Succession during battle

**Sirron** · 06-19-2006, 13:13

Actually this change of king/commander during the battle, can give some support to those views (discussed few day ago) that backed the idea of changing command to second best general after the killing/capture of original leader, see thread:

Battlefield Leadership: Shouldn't the "Lieutenant" have some significance?

**caravel** · 06-19-2006, 13:16

Originally Posted by Sirron

Actually this change of king/commander during the battle, can give some support to those views (discussed few day ago) that backed the idea of changing command to second best general after the killing/capture of original leader, see thread:

Battlefield Leadership: Shouldn't the "Lieutenant" have some significance?

I've never seen this happen, though I have seen two generals on the field at once. That was a bug.

**Odin** · 06-19-2006, 16:29

Regarding the battlefield leadership discussion, I think that a second in command should have some influence once the leader dies. However this situation is very unique, you had the king and the heir in the same battle and the king dies.

I think this is the one exception to the rule of the second in command influencing combat when the leader of the army dies.

This is a new one on me, its a nice surprise after playing the game so long to have a new element pop up....

**Martok** · 06-20-2006, 05:36

Well assuming it's not a bug, I guess I shouldn't be overly surprised I haven't heard of this before. I mean, how often do any of us ever send both the king and his crown prince into the same battle?

**Sensei Warrior** · 06-21-2006, 05:02

Originally Posted by Martok

Well assuming it's not a bug, I guess I shouldn't be overly surprised I haven't heard of this before. I mean, how often do any of us ever send both the king and his crown prince into the same battle?

We typically don't send the King and Crown Prince into battle, but the Argonese or the Danes would be a good faction to test this on. With only one Provence, once heirs start appearing it is virtually guaranteed that the King and Crown Prince and alot of other heir apparants would be in the battle.

Depending on the situation you could have a situation of cascading succession, where the king dies and the Crown Prince takes command, and then the Crown Prince dies and the next in line takes his place, etc.

One of you savy King-killers could test this out if you were so inclined. I would do it myself, but I'm terribly bad at the whole king kill/capture thing. I can never seem to time it right.

**Martok** · 06-21-2006, 06:48

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

One of you savy King-killers could test this out if you were so inclined. I would do it myself, but I'm terribly bad at the whole king kill/capture thing. I can never seem to time it right.

Agreed; a pity I'm no better than you are, or I'd try it myself! I may have been playing this game well over 3 years now, but when I manage to capture a royal, it's still usually about 1 part skill and 4 parts dumb luck.

**naut** · 06-21-2006, 07:25

Originally Posted by Martok

Agreed; a pity I'm no better than you are, or I'd try it myself! I may have been playing this game well over 3 years now, but when I manage to capture a royal, it's still usually about 1 part skill and 4 parts dumb luck.

Lol, same here! I just surround him and wait 'til he dies, no skill at all.

**Sensei Warrior** · 06-21-2006, 15:18

Originally Posted by Martok

Agreed; a pity I'm no better than you are, or I'd try it myself! I may have been playing this game well over 3 years now, but when I manage to capture a royal, it's still usually about 1 part skill and 4 parts dumb luck.

I'll second that. I guess we have to wait and hope some wargod

like katank, ah_dut or Ironside stumbles upon the thread and decides to help out or poor strategically inept souls.

If I remember my pages history they are a few of the ppl who are very adept at General killing in battle.