Death in Battle event is completely broken

[nightgerbil]

No, actually I'd have to disagree firmly with that idea. I have actually TRIED to get commanders killed this way and it never worked. I literally sent this one guy back into combat half dozen times, whittling a stack of 500 down to just literally ONE. He got wounded but never died, and then he recovered.

It MIGHT be more effective for the player character, or my anecdotes might not match up with someone elses, but that has been my experience.

ADDIT: I also feel compelled to add: I relish the passive-aggressiveness of this community So often I get a few "Respectfully disagrees" but then I almost never see anyone actually respond to anything I say and try to rebut it or explain disagreement. I do take some pride in that

I do it all the time to get rid of vassals I want dead. Its easy enough to arrange, you just need the battle to tick for a few days to get multi events OR for them to be stack wiped. A really useful thing is 1200 iltailan pike retinues, they last long enough to get lots of loser events.

Also you get alot of disagrees without rebuttals, cos what can anyone say to you? your experience differs from ours. Its like 5 guys complaining at the bar that they lost the rent money at mafia poker again and the wifes are gonna kill erm and "oh noes what do we do we owe the mob 10k gotta pay by friday, anyone wanna rob a bank?" And theres you going "lol poker is easy look I just made 5k haha! hey round of drinks for everyone here barkeep! I dont get you guys, just bet when you have a full house and dont try to bluff with a pair of queens". We can't argue with you, but its like your not playing the same game we are.

 

[Caspian Mortis]

Don't change this event!

This event is useful if I want to get rid of my ruler because I can't get myself killed.

 

[STABBY5]

Remember this is after they already lowered it. it was much much worse. Every king I had died in battle if they ever lead an army. I hate leading battles unless I'm pagan because they get totally separate events for being in lodges where they almost never die or lose artifacts.

 

[Dark_messiah93]

I thought the OP was wrong but no, I have to be honest :
Every single battle means instant death for the ruler, almost, this system is ridiculous

 

[Dimitri Cosmos]

My duelist rulers have never died in battle. Perhaps that is the safest bet.
I think PC of 100+ also is a safe bet.

I can't prove it though. It's just my experience.

 

[Dzikun]

I've only played tribal in Holy Fury and the ruler dies in battle sometimes. As a tribal the frequency of death is ok and makes the game more interesting. Haven't played feudal tho. My tribal rulers are always martial and always in the lodge. Most are PC 100+. They still die sometimes tho if they are not heroes. Being a hero rank makes you immortal in battles.

 

[STABBY5]

always in the lodge.

They get an entire different set of events and are immune to the events that everyone is complaining about. Personally I almost never die in battle in a warrior lodge.

 

[Ixalmaris]

They get an entire different set of events and are immune to the events that everyone is complaining about. Personally I almost never die in battle in a warrior lodge.

I also rarely die when not in a lodge, so I have no idea what people are complaining about.
Of course I only let my character lead armies when he is actually competent in fighting (both martial and personal combat).

 

[InsaneGreyjoy]

I agree that the kings die in battle a little bit too often. I've once lost the war beacuse of it (actualy not, the war which i was winning just finished without result). I believe, the rulers should more often become imprisoned, rather than killed (it was a common feature of the Middle Ages to imprison some knight and then ask for ransom). Maybe the chances of death should be linked to goverment type (deaths more often for tribal govs less often for feudal).

 

[Ixalmaris]

I agree that the kings die in battle a little bit too often. I've once lost the war beacuse of it (actualy not, the war which i was winning just finished without result). I believe, the rulers should more often become imprisoned, rather than killed (it was a common feature of the Middle Ages to imprison some knight and then ask for ransom). Maybe the chances of death should be linked to goverment type (deaths more often for tribal govs less often for feudal).

Sitting in a dungeon for years is boring.

 

[bbatthew]

I agree that the kings die in battle a little bit too often. I've once lost the war beacuse of it (actualy not, the war which i was winning just finished without result). I believe, the rulers should more often become imprisoned, rather than killed (it was a common feature of the Middle Ages to imprison some knight and then ask for ransom). Maybe the chances of death should be linked to goverment type (deaths more often for tribal govs less often for feudal).

Sitting in a dungeon for years is boring.

Yeah, I think many players would rather have their character die than pay a huge ransom or stay in a dungeon. Although this would actually make the intrigue focus useful for once.

 

[Snake_Squeezins]

I haven't played enough recently to see if the numbers have changed with post HF patches, but I think the chances of death should be fairly low. A lower chance of death would encourage more battlefield duels.

Now if you are dueling a rival and lose, then bye bye. Same goes for an opponent with certain traits such as Cruel, Impaler, etc - makes sense that they kill you rather than let you walk away with a wound.

On the flip side, it would make sense for anyone with knightly traits (any of the 7 virtues, Honest, Content, etc) to specifically NOT kill enemies and instead be chivalrous to opponents. This was an era where in Western Europe, hostage taking of nobles was extremely polite and expected.

 

[Ixalmaris]

Yeah, I think many players would rather have their character die than pay a huge ransom or stay in a dungeon. Although this would actually make the intrigue focus useful for once.

I dont think you can intrigue yourself out of a dungeon.

On the flip side, it would make sense for anyone with knightly traits (any of the 7 virtues, Honest, Content, etc) to specifically NOT kill enemies and instead be chivalrous to opponents. This was an era where in Western Europe, hostage taking of nobles was extremely polite and expected.

No idea if that would solve the problem of too high chance to die others think they experience, but it would certainly be flavorful if reformed religions (or just christians. No idea if muslims had similar codes about capturing nobles) would have a higher chance of capture than death against opponents of the same religion. Or a option to surrender before the duel is decided.

Then again, being captured is no fun, so if that is implemented there should be several decisions or event chains so you can actively try to free yourself or petition people to pay your ransom (even inspiring some robin hood like activity in your provinces with people trying to gather the ransom through banditry).

 

[Saphire]

I'm seeing a lot of the arguement is about whether commanders actually die in battle or not, but this actually makes sense in-game. The amount of commanding bonuses you can recieve are frequently overpowered, leading to insane benefits - bonuses from artifacts and bloodlines alone would make your 0 martial imbecile commander better than a 20 martial courtier. Now you won't send your ruler into battle just for the heck of it, just only when you need to. It also bases survival rate off of combat ability, something I find very nice

 

[Snake_Squeezins]

I'm seeing a lot of the arguement is about whether commanders actually die in battle or not, but this actually makes sense in-game. The amount of commanding bonuses you can recieve are frequently overpowered, leading to insane benefits - bonuses from artifacts and bloodlines alone would make your 0 martial imbecile commander better than a 20 martial courtier. Now you won't send your ruler into battle just for the heck of it, just only when you need to. It also bases survival rate off of combat ability, something I find very nice

It makes more sense to me to have wounds be fairly common, with serious injuries much less common, maimings fairly rare, and death both rare and/or tied to enemy traits. A wound should basically put a Commander in the "penalty box" until you manually re-deploy him as a Commander, at which point he has a greater chance of incurring a serious wound or worse. So there is a chance a number of your best commanders could be sidelined during critical parts of a war, but you would have the option to do a risky "overclocking" maneuver (ie redeploying them at reduced strength while they were vulnerable) if you felt like their assistance was critical.

 

[udak]

Here's some fun: start a vanilla game as the king of Bavaria in 769--you get DOW'd within the first year by your family in alemannia. It's the beginning of the game, it's Christendom (not pagan/no warrior lodge) and your king will typically have 6-10 Martial.

If you can survive that war without dying, I'm impressed. Anecdotally, every single King I've played within the last 10 minutes (5!) has died within the first or second battle. I hired mercs so I had 60% more troops than my opponent. These aren't duels and my PCS has varied between 8 and 12. I just get blammo-ed and rulership passes to my infant kid.

I understand bonuses are broken, especially late game, and the game is balanced for that....but the advice for new games should not be 'avoid all combat until your bonuses stack, at least two generations'. Especially since there's no alternative warrior lodge for christians--it's just die like a dog repeatedly.

I haven't played in a while, so while I knew things were absolutely busto on HF's drop, I was really hoping they'd fixed it. Frankly disappointing they broke the game this badly and let it stay so for months. Guess it's back to mods that respect my time

 

[DPS]

A wound should basically put a Commander in the "penalty box" until you manually re-deploy him as a Commander, at which point he has a greater chance of incurring a serious wound or worse. So there is a chance a number of your best commanders could be sidelined during critical parts of a war, but you would have the option to do a risky "overclocking" maneuver (ie redeploying them at reduced strength while they were vulnerable) if you felt like their assistance was critical.

I more-or-less do that manually--if my ruler is wounded, I normally don't let him lead armies until he heals.