SP - General Bring Back Marshall Title

[CryoNomad]

Devs,

Please bring back the Marshall title given to a lord.

Have them create armies for much cheaper or if they are in an army not headed by the King they call the shots on the battlefield. Give them a relationship boost with the King if given the title. I'd also suggest maybe having cohesion decay at a slightly slower rate.

 

[AverageSturgian]

Devs,

Please bring back the Marshall title given to a lord.

Have them create armies for much cheaper or if they are in an army not headed by the King they call the shots on the battlefield. Give them a relationship boost with the King if given the title. I'd also suggest maybe having cohesion decay at a slightly slower rate.

+1. It may be even wise to have 2 marshalls and only these two guys( + king) will be eligible to create armies. Every lord should not be able to create an army but instead should be a system like convicing a marsall to support you and follow you into battle or a siege. Of course this idea can be possible only if there is a logical and effective way for the AI of giving fiefs to lords and not being "consumed" by power hungry kings.

 

[ZydrateTheSmoothCriminal]

+1. It may be even wise to have 2 marshalls and only these two guys( + king) will be eligible to create armies. Every lord should not be able to create an army but instead should be a system like convicing a marsall to support you and follow you into battle or a siege. Of course this idea can be possible only if there is a logical and effective way for the AI of giving fiefs to lords and not being "consumed" by power hungry kings.

+

 

[drallim33]

Can you guys explain in more detail why you want this and what problems it would solve? I can think of some pros and cons but I want to know what you are thinking and you have not given any reasons.

 

[AverageSturgian]

Can you guys explain in more detail why you want this and what problems it would solve? I can think of some pros and cons but I want to know what you are thinking and you have not given any reasons.

1. Marshalls will delay the army creation, which right now seems to be very rapid, being a small part of the reasons that cause total war. The delay is derived by the fact that only specific agents at a specific time in each faction will be able to gather a stong force and this will be further restricted by the power, personality, influence and location of the marshall. Some marshalls may be more defensive and will not attack and some other more agressive.

2.If the marshalls take decision based on their personallity, we may have some periods with strong offensive actions and some others with no expansion at all.

3.Army creation is not a simple decision in terms of history or roleplay. Creating an army should be an achievement for the player and it may create the feeling of gradually ascending the power rankings of a faction.

4.When being a king, having a marshall will ensure (possibly) that your lords will not declare random wars and they will always be forced to follow either your army or your marshall's army.

5. If marshalls are going to be a thing then the player as a king should be able to issue specific orders. This will help the player to focus on a specific playstyle (for example to defend more than attack) and it may offer a more strategic insight of dealing with sieges, intruders, or attacking (for example sent the marshall to besiege a castle, lure the AI to defend and then you as a player go and besiege another one, your real target)

6.If the system of rebellions is going to be applied to the near future, marshalls with high influence may act as unsurpers, thus forcing the player or the AI to frequently allocate the position to different people, thus ensuring that during a gameplay the player may experience different war-behaviours, thus not allowing every random lord to be a rebel- just be cause i hate you - giving a little bit more depth.

7.Marshalls can be used to calculate more complex decisions regarding peace and war declarations. This means that if the decision to declare war is bound only to faction strength or financial power - the marshall option can be a new variable.
So the "marshall" variable's conditions will add or change this outcome. Example: If a faction has a current marshal with high influence, defensive personallity and 3 fiefs with over 300 militias then there will be a x% chance (combined with the other factors) to affect positively a peace declaration to take place .

8. Overall marshalls may affect roleplay by making the king seem more like a king, and it may give a feeling of realism to the game.

These are just simple quick thoughts, i am not by any means a developer or someone with special knowledge on gaming design.

 

[MakinTorf]

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

maybe for the beginning it would be nice, that only lords with a specific high count of troops can make armies.

but i totally support bringing marshals back to the game

 

[jasonpct]

1. Marshalls will delay the army creation, which right now seems to be very rapid, being a small part of the reasons that cause total war. The delay is derived by the fact that only specific agents at a specific time in each faction will be able to gather a stong force and this will be further restricted by the power, personality, influence and location of the marshall. Some marshalls may be more defensive and will not attack and some other more agressive.

2.If the marshalls take decision based on their personallity, we may have some periods with strong offensive actions and some others with no expansion at all.

3.Army creation is not a simple decision in terms of history or roleplay. Creating an army should be an achievement for the player and it may create the feeling of gradually ascending the power rankings of a faction.

4.When being a king, having a marshall will ensure (possibly) that your lords will not declare random wars and they will always be forced to follow either your army or your marshall's army.

5. If marshalls are going to be a thing then the player as a king should be able to issue specific orders. This will help the player to focus on a specific playstyle (for example to defend more than attack) and it may offer a more strategic insight of dealing with sieges, intruders, or attacking (for example sent the marshall to besiege a castle, lure the AI to defend and then you as a player go and besiege another one, your real target)

6.If the system of rebellions is going to be applied to the near future, marshalls with high influence may act as unsurpers, thus forcing the player or the AI to frequently allocate the position to different people, thus ensuring that during a gameplay the player may experience different war-behaviours, thus not allowing every random lord to be a rebel- just be cause i hate you - giving a little bit more depth.

7.Marshalls can be used to calculate more complex decisions regarding peace and war declarations. This means that if the decision to declare war is bound only to faction strength or financial power - the marshall option can be a new variable.
So the "marshall" variable's conditions will add or change this outcome. Example: If a faction has a current marshal with high influence, defensive personallity and 3 fiefs with over 300 militias then there will be a x% chance (combined with the other factors) to affect positively a peace declaration to take place .

8. Overall marshalls may affect roleplay by making the king seem more like a king, and it may give a feeling of realism to the game.

These are just simple quick thoughts, i am not by any means a developer or someone with special knowledge on gaming design.

Great ideas. You've saved me time to write a post bro.

I was going to create a post about how weak the current game system is in granting me various powers as a leader / king. Just like there're different positions in your clan, there should also be different positions in a kingdom that serve different purposes. Marshalls are def one of those. The ideal is that there're various marshall titles, each holds its own responsibilities. For example, ones that are more offensive/defensive, ones that are responsible for a certain enemy faction / a certain front / a certain area, etc. I always think that as a king, how cool it'd be to command my generals (clan leaders in my kingdom?) to fight wars against different factions.

But right now, due to terrible AI logic and kingdom management, one of my clans can suddenly gather almost all my other clans to go besiege a castle that holds little strategic value on one front, while leaving other fronts very vulnerable, and there's little I can do. When one of my clans is creating an army, I as the king should be consulted beforehand to see their target settlements, info of these settlements (prosperity, number of defender, to see if it's worth it), and I decide how many clans and troops this army will need. Approval from the king should be made mandatory.

 

[Rockoss mos D]

1. Marshalls will delay the army creation, which right now seems to be very rapid, being a small part of the reasons that cause total war. The delay is derived by the fact that only specific agents at a specific time in each faction will be able to gather a stong force and this will be further restricted by the power, personality, influence and location of the marshall. Some marshalls may be more defensive and will not attack and some other more agressive.

2.If the marshalls take decision based on their personallity, we may have some periods with strong offensive actions and some others with no expansion at all.

3.Army creation is not a simple decision in terms of history or roleplay. Creating an army should be an achievement for the player and it may create the feeling of gradually ascending the power rankings of a faction.

4.When being a king, having a marshall will ensure (possibly) that your lords will not declare random wars and they will always be forced to follow either your army or your marshall's army.

5. If marshalls are going to be a thing then the player as a king should be able to issue specific orders. This will help the player to focus on a specific playstyle (for example to defend more than attack) and it may offer a more strategic insight of dealing with sieges, intruders, or attacking (for example sent the marshall to besiege a castle, lure the AI to defend and then you as a player go and besiege another one, your real target)

6.If the system of rebellions is going to be applied to the near future, marshalls with high influence may act as unsurpers, thus forcing the player or the AI to frequently allocate the position to different people, thus ensuring that during a gameplay the player may experience different war-behaviours, thus not allowing every random lord to be a rebel- just be cause i hate you - giving a little bit more depth.

7.Marshalls can be used to calculate more complex decisions regarding peace and war declarations. This means that if the decision to declare war is bound only to faction strength or financial power - the marshall option can be a new variable.
So the "marshall" variable's conditions will add or change this outcome. Example: If a faction has a current marshal with high influence, defensive personallity and 3 fiefs with over 300 militias then there will be a x% chance (combined with the other factors) to affect positively a peace declaration to take place .

8. Overall marshalls may affect roleplay by making the king seem more like a king, and it may give a feeling of realism to the game.

These are just simple quick thoughts, i am not by any means a developer or someone with special knowledge on gaming design.

The progression stuff is great. Maybe add other titles to give autonomy to AI or player as they rise up the rank e.g Warden of the South, Defender of Aserai or Duke of Vlandia just to throw out a few. said titles will allow defensive coordination to whomever hold the title to call armies in immediate area(1 or 2 days) to defend only. Other titles grant you other access to options. Having one or 2 before Marshall to prepare the Player for larger command.

As for families they should be able to call on their own to wage short range engagements at the risk of getting all captured and executed (AI need to start executing enemies with very low relation -50 or less). The risk of exercising executions should also calculate to make AI defending or attacking decision more thought out and deep.

Overall lords just calling armies to attack and defend with no real system makes no sense. I wrote a post about this is tactically unsustainable. I hope my reply aligns with your ideas.

 

[AverageSturgian]

I think if we combine all these ideas we can create an interesting suggestion thread about marshalls with specific arguments and bullet points. If there is another already related post then these ideas could be incorporated.

 

[ZavodilaSauklus]

Devs,

Please bring back the Marshall title given to a lord.

Have them create armies for much cheaper or if they are in an army not headed by the King they call the shots on the battlefield. Give them a relationship boost with the King if given the title. I'd also suggest maybe having cohesion decay at a slightly slower rate.

Marshal can be like a hand in a Game of Thrones. A king's special confidant is appointed for life or until the king expels him from this position.