There's your problem - you need to wait for them to attach to you, rather than you attaching to them. If you attach to them, you're saying "this army is the main leading army, I am just following it".
No, they are attaching to me. I give the order, they move to me and stick. If I don't move, they don't move. They move when I do. That's what attach implies, and in working mechanics does.
I have repeatedly said that anyone who has his levies raised for war is going to lead those troops, you can pretty much count on it. So if you make people with raised levies lead your army, they will always abandon their posts. Always.
That's pure non-sequitur to what you quoted:
A valid response would have been to show me where the game let me know this would happen. An invalid response is claiming someone doesn't have enough trial and error gameplay behind them to know which aspects of the UI are broken.
What actually occurs in the game is that you get the same visual feedback on who is commanding which flank pre-battle regardless. The game does not say, players "just have to know" that it's bugged.
And it is, because x = not x is exactly what's happening in the game. Two presented cases with no obvious reason to expect a different outcome between them.
Formulas in running text is not standard English unless you are writing an academic paper, and that sentence still doesn't make any sense.
Replace x with "commander leading flank". I use x = not x because it's unfortunately common to Paradox titles to make the UI claim something, then do something else. As a result, I replace the bug with a variable. Across several games Pdox has a recurring class of x = not x bugs.
60 > 60, 10% > 10%, fort = no fort (and the reverse), commander = not commander, cobelligerent = not cobelligerent are some easy examples from different titles. Some of them have been patched by now, others not.
I don't see how it's fair to call this "annoying", I write it this way because x = not x is tautologically false, the game makes tautologically false statements, and yet I routinely see people make the case that this is either somehow okay or even not bugged, despite the obvious self-inconsistency.
While this may be an appropriate way to play the game in light of AI commander's way of doing things, it would be nice if the game gave some indication that that is what happened. As is, we don't actually know what was going on since we don't have a save. Further arguing isn't helping.
Actually in this case we kind of do, because of the non-Polish flag leading the army (see post 59 and its quote). An attached army took command rather than the army it was attached to, and overrode a strong commander with nothing in one of the three slots as it filled in for combat (or in the second case, a skill 1 commander).
How an attached army gets there "first" as opposed to the leading army is another issue. It's kind of nonsense if having vassals follow you necessarily blocks you from using commanders of your choosing.
It's also clearly not the reason for the battle loss (that being the 80% boost to defense for pagan), just to bring the discussion up to speed.
