Please reduce the micro-management

[Tijean]

Crusader King is a wonderfull game. I like the complexity. But there is a lot of "waste of time". There is some I want to point out.

- Commander : I like the ideas of commander leading the army. This is just plain normal. The main problem is the current commander system. When you raise your army you may have thousand of small army that you need to gather up togeter, but you only have few commander. I miss the time where a commander the ruler of the force was also the commander.

- New alliance system : The non-agression pact is a good ideas. It help to make the big empire easier to manage. But it also make all the alliance system way harder to manage. Each time my ruler die, I have to find everyone I still got family tie and offer them an alliance or just an non-aggression pact. I must said, i prefered the old system, it was just easier to manage.

-Smarter merging army : When you loose a battle because you have 2000 men on a flank and only 100 in the middle...

 

[AchedTeacher]

Yeah jeeze, just have an auto commander button.

 

[Kollatius]

Reduce micromanagement? Are you sure you're posting in the right forum?

 

[Blind Cavefish]

The commander system is a pain, I also regularly see leaderless aI armies, which were at least somewhat uncommon pre-commander title

 

[AchedTeacher]

Reduce micromanagement? Are you sure you're posting in the right forum?

Micromanagement is usually fine, but there is still a fair bit of necessary micromanagement that isn't important at all. It doesn't truly matter who you appoint as commander, 99.5% of the time.

 

[WeissRaben]

Big empires need to be harder to manage, not easier. Being big as a feudal lord should be stepping up the difficulty, not down: by the game's own nature, it should mean you have more people to fiddle with, to make happy, to corrupt, or to deal with. The reasonably easy game should be England, with France being hard-ish, and the HRE being 'ohgod what'.

 

[Elenhil]

Smarter merging army : When you loose a battle because you have 2000 men on a flank and only 100 in the middle...

I honestly only saw this with specific 'indivisible' units like merc companies. Outside of that, the auto button makes the flanks even-sized.

As for army management - delegate. A King-level vassal should present you with a neat unified stack from all over their realm. This, of course, is where the realism advocates come in bemoaning teleportation.

 

[Red Earth]

Big empires need to be harder to manage, not easier. Being big as a feudal lord should be stepping up the difficulty, not down: by the game's own nature, it should mean you have more people to fiddle with, to make happy, to corrupt, or to deal with. The reasonably easy game should be England, with France being hard-ish, and the HRE being 'ohgod what'.

I agree with everything you said, except not in relation to this topic.
You're talking about different things. Forcing you to go to each individual character with a marriage link after succession and offer them a non aggression pact again doesn't make the game more difficult, it makes it more tedious. It's not an added challenge, it's busy work.
My complaint is that flank commanders get shifted around when you merge a small army with a large army. I set the center commander of a 2000 man army to be someone with organizer for faster movement. Then I add a 100 man army to it and find my center commander has moved to the left flank. So I have to pick flank commanders again. Does this make the game more challenging? No. It makes it more difficult. Difficult as in cumbersome and inefficient.
Making the most effective way to win a game also the most tedious and boring is not good game design.