Controlling armies only if your ruler is leading it

[DPS]

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.

Absolutely agree. Plus, while I do like, in theory, the idea of not having teleporting generals, in practice, I'm not sure there is really a good way to implement it.

 

[Revshawn]

I think you guys should check out AEGOD and the games they made if you desire realism in the issuance of commands. They accurately model things like the command structure of generals, a general ignoring a command or carrying it out with less enthusiasm than is needed, movement of generals, army supply, and all of that. It’s a bit aged now, but the AI will challenge you for sure! And it has essentially what you all desire

 

[blackninja9939]

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

I mean potentially, that is not a high bar.

But also Aztec Invasion is something very easy to turn off with a game rule, you just don't spawn them, this would be less of an easy switch.

Also I would take 5 Aztec Invasions over how annoyed I'd get from something like this

 

[sortulv]

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.

The morale boost is huge - in many cases it is the difference between victory and defeat. (remember morale = damage done)
The feeling you have of ruler death chance is strange to me, as I pretty much always have my ruler leading the armies as long as there exists a heir, and he will always last more than 3 battles Did stop using the ruler as commander when there was no children though - Felt like a 10% chance then, compared to a 1% chance with a kid...

 

[randomgamer71]

Absolutely agree. Plus, while I do like, in theory, the idea of not having teleporting generals, in practice, I'm not sure there is really a good way to implement it.

What about this, you can apply a general instantly to any army, everywhere, but if you remove a general from an army he ill be unavailable for assignment for X time, where X is higher the farther the army was from the capital.
It is not perfect but I think It is a good compromise, this way you can avoid things like having a big battle in France and one in Anatolia and use the same general(s) in both.

(of course you can move generals between armies that are close (same or adiacents provinces)

 

[DemonScientist]

Seconding the no-teleport thing as I would love the actual physical location of a character to play a meaningful role in things.

I'd love a medieval game where you couldn't orchestrate wars like you had satellite command, but I don't think CK3 needs to be that game, seeing as how the entire engine is based on that.

 

[Chlodio]

The morale boost is huge - in many cases it is the difference between victory and defeat. (remember morale = damage done)
The feeling you have of ruler death chance is strange to me, as I pretty much always have my ruler leading the armies as long as there exists a heir, and he will always last more than 3 battles Did stop using the ruler as commander when there was no children though - Felt like a 10% chance then, compared to a 1% chance with a kid...

I guess I was just unlucky because every time my ruler was involved something bad happened. I had a ruler with 15 martial and 20 combat leading an army of five hundred, against some seventy men...and damn combat event firest, where you have to become coward or try winning, I tried latter and died.

 

[sortulv]

I guess I was just unlucky because every time my ruler was involved something bad happened. I had a ruler with 15 martial and 20 combat leading an army of five hundred, against some seventy men...and damn combat event firest, where you have to become coward or try winning, I tried latter and died.

Confirmation bias sucks
Mind you, 20 combat ability is pretty weak. And, for the events you do get a choice - even if RP makes it a non-choice

 

[covya]

I mean potentially, that is not a high bar.

But also Aztec Invasion is something very easy to turn off with a game rule, you just don't spawn them, this would be less of an easy switch.

Also I would take 5 Aztec Invasions over how annoyed I'd get from something like this

I, for one, welcome our new aztec overlords.

 

[Pacc0]

Maybe not complete AI control, but maybe to send the army into certain areas,

 

[Mighty-Fisch]

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

I like this, but not as a universal thing. If I have a Duke who's a gluttonous craven who prefers feasting to fighting he probably shouldn't care very much if I do the same, but I agree, your marcher vassal who defends the realm every day should be pretty irate if you're a big softie who sits in the palace all the time.

 

[Woifee]

I like this, but not as a universal thing. If I have a Duke who's a gluttonous craven who prefers feasting to fighting he probably shouldn't care very much if I do the same, but I agree, your marcher vassal who defends the realm every day should be pretty irate if you're a big softie who sits in the palace all the time.

A caven character wouldn’t join a faction anyway.
But I get your point. Some types of characters probably don’t care. But most rulers should, because even the glutinous caven duke thinks it’s the kings job to protect his lifestyle.

 

[Mighty-Fisch]

A caven character wouldn’t join a faction anyway.
But I get your point. Some types of characters probably don’t care. But most rulers should, because even the glutinous caven duke thinks it’s the kings job to protect his lifestyle.

I guess everyone should care, just different levels of modifiers, most looking down on their liege while the extremes are downright angry.

 

[Mindel]

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.

Perhaps a good compromise solution would be to give your army finer control over battle phases when you are personally leading it. For the moment, phases seem rather mysterious anyway, so there shouldn't be any harm in giving more control over it, rather than less.

 

[Andrelvis]

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

Every option (actually, every combination of options) has to be maintained by the developers throughout the game's iterations, taking away time that could be spent elsewhere.

 

[OxfordNik]

I mean potentially, that is not a high bar.

But also Aztec Invasion is something very easy to turn off with a game rule, you just don't spawn them, this would be less of an easy switch.

Also I would take 5 Aztec Invasions over how annoyed I'd get from something like this

Controlling armies is one thing, but is it the intention that characters would be able to "teleport" as they can in CK2?

That would, in my view, be a terrible wasted opportunity to increase immersion; if the intention of the game, as stated, is to move more towards an RPG-type focus, characters being "physically" present somewhere on the map - and thus able, depending on their location, to interact with other characters or lead armies etc - would be a great move for representing the functioning of a medieval society.

It would also be a really cool mechanic if tied to the reworked retinues - e.g. imagine you'd like to arrest this powerful vassal who's at your court, but he's come to court with all of his retenue, while a large part of yours is away keeping the peace somewhere, so his retinue outnumbers yours. You thus have to enlist the support of other vassals who are also at your court, in order to get the arrest done... Etc.

Will be pretty disappointed if there's not at least a game rule for tying characters to a physical location (aka "limiting teleportation") :/

 

[Rubidium]

I guess I was just unlucky because every time my ruler was involved something bad happened. I had a ruler with 15 martial and 20 combat leading an army of five hundred, against some seventy men...and damn combat event firest, where you have to become coward or try winning, I tried latter and died.

Yeah, right now outside of RP or a few very specific circumstances, it doesn't make sense in CK2 to personally lead armies (outside of stopping off briefly in the Holy Land to pick up the Crusader trait).

The worst was getting knocked comatose, and then somehow surviving under regency for decades until said ruler finally died, while my regent stole my money and lands and voted down any useful actions.

 

[Etrutian]

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.

Please no.

 

[randomgamer71]

Controlling armies is one thing, but is it the intention that characters would be able to "teleport" as they can in CK2?

That would, in my view, be a terrible wasted opportunity to increase immersion; if the intention of the game, as stated, is to move more towards an RPG-type focus, characters being "physically" present somewhere on the map - and thus able, depending on their location, to interact with other characters or lead armies etc - would be a great move for representing the functioning of a medieval society.

It would also be a really cool mechanic if tied to the reworked retinues - e.g. imagine you'd like to arrest this powerful vassal who's at your court, but he's come to court with all of his retenue, while a large part of yours is away keeping the peace somewhere, so his retinue outnumbers yours. You thus have to enlist the support of other vassals who are also at your court, in order to get the arrest done... Etc.

Will be pretty disappointed if there's not at least a game rule for tying characters to a physical location (aka "limiting teleportation") :/

On paper, it sound interesting. Practically, I'm afraid it would be a mess.

But I hope they pay more attention to which events can trigger depending on where you are/what are you doing/etc, for example in my last game I had the 'chess with death' event and between two scene of the game my chaplain entered the throne room bringing a suspected heretic (he was on the 'hunting apostates' mission). That was a little jarring, I tell you. So if they can, for example, avoid court event when you are in a pilgrimage, and things like that, it would be nice.

 

[Turbofjes]

Yes please. I like how the vassals control their own armies as tribals, microing the massive amount of armies anytime you raise levies in a big empire is a chore.