Im tired of losing battles because kings get to lead armies over qualified generals

[mocoman2001]

As the tittle says its tiresome. In my Austria game i just lost a very crucial battle with Burgundy because Frances king is a 0 0 1 0 general. I was using a 4 5 2 1 general. wtf. I dont care how one could rationalize this as some how being historical, its anti fun, and anti game play. If it wasn't for Frances worthless king i would of stomped Burgundy and won the war, now my armies are fleeing all the way back to Austria, both France and i are depleted of man power thanks to previous wars.


In games some times fun needs to trump "realism" This is not crusader kings 2, this is eu4. In eu4 the best general leads the army, not the prestige hungry mentally retarded troglodyte who barley has the mentally capability to ride a horse.

 

[Reezy]

Not to be trite, but I think that many, many nations in history probably felt the exact same way.

 

[mocoman2001]

well all is better now. i took 4 loans, hired a massive mercenary army and proceed to wreck the shit out of them with out Frances "help" there armies are completely demolished, they have like 2 inf left running around some where. Time to spread out and siege them.

 

[mocoman2001]

It gets better, the ottomans are up in here walking around helping me clear out some of the stragglers. who said the ottomans and Austria cant get along.

 

[Tempestra]

Please keep us posted on what's happening in your game, mocoman! It's very interesting!

 

[pgroves]

Not to be trite, but I think that many, many nations in history probably felt the exact same way.

Although Charles II of Sweden and Peter the Great of Russia are perhaps notable exceptions

 

[mocoman2001]

Please keep us posted on what's happening in your game, mocoman! It's very interesting!

the war is long over, i kept them occupied until the we demand peace thing came up. released Holland and gave back a province to a minor. Just got done winning a huge collision war against me. I have a hole lot of people up in arms against me now ;p Saxony, Ulm, Baden, and some other opm are my vassals. I don't learn well; in the peace treaty against me in the coalition i made Baden my vassal, creating even more dislike among my neighbors. Not enough to risk my reelection mind you ;p

 

[No idea]

As the tittle says its tiresome. In my Austria game i just lost a very crucial battle with Burgundy because Frances king is a 0 0 1 0 general. I was using a 4 5 2 1 general. wtf. I dont care how one could rationalize this as some how being historical, its anti fun, and anti game play. If it wasn't for Frances worthless king i would of stomped Burgundy and won the war, now my armies are fleeing all the way back to Austria, both France and i are depleted of man power thanks to previous wars.


In games some times fun needs to trump "realism" This is not crusader kings 2, this is eu4. In eu4 the best general leads the army, not the prestige hungry mentally retarded troglodyte who barley has the mentally capability to ride a horse.

dont use him. Problem solved

 

[BootOnFace]

Not his king, but his ally's. Ally rolls in with weak-ass army and weak-ass general to help him lose the battle.

 

[Beagá]

Well as others said, blame history for that... More than one battle was lost due to higher ranked idiots taking over.

Guess the obvious solution would be to make generals easier to kill and thus make players and AI only use kings when they are REALLY good.

 

[Wolfmaster1979]

The better of the two generals should take over the armies, REGARDLESS of "history"... especially since the stupid kings don't seem to die in battle :/

Maybe there should be a higher chance for Kings to die in battle... I remember trying to kill my crap King of 0/0/0 by putting him on a ship and sailing out to sea and letting the ship be "lost at sea" and somehow he was Jesus as he was still alive after that... maybe he walked back to my capital... lol

 

[Cavalry]

T... I remember trying to kill my crap King of 0/0/0 by putting him on a ship and sailing out to sea and letting the ship be "lost at sea" and somehow he was Jesus as he was still alive after that... maybe he walked back to my capital... lol

It was a brilliant idea of you! Too bad it didn't work!

 

[zodium]

The better of the two generals should take over the armies, REGARDLESS of "history"... especially since the stupid kings don't seem to die in battle :/

Maybe there should be a higher chance for Kings to die in battle... I remember trying to kill my crap King of 0/0/0 by putting him on a ship and sailing out to sea and letting the ship be "lost at sea" and somehow he was Jesus as he was still alive after that... maybe he walked back to my capital... lol

Well, regardless of "history," the ability to kill your king that easily would be stupidly unbalanced. Bad monarch? Well, kill him off. Low legitimacy? Kill your monarch. Bad heir? Kill your heir.

I don't like that my vassals' rulers can overrule my generals. They're my vassals, so they don't get to pull the "kings come first" crap. Allies, fine, let that be the one drawback to allies for all I care.

 

[HansBaer]

Vassal leaders should always come after the liege's leaders, but allie's dukes before generals and kings before dukes.
Had this problem last game when my Teutonic 6/6 leader easily won a defensive battle against France's 6/5 leader (-2 malus thanks to mountains), finally managed to loose 50k soldiers thanks to Wallachia's 1/1 leader (in 1680!!!) joining. I released them in the peacedeal and never vassalized them back. Their godlike leader can slug it out with the Ottomans on his own now.

 

[zodium]

Why should vassal dukes come before generals? It's not like officer corps consisted of random people off the street, so once we're below the ruler level, there's no strong reason to assume a duke would outrank a general, since the general might be a duke himself. Or maybe I made him a duke to prevent this exact nonsense. It's also nonsense that the mechanic applies to republics, come to think of it.

 

[HansBaer]

Why should vassal dukes come before generals?

Vassal leaders should always come after the liege's leaders, but allie's dukes before generals and kings before dukes.

Didn't say that, was a bit unclear maybe.
With dukes i mean country leaders. I don't think the duke of Savoy would let himself be overruled by Milan's general, unless he is in tributary relation to them. Also, the King of France wouldn't let Savoy's Duke lead his army if he himself would feel the urge to do so.
What i wanted to say is: Vassals should always be overruled, no matter their leader's status or stats. Allies shouldn't, unless your leader is of a higher aristocratic rank (Emperor / Pope? > King > Duke > General ("not a country leader", i know many generals were dukes or other lords))

Come to think of, when will the ally mechanics finally be adjusted! For me, this is the most pressing matter whatsoever. If France wins 90% of the battles fought in "random Dutch OPM" vs Burgundy, they should get 90% of the booty. The current mechanics take the challenge out of EVERY game unless you start as Grenada, Byzantium or some other doomed (or vassalized) nation who has a hard time getting a big brother that can actually fight its battles for them.

 

[Tempestra]

the war is long over, i kept them occupied until the we demand peace thing came up. released Holland and gave back a province to a minor. Just got done winning a huge collision war against me. I have a hole lot of people up in arms against me now ;p Saxony, Ulm, Baden, and some other opm are my vassals. I don't learn well; in the peace treaty against me in the coalition i made Baden my vassal, creating even more dislike among my neighbors. Not enough to risk my reelection mind you ;p

So interesting! Please keep up the updates!

 

[Beagá]

A duke from a one province vassal should NEVER lead an army from a huge overlord. Orleans leading a french army is BS. If it was a 10 province Ukraine vassal of Muscowy, however...

 

[zodium]

Didn't say that, was a bit unclear maybe.
With dukes i mean country leaders. I don't think the duke of Savoy would let himself be overruled by Milan's general, unless he is in tributary relation to them. Also, the King of France wouldn't let Savoy's Duke lead his army if he himself would feel the urge to do so.
What i wanted to say is: Vassals should always be overruled, no matter their leader's status or stats. Allies shouldn't, unless your leader is of a higher aristocratic rank (Emperor / Pope? > King > Duke > General ("not a country leader", i know many generals were dukes or other lords))

Come to think of, when will the ally mechanics finally be adjusted! For me, this is the most pressing matter whatsoever. If France wins 90% of the battles fought in "random Dutch OPM" vs Burgundy, they should get 90% of the booty. The current mechanics take the challenge out of EVERY game unless you start as Grenada, Byzantium or some other doomed (or vassalized) nation who has a hard time getting a big brother that can actually fight its battles for them.

Ack, you're right, we're saying the exact same thing. I apologize.

 

[mocoman2001]

i now have Burgundy Bohemia and Hungry in a pu.