Actually historically that is what happened much of the time. Stop expecting the game to bend over backwards for you.
Im tired of losing battles because kings get to lead armies over qualified generals
- Thread starter mocoman2001
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Doesn't Duke literally mean war leader?
They maybe your vassals, but I would imagine telling them to shut up and sit in the corner during battle would be a no no. Unless you want to attach a -100 malus to relations.
They maybe your vassals, but I would imagine telling them to shut up and sit in the corner during battle would be a no no. Unless you want to attach a -100 malus to relations.
Does anyone know how the army general is determined then? I also assumed it just picked the best general in the group, but I guess that isn't the case. Is it based on stack size? Prestige? Whoever is war leader? Is it just random? It's a pretty important thing to keep in mind. If it encourages too much micromanagement then yeah, I agree that it's bad for gameplay.
Vassal heads of state were wresting military control of a battle from their overlord? When was this?
If 1000 troops lead by an idiot vassal attach to my army of 50,000 mid battle, I seriously can't imagine the conversation where that man assumes control over the entire army.
Well if we take France as an example.
French generals are probably cadets (i.e. a non-heir son of some noble, hence nobility, but with no titles), or at best we're looking at a Baron or a Count.
Conversely, the leaders of the French vassals are Dukes.
I can easily see a Duke striding into the military camp of a French+Vassal army and taking charge from some French general.
It would however be nice if there was some choice in the matter.
e.g. Ally/Vassal army attaches to your army. Your army has a general, they have an heir or king.
Event:
Duke/King/whatever so-and-so enters the military camp of Army-Name and requests an audience with General-Name.
"Good sir, I trust you're happy with me taking charge of this camp?"
Option A: Certainly, go ahead
Option B: I don't think so
50% chance of insult and relations penalty
everyone remember the 0/0/0/1 general but no one remembers the time they won because of the 5/5/5/6 general showing up....
Examples of battles where kings were present and NOT in command, please. Prior to Napoleonic wars, that is.
Your avoiding my question.
When did a vassal head of state, as in, the leader of a puppet state, manage to wrest control of a battle from his overlord's generals? Do you really think a Crimean Khan could just walk up to one of the Sultan's bigger armies in the middle of a pitched battle and go "I take command now" and expect to be taken seriously? Could an Indian Raj from a random Princely state usurp command of a British army just because he was a 'King', so to speak?
I am perfectly fine with allied heads of state usurping command from generals, that sort of makes sense, but why would a vassal head of state usurp command from an overlord's army?
Last edited:
Charles/Karl XII though. Not writing to be a busy buddy, just find it funny to notice that Charles/Karl II has never existed (as far as we know, at least not calling himself that). In 1560 a fellow named Erik became king and to make himself sound more impressive he made the assumption that it sounds likelly that there has been 13 Eriks before him, and took the name Erik XIV. His brother that succeeded him in 1568 did the same and took the name Karl (Charles) IX. Counting backwards in time the earliest known Karl in history has been assigned the name Karl VII centuries after his death...
Erik's there hade been more and history debates if the earliest known would have been Erik VII or VIII.
Now we understand why weak monarchs could make an ally of dubious value, and why great kings were often discouraged and impeded in taking the field.
And a vassal is not a slave - fealty is due to his liege, not the minions of his liege - the very suggestion of such an indignity can be affront enough to justify a breach.
You are speaking strictly in terms of CK2-era vassals, this is EU4, where more often than not vassals were just territories controlled but not administrated by the overlord. As I said, if a Crimean Khan or an Indian Raj tried to take over an Ottoman or British army they would not be taken seriously at all.
In my experience it works as follows: 1) all things being equal, it picks the best leader; 2) Ruler trumps Heir trumps regular General/Admiral/Explorer/Conquistador. So if you have 2 Generals, it will pick the best General; if you have 1 General and 1 Ruler, it will pick the Ruler, regardless of stats; if you have 2 Rulers, it will pick the best Ruler. War Leader, Prestige, and Stack size don't matter [there may be some exceptions to this for numbers/morale--I'm pretty sure I've seen the general for a reinforcement stack take over from a better leader when the original stack was pretty close to wiped out--but this is very much the exception not the rule].
papal states and Bosnia are vassals, and hungry is in a pu with me. My current goal is to expand along the trade nodes i don't fully own. It probly wont be long until i get bored. Every game i play where i become the dominate power i end up getting bored with it.
Peter the Great would regularly assign himself a relatively junior military rank and take a subordinate role to whichever one of his senior military advisors (Apraxin at sea, Menshikov on land) was present.
papal states and Bosnia are vassals, and hungry is in a pu with me. My current goal is to expand along the trade nodes i don't fully own. It probly wont be long until i get bored. Every game i play where i become the dominate power i end up getting bored with it.
So cool man, I am really enjoying following what's happening in your game.
Re. the (a)historicity of Ruler > General, let's look at the War of the Spanish Succession. It's one of the more famous wars between allied forces in the middle of the EU timeframe (in a succession war no less), so it's clearly something the the game is designed to model.
In the battles of Schellenberg and Blenheim, there were rulers of smaller allied states present along with generals from the major warleader states. And on both sides, the generals of the warleaders were in command over the allied rulers. On the Franco-Bavarian side at Blenheim, Marshall Tallard of France (in game terms a general, not ruler) was in command despite the presence of the Elector of Bavaria (a ruler). On the Anglo-Imperial-Dutch side at Schellenberg, Marlborough (a general, not ruler) was in command, despite the presence of the Margrave of Baden (a ruler). While the rulers shared in operational-level command--both Tallard and Marlborough held councils of war where the Elector and Margrave were equal participants--once the decision to fight was taken, the generals were in command, with the rulers commanding only their own forces or a flank of the combined army.
So Ruler > General is pretty clearly not a fact of history.
In the battles of Schellenberg and Blenheim, there were rulers of smaller allied states present along with generals from the major warleader states. And on both sides, the generals of the warleaders were in command over the allied rulers. On the Franco-Bavarian side at Blenheim, Marshall Tallard of France (in game terms a general, not ruler) was in command despite the presence of the Elector of Bavaria (a ruler). On the Anglo-Imperial-Dutch side at Schellenberg, Marlborough (a general, not ruler) was in command, despite the presence of the Margrave of Baden (a ruler). While the rulers shared in operational-level command--both Tallard and Marlborough held councils of war where the Elector and Margrave were equal participants--once the decision to fight was taken, the generals were in command, with the rulers commanding only their own forces or a flank of the combined army.
So Ruler > General is pretty clearly not a fact of history.