Let the player character fight while leading their own army

[MikeGolf1415]

"He had put spurs to horse and come at a rapid gallop from the opposite direction to meet the king and throw him down. However the king held out his sword in his way as he charged and cut off his heavily-armoured head along with his shoulder and right arm."

-An account of Richard the Lionheart demonstrating his prowess at the Battle of Jaffa, August 5, 1192.[1]
​

Free our warrior-kings. That is all.

[1] Helen J. Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade: A Translation of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi (London: Routledge, 2016), 367.

​

 

[fodazd]

Would be too easy to exploit for improvised abdication.

Want to abdicate right when your son of choice is voted heir of your main title? - Send your king with 5 men-at-arms against a 1k stack of raiders.

I exploited that in CK2 many times, though sometimes it was ridiculous how your 84 year old Warrior Lodge legend king with 150 Personal combat wipes 700 soldiers on his own, and you beg him to just die already.

My personal opinion: As long as this strategy comes with the risk of being taken prisoner instead of dying, it's fine.

 

[MikeGolf1415]

Would be too easy to exploit for improvised abdication.

Want to abdicate right when your son of choice is voted heir of your main title? - Send your king with 5 men-at-arms against a 1k stack of raiders.

I exploited that in CK2 many times, though sometimes it was ridiculous how your 84 year old Warrior Lodge legend king with 150 Personal combat wipes 700 soldiers on his own, and you beg him to just die already.

Then don't do it. If you are concerned min-max players will find it irresistible to send their character off to die at the right time, your argument makes a couple of assumptions:

1. You have a valid hostile opponent at the right time.
-Maybe. Maybe not.

2. You will die in battle.
-Far from certain as you said yourself. What if you survive? What if you get captured? If you are min-maxing, how could imprisonment or serious injury potentially destabilize your realm and ruin your successesion plan? Uncertainty is pervasive in battle.

3. If using elective, what if the vote changes between the time you initiate your suicide run and your potential death?


Battlefield valor is an integral part of medieval rulership and I find it baffling that the premier medieval strategy-rpg deliberately omits this aspect for the player.

 

[Matihood1]

Then don't do it. If you are concerned min-max players will find it irresistible to send their character off to die at the right time, your argument makes a couple of assumptions:

1. You have a valid hostile opponent at the right time.
-Maybe. Maybe not.

2. You will die in battle.
-Far from certain as you said yourself. What if you survive? What if you get captured? If you are min-maxing, how could imprisonment or serious injury potentially destabilize your realm and ruin your successesion plan? Uncertainty is pervasive in battle.

3. If using elective, what if the vote changes between the time you initiate your suicide run and your potential death?


Battlefield valor is an integral part of medieval rulership and I find it baffling that the premier medieval strategy-rpg deliberately omits this aspect for the player.

I'm pretty sure metagamers are more than capable of handling all of these issues. I don't want to give them another mechanic to absolutely abuse the crap out of (like they do with always appointing their character's heir as a court physician right now).

 

[Drstrangelove5]

"He had put spurs to horse and come at a rapid gallop from the opposite direction to meet the king and throw him down. However the king held out his sword in his way as he charged and cut off his heavily-armoured head along with his shoulder and right arm."

-An account of Richard the Lionheart demonstrating his prowess at the Battle of Jaffa, August 5, 1192.[1]
​

Free our warrior-kings. That is all.

[1] Helen J. Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade: A Translation of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi (London: Routledge, 2016), 367.

​

"Richard produced no legitimate heirs and acknowledged only one illegitimate son, Philip of Cognac. He was succeeded by his brother John as king. His French territories, with the exception of Rouen, initially rejected John as a successor, preferring his nephew Arthur. The lack of any direct heirs from Richard was the first step in the dissolution of the Angevin Empire."

Richard I of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So yes. I agree with your point: if a player has no legitimate heirs, like Richard the Lionheart, and still wants to lead his army into battle, it should be okay.

 

[MikeGolf1415]

"Richard produced no legitimate heirs and acknowledged only one illegitimate son, Philip of Cognac. He was succeeded by his brother John as king. His French territories, with the exception of Rouen, initially rejected John as a successor, preferring his nephew Arthur. The lack of any direct heirs from Richard was the first step in the dissolution of the Angevin Empire."

Richard I of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So yes. I agree with your point: if a player has no legitimate heirs, like Richard the Lionheart, and still wants to lead his army into battle, it should be okay.

And King John the Blind of Bohemia did have heirs when he charged to his death at the Battle of Crecy. I'm sorry but I fail to see your point about the historical relationship with having heirs and fighting in battles.

As a side note, I think that is poor analysis from Wikipedia on the decline of the Plantagenets. The Black Prince's premature death brought catastrophic succession issues to England and its overseas holdings--not Richard's.