Kings no longer in command of armies in VI?

[Galestrum]

I just got VI and was playing the viking campaign - when i noticed a few things different from MTW (a) my king was no longer automatically the "general" of the army, in fact, he was not more often than he was - it appears that command and/or valour were more important than being king now and (b) unless he was the "general" his crown didnt appear above his standard as it did in the old MTW.

Is this a bug or something unique to the viking campaign that was intended?

[Jacque Schtrapp]

I'm not sure if it was intended to not. However, it works for me because I quite often have a much more talented general available than my king. I just prefer to believe that my king has the common sense to leave the battlefield command in the hands of his best general. In order to make it more realistic I do not allow the king to take the field under the command of anyone else. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[solypsist]

my king is still always in command - i sometimes have to move him out of a contested area in order to make sure one of my better generals gets command.

[Gregoshi]

I've noticed my king not being the general of the army too. I did a double take the first time it happened.

[Oaty]

Even if your king is not the general of the battle he still gets credit for it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I have'nt payed close attention though and I do'nt know if both the general and the king get credit. I think it's only the king gets credit though and just bums off of the generals stars

[HopAlongBunny]

I have seen this in VI only. It may reflect different traditions surrounding "kingship". I have not seen this occur in the SP game on the old board

[solypsist]

oh okay i haven't actually played a viking campaign; only play the GA campaigns

[A.Saturnus]

What I noticed in the original campaign is that sometimes a different man leads the army in battle than on the strat map. I had a Sicilian crusade in Armenia. My prince, who joined the crusade, was in command. Then I invaded Syria and fought the Turkish. However in battle, the general was a templar. I won and my prince gained an 'skilled attacker' virtue.

[econ21]

Kings not being in command does happen outside the VI campaign (ie on the normal MTW campaign) if you have VI installed. You need to be a little aware of it, as the king is no longer obvious on the field - he has no crown on his flag - and so unwittingly might be sent to his doom. Watch out for any undistinguished royal knight unit with 21 men and be careful with them.

[SirGrotius]

Is this historical? I am skeptical that a king in the medieval period would ride onto the battlefield while at the same time relinquishing command of his army to a more skillful general.

[Oaty]

Quote[/b] ]Is this historical? I am skeptical that a king in the medieval period would ride onto the battlefield while at the same time relinquishing command of his army to a more skillful general

1 thing to note is that some kings were cowards so I wouldnt doubt it plus my only guess is that some kings knew who would get the credit anyways even if the battle was lost

[MizuKokami]

i've had my king on the battlefield and him not be general of the army, and noticed it just barely in time to remove him from the battle. perhaps in the future the game could have a way to make sure which general will lead the army, perhaps by makeing the unit in the first slot the general.

tho perhaps it could also be cool to have some special soldiers in your army to make sure the winning general either gives credit to the king, or have him killed just before the victory is declared, giveing your king credit by default. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[Kristaps]

didn't see it in any of the posts so I'll just say it. in the VI expansion, a general who has higher stars rather than the king will take the lead if the following is met:

(1) you have more than 16 units present
(2) you move (or just touch) any of the units on reinforcement arrangement pane

you will see how the stats (valor) of your units will change to reflect the stars of the higher ranked general. his pic will appear on the top pane as well.

on the other hand, if the army has 16 or less units, the king will lead no matter what... don't know if this is a bug (at least seems that way) but that's the way it is...

[Kraxis]

He doesn't need to be of higher rank, just the same rank.

I got a lousy Good Runner, Sybarite general as commander in a battle instead of my Brave Beyond Belief king. Needless to say I lost the general in battle as his unit was V0 with 1 in Morale fighting on a bridge. Luckily I won.

I must say I was mildly annoyed after that battle.

[Teutonic Knight]

Never seen that before, my king is always in command no matter what I do http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[TheSilverKnight]

I've noticed this sometimes too. In the main campaign. Denmark, Early, Normal. My King, Ragnar (modified names files), invaded Saxony in Northern Germany, and wasn't in command of the army. Instead it was a man named Lars Kirstensen, who was a leader of a unit of Vikings (6 stars, full loyalty, 5 valour, 7 acumen, Earl Chamberlain). I won the battle, but it shocked me that the King wasn't leading.