The General

[Kongamato]

To use your army to its full potential, you must engage the enemy in battle with the most possible florins invested. Most often, this requires the general to join the melee himself. Since his death or cowardice can ruin an army's chances of winning, a different set of guidelines need to be applied to his engagement in the battle. There are two ways of thinking here: Make the general fight, or keep him safe and alive.

Many people, out of fear of his death or cowardice, choose to keep their general out of the melee and in the back of the army. I view this as a mistake, as most often the general's unit is the most expensive and capable unit(quite often cavalry), out of the same fear of his death or cowardice. This means that a sizeable chunk of the player's florins sits behind the front doing nothing. I noticed this, and for a while I made my general an artillery piece, so at least he could contribute to the battle. Making him a high-budget, melee-only cav unit that does nothing would be a waste of florins on a unit whose purpose is flanking and shock. In my opinion, the best general fit to stay behind and watch would be the Hashishin or Ghazi, and although the Hash cannot disappear as general, they can fire some arrows, and both need few upgrades, as their honor would prevent them from taking part in a mass rouut.

Committing the general to battle is a risky situation. Many players will send all available reserves to fight the general, which could cause his death quite quickly. This effect can be exploited to the benefit of the player committing him, but unfortunately such is not always the case. However, the typical beefed-up cav general is a force to be reckoned with, and can provide a great deal of assistance to the player who commands him. Knights, Lancers, Bodyguards, and Heavy Infantry seem to be the best men for this job, with the best fighting skills and defence in the game.

So my question here for you all is this: What do you judge to be the greater risk? Placing your general in danger, or depriving your army of a unit? What conditions or configurations make one school of thought the most feasible?

[Cheetah]

Quote[/b] (Kongamato @ Dec. 24 2002,16:49)]Many people, out of fear of his death or cowardice, choose to keep their general out of the melee and in the back of the army. I view this as a mistake, as most often the general's unit is the most expensive and capable unit(quite often cavalry), out of the same fear of his death or cowardice. This means that a sizeable chunk of the player's florins sits behind the front doing nothing. I noticed this, and for a while I made my general an artillery piece, so at least he could contribute to the battle. Making him a high-budget, melee-only cav unit that does nothing would be a waste of florins on a unit whose purpose is flanking and shock.
Basicaly, I agree with your line of argument Kongamato. Personaly, I prefer fighting generals, usualy infantry. Of course, this does not imply that one should risk his life, but when the time comes I commit him to fight without hesitation.

[Crandaeolon]

I usually commit the bugger into battle. Slouches aren't welcome in my army http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Of course this sometimes leads to losing generals, especially in team games after the gen has taken part in a couple of fights. As the gens in MP have 4 hitpoints (right?), it would be nice to have some kind of indicator regarding the gen's health. Something really simple like adding a "leader wounded" descriptor to the mouseovers when the leaders have 2 or less hitpoints left might be helpful in avoiding gen deaths.

[Kongamato]

Thanks for the reply. The fighting general is obviously going to be a heavy unit, like infantry, that can survive. Keeping the general alive is the focus of both of these schools of thought, and many will combine them. However, the survival of the general will lead itself to two extremes, shown in this mock debate:

Master A: "Like a tree, my forces rest upon the trunk which is the general. If he breaks, or sways too far, the tree will topple in defeat. Committing him to battle puts the whole tree in danger."

Master B: "The trunk of a tree is the tree's whole strength. Something that strong and able cannot be placed at the mercy of the lesser branches and leaves above it. To not use the main strength of the tree would be equally dangerous."

Master A: "Then I shall not waste my strength on something I shall not use. I shall put my mass and strength into my leaves and branches. The trunk shall be weak, yet heavily defended. I shall be a shrubbery. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Master B: "A shrubbery will always stand in the shadow of a tree."

Master A: "You dare insult me"

Master B: "Well, it was you who came up with this stupid botanical analogy in the first place...."


Whatever. I'd like to hear more about what people believe a general's combat readiness should be.

[LordTed]

Use the gen as bait or fight him away from the main body so should the worst happen the morale affects would be reduced by the distance.

[Crandaeolon]

Doesn't the gen give a small (+2?) morale bonus to all of his nearby men?

Edit: Gah, let's make it a proper post. :)

That botanical analogy was brilliant. It's not at all difficult to imagine some medieval "strategists" debating the subject in that way.

About the combat readiness... IMHO the general should be a "combat-ready" unit. He should be used to give the aforementioned morale bonus to his men with maximum effectiveness, and committed into battle without hesitation if needs be, although usually only into situations favorable to his unit.

[bosdur]

A general unit gets an extra +2 morale for himself only, nearby unit only benefits extra morale if the general has a star (1 star = 2 morale if not mistaken). Since in MP your general has no star then no morale boost from nearby general.

[Crandaeolon]

Boss, that's indeed how it works in singleplayer, but I _think_ I've seen the "encouraged by the general" in multiplayer too. Might have been pre-patch, I'm really not sure about this. Anyone with certain knowledge about this?

[bosdur]

I dont think its any different in MP, that msg just tells u that the general is within the nearby zone, but the calculation only gives +0 morale boost since the general has no rank.Those msgs are misleading anywayz, i've seen a unit running listed as marching, or sometimes a running unit is marching quickly, and there's also marching very quickly, I'll bring up more if I can remember some other misleading msgs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif.

EDIT:

Another misleading msg : "ignore routing units that arent elite"
does not mean that literally, non-elite units count as 1/2 unit to unit with the misleading attribute, it shud really be phrased as "less affected by routing units that arent elite"

[Krasturak]

Gah

If you hold back your general, he won't get any heads

So, general should be immensely strong, like Krast, filled with Divine Rage and always in the front of the attack.

Gah

[Crandaeolon]

Hmm yer probably right, Boss. I tried to search for more info, but couldn't find any. Damn, I've always thought the gen gives a morale boost to nearby units... I can even remember Kocmoc saying that in a moralebonus debate ages ago.

Gah

[evilc]

if your general is a more powerful unit, he can survive if your attention is elsewhere, if he is mounted, he can also run off somewhere safe, like the back of an engaged byzantine infantry unit. in shogun i had my general as a missile unit for a long time, he died a lot and lowered my morale before the real fight even began, then i switched to heavy cavalry general and used him to flank or take weak units head on.

[Kongamato]

Hmm..

If there was a way to give the general a rank bonus in MP, the "protect at all costs" school of thought might carry more weight as a philosophy, but without it, the needless protection of a man appears only to be a sign of inexperience.

[baz]

well this is a good debate, im not sure where i read it but im sure that all the troops in his army get a morale boost by the presence of a general....yuuki will know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


getting back to the debate of generals engaging...it is the biggest risk but can be the biggest advantage too, if you can help it dont engage him anywhere dangerous (your own judgement matters here) because if he dies then everyone else prolly will too, imo this comes with experience, an experienced vet will surprise many with the handling of their gen...it is a very very thin line and cross it with your own peril...a difficult balancing act

i always taka a cav for my gen, if i loose a battle because my gen unit routs and tyakes the rest with him i try to learn from this and not let it happen again, it is ver disapointing and i know that next time i wont loose like that again...sadly this is not always the case http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Puzz3D]

There isn't any morale support that I can measure coming from the general's unit other than the normal +2 morale flank covering bonus that any unit would provide to another. Use of your general to turn the tide at the height of a battle is an exciting part of the game because of the high risk involved. My own feeling is that I would loose more often if I didn't use him.

[vexatious]

I've adopted a compromised position. My standard army contains 4 cav including the general. 3 Teutonic Knights and 1 Alan Merc Cav. You guessed it, the gen is the AMC. He is quick to escape from trouble but gets a large charging bonus for relatively little money. At 4 valor, he fights as a 7/5, so he can survive engagement with low valor heavy cav and when flank charging infantry, he's a monster. If, however, the enemy decides to commit a lot of resources to going after him (which they often do b/c he is only AMC and is normally on a wing with one other Teut Knight) he can bait/retreat without substantially impairing the strength of the army as a whole. I have lost him early in a few battles. Mostly owing to carelessness. I