Chain Ball those characters, man....(and some other random suggestions)

[raven63]

You know that little note that says "Reigning in Paris" or "Leading troops in Earnest"? I would like it to actually mean something.

Adding realistic character locations and travel times is, to my knowledge, impractical due to the huge memory requirement. But can we achieve a more modest solution?

Let's say we do the following:

1) The list of people available to command an army is restricted to the people whose location is in the same county as the army.

2) The list of people available to fill a council position is restricted to those residing within your demesne.

3) The only people you can imprison are those whose location is within your demesne. For high and absolute crown authority this is no longer true and you can imprison anyone.

4) A "summon vassal" option is added in diplomacy. If the vassal accepts his location changes from "reigning in Godknowswhere" to "visiting in Paris". A visiting ruler suffers from a higher revolt risk and negative opinion from his own vassals as he spends time away from his holdings. A vassal who does not like you may refuse the request, so may a vassal whose rank is close to yours. Refusal could give you reason to revoke, to righteous imprisonment, or to neither, depending on crown authority.

5) A visiting vassal who has been visiting for too long will ask your permission to leave. Refusing this will give an opinion penalty with the vassal. The vassal will keep asking you periodically to let him go. There is a chance that he escapes and raises his flag in rebellion if you refuse his request too many times. You will incur tyranny if this happens.

6) Vassals whose rank is close to yours are less likely to accept council positions. What duke accepts being reduced to overseeing construction? Or to being sent to some heathen land at the end of the world to preach the word and get imprisoned while at it?

7) In view of (1), it is now essential that you spend lots of money and time bringing high martial characters into your court, to be able to lead your capital troops (usually the nucleus point when assembling your army at the beginning of a war) at will.

 

[Thure]

2) The list of people available to fill a council position is restricted to those residing within your demesne.

No. With the new patch (for Way of Live) Characters you put in your council will move to your capital. And I don't like it that they need to be there. It's enough if they move there. To you think the Reichserzmarschall (Imperial marshal of the HRE) was allways in the demesne of the emperor?

 

[Talq]

OP. Put simply, no. Powerful vassals could (and did) hold court positions and lead armies. The game does stretch it by letting you use people from half the world away, but its stretching it by letting you rule half the world away.

No. With the new patch (for Way of Live) Characters you put in your council will move to your capital. And I don't like it that they need to be there. It's enough if they move there.

They have actually moved to your capital for most purposes a lot longer than that (that's why they are in your court) - its just at the moment there is a bug overiding them being in their own courts for other purposes.

 

[raven63]

Powerful vassals could (and did) hold court positions and lead armies.

That's plain wrong. Powerful vassals avoided being in the same place as the king, keeping their distance for fear of being betrayed by the king. They did lead armies when a significant proportion of the troops was theirs, and therefore offered protection.

In any case all I'm saying is that if you want your powerful vassals to lead your own demesne troops, or if you want them to become members of your council, you have to summon them.

The reason people have a hard time accepting something like this is that their version of history comes from projecting the English court onto the rest of the world. In England, dukes and earls did spend most time at the royal court, holding council positions and leading armies. In most other places though this was not the case.

 

[NewbieOne]

Some ideas there are good, but they would be hard to implement. If you wanted armies to be capable of being commanded only by people physically present in the county, then you'd be tied forever to the initial set of commanders who went out with it. That could be unrealistic, as the king or marshal or some special general could always be sent on a skiff or just ride fast, alone. That'd be awful to code.

As for councillors, they're often on missions, so the location of your capital vs theirs doesn't really matter. If you want to appoint them, you just send them a commission, they accept it or not (well, they always do, although you as a human player are allowed to refuse), then they go where you send them. So the capital per se isn't really relevant.

As for imprisonment, I guess it would make sense to make it more complicated to imprison landed characters and even their courtiers, especially in low CA, e.g. in AV, because with vassals ruling like little kings they probably aren't just going to stretch out their hands to be cuffed by your marshal, who asks kindly (with a 50-90% chance). Perhaps suicidal rebellions shouldn't really be the answer, but maybe a landed character running away would be better.

I'm somewhat partial to the idea of dukes being somewhat necessary in their own capitals and thus reluctant to go to the king's capital.

 

[klopkr]

They should make it so if you're leading troops or doing a council mission outside of your land or the land of your immediate neighbours you need a regent.

So you can't easily rule england while fighting in jerusalem.

 

[Thure]

They should make it so if you're leading troops or doing a council mission outside of your land or the land of your immediate neighbours you need a regent.

So you can't easily rule england while fighting in jerusalem.

Sadly this would be gamey. I mean... You could just send a unliked vasall to a mission and he will get a regent who weaks his realm.

 

[Moardawts]

Sadly this would be gamey. I mean... You could just send a unliked vasall to a mission and he will get a regent who weaks his realm.

Sounds legit to me. Rulers did gamey things.

 

[raven63]

If you wanted armies to be capable of being commanded only by people physically present in the county, then you'd be tied forever to the initial set of commanders who went out with it. That could be unrealistic, as the king or marshal or some special general could always be sent on a skiff or just ride fast, alone. That'd be awful to code.

I see your point, but the problem is that there are two ways for transportation in the game as it stands: traveling with an army, and the instantaneous faster-than-light transportation that makes Einstein turn in his grave. I prefer to have commanders impossible to move around without an army to having one flying superman commander that fights all wars for me in every single battle at every corner of the world. We can sacrifice the lone-general-on-a-skiff scenario, no? Hell we've had no problem with the current system for years now. We're so used to it that people shriek at the idea of changing it. That's the problem with suggesting radical changes, the status quo has behind it the weight of a few years of adaptation.

Anyway I think this idea has much potential. It can be used to implement the military campaigning aspect which is currently missing. Characters will actually be away with an army, and if it is defeated, have to find a way to return, with a real risk of being captured as opposed to simply teleporting back to palace. It sets up the stage for a commander loyalty system, where it actually matters who is leading what army. You put a -100 character in charge of all your levies while you sit in your castle and play with your crowns? Prepare to be betrayed.

As for councillors, they're often on missions, so the location of your capital vs theirs doesn't really matter. If you want to appoint them, you just send them a commission, they accept it or not (well, they always do, although you as a human player are allowed to refuse), then they go where you send them. So the capital per se isn't really relevant.

If it was up to me, and I think many reading this would go luckily it ain't, I would not have vassals sitting in your council. It does not make sense, unless you have absolute crown authority, in which case your vassals are little more than obedient servants. Autonomous vassals would never serve on a king's council, hell the king himself would not trust them to do so.