Kings, Heirs or Upstarts

[Knight of the Rose]

When choosing who to fight your battles, what do you guys prefer?

I normally use my king to ensure he gets a couple extra starts before his sons come of age, to enhance my chances of getting better offspring. But when the sons start kicking in, I use the heir to make sure he has the biggest window of opportunity (age 16 -> death some 50-60 turns later) to become a master general, and making his sons optimal quality.

But lately I've thought about taking a 0-star quality unit leader and make exclusive use of him, adding titles to give those extra stars. This gives a little added role-play element as well.

There is also the 'green general' discussion hidden behind this question, but lest us assume it is off. For arguments sake, we are also not playing the Byz.

How do you groom your generals?

/KotR

[PershsNhpios]

I often have a poor, ordinary King with nothing more than a "Great Builder" trait and much influence.

The reason is because I am too commonly in situations where it is all too dangerous to employ the King in battles.
For example, in my last mediaeval campaign as the Scots, the King was used to take Britain, but then the heirs took Scandinavia and Denmark - and finally when the family was large enough I used the second generation brothers as military leaders, who achieved their sixth ranks.

Then they would become deathless generals after their first-born brother was crowned, and thereafter I could give them titles and forever have eight or nine star generals.
In this way I make sure the ruler's influence stays high, he remains safe, and my generals never die.
(Remember, a general who dies is replaced by someone completely similar.)

For the sake of roleplay however, I pick specific men to become military leaders, depending on what personality I assign to them.
In my AAR, the main leaders are three Princes, an artillery unit leader, and the Kaiser.

[Fagar]

I tend to use a general that I have groomed from the start.

One that was probably spawned say 2 stars and I was forced to put in charge of a large army as good generals were at a premuim and my resources stretched.

This general normally find himself defending against invaders and building stars and valour through hardened battle.

After i have consolidated I favour this man over the cream puff princes I normally get and use him in all my invasions.

By now he is as hard as granite and I retrain and regroup all his men so they have sky high valour.
They are my spear point, the steel I use to force my way into new territores and expansion.

It is now that I grant him titles to further boost his already impressive resume, turning him into a legend amongst men

This is the type of general I like to lead my armies.


(funny thing is he normally turns out to be a UM or similiar )

[Garnier]

In my current game, I've used my hero and a 5 star retired prince as my main generals, as unfortunately my king is 2 stars and I have neglected to take care of him... I am thinking of pulling off a civil war to fix this problem. I am going to need all the advice I can get on how to best manage a civil war. It's not too hard to win usually, but I want to do it right so I can get one of these superb generals to be my new king.

[Martok]

Unless my faction leader is a true monster of a general (i.e., Alphonse of Castille, Alexius Comnenus, etc.), I tend to keep him safe at home. If the opportunity arises, I may use him to invade a lightly defended enemy province or stamp out a rebellion, but otherwise I generally keep him out of harm's way.

[gaijinalways]

Martok posted

Unless my faction leader is a true monster of a general (i.e., Alphonse of Castille, Alexius Comnenus, etc.), I tend to keep him safe at home. If the opportunity arises, I may use him to invade a lightly defended enemy province or stamp out a rebellion, but otherwise I generally keep him out of harm's way.

I usually do the same. My king might get great builder characteristics, etc, but rarely will he be a great general.

[Fagar]

Yep same here,
My kingdom does not risk it's leader in battles.
My king is not there to be a superb general he is there to be a leader of an empire, his time is better spent in the heart of my realm to help keep the entire population happy and content.

[caravel]

My King must got out and fight to win the people's respect and loyalty. If he dies then so be it.

This is especially true if my King also happens to be a 0 star, unhinged and perverted wretch...

[gollum]

I usually keep the King in his palace until a heir that i wish to keep comes of age/in the scene. After that its that heir that enjoys the gardens, the bards elegies and the company of court ladies while the King goes to war. Always fun to have the monarch in battles, especially since his BG unit is strong and regenerates.

[jadast]

In the early years my king leads. As the years pass and the empire grows, he stays home. I use whatever general is closest to the front. I often park a high star general with a small stopping force near a long border with an aggressive foe. This seems to keep them from attacking even when they have local superiority. This allows me to utilize a second high ranking general to attack.

[bondovic]

My King must got out and fight to win the people's respect and loyalty. If he dies then so be it.

This is especially true if my King also happens to be a 0 star, unhinged and perverted wretch...

There's nothing quite so satisfying as to valor up your king really good, get him some "skilled attacker/defender" traits and keep on charging him at the enemy. It's also very nice in early to have a unit with that many hitpoints and good fighting skill regenerate automatically.

[Fagar]

The benefits of a high valour king and the regeneration of bodyguard units are indeed good points,
but it still only takes one lucky missile and your faction leader is toast.

Early on when the power of the RK is unmatched I will take my king in, but in high - late era there are too many troop types that eat armoured troops for breakfast so I leave him out.

I don't like the feeling from taking a general into battle but sitting him up the back of the field away from the heat.
If I am going to march him onto the field then he must be prepared to get into the fray or his place can be better filled by another troop (say 40 beautiful Chiv Kinights instead).

[bondovic]

The benefits of a high valour king and the regeneration of bodyguard units are indeed good points,
but it still only takes one lucky missile and your faction leader is toast.

Early on when the power of the RK is unmatched I will take my king in, but in high - late era there are too many troop types that eat armoured troops for breakfast so I leave him out.

I don't like the feeling from taking a general into battle but sitting him up the back of the field away from the heat.
If I am going to march him onto the field then he must be prepared to get into the fray or his place can be better filled by another troop (say 40 beautiful Chiv Kinights instead).

It's a matter of prudence, as always. You gotta time his charge just right. This 'right' is of course an ever changing variable that one has to learn to recognize through 'learning by doing'. Needless to say, it has to be a clean charge - one that doesn't leave him open on the sides or at the back. But the thing is; by the time you're having such a daisy of a time that you can actually make sure he doesn't die... he's not really necessary for the task.

I advocate a certain bit of gambling. Just pay heed to the wisdom of 'He who knows which fights he cannot winwill never be defeated.' The gains are potentially very great. Just make sure there are heirs.

[bondovic]

How do you groom your generals?

To answer this: I orchestrate rebellions a plenty. I want my first european tour to be led by a 4-star minimum general. After 4 stars the leaps are so great for levelling up through victories that you have to force action to see an increase waaay down the road. But up to 4 stars is doable without getting too tedious.

[gollum]

Well even in cases the Monarch is endangered or loses the battle and wins some (bad) traits in the process, its still worth it. In one of my Egyptian campaigns my Khaliffa had a very interesting series of engagements seasawing in the desert in Cyrenacia, Tunisia and Algeria. It was lots of fun.

Other memorable moments is catching prisoner the King of England or the HREmperor with the King of France or catching prisoner the Holy Father with your King (regardless of faction).

Making it up close and personal is great and rewarding in such instances.

EDIT

The way i prefer grooming my generals is not by harvesting rebellions but by grooming the Royal Line and then use the *Uncles* as generals. This can be done pretty easily especially with the aid of a few spies that trim the family tree of madmen and low stats members.

[Satyros]

In my latest Teutonic Order campaign in MTW XL I was lucky enough to have a 4 star general ( who happened also to be a great warrior , yay ) in an order foot soldiers unit .

Since I valued too much my Knights ( waiting for the HORDE ) I almost never went to battle with them ( because I couldn't retrain them at that point and genrally tried to keep them out of the brutal battles against the Russians using them to fend off the Sewdish who became an annoyance soon but anyways ) , so that guy took the pain of 10 or more difficult battles , always leading from the front , always taking the pain of a throng of horsemen charging at him , always marching towards the enemy under a rain of arrows ( I upgraded him to silver armor as soon as possible ) , never faltering , never running away , almost always " winning easily " .

It was a delight , he instantly became my favorite general , and the shiny knights stayed in the capital , because who needs them when he has an "expert attacker" , "expert defender" , "great warrior" , "utterly fearless" , dog of war footslogger .

Note that I gave him the expert attacker / defender traits , and I can't say that I have given him the utterly fearless trait because I believe it's random , any info on the matter would be much appreciated .

In my current Irish campaign , I massacre the English with my two star king and he gains nothing .

Are all battle related traits dependant on the way you paly your battles ? Is there a possibility that if my king plunges in the fray in every battle he will get the good traits I'm after ?

I understand that the attacker / defender traits are dependant on the difficulty of the battles , even though I cannot say that I understand how this works , but what about the fearless , and great leader traits ? Can I get them somehow ?

Or is it really random ?

Satyros

[PershsNhpios]

It certainly appears random, but I suppose that it cannot be - something somewhere must be programmed.

But for my first attempt at a MedMod campaign, before picking one to write about, I played the position which I loathe the very most - the Lithuanians.
Ugh!
Surrounded on all sides by nasty slavs, and without any means of protecting even your homeland completely by conquest, one needs to subdue four factions and the rebels before having a safe border around Lithuania.
So what did I do?
I left one unit in each province, Lithuania and Smolensk, saying to them, "Be brave, and pray for the King".

And then I led an army of 1250 under the King on a rampage into Polish country, (having allied with the Novgorods, Cumans, and Kievans).

I sacked Warsaw, retreated to the first province and then awaited my next opportunity.

To make this story more fitting to the subject, I say, that the King was used to subdue Poland, then come to the assistance of the southern Pechs and attack Kiev, and in the process he took 8 provinces and won every battle.
Yet he gained nothing.

I do remember a Scottish king of mine becoming very famous through war, but it is far more often that a mere captain rises to the highest rank.
I therefore use title-holders more often, but in cases like that of the Lithuanian situation, my King is the sole leader.