Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
As you can read other comments that king or vassals can be commander and knight in same time, also you can see list of characters who killed in battlefield. So, player must be equal with AI character. I'm playing and write my story..
A ruler literally cannot be set as a knight. Don't know what comments you're referring to. Also, why would you write a story where the king is somehow simultaneously the highest rank of nobility and the lowest? Knights aren't a club. It's a peerage title.
Your King is already a badass. He has the same, if not better, training than a knight. You are the highest lord of the land. You are educated, trained in war, and have the best gear because you can afford it. You don't need to pretend he's a magical knight - He's BETTER than a knight.
Historically some independent kings acted as "knights" in the CK3 sense - they personally fought on the front line.
Consider King Richard I of England, called 'the Lionheart' for instance. Wikipedia says about him: "Contemporaries considered Richard as both a king and a knight famed for personal martial prowess; this was, apparently, the first such instance of this combination. He was known as a valiant, competent military leader and individual fighter who was courageous and generous."
So perhaps we need different options for commanding an army. From the rear, but also fighting on the front.
Then there is also the issue that AI rulers and player controlled rulers are not treated the same. For example, as an emperor I can force every king under me to serve as knight, but as a player ruler I cannot ever fight as a knight for my AI liege. This is obviously for balancing reasons, but I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to tick a box which says "volunteer as knight".
Yes I agree that king is already a badass. But a king who also is a knight is even more badass still. Ultimately we need more use for the Prowess stat.
This is what I'm talking about .. Thank you ...
Historically speaking, that's a bit more complicated. If you mean nobility in the modern English sense, as in baron and up, then yeah, the knight would have been a poor cousin.
But mediaeval knights weren't really the bottom of the nobiliary ladder — definitely not the lowest among the armigers who held manors (or parts of them) and were required to provide military service in return.
A lot of petty nobles provided mounted service as light cavalry or owed half a knight's fee, so for example two brothers orcould flip a coin and send one of them as a knight. There were even cases of barons owning less than a full knight's fee due to partitioning-induced relative poverty but still counting as nominal lords due to sheer hereditary rank.
Around the 14th century actual knights were already the elite among the countless squires in the countryside holding manors or even castles. Few people took the accolade, often because of the costs involved, since the equipment was prohibitively expensive even by the standards of someone who owned a village or two. And some actually fought in heavy armour and owned a charger but didn't want the hassle of knighthood for some reason. And later knighthood became very exclusive and the lower ranks of gentry and petty nobility suddenly woke up essentially barred from what used to be their certificate of puberty.
Nowadays, for comparison, knightly families are regarded as the apex of untitled nobility, most of whom are regarded as too basic, too low to be knights. For example the average German untitled von is nominally lower than someone explicitly titled as Edle = Squire, let alone Ritter = Knight, at least in those regions where such distinctions were used. Likewise France. And in England knightly families (the folks who even well into the 17th century generally managed to get their sons knighted, even though they weren't lords) were much above the usual country gentleman.
Higher nobles still considered themselves knights, it's just that 'knight' wasn't all that they had to their name. But it wasn't demeaning for them to be knights or serve as knights. So oftentimes a baron or count is referred to as e.g. a famous knight or a formidable knight. There were knights and then there were knights. Some were glorified heavy cavalry soldiers, and some enjoyed quite elite status. Also much depended on the period and the place.
[/offtopic]
A knight can only die in battle, if his prowess is under 40.
All knights who have a prowess skill over 40 can not die in battle or be captured.
If you wish so, you can call them as a premium knight.
"The game does not support the player being a knight." Only support to be knight by your liege.
In battle report 0 kills. So, he only capture other knights or kill them.