How to chose the army general

[iosys]

Is it possible to chose the army general when more family member/General are in the army?
Given the chronic shortage of good cavalry I have I would like to send a large army with more family member --> Generals bodyguard versus large army.
But I want my family heir to be the leader, or some time the one with more starts.

The system seems to pick the first in the army panel

BTW I never understood how army is ordered in the panel, but I would like to chose my own order will fast troop deploy.

Thanks

[Sir Walter]

They are ordered by the order in which they joined the army, with the commander always at the top (beyond that I don't know). The army's commander is either a) the faction leader, or if he's not there then b) the general with the highest command.

[Paragon]

Funny, I always thought it was the highest Command.

[Sir Walter]

Funny, I always thought it was the highest Command.

The commander is; only the order of the units in the panel is due to how they joined

[k/t]

There is no chronic shortage of good cavalry. If anything, cavalry is too readily available. That will change in 7.0, assuming RR/RC 2.0 is integrated as-is.

If the FL is not there, then the guy with the most stars takes over.

[MortalCoil]

[QUOTE=k/t;11640396]There is no chronic shortage of good cavalry. If anything, cavalry is too readily available. That will change in 7.0, assuming RR/RC 2.0 is integrated as-is.

2.0? is it updated on the RR/RC website?

[iosys]

There is no chronic shortage of good cavalry. If anything, cavalry is too readily available. That will change in 7.0, assuming RR/RC 2.0 is integrated as-is.

If the FL is not there, then the guy with the most stars takes over.

Well I tend to not agree, the only cavalry I can get is militia cavalry, which BTW has been considerably weakened compared with vanilla; while I can hardly get the other ones in 30 turns; even mounted sergeant supposed available since the beginning.

While in real medieval cavalry was almost the whole army.

I can leave with it though as playing Venice

What seems instead unreasonable strong is the Italian militia whose population moved from 75 of vanilla version to 101.
One militia unit could slaughter 1-2 of my poor militia cavalry and put in serious danger the General bodyguard.

Besides Mercenary units which were supposed to be way better than Italian Militia has no chance
only 1 attack point more having a population of 48 will be no match for 101 spear militia!!

[tudor93]

One militia unit could slaughter 1-2 of my poor militia cavalry and put in serious danger the General bodyguard.

you are doing it wrong then, lol

[Sir Walter]

Well I tend to not agree, the only cavalry I can get is militia cavalry, which BTW has been considerably weakened compared with vanilla; while I can hardly get the other ones in 30 turns; even mounted sergeant supposed available since the beginning.

If you have a castle (even a wooden one) then I see no reason why you can't recruit mounted sergeants.

While in real medieval cavalry was almost the whole army.

Oh no. Cavalry was often the most decisive, powerful and glorified part of the army. This is because commanders, nobles and the rich could afford horses, lances and armour, while conscripted peasants, especially at the start of the Middle Ages, would be more likely to have a spear and shield or a bow and knife, with some padded clothes. The poorly equipped and fed infantry still made up most of the army, its just that we think of medieval battles as between knights because they were idealised by courtly poets who wrote of Roland and Arthur, and by the tournaments and so on of the time. This overwhelming focus on the knights and mounted men-at-arms didn't stop armies made up largely of poor infantry annihilating arrogant enemy cavalry (who often ignored their own infantry) at battles such as Jaffa, Courtrai, Bannockburn and Agincourt, where the losing side made the key mistake of neglecting their own infantry units (or not bringing enough) and just relying on cavalry smashing through enemy lines like a massive mailed fist; this does not work against spearmen, pikemen or archers with stakes and bodkin arrows.

I can leave with it though as playing Venice

What seems instead unreasonable strong is the Italian militia whose population moved from 75 of vanilla version to 101.
One militia unit could slaughter 1-2 of my poor militia cavalry and put in serious danger the General bodyguard.

Besides Mercenary units which were supposed to be way better than Italian Militia has no chance
only 1 attack point more having a population of 48 will be no match for 101 spear militia!!

This is realistic. If you hire a load of mercenaries, don't expect them to be vastly better than your regular troops. As argued by many theorists (most notably Machiavelli in The Prince), mercenaries are inherently inferior troops to militia as they lack the incentive to protect their homes, etc. They're also expensive, so I just avoid hiring them altogether, whereas Italian militia are the best around and just about the only Western units I know of that are worth recruiting from cities.

[iosys]

I speak mostly for Italian panorama, yet I believe that French and German landscape was not so far away. After Rome falling the land control was very limited and almost only noble were part of the army which was by large cavalry, forgot huge army no one in Europe could rise such an army.
Although I agree that the typical man at arm was not in shining full plate mail not holy too expensive but poor smithy; west Europe was also too hot in summer time and too hilly for heavy cavalry.
To compensate the incapability to rise army from the common people dukes often recruited mercenary, Hungary, Norman, Slaves, even Arabs from Sicily (yes the infidel too).
After all also Rome in the past and Byzantine who could field larger armies based on infantry, were mostly mercenary.
Only with the growing of Communes I Italy were the main catchment area for recruitment was town people and when kings’ power was more strengthened large infantry were back.
Last but not least Machiavelli is not reliable as historicist, interesting literature of Mid-age yes but for sure biased to catch the favor of the “prince” (aka Cesare Borgia), might be inetesting as political theory not sure as war manual.

[Sir Walter]

I speak mostly for Italian panorama, yet I believe that French and German landscape was not so far away. After Rome falling the land control was very limited and almost only noble were part of the army which was by large cavalry, forgot huge army no one in Europe could rise such an army.

They did raise peasant levies (e.g. Anglo-Saxon fyrd) to help fight. An army largely comprised of cavalry was simply unaffordable - the quality (and quantity) of horseflesh required by knights and men-at-arms, coupled with the fact that injured horses usually had to be put down, made it prohibitively expensive to have a whole army of cavalry, though many well-off infantrymen could afford a cheap little hobby-horse or similar to ride on between battles.

Although I agree that the typical man at arm was not in shining full plate mail not holy too expensive but poor smithy; west Europe was also too hot in summer time and too hilly for heavy cavalry.
To compensate the incapability to rise army from the common people dukes often recruited mercenary, Hungary, Norman, Slaves, even Arabs from Sicily (yes the infidel too).
After all also Rome in the past and Byzantine who could field larger armies based on infantry, were mostly mercenary.

Standing armies could not be raised from agriculturally employed commoners, but the temporary armies used on campaign were usually levies for the most part. Standing professional armies were only really reintroduced to Europe with the advent of the Spanish tercio in the 15th century, while foreign mercenaries were often unreliable and ill-disciplined, distrusted for their tendency to seize local power as done by Norman adventurers in 11th century Italy and Sicily under the Hautevilles.

Only with the growing of Communes I Italy were the main catchment area for recruitment was town people and when kings’ power was more strengthened large infantry were back.

Exactly, so in Italy militia are good. They suck, as is historically accurate, in more feudalised regions.

Last but not least Machiavelli is not reliable as historicist, interesting literature of Mid-age yes but for sure biased to catch the favor of the “prince” (aka Cesare Borgia), might be inetesting as political theory not sure as war manual.

Machiavelli was a representative of a fiercely independent and republican Florence, and was opposed to the influence of the Church and its leading families (Medici, Borgia etc) as well as the influence of mercurial condottieri. He had no interest in currying favour with the Borgias (least of all in the book I quoted, which was published after Cesare's death) and preferred talking about first-hand experience to over-theorising, so I would regard him as relatively reliable source.

[Ichon]

If unit is general then general with highest command or FL takes charge between multiple generals. If there are no generals than commander is chosen in order of who joined the army first so if you have no general better to put a missile cavalry general or HC as they are less likely to accidentally die.

[k/t]

PB has released some files, including the EDU, but the final version is yet to come. He says it will be soon.

[Paragon]

Soon means soon enough to be in 7.0?

[k/t]

He said it will be.