Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome - Dev Diary 3: Combat Rebalance
- Thread starter Doomdark
- Start date
-
Hey, Guest! We’re glad you are a part of the Paradox Community and want to know what you think about it. Please let us know by filling out this short survey. We appreciate it!
-
Crusader Kings III Available Now!
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
I second that, great suggestions that would expand on gameplay giving improved choices and reduced hassles, while being realistic to boot. (regardless of which commander was placed in control of an army, it wasn't a trivial matter that could be done daily to replace him, any landed noble would be angry if a courtier or to a lesser degree a lower rank vassal than themselves were picked over them. For most of history political influence has been the largest factor in deciding who leads battles.)
Yeah - I'm even surprised they did not implement this in the original CK2 release.
If you look at history books even in the 17th century the people who lead the armies of, say, Philippe of Spain, Queen Elizabeth or Emperor Ferdinand II are all high ranking nobles. Sometimes the king might have elevated them shortly before the appointment (making them dukes of this or that place) but it's almost always that feudal rank = military rank.
In real life the nobles would either pick one of their own (the most experienced / the most respected / the highest ranked) or the king would politely ask one of them (the most experienced / the most respected / the highest ranked) to lead. Most likely though the king will take command himself, and have his most powerful and experienced nobles around him. He would give command of the flanks (where the king cannot command in person due to distance) to one of the high ranking nobles - someone he knows can command the obedience of the other commanders on that flank.
The feudal system is very hierarchical and a noble's position is based on birth and on the military power he brings to a battlefield, largely. The king cannot simply go around this by "appointing" some random guy as a commander over a feudal army. A duke who brings 3,000 men to battle does not listen to a mere courtier, regardless of what honors the king has bestowed on the man. It would be degrading for the duke to let himself be commanded like that. Even if the courtier is an experienced warrior (a guest or refugee from a far away country) the duke can't really let himself be seen by his own retainers as taking commands from him.
"Influence with the king" would matter only little. Basically, "influence" is already what you are exercising when you pick one of the 5-8 highest ranking lords as your commander. It does not extend much beyond that. If you're not a high ranking noble but you are in command of an army, then this is because the king gave you command over his own forces (i.e. made you his marshal), before he sent you to meet up with the other lords. Your authority comes from the fact that you bring forces to the battlefield (the king's forces) not because he gave you a patent or a medal.
When I mentioned honorary "general" ranks could be added to allow you to elevate someone higher than what his feudal rank would permit, I was thinking about this as just a tool for modders who feel that this is too constricting. Maybe you might want to make a mod where the king is an all-powerful, Chinese style absolute monarch. Or you might want to mod some court titles to "elevate" their holder within the feudal system - for example, a count who serves as the king's marshal could "rank" as a duke if you gave the marshal title additional generalship points.
But within the feudal time frame that CK2 is about I don't think this would be part of the game. You're not playing a Napoleonic army where the emperor's word is law - you're playing a medieval realm where law and custom are much higher than the king.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if you guys remember that all of these relate to a feature that was cut out from the development floor.
After all, didn't they even promote it in one of the dev diaries? Something to the effect of "be careful who you assign to lead. Letting a mere courtier lead would make your dukes angry" (VERY much paraphrased of course).
And then in one of the post-release dev diaries they stated that they cut it out because it was either unnecessary or frustrating for the testers (or something to that effect. I can't find the damned link :laugh
.
After all, didn't they even promote it in one of the dev diaries? Something to the effect of "be careful who you assign to lead. Letting a mere courtier lead would make your dukes angry" (VERY much paraphrased of course).
And then in one of the post-release dev diaries they stated that they cut it out because it was either unnecessary or frustrating for the testers (or something to that effect. I can't find the damned link :laugh
.
This is one of the most important features that would make the system work. If you do not want an imbecile Duke commanding your army flank, pay attention whom do you declare connétable next time, for example.
Thirding this. His suggestions are good for gameplay and chock full of historical flavor.
Fourthing.....
I am totally in agreement and in the same boat.
I would also like to add an option that may pop for the champions to be chosen when there is a battle between armies and a champion vs champion event may pop....
"Boagrius!!!".............................."Achilles!"
would be most excellent. Fourthing sounds weird, second thirding!
Oo also had a thought where a leader steps forward and if you choose someone else to fight he is unhappy. Winner of fight gets prestige! and les ladies
Last edited:
STOP! COOKIE TIME