Allow multiple leaders on armies

[londoner247]

Since the introduction of the new fort mechanics, siege pips on Generals are now very useful, so much so that you will keep a three or four siege guy around even if he is useless on fire and shock.

But if your army is in hostile territory then you need another leader for the battles and the micro management of keeping your siege leader on a one regiment stack of his own (and keeping that stack safe) can get pretty tiresome.

What I suggest is that armies allow you to attach two leaders, the second of which will be your siege leader (and will take over in normal battles if the first one dies). This way you don't have to mess around with the micromanagement but can still have that siege leader on your army as you advance into enemy territory and try to secure the key forts.

 

[Secuter]

How will that work with current max of generals? Even large countries only have a limited number of generals, meaning that you'd run out of generals very very fast. I like the idea, as sieges can be pretty hard.. but that is the point, not much point in having a nice ring of forts, if the enemy can just easily siege them.

 

[londoner247]

How will that work with current max of generals? Even large countries only have a limited number of generals, meaning that you'd run out of generals very very fast. I like the idea, as sieges can be pretty hard.. but that is the point, not much point in having a nice ring of forts, if the enemy can just easily siege them.

I'm not suggesting any change to the limits on leaders, just an option to add a second leader to a stack to reduce the micromanagement.

We all keep rubbish leaders around if they have good siege pips now. I just want to make it easier to use them.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

I would like a system where Generals can be kept with a stack, not contributing pips, but being automatically assigned to any new stacks you make.

Or just an ability to bind several stacks into one without destroying their individual identities.

 

[Zelius]

What's wrong with splitting your army stack and assigning one leader each?

 

[Danfish77]

Or just an ability to bind several stacks into one without destroying their individual identities.

Like when merging armies you get an army with a sub-army that you can detach by itself? Perhaps with the original leader as part of the sub-army? That'd be nice.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

What's wrong with splitting your army stack and assigning one leader each?

Hoo boy, you must not try that much. It:
1) Disorganizes one's forces, which I often painstakingly recruit and assemble according to geographic home (for role-playing purposes)
2) Results in lots of confusion as you try to reassign generals
3) Can result in a small army getting stackwiped because it arrived a few days ahead of the others (because reasons)

It sucks. All I'm asking for is a simple "bind armies" button that makes them move in unison, with the ability to point any one of the army's generals to be commander over ALL generals in that cluster.