Assigning knights to an army

[fodder]

don't rulers, if present, by definition lead the army whilst on the field? if they don't, they simply shouldn't be there?

i would suggest rulers and generals simply just get included in all army channels. (though that doesn't bode well for a rebel army in planning..... tricky to resolve?) seeing as that would be the main thing about armies, knowing where to go.

just add some bonus on top if present

Marshal X takes command of his army A
General Y oversees all armies of realm B
Ruler Y can be seen in the field of battle (or some such)

perhaps by default the general/ruler gets high cohesion?

[Tom]

The ruler is always free to ignore the marshal. You won't go seeing the judge fine the ruler if he doesn't obey the marshal's commands.

You could say the same for rulers having an estate in a region of some lowly knight. And yet it won't happen, because there are also game-mechanics that equal "obeying". For example, combat settings. The marshal does tell the ruler where on the battlefield to stand.

Being part of an army shouldn't be considered being subjugated to its marshal.

Err, what???

It doesn't get much more subjugated than being subject to military commands by someone.

For gameplay's sake, I would request that rulers not be given a restriction for this. Rulers have many duties as it is, we shouldn't ask them to figure out military affairs themselves as well, on top of the diplomacy they must do.

He can always, you know, not be in any army.

[Tom]

If you were to completely follow the "can't serve under someone lower than you" ideal, then you wouldn't bother allowing the sponsor to assign a marshal. You'd just auto-assign the highest ranked noble in the army as the Marshal.

That's a good idea, but doesn't work because the army members can be from seperate parts of the hierarchy. Plus there can be several equally-high ranked nobles.

[Tom]

i would suggest rulers and generals simply just get included in all army channels.

Over my dead body. That's micro-management at its worst.

[Bedwyr]

You could say the same for rulers having an estate in a region of some lowly knight. And yet it won't happen, because there are also game-mechanics that equal "obeying". For example, combat settings. The marshal does tell the ruler where on the battlefield to stand.
Err, what???

It doesn't get much more subjugated than being subject to military commands by someone.

He can always, you know, not be in any army.

Except no one actually sees Rulers as subject to Marshals, whereas Rulers as Knights were seen as subject to their lords.  Yeah, the Marshal says where to stand...But the Ruler can remove himself from the army whenever he wants, too.  Cutting Rulers off from armies unless they are the Marshal is going to be a major problem.  Ruling is a time-consuming enough job, Marshaling on top of that would be painful, and not being in an army removes you from a lot of the battle interactions.

[Phellan]

I have to agree with Chenier. It would be very annoying for the ruler to have to be the Marshal in order to march with an army.

If you were to completely follow the "can't serve under someone lower than you" ideal, then you wouldn't bother allowing the sponsor to assign a marshal. You'd just auto-assign the highest ranked noble in the army as the Marshal.

IMO for game play purposes, we should allow anyone to be in any army.

I agree here.

Though, in my case it's moot since I am the Marshal.

[Indirik]

That's a good idea, but doesn't work because the army members can be from seperate parts of the hierarchy. Plus there can be several equally-high ranked nobles.

A duke can:
1) Create an army.
2) Assign himself to it.
3) Assign his knight to it.
4) Assign his knight as Marshal.

And thus place himself under the authority of his own vassal. How does that differ from the case of the ruler being in an army?

While I agree that we should hold to the hierarchy whenever possible, there are times when it simply doesn't work for the players.

[JPierreD]

Alternatively add him to a special position in the Army, when he joins one. Simply add him a title over the Marshal, and voi-la.

[Revan]

Surely it's only a case of language and emphasis that needs to be dealt with here? Make it so that a Ruler 'attaches' themselves to an army. When they do, have an army-wide auto message saying what a great honour it is that the ruler wishes to campaign alongside the Holy Host of Keplerstan or what have you. Bring a little pomp into it and make it mean something. Really emphasise the fact that the Ruler occupies another planet compared to your average noble. All of a sudden instead of being one among many, everyone wants the prestige of having the Ruler campaigning alongside their army.

[Tom]

Surely it's only a case of language and emphasis that needs to be dealt with here? Make it so that a Ruler 'attaches' themselves to an army. When they do, have an army-wide auto message saying what a great honour it is that the ruler wishes to campaign alongside the Holy Host of Keplerstan or what have you. Bring a little pomp into it and make it mean something. Really emphasise the fact that the Ruler occupies another planet compared to your average noble. All of a sudden instead of being one among many, everyone wants the prestige of having the Ruler campaigning alongside their army.

something like that, yes.

[Chenier]

You could say the same for rulers having an estate in a region of some lowly knight.

I don't undestand. By defenition, a knight is one without the capacity to hand out estates. Else he'd be a lord.

And rulers do have to live somewhere... And that somewhere quite often was not the kingdom's biggest city, it was often some small town/castle in the middle of farmlands. I wouldn't see why they shouldn't be able to take up an estate in any region, as long as you make them tax-exempt to make it clear that they aren't subjugated to anyone.

And yet it won't happen, because there are also game-mechanics that equal "obeying". For example, combat settings. The marshal does tell the ruler where on the battlefield to stand.

Err, what???

It doesn't get much more subjugated than being subject to military commands by someone.

In medieval times, from what I gathered, nobles would sometimes come to the battlefield with their men, and then judge whether or not the felt like participating in said battles would not. They could come, and then say "screw this, we aren't being offered enough to fight here" and turn back. You didn't give an oath of fealty and loyalty to that marshal, only to (perhaps) the person who gave him the responsibility. The marshal coordinates the nobles, and his authority only comes from the fact that someone higher up is backing up his instructions. "Marshal" doesn't figure in the feudal hierarchy for a reason. Medieval armies are nothing like modern armies. Nobles could get away with a lot of things that officers today could never dream of doing.

While unit formations are indeed a sign of subjugation, this could be solved by giving the ruler the ability to check a box "follow/don't follow marshal formations". It would be foolish to think that whenever a king was present on the battlefield, he would always decide on how everyone would deploy. I won't pull a random percentage out of my ass, but I'm convinced that some kings were more than happy to follow the suggestions of a trusted military leader. Not ever ruler is born to be a military leader. And some of them recognize this, and would rather maximize their odds of success by delegating the task to someone they trust to do better than they would. Being at the top doesn't mean you won't ever listen to anyone other than yourself.

He can always, you know, not be in any army.

In some cases, it wouldn't matter. In others, it would just suck. Why force the ruler out of the armies? They always have been a part of the armies. And a lot of players play this game for the war aspect. Forcing the rulers out would not be fun for many of them. Many are already courtiers, but they shouldn't be forced to become one if they don't want to.

If you meant "they could continue fighting with the army without technically being part of it", then what's the point? It's just creating a big headache for some people with no reward whatsoever. It is already quite obvious to everyone that the ruler is at the top and owes nothing to nobody. Forcing rulers out of armies, or forcing them to be their own marshals, would be promoting a vision of medieval armies that I don't see as being correct and adding unnecessary restrictions to the gameplay of rulers. With no gain.

And what next? Are dukes also not going to be part of armies, because that marshal is a mere lord and therefore inferior? And lords too, if the marshal is a mere knight, and therefore inferior? May as well have nobody in the army. It's a slippery slope, because it's not any more valid for rulers than for dukes and lords, imo, as all of them appoint themselves to the army as they like and have the power to change armies or found one themselves if they wish.

Alternatively add him to a special position in the Army, when he joins one. Simply add him a title over the Marshal, and voi-la.

We already have that. It's called "Ruler", or "King", "Hetman", "Prime Minister", or whatever other variation. As I and Bedwyr has said, nobody actually thinks the marshal is superior to the ruler he supposedly "commands". When I was a marshal, and had instructions for the ruler, I would label it as a request, not an order. If he didn't follow it, I didn't bitch about it. And if I had, I would have been the one ridiculed, not him. There is absolutely no need to add a synonym to "ruler" in their titles. Some people (myself included) already have long enough titles as it is.

[JPierreD]

And rulers do have to live somewhere... And that somewhere quite often was not the kingdom's biggest city, it was often some small town/castle in the middle of farmlands. I wouldn't see why they shouldn't be able to take up an estate in any region, as long as you make them tax-exempt to make it clear that they aren't subjugated to anyone.

This is actually a very interesting suggestion. To give the King the ability to take for himself any vacant estate, completely lord tax free, which cannot be resized by the lord. Though it would create some conflict between the given lord and the king (not that such is necessarily bad), it would solve the King/Knight dichotomy without forcing him to be also a Lord and a Duke. It would also require him to be kicked out of the estate if he loses/gives up the crown.

And what next? Are dukes also not going to be part of armies, because that marshal is a mere lord and therefore inferior? And lords too, if the marshal is a mere knight, and therefore inferior? May as well have nobody in the army. It's a slippery slope, because it's not any more valid for rulers than for dukes and lords, imo, as all of them appoint themselves to the army as they like and have the power to change armies or found one themselves if they wish.

Simply give a similar message to the suggested for the King to any Duke or Lord that joins the army, and when displaying its members make a clear separation between Knight members (sent by others to serve) and Lord/Duke/King members (voluntarily participating).

[Chenier]

This is actually a very interesting suggestion. To give the King the ability to take for himself any vacant estate, completely lord tax free, which cannot be resized by the lord. Though it would create some conflict between the given lord and the king (not that such is necessarily bad), it would solve the King/Knight dichotomy without forcing him to be also a Lord and a Duke. It would also require him to be kicked out of the estate if he loses/gives up the crown.

I don't see the need to have the king kicked out of his estates when he loses the crown, as long as he loses his tax immunity. And indeed, you'd need it for it to be shrinkable by the ruler himself, with the lord able to enlarge it if he wants.

What are the new estate changes going to change about capitals, again? I seem to recall a lot of "we aren't sure yet". Will capitals be able to be in townlands now? If so, it would make sense if there was a restriction stating that the ruler can only have an estate in the capital of the realm. The king's center of activities wasn't always in huge cities, as I said, but his center of activity is by definition the kingdom's capital. The possibility of having a capital in a town would be historically plausible, and it would give the ruler a few more options to move the capital to where he comes from, just like it was historically for multiple new kings (probably when dynasties changed).

Simply give a similar message to the suggested for the King to any Duke or Lord that joins the army, and when displaying its members make a clear separation between Knight members (sent by others to serve) and Lord/Duke/King members (voluntarily participating).

There already is. Instead of having the message "X was sent by his liege to serve in your army", you get "X has assigned himself to your army". It's already clear that he does it of his own will. And people know this. I don't see why we should try anything harsher.

[JPierreD]

I don't see the need to have the king kicked out of his estates when he loses the crown, as long as he loses his tax immunity. And indeed, you'd need it for it to be shrinkable by the ruler himself, with the lord able to enlarge it if he wants.

Following the idea, a ruler could be appointed as lord of a region, making it an Imperial Region (yes, bringing the concept back) whose taxes go fully into Realm Share, not incurring in the penalties as Imperial Regions ruled by non-king lords.

[Chenier]

Following the idea, a ruler could be appointed as lord of a region, making it an Imperial Region (yes, bringing the concept back) whose taxes go fully into Realm Share, not incurring in the penalties as Imperial Regions ruled by non-king lords.

If a ruler's region is imperial, though, that would prevent him from also being a duke at the same time. A simple tax exemption would not have this (considerable) restriction.