Ruler and Army

[Zakilevo]

How does a ruler assign himself to an army? I mean he doesn't have a lord to do it for him anymore.

[Draco Tanos]

He doesn't, as he cannot be under his vassals, which a Marshal likely is.  It's a known annoyance.

[fodder]

or for that matter... a duke who isn't a lord. i would imagine?

[Shizzle]

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,1377.msg28081.html#msg28081

This part has not yet been decided. There is a debate on exactly how rulers should interact with armies. I think it is safe to say that ruler will be able to be in armies, but that the exact method of how they do it is still TBD.

[Jeckyl]

Well if they are adamant about retaining hierarchy, maybe implement a way for the ruler to "attach" themselves to the army and not actually be "assigned" the army? From the dawn of warfare up to the modern day, civilians and high ranking officials have joined campaigns, wars, and missions. Either they are considered observers, they differ to the military expertise of the one already in command, or they take command entirely.

And come to think of it, maybe certain classes in general should only be "attached" to an army and not "assigned" to it. Traders for example. Since I recently switched one of my chars to trader, I have to deal with a pesky marshal who keeps trying to order my char around. All I can tell him is "sorry, I'm 20 regions away looking for food.". Most of the time I simply ignore him though. Point being however, even though my char is assigned to the army, he's not REALLY a part of it. I think it would help for the Marshal to at least to be able to differentiate nobles he has command over, and those he has zero control over what so ever.

[Velax]

I think it would help for the Marshal to at least to be able to differentiate nobles he has command over, and those he has zero control over what so ever.

If a noble isn't going to ever follow the orders of the Marshal or have any interaction with that army, then he shouldn't be part of that army.

As to the original topic, it has nothing to do with IC hierarchy. If that was the case, dukes shouldn't be able to join an army commanded by someone who isn't a duke or higher. And rulers who are also dukes wouldn't be able to assign themselves. It's solely to do with rulers not having an estate and thus not being able to be assigned. Why the devs can't just add in a separate command for rulers and dukes who aren't also lords, I don't know.

[Shizzle]

If a noble isn't going to ever follow the orders of the Marshal or have any interaction with that army, then he shouldn't be part of that army.

Couldn't agree more. As a Marshal, I simply hate to have Lords/Priests in my army, knowing they will never follow orders. Mainly Lord Pyrix in Thalmarkin (not wanting to attack the player here)

Also, if your Lord assigns you to an army, you are expected to follow it's commands. If you can't comply, your Lord should force you to, or remove you from the army altogether.

The problem is probably that some realms mainly seem alive through their armies, and you miss out on a lot of correspondence not being part of them

[Penchant]

I am a trader and in an army. The way I deal with my job of trading is when I want to go travel around to trade I simply ask the marshall permission who always says yes and then I am exempt from orders because of permission instead of just saying I am a trader so I will ignore you like Jeckyl (no offence).

[Shizzle]

I am a trader and in an army. The way I deal with my job of trading is when I want to go travel around to trade I simply ask the marshall permission who always says yes and then I am exempt from orders because of permission instead of just saying I am a trader so I will ignore you like Jeckyl (no offence).

So why not temporarily leave the army? Are you a Lord?

[vonGenf]

So why not temporarily leave the army? Are you a Lord?

What's the problem if the marshal is fine with it? It an be sueful to be in an army, since then you know where the bulk of the army is, you knopw what's going on, and you can react if needed.

[Jeckyl]

If a noble isn't going to ever follow the orders of the Marshal or have any interaction with that army, then he shouldn't be part of that army.

Given the unique position my character finds himself in (or at least used to), he follows the army for a bit, then sets out again looking for food.

[Chenier]

He doesn't, as he cannot be under his vassals, which a Marshal likely is.  It's a known annoyance.

What if he's the marshal himself?

Not to mention that this implies that kings never went to battles if they didn't directly command the forces? Of course he's the guy in charge that gets the final say, but I'm making the (baseless, I admit) assumption that sometimes he was more than happy to let his general/marshal/whatever bark all of the orders. Not all kings were natural leaders, after all.

[fodder]

i don't think the king will let his marshal tell him where to go. not in front of everyone else. (they might figure out this that or other the night before.. .after "consultations")

so one would think the way it works is.. king at the head of the army. he then either do the bossing around, or tell the general/marshal or whoever to boss everyone else around.

[Chenier]

i don't think the king will let his marshal tell him where to go. not in front of everyone else. (they might figure out this that or other the night before.. .after "consultations")

so one would think the way it works is.. king at the head of the army. he then either do the bossing around, or tell the general/marshal or whoever to boss everyone else around.

Who is to say that the king isn't telling the marshal what formations to put everyone in?

I think these kinds of restrictions just create necessary frustrations. It's not hard to think of an excuse to support why the king would follow the formations, so why these restrictions that add absolutely no fun to the game?

[Anaris]

Just to make this quite clear: there has, as yet, been no firm conscious decision to exclude the Ruler from the army. Extra code is needed to accommodate the fact that the Ruler has no liege, and may have no estate. It hasn't been written yet.

Tom has made some noise, in the past, about preventing the Ruler from taking orders from someone else in the realm. However, this current situation is not a consequence of that, but rather a natural consequence of some of the New Estate System changes.