A.I. Rulers leading armies

[EviLine]

How many times have you seen a Crusade or Jyjad fail and take like 6 months because the Pope or Emperor or Caliph insisted on leading armies and either got caught or died in battle?

I've seen it countless times. Jyhad for Greece? Basileus Alexios will lead the army, die - Constantinople - lost. Jyhad successful in a month. Crusade for Jerusalem? Pope "Whateverius" will lead, die. Crusade failed.

Why do very important leaders personally go into battles? I mean dukes, counts - go on, you're glory hounds - do your thing. But why would an Emperor go into battle and cause a succession crisis on his inevitable death? And I don't think Popes have lead armies and fought in front lines.

 

[Asiak]

A better question is why is there no god damn morale boost when I put my ass on the line to lead troops.

To echo your question why would the AI ever do it either when there's no morale boost.

But I've seen it a few times. Poor Karl is especially prone to it I find often dies in battle in Saxony or something. Or suddenly a crusade will end because the Caliph got captured.

 

[StarSword]

How many times have you seen a Crusade or Jyjad fail and take like 6 months because the Pope or Emperor or Caliph insisted on leading armies and either got caught or died in battle?

I've seen it countless times. Jyhad for Greece? Basileus Alexios will lead the army, die - Constantinople - lost. Jyhad successful in a month. Crusade for Jerusalem? Pope "Whateverius" will lead, die. Crusade failed.

Why do very important leaders personally go into battles? I mean dukes, counts - go on, you're glory hounds - do your thing. But why would an Emperor go into battle and cause a succession crisis on his inevitable death? And I don't think Popes have lead armies and fought in front lines.

Traditionally rulers actually did lead their armies in battle since antiquity because for a very long time, human societies the world over placed a high premium on personal courage (and because radios and telegraphs had yet to be invented, any orders had to be hand-delivered). This is why you get an opinion hit with vassals for "Craven". Risk of death in battle was part and parcel of being a ruler. And yes, this includes popes: Julius II wasn't nicknamed the "Warrior Pope" for his pacifism.

 

[EviLine]

HRE Emperor with 25k stack vs some rebel with 2k. Emperor leads armies. Those stacks battle - Emperor dies. War over.

 

[EviLine]

Traditionally rulers actually did lead their armies in battle since antiquity because for a very long time, human societies the world over placed a high premium on personal courage (and because radios and telegraphs had yet to be invented, any orders had to be hand-delivered). This is why you get an opinion hit with vassals for "Craven". Risk of death in battle was part and parcel of being a ruler. And yes, this includes popes: Julius II wasn't nicknamed the "Warrior Pope" for his pacifism.

Yeah. I know they were with the war camp. But I don't think they were often in the front lines, sword in hand. Nope. They were at the back, In the tent, waiting for news.

 

[StarSword]

Yeah. I know they were with the war camp. But I don't think they were often in the front lines, sword in hand. Nope. They were at the back, In the tent, waiting for news.

Explain Richard I of England, a.k.a. Richard the Lionheart, getting so close to the front lines while suppressing a revolt in Aquitaine that he was able to get hit in the arm by a crossbow shot from the walls, a wound which got infected and killed him. He actually pardoned the kid who shot him and gave him 100 shillings as a reward for being such a good shot (which was unfortunately ignored by Richard's mercenaries after he died: the boy's fate wasn't pretty).

Wikipedia lists a grand total of 161 monarchs killed in action, including nine Roman emperors and at least fifteen British kings. Sh*t happens.

 

[EviLine]

Explain Richard I of England, a.k.a. Richard the Lionheart, getting so close to the front lines while suppressing a revolt in Aquitaine that he was able to get hit in the arm by a crossbow shot from the walls, a wound which got infected and killed him. He actually pardoned the kid who shot him and gave him 100 shillings as a reward for being such a good shot (which was unfortunately ignored by Richard's mercenaries after he died: the boy's fate wasn't pretty).

Wikipedia lists a grand total of 161 monarchs killed in action, including nine Roman emperors and at least fifteen British kings. Sh*t happens.

Richard was a moron who bankrupted his country and died in battle cos he didn't have armor on, but he was a glory hound and a decent strategist.

My problem is that rulers who are obviously not marshals in education lead armies. They can be craven, slothful or content, but will still go and die.

 

[szmik]

Yeah. I know they were with the war camp. But I don't think they were often in the front lines, sword in hand. Nope. They were at the back, In the tent, waiting for news.

That was actually quite uncommon in Europe until very late CK2 times, monarchs were expected to lead by example, otherwise they weren't respected much if at all, which lead to whole lot of problems.

 

[EviLine]

Look, the problem is more complicated than that. It's fine that the ruler is on the battlefield sometimes and historically it did happen. However, this game can't simulate the fact that if the King was fighting in battle, he was often in a group of his elite soldiers, who could get him out if the field if the situation was turning for the worst.

Another thing is that the game treats each battle exactly the same. Meaning 2 armies with 10k each can meet each other or 2 armies - one 10k and another 1k and the ruler will have same chance to die or get captured or become incapable.

Yet another thing the game can't simulate is that the King often traveled or was visited by his wife. Here in the game he gets "away from court -100% fertility" penalty. And if the conflict takes years - he will lead the armies for years and won't be able to produce an heir. And now with shattered retreats and lower casualties he will keep chasing armies getting himself in the same level of danger whether he meets a large army or a small one.

 

[StarSword]

Yet another thing the game can't simulate is that the King often traveled or was visited by his wife. Here in the game he gets "away from court -100% fertility" penalty. And if the conflict takes years - he will lead the armies for years and won't be able to produce an heir. And now with shattered retreats and lower casualties he will keep chasing armies getting himself in the same level of danger whether he meets a large army or a small one.

Could've fooled me. My current character has had a daughter and son by his wife (and two hidden cuckoo bastards by a baron's wife) despite being away at war for most of his reign. Ditto the Khatun and Khagan of Sacz: their realm has been under continuous Norse attack for her entire reign with both of them away at war, and they still have at least two children.

 

[EviLine]

Could've fooled me. My current character has had a daughter and son by his wife (and two hidden cuckoo bastards by a baron's wife) despite being away at war for most of his reign. Ditto the Khatun and Khagan of Sacz: their realm has been under continuous Norse attack for her entire reign with both of them away at war, and they still have at least two children.

Hmm, could've been my bad and this is a CK2+ "feature"

 

[szmik]

Look, the problem is more complicated than that. It's fine that the ruler is on the battlefield sometimes and historically it did happen. However, this game can't simulate the fact that if the King was fighting in battle, he was often in a group of his elite soldiers, who could get him out if the field if the situation was turning for the worst.

Yet many rulers were killed in battle... which is usually just chaos, unlike what can be seen in movies. So he could get involved by accident or could just go for glory, because it was relatively safe the moment he decided to. There're many possibilities, even if personal fight wouldn't be his intention.

Another thing is that the game treats each battle exactly the same. Meaning 2 armies with 10k each can meet each other or 2 armies - one 10k and another 1k and the ruler will have same chance to die or get captured or become incapable.

It's a matter of luck and ... to be frank I don't have a problem with my brave/zealous/wroth ruler getting ahead and hit, even against mob. it could always happen. In my recent game my ruler managed to be wounded in every battle he commanded. He became incapable at just 45, probably not related, but fit the theme, even with me annoyed at RNG.
And there's simple solution of not sending him to battle. I still think AI shouldn't send those without martial skills.