Controlling armies only if your ruler is leading it

[Rubidium]

In addition to the AI issues (which are huge), and the player frustration issues (ditto), it's not even particularly realistic. Medieval commanders were absolutely capable of laying out battle plans across multiple fronts ahead of time. No, they didn't have the same level of instant control that we do, but they certainly can (and did) have things like "Duke of Lancaster, you go raid Normandy while my son raids Aquitaine (and using messengers to keep track of where they were and what they were doing at any given point)."

And having an entire battle plan interface is far more than any sane programming team would do for an optional game rule; that's a significant UI and AI project that would consume a lot of dev time and effort, and would be a major part of a DLC-level project.

 

[generalis Julius Caesar]

In addition to the AI issues (which are huge), and the player frustration issues (ditto), it's not even particularly realistic. Medieval commanders were absolutely capable of laying out battle plans across multiple fronts ahead of time. No, they didn't have the same level of instant control that we do, but they certainly can (and did) have things like "Duke of Lancaster, you go raid Normandy while my son raids Aquitaine (and using messengers to keep track of where they were and what they were doing at any given point)."

And having an entire battle plan interface is far more than any sane programming team would do for an optional game rule; that's a significant UI and AI project that would consume a lot of dev time and effort, and would be a major part of a DLC-level project.

Yep I don't want it in the base game (To much time) but as a DLC, yes please.

 

[LeonOfOddecca]

I like the idea of having additional options while leading an army, but I don't like the idea of not having control of one's own army when not leading it. Still I don't think these additional options for leading armies, if they ever come, should be a priority for release.

 

[Dmitrius]

I mean, I think it works on Imperator because your generals obey your orders to the letter when loyal (basically represented as being directly controllable.

The downside to this is generals that are disloyal act with complete abandon and I can't replace them or do anything about it which is ridiculous given that a general disobeying a direct order in a time of war would be high treason surely? Why the hell can't I attack what is essentially a rogue army and rest control of the survivors at least?

 

[blackninja9939]

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

Game rules are not a magic bullet to fix every design decision that has a for and against group, especially for well sized differences like this.

Cause we'd still have to implement, maintain, test and support both options. As well as making sure it works with newly designed features, it makes a fairly decent amount of extra work for little benefit when its something a tiny minority of people want.

 

[Tryvenyal]

Game rules are not a magic bullet to fix every design decision that has a for and against group, especially for well sized differences like this.

Cause we'd still have to implement, maintain, test and support both options. As well as making sure it works with newly designed features, it makes a fairly decent amount of extra work for little benefit when its something a tiny minority of people want.

Will "game rules" as a thing be carried over? Game Rules are really good as a thing

 

[Heiliges Thüringens Reich]

NO

 

[Nyanako]

And having an entire battle plan interface is far more than any sane programming team would do for an optional game rule; that's a significant UI and AI project that would consume a lot of dev time and effort, and would be a major part of a DLC-level project.

There wouldn't need to be a specialised battle plan interface. if we take the current CKII as a template, it would be as simple as clicking your stack of knights, then clicking the location you want them to go. How they get there is up to the general, will he go through that desert and suffer all that attrition, or will he take the long route around and keep his army in tack? This could be based on another stat other than Martial. You simply select your army, click where you want them to go, and wait for the order to reach them before they start moving on a route pre-determined by the leader. Of course, you could use waypoints in your clicking to specify the exact route if you don't trust your general to not go through the desert, but this might build resentment in the general. After all, they are being micro managed, and believe you don't trust them. Who likes being micromanaged anyway, I have no resentment over my micromanagey boss.

Of course, with such an option, you could have tags which set the autonomous behaviour of the stacks in the army tab. You could set it to defence, and it would intercept forces that cross the border. You could set it to intercept, and it will intercept enemy armies it sees on its route, amongst other potential tags. Of course, how effective this is, is up to the General leading the stack. And of course, that General can always use that army to turn around and betray you.

Yeah I am big into Generals betraying you and bringing the army they control to your capital to dethrone you. I think the relationships between generals of armies and rulers is something that should be explored more deeply in CK3.

 

[Franconian]

Game rules are not a magic bullet to fix every design decision that has a for and against group, especially for well sized differences like this.

Cause we'd still have to implement, maintain, test and support both options. As well as making sure it works with newly designed features, it makes a fairly decent amount of extra work for little benefit when its something a tiny minority of people want.

Have you considered adding a delay between an order and the execution for armies, similiar to how diplomacy works with envoy times?
Maybe with ways to hasten the time via better roads, a post system, etc

 

[Rubidium]

There wouldn't need to be a specialised battle plan interface. if we take the current CKII as a template, it would be as simple as clicking your stack of knights, then clicking the location you want them to go. How they get there is up to the general, will he go through that desert and suffer all that attrition, or will he take the long route around and keep his army in tack? This could be based on another stat other than Martial. You simply select your army, click where you want them to go, and wait for the order to reach them before they start moving on a route pre-determined by the leader. Of course, you could use waypoints in your clicking to specify the exact route if you don't trust your general to not go through the desert, but this might build resentment in the general. After all, they are being micro managed, and believe you don't trust them. Who likes being micromanaged anyway, I have no resentment over my micromanagey boss.

I'm not sure we need to add "how much does your general hate you/how bad is his martial" to the already sometimes questionable pathfinding algorithm.

Of course, with such an option, you could have tags which set the autonomous behaviour of the stacks in the army tab. You could set it to defence, and it would intercept forces that cross the border. You could set it to intercept, and it will intercept enemy armies it sees on its route, amongst other potential tags. Of course, how effective this is, is up to the General leading the stack. And of course, that General can always use that army to turn around and betray you.

Yeah I am big into Generals betraying you and bringing the army they control to your capital to dethrone you. I think the relationships between generals of armies and rulers is something that should be explored more deeply in CK3.

That's already represented by them rebelling and taking their levies (which are a percentage of what would normally be your army) to march against you. CK doesn't have standing armies, unlike the rest of Paradox's titles, so the relationship between armies and generals is very different (and automation more complicated).

 

[blackninja9939]

Have you considered adding a delay between an order and the execution for armies, similiar to how diplomacy works with envoy times?
Maybe with ways to hasten the time via better roads, a post system, etc

I've thought about it before but to me it always feels like it'd end up being really tedious and annoying.

There is a difference in frustration from signing that marriage and they die just a day or two before they accept vs every single order you give to armies being delayed meaning many of your orders end up being entirely useless cause the other armies have since then moved. That would make every single war so much more of a pain to do.

I feel like people want this sort of stuff because in theory it'd be more of an accurate historical simulation, but whilst we like making something that is accurate and immersed into history this is after all a game. And things like this whilst interesting would, in my opinion, worsen the game play experience and enjoyment.

For this to be fun I feel like you would need to have it as the central mechanic and design everything around it to keep it in mind to make it work out. I saw a game called Radio Commander which has the idea of playing an RTS where you give orders and track info only via radio communications so you do not directly see your troops or know exactly where they are or doing unless you check, but that is the core mechanic of that game. Everything is designed around how you play an RTS without seeing your troops and giving ways to facilitate that, trying to apply that to other strategy games without really making it a core thing would end up with it being not fun for most people.

 

[Franconian]

I've thought about it before but to me it always feels like it'd end up being really tedious and annoying.

There is a difference in frustration from signing that marriage and they die just a day or two before they accept vs every single order you give to armies being delayed meaning many of your orders end up being entirely useless cause the other armies have since then moved. That would make every single war so much more of a pain to do.

I feel like people want this sort of stuff because in theory it'd be more of an accurate historical simulation, but whilst we like making something that is accurate and immersed into history this is after all a game. And things like this whilst interesting would, in my opinion, worsen the game play experience and enjoyment.

For this to be fun I feel like you would need to have it as the central mechanic and design everything around it to keep it in mind to make it work out. I saw a game called Radio Commander which has the idea of playing an RTS where you give orders and track info only via radio communications so you do not directly see your troops or know exactly where they are or doing unless you check, but that is the core mechanic of that game. Everything is designed around how you play an RTS without seeing your troops and giving ways to facilitate that, trying to apply that to other strategy games without really making it a core thing would end up with it being not fun for most people.

Well, I actually like the HOI 4 system very much, it is very cool to just give general orders and see how it works out. So giving 1 front to your marshal to handle while you handle the other front yourself would be cool

I see your point too of course and fully accept it might not work out for game play reasons. But especially in CK where you are more a character and less a god like system in charge of a nation it would really add to the immersion into your character if there were some more limits.

And thanks for the response

 

[Ezumiyr]

Just like the shattered and random world, huh?

Precisely why it's one of the things that were tried in CK2 and will likely not happen in CK3.

 

[henzington]

I've thought about it before but to me it always feels like it'd end up being really tedious and annoying.

There is a difference in frustration from signing that marriage and they die just a day or two before they accept vs every single order you give to armies being delayed meaning many of your orders end up being entirely useless cause the other armies have since then moved. That would make every single war so much more of a pain to do.

I feel like people want this sort of stuff because in theory it'd be more of an accurate historical simulation, but whilst we like making something that is accurate and immersed into history this is after all a game. And things like this whilst interesting would, in my opinion, worsen the game play experience and enjoyment.

For this to be fun I feel like you would need to have it as the central mechanic and design everything around it to keep it in mind to make it work out. I saw a game called Radio Commander which has the idea of playing an RTS where you give orders and track info only via radio communications so you do not directly see your troops or know exactly where they are or doing unless you check, but that is the core mechanic of that game. Everything is designed around how you play an RTS without seeing your troops and giving ways to facilitate that, trying to apply that to other strategy games without really making it a core thing would end up with it being not fun for most people.

I thought keep talking and no one explodes handled it well. Having limited information can be a fun part of the game especially in a teamwork game

 

[Vohen]

Regardless of game rules, I think at least Imperator's system, where you can give an army a "task" could be implemented in every PDX game.
If you do it or not is entirely optional, but it can be occasionally useful for everyone.

 

[blackninja9939]

Well, I actually like the HOI 4 system very much, it is very cool to just give general orders and see how it works out. So giving 1 front to your marshal to handle while you handle the other front yourself would be cool

I see your point too of course and fully accept it might not work out for game play reasons. But especially in CK where you are more a character and less a god like system in charge of a nation it would really add to the immersion into your character if there were some more limits.

And thanks for the response

HoI4's system is different to a limited information system, you still give your generals a direction via a plan and let them execute it, such a thing with a single army would be less likely to work with the setup here especially with instruction delay. Your HoI battle plans still are instructed instantly and you can individually move units around liek in our other games as well for more fine grain control.

It would be very good for immersion, but I am wary of how much of a benefit that would be compared to the frustration it would cause and that immersion can be increased in multiple other ways as well

I thought keep talking and no one explodes handled it well. Having limited information can be a fun part of the game especially in a teamwork game

Absolutely! Limited info games can be hugely enjoyable, but they're also all built around that premise instead of it being something that's just stuck onto a core system. Something like having it as a toggle game rule already shows that its not core because we've supporting all options

 

[sortulv]

I guess a system similar to the loyal/disloyal generals of I:R might work? The biggest issue with this is that armies tend to be fielded much for a fairly short time, so little time for the effects to come into play?

 

[khardinal]

Game rules are not a magic bullet to fix every design decision that has a for and against group, especially for well sized differences like this.

Cause we'd still have to implement, maintain, test and support both options. As well as making sure it works with newly designed features, it makes a fairly decent amount of extra work for little benefit when its something a tiny minority of people want.

I am pretty sure such mechanic would be MUCH MORE wanted than, let’s say, Aztec Invasion ?

 

[Chlodio]

I would very least want a reason to lead armies personally. In CK2 there is a slight morale boost (20% or something), but that is hardly worth of it, as it feels like there is 33% chance that the ruler gets killed, captured of fatally wounded during the battle, even with the hight marshal and combat ability. I think it should manifest as a public image, i.e you should gain dread if you personally lead your forces.

 

[Woifee]

I would very least want a reason to lead armies personally. In CK2 there is a slight morale boost (20% or something), but that is hardly worth of it, as it feels like there is 33% chance that the ruler gets killed, captured of fatally wounded during the battle, even with the hight marshal and combat ability. I think it should manifest as a public image, i.e you should gain dread if you personally lead your forces.

There should be. But this can be achieved by making armies a social gathering. How about characters can make friends in the army. No commoners but other rulers, your vassals. So leading armies stabilizes your realm while if you are missing without good reason your noblemen start to talk, to plot. If the commander already has a claim they might be more likely to support him and start a faction to support his claim. Or they start to support a plot to fabricate a claim.

Not leading armies should hurt the rulers standing in the realm.