There's something about those Byzantine generals

[Zauba'a]

Now we all know that the Byzantines have spectacular advantages when it comes to generals. Those 8 or 9 star princes eventually breed more 8 or 9 star princes (or become badass generals themselves) until you wind up with a gaggle of god-like generals (strictly speaking in terms of command abilities). Howver, I've noticed something odd about them: When I auto-resolve my battles (I have to on all of them because of technological limitations of my comp) the results are astounding. These generals may have been outnumber by twice as many enemies, but they are suffering casualties of usually under 100 men I've had 9 star generals before with other factions with equally advanced soldiers/armies, and they never got these results. One nine star killed 500 enemies at a loss of TWO MEN. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif . TWO No other general has performed that well -- not even Lord Marshall (bumped up to 9 stars) with Billmen, CMAAs, CKs, and Arbalests (all with gold level armor).

So is there something about these Byz generals, or is it something about the units? Pronoia and Kat cavalry, Trebizond archers, the venerable Byzantine infantry, and the purple people-eater Varangian guard.

And here's another question: If a 9 star has Skilled attacker or something else like it, will he actually get that +1 command or will he just stay maxed out at 9?

[kataphraktoi]

A 9 star general gives his soldiers massive bonuses meaning ordinary soldiers become really really good soldiers overnight, in the case with the Byzantines it compensates for the outdating of their units later in the game.

[Kensai Achilles]

I don't think the command stars can go above 9 but valors can go above 10 (from v&v)

[Exile]

In the until the High era the Byz units are formidable. That on top of their renowned generals is why the Byz campaign in early is rated easy. The ables turn later in the game.

Judging by the promotion messages, a nine star general is comparable to the greatest generals in history.

[Foreign Devil]

I was playing as Byzantium (in early) the other day, and I got a prince that was zero stars. Wha??? First time I've seen that one.

That said, my current king has 7 (8 when attacking) stars and the following V&V:
Expert Defender
Magnificent Builder
Magnificent Steward
Occasional Mercy (adds 10 happiness, and all you have to di is not kill prisoners)
Specialist attacker (for commanding my armies in the conquest of the turks AND the Egyptians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

If only he were a normal general and i got to keep him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

[Coucy]

Yeah, sons of kings get roughly the same stars as their fathers, give or take a couple. BUT, since as stated previously, 9 is the max stars, if an heir manages to be born with 10 stars: it "wraps around" back to 0

Personally, I wish future versions of the game system would give a even a bit MORE variety in how it handles heredity and "natural selection" in determining the stats of heirs. I agree that better kings should have a tendency to produce better heirs (and vice versa), but history is replete with examples of occasional vast swings in the competence of a royal line. Consider the Three Edwards of English history; I would subjectively rate them as:

Edward I: Pretty solid general, 6-7 stars;
Edward II: Abysmal, the Late Period representation of him in the game is WAY too generous, 0 stars it should be;
Edward III: Awesome, 8 if not 9 stars.

I could give a ton more similar examples of wide stat swings from father to son to grandson.