Make generals kings

I know generals will be a finite resource, but making them kings (leaders) of a newly conquered state, instead of just conquering that state, would be cool (and historically accurate).

I agree, that would be great !!!

Originally Posted by RO Citizen

I know generals will be a finite resource, but making them kings (leaders) of a newly conquered state, instead of just conquering that state, would be cool (and historically accurate).

I guess you mean Governers, Earls, Dukes, Lords, etc. You can`t just make Kings of new states. There can only be one king of one Faction.

Originally Posted by Humble Warrior

I guess you mean Governers, Earls, Dukes, Lords, etc. You can`t just make Kings of new states. There can only be one king of one Faction.

Naploeon made his brother Joseph King of Spain and King of Naples... so it was done and would be historically acurate.

Originally Posted by burden010

Naploeon made his brother Joseph King of Spain and King of Naples... so it was done and would be historically acurate.

yes but as king of england, im not going to make some random general king of france

Originally Posted by spartan dude

yes but as king of england, im not going to make some random general king of france

You could if you owned France and felt like having less control of it. Less chance of rebellion etc...

Originally Posted by burden010

Naploeon made his brother Joseph King of Spain and King of Naples... so it was done and would be historically acurate.

That`s actually different though.

I`m no expert, but it seems to me he was propping up his own brother who`s unlikely to turn against him to probably keep control of large areas more easily. The reality was that napoleon still ruled Spain and Naples anyway. also napoleon was technically not a King, but Emperor. I think Emperors are seen as even higher than kings in some quarters. Whatever, the case, Napoleon was actually going against the way things were done to appoint a `king` like this. It certainly was not the norm.

fact is, Leaders,ie Kings never appoint more kings over countries they conquer, especially generals. It`s a potential threat to the first leader`s rule.

Originally Posted by Humble Warrior

I guess you mean Governers, Earls, Dukes, Lords, etc. You can`t just make Kings of new states. There can only be one king of one Faction.

This

What about Bernadotte?

Originally Posted by Humble Warrior

I guess you mean Governers, Earls, Dukes, Lords, etc. You can`t just make Kings of new states. There can only be one king of one Faction.

Instead of annexing a region or destroying a state, you can just make the emrgent (or existing) faction your protectorate, with a general as it's leader (king, grand duke, etc.), with the pros that Pro-opra Jungian mentioned

true, and many of the marshalls held similar titles, among which I believe were a handful of kings, and a good few princes

What they should do each time you capture a province, they should give you options of what to do with it (in medieval and rome they had sack, exterminate, occupy etc) The options would be-

1. Add as part of Empire-this makes it another province of your homeland so all units are regulars, you gain all the tax money etc, but the populous is more likely to rebel.

2. Make it a satellite state-It is their own government where they decide what to do, what units to make, they still retain their own flag and units etc, but the leader is appointed by you from a list, a percentage of the tax money goes to you and they are your protectorate. The advandtage is some more money gained as well as the fact they're a puppet, but you cannot completely control them though to that end, they are less likely to rebel.

3. Become protectorate-They are a fully functioning nation, they just are a protectorate, complying by the same protectorate rules as pervious TW titles.

i dont think it will hapen judging by the fact the family tree feature didnt make the final cut in empire, and frankly there is no large time period were your king could be married , die , etc