Veldmaarschalk

I was thinking yesterday about the same thing. It is strange that your ruler isn't leading (or an expectation that he does lead) your armies automatically, like in CK1 and CK2. Now you have to make him the army leader, but if you don't (so your ruler stays at home during war) then that isn't a problem with other characters at all. Just imagine, William the Conquerer not being present at Hastings, but back home in Normandy, while his troops fight for the English crown, that is just weird.

Something similar with Crusades, AFAIK as long as you sent your army it is OK by the Pope, you just place in him in command at the target to get him the Crusader trait and then replace him again.  

I agree, this nickname is much to common and often doesn't make sense.  

An 'attach army' button, yes!

The other additions are also very welcome, but this one I missed the most.  

This thread is a continuation of this thread in the general forum of CKIII.

Please keep the following guidelines in mind

1. Be respectfull towards other posters, the developers etc.
2. Keep it friendly, discussions about historical accuracy can sometimes get heated, so before you make a post, read it again and think to yourself, 'If someone would make a post like this, would I become angry/mad' if yes, then rephrase your post.  

Some I would like

• An Iron Century start date, could be in combination with making the HRE more unique
• An DLC focused on orthodox christianity in combination with the Byzantine Empire
• Something like Horse Lords, but then improved (no specific ideas)
• The rise of cities and burghers (with republics playable)