The Lack of Generals

[Igorputski]

A real man only fights with one general. Well for multiplayer that should kind of be a house rule as I think it's gamey to buy 3 cavalry or chariots just to get an unfair advantage over your opponent.

[GiveWarAchance]

How do you move generals during deploy? I get the same error message everytime that the general can't be moved cause they have no units under their command.

[rbodleyscott]

How do you move generals during deploy? I get the same error message everytime that the general can't be moved cause they have no units under their command.

Move another unit to their command, then move the general to the unit.

[GiveWarAchance]

How do you move generals during deploy? I get the same error message everytime that the general can't be moved cause they have no units under their command.

Move another unit to their command, then move the general to the unit.

Oh ya thanks. I just found the right click function for moving units to their command. I can move generals now. Yah!

[Cablenexus]

Hope this is the right thread for this. One question about generals.

If a unit is in CC of any sub general and assigned to a main general, but not in CC of the main general...Do the subgeneral transfers main generals ability to the unit?

I ask this because when in deploy, the units under CC are shaded and the CC penalty is not showing, even if they are assigned to the main general, but not in the CC of the main general, but they are in CC of the subgeneral.

Also this,

Is it neccesary and/or helpful to assign all units to generals at start, there are some who aren't auto ssigned. Or is this a disadvantage?

Sorry if those are noob questions, I just start to learn the rules. Thanks in advance.

[rbodleyscott]

Hope this is the right thread for this. One question about generals.

If a unit is in CC of any sub general and assigned to a main general, but not in CC of the main general...Do the subgeneral transfers main generals ability to the unit?

Yes

Is it neccesary and/or helpful to assign all units to generals at start, there are some who aren't autoassigned. Or is this a disadvantage?

Light troops are the only ones not autoassigned, and they don't really need generals.

[MikeC_81]

Please highly consider standardizing the General unit count. In the opening tournament force selection, maxing out generals and then subsequently fidgeting their unit placements by swapping units in and out of formation is time consuming and irritating but when you are in a tournament scenario and want to play to win, you kinda are forced into doing it.

[the_iron_duke]

I think there should be an automated and standardized number of generals per map size, say for a medium map one C-in-C and two sub-generals, large map one C-in-C and three sub-generals (and maybe sub-generals with different command levels). These would cost no points. This would allow someone to just play a game without fiddling with generals if they wanted.

However, one would also be able to customize generals at unit purchase screen. So one could take a general away and get more points to spend on troops or alternatively buy an extra general for points. Maybe possibility to change types of sub-general too (Field, Troop), with relevant points adjustment to spend on troops.

So pretty much like FoG I, except that there are default generals already paid for.

[76mm]

I agree with the_iron_duke's suggestion, although maybe tweak down the number of generals--two generals on a medium map, etc.

[the_iron_duke]

I agree with the_iron_duke's suggestion, although maybe tweak down the number of generals--two generals on a medium map, etc.

It might be good to have commanders for centre and each flank at Medium size, which would mean three sub-generals, since troops appear to be under direct command of sub-generals and the C-in-C is above them. So that would probably be C-in-C as Field Commander, a sub-general Field Commander for the centre, and Troop Commanders for either wing. This exact same setup I think would also be suitable for Large maps. The most important thing is it's fair and equal between players, with no-one getting extra bonus generals for free through the use of arcane methods.

[76mm]

I agree that the main thing is to be fair and equal, it's just that medium battles are so small, the commanding general can cover most of the infantry line, and a second general can command the cavalry (usually I concentrate my cavalry on one wing).

[the_iron_duke]

I'm mostly playing Large maps, to be fair. Maybe Medium maps could have one Field Commander sub-general for the centre and a Troop Commander sub-general for cavalry and/or flank, and to get a commander for both flanks would require buying another general. Or alternatively, have three sub-generals as Troop Commanders and C-in-C as Field Commander. Anyway, Richard would have a better idea of what might work best.

[GiveWarAchance]

If you put leaders on infantry and stuff, you also have a disadvantage now cause you will try to keep that company of troops out of combat to retain the general bonus. I found that I still have to put my general units into combat at some point, especially since I tend to be overrun during battles and need the extra boots in the fighting to stave off defeat for a couple more turns. If you have a big army and are winning, then it is easier to avoid committing generals to combat.

[the_iron_duke]

Anyone know when a fix for this will be released? I think this should be at or near the top of the list. I don't really feel like playing a multiplayer game and getting an unfair advantage by using the one weird old trick, but neither do I want to be a disadvantaged by an opponent who does.

-----------------------------------------------

If you put leaders on infantry and stuff, you also have a disadvantage now cause you will try to keep that company of troops out of combat to retain the general bonus. I found that I still have to put my general units into combat at some point, especially since I tend to be overrun during battles and need the extra boots in the fighting to stave off defeat for a couple more turns. If you have a big army and are winning, then it is easier to avoid committing generals to combat.

Sub-generals in combat lose command control, which I think only means the troops they command lose the manoeuvrability bonus (correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand:

A general whose unit is in close combat is deemed to be fighting in that combat. He adds +50 Points of Advantage (POAs) to his unit’s combat capability. He also adds a +1 modifier on Cohesion Tests for friendly units within (command range / 4) squares while he is in close combat (but not otherwise).

Plus, I think the C-in-C can still provide the manoeuvrability bonus, if in range.

[Cumandante]

Anyone know when a fix for this will be released? I think this should be at or near the top of the list. I don't really feel like playing a multiplayer game and getting an unfair advantage by using the one weird old trick, but neither do I want to be a disadvantaged by an opponent who does.

I totally agree.

Plus, I think the C-in-C can still provide the manoeuvrability bonus, if in range.

I doubt that.

[the_iron_duke]

Plus, I think the C-in-C can still provide the manoeuvrability bonus, if in range.

I doubt that.

From the manual:

10.2. Line of Command

The C-in-C can provide command control to any troops. A sub-general can provide command control to any non-allied troops.

[Cumandante]

Oh, I thought you meant that the CinC could provide command control while fighting. My bad!

But SGs can also provide CC to troops outside of their command.

EDIT: now that I think about it, I'm not sure what your point was.

[the_iron_duke]

Oh, I thought you meant that the CinC could provide command control while fighting. My bad!

But SGs can also provide CC to troops outside of their command.

EDIT: now that I think about it, I'm not sure what your point was.

My point was that if a sub-general was in close combat then his troops would lose the command control manoeuvrability from the sub-general, but would still receive the bonus if in range of the C-in-C, if he's not in combat. I think that's how it is, anyway.

[GiveWarAchance]

Can this be comfirmed? This is a good question. I'm scared to commit my sub-generals and C-in-C to battle cause I don't want to turn my army into a team of fluffy hamsters.

[Igorputski]

Multiplayer generals should be agreed on before a battle, campaign, or tournament period. Outside multiplayer you should be able to do what you like.

The other option to make it more interesting is have generals available to buy before the battle, campaign or tournament, then it is up to you what you will do; either get more men or another general. Balance of this of course will be up to the dev how many points a general is worth vs another unit or units. I like the idea of "choice" vs mandatory as strategy is about choices one general makes over the other. Read Sun Tzu.