Last Man Standing

[Khorak]

I had an idle idea about how generals could be better handled in a game like this.

In MTW there was the problem of generals being like Jedi, with so many hitpoints they simply would not drop dead. This was obviously done so the general wasn't murdered four seconds into a fight. But it sucked, to be honest.

Now in RTW the generals have been toned down, and have this annoying tendency to drop dead at the drop of a hat. Not to mention the bloody inconsistency. I've seen generals die instantly upon impact when charging swordsmen whilst fresh and unhurt. I've seen them furiously stabbing hordes of chosen swordsmen to death.

The problem in both cases was, I think, that the general is treated just like every other man in his unit, and the scales have swung every which way as they try to balance this out. You could be handing the enemy their bottom on a platter, but your general whom you have no real control over in the melee gets killed in a fluke, or you could be losing and your general kills everything. My idea was a 'last man standing' rule. What this would mean is that the general is invulnerable until either his whole unit has been killed, or it routs. He has no special additional stats beyond the rest of his men, he just has a kind of 'character shield' until everything actually goes all wrong.

This would work especially well with factions who would have infantry bodyguards for their generals, like barbarians, and would allow these men to actually battle from the front.

Thoughts?

[nokhor]

i'm guessing something like this is partly impllemented in the game, because it seems that a lot of times, the general is either the first man to die in the bodyguard unit, or more often, the last man to die. i don't remember ever seeing a general die when the unit is half depleted or so.

[Proletariat]

Thoughts?

I like the idea. My only suggestion would be maybe once the unit is down to five or so bodyguards then it could be random again, so that way there is at least some unpredictable element to how your general will survive. God knows if this could be fixed up somehow.

[Ar7]

I like it the way it is, it's realistic. A general is the same as every other man and shouldn't be warded against damage unil his bodygueard dies. If the general is a good warrior ( good virtues, lots of HP, experience ) then he will survive, if not, he dies, it is normal. If you want him alive then keep him out of trouble, that's it, it adds personality to the commander.

[HicRic]

I'm not sure it would work-I don't think your general would ever die, as the unit would most likely rout and leave the battle before the AI cut down every last man in his unit, and the same would go for the AI general. You'd be in the position of the generals in STW/MTW where they stood in combat for a long time and then ran off before they could be killed.

[drone]

In M:TW, some generals died easy, some hard, and I think the same applies in R:TW. The kill speed is just increased in R:TW overall.

It's been a few months since I've played M:TW, does anyone know/remember where the general was positioned in the formation? How does this compare to the position in R:TW (is the general the guy off to the side of the unit)? I'm at work, can't really check right now... ~;) Maybe the general's placement just makes him more vulnerable in certain cases, with exposed flanks.

[Ar7]

If I remember correcty the general was on the left front side of the unit both in RTW and MTW.

[Zorn]

I thinnk it is fine the way it is. There should be some risk if your general is in the middle of a melee.
The way it is done reflects this risk in a very realistic way.
If you don`t wan´t your genral to die, keep him out of harms way. I know how tempting it is, to use his unit of rock-hard, auto-regenerating cavallery. But that is a huge advantage, so there should be a major disadvantage connected with it.
I use my general only in very desperade or very secure situations, eg if I know that the enemy will break upon impact.

[Akka]

Like others, I find it good, realistic and overall, better, that the general is treated just like any other man. I don't like this "scenaristic immunity" of the leader always going down last. I like the slighty random risk factor that he can dies instantly if he's on the trajectory of an arrow or a spear, even if he's the very first man to die.

The main problem, is the tendancy of the AI to use the general's unit as a ram against units, while much more cautiousness should be in order when it comes to the leaser of the army. Not the statistics of the general.

If, really, you want a change for them, one possible solution would be to put him in the CENTER of the unit, rather than the front.

[Khorak]

I envisioned a more cinematic lack of realism for the generals (family members only of course). They always seem to manage to survive to crawl back in shame or stand atop a pile of enemy bodies in glory. With the difficulty of killing them off outside of a siege, it would be hilariously fun to have vices such as 'Hates (your family member who keeps beating him)' that confers less command against them but more morale or something.

[Oaty]

Generals are pretty much balanced. I've had a general that was 1 of 10 casualties in a battle. The thing you have to realise is that royalty, lords kings, nobles and elite units had high quality armour. The history(U.S.) channel had a special on Britain. This Britain was taking typical weapons of the time and hacking away at armour. The blows were definately knockout blows and would have been a killing blow but, when they showed it in slow motion you could see the weapon bounce off and leave a small dent. What you have to realise is that generals/kings would typically have the best armour in the battle. Seeing how strong that the replica armour was, I would not want to go up against it if I had too.

The easiest way I can put it is to think that royalty(generals) is riding around in Panzers while the less priveliged are in Sherman tanks. Sure the Sherman can take out a Panzer but you have to hope that mortar round hit exactly where you wanted it too. Then theres that old saying by a German, A panzer could always take out 9 Shermans but there was always that tenth one.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Generals (well family members anyway) do have more hit points in RTW than rank and file soldiers - as you can get traits that increase their hit points (been in the wars (?)). I think the likelihood of generals getting killed in RTW is fine - they are not superheroes (aka level 25 heroes in warhammer), like they tended to be in MTW. General's still sometimes take some killing in a melee (how often is the enemy general the last man to go down in a fight in the town square?), but if they launch themselves onto a pike point at full charge, there's no amount of hit points which is going to save them!

Anyway - if you put your general into a full on assualt, you should obviously expect him to have a good chance of getting hacked down - a lot of historical generals didn't get involved in melee unless things were totally desperate, and for good reason.

[Simetrical]

I'd also like to see at least some generals actually try to stay out of the fighting if their unit sees battle. It could vary by character traits (including the Berserk, Brave, and Coward lines) and culture (Roman generals would be much less likely to charge into battle than Gauls).

-Simetrical

[Khorak]

I see how this is going. Last one out the thread gets hit with an axe. ~:)

[Sin Qua Non]

Historically for this period, what percentage of leaders/generals died in combat?
The problem I've always had is that the AI will too often use his generals in dangerous situations. Take that annoyance out, and I would have to say that the current general kill ratios are OK. I was always under the impression that until quite recently (post American Civil War) that it wasn't too unheard of to lose the leader in combat. And this was often in a stupid manner, in hindsight.
The American Civil War is so full of bizarre general fatalities that you start to look at the AI generals as compotent. Not a totally fair comparison, but the idea is th same. Just my rambling opinion.

And just out of curiosity, Khorak, how would your last man standing system deal with missile fire? It would be rather frustrating to watrch the general shrug of a volley of arrows, bolts or really large rocks. It sounds like an interesting idea, but it might only prove to be an ineffective fix.

[KiOwA]

As a side note, how do the HP traits work with Generals? A general can't have negative HP (they have 2 HP to start with, and the line of negative hitpoint traits confers a -6 to HP at maximum), so I'm betting it's calculated a different way.

[Sin Qua Non]

HP probably just has a minimum, like command, management and influence. A leader with -5HP in traits is actually a 1HP in combat, but any HP increasing traits have to neutralize the -5HP before being able to increase the leader's HP in combat.

What the actual minimum is I don't know. I would guess 1 or 2 HP.

[KiOwA]

AFAIK, there's only one line of virtue/vice that raises/lowers hitpoints, so there aren't any other VnVs that would co-exist along with them.

[Simetrical]

I've heard that generals get an automatic +5 HP, and captains get +1. This is why they're so often among the last in their units to die. A Cruelly Scarred, Hale and Hearty general would thus have no less than 21 HP. The bugger would be vastly tougher than an elephant!

(Actually, I've heard a dev say that there's an HP limit of 15, but that's still better than an elephant.)

-Simetrical