Traitors

[CartmantheLame]

I love this feature in this game, but it happens way too often.

Does anyone have any suggestions for avoiding this? I just started a game as Denmark. With the ungeneraled army on the island between Denmark and Sweden(sorry that I'm not sure what it is called, Skane?) I sent it up to Oslo in hopes of taking it. Well I got up there and realized that I had no chance and sat the army outside the city for a few rounds hoping to send my King and some reinforcements up there and before they got there the unit deserted.

Is there anything I can do to avoid this or does Medieval really hate moving units around without generals? I get probably 1 out of every 11 units that I move without a general bought off me. Can I adjust this somehow in the game files or anything else you might suggest?

I'm not really complainer about this game, but this aspect although I like it in moderation has absolutely destroyed a few games for me. Thanks.

[Axe-Battler]

go into your descr_strat file and look at the top, which would look like this...
under the playable/nonplayable factions and start/end years...


marian_reforms_disabled
rebelling_characters_active
gladiator_uprising_disabled
night_battles_enabled
show_date_as_turns
brigand_spawn_value 20
pirate_spawn_value 50


Change it to this...

marian_reforms_disabled
;rebelling_characters_active
gladiator_uprising_disabled
night_battles_enabled
show_date_as_turns
brigand_spawn_value 20
pirate_spawn_value 50

Thus the line "rebelling_characters_active" becomes....

;rebelling_characters_active

notice the symbol in front of it ;

then save the changes.
You may not be able to as your file could still be using "read only" attribute.

right click the file, then disable read only, then you'll be able to save the file.

[Strabo]

The island you were standing on between Denmark and Sweden was either Fyn (The smallest of the two) or Sjælland (Zealand - the largest and the closest one to Sweden. Skåne is the southern part of Sweden...

[Ippius]

Well if u were a captain with a small group. U were far away from ur big ugly terrifying boss. Wouldn't you want to run away?
It's a very harsh aspect in the game but it makes some sense at least...I've had many BIG armies desert and that's really crushing...

[normanknight]

For some reason i mostley have this problem with the damn danes. But it does make sense and adds to the fun of the game. the best way to stop this is to not expand so quickley and have very loyal sons

[coreally]

I find the further away from an officer/city the army is, the more likely a force will become traitors. So If my own officer is in the same region they're less likely to turn coat (depending on the officers skills/rank, of course - some traits encourage units to turn coat).

Its very very rare that I have a traitor, but its often a good thing. Whenever I kill a traitor with a non-officer army, I'm usually offered a decent adoption.

[MrMerisi]

One of two things are happening:

1) armies (including those with generals) can be bribed by rival factions
2) armies (including those with low-loyalty generals, but mostly those with captains) can just rebel (IMO it's like they're sympathising with the rebels they were sent to crush). I've noticed that this is more likely if the rebel force they're sent to besiege is bigger than theirs (they don't know you're going to send reinforcements). Discretion is the better part of valour...treachery may be the better part of survival.

[Gorrrrrn]

Had an extremely annoying case of desertion a couple of days ago.

As England I had a full-stack army besieging a strongly defended Nuremburg (held by the Danes.) It had a proper general in charge.

The siege went to the last turn when (you guessed) the general died and the army deserted immediately. SO not only did iIget the city, I lost an army too!

In future I'm assaulting on the last turn rather than risking that happening again!

[Lubeck]

Really your only defense against this is (without cheating) to keep a general with good loyalty in all armies.

And Rozanov, you should have been keeping better track of your generals. Having one leading an army when he could die at any time is bad management.

[MrMerisi]

I've found that the AI will bribe smaller stacks with no general rather than larger ones with no general. So splitting armies with captains could be counter-productive if you're worried about them being bribed in enemy territory. Your diplomacy scrolls should also tell you which enemies are rich, ergo more likely to be able to afford a bribe. Using your diplomats to test the bribe "threshold" of enemy stacks is a good way to figure out when your own armies might be bribed based on your enemy's wealth.

@Rozanov, as Lubeck says, you should always keep an eye on your generals. I assume he's referring to their age (but loyalty is also always one to watch), as generals can die of old age anywhere between 55 and 63 in my experience. If you're playing Vanilla of course they won't always age 1 year per turn, so this can be harder to calculate. But as a rule of thumb, sending a 55 year-old general off to besiege a settlement that takes 9 turns to surrender isn't a great idea. That said, you'll never know if he'll die on turn 7, turn 8 or turn 9 of that siege or live through it...so it's not like assaulting on the last turn is going to guarantee he'll be around. He could just as likely die on turn 8! You can bet he won't be around long to govern the city though!

[Buller]

i hate this, 100%, im about to take the island east of Valencia, Traitor, im about to take york? traitor, i send an army WITH A GENERAL off to take the last Milanense settlement? he goes Rebel, i mean wtf

this is as spain

[MrMerisi]

i hate this, 100%, im about to take the island east of Valencia, Traitor, im about to take york? traitor, i send an army WITH A GENERAL off to take the last Milanense settlement? he goes Rebel, i mean wtf

this is as spain

Hmm...let me see. You're a 30-something, in charge of a huge army of men, all loyal to you, the general, and you spy a nice chunk of land along the Ligurian coast, and decide to settle down with your army and carve out a little fiefdom to call your own.

Right, of course you'd say "no thanks, I'd rather risk my life and those of my men trying to kill the last of the Milanese."

The absence of titles in M2TW Vanilla means you have precious few incentives to give to nobles to keep them loyal.

I bet your general's loyalty was at 1 or 2 when you sent him on this mission. I won't believe it was higher than 3.

[Lubeck]

I have never had an issue with low loyalty. Of course I never adopt and rarely marry my princesses off (far more useful as diplomats who can steal another factions general if that general is worth it...using spies with princesses is a good idea) and if I were to I care more about loyalty than anything else. Havn't had a single general go rebel on me.

As far as titles go there are mods out there that add them in. Very nice addition being able to make a family member Duke/Prince/Count/etc of a settlement. The Long Road includes a title mod that adds loyalty, tax bonuses, and additional traits (Milan, being a producer of fine armor, adds hit points to your general) depending on where they are given the title.

Just don't go switching around titles, that lowers loyalty.

[Hex Khan]

I've never really had a problem with deserting generals/armies but i have always wondered how does the king's authority affect rebellions if at all? i've had times when out of desperation i've had a general without any loyalty lead large army, mainly mercs to intercept large enemy armies or reinforce sieges, yet they never seem to rebel? so what exactly caused a rebellion?