Lighthope Posted April 11, 2020 Share Posted April 11, 2020 I don't like the idea of non-military units being able to run a military. That just didn't happen in real life. Merchants maybe had a bodyguard. Spies don't work very well when accompanied by a large group. There was a good tradeoff between having a Marshal with his army and having a spy to create trouble for your enemy. I think having everyone be able to run an army takes some of the interesting tradeoffs away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Blake Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 From realism or role playing point of view I would agree, spies with armies are pretty bad idea. General or any military is exactly the opposite what a spy should be because a lot of people know the general and his loyalty. I feel the problem they are trying to solve is to make support classes to be more useful and manage small local military issues like rebellions while keeping royal court size relatively small. Very hard to say how it will work out with primary/secondary skills they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthope Posted April 14, 2020 Author Share Posted April 14, 2020 15 hours ago, William Blake said: I feel the problem they are trying to solve is to make support classes to be more useful They took a good step by removing builders and...what was the other one? Farmer, that was it. My court only had marshals, spies, and merchants. I think there's a cleric in there, only because it is so much fun when he is Pope. "Do I...know you?" lol. Only time I ever used a builder was in the very beginning of a game, and that was when I was a new player. I never use them now. I think spies and merchants have enough usefulness. Well, certainly spies. Maybe they could do more spy stuff, like sabotage. But they are pretty useful as it is. Merchants, I don't know. What more can you do with them? They make money. It's a rather limited role. But it is useful. Maybe they can go the route of Total War and have merchants drive each other out of business, disrupt markets of your enemies, and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthope Posted April 15, 2020 Author Share Posted April 15, 2020 Thinking more on merchants and spies: Merchants as a governor can increase gold output of the city and increase food production. So, when governor, they act as a builder and farmer as well. Spies as governor can decrease the risk of rebellion. However, if a town is conquered, the governor is killed, and you lose that asset. And no recalling a governor during a siege. How is that for giving them something more substantial to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharokhan Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 (edited) On 4/10/2020 at 9:02 PM, Lighthope said: I don't like the idea of non-military units being able to run a military. That just didn't happen in real life. Merchants maybe had a bodyguard. Spies don't work very well when accompanied by a large group. There was a good tradeoff between having a Marshal with his army and having a spy to create trouble for your enemy. I think having everyone be able to run an army takes some of the interesting tradeoffs away. I agree, I don't like the idea of merchants and spies leading armies. Maybe add the position of GENERAL or CAPTAIN to lead smaller units than the marshals; however the generals/captains should not be members of the court/knights. Perhaps a set number of generals/captains based on the size of the realm. Perhaps even adding the role of lord/governor to lead garrison troops to sack rebellions. Edited April 15, 2020 by Sharokhan Update Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pan Yannos Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 My opinion is at the middle. I think it is good to utilize the merchants-clerics (not the spies) ,by giving them a limited amount of units, just for the province security, such as rebelion or enemy assaults, while your marshals will be on an expansive mission. The unit capacity for example can be 4 groups of certain units (for instance the cleric or merchant cannot command feudal knights or cataprachts). That's because merhants are useless(for me) in late game, cause the income that produce is too little compare to the tax income from the provinces and i prefer to use my royal slots to have many marshals to control better my "huge" empire. My thought over how many groups can a royal court member can have is: Spies: 0 slots of units (as he works alone only) Merchants-Clerics: 3 or 4 slots (for inside-the-province missions)(only basic unit usage such as bowmen-archers, militia-swordsman and light cavalry) Marshals:6 slots (as in the original game) Princes: 7-8 slots (as bonus cause he is from the royal family) King 9 slots (you want to follow your own king anywere, do you?) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthope Posted April 16, 2020 Author Share Posted April 16, 2020 Hmm....more slots per type. I kind of like that idea. Still against merchants/clerics leading troops though. They just didn't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florishier Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 What if the non-marshall roles hire "captains" for them to lead small bands of soldiers, and if those armies get destroyed the main character (spy merchant etc) gets a debuff for x amount of time. (This way they lost some power that they invested in the small armies) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthope Posted April 17, 2020 Author Share Posted April 17, 2020 38 minutes ago, Florishier said: What if the non-marshall roles hire "captains" for them to lead small bands of soldiers, and if those armies get destroyed the main character (spy merchant etc) gets a debuff for x amount of time. (This way they lost some power that they invested in the small armies) That really is no difference from a Merchant having his own army. You're just jumping through an additional hoop. Resources are limited for a reason. Makes you have to make strategic decisions. You want an army or a spy. Can't have both. Much more strategic thinking than choosing a spy but still getting an army, even if it is crippled in size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yavor Posted April 19, 2020 Share Posted April 19, 2020 On the contrary! Every knight you have is a lord of your kingdom! So each of them should have military units at their disposal, if they do need them! I rather enjoy that new innovation and I wish to see it implemented! I've been waiting for it since KoH, and I think 6 units per non marshal knight is a very accurate decision! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pan Yannos Posted April 20, 2020 Share Posted April 20, 2020 If non-army lords carry the same amount of military units, why hire marshals in the first place? I'd rather sacrifice some boosts that marshal may give to my army to have a multi-purpose lord at my disposal, if the rule of 6-slots of units in every royal member occurs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÆternaTristitia Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 I think It adds some variety and boosts the casual sense of the game to have armies with other types of Knights. Perhaps they might even have units special to them, for example Clerics could recruit better Holy Order Knights and the Merchants could have cheaper and stronger mercenaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now