Campaigns

[pcw27]

Giving marshals and vice marshals an option to message some/all allied marshals, vice marshals and generals would pretty much cover this. Maybe restrict it to federation only.

[De-Legro]

Giving marshals and vice marshals an option to message some/all allied marshals, vice marshals and generals would pretty much cover this. Maybe restrict it to federation only.

I think you are missing the point. The new system is trying to move away from enforced message groups and allow some measure of customization.

[fodder]

the more armies there are, the higher the cost? adding armies will incur cost? is there upkeep?

[Tom]

I'm still working out the details.

[vonGenf]

Among other things, you have to be in the army to be part of a campaign, because only armies can join a campaign, not individual characters. That should exclude, say, priests. And many others.

Priests can join armies.

[De-Legro]

Priests can join armies.

Can lead them too, well sort of.

[Anaris]

That's not really intentional. Priests should be removed from armies upon class change, and barred from joining them.

[Solari]

That's not really intentional. Priests should be removed from armies upon class change, and barred from joining them.

:'(

[Gustav Kuriga]

And if I want to use priests strategically as part of a theocracy?

[Indirik]

Go ahead. Just do it outside the army.

[Blue Star]

Can't this be done simply by guilds or even religion(Theocracy)?

[De-Legro]

That's not really intentional. Priests should be removed from armies upon class change, and barred from joining them.

Pity, I really liked my Warrior Priest leading his army, even if you know he couldn't lead any troops himself, or actually enter the battlefield to use marshal settings.

[Azerax]

Pity, I really liked my Warrior Priest leading his army, even if you know he couldn't lead any troops himself, or actually enter the battlefield to use marshal settings.

Historically, priests have acted outside the authority of the military because the Vatican has been so powerful.  The priest would not lead the army, but would indeed hold a very high position among the advisers to the military campaign (and probably provided much of the financial support).

(yes, I know, this isn't a history simulator)

[De-Legro]

Historically, priests have acted outside the authority of the military because the Vatican has been so powerful.  The priest would not lead the army, but would indeed hold a very high position among the advisers to the military campaign (and probably provided much of the financial support).

(yes, I know, this isn't a history simulator)

Historically for the Christian/Catholic church yes. Though some rebellions have been lead by Priest.

[Azerax]

Historically for the Christian/Catholic church yes. Though some rebellions have been lead by Priest.

Name one? In every major religion the church has held separate power from the state.  (Yes, the church has declared the war, but has still been separate from the military force it raised.)