Fighting in battle is a death sentence

[durbal]

The new duel events and whatever else was added make fighting in battles ridiculously deadly. To make matters worse, the AI has no clue about this so lieges are dying left and right in places like the HRE where there's a lot of internal wars.

And finally, I just had a commander who wasn't even assigned to lead a flank just somehow die in a battle. The guy was sitting at home and died in battle. Wut.

 

[Dearmad]

he may have leading a subunit, and not the top commander of the flank. watch for that.

 

[Shadeseraph]

Yah, nowadays I forbid my ruler from going into battle until he has at least secured an heir. Which to be fair makes a good degree of sense.

 

[Dragatus]

If you're part of a warrior lodge battles are actually safer than they used to be. But I see how it would be a problem for say Christians.

 

[PanzerKrigs]

Yeah, I've had a number of rulers die in battle surprisingly young. Then I had one die rather late, I suspect because he used to be part of a Warior Lodge until he wasn't. Might be confirmation-bias, though.

 

[Dlin369]

Before each fight begins you should have the option to run (and get the craven trait + decrease your army’s morale, kinda like HIP) and have a significantly lower chance of dying.

 

[Turbofjes]

I think the new system is a great improvement, going into battle should be risky. And your likelyhood of dying seems very reliant on your ability, as it should. The only problem is AI players hellbent on leading their army even if their ruler has no business being anywhere near the battlefield. They should add some logic so the NPCs can decide whether or not leading armies is a good idea, and it's fine.

 

[Kipman2000]

Yah, nowadays I forbid my ruler from going into battle until he has at least secured an heir. Which to be fair makes a good degree of sense.

I agree completely with this. I don't risk my ruler on the battlefield, and I fail to see anything being gained by having him lead troops. After all, that's what I have commanders for (and they're usually far more skilled in leading troops than my ruler)

 

[orochi2k]

According to files, to lead a troop you'd better:
1, Be top rank in a warrior society or having berserk trait
2, Having war-focus
3, Personal combat ability(duel score) 100+
4, brave, wroth, genius,quick
5, has_education_martial
6, martial 10+
7, NOT inbred/craven/lunatic/possessed/ill/wounded/maimed/drunkard
8, NOT senior_age
9, NOT facing an enemy commander that is better than you too much.


The 1st one totally deny your chance to be killed. The rest reduce the chance to be killed.
The file is in common\scripted_score_values\00_scripted_score_values.txt

 

[Turbofjes]

I agree completely with this. I don't risk my ruler on the battlefield, and I fail to see anything being gained by having him lead troops. After all, that's what I have commanders for (and they're usually far more skilled in leading troops than my ruler)

Personally leading your army gives a morale bonus, as well as events that can improve your character or give you other boni. When I play tribal with high martial I lead my armies all the time and benefit greatly from it. As a young feudal ruler with an underage heir I stay in my castle. It's a risk/reward mechanic and it works beautifully.

 

[Duskwave]

Had some fun leading with a high combat skill ruler, a lot of stuff comes up if you have War focus and charge in a lot, but twice I just get this (the first time, with William the Conqueror, it was "bear of a is looming" instead of "lion". Curious what goes in the obvious blank. Both times, battles I had easily won by a huge margin, ruler with most of the relevant good characteristics, etc...

 

[thevmag]

Ildebrando Rex Interfectus Est

 

[randomgamer71]

Personally leading your army gives a morale bonus, as well as events that can improve your character or give you other boni. When I play tribal with high martial I lead my armies all the time and benefit greatly from it. As a young feudal ruler with an underage heir I stay in my castle. It's a risk/reward mechanic and it works beautifully.

Yeah, but it also give you events that can kill you, or worse.

I think there leading troops should give you something more, for example, a bonus (50%?) to prestige/piety won in case of victory, and a reduction in prestige loss in case of defeat. That would give an extra incentive to lead your armies, expecially if you are tribal.

 

[thevmag]

Yeah, but it also give you events that can kill you, or worse.

Expelled?

 

[Kipman2000]

Personally leading your army gives a morale bonus, as well as events that can improve your character or give you other boni. When I play tribal with high martial I lead my armies all the time and benefit greatly from it. As a young feudal ruler with an underage heir I stay in my castle. It's a risk/reward mechanic and it works beautifully.

It is indeed a risk vs reward thing, and usually I find the risk is too high and the reward is too low, so my ruler usually stays home by the warmth from the castle hearth when his men are dying on the battlefield

 

[A_Dane]

Tbh, I don't see much of a difference. I just have more control over it now.

But then again, I generally give my rulers a martial education (and if I don't, they aren't going anywhere near a battle), and equip them with armor and weapons - even as a Christian this has worked quite well. A few have died in battle, one took a severe blow to the head, and one comitted suicide later - but I had control of what I wanted to do with the character, and there's fewer random deaths for wargod characters now. It's dangerous, yes, but it always was, and should be!

 

[sortulv]

To me it seems like this is mainly a problem for the early game - when you have no gear, no bonuses of any kind, and no heirs - pagan or not, you will fall in battle.

 

[makaramus]

Before each fight begins you should have the option to run (and get the craven trait + decrease your army’s morale, kinda like HIP) and have a significantly lower chance of dying.

I think instead your king should retreat INSTANT you order retreat your retreat. after all king's retreat is easier if you focus on it

 

[EviLine]

To me it seems like this is mainly a problem for the early game - when you have no gear, no bonuses of any kind, and no heirs - pagan or not, you will fall in battle.

You look at it from the players perspective and the player can quickly get loaded with artifacts, bonuses and gear and the player usually makes much more sensible choices than the AI.

AI ruler however, goes to fight - dies, his/her heir inherits - starts with nothing, goes to fight - dies. Rinse, repeat and in 20 years the dynasty is wiped out.

 

[Dayvit78]

I have seen a case where the AI king was relatively smart. The Swedes had an amazing adventurer usurper with Martial 34, and +140 personal combat skill, among a ton of other hot traits. Ideal to lead the troops right?

Well, first thing, they sent their 22k doom stack to attack my capital, while I was seiging some of his provinces on the other side of the country. But instead of leading the main force, I saw the king leading some small 140 unit detachment near my seige. So I quickly detach some of my troops to get an easy king kill. No dice - as I started marching, he switched out to some other force (still not the main force). Played whack-a-mole a few more times until I realized it wasn't gonna happen. Their king lived to see the end of the war (we white peaced while I was up 44% war score because his main stack annihilated my 15k stack before I could get reinforcements to it).