Realistic skill leadership!

[Rexxar]

Now there is a limit of how many soldiers can you have in army( you cant join more even if you want to)...
I would rather see, that you can have as many soldiers as you like, but when you go over your limit(how many soldiers can you lead without any consequneces), party morale would constantly diminish as well as the highest tier units (of your army) would be the first to desert you beacuse they would see, that you are a bad leader...

Benefits if your party morale is over limit:

-If you are full of money and need to have large numbers fast...
-Training recruits : They dont cost much so you can afford to have big losses after battle, but you would also get a lot of soldiers ready to be upgraded.
-If you are followed by a larger party, you can make them run or suprise(counter attack ) them with quickly recruiting any nearby soldiers.

Negative things :

-party morale diminish faster
-Skill charisma doesnt lower wages of soldiers who are over your party size limit
-Bigger chances for prisoners to escape
-some companions would get upset
-desertations of your soldiers (at any time)

Balanced-realistic feature who would add a lot of strategy and depth to game, dont you think? 

Pls comment...

 

[Random47]

Wouldn't the higher ranking soldiers be more loyal to you and not leave you?

 

[Rexxar]

Wouldn't the higher ranking soldiers be more loyal to you and not leave you?

They wouldnt leave you, unless you make radical decisions such as this.Which high tier unit would want to stick with leader who dont know how to lead?

 

[Kessu]

Totally agree with you! Nice idea, maybe some modder could take a look at this and tell if this is even possible?

 

[DamienZharkoff]

no. Honestly, leadership and troop limit should be removed, desertion should be only morale based and level based.  The only thing realistically that should be used to keep soldiers is money, food, and camp supplies. THATS IT!

 

[Rexxar]

no. Honestly, leadership and troop limit should be removed, desertion should be only morale based and level based.  The only thing realistically that should be used to keep soldiers is money, food, and camp supplies. THATS IT!

Dont agree!

Leader has to know how to control his army, otherwise his soldiers wouldnt care to follow orders...

 

[DamienZharkoff]

If I am paying them enough and all they do is win with little losses, does it matter that my character sheet reads leadership 1? NO

 

[Rexxar]

If I am paying them enough and all they do is win with little losses, does it matter that my character sheet reads leadership 1? NO

You have a heart& mind of a mercenary 

On the other hand, I think most noble knights didnt think this way...

 

[DamienZharkoff]

If I am paying them enough and all they do is win with little losses, does it matter that my character sheet reads leadership 1? NO

You have a heart& mind of a mercenary 

On the other hand, I think most noble knights didnt think this way...

You use "Noble" as a term for "Romanticized good guy" Nobles most of the time were pricks, to them soldiers were nothing but muscle you had to pay for. They didn't care if you lived or died personally, the only thing you were to them is strategy.

 

[Rexxar]

If I am paying them enough and all they do is win with little losses, does it matter that my character sheet reads leadership 1? NO

You have a heart& mind of a mercenary 

On the other hand, I think most noble knights didnt think this way...

You use "Noble" as a term for "Romanticized good guy" Nobles most of the time were pricks, to them soldiers were nothing but muscle you had to pay for. They didn't care if you lived or died personally, the only thing you were to them is strategy.

I agree, but i wasnt talking about war party leaders.I was talking for knights(high tier units) in service of one of lords.As you said, lords really didnt care much for their soldiers, but high tier soldiers alone carred for themselves, so  there is a chance that they desert their primary lord and choose another if they dont like what they are getting( on contrary, low tier soldiers didnt have any chance but to obey or to loose head).If leader didnt want to loose one of his ''best muscles'', he had to have good leadership skills.

 

[DamienZharkoff]

well same goes for a knight. As long as you pay him well, keep him well fed, knee deep in loot, Why the **** would he care if you're sir dumbass of assington as long as you keep him in the prior mentioned requirements. Leadership honestly shouldn't be a stat, but a vague percentile based on how well you do in evenly matched, outnumbering. and out numbered fights.

No one will want to fight a man who has an 8-10 loss ration, while everyone will want to fight a man who has a 1-30 ratio.

 

[Maegfaer]

well same goes for a knight. As long as you pay him well, keep him well fed, knee deep in loot, Why the **** would he care if you're sir dumbass of assington as long as you keep him in the prior mentioned requirements. Leadership honestly shouldn't be a stat, but a vague percentile based on how well you do in evenly matched, outnumbering. and out numbered fights.

No one will want to fight a man who has an 8-10 loss ration, while everyone will want to fight a man who has a 1-30 ratio.

Agreed, Leadership is YOU, the guy/girl behind the computer, using his brains to make decisions in the game.

 

[Ruthven]

Sounds entirely possible, and it is quite a nice idea.