I get frustrated (and tired) of lords in my kingdom creating impotent little armies, getting caught while doing a impossible siege, and having to be rescued/ransomed by the king. Illogical programming rules at present.
Their needs to be an overall campaign (war marshal) ability for the ruler to dictate/guide the war strategy. This could be:
1. Focus on protecting our own holdings/fiefs (when another kingdom declares war on your kingdom): yes/no
2. Focus on engaging enemy armies: yes/no - yet specify only engage when realistic chance of victory (i.e., size +/- 10% of enemy army)
3. Focus on sieging castles: yes/no - guide efforts, e.g. use siege towers, ram: yes/no; use siege engines: yes/no. Avoid heavily fortified/manned castles" yes/no
4. Focus on sieging cities: yes/no
5. Raid villages: yes/no
6. Capture lords/ladies: yes/no. Accept ransom offers: yes/no
7. Only allow high influence/high tier nobles to create army: YES. (It frustrates me endlessly when low influence, poor, low tier vassals call for an army. How do they pay for it? How do they feed the army? How do they hold cohesion? - at present rubbish programming)
8. Dictate/guide acceptable size of army before allowing it to engage: YES. There should be a minimum size the ruler feels has a realistic chance of success (e.g. 950), and if/when a vassal can not create this size army, it must disband and join other (larger) armies.
9. Dictate what level of leadership/charm/tactics/stewardship is required to lead an army: YES. Seeing armies led by NPCs with <100 tactics/stewardship is totally unrealistic, as why would anyone in their right mind follow a untrained/unskilled military commander unless they have very high charm, stewardship skill.
This will create a much more realistic (enjoyable) war campaign experience. Surely Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Hannibal, etc. had a war council meeting prior to any campaign to invade a foreign territory, or defend against a hostile invading force?? Well, give US that ability please. Otherwise it is just back and forth winning/losing same fiefs, rescuing/ransoming same nobles in and endless dull cycle.
Their needs to be an overall campaign (war marshal) ability for the ruler to dictate/guide the war strategy. This could be:
1. Focus on protecting our own holdings/fiefs (when another kingdom declares war on your kingdom): yes/no
2. Focus on engaging enemy armies: yes/no - yet specify only engage when realistic chance of victory (i.e., size +/- 10% of enemy army)
3. Focus on sieging castles: yes/no - guide efforts, e.g. use siege towers, ram: yes/no; use siege engines: yes/no. Avoid heavily fortified/manned castles" yes/no
4. Focus on sieging cities: yes/no
5. Raid villages: yes/no
6. Capture lords/ladies: yes/no. Accept ransom offers: yes/no
7. Only allow high influence/high tier nobles to create army: YES. (It frustrates me endlessly when low influence, poor, low tier vassals call for an army. How do they pay for it? How do they feed the army? How do they hold cohesion? - at present rubbish programming)
8. Dictate/guide acceptable size of army before allowing it to engage: YES. There should be a minimum size the ruler feels has a realistic chance of success (e.g. 950), and if/when a vassal can not create this size army, it must disband and join other (larger) armies.
9. Dictate what level of leadership/charm/tactics/stewardship is required to lead an army: YES. Seeing armies led by NPCs with <100 tactics/stewardship is totally unrealistic, as why would anyone in their right mind follow a untrained/unskilled military commander unless they have very high charm, stewardship skill.
This will create a much more realistic (enjoyable) war campaign experience. Surely Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Hannibal, etc. had a war council meeting prior to any campaign to invade a foreign territory, or defend against a hostile invading force?? Well, give US that ability please. Otherwise it is just back and forth winning/losing same fiefs, rescuing/ransoming same nobles in and endless dull cycle.
Last edited:
