Allow marshals/generals to see number of siege engines in their army

[Anaris]

Easy fix for that, don't give the marshal ability to see each individual noble's number of siege engines, just the total for the entire army.

Which is what the request was for anyway. Or at least the part that was deemed acceptable.

[Indirik]

As we discussed before, simply knowing how many siege engines are in the entire army is not only useless, but possibly devastatingly misleading. The Marshal needs to know how many siege engines are with him right now where he is, not how many are in the entire army. You always have laggers and people who don't march with the army for any number of reasons. If you have an army of 30 nobles, and 10 are not in the region with you moving to attack, then how many of those 30 siege engines are there with you ready to attack? It could be 30, it could be 12, it could be none at all. If something like this is added, it needs to be "How many siege engines my army has in the region I am in right now". If that's not how it works, then the feature is not useful for the intended purpose. Also, the Vice Marshal should get the same information for situation where the marshal is incapacitated.

[Foundation]

It's usually easier to just make the information available to both the Marshal and Vice-Marshal.

[Gustav Kuriga]

As we discussed before, simply knowing how many siege engines are in the entire army is not only useless, but possibly devastatingly misleading. The Marshal needs to know how many siege engines are with him right now where he is, not how many are in the entire army. You always have laggers and people who don't march with the army for any number of reasons. If you have an army of 30 nobles, and 10 are not in the region with you moving to attack, then how many of those 30 siege engines are there with you ready to attack? It could be 30, it could be 12, it could be none at all. If something like this is added, it needs to be "How many siege engines my army has in the region I am in right now". If that's not how it works, then the feature is not useful for the intended purpose. Also, the Vice Marshal should get the same information for situation where the marshal is incapacitated.

That doesn't make it useless. If you feel the need to micromanage so much that you need to know exactly where your siege engines are, then you might as well have asked who had siege engines, and who didn't. And besides, this is more info than you even get now, so it's not like you're getting less than you had before.

[Indirik]

That doesn't make it useless. If you feel the need to micromanage so much that you need to know exactly where your siege engines are, then you might as well have asked who had siege engines, and who didn't. And besides, this is more info than you even get now, so it's not like you're getting less than you had before.

You are correct. You're not getting "less" than you were getting. You're just getting some pointless number that is of no use to you in any way, shape, or form. Because if you're depending on this number, then you deserve your inevitable defeat. To get real, useful data, you *still* have to do the exact same thing you were doing before this suggestion, which is to as everyone how many siege engines they have. IMNSHO, adding a "Total Siege Engines in the army" figure is no more useful than an entry populated by a random number generator that changes every time you load the page.

[Anaris]

Oh, don't be absurd, Indirik.

You can also see which region every single member of the army is in. If your entire army is in the region outside your enemy's capital when you give the order to attack, then you know that all your siege engines are as in position as they can get.

If you've got one or two stragglers or inactives sitting in your capital, then odds are, they don't have more than 1 or 2 siege engines.

An "all siege engines in the army" number isn't perfect by any means, but your characterization of it is childishly extreme.

[egamma]

I find it unrealistic to think that a marshal can't simply walk out of his tent, turn in a circle, and see which nobles have siege engines, and which don't. That should be easily-available information, at least for his current region and any region that gets scouted.

[Anaris]

I find it unrealistic to think that a marshal can't simply walk out of his tent, turn in a circle, and see which nobles have siege engines, and which don't. That should be easily-available information, at least for his current region and any region that gets scouted.

As has been said a number of times, just because you're in the same region as someone else doesn't mean you're right next to them. Regions are big places.

[egamma]

As has been said a number of times, just because you're in the same region as someone else doesn't mean you're right next to them. Regions are big places.

If you are going into battle with them, surely you would be camped together.

[Anaris]

If you are going into battle with them, surely you would be camped together.

That doesn't mean you can just step outside and see them all. Especially if you're in the woods. Or a city. Or the mountains.

[Indirik]

Oh, don't be absurd, Indirik.

But... it's so much fun!

You can also see which region every single member of the army is in. If your entire army is in the region outside your enemy's capital when you give the order to attack, then you know that all your siege engines are as in position as they can get.

Sure. If you have the one army in the game that doesn't have any where from 20% on up of capital-sitting-mushrooms.

If you've got one or two stragglers or inactives sitting in your capital, then odds are, they don't have more than 1 or 2 siege engines.

An "all siege engines in the army" number isn't perfect by any means, but your characterization of it is childishly extreme.

Not extreme at all. Nobles not marching with the army is the normal state of affairs of pretty much every realm in the game. I just checked the four armies I have characters in. In all four cases, there are a significant number of nobles that simply are not with the army. It ranges from 20% to 50% of the army that are nowhere near the current location of the Marshal. (And these are not the inactive mushrooms that grow roots in the capital, either. Some of them are active characters that just didn't make it on the current campaign.) So in all four cases, the "Siege engines in the army" number would be anywhere from probably-inaccurate to downright dangerous. Enough so that I, as Marshal/General, simply would not ever trust it.

If you will recall, we had this discussion before, and the agreed resolution was exactly the suggestion I had here: The number that would be used was the number of SE's at the Marshal's current location. It's the only number that makes sense, or is even remotely useful.

[Anaris]

Sure. If you have the one army in the game that doesn't have any where from 20% on up of capital-sitting-mushrooms.

Well, then, maybe I do.

Not extreme at all. Nobles not marching with the army is the normal state of affairs of pretty much every realm in the game.

Well, then, maybe this will be incentive to get those laggards removed from the army, if they're not going to participate at all.

I am a strong advocate of being in army X actually meaning that you are supposed to, and do, follow all the orders given to army X, or you get out of army X. If we have more reason for that to happen, then that's a good thing.

I just checked the four armies I have characters in. In all four cases, there are a significant number of nobles that simply are not with the army. It ranges from 20% to 50% of the army that are nowhere near the current location of the Marshal. (And these are not the inactive mushrooms that grow roots in the capital, either. Some of them are active characters that just didn't make it on the current campaign.) So in all four cases, the "Siege engines in the army" number would be anywhere from probably-inaccurate to downright dangerous. Enough so that I, as Marshal/General, simply would not ever trust it.

So how many of those armies are part of an active military campaign, and not presently straggling home for refit?

If you will recall, we had this discussion before, and the agreed resolution was exactly the suggestion I had here: The number that would be used was the number of SE's at the Marshal's current location. It's the only number that makes sense, or is even remotely useful.

While I still disagree with your premise, I don't really have a problem with that solution

[Charles]

Is there a problem with seeing the number in the same region?  I can't think of any exploits due to this.
Would the number of SE be included in scout reports?  Most of the reasons behind the SEs being visible to the marshal also would be valid for scouts, if not more so.
As for nobles who do not follow the army, why not allow the sponsor to kick nobles out of the army? 

[Indirik]

Well, then, maybe I do.

Props to you, then.

Well, then, maybe this will be incentive to get those laggards removed from the army, if they're not going to participate at all.

It's not just laggards. It could be the character that simply went on vacation this week. Or got wounded in a previous battle/infil hit, and hasn't caught up yet. Went the wrong way and got skirmished by the enemy. Is a region or two away, doing some forward scouting. Etc., etc., etc.... Armies always have nobles that for whatever reason are not currently with the army. Getting them temporarily removed from the army is not a realistic solution. (Which was another thing we agreed on, too.)

I am a strong advocate of being in army X actually meaning that you are supposed to, and do, follow all the orders given to army X, or you get out of army X. If we have more reason for that to happen, then that's a good thing.

Me, too. But expecting that all nobles of the army are always with the army is just an unrealistically purist attitude.

So how many of those armies are part of an active military campaign, and not presently straggling home for refit?

Three of the four. The fourth, Sint, is just pathetic. (Sorry, Sint, but you know it's true. I've said as much in-game, too.)

While I still disagree with your premise, I don't really have a problem with that solution

\o/

[De-Legro]

If you are going into battle with them, surely you would be camped together.

Yes no and maybe. It really depends on the size of the army and the terrain they are passing through. It was common practice to "harvest" the locale for at least some of the food requirements of the army, especially grazing matter for horses and the baggage trains animals. This would often necessitate several camps spaced out and separated to provide access to the required amount of resources.

Well, then, maybe this will be incentive to get those laggards removed from the army, if they're not going to participate at all.

I am a strong advocate of being in army X actually meaning that you are supposed to, and do, follow all the orders given to army X, or you get out of army X. If we have more reason for that to happen, then that's a good thing.

I would love to see the composition of our armies be more dynamic and reflect the current marching strength. However so long as the Lords are responsible for army placement I just don't see this being realistic, even in realm's I've played in that have attempted to have a harsh attitude towards this have failed to always get Lords to comply. There is also the fact that armies are useful message group, and separating nobles from that group when they are unable to march to the front can lead to a form of isolation within the realm.

Perhaps if Marshals had a feature that enabled them to set active/inactive members of their army for purposes like this.