View Full Version : Creative Assembly Generals DIE DIE DIE
I really think that generals aging and dying should be added as a game option just like limited ammo. I understand some players like their immortal generals so leave it as an option. But I think there are a lot of players who want their generals to age and die like real people.
It just spoils it for me having a 200 year old 8 star general who has everyone vice and virtue most of them contridictory. A pious heretic? No wonder he is an unhinged loon and when he turned 157 he grew a sixth toe!
But seriously I think it would add to game strategy if generals aged and died. Their son would take over with a fresh slate, new command rating (maybe better, maybe worse) and new V and V's.
I would only have a single parchment that listed ALL the generals that passed away that turn. It would list their name command rating and location, so you could tell at a glance if their death is an important occurence.
Gringoleader
10-17-2002, 05:55
Problem is each general starts out as a member of a unit, and is replaced by a regular schmoe from that unit when he dies. The net result of tracking general age is that you have to inevitably track the age of every soldier in the army. That's a lot of people.
*omg*
Imagine a bunch of 80 year old Scots take appart the french http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif) .
Actually gringo the designers have already said that every soldiers age IS tracked already by the program. Ask Giljay its true. I think the main reason they didn't allow generals to die is they thought players would get mad if their 8 star general died of old age.
But I think it should be included as an option.
Lord Romulous
10-17-2002, 08:39
it sounds like a good idea but think of all the extra difficulties.
your general dies, u have to go search for a another general candidate among your troops.. once you find him he could take 3 -4 years to get to the army !
not to mention how hard it would be to get to the high valor levels of 8 stars etc if your general dies in 60 years.
im not saying the idea is a bad thing, in fact i kinda like it but definatly needs to be made a option.
i wish you could get a updating portrait of your general. as he gets older aquires virtues and vices his portrait modifies to a older version or a 11 toe version of the guy etc.
impossible to implement but a nice fantasy
[This message has been edited by Lord Romulous (edited 10-17-2002).]
shokaku76
10-17-2002, 09:11
Plus... it takes 32 years to become a 8-star general.. if he is lucky enough to be included in 32 years of warfare. Even if general starts at age 18, he won't be able to ataain 8-star until he is 50 !!! But we all know how difficult is to send in a general into a specific battle. Most likely, general will be a 70 year old bumbling senile when he attains 5-star or 6-star. But... on the otherhand, it would be an added challenge! Something I would be willing to try. (I cheated in getting a fav gen to attain 7 star by giving him titles like Lord admiralty or soemthing that gave him stars).
I don't know about you fellows, but I have never managed to work a general up from zero stars to eight. Why would you when there are so many generals that start out at 4 stars. Besides many titles also give star bonus'.
martin4444
10-17-2002, 10:07
I don't even care about how many stars a general has.. it's irrelevant as the game is now. It's easy to win battle anyway, lvl 1 vs lvl 8 general? no problem, the AI general always dies first anyway... and even if he does not, AI is whimp and it's only a matter of slaughtering more units then he does, even if he wins this battle, he probably won't the counterattack etc.
The old generals before dying shall pick V&V of old, very old, near death which will decrement their valour by -2, -4, -6 each. This will encourage the players to look for young talent.
If this is implemented, it would mean that you would have to have a steady influx of young new talents as well. And the whole units would have to die/retire then.
It think it would be a nice feature, but the way the things work now, with yearly turns especially, would not make it very meaningful for the game. However, with seasonal turns, this could potentially be a cool feature.
Emperor Romanus IV
10-17-2002, 15:51
Yeah,yearly turns would make units age very quickly,can u imagine all the troops u have to replace if their age were taken into consideration?Not just the generals mind u, all yer high valor troops have to go too.
Then u have to train more troops from scratch
Of cos if this was implemented on a seasonal turn basis,it would be more realistic and fun,not to mention tedious.
Quote Originally posted by martin4444:
I don't even care about how many stars a general has.. it's irrelevant as the game is now. It's easy to win battle anyway, lvl 1 vs lvl 8 general? no problem, the AI general always dies first anyway... [/QUOTE]
It certainly does matter.
I though I was going to have an easy victory on a bridgemap against mostly Royal Knights where I had mostly Spears.
So I set up almost on the bridge as he had no archers. He came charging at me with his Urban Militia first, my Archers getting good kills, then contact...
It was a carnage for my merc Nubian Spearmen, those Militia simply destroyed their formation.
Then came the Royals and mopped up the Spearmen.
My guys killed about 50 while I lost almost 300. All because the enemy Militia had enough Valours to charge through my Nubians (two of them actually made it through to the other side and went in again from the back). With the formation destroyed they could not face the Royals.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
cin.Thrawn
10-17-2002, 18:36
Well i dun mind if they die. But what about the troops? Do they have to die too?
Will be good if the generals son could take over after his dad dies and also that he could inherit some of this qualities like the princes.
Of course the troops don't have to die. We can assume that as the troops age and die they are replaced as needed. But the troops don't have V an V's and don't have individual names and portraits, so abstraction with them doesn't offend one's sense of reality. But these immortal generals are just crazy!
By the way I liked the idea of a general getting the old age vice when he gets too old. Great idea.
And the general is replaced by his heir so the unit won't lose any strength either.
I understand the point thats being made, and maybe it does have some merit.
Personally, though, I'm happy with abstracting things a bit, & just assuming that the generals are replaced by their heirs, who just so happen to be carbon copies of dad.
If you were to have generals dying of old age, & being replaced by heirs, that also brings in the complication of whether that general actually gets married or has any heirs. Are you preposing that this should be something else that we need to keep track of on the strat map?
Even ignoring this the process of looking around for up & comings and getting them to the right place, would be an extra level of micromanagement!
IMO, while it may well be realistic, it just sounds like a whole load of extra micromanagement, & not a great deal of fun. Given how clunky the interface for parts of the strat game is already, do we really need MORE farting about each turn? Unless the strat game gets a little more user friendly, I think this is a change that would probably detract from overall game enjoyment!
Wart I completely understand your points. But that is why I would like it included as an option, just like limited ammo. Wouldn't you even be curious to play a game with aging generals?
As for abstraction I understand that there needs to be a certain amount of abstraction for the game to work. After all we know there really isn't only one castle in each province etc. etc. BUT these generals have been given personalities thru their V and V's. They have names and portraits. In other words they are already covered in great detail, so why not add this one last thing which would make them believable characters.
I for one think adding more depth to the generals has improved the game immensely. But until they die of old age, it is hard to immerse yourself in this imaginary world.
My opinion on this subject is that until we can have an army fight more than one battle/year, we shouldn't have generals dying of old age. Real armies and generals were able to campaign halfway across Europe in a single year. Didn't Alexander the Great march into central Asia from Greece in a few years? Hannibal made it all the way into Rome from North Africa via Spain in a relatively short time. The Mongols were pretty efficient at marching over huge distances in a short period of time.
In MTW, a campaign through 5-10 territories can last 30+ years. In the real world, you'd go through multiple generals in that time, and virtually every soldier in your army would be different (how do you think a unit of 50-year-olds would fare in medieval combat?) I'm not even sure that most of those soldiers would even be alive at 50 given the expected lifespan back then.
I'm not concerned with ageless generals. Unless the time-per-turn drops to something like a month or two instead of a year, aging soldiers, including the general, really don't fit into the game.
Hoof this is going to get me off on a side tangent. But during the period covered by the game there were no great conquests like Alexander or Rome's. The reason being there were no professional armies and no logistic support. Feudal armies were seasonal in nature. They really only fought during good weather for the most part. Campaigns were of very short duration because of this.
Remember it seems like your unit of knights is sitting around waiting for orders, but in reality knights had their manors to run, peasants to oppress etc. etc. According to the classical feudal arrangement a king or liege usually only had the right to demand 40 days of military service from his vassals.
Not to mention that most warfare in this period was siege warfare. Field battles were rare.
Anyway year turns work for this game just because warfare in the middle ages was so slow and indecisive.
But anyway generals should die! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
I have no real objection to the idea except that the game already has too much micromanagement. If the strat game got more polished, then i'd be all for it, but with the way things are now, no, I don't think i'd use it even if it was an option. Once my kingdom reaches a certain size, I find keeping track of my governors, generals, & hordes of agents, a bit of a chore as it is.
I have more than enough admin to do in real life, what with running a business and all, so, when I play a game it really is the last thing I want to be doing!
Abstraction doesnt make a game bad, it just requires imagination and suspension of disbelief. But then i've played a lot of Chess, PnP RPG's and similar, so maybe its just not something I have a problem with. *shrug*
Coo! Kids today no imagination, that's their problem! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif [j/k]
Yes wart you are right one of the glaring weaknesses of this game is information management. I mean for crying out loud on the strategic agent parchment why can't they list the agents location!!!!
And we should be able to stack agents just like units. And there should be a screen that shows what every province is building, troops and buildings, on one screen!!! agggh
But point taken Wart. That is why I stress again this should be added ONLY as an option
Fair enough, options never hurt!
But having said that, personally i'm a stickler for realism options, so if it got included, I'd almost feel obliged to use it, even though I'd hate the extra micromanagement it would require!
(Sad I know! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif )
[This message has been edited by Wart (edited 10-17-2002).]
I know what you mean Wart. I have never read anywhere that the English ran out of arrows at Agincourt but I just can't ever play with unlimited ammo. I need therapy http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Quote Originally posted by tomppb:
I need therapy http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]
I think the same could be said of most of us that post here! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Sword_Monkey
10-18-2002, 00:21
It's an interesting idea as an option. But, not only do I wholeheartedly second the stuff about the 'no fun with the current level of micromanagement', the absolute LAST thing anyone should be campaigning for is more game features before they do polish the one's that are there.
When it's as easy to track all of my troops and provinces as it is Civ3 in this game, then, and only then, start the clamour to bring on the extra game options.
Yes once again valid points are being made about information management in the game. It needs improvement.
ToranagaSama
10-18-2002, 02:13
Quote Originally posted by Wart:
I understand the point thats being made, and maybe it does have some merit.
Personally, though, I'm happy with abstracting things a bit, & just assuming that the generals are replaced by their heirs, who just so happen to be carbon copies of dad.
If you were to have generals dying of old age, & being replaced by heirs, that also brings in the complication of whether that general actually gets married or has any heirs. Are you preposing that this should be something else that we need to keep track of on the strat map?
Even ignoring this the process of looking around for up & comings and getting them to the right place, would be an extra level of micromanagement!
IMO, while it may well be realistic, it just sounds like a whole load of extra micromanagement, & not a great deal of fun. Given how clunky the interface for parts of the strat game is already, do we really need MORE farting about each turn? Unless the strat game gets a little more user friendly, I think this is a change that would probably detract from overall game enjoyment![/QUOTE]
Well, its just a matter of perspective. Some like the micro-management, but just want a better more efficient interface to reduce the tedium. There's been many posts, stating the battles are just bumps on the road back to the Strat Map; and there's many a poster stating that they auto-resolve quite a bit.
Personally, I already keep close track of the age of my King and Daughters; and aim to have my heir married and producing prodigy long before he inherits the throne.
I rarely allow a Princess to expire w/o marrying her off.
Aging generals would be GREAT! It would add another challenge and dimension to the game. I want this in the Add-On. Here I think "realism" my need to lose out to "gaming". So, an 80 year old general running about might be a common sight!
Anyone know if this could be modded? If so, how?
Quote Well, its just a matter of perspective. Some like the micro-management, but just want a better more efficient interface to reduce the tedium.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely.
Quote There's been many posts, stating the battles are just bumps on the road back to the Strat Map; and there's many a poster stating that they auto-resolve quite a bit.[/QUOTE]
Who are these people? To each his own but while I love the strategy aspect of MTW the tactical battles are THE main attraction! I simply love building custom armies and sending them off to battle!
Quote Aging generals would be GREAT! It would add another challenge and dimension to the game. I want this in the Add-On. Here I think "realism" my need to lose out to "gaming". So, an 80 year old general running about might be a common sight![/QUOTE]
Agreed. It seems particularly unfair to the AI as the human player almost always knows better with respect to when and where any immortal uber-generals leaders are needed most. Just imagine the anxiety facing an approaching war with the Almo horde knowing old age may claim your aged legendary general at your nation's greatest hour of need!
ToranagaSama
10-18-2002, 03:00
Who are these people? To each his own but while I love the strategy aspect of MTW the tactical battles are THE main attraction! I simply love building custom armies and sending them off to battle!
I'm one of those people[/b]!:-) At least for the greater part. The battles are great, but....
ONLY within the context of the Strat Map.
I take the greatest pleasure in taking provinces w/o fighting a battle (Especially "key" provinces!). This requires a great deal of "chess" type tactics. Isn't TW supposed to be all about the Sun Tzu???? Or was that just hype? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I started with TW, cause I like the idea of being an "Art of War" type general. Art of War focuses upon gaining superiorty OFF the battlefield; of having already won the battle prior to a blow being struck. This is ALWAYS my objective.
I don't really find the MTW battles (vs the STW battles) to be that compelling in and of themselves. Not sure why? Something is missing. What? Many folks have mentioned this. Maybe I just don't have much affinity for the medieval world. Don't get me wrong, I fight all my battles and only occaisonlly auto-resolve small inconsequential battles.
The battle AI, while being the best there is, and can give a surprise here and there, nonetheless in the end just isn't a "GREAT" challenge. I want to play a human opponent within the context of the Strat Map.
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT, being an ole TAer, DoomII, Half-Lifed to death, fighting w/o context no longer intrigues me. Primary reason I campaign so hard for C-MP. Strat games like Civ (like it) and EU (hate it) leave me flat w/o a TW like battle portion.
Well, just my pesonal likes and dislikes, sorry for the length of this post.
ToranagaSama
10-18-2002, 03:04
Agreed. It seems particularly unfair to the AI as the human player almost always knows better with respect to when and where any immortal uber-generals leaders are needed most. Just imagine the anxiety facing an approaching war with the Almo horde knowing old age may claim your aged legendary general at your nation's greatest hour of need!
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
NUFF SAID!!
I like to sweat!! Rushers would HATE this.
Beeblebrox
10-18-2002, 20:20
I definitely agree on that last point. You never know when old age will take one of your generals away. Like what actually happened to Gustav II Adolf in the 30 years war or what could have happened to Blucher at Waterloo. History is full of examples like those.
I think a good compromise would be to have only generals who reach a certain rank age. Let's say six stars and he becomes a player on the world stage and his life and death take on some meaning. This would limit the amount of units needing attention but put a premium on those with 'star' status.
------------------
He moves, you move first.
Papewaio
10-19-2002, 07:54
I like this thread. I play SP exclusively because I like battles in context. My original sig was 'Victory First, Battle Last'. You should only start a war once you are ready, that requires strategy.
Just remember old age in MTW would be more likely 40+ not 80+. If generals age, I would like to see a sorting function for my generals. I would also see this as an option for realism, but not a default one.
It would make sense that if you have a clear line to provinces that can produce units that attrition due to age was taken care of by the support cost of the unit. Assuming in good faith that the squires get knighted and the young baggage handlers get trained up over time to become front line troops if the units are properly supported.
I would like the ability that at certain break points (6 stars, certain titles for example) that the generals can be upgraded to different units taking along as many of their companions as possible... I would like to see the peasant general who is now Lord of Antioch and married to a princess knight his fellow warriors for sterling service and become a unit of knights... I would suggest that depending on the unit being upgraded that their is a number of steps 'training' required. IE marrying a princess allows an upgrade, Being chamberlain allows two upgrades, becoming a six/eight star general allows more.
All these upgrades have to be paid for and done at places that can create those troops in the first place. Title upgrades should be only allowed if the predecessor was not stripped of his title... no pass the magic title around the peasant generals and have a horde of knights.
Anyhow dreams are nice but vacuuming sucks... oh I hate Saturdays http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
insolent1
10-19-2002, 20:45
Maybe if you could send your new up & coming general to university of war or whatever & pay for his tition so that he would come out with say rank 4 with a good battlefied vice this might make the loss of a good general through old age not as bad
IT'S VERY EASY.......I think that the aging of regular troppsis quit good. Defenitly given a much more micro approach. I would hope thAT they would concentrate more on the governing part of it first like;
-making alliances more meaningful
-having wariness of alliances after to many busted treaties
-have the ability to have another faction join u in battle (easily fixed with a maximum soilder per province law)
-having my troops be able to cross thro anothers province with permission
THE GENERAL ISSUE I BELIEVE can be fixed with another idea i havn't heard yet.
ADD NEW RANKS...add leut/capt/majors/etc to the mix and the stars accordingly.
-either have buildings constructed to create ranks or battle acheivments like valor alterd or adition to rank included.
-when the general dies the highest ranked officer behind him gets the nod of command (gets promoted or not) doesnt matter.
-add a officers school...like the accadimy but give it star capabilities if you train there. Someshit like that.
KEEP ME POSTED WITH MORE IDEAS
Is anybody from CA reading this?? See there are people who would like the option of their generals aging and dying http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
I think it would add challenge to the game. And for those worried about generals never reaching 9 stars, maybe they could modify it so that every once in a while one of your new generals happens to be a military genius and starts out with 5 or 6 stars.
Sword_Monkey
10-20-2002, 00:28
Quote Originally posted by tomppb:
Is anybody from CA reading this?? See there are people who would like the option of their generals aging and dying http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
[/QUOTE]
Even if they were, do you think they would say anything more than a generic, "Interesting idea, all I can say is that we take all good ideas into consideration". They made the mistake of releasing the patch contents weeks ago, now look at the situation, almost 3 weeks later and nothing but grief for them.
sigh http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
Also with the Yearly turns. Having a general for only 40 to 30 turns is not cool.
Also they whole Star System would have to be revamed to alow the ability for a general to advance. As it is now it can take 100 years just to get a general at a good command rating.
ToranagaSama
10-21-2002, 17:05
How about Generals below 4 stars have unlimied lifespan and once 4 stars or more limited lifespan?
30-40 years s/b good enough. Use or lose em.
Thing to remember is that the AI generals will be dying off too.
I agree Malkuth, the command system would have to be revamped to make it easier to gain stars quicker. After all most famous generals in history were famous for winning less than 10 battles. But In MTW it seems you have to win 60! before you are anybody http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
pounding on the patient's chest trying to breath life into this thread...
querulously
10-24-2002, 00:02
It would be better to have a very few generals. Then we would be able to concentrate more on those we have ! They could then die or mutate/inherit their positions and we would be able to manage them more effectively. After all most provinces etc would be given to nobles to keep them loyal and encourage others rather than micro manage who were the best accountants within the kingdom.
can i bump this one more time without getting stoned http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
eat cold steel
10-31-2002, 02:24
How about I rename your generals, drop his stars and V&V every 30 years or so in the background? No real game play consequences and more realism? Sounds no more than a days work.
The fact that you can't resupply some generals' troops (i.e. former princes) after a certain time as the royal knight type unit evolves does a lot for encouraging the player to replace the general with a newer one. The overall usefulness of a general will decline if he is the only member of his unit.
Yes please do it Cold Steel! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif I want my generals dead dead dead!
MonkeyMan
11-03-2002, 05:10
Quote Originally posted by tomppb:
Yes please do it Cold Steel! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif I want my generals dead dead dead![/QUOTE]
don't even think about it as a confirmed rpger the idea of one of my babies losing abilities or dying is just too much to bear
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
I fully realize their are a lot of you out their who love their super generals, that is why I would only want aging generals included as an option like limited ammo.
I think it would be a great idea. But the general-election system would have to be re-done so not ANYONE can become a general, thus making the "keep track of all units age" head-ache go away.
There should be a pool of generals, when you create a army a random general is taken from that pool, possibly there would be a academy which increased the chance of a good general, remember, most generals start with 2-3 stars, with the academy they could start with 4-5.
I say it again, GREAT idea. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Now we just gotta re-do the entire game to see it happen... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
just some simple ideas from me...
i was wondering why CA did not separate the building of generals and troops...
For example, you can "build" or hire normal pple from the provinces to become generals and by building good military academies, higher chances of hiring a good general with good v & v and command status...
then on the other hand, the player can build troops...but these troops will no be able to take onto the field without assigning them to a general whom the player had recruit...
Any troops not assigned will be just mass reserves of men without a leader...these troops can serve as a reinforcement to any depleted exiting armies....
Just some ideas i think will be good... the ideas are from many years of playing games from Koei...
Winevil
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.