Is this a bug? Splitting a levy, 4 armies 1 leader for all

[cristofolmc]

I found the funniest thing today.

My levy in Egypt has got so ridiculously big that Ive had to split it. First in two, and then into 4 stacks, so attrition wouldnt kill it.

I was surprised to find out that you can split a levy, as they are supposed to be a unified army under the command of one leader. But oh well, Ill take advantage of the bug and assign leaders to the new stacks from that levy. Only to realise that each and every one of those stacks had a leader already. The king of Egypt. 4 separate armies. The same leader at the same time.

Boy is Kemetic religion powerful if it allows you to cuadruplicate to lead four armies at the same time xD

I guess its a bug. But is the levy even supposed to be able to be split or is that a bug as well?

 

[watchout86]

I think that's WAD.

Levies are commanded by the governor of the province. It might make sense to have sub-commanders for when you split our stacks (whether to detatch for sieges or to prevent attrition) as is the case for legions, but it seems that isn't part of the game right now.

 

[Herennius]

I think that's WAD.

Yes. Both splitting and the same character "sharing" command for all the parts is intended (the latter probably mainly to circumvent any exploit potential different commanders would open, as you could easily offset the effects of governors weak in MA that way).

 

[Emberfox]

Well, to be fair, you could see the same thing before the update.
You could give multiple legions to the same gouverneur, after all.

I thought of it in the way that the gouverneur sends his personal legate to the legion, but since he has to pay for it, you only see the gouverneur who you pay for the job.
It would not really make sense for him to lead in the first place, since he still has to govern the region after all..

 

[IsaacCAT]

The martial bonus of the General is too decisive. I do not like this abstraction and how they have implemented in game.

If you are able to split your armies, they have to have a commander each one or go without it. At is the case with legions with legates and tribunes.

After thinking about it I would prefer to be able to split levies but not appoint a commander. The governor will command one of the armies and the others will be without general.

 

[Tomice]

A governor commanding multiple armies could get a penalty to his martial score?

 

[Emberfox]

The martial bonus of the General is too decisive. I do not like this abstraction and how they have implemented in game.

If you are able to split your armies, they have to have a commander each one or go without it. At is the case with legions with legates and tribunes.

After thinking about it I would prefer to be able to split levies but not appoint a commander. The governor will command one of the armies and the others will be without general.

I do wonder what the Martial Score is supposed to actually mean.
It is supposed to be the skill in tactics than the person needs to lead in in, well, person.

If it is more about being good at strategy and having an eye for military science and skill, then you could argue that the character in question creates the strategy and send personal legates for the tactics part. The governeurs martial would ensure that the chosen legates are good for their job.

I think this is the problem with these abstract scores, their meaning is not clearly defined and thus it is weird if they can seemingly be at multiple places at once.

 

[cristofolmc]

The martial bonus of the General is too decisive. I do not like this abstraction and how they have implemented in game.

If you are able to split your armies, they have to have a commander each one or go without it. At is the case with legions with legates and tribunes.

After thinking about it I would prefer to be able to split levies but not appoint a commander. The governor will command one of the armies and the others will be without general.

Its just too absurd. The same person leading in different battles at the same time???

They have to come up with something. Like legates or something for the levies so they are under the controll of the same governor but in battle somebody under the chain of command of that governor takes control

 

[Rabid]

This seems extremely favourable if you happen to have a high mil score ruler. I'd prefer it if you could appoint legates to levies and they were used for sub armies. Though that would run into the issue of allowing you to circumvent the "governors become generals" thing, so perhaps there isn't a great solution. Forcing the sub stacks to go leaderless seems a bit harsh since it's not particularly hard to get levies which are large enough to cause supply issues.