Suggestion: Loyalty of armies and commanders

[fodazd]

Hello.

In CK2, there was not much consequence to who you chose as commander besides their effectiveness in battle. It didn't matter how much they liked you, because there was no possibility for them to rebel in any way, at least not using the troops you give them. I would suggest to change that, and make the decision of who you want to pick as your commanders more of a trade-off between their abilities and their loyalty to you, just like with your vassals and councilors.

To implement this, I would make the title of "commander" an actual title that you can grant, not just an honorary title. The title itself would be landless, but still have the corresponding army attached to it, sort of how mercenaries, holy orders and adventurers worked in CK2. You as the ruler would still have to pay for the upkeep of the army though. Other than that, the holder of a commander title would function pretty much like a normal vassal, which means they can rebel when you try to revoke their commander title or try to imprison them, as well as form or join factions together with other vassals. You could also hold a commander title yourself, but only when you command the corresponding army personally.

What is your opinion on a system like that? Should the loyalty of people you pick as commanders matter? If yes, would a system like the one I described above work to achieve that goal?

 

[J.B.]

Some Total War games have instituted a commander loyalty system. Something like that in Crusader Kings should be possible, but perhaps not too likely, as it would simply be frustrating to have it happen too much. What were historical commander desertion or revolt examples, in reality? Maybe have game rules settings for them, much like revolt frequencies?

 

[treb]

Some Total War games have instituted a commander loyalty system. Something like that in Crusader Kings should be possible, but perhaps not too likely, as it would simply be frustrating to have it happen too much. What were historical commander desertion or revolt examples, in reality? Maybe have game rules settings for them, much like revolt frequencies?

It was a common occurrence in Byzantium and the middle east. Mainly as a function of there armies not being as heavily levy based.

 

[AlphaCitrouille]

It could be an idea but for some specific governments. It souldn't be possible for feudal realms I believe. I could imagine that in the future if Paradox creates more bureaucratic-based and less levy-based government types like Byzantines or China.

 

[Blackwhitecavias]

I'm personally against such a system without proper mechanics around it (which I don't expect there will be). I do not want it to be necessary to micromanage all your armies and rotate commanders (to prevent them from rebelling with that 1 army). Permanent commanders also weren't something in Western Europe, tribal area's and probably many other regions in the game meaning that such a mechanic would generally not make sense and I believe there are other mechanics for bureaucratic empires that would be more important than commanders, but when they do an extensive expansion on the Byzantines and imperial mechanics I could see such mechanics being implemented, but not before then.

 

[Denkt]

In CK2, there was not much consequence to who you chose as commander besides their effectiveness in battle. It didn't matter how much they liked you, because there was no possibility for them to rebel in any way, at least not using the troops you give them. I would suggest to change that, and make the decision of who you want to pick as your commanders more of a trade-off between their abilities and their loyalty to you, just like with your vassals and councilors.

A character that don't like you should probably refuse to become commander, that is the simple solution and it make sense that someone that don't like you should not want to help you.

 

[fodazd]

Regarding historical examples of revolting or politically threatening generals I found on wikipedia:
-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_I_Komnenos
-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artabasdos
-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_VI_Kantakouzenos
-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasif_al-Turki
-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badr_al-Jamali

The main problem with finding examples in the time-period seems to be that the function of "general" doesn't seem all that widespread outside of the byzantines and the middle east. Disconnecting the role of a military leader from the role of just holding land in a feudal realm doesn't seem to be so easy in most of europe. However, I don't think that means appointing a landed vassal who doesn't like you as commander of your army should be a good idea.
The main examples of revolting generals that come to mind are outside the time period of CK, like Caesar or Napoleon.


Regarding Micromanagement: The fact that hiring and firing commanders did not have much actual consequence in CK2 meant that you had to do it much more frequently when you wanted to be effective. If generals can actually rebel in response to you revoking their command position, then you would naturally think twice before just rapidly cycling commanders all the time. So I don't think a system like this would actually lead to more micromanagement.


Yes, just not allowing characters who don't like you to be appointed as commanders would also be a good enough solution maybe? At least until a more robust system can be implemented.

 

[Denkt]

Well you have stuff like this:

 

[Ollum]

Hello.

In CK2, there was not much consequence to who you chose as commander besides their effectiveness in battle. It didn't matter how much they liked you, because there was no possibility for them to rebel in any way, at least not using the troops you give them. I would suggest to change that, and make the decision of who you want to pick as your commanders more of a trade-off between their abilities and their loyalty to you, just like with your vassals and councilors.

To implement this, I would make the title of "commander" an actual title that you can grant, not just an honorary title. The title itself would be landless, but still have the corresponding army attached to it, sort of how mercenaries, holy orders and adventurers worked in CK2. You as the ruler would still have to pay for the upkeep of the army though. Other than that, the holder of a commander title would function pretty much like a normal vassal, which means they can rebel when you try to revoke their commander title or try to imprison them, as well as form or join factions together with other vassals. You could also hold a commander title yourself, but only when you command the corresponding army personally.

What is your opinion on a system like that? Should the loyalty of people you pick as commanders matter? If yes, would a system like the one I described above work to achieve that goal?

I agree, but revolts should be quite rare. For example, you are fighting with powerful enemy, but you are winning war. Suddenly, general becomes disloyal (e.g. event) and revolts. This revolt will be very frustrating and you will lose this war.

 

[ray243]

I agree, but revolts should be quite rare. For example, you are fighting with powerful enemy, but you are winning war. Suddenly, general becomes disloyal (e.g. event) and revolts. This revolt will be very frustrating and you will lose this war.

It will be fine as long as there is a logical chain of events leading up to the rebellion. Generals don't rebel at random. It's up to a player to manage those generals. If you manage your generals well, you don't need to worry about rebellion. If you mismanage them, then you have to worry about rebellion no matter how big your army is.

I'm personally against such a system without proper mechanics around it (which I don't expect there will be). I do not want it to be necessary to micromanage all your armies and rotate commanders (to prevent them from rebelling with that 1 army). Permanent commanders also weren't something in Western Europe, tribal area's and probably many other regions in the game meaning that such a mechanic would generally not make sense and I believe there are other mechanics for bureaucratic empires that would be more important than commanders, but when they do an extensive expansion on the Byzantines and imperial mechanics I could see such mechanics being implemented, but not before then.

You shouldn't have to micromanage all of your armies, but you should be able to organise your armies into sectors or regionally based, and appoint senior leaders based on that. Those senior leaders will then appoint more junior sub-leaders within their chain of command, based on their own personal networrks and etc.

You can split your standing army into 4 major commands, i.e. North-South-East-West, and you are only in charge of appointing the leaders of those four command.

 

[fodazd]

Regarding the video:
Firstly, it shows that being far away from home leading troops could be disadvantageous for succession-purposes in real life. I don't really expect CK3 to be able to handle stuff like this, because it would likely incentivize a more boring style of play where you don't want you or your heir out in the field leading troops... I mean, you don't want that regardless most of the time, simply because it's dangerous, but we don't need any additional reasons to stay at home beyond that in my opinion.
Secondly, sub-commanders of armies just deciding to run away at the first sign of trouble and thereby throwing the battle would be a classic application of a morale system, and less about a loyalty system... But who knows, maybe a commander who never liked you in the first place might prefer to be known as a coward over being known as a traitor.

Regarding revolts causing you to lose a war:
This could also happen with landed vassals revolting during a war. I think generals revolting shouldn't be a random event, but it should use the faction system, just like revolts by landed vassals.

Regarding sub-commanders:
Yes, commanders being able to appoint sub-commanders would make sense in my opinion.

 

[Denkt]

Maybe I should not have posted the video since I dont support disloyalty stuff anyway.

 

[ray243]

Regarding sub-commanders:
Yes, commanders being able to appoint sub-commanders would make sense in my opinion.

Yeah. I won't want too much micromanagement in the game. But having some sort of personal networks for commanders will work wonders. You aren't just appointing a commander. You are appointing the commander and all his friends that he trusts.