-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
knott said:
If you would get BB for conquering the desmesne directly then doesn't it make sense to get the BB for requiring your Marshal to give up the title. Otherwise this would be a good exploit to use to acquire territory without increasing BB.
So every time your marshal conquers something for you, every single vassal should take a 25% loyalty hit just so you can actually get it for yourself?
that's a little more trouble than it's worth...
that's a little more trouble than it's worth...
Yes, that does seem out of proportion.
Better to have the marshal only act as the agent of the Crown and not independantly. Then the King could send the marshal out to do battle.
For important conflicts the king would want to go himself since he get the benefit of the combination of his martial skill and the martial skill of his marshal.
Better to have the marshal only act as the agent of the Crown and not independantly. Then the King could send the marshal out to do battle.
For important conflicts the king would want to go himself since he get the benefit of the combination of his martial skill and the martial skill of his marshal.
Of course that would be the best solution. But if it has to stay the way it is, we should at least have a chance to decide who is going to command an army if it is raised from the royal (ducal) demesne.
It happened me once, but thanks to it now i designed a new strategy.
The king usually get the command of the second army i raise. So i raise a powerfull one, leaded by my high military stat marshall, and go crush the enemy army, pursuing them from province to province, while the king, with a second army specialised in siege, take the provinces.
If my Masrshall is not enough, i request my duchies to bring "more power" and let them to deal the battles (you only get the wounded in battle event when figthing, not while besieging).
Anyways, this only happens agains muslims and pagans. When you are figthing a real war, it doesn't matter who lead the siege, as all that ends in warscore for your side.
The king usually get the command of the second army i raise. So i raise a powerfull one, leaded by my high military stat marshall, and go crush the enemy army, pursuing them from province to province, while the king, with a second army specialised in siege, take the provinces.
If my Masrshall is not enough, i request my duchies to bring "more power" and let them to deal the battles (you only get the wounded in battle event when figthing, not while besieging).
Anyways, this only happens agains muslims and pagans. When you are figthing a real war, it doesn't matter who lead the siege, as all that ends in warscore for your side.
Yeah, I agree -- I wouldn't call the way it is now 'broken', just slightly more frustrating than it needs to be. And, it seems, easily fixed, if somebody was so inclined. 
On the reverse side of this issue, it is annoying to be a Duke (ie. Duke of Normandy) who has declared war on a Pagan (Finland), destroyed the enemy army and have just about completed the siege to watch the boats of the (English) King arrive with a day or two left in the siege and watch the land go to the King, who then makes it a new County for someone else.
No marshal could EVER set himself up as count of [blank] and still be a vassal of his leige. Its a dumb feature and should be removed asap (after bug fixes). The idea that a vassal can simple set up "shop" ignores the entire feudal relationship. Only a higher ranking noble can legitametly appoint a lower title. Therefore a marshal couldnt become the count of [blank] a king or duke would have to appoint him. Now if he rebels and seizes the land for himself thats anotehr situation entirely but thats not what happens here, He's the vassal of the king but now he's a count. It just doesnt make any sense what so ever. Any army from your own lands should result in you getting teh county. Using your vassals could provide an arguement for that noble getting the land but a landless noble just desiding to claim this land for himself over his leige just isnt viable unless he rebels.
The Marshal's conquests should certainly go to his liege. Other nobles could become vassals understandably so, but not the Marshal, and probably not the Chancellor, Spy Master, and Bishop, if they ever lead armies.
On a different note, if you have armies without a leader, you get the land no matter what.
Steele
On a different note, if you have armies without a leader, you get the land no matter what.
Steele