So are kings really stuck with the Levies? That's so dumb can't build up my character into the next Alexander their just stuck with the conscripts am I missing something here?
- 2
Can't lead my armies?
- Thread starter Sherly4811
- Start date
-
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.
The only thing you are missing is this big old threat over here:
Inability of rulers to control legions is quite big problem
like it is in title, did anyone managed to have ruler as commander of legions . I find it quite problematic with current loyalty system , to give more power base to fragile characters which are born being disloyal. And ofc i dont find this...
- 1
It's basically a necessary thing to keep the game mechanics working.
If your country ruler could lead legions, then there'd be very little reason to ever not have them do it, especially for monarchies which will typically only have one legion. Part of the balance of legions is that you're taking power away from governors (of which your country leader is one) and giving it to legates. If you make your legions too strong you can create problems for yourself. Having your ruler lead legions personally means there is no longer any conflict. You don't have to choose between military strength and stability, because you can always have both.
For monarchies, which are already incredibly stable and have a host of advantages over every other government type, it's really just a free ride.
The only way I can see it working is if your country leader had to choose between being a governor or a legate, and having your ruler as a legate would mean another character took over ruling the capital region.
If your country ruler could lead legions, then there'd be very little reason to ever not have them do it, especially for monarchies which will typically only have one legion. Part of the balance of legions is that you're taking power away from governors (of which your country leader is one) and giving it to legates. If you make your legions too strong you can create problems for yourself. Having your ruler lead legions personally means there is no longer any conflict. You don't have to choose between military strength and stability, because you can always have both.
For monarchies, which are already incredibly stable and have a host of advantages over every other government type, it's really just a free ride.
The only way I can see it working is if your country leader had to choose between being a governor or a legate, and having your ruler as a legate would mean another character took over ruling the capital region.
- 3
- 1
Gonna plug my suggestion on that exact issue here, to avoid drafting it out again, but TL;DR: Regencies.
Military Regencies; on Rulers and Legions
As we all know, you cannot set your rulers to lead armies in 2.0. As we also all know, this has caused a bit of a reaction on the forums. The rationale behind the decision was to prevent one “super-character” from obtaining too much power base in...
- 2
- 1
Okay guys thanks for the replies i'm used to it now and I get what they are trying to do but damn I wish I could build up a character and immerse myself more.
- 1
- 1
What I do for monarchy systems is try to keep my capitol region entirely levy oriented, whilst having legions raised from the pops of other populous provinces.
Therefore I can draw heavily from my primary culture's levies with a large army if I in fact do have a monarch that's got decent stats to justify raising the levies.
Therefore I can draw heavily from my primary culture's levies with a large army if I in fact do have a monarch that's got decent stats to justify raising the levies.
But that can, of course, only be done once you are able to recruit more than one legion, right? Which is an obstacle in itself as you really need to build up to that point when you are finally able to have multiple legions.
- 1