Non-playable leaders...

So, I don't have the game and probably won't be able to play for a few weeks. I have heard via the Symposium that leaders in the game are non-playable. Considering this is an era when many of the greatest leaders were field commanders (think Charles XII, Frederick the Great, Napoleon), CA's decision to make them non-playable is odd in the extreme.

My question to those who are experiencing the game now is why you think this choice of immobilizing leaders was made. How does it benefit or weaken the game in your opinion. Also, as far as traits are concerned, how do they earn battle experience traits - if at all. Any other comments on the subject are appreciated...

Leaders - i.e. your faction leader - is not playable, as it doesn't make much sense. Unless of course in history he was a general and a leader. I assume, as Washington is playable, the others are too.

I'm playing as Russia, and it is very, very, veEEEeery annoying not to be able to play Peter the Great.... :thumbsdow

I honestly would not want Victoria I running around the battlefield. Also found out that my Queen is homosexual. Yeah, the trait mistress popped up under her portrait. I was like "Hot".

My Queen, has a mistress, and is public about it. And it's really great that the nobility happiness is +1 because of that. They're like "Hot". Then the middle class is like "Gross", but I'm like "Hot, plus one to morale of all troops"

As far as I remember history yes the leaders you mentioned WERE on the battlefield, they rarely took part in the actual fighting up close. Instead stood back and issued orders. Not like you would have seen Queen Elizabeth with her personal guard charging the Mughals heads on?

This "feature" seems about as dumb as not being able to pick your heir in M2TW so your king's second cousin's brother's dog's best friend's neighbour ends up being the next king

@Travisfv - :laughter:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Levantos

As far as I remember history yes the leaders you mentioned WERE on the battlefield, they rarely took part in the actual fighting up close. Instead stood back and issued orders. Not like you would have seen Queen Elizabeth with her personal guard charging the Mughals heads on?

---

lool.... that's a funny image.

I've still got mixed feelings about how my Cabinet isn't playable, tho. I was hoping to give my generals positive traits by making them the army minister or w/e.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Levantos

As far as I remember history yes the leaders you mentioned WERE on the battlefield, they rarely took part in the actual fighting up close. Instead stood back and issued orders. Not like you would have seen Queen Elizabeth with her personal guard charging the Mughals heads on?

---

Both Napoleon and, especially Frederick, put themselves in harms way to win battles. In fact, some of Frederick's troops thought him suicidal because of his personal actions in the Silesian campaigns. However, point is taken that the same would be odd of the Queen do be able to do so. I'm having difficulty imagining my Frederick being stuck in Berlin. He hated Berlin, and was rarely to be found there... He was a "muddy boots" leader, and I was looking forward to playing him that way.

I would like to be able to choose an heir, but their is so much going on in Empire, I wouldn't remember to check up on it. Hell I forget to check up on my American colonies. Imagine they got all uppity because I don't pay attention, and all I do is charge them money for just living there.

Get this, get this. Imagine they decided to start a revolution? HA! Oh, oh, and they'll call it, The Revolutionary War, or something like, the War for Independence? Oh my god! That hilarious, that's just great.

"The Thirteen Colonies have declared war on you, and have started a revolution"

Woops.

It should be like in EU3 : something like "Convert ruler to General" button.
You should get massive unrest to to the death of your king in battle, and administration should be lower also to reflect he's not at the court to deal with state affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deRougemont

Both Napoleon and, especially Frederick, put themselves in harms way to win battles. In fact, some of Frederick's troops thought him suicidal because of his personal actions in the Silesian campaigns. However, point is taken that the same would be odd of the Queen do be able to do so.

---

Charles XII died in the field, this is an issue that has to patched.

I do think their is a valid point to be made about being able to choose you're overall faction leaders and having more customisability with them, LIKE for example choosing heirs, choosing families to take the throne, promoting generals to royalty or rewarding them with titles, land etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travisfv

I honestly would not want Victoria I running around the battlefield. Also found out that my Queen is homosexual. Yeah, the trait mistress popped up under her portrait. I was like "Hot".

My Queen, has a mistress, and is public about it. And it's really great that the nobility happiness is +1 because of that. They're like "Hot". Then the middle class is like "Gross", but I'm like "Hot, plus one to morale of all troops"

---

LMAO, I'm playing GB but have yet to see that trait. I myself would have liked to be able to use the faction leaders, then I could kill of the ones I don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerathule

It should be like in EU3 : something like "Convert ruler to General" button.
You should get massive unrest to to the death of your king in battle, and administration should be lower also to reflect he's not at the court to deal with state affairs.

---

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The game could deny the player's request to make a female a field commander, that would eliminate the "Queen's Charge" problem. Also, perhaps this choice to mobilize the leader could have drastic effects on the economy, morale, battlefield and other aspects. As zerathule said, a death on the battlefield could also have tremendous effects on the military's morale, making the choice to convert a leader to a battelfield commander a very risky one -- as it was historically! I would hope if this were enabled that the leader wouldn't be as invincible as in previous games -- but just as vulnerable as the average soldier. How intense would that be?

Playing as UP with a republican government I noticed that one does get much less invested in non-playable leaders. My various cabinet ministers keep racking up various traits and ancillaries but it seems less interesting because you can't really roleplay them. I know that I should keep an eye on them in case I want to replace an ineffective minister, but the replacement is a crap shoot anyway...