Where is your place in the Kingdom?

[unmerged(485)]

Different thread. Different idea.

In EU you were the man behind the throne. Now in CK it seems that you are the monarch himself. So as the monarch do you have an army/unit/whatever which represents you on the map. You know, like Henry V of England - while he lives (as a leader) he is present on the map at all times. Will it be the same in CK? Or will you float in the ether as a non-entity ala EU?

 

[Hartmann]

Yeah, I want to be on the map!

Hartmann

 

[unmerged(485)]

If the monarch is on the map would it make a difference where he was? Would loyalty be boosted in the province where the monarch was located. Could the AI handle these kinds of situations if they are in the game?

 

[unmerged(9167)]

Yeah, if people see King, they tends to be happy to see their king becuz most of them never even seen the King. Same for armies because he is their King. Maybe, should gibe +1 morale bonus to armies the King is with and province get productivity increased either becuz they are happier or fear him.

 

[Winkelried]

There should definitely be an alter ego on the map. He/you would have impact on army morale, performance loyalty etc. but risk to be killed during a battle, or like Richard I. while commanding a siege.

On the other hand the AI should be able to handle this, or the player would always go for the army with the monarch/regent in order to cause turmoil to the enemy kingdom.

 

[Hartmann]

Well, there were times when at least the Holy Roman Emperor used to move around all the time from Pfalz to Pfalz.

Hartmann

 

[unmerged(1057)]

Originally posted by Hartmann
Well, there were times when at least the Holy Roman Emperor used to move around all the time from Pfalz to Pfalz.

Hartmann

Yes, this was the usual way of any soverreign during the early Middle Ages anyway.
In Sweden we have the Husaby system, much like the Pfalz in Germany

 

[Dark Knight]

The monarch should definitely be represented on the map as a leader. This way he could take part in battles and possibly be killed (which should remove him as a monarch also, unlike EU).

Besides, how will they be able to take part in Crusades if they aren't physically present?

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
The monarch should definitely be represented on the map as a leader. This way he could take part in battles and possibly be killed (which should remove him as a monarch also, unlike EU).

Or even worse, be captured, like Richard I on the way back from the Holy Land. Draining your country dry for a ransom would be quite the headache!

 

[unmerged(1302)]

What if the king is not fitted (or too young) to be on the battlefield?

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

A crib at the city of his nursury?

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Crook
What if the king is not fitted (or too young) to be on the battlefield?

When are you too young? King Inge the Hunchback of Norway got his hunch from an injury in a battle when he was two years old

 

[unmerged(1302)]

Originally posted by Havard

When are you too young? King Inge the Hunchback of Norway got his hunch from an injury in a battle when he was two years old

But he hardly was in command. How are we gonna calculate the effect of a baby king presence in a specific place on the loyalty of nobles?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Demetrios


Or even worse, be captured, like Richard I on the way back from the Holy Land. Draining your country dry for a ransom would be quite the headache!

Or Louis IX in Egypt. Or Jean II (or was it I?) at Poitiers.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Crook
What if the king is not fitted (or too young) to be on the battlefield?

Maybe the king should also be able to hid in garrisons. But they should be present so as to have to prevent themselves from falling into enemy hands during a war.

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Crook


But he hardly was in command. How are we gonna calculate the effect of a baby king presence in a specific place on the loyalty of nobles?

Not in command, no

I'd say the precense of a baby king should affect through loyalty - bonus with loyal nobles, not with unloyal ones...?

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Havard

I'd say the precense of a baby king should affect through loyalty - bonus with loyal nobles, not with unloyal ones...?

No, it would be more realistic for the loyalty of everyone to decrease.

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Dark Knight

No, it would be more realistic for the loyalty of everyone to decrease.

Well... there would, as always in these cases, be some powerful noble(s) behind the king that I'd assume would be quite loyal?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Havard

Well... there would, as always in these cases, be some powerful noble(s) behind the king that I'd assume would be quite loyal?

And others who would see it as their chance to gain power by being the regent or taking over the kingdom completely.

 

[unmerged(6324)]

Originally posted by Zhai
Yeah, if people see King, they tends to be happy to see their king becuz most of them never even seen the King. Same for armies because he is their King. Maybe, should gibe +1 morale bonus to armies the King is with and province get productivity increased either becuz they are happier or fear him.

Yes most definately. I think that is the same for today too, like in England and the Belgium where they have a monarch, unlike the US...I mean, I think the reason the monarchs even still exist in Europe is because the people like them as historical and moral boosting leaders, but of course serve no real power. I am not European, I just hear this from what the USA writes about Europe and stuff. So I am sorry if I may be mistaken. I am also sorry for getting off topic, I shall stop now. But you are very correct Zhai, definately needs some recognition...