Kings marked the pace of history but here they are useless.

[tahlaskerssen]

I think that Kings, if they are not great at combat, they are just there to provide adm/dip/military points and that's all. Like wtf? Kings are 50% of the history of the period this game is played. Anyone can call many kings that being inside or outside the battle changed the course of history.

There is something that has always surprised me from day 1 and it's that in EU4 there are no such things as Royal Guards.

In all history and in all kingdoms each king had its own royal guard provided with the best troops. It was small, it was really military experienced and prepared for battle.

Moreover, it's HISTORICAL FACT that kings used to join armies to give them moral. For example when Isabel of Castille was called to join the army in the reconquista because they were about to desert. She arrived and the army went crazy and steamrolled Granada.

To apply to the game this is my idea

1) When king joins an army it comes with his royal guard, giving them some extra units which have really good fightning bonuses that can actually impact the battle. The royal guard should be about 5% of your total army.

2) It should give a boost in your moral, besides the pips he may have. Even the worst kings at military tactics gave a huge boost in morale to their armies when they appeared in the battlefield, even if they didnt do jackshit.

To balance it, Royal Guard units that die should be reinforced VERY SLOWLY. It should be a per year reinforcment rather than a per month. Also, kings shouldn't be able to lead as many battles as he can as he should be called back to court.. as history has always shown. There should be a cap depending on the pips the king has. For each 2 pips the king can fight 1 battle every 6 months, for example.

Lastly, if your king has less pips than your general, then your general will lead the battle. The king would be there to provide the moral and the royal units and lets his general do the rest.. AS HISTORY HAS MANY TIMES DONE SO.. (this is a must since if your king is 0 0 1 0 then there is never a point to use him since a decent general will always be better than just a boost in mnoral with crap general)

3) If your king has decent pips and is leading the battle, he should be able to call for a charge. This should be an in battle action button where, if conditions are met, he can charge and his units will follow, causing the enemy to instantly retreat and suffer increased loses.. This may also fail and make your king die, your troops retreat and suffer big loses. The button should show % chance of success. This will also make players actually pay attention to battles where your king is involved and actually slow down the game whil eit lasts. Note that this is also historically accurate, since only kings with great military skill used to make such actions in battles. Like Sobieski and such.

Think of it kind of Assault mechanic but for battles.


The idea of this is to make King actually a chess unit in your gameplay. Use it in emergency or when you really want to win a battle.. BUT.. pick wisely cause you won't be able to abuse of it.

Personally, it would feel very exciting and satisfying when you are getting destroyed and you call your king wih his royal guard to fight for all or nothing and repeal back the invasor when everything else is lost.

This change is for historical purposes and roleplaying and also some warfare changes which provide the player and AI options. You cannot depend on your king and his royal guard to win a war, but they can be the deciding factor in some battles. Also, before going to war with someone, you not only need to check his manpower techlevel and forcelimit, but his king..

HOW MANY TIMES IN HISTORY COUNTRIES WAITED FOR A GREAT KING TO DIE BEFORE GOING TO WAR?

answer: many times.

 

[ThePinkPanzer]

Moreover, it's HISTORICAL FACT that kings used to join armies to give them moral. For example when Isabel of Castille was called to join the army in the reconquista because they were about to desert. She arrived and the army went crazy and steamrolled Granada.

This happened much more rarely than you think, since kings had a rather nasty habit of dying in battle when they decided to do this (Burgundy and Hungary-Poland both lose a king in ten years of EU4). The popular idea of nobles always joining their armies to give them morale really doesn't hold up.

Also, Isabella didn't lead from the front lines, and there was far more working against the Granadians than the queen showing up. Like the entire western world bearing down on them with far superior firepower and numbers.

 

[tahlaskerssen]

This happened much more rarely than you think, since kings had a rather nasty habit of dying in battle when they decided to do this (Burgundy and Hungary-Poland both lose a king in ten years of EU4). The popular idea of nobles always joining their armies to give them morale really doesn't hold up.

Also, Isabella didn't lead from the front lines, and there was far more working against the Granadians than the queen showing up. Like the entire western world bearing down on them with far superior firepower and numbers.

No, but Fernando did lead almost all the battles in the civil war against portugal and then in the reconquista. I never said Isabella lead the frontlines, I said she went there to boost morale, which she did. Also, it is really common said that if shen never went there the city Santa Fe would've never been built and result of the war would of been very very different.

Im not saying kings should make battles an insta win, but just a bonus. I believe it happened quite enough that it deserves some kind of gameplay in the game.

Nevertheless, kings did have far more important involvement in warfare than what EU4 makes them.. Only useful if have great pips, other than that just passive adm/diplo/military points.

Also, if you read properly, you would notice i say kings have a cap of how many battles they can fight because i know they weren't in all of them. Not even Frederick the great went in all hist battles, but damn he was in many of them.

To make it historical accurate, I said that the battles a king can fight depend on their military skill. Which of course you didn't care to read enough.

Your argument is that because not all kings fought in every single battle then this is wrong.. when i am specifically saying there should be a max for it.

Explain me please, just because it didn't happen VERY COMMONLY then it shouldn't happen at all in EU4? wtf?

TELL ME, didn't kings get capture in battles? I believe much so. Joan II? David II? Francins against Charles V?

 

[Mattius]

"The army went crazy and steamrolled Granada" 11/10 would agree again.

 

[Incompetent]

I can see the case for a small (say 10%) morale bonus for an army led by a king. The men would fight a bit more bravely, knowing that their king could be in danger if they run away. But the king bringing along additional super-soldiers and extra powers is just silly. If you want a game where personal retinues are a big deal, play CK2.

I sort of like the idea of being able to issue special orders in battle at the cost of MIL points. But it should be all armies that can do this (or at least all armies led by a decent leader), not just king-led armies.

I think kings on the battlefield work pretty well already, actually: if you have terrible army tradition, often your king is your only shot at getting a decent general, but once you build up your AT, the professionals do a better job (unless you have some 6 MIL god of war on the throne and get lucky with his leader roll). The only thing I think is slightly off at the moment is players trying to kill off bad kings/heirs by sending them into battle, as it's obviously a gamey move, but I can't think of a good fix for that. One possible rule would be that your king needs to be 3+ in MIL to become a general, so that it's at least somewhat plausible that he could actually give bonus pips to the army rather than being a total liability.

The chess analogy is also kind of wrong, by the way: in chess, a king is roughly as strong as a knight (enough to matter in the endgame) but you *must not* lose him, so you obviously use him with great care. In EU4, you can quite happily send your king on kamikaze missions if he has average or below-average stats, and players would do this constantly if he was crazy-powerful, like a queen in chess (which seems to be what the OP is proposing).