helped with the defence" and does not mention women in leadership roles, One threw a tile allowing a man to kill an enemy and one is listed as a generals consort.

If that's the extent of it, then I just hope their spawn rates reflect this reality.

If CK2 and hints are anything to go by, their "spawn" (I assume you mean birth?) rates will be the correct 50/50 while laws and social norms will determine their role and potential leadership in political and military affairs.

 

[BobbyDylan]

If CK2 and hints are anything to go by, their "spawn" (I assume you mean birth?) rates will be the correct 50/50 while laws and social norms will determine their role and potential leadership in political and military affairs.

Yes. I'm all for having women generals, of the like of Boudica. But I'd rather they be as rare as histroy remembers. In order to balance this, I'd have them have bonus moral boosting effects. Women who do end up being leaders at this time tend to be Fan-friken-tastic.

 

[Regent of Han Empire]

So that means if a general couldn't afford the expense of his/her troop, he/she will lose the swealty of his/her troop.What about countries?If senate couldn't afford the expense of national army, will army lead a revolt?
And how to get a general? If a general can be spawn by a decision like CK2, this general will have no cash and power and holdings. Then the senate will be gald to appoint this guy to lead thousands of soldiers. Because the general is too poor to afford the expense of one cohort. No any troops would show swealty to this general. Due to that, even if this general is disloyal to senate, he/she still can't revolt . It may make senate feel safety by using spawn generals.