Personally I would, but the dev already answered that what I have been trying to explain you, is not a bug, on page 1... so not like I got much to lose on that bet.
Why am I losing this fight?
- Thread starter TheMeInTeam
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Personally I would, but the dev already answered that what I have been trying to explain you, is not a bug, on page 1... so not like I got much to lose on that bet.
Wiki creator =/= developer, even if the contribution is much appreciated and it's become the only real way to learn the game rules.
If some commanders can randomly leave command and not others, there needs to be a clear delineation of that, in game.
There's a reason I have the council tamed and lots of brilliant strategists. There is not a coherent reason commanders can unassign without any warning or indication, which is why we kept getting it parroted "WAD" without justification for the way it's represented...
Meneth is a developer. You can tell which people are devs because their posts are a different color.
All commanders can leave to go lead their own troops, it's just that feudal vassals generally don't have their own troops to lead during your wars. I've definitely had them leave to fight off revolts in their territories, though.
All commanders can leave to go lead their own troops, it's just that feudal vassals generally don't have their own troops to lead during your wars. I've definitely had them leave to fight off revolts in their territories, though.
Might want to look at Meneth signature instead of just his forum title.
Ah I see. The UI in this case isn't okay though. I don't think he can justify how it works vs how it's represented either, though there's an easy way to prove me wrong...
The UI is very simple. When a character is leading a flank, his portrait appears over it. When no one is leading the flank there is no portrait. Simple. You just don't like how the game works.
The commanders leading my selected army were identical to what is in 1st screenshot just prior to the battle depicted in the second screenshot. That is why I'm complaining. I had a character leading a flank, then the game decided I didn't. No warning, no indication that landing commanders is a potential risk that they disappear, just a small hosing.
So no, my point holds. I had a commander represented, then removed without warning. I assert no coherent rationale justifies the game's representation of this sequence, and so far none has been presented. Not by you, nor by anybody else in this thread so far (inclusive).
If the vassal can override my command, it needs to be represented somehow, or just put him on his army immediately, not the instant before a battle. What happens here is a cheap shot, an active misrepresentation of what will happen by the game. Which is why, by the way, it's "annoying". If this were a functional implementation, it wouldn't be as "annoying" because it wouldn't be broken.
Or you can show me that such a warning exists in the game, such that I'm just mistaken...
Last edited:
Your vassals have their own free will, your vassal contract does not stipulate that they are conscripted members of your standing army. They can choose not to command your troops as they please.
This is an argument about the UI and has been for two pages now, not one about vassal/overlord rationale.
If they're in command, the game should represent that. If they're not going to, the game should not show they will be.
- First screen shot
- Second screen shot
So no.
If you can get a save where this happens reliably (the commander being unassigned thing with no warning), go make a bug report. Well, you can make a bug report either way, but the person who trawls the bug report forum will probably tell you that it is probably a tribal vassal reassigning himself. With a save in hand, however, they can look at it and tell you exactly what is happening and whether it is working properly or if it is a legitimate bug. In other words, take this over to the bug report forum. Yelling at each other about it won't help anyone.
Just because it wasn't the intended result for you doesn't mean that it's a bug, by the way.
This thread is currently going nowhere.
The simple answer is there is no bug there.
The long answer is there is no bug there because of how characters can choose to do things. Any landed character can resign from being a commander. This is so if you are a vassal and don't want to lead your lieges troops into battle you can choose not to. Additionally if a vassal has an army raised, they can assign themselves to one of their armies.
The later in this situation is occurring. Yes he is still in the battle, but he has reassigned himself to the centre of his army. Since your centre has a 17 martial leader he takes priority. If you assign the landed ruler to the centre and the 17 martial commander to the flank, even if he lead his own troops in the fight, he would have been the centres commander - assuming another vassal didn't have a higher martial leader.
If you remove the choice for people to lead armies - which is how it used to work - there would outcries to allow it. The devs have chosen at this point that commanders can step down. It is fine for you or anyone to disagree with their choices and even provide feedback and suggestions. But calling it a bug at this point? Nope.
The simple answer is there is no bug there.
The long answer is there is no bug there because of how characters can choose to do things. Any landed character can resign from being a commander. This is so if you are a vassal and don't want to lead your lieges troops into battle you can choose not to. Additionally if a vassal has an army raised, they can assign themselves to one of their armies.
The later in this situation is occurring. Yes he is still in the battle, but he has reassigned himself to the centre of his army. Since your centre has a 17 martial leader he takes priority. If you assign the landed ruler to the centre and the 17 martial commander to the flank, even if he lead his own troops in the fight, he would have been the centres commander - assuming another vassal didn't have a higher martial leader.
If you remove the choice for people to lead armies - which is how it used to work - there would outcries to allow it. The devs have chosen at this point that commanders can step down. It is fine for you or anyone to disagree with their choices and even provide feedback and suggestions. But calling it a bug at this point? Nope.
Not to mention his screens has almost half a year between them. Plenty of time to resign. He could also stop being dramatic on missing one commander. Its influence is not THAT huge. This is not Vic2 where a leaderless army gets -20%on morale and org, -10% on speed and -2 on dice rolls.
It probably *is* a tribal vassal re-assigning himself. The problem is the UI presentation and timing of when the commander does so.
If I get another save with this I will submit it. I do not accept claims that UI and game-state being different can be WAD. That implies active dishonesty is WAD :/.
I had this same army with the same commanders selected when the AI attacked me. I'm well aware, because I save scummed this five times and started moving troops around to see if I could get different outcomes, and had a friend watching my steam broadcast as it happened.
This is flagrantly disingenuous. My complaint is expressly about the UI, not necessarily the mechanic. When the UI indicates one thing and the game does another, it's a bug. Even if the mechanic works perfectly.
It's the UI that's bugged. The UI. Continually discussing the mechanic rationale while ignoring the complaint (that the UI misrepresents it) is non-sequitur.
It's tiresome. EU 4 UI lies. HOI 4 UI lies. Even Civ 6 UI lies. This is not hyperbole.
When I show something like this:
And get told the mechanic is "WAD", the only thing it's a wad of is missing the point. I don't have much patience for this any more, because it pervades every Pdox title I've played. The above has been reported six times and completely ignored every single time. When it's a struggle to even get someone to address the complaint rather than quoting me and talking about something else, it's not a good start here either.
X = not X is not okay. Not in EU 4, not in HOI 4, not in CK 2.
- If the nation isn't going to be cobelligerent, don't lie and show me that it is.
- If the high chieftain isn't going to be a commander in the battle, don't show him as a commander immediately before the battle. If he auto-reassigns, give me indication that it happens before the fight. Representing a commander that won't fight the same as a commander that will fight within a day or two of a battle is degenerate.
It's not a bug. The guy is switching the same day as the battle starts to lead his troops. The UI was correct. The AI decided to switch. It's really quite simple.It probably *is* a tribal vassal re-assigning himself. The problem is the UI presentation and timing of when the commander does so.
If I get another save with this I will submit it. I do not accept claims that UI and game-state being different can be WAD. That implies active dishonesty is WAD :/.
I had this same army with the same commanders selected when the AI attacked me. I'm well aware, because I save scummed this five times and started moving troops around to see if I could get different outcomes, and had a friend watching my steam broadcast as it happened.
This is flagrantly disingenuous. My complaint is expressly about the UI, not necessarily the mechanic. When the UI indicates one thing and the game does another, it's a bug. Even if the mechanic works perfectly.
It's the UI that's bugged. The UI. Continually discussing the mechanic rationale while ignoring the complaint (that the UI misrepresents it) is non-sequitur.
It's tiresome. EU 4 UI lies. HOI 4 UI lies. Even Civ 6 UI lies. This is not hyperbole.
When I show something like this:
And get told the mechanic is "WAD", the only thing it's a wad of is missing the point. I don't have much patience for this any more, because it pervades every Pdox title I've played. The above has been reported six times and completely ignored every single time. When it's a struggle to even get someone to address the complaint rather than quoting me and talking about something else, it's not a good start here either.
X = not X is not okay. Not in EU 4, not in HOI 4, not in CK 2.
- If the nation isn't going to be cobelligerent, don't lie and show me that it is.
- If the high chieftain isn't going to be a commander in the battle, don't show him as a commander immediately before the battle. If he auto-reassigns, give me indication that it happens before the fight. Representing a commander that won't fight the same as a commander that will fight within a day or two of a battle is degenerate.
From the opening post, emphasis mine. Although there is an issue where the AI re-assigns themselves to command their own armies periodically with no warning, this is not your issue, in this specific case. As long as the AI is commanding your army when the battle begins, he will lead your flank like any other commander, and cannot be re-assigned mid-battle, by either of you. The reason why the flank would lack a commander in that case might be related to the number of armies attached to yours (and the order in which all of the armies joined the battle - since one of your tribal vassals' shields is shown as the battle's main defender, your army joined their battle, not the other way around, as far as the game is concerned). Every time an army joins a battle, the game evaluates whether to replace the battle's current commanders with the incoming army's new ones. This happens even with attached armies, although they join the battle instantaneously from the player's perspective. This evaluation can seem pants-on-head retarded, at times; clearly superior commanders being replaced by poor ones, turning almost-sure wins into uncontested losses. Usually the game will always prioritize filling unled flank positions, but, well, like I said...
You're saying it's not bugged because it's bugged.
If UI represents "commander" right before battle, "not commander" in battle is a clear case of UI =/= intended game state. Are you asserting the developers intentionally lie? That's the only way the position "not a bug" is rational based on what I've quoted.
This is very helpful and I appreciate it, even if it does throw yet another complication wrench into this discussion
. Still, choosing "no commander"? That's strange but given a subject's flag led the fight plausible. Odd that my other two commanders made it in just fine.I wonder if it's also intended that "attached" armies (with implication that they're following a leader) somehow beat their leader into the province. Maybe with commanders that boost move speed, but it shouldn't happen otherwise. It probably does though...you get something similar with EU 4 engine where armies attached to your leader don't actually enter the province at the same time and you can lose a small "leading stack" instantly before its reinforcements. I consider that objectively bugged (words have meaning, and the English meaning of "attach" shouldn't allow this) but it wouldn't surprise me if we have some similar engine movement timing shenanigans here.
Edit:
That's *definitely* what's going on here. The bug is that "attached" armies are beating me to the province, even though they should be following:
Also, the 80% boost is pretty soundly what made me lose originally:
They have way better troop quality but the heavy infantry just melt, but this was a complete pants-pulled-down wreckage.
Last edited:
Stop being willfully ignorant. It's not a bug just because you don't like the outcome. The UI isn't lying when the AI commander resigns and commands their own troops. There is a difference in time between "right before battle" and "during the battle" btw. The AI can make a change in that time.