The Location of the Ruler's Relation to Loyalty

[HindSight2020]

I noticed something in my Egyptian game last night. When my faction ruler, the old Sultan, died, the new Sultan appeared in Egypt. Before I got a chance to move him closer to the action in Europe, I went around to check the loyalty. All of the loyalty was 200% while 99% of the provinces had very high tax rate. Then I moved him to the front lines, and a lot of the loyalty levels dropped -- many below 100%. I adjusted the taxes. A couple years later, I moved him back to Egypt. Right away I checked the loyalty levels. They were back up to 200%. They never dropped even when I changed the tax rates to very high. I've kept my Sultan in Egypt and haven't had a problem with loyalty since. I'm keeping track to see if any rebellions occur. I think there still will be some, but they may be minimized. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[SmokWawelski]

If you wanted a confirmation, then Yes, the location of your King makes the difference in the loyalty levels.

[Gregoshi]

I think the question is does keeping the king in the capital improve overall loyalty of your provinces everywhere? Or something like that. I don't know. I thought the nearer the king the higher the loyalty and the further away the king the lower the loyalty. That doesn't seem to apply here in HS's scenario.

[Demon of Light]

Another question might be Is the location of the coronation necessarily the capital. Some people in the past have noted that revolts would happen after a monarch died because the location of the place the new ruler popped in was somehow lacking.

[Mak]

This is true for the English also, I had my King in England, then for a laugh sent himon a crusade to turkey, half of my german empire revolted.

Do not worry the peasants were crushed and executed for their insolence. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

[MonkeyMan]

Please note that keeping your king in a province with a port puts him in direct contact with other costal provinces. Hence moving a king from egypt with a port to an inland region will reduce the contact you king has with these other provinces. As such loyalty will drop as a result.

Sending him on a crusade overland is therefore not such a great idea.

[Nowake]

It is very important for him to be (in the later stages of the game, when your empire streches across the whole map) in a province with a port ... It acts like when being near the provinces http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Gregoshi]

Ah ha http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif Thanks for the explanation.

[HindSight2020]

The idea of a king/sultan needing to be in a port -- and how that affects the nearness of the king -- makes a lot of sense. Maybe that was the reason for what I saw. Now that I think of it, I moved him from Egypt (which had a port) to Wessex (which had a port at the time). After I conquered Wessex, I lost the port since the port was one of the buildings which was destroyed in the takeover. It was after that when I noticed the drop in loyalty. I built took him back to Egypt after conquering Wales which retained its port after the takeover. The loyalty levels went up to 200% across the board immediately. And I have noticed that loyalty wavers in inland provinces which do not have a sizeable occupation army. Thanks for the insight. I thought I might have been seeing things or that no one would believe me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[ichi]

HS2020: IMHO when you destroyed the port in Wessex your King was 'cut off' for a few turns. You would get the same effect if he was in Ireland, and the sea routes were all occupied by enemy ships. He was, in effect not able to direct operations on the Continent because he did not have a port.

ichi