A marshal wanting independence...

[J.J.E.]

Playing as Denmark I decided To bring Christianity to the heathens on the German coast. I raised an army in Skåne, which where controlled by Svend Svendson (the King=me). Anyway, the army was commanded by my marshal. This surprised me considering that I hadn’t raised another army yet. I thought the King got the first army.

Anyway, I declared war on the Chiefdom of Mecklemburg. The marshal conquered one of the provs, and I was very surprised when it fell. The marshal became count of the prov and my vassal. Now I thought all conquered territories went to the king, and I was rather upset to see a new vassal appear. I wanted to give that land to my son, but the marshal apparently got it and I couldn’t do anything about it.

But the marshal (who was now a count as well) marched on into the next province and I was excited as to what would happen. Sure enough, the marshal adds the other conquered province to his realm.

So the question must be:

1) Why does my marshal get these lands?

2) I guess it’s a bug that he can be my marshal and a count at the same time – or what?

3) How do you make sure the King commands the first raised army?

 

[hjarg]

The one who leads the siege gets the siege. If it's one of your vassals, he will get the province, if it's your marshall, he will get the province.

It sais that you lead the first army, but usually you lead an army of your capital instead. Rise another one there, you'll prolly lead it. Then merge the armies, you'll be in command and you get all the new ones.

PS! You might need a new marshall now.

 

[unmerged(21447)]

Playing as Denmark I decided To bring Christianity to the heathens on the German coast. I raised an army in Skåne, which where controlled by Svend Svendson (the King=me). Anyway, the army was commanded by my marshal. This surprised me considering that I hadn’t raised another army yet. I thought the King got the first army.

Anyway, I declared war on the Chiefdom of Mecklemburg. The marshal conquered one of the provs, and I was very surprised when it fell. The marshal became count of the prov and my vassal. Now I thought all conquered territories went to the king, and I was rather upset to see a new vassal appear. I wanted to give that land to my son, but the marshal apparently got it and I couldn’t do anything about it.

But the marshal (who was now a count as well) marched on into the next province and I was excited as to what would happen. Sure enough, the marshal adds the other conquered province to his realm.

So the question must be:

1) Why does my marshal get these lands?

2) I guess it’s a bug that he can be my marshal and a count at the same time – or what?

3) How do you make sure the King commands the first raised army?

1) when you siege and conquer a heathen or muslim province, it goes to the highest ranking noble commanding your armies there. In this case, your marshall, since no titled noble was there.
By the way, it works if two armies from different lands are sieging the same province, so your king and his 5 trusty peasants could "steal" a siege from the Duke of Normandy and his 5000 knights.

2) well, yes, once he becomes count he should leave your court and starts his own. On the other hand, as long as he is in command of your army, he is stuck there and stays your marshall, I don't know if this is WAD or not. He'll probably leave as soon as you disband

3) Apparently, your marshall commands the first army, and your king the second. Except if you don't have a marshall. So either raise a first army to get your marshall out of the way, then a second one that your king will command, then disband the first; or temporarily fire your marshall, raise your army, then appoint him back.

 

[J.J.E.]

1) when you siege and conquer a heathen or muslim province, it goes to the highest ranking noble commanding your armies there. In this case, your marshall, since no titled noble was there.
By the way, it works if two armies from different lands are sieging the same province, so your king and his 5 trusty peasants could "steal" a siege from the Duke of Normandy and his 5000 knights.

OK thanks for the replies. Does this "steal" rule also apply in Christian provs?

 

[Petrarca]

1) when you siege and conquer a heathen or muslim province, it goes to the highest ranking noble commanding your armies there. In this case, your marshall, since no titled noble was there.
By the way, it works if two armies from different lands are sieging the same province, so your king and his 5 trusty peasants could "steal" a siege from the Duke of Normandy and his 5000 knights.

One thing that I noticed as Heinrich, King of Germany and I raced for the provinces of Mecklemburg was that since we had independently DoWed Mecklemburg, apparently he couldn't steal my sieges. My 2000 man army, headed by the Duke of Bohemia, won the provinces even though Heinrich's 300 were present.

 

[Dinsdale]

This is as "interesting" an idea as the HOI concept of he who supplies gets to keep the new province.

What's the rationale behind this? Doesn't this mean that all crusades will be single army advances provided the King doesn't feel as benevolent as the rules are trying to make him?

 

[Aquitaine]

I have to wonder what the basis for this decision was, or if they just implemented the 'highest ranking noble' rule across the board.

Is there any historical precedent for a noble's marshal leading his army and then claiming it for himself?

Having your vassals keep the land they conquer is very smooth and makes the game very interesting. But getting people out of your court to lead your personal armies (which is what they are) and then making them nobles afterwards -- that's counter-intuitive and, at least in my book, just not fun. That way you can only send your Marshal into battle on his own once, and then you lose him if he actually takes the city you asked him to take.

 

[J.J.E.]

Having your vassals keep the land they conquer is very smooth and makes the game very interesting. But getting people out of your court to lead your personal armies (which is what they are) and then making them nobles afterwards -- that's counter-intuitive and, at least in my book, just not fun. That way you can only send your Marshal into battle on his own once, and then you lose him if he actually takes the city you asked him to take.

I agree. That is the reason I wondered so much about why my marshal got the land. Doesn't seem right somehow...

 

[Havard]

What's the rationale behind this? Doesn't this mean that all crusades will be single army advances provided the King doesn't feel as benevolent as the rules are trying to make him?

I can imagine the reasoning behind is what we saw historically during the first crusade: The leaders of the armies decided to set up shop in the territory they conquered. If your want to make sure you get the land, get your king on the crusade. If not some crafty nobles might take it on their own behalf.

 

[Aquitaine]

Can you cite an example?

Most of the 'leaders of armies' in the first crusade were actually the nobles whose armies they belonged to, right? I know a decent amount about that period, but I'm sure you've got the advantage there.

Historical precedent aside, it's still clunky gameplay to appoint a marshal and have him take the provine for himself every time. It seems to be a decision between the position that 'a lord can appoint a general to fight on his behalf' and 'anyone in control of an army will always keep the conquests for themselves.'

I'm sure there are historical precedents for both of them. But for gameplay, it's definitely not cool to have your marshal set up shop on his own every time.

 

[unmerged(485)]

It is simple - the highest ranking person gets the province.

Your king (or duke if you are playnign a duchy) leads the army raised in your home (throne/capital) province. Any other demesne provinces where an army is raised the marshall takes command (and anonymous commanders if you raise another army in one of your demesne provinces).

If you want the province for yourself then yourself better be at the head of the army taking the province.

As a duke it is sometimes risky to grab a title (which costs prestige) if your leige is around because he might steal the siege from you. Had it happen to me several times as the DUke of Auvergne. The King of France hurried his armies to the province which I was besieging and "took over command" of the siege thus getting the province. All I got was a much lower prestige.

 

[Dinsdale]

I can imagine the reasoning behind is what we saw historically during the first crusade: The leaders of the armies decided to set up shop in the territory they conquered. If your want to make sure you get the land, get your king on the crusade. If not some crafty nobles might take it on their own behalf.

Well "if" and"might" appears to be yes they will

The thing with the 1C is that it wasn't a regal enterprise, it was cooperative between allies which makes the division of land an issue. But, if I send out my unlanded General to fight somewhere, why would I expect him to always set up shop as the local lord?

There are not going to be many examples as generally a King would keep his force together and it would be too expensive to support multiple armies.

 

[draco]

While I think it is entirely reasonable that if a vassal raises his own army at your request and if he takes the province that he gets to keep it. However for your Marshal to do the same is silly. Now while there are some examples of a Head of an army to get “Delusions of Grandeur” and strike out for themselves it was not the norm however. The fact is many Monarchs did not lead there own armies and yet still took possession of the conquests.

 

[crazy canuck]

I thought that during this period it was the norm for Monarchs to lead their armies. I thought this was one of the important functions of a Monarch. Also, I am thinking about the example of how Barbarrossa's army virtually disbanded when he died en route to the holy land.


Havard could you help me out with this.

 

[Aquitaine]

It is simple - the highest ranking person gets the province.

This works perfectly (beautifully even) when it's a king and his vassals.

It falls apart when it's a king and his minions.

You don't get anonymous commanders past you and your marshal - you get people randomly picked out of your court. So if I mobilize my personal levies -- that's important, so I'll say it again, my personal levies and put people in my court in charge, they are still my armies. Not my marshal's armies, not Courtier Bob's armies. They might be in command, but I'm paying the maintenance, and they do what I say.

Historical precedent aside - and I'm not convinced that the first crusade is even a historical precedent - this ends up simply frustrating the player. I'm going to have my king there personally every chance I get, but the whole point of having a marshal is to have someone else to marshal your troops ... on your behalf.

 

[Dinsdale]

On the positive side it looks as though it might slow down crusade conquest. Also, as there haven't been a flood of "WTF where's my province..." posts it looks like multiple armies might be too expensive (hooray!!) so the times when this might be an issue are few.

However, I'm still not in favour of court lickspittles keeping their conquests, not without a CB at the very least.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

I am not sure why the rules for conquest were designed the way they were. I was certainly surprised the first time it happened to me - not to mention being more than a little bit pissed off that I lost a a guy with a 15 martial stat when I had no one else in my court (my king included) with anything over a 3...except for my daughters who helpfully had 8's and 9's but of course couldn't be marshalls...

My guess would be that the desire is to encourage having a monarch keep his army together rather than splitting it up. If you split it, then you don't gain some of the territories directly and will probably lose the services of your marshall.

 

[Aquitaine]

Seems like a very, very small benefit with a fairly high, gnawingly irritating cost.

 

[GrapeApe]

I would agree that it seems silly for YOUR Marshal to keep the land he invades. For starters the Marshal is under your colors, he is there as your representitive. Your numero uno. If there is anyone in your court that you trust to do your bidding it is your Marshal. It seems pointless to even have a good marshal if all he were to do is keep everything he fights.

I think that if this rule is to stay in effect than it should atleast have a loyalty check or something. That way if he has a low loyalty him keeping the provinces he conquers is somewhat justified. Otherwise I can not see much justification in what is in all likelyhood a minor noble stealing land from a Count/Duke/King.

That being said I do think that your marshal keeping land makes things more "tricky". And trickery seems to be a big player in the game.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Come to think of it...

It occurs to me that he usually doesn't kick up much of a fuss when you revoke his title so maybe the idea is that whoever is leading the army that "liberates" the province from the heathen scum has to set up shop there in order to keep the unruly mobs from stealing all the bread. In most instances, revoking the title will cause your now-landless-again marshall to return to your court, at which point you can re-appoint him and send him off to wreak havoc on your enemies again.

The more I think about it, the more logical it would seem.