I think it's stupid, really. Why can't my ruler decide to retire from an active life? I wish there was a way to make my ruler stop being a general.
Why can't the ruler stop being a general?
- Thread starter joos
- 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.
Because making him general give him general stats, and if you could unmade him as general it could give him new stats? And this would need more work? Also if you don't put him in charge of army this does not change anything anyway... Also - you can, you just need to edit save, and delete him as general.
I had a 9/9/9 stadthalter as The Hansa, he lived from 1471 to 1524, the guy must have fought over a hundred battles with his 6 shock, 5 maneuver.
There are so many things right now in the game mechanics which you can exploit if you don't have the restraint and the taste for the game. So adding one more is not going to change the game for those who don't want to exploit the mechanics anyway.
I am just saying, that for a small OPM that cannot muster up enough army tradition to hire a good general and thus has to rely on its ruler, it can be quite hard when that ruler dies two years after he was crowned, and we are not even at war!
EDIT: But then again, if I am a small OPM, I shouldn't be bothering with a military in the first place.
Simple solution is to alter the code that determines if your leader dies . Rather than being effected by a ruler being a general to your ruler being a general "IN" combat.
Trust me when I say that rulers in combat are far more likely to impale themselves on their riding crop or trip on their shoelaces to death.
No i understand this... what i was referring to is that a leader as a general doing nothing still has a higher chance to die.
Not realy. Got all my kings as general and most of them lived long. Aspecialy when i wanted them to die. Like 3/3/3 king of poland... "All hail, King of the Loosers"?
Ruler deathdate is not defined by the rules for generals, they live the same regardless if they're a general or not.
Obviously they can still die in battle/seige, so if you don't want a dead monarch don't send him into battle.
You sure about that? My rulers certainly seems to die quicker when they have been converted into a general (for some national decisions) that had never been attached to a unit for combat.
The simple answer is to look at the code. Is it hard-coded so that we cannot see? If so this requires the response of a DEV and everything we say is speculation. Well, other than the obvious death in combat events.
Yep.
Rule deathdate is independant of whether they've been a leader.
it's also ridiculous that generals die easly in battles. ottoman padisahs always commanded their armies and anyone of them never died in battle. it should be same for the european commanders too. they dont go in direct battle at the end.
just giving orders and stuff.
just giving orders and stuff.
..Death in Battle at that time was more likely to by bad water, disease, malnutrition or infected wounds (like scratching themselves on their dirty pocket knife..). So a general certainly could die in Battle..
Also, with deathtolls in the ten-thousands from numerous battles, why is it so extraorinary that a single general or two dies "in battle"?
But of course you will leave your generals at home when not at war, by using the "no leader" button on the army with the leader.
@Dalsakar:
There were a lot of european generals who died in battles, just check some at Wikipedia.
I forgot who it was, but at some point they started to be more in the background at a certain date.
There were a lot of european generals who died in battles, just check some at Wikipedia.
I forgot who it was, but at some point they started to be more in the background at a certain date.