Great player = Great Comander? ( Discussion )

[Lechev]

It has occur to me that since this game is actually about field stategy, utilization of the different types of units in a battle as well as timely execution of decision. My question for this discussion session is this :-

1) If a player who is able to excel in this game will he be a great field commander or general if he is to lived in those period as depicted in the game?

2) What are the factors that needs to be further added into this game to further enhance the realism in the game since in this game we have the effect of weather, advantage in the terrain and the handicap in the visibility of sight in fog.

Lets us have a fruitful discussion on this topic with an open mind and i would like you to express your points of views. Thanks
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Frogman]

HA, anyone who thinks being good at this game is the same thing as commanding the respect, loyalty and discipline of an actual army is seriously deluded.

Maybe you could be a good tactician, but leadership and bravery in the face of real danger isn't possible to duplicate in a computer game.

[Tyrac]

A large portion of command in medevil times AND today is a PERSONAL presense and charisma. That rules most of us right OUT. You may be the smartest man in your peer group but if you spend a few hours each day at a computer either for fun or for work then the odds are, NO, you would not have been able to lead an army in ancient times. For example..wear glasses? back then you would be considered near blind. Had a appendix removed? Back then you just died. Iron deficeint? Asma? Broken bone? Basically any real medical problem and you were dead or at best an invalid. Just something to keep in mind before you go off on the mental fantasy that you were born in the wrong time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Anyone that is playing this game stands at the top of a pyramid of thousands of years of blood sweat and death. Do not take it for granted, because there are only about 5 billion people in the world who would switch places with you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[malkuth]

Quote[/b] (Lechev @ Jan. 28 2003,16:39)]It has occur to me that since this game is actually about field stategy, utilization of the different types of units in a battle as well as timely execution of decision. My question for this discussion session is this :-

1) If a player who is able to excel in this game will he be a great field commander or general if he is to lived in those period as depicted in the game?



Ask your self this question ok? If you play microsoft Flight simulator does that mean you can really fly an airplane in real life? Think about it then ask yourself your question again.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



Answer: No way buddy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[LadyAnn]

As far as I know, most of you are of nerdy types http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif But again, that may explain what happens in school shootings.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif It is easy to roleplay it to the point of disillusion.

Annie

[Papewaio]

How many great generals where great chess players?

[Dramicus]

To list some of the many differences:

1) Unlike in MTW when orders are givin, it is really difficult to change a unit's orders unless they have been trained to follow the audio or flag system.

2) The General was expected to participate in the battle, otherwise they would be marked as a coward. Im pretty sure that almost none of the people who play MTW wouldent be able to lead a wedge of knights; unlike in MTW having the Great warrior trait does not give you +20 health http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

3) Most of the time, the General held the army together. If he would leave the battle (or run away, screaming like a girl... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ) the men would usually stop fighting and run because who wants to fight for a man who is... well... not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

4) What about the individual unit commanders? It was not uncommon for the regimental leaders to disobey the general and go on their own little crusade, or maybe a crusade away from the enemy... hey it could and did happen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

In short, If you werent born, raised in that time and had the luxery to be a noble and get trained to becom a general, not to mention be rather skilled in the arts of man to man combat, you probably woulden't be able to command any men. (you would mostlikely be in that unit of peasents which is about to be hit by 150 knights...) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Dramicus]

Actually.....

It just came to me, I guess pretty much anyone could command french troops, how hard is it to order them to throw down their weapons and run away? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Muneyoshi]

Quote[/b] (LadyAnn @ Jan. 28 2003,11:38)]As far as I know, most of you are of nerdy types http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Is biting his tongue...(If you know me, thats an achievement)

[Lechev]

Ah... from the replies above we are more or less in the same streams of thoughs. I personally likes what Papewaio had quote How many general were great chess player . in one sentence he had explained all what is to be said.

To answer both Tyrac and Malkuit, I myself do not fantacise
or sanction such a though that being good at this game one will begin to think that he is born at the wrong place or wrong time. The real reason which I had bring out this discussion session is to bring to an awareness that this is just only a game. However, some individual may had taken it too seriously and a friendly competition can actually evolve to a full scale clan war in a I am better than thou mentality. A big alternate ego in an alternate world I might say.

Gladly, from the above input i can see that majority of the players are of mature and rational types. Pardon me if I had given you an impression of a smart alec or a wise guy, it's just that i feel slightly worried if some of the players begin to take victories and losses in the MP too personal.I would like to thanks you all for your light-hearted and candid feedbacks.

[Gaius Julius]

Let's not forget, this is just a game.
It's not real, just a way to kill a few hours, while having lots of fun.

I like F1 2002, but I don't pretend for a minute, that I could drive a Formula 1 car.
Even though I wish I could. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Snark]

No, you probably wouldn't have done too well for some very simple reasons:

1. Even disregarding all the points given above, the modelling of the 'chain of command' in MTW is basically non-existent. Commands where normally given to units via runners, flag or horn signals. When the commands reaches the sub-commanders, it depends on their personality, their loyalty and the overall situation if they obey them or not. Often commands arrived garbled or were (and are) are just misunderstood. Some or most of your commanders would've been dumb idiots, just commandeering because of their social status, not because of their ability. They might even challenge your status as commander and argue your orders.
If commands are given using runners, there is a significant delay until the command arrives at the unit. This may take easily up to 10-20 minutes, depending on conditions and distances. This isn't modelled at all.
If you want to see that put very well into action in a game, check out 'Combat Mission' (www.battlefront.com), they have a demo.

2. As a field commander you simply don't have the overview MTW gives you. You're at bottom height (basically), without a possibility to scroll up. You don't know the state of your units or even where they are at all time, because in reality they don't have little icons which show how exhausted or frightened they are http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif And flag bearer tend to be cut down quickly, this might even be seen as an early ECM-measure, disrupting the enemies ability to see where which of his units are.
You might only get information about whats happening to your units by runners too, which means the same delay as stated above before you even know what your unit is (was) doing and how they're doing.

But well. Something more encouraging as a final remark: Seeing how utterly stupid a lot of commanders in reality actually were (surprisingly General Custer wasn't really the most stupid Commander ever) with a bit of common sense and a bit of MTW training, you might've actually done pretty well, compared to some historic figures.

BTW: For anyone interested in military blunders, I greatly rtecommend the 'Guiness book of military blunders' and the 'Guiness book of naval blunders'

[Lechev]

Well said Snark, and good point. I remember playing a game called waterloo 8 years back publish by SSI and in the game there is a feature of chain of command whereby the you send out the messengers to the commanders of the field.

I can still fondly remember that I curse and swear when messangers report back that the runner dispatch by me was killed by the enemy ( which i believed may be due to scrapnels from the english 9 pounder cannon ). Also the chaos when that stupid division commander Lobau or Rellie charge their calvary without my direct order .

Apart from all this chain of command, there are also certain factors which must be considered. Whatever routed units as depicted in the MTW means they are out of actions. The morales of the units is plain numerical. In actual battle field you can actually muster their courage again even in desperate ground for example, behind you is a river and the enemy is front of yours.

There had been cases whereby a commanders use such desperate ground to instill battle freanzy to his troops that he actually turn the tide of the battle. Takanaka Hanbe one of Oda Nobunaga's chief adviser once said The victorious enemy fear death while the defeated army fear nothing .

I remember a website whereby they had all the thirteen chapters in the Sun Tzu 's art of war ( in Chinese & English ). It is really worth the time to read them. I need to search for it and i'll post the addr. later.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[Lechev]

Ok, here is the web address.

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Mr Frost]

Quote[/b] (malkuth @ Jan. 28 2003,17:58)]Ask your self this question ok? If you play microsoft Flight simulator does that mean you can really fly an airplane in real life? Think about it then ask yourself your question again.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



Answer: No way buddy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Actually , if your truely good at ACCURATELY MODELED flight sims , then you will be able to fly an areoplane in real life which is similar enought to that which you are familiar with in simulation . There have been enough examples of this where top virutal pilots have impressed the ex-navy/airforce trainers/co-pilots in those Harvard Texans {and similar types} in the U.S. you can hire in pairs to dog-fight a freind {using a laser system to record hits} .

Unless you have some medical condition which precludes you from real-life flying , then the simulation {so long as it is realistic enough} will give you the knowledge and much of the reflexes/habits required to do the job ... and if your truely good {like DocDoom , Killer , DeadH or Merlin51} you would probebly be very good in real life {those are primarily WW2 Piston Prop virtual jockies I mentioned so they would do best in such aircraft types} .


The point of difference here is that a good general is far more than a good tactician ... they must also be good manipulators of human nature {to controll and inspire their men : Napoleon once said he won so much because he could convince men to die for him} and often fairly capable politicians {in order to get and keep what amounts to great power which will make those who actually run that society - assuming they are not the great generals in question- rather nervous and insecure} .
This game does not {and given current technology likely such games will not be able to for some time yet} simulate accurately all that a good General needs to be and do like a flight-sim can {only the resilliance to the effects of G-forces is not simulated , and most good combat sim-pilots know how to perform a modern strain maneuver which puts them one up on the WW2 pilots who either had to figure that technique out themselves or limit their Gs in combat and make do without it as it is a modern development} .

Perhaps Magyarkahn or Lady Annwould have made great generals in real life {once they got used to the differences} . What makes anyone think they are so unique in the universe that potentially extroadinary people will never be encountered by them ? The Genetic herritage of many of the Legends of history have been passed down in profusion {for example: I personally know a two decendants of Vlad the Impaler ... how cool a family history do they have http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif} . Right now , there WILL be Hanibals , Alexanders , Joan of Arcs and Nelsons {not to mention Hitlers ... there is one in Iraq right now He is merely one such who got lucky enough to be in the right place at the right times to be able to claw his way into some of the power and possition he wants} who are not in a possition/situation where they either are driven/inspired {Joan was almost certainly mentally unballanced and effected by severe trauma which drove her however to overcome extreame prejudice against women having any real power to lead strong armies} or simply availed of the opportunity to even realise they have that gift or the opportunity to prove themselves . There may be some potentially great generals playing MTW ... if so , they are probebly very good with tatics .

[el_slapper]

At least, as a Shepherd, Joan had a rather good physical condition. Wich is not the case of several nerdz here. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

But she had nothing more than it & inspiration. Yeah, wether god-driven or simply mad, what she did is more than impressive. But there's no other example like this, so very few of us, if any, could do the job properly.

[Nelson]

I don't believe that anyone who has not experienced combat can know how he or she would react. One must first enter that deadly space to find out for sure.

The crushing responsibilities for the welfare of both the army and the nation in addition to fear for one's life would undoubtedly wilt most of us soft 21st century civilians in a heartbeat. We have not been raised for such duty. Intellect alone left unalloyed with a stout heart would see us undone.

[Vlad The Impaler]

Mr Frost i suppose that it was a joke ur mention about the two descendants of Vlad The Impaler; actually is only one person that could claim that; he lives in Romania and he is producinc cascades for action or historical movies.

[Michael the Great]

Quote[/b] (Vlad The Impaler @ Jan. 30 2003,14:09)]Mr Frost i suppose that it was a joke ur mention about the two descendants of Vlad The Impaler; actually is only one person that could claim that; he lives in Romania and he is producinc cascades for action or historical movies.
Oh,really? cool didn't know that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Also,I would like to know if in real warfare,were unit advantages used against the proper enemy(i.e. who commanded the armor pierceing units to attack armoured enemyes or somethin like that??)

[Aide de camp]

Yes, there were unit advantages used against the proper enemy. For example, there were different kind of arrows depending on the target the archers were shooting at.Very narrow arrows would be able to pierce chainmail but wouldn't be so effective against other kind of armours.

[mario_yepes]

If my opinion can be considered, the only reason I play MTW or Shogun is that there used to be a game called Axis and Allies by (Mattel?) that used to also make the board game Shogun Back then you were rolling d10's to get your odds, and if you lost a plastic Yari spearman you had to make do...
MTW gets me away from the days I was chess champ. Otherwise, the modicum has changed, not the idea. It's all a well designed board game, and you save yourself hundreds of dollars of money in 8mm miniatures, and hours worth of painting. (Although it was all very fun.) These guys at Creative assembly are satisfying our logic, and doing a great job at it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[Gaius Julius]

Quote[/b] (mario_yepes @ Jan. 30 2003,16:27)]If my opinion can be considered, the only reason I play MTW or Shogun is that there used to be a game called Axis and Allies by (Mattel?) that used to also make the board game Shogun Back then you were rolling d10's to get your odds, and if you lost a plastic Yari spearman you had to make do...
Mario

I remember the games you mentioned.
One friend of mine had Axis & Allies.
I had the Roman game called if I remember correctly Conquest of the Empire. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Knight_Yellow]

i feel a way to make ppl less gun ho in a game would be to make them pay for everytime they died.

but thats suicide for a game so there will never be a true simulation of anything to do with combat ever.

ppl know they can just load up again or go back to the start of the level. but tell them if they die once thats it theve gotta go and buy the game again and they would be less gun ho.

[TheDuck]

What an incredibly interesting question

I agree with many of the posts here...

One component not mentioned... that of trust.

Commanders that get the best loyalty from their troops have demonstrated calmness and competence under fire. And note here I'm not referring to 'brilliance', just competence. The trusted commanders have demonstrated an ability to not lead their guys into crossfires and the like (be stupid and get their soldiers killed&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. Risk comes with the job.. yup. Stupidity under fire creates unnecessary casualties.

Combat is a fearful thing, and death the everpresent foe you face. If the guy that is leading knows how to avoid the stupid mistakes, his guys will trust him. Charisma and people skills certainly help, but competence is key.

No computer game simulates this.

Although this game comes close...

If you split your men during a 3d battle in MTW or leave their flanks exposed, etc... , morale plummets with the corresponding white flags and panic in your troops. Keep them together and mutually supported and they overall do much better, even with just an average general.

So the game models competence with rules about 'flank coverage', 'distance from general', etc.

I have studied military history for 20 years and knew these rules long ago. When I started playing this game it just 'felt right'. Sure... communications is perfect and I can always tell what my men are thinking... but boy... if I put one of them in a stupid situation, I will PAY PAY PAY. And that is quiet true to life

I would venture that if you learn this game from that perspective, you have a chance at being a 'competent' field commander for ancient combat. I can certainly tell you that a use of successful tactics discovered by ancient generals works well in this game

Sure other skills are required to be a good general on a real battlefield... but that is true of all simulations vs. real life. Some skills are only learned by being there.. this doesn't negate the value of training tools or games.. just makes them a *portion* of the training.

The US Army uses strategy games to train their officers for a reason. They are effective teachers of certain military principals.

[Gregoshi]

Greetings and welcome TheDuck. It's good to see you jumped right into the discussion and got your feet wet. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Yeah, I know - bad. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[Aide de camp]

Yes, I think TheDuck is quite right. Great STW or MTW players wouldn't be always great generals in real life, but at least they've learnt the theory. They wouldn't make novice's mistakes like charging a superior enemy, uphill and without flank's protection. There are examples of not very charismatic general defeating a more charistmatic adversary simply because he made less theorical mitakes.

Somebody talked about chess. I don't think chess makes good generals but it can teach a way of thinking that could help a general. Knowing the principals of chess doesn't make a good player but at least you won't be defeated during the first movements because you made a stupid mistake.

Something I don't understand is why people think good generals are good comander only during the battle?
Many generals lost campaigns before the battle had begun because their troops were hungry, exhausted and had bad equipment. Sun Tzu recommends many times to care about these things.

[TheDuck]

Gregoshi: Thanks

[DemonArchangel]

Strategically, i'd be brilliant at commanding, tactically, i'll leave to the guy that actually knows how to ride a horse.

[Jabberwock]

Hi everyone, Don't forget, all of us have been blessed with an education beyond all but the priveleged few. We can read and write, count, read maps, and know some history. This all helps when deciding whether twelvety-nine big horsies could beat up three score mens with pointy sticks. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[TheDuck]

Jabberwock: I so totally agree Education is fundamental to success in any arena, and the military is no exception. There is a reason many great generals have graduated from West Point.

Of course, the flip side is education isn't everything Just one of the key components...

As all have said, leadership, theory, competence, decisiveness, education, and coolness under fire... all these things make a general 'a winner'.

Another aspect which is not in MTW but is astoundingly important to battlefield success is training. A well trained army can make up for many many other deficiencies. A general and his staff can have a beneficial effect on this, or a deleterious effect. But the general is the one setting the tone.

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Lechev @ Jan. 28 2003,22:39)]1) If a player who is able to excel in this game will he be a great field commander or general if he is to lived in those period as depicted in the game?

2) What are the factors that needs to be further added into this game to further enhance the realism in the game since in this game we have the effect of weather, advantage in the terrain and the handicap in the visibility of sight in fog.

Lets us have a fruitful discussion on this topic with an open mind and i would like you to express your points of views. Thanks
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
1) No, he won't. Not because of this, at least.

2) Intangibles. And they will be hard to simulate.
For example, daily shape, rumours, personal relations,
lack of order, lack of discipline, vastly different unit
organizations and army makeups, duration of battles.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I agree with duck-to be trusted by your men you don't need to be a n incredible leader, just not a bad one. I feel that the mos t important factor, however, is compassion. The commanders who are most trusted by their men are those who regard them as men, not gaming pieces.

[el_slapper]

Commentaire[/b] (TheDuck @ Fev. 05 2003,04:24)]As all have said, leadership, theory, competence, decisiveness, education, and coolness under fire... all these things make a general 'a winner'.
Did Joan of Arch have any of these? Outside leadership, of course Remember the french army was inferior in every point, and did win under her rule...

IMHO, Leading men in combat(or elsewhere) is an art. You may work it to be better, but if you don't have the talent, you never will. And some barely need extra lessons.

[MonkeyMan]

I would have though given the poor battlefield communications, that most of the actual strategy would have been decided beforehand. I.e. the general would gather together all the lesser commanders, throw down a crude map and tell them the overall strategy. This would then be seen to conclusion for good or bad with little real option to change the strategy mid flow, other than telling everyone to charge or run away. Possibly ony the different phases of the battle could be commicated for timing purposes. I.e. a green flag means commander A has to start advancing, and commander B knows it's time to stop firing arrows as was decided beforehand.

Further than this pre battle strategy which is actually very chess like the rest was then down to making your men fight for you and not run away. In extreme cases making sure they fought for you and not the enemy (hostages like children/women that you threaten to kill the moment they turn on you was not an uncommon strategy).

[Longshanks]

IMO, being skilled in MTW does not mean you would have been a good commander in reality. Thats like saying that since you are a skilled paintball player, you'd be a good combat soldier. While a squad of avid paintball playesr might have some basic knowledge concerning combat, they wouldn't last 5 minutes in a combat zone w/o military training.

The same can be said for MTW players. We might have a basic understanding of tactics, but thats not enough to be a successful commander in reality. There are many more factors involved that are not part of the game.

Also, technical proficiency alone does not make a good leader. Are there any other former military in here? If so I'm sure you'll be nodding your head in agreement. The worst C.O.(commanding officer) I have ever had was extremely technically proficient. Unfortunately he was more concerned with getting promoted than the troops he commanded, and he was despised. Had we ever went to combat with him, its hard to imagine anyone risking their neck to pull him out of harm's way if he was wounded. His death probably would have been considered a blessing.

[Exile]

I am afraid there is little correlation between the real thing and the game. Though I might wish to think differently.

The differences? Firstly, point of view. In the real battle, you cannot have a camera roving around getting a great scope of the battle from any angle. This alone is a huge factor. Imagine the difference if you only had the visible range that your general did? playing from a first person shooter point of view. This might not be a great aspect for the game tho...

Communication. It's not as simple as pointing and clicking your troops around. You have to rely on messengers, signals and unit commanders - some are good, some not so good.

Intelligence - ah yes, there's 40 Mamluk Calvary, I know so because when my mouse pointer passes over them it tells me so. In the game only adjacent or seaborne armies can attack you and it's quite easy to keep tabs on the forces which threaten you. In reality, this is knowledge that if you have it, it's often unreliable.

Supply Lines - a non factor in the game, but in reality the foundation of armies and battles.

These are just a few of the differences.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'm ex officer (swedish special forces), and currently works as history teacher... That said, I'm no expert, but I do know the basics.

First of all: if we travelled back in time, we wouldnt even speak the damn language http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

That said, let's continue with the real discussion.

Karl XII (carl the 12:th), swedish king, played with miniature soldiers when he was young. Day after day he battled it out on the royal kitchentable (or whereever, I'm not sure of the specifics).

When he grew up, and got the crown, he started warring... Thing is, he was pretty unbeatable. He took on army after army, and only lost when outnumbered like 10-1.

How did he die? He was shot by one of his own men, they were tired of war.

My point being?

1) If one of the historical commanders HAD this game, he would have been unbeatable... because he would allready know all about supplies and making his men to as he said. With this, he could fine tune his tactical skills.

2) A player going back in time would probably get shot by one of his own men.

3) I agree with most of the above posters... I must say, for a webforum, the intelligende and debate level here is high, I'm impressed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


____

last words, off topic:

karl had planned a defense by a river, he had 5 regiments of carolines (soldiers). Each regiment came from a specific region in sweden....

When he inspected the lines, he were very surprised to see the 4th regiment, from the north of sweden, in the CENTER, tehy were supposed to be on the left flank.

He asked one of the soldiers what the **** they were doing there, and got the answer:

Well sir, we figured this is where the fighting would be thoughest, and didnt really trust the 2:nd and 3:rd to hold it. So we kinda moved here, begging your pardon sir

[cugel]

The point of difference here is that a good general is far more than a good tactician ... they must also be good manipulators of human nature {to controll and inspire their men : Napoleon once said he won so much because he could convince men to die for him} and often fairly capable politicians {in order to get and keep what amounts to great power which will make those who actually run that society - assuming they are not the great generals in question- rather nervous and insecure}.

I believe that Napoleon actually said that the spirit is to the material as 3 is to 1

But he actually won most of his battles by outmaneuvering his enemies and concentrating superior force on the day of battle. This requires the ability to accurately imagine what is going on outside your field of vision, not something modeled by MTW. That would make a VERY DIFFERENT game though, if your viewpoint was fixed and you could only see what was going on in your field of vision. It's remarkable reading what commanders did on the eve of battle. At Gettysburg, Lee is described as almost alone during most the time between the 1st and 2nd day of battle -- once he had given his orders to his corps commanders there wasn't much he could directly control. He just had to hope for the best and await results. Napoleon at Borodino is another example.

In Medieval times, however, what we think of battlefield commanders who didn't take part in the battle were much more rare. King Jean was captured on the field of battle by the English at head of his knights, (once he had given the order to charge he could do nothing other than take personal part in the battle to affect the outcome). Even a Ceasar (who was much more what we think of as a modern style battlefield commander -- directing events) had limited control once the shock of combat began. If you weren't strong enough to crouch a lance (and it wouldn't be easy if you weren't trained to it) -- forget being a leader in medieval society

[Aggony1Knight]

Interesting questions. you asked how to make game more real. First off lets face it tactically and unit realism yea its goodd but real combat back then so much different. Like communications. With this u ahve it with ur allys at the press of a button 'Y' If they had that back then.....lol History books would be alot different. Also you as general are u cammanding on a Magic carpet in the sky? Lol You have instantanious command with all ur units even if there allllll the way across the map.
In real life combat you couldnt command your units so fastly. Thats why back then strategy was though out night before. In TW games u can improvise so quickly you could win the battle. Good questions though m8


-A1K

[Portuguese Rebel]

Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Jan. 28 2003,18:44)]How many great generals where great chess players?
Actually a large number of them... since it was many kings and generals favourite game... but did it make them better generals? i have my doubts http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Lechev]

Well at least by playing chess they still exercise their brains so at least they still made some strategy deployment ( be it good or bad choice )the night before battle. Instead of giving the order Charge early the next morning http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif