Leaders

[PDiFolco]

Leader generation is a bit strange : as Carthage I have like 6 crappy generals (0, +1 max..), I know it's not a very good nation for leaders, but any backwater barbaric band that attack me from the desert has a +2 leader, or at least +1 ? This is not very realistic, to get good generals you need population & education, barbarians hadn't that.

[devoncop]

Leader generation is a bit strange : as Carthage I have like 6 crappy generals (0, +1 max..), I know it's not a very good nation for leaders, but any backwater barbaric band that attack me from the desert has a +2 leader, or at least +1 ? This is not very realistic, to get good generals you need population & education, barbarians hadn't that.

While I understand your general (forgive the pun!) complaint it is certainly not the case that a higher population and better education resulted in better Generals as a matter of course. Many bandit leaders had neither but would frequently rung rings around " better educated" Generals.

Think of the examples of many highly educated British Generals in the American War of Independence being totally outclassed or even the successes of some native American Chiefs like Sitting Bull against the pride of West Point.

[ledo]

I think repeatedly it has been proven that education can actually kill creativity, with the most common example of a general performing poorly being one that lacks adaptability despite significant education and even experience (many games have an old guard negative modifier). Creativity and being able to see each problem in the context of what it actually is, rather than what experience tells you it should be, seem to be the most important characteristics of a general.

[devoncop]

I think repeatedly it has been proven that education can actually kill creativity, with the most common example of a general performing poorly being one that lacks adaptability despite significant education and even experience (many games have an old guard negative modifier). Creativity and being able to see each problem in the context of what it actually is, rather than what experience tells you it should be, seem to be the most important characteristics of a general.

Much more elegantly put than my ramblings ! Agree comletely.

[Pocus]

You just did not had luck on this Pascal!

Send them with a light cav against desert tribes, they will have 1/6 chance per battle to die, this should recycle them rather fast.

As for education. If education plays a role, then why not build war academies to boost your leader pool?

[PDiFolco]

You just did not had luck on this Pascal!

Send them with a light cav against desert tribes, they will have 1/6 chance per battle to die, this should recycle them rather fast.

As for education. If education plays a role, then why not build war academies to boost your leader pool?

Ok, thanks Pocus ! Maybe it's even more radical to send them starve in the middle of the Med ?
Yet my point rather was that unknown tribes have too many very good generals imo

edit : and btw a cool feature would be that winning generals could improve and gain abilities, instead of just being incompetent and die .This way we could have a real Hannibal

[PDiFolco]

Bump
Too bad you cannot starve 0-0 generals at sea, they come back in lifeboats it seems ... And am I just unlucky, with Rome and 8 generals the best I have since 50 turns are 1-0 and 0-2 ?
Yet barbarians always come up with 2-1s generals minimum!

[Geffalrus]

Man, the difference between a 0 Attack/Defend general and a 2 Attack or Defend general is pretty stark. A 2 Attack general with a decently composed army of experienced troops is pretty formidable. Until he tragically dies in combat and the new general sucks and your units lose their XP.........

Getting a run of 0-0 generals with no bonus traits can really bring one's expansion to a halt. Seriously, I'll make a basileus philoi out of anyone who brings me a 2-2 general who's under the age of 40.

[Pocus]

Bad luck for Rome, Rome don't have especially crappy leaders.

[SirGarnet]

Selection of field commanders up into the 20th century has been based primarily on status and with competence a bonus (but not so much as to threatenthe state). My Rome has produced a few with total score of 3 at best.

[vakarr]

Does a general have a 1/6 chance of dying no matter how big or high quality his army?

[Pocus]

No, that's 1/16 if you win, 1/8 in stalemate and 1/4 if you lose. Not related to army size, many led from the front.

[Etishamy]

Thanks for the info

[Ludendorf]

As an amusing anecdote, I am currently rocking a general's staff of two people, 0-0 and 0-1 respectively, as the mighty Ptolemies in one of my games.

[Bullseye500]

Historical reading will support birthright and politics as the most often used criteria for military leadership. Politics built (personal relationships) on interacting with one's superiors in a manner which impresses a superior would of course come next (our present day personnel file evaluations are a good example of this). Leadership ability would many times follow in consideration, often not considered at all for a command posting, although one would preferably consider Leadership trait to be the desired capability considered. Many with fine abilities are passed over without thought, or never noticed at all to satisfy the first two considerations. Randomly selecting leaders (in-game) is probably a good representation of the same, with modifiers where deemed useful. History is filled with examples of bad Leaders and Politicians being replaced in a bloody manner, I like the idea of sending them out ill-equipped for battle, that to me seems a great way to achieve the desired historically flavored and playable effect.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

In games it is also easy to min max the numbers and over emphasis the mechanical tactical ability of commanders. In my humble opinion it is common that wars are fought and lost on things such as logistics. Also, generals only had so much control over an army, once the battle had started it was often subordinates who made the battle winning/losing mistakes. You could see the numbers as the effectiveness of the general staff.

It might be interesting to create traits that affect the economy or political side of things tied to generals and their use. You could have a trait that lowers stability in some provinces if the general is not in charge of the nations largest army.

[Gray Fox]

Military Expertise affects leadership. Build lots of red buildings and ME goes up. I find it more practical to designate one province as a National Arsenal Province (NAP). All of my military buildings are there, because you get a bonus to a structure's effect if you have several of them in one province. So four barracks in the NAP give more experienced troops than one barracks in four different provinces. Then all of the other regions in my empire get useful red structures like better walls or maybe the Mercenary building. I've had an ME over five and in my last game as Sarmatia I received two "Double Deuce" Generals (2-2).

[travling_canuck]

Is there any benefit to putting a 0-0 General in charge of your army if he doesn't have any useful characteristics?

One of the things that I've thought would benefit the game - and cut down on the number of 1- or 2-unit AI armies running around - would be to require a General for an army to enter a Province (other than while passing through when moving from one Garrison to another Garrison or when moving from a Garrison to join up with an Army that currently has a General). It would also give me a reason to put a 0-0 Coward in charge of one my armies.

One challenge for the system I've proposed is how to deal with an army that loses it's General in combat, if it doesn't have a General to replace him. There might have to be some automatic replacement rule where a dead General is immediately replaced by another General at random from the available pool, or if none by a new randomly generated General.

Speaking of dying Generals, if there isn't already, I think there should be a de minimus rule on what counts as a "battle" for the purpose of checking for leader deaths. The AI sending 1-unit suicide squads against my 40-unit army shouldn't trigger a potential leader death, regardless of whether he leads from the front or not. He'd hardly bother leaving his tent for such an event. These aren't true battles. It's particularly annoying when the AI trigger as many as 3 or 4 such faux battles in a single turn.

[vakarr]

No benefit for your army, but If your army has a general and the opposing army doesn't, the opposing army is downgraded in its morale etc. Similarly if the opposing army has a 0-0 general then you don't suffer any penalty if you also have a 0-0 general.

[poesel71]

Is there any benefit to putting a 0-0 General in charge of your army if he doesn't have any useful characteristics?

I think some options like abandoning a province are only available if you have a general.

One of the things that I've thought would benefit the game - and cut down on the number of 1- or 2-unit AI armies running around - would be to require a General for an army to enter a Province (other than while passing through when moving from one Garrison to another Garrison or when moving from a Garrison to join up with an Army that currently has a General). It would also give me a reason to put a 0-0 Coward in charge of one my armies.

That is a very good idea!
Every attack or siege should need a general. Movement over own, allied or CS territory still allowed without General.

One challenge for the system I've proposed is how to deal with an army that loses it's General in combat, if it doesn't have a General to replace him. There might have to be some automatic replacement rule where a dead General is immediately replaced by another General at random from the available pool, or if none by a new randomly generated General.

I don't think that is necessary. You would need to assign a new General to that army next turn or end your offensive. That is IMHO a sufficient mechanic.
If he died in a draw the army would be automatically on the defense for the following battle and without any bonuses from the General (as has been stated elsewhere on this forum the battle were mostly led by subordinates anyway).

Speaking of dying Generals, if there isn't already, I think there should be a de minimus rule on what counts as a "battle" for the purpose of checking for leader deaths.
...

Yes, please.
Or factor in the power ratio of the armies. But there should always be a non-zero chance of the General dieing. They can always send assasins...