Controlling armies only if your ruler is leading it

[Weyird]

Hi,
Please add it as a game rule that you can only control an army if your character personally leads it. And that characters cant teleport between armies. I think Imperator has some interesting options to let the AI control armies, and I hope and suspect CK3 will have something similar.

I think it'd work best as a game rule because I'm sure many people would be against it, especially if CK3 continues a Paradox trend of having poor AI.
I think that a lot of players, especially the roleplayers, would really love it though for the added immersion.

 

[Orkonkel]

O yah, let my Duke of the HRE become the general of the Emperor's armies. I will intentionally keep the entire army away so my liege loses because I don't like him.

 

[Woifee]

Yeah...
No.

 

[Jaevelklein]

I like this idea personally. But I think it would be best as an optional game rule.

 

[Ezumiyr]

I think it'd work best as a game rule because I'm sure many people would be against it, especially if CK3 continues a Paradox trend of having poor AI.

It's not even that.
CK3 could have a great AI, but it could still be very frustrating to see your army not doing what you planned to do. It doesn't really add meaningful immersion.

While the game is focused on characters and dynasties, it remains a strategy game. Armies and troops are one of the core ressource of the game.

I don't think it's worth the effort as I really doubt anyone would use that rule more than once.

 

[Chlodio]

I really doubt anyone would use that rule more than once.

Just like the shattered and random world, huh?

 

[Lordlory95]

O yah, let my Duke of the HRE become the general of the Emperor's armies. I will intentionally keep the entire army away so my liege loses because I don't like him.

Just like Loghain Mac Tir did to King Maric while fighting the Dark spawn (Dragon age origins).

 

[Antoine]

If it's purely optionnal for rp runs, why not. If it's the general system just no.
That said I would find great if there was a delay system simulating messengers, so armies take some time to obey orders if they are very far from your leader and capitol and their own commander is bad. I'd be a good way to nerf ultra large empires and limit ahistorical colonialism.

 

[Nyrael]

Unless the AI development in Game Industry finally manages to make at least a somewhat good AI, this will be a pain in the BLEEP.

 

[Olenksey]

Well, only if we get better army management
(tactics, etc) when leading armies personally. For now, I feel that in CK2 I have too little control over my army instead of too much.

 

[covya]

I assume that ck3 will still have the option to automate armies like imperator does, which is definitely a good thing. Having it be enforced on all but one army though? pls no.

 

[Nyanako]

While many disagree with this proposal, I can see merit in it.
The idea I see is, you can control what your army does, for example, tell them to go siege x, but the leader will decide how that order is achieved. The more loyalty the leader is, the more likely they will do this efficiently. The less loyal the general, they may stall, they may disobey, they may even turn the army around and take your throne. This would mean that there would be extra choice in who you send to lead your armies, not just the highest martial leader.

So the king would still have control over where his armies goes, but that control will not be micromanagy, and I think the Kings orders, unless the King is leading the army, will take time to relay from your capital to your leader, and that time expands the further from your capital (or King's location). This means that you cannot react as you see things happen on the map you can only rely on their inititive, based on Scholarship, Martial or Intrigue, to use initiative to react to them.

 

[ogarrr]

I actually would thoroughly enjoy this proposal. I don't see what would be controversial about having a game rule with regards to it but I'd personally like the option of tribal call to arms for all nations which would do a similar thing.

 

[generalis Julius Caesar]

While many disagree with this proposal, I can see merit in it.
The idea I see is, you can control what your army does, for example, tell them to go siege x, but the leader will decide how that order is achieved. The more loyalty the leader is, the more likely they will do this efficiently. The less loyal the general, they may stall, they may disobey, they may even turn the army around and take your throne. This would mean that there would be extra choice in who you send to lead your armies, not just the highest martial leader.

So the king would still have control over where his armies goes, but that control will not be micromanagy, and I think the Kings orders, unless the King is leading the army, will take time to relay from your capital to your leader, and that time expands the further from your capital (or King's location). This means that you cannot react as you see things happen on the map you can only rely on their inititive, based on Scholarship, Martial or Intrigue, to use initiative to react to them.

Yes please!

 

[Ivashanko]

Certainly rulers should, depending on culture, be criticized if they do not lead their armies. CK1 had that, so I'm still surprised CK2 didn't.

 

[gja102]

Limiting player control of armies would help make the game harder (useful for players looking for additional challenge).

Most Paradox games feature wars where an omniscient player runs circles round a hapless AI, so it would be nice to bring some danger and uncertainty into the mix. Wars in this period are supposed to be unpredictable and ruinously expensive, after all.

Not sure how it would function in practice, though. Maybe the top liege would get to set tactical goals for his vassals, like 'rally here', 'engage enemy army x', 'seige Paris,' etc. Basically wargoals-within-wargoals, which you could measure your vassals' progress against. Of course, an untrustworthy vassal could wander off and start looting random trade posts instead, but then their disloyalty would be measured within the wargoals system and you could censure them for it.

Alternatively, you could end up the vassal of a madly ambitious king who tasks you with capturing Constantinople, and you'd have to decide whether that folly is worth risking your neck over, or if you should hang back, petition for reinforcements, etc.

It'd open up a lot more strategic thought, and interpersonal drama for the characters, for sure.

 

[Aubrey]

Just...no.

What the OP, and various others, are calling for in this thread sounds suspiciously like the HOI IV battleplan system. That battleplan system is why I stopped playing HOI IV. It doesn’t work in that game, and it won’t work in CK III.

 

[ogarrr]

Just...no.

What the OP, and various others, are calling for in this thread sounds suspiciously like the HOI IV battleplan system. That battleplan system is why I stopped playing HOI IV. It doesn’t work in that game, and it won’t work in CK III.

What they're asking for is a game rule. I see no issue with optional game rules.

 

[Creamu]

Leading a nation as rulers did in real life = actual hard mode

 

[Volodio]

It is a very good idea which I would very much like to see, however I don't believe the Paradox AI is ready for it. It is currently quite bad, as the HOI4 battleplan system is a perfect example of, and I wouldn't trust the AI to lead my armies. Maybe for CK4, when the AI is good enough for them to implement a system similar to Command Ops 2.