I made a suggestion a few months back on this:
Right now their is pretty much no reason to make rulers and heirs to generals other then if you wan't them killed which is a very poor implemention. I think we need to make them quite a bit more useful to add reasons why you would chose to make a ruler (even a good one) into a general.
Legtimacy: Legtimacy is very hard to increase, by making ruler (and possible heirs) gain legtimacy by being victorious on the battlefield would open up a quick but risk way to increase your ruler's legtimacy. Losing battles however could reduce the legtimacy of your ruler.
Prestige: While not being as hard to increase as legtimacy it is very nice to have and why not make rulers that lead armies gain extra prestige over normal generals, the same with heirs.
Army tradition: Rulers probably have some influence on who to pick as a general. A ruler that have lead many battles would probably be better at chosing a good general, thus I think armies lead by rulers should gain extra army tradition from battles.
Inspiration: A ruler with high legtimacy could get an insperation bonus which could come in the form of a morale and discipline bonus like I suggested above. This would give armies lead by a ruler a advantage over armies lead by a ordinary general (which is compensated by the fact that the ordinary general don't carry any risk).
Another way here could be to give each general a personal reputation which is increased by victories and decreased by losses. The personal reputation would increase morale and maybe discipline. Rulers and heirs could use their legtimacy here instead of personal reputation.
Maybe like general prestige in Victoria II, general reputation could make it more expansive to teleport generals by for example decrease legtimacy by removing the general from his current army. Or reputation could only be maintained in the current army and thus you would have to sacrifice reputation if you want to give the general a new command.
Possible: Events that comes from ruler leading armies in battle which could give extra monarch points, extra prestige and legitimacy, loss of monarch stats (incapable), increase of monarch stats, increase of army tradition, increase and decrease of leadership abilities, death and so on.
With these changes using ruler (and heir) offers a quick way to increase several important things but is also risky because death lurks in the next battle.
Right now their is pretty much no reason to make rulers and heirs to generals other then if you wan't them killed which is a very poor implemention. I think we need to make them quite a bit more useful to add reasons why you would chose to make a ruler (even a good one) into a general.
Legtimacy: Legtimacy is very hard to increase, by making ruler (and possible heirs) gain legtimacy by being victorious on the battlefield would open up a quick but risk way to increase your ruler's legtimacy. Losing battles however could reduce the legtimacy of your ruler.
Prestige: While not being as hard to increase as legtimacy it is very nice to have and why not make rulers that lead armies gain extra prestige over normal generals, the same with heirs.
Army tradition: Rulers probably have some influence on who to pick as a general. A ruler that have lead many battles would probably be better at chosing a good general, thus I think armies lead by rulers should gain extra army tradition from battles.
Inspiration: A ruler with high legtimacy could get an insperation bonus which could come in the form of a morale and discipline bonus like I suggested above. This would give armies lead by a ruler a advantage over armies lead by a ordinary general (which is compensated by the fact that the ordinary general don't carry any risk).
Another way here could be to give each general a personal reputation which is increased by victories and decreased by losses. The personal reputation would increase morale and maybe discipline. Rulers and heirs could use their legtimacy here instead of personal reputation.
Maybe like general prestige in Victoria II, general reputation could make it more expansive to teleport generals by for example decrease legtimacy by removing the general from his current army. Or reputation could only be maintained in the current army and thus you would have to sacrifice reputation if you want to give the general a new command.
Possible: Events that comes from ruler leading armies in battle which could give extra monarch points, extra prestige and legitimacy, loss of monarch stats (incapable), increase of monarch stats, increase of army tradition, increase and decrease of leadership abilities, death and so on.
With these changes using ruler (and heir) offers a quick way to increase several important things but is also risky because death lurks in the next battle.
Last edited:
- 1
Upvote
0
