Explanation for valour -1 unit behaviour

[Blodrast]

Hi all,

SP campaign French/High. Due to some VnV (I reckon, because it was the first battle for those troops), my knights templar have a valour of -1. Incidentally, they are also the general's unit in my army. I get attacked by the Egyptians, who, as always, sport a large number of sh*tty units, I get a great defensive spot with a bunch of archers/xbows; the Egyptians send their ghulam's (think it was general's unit, and royalty - had a size of 20) on a flank, and I send my -1 valour Knight Templars to crush (?) them...surprise, at first contact, my general is killed; this doesn't affect ANY of the other troops which otherwise had crappy morale (archers, UM), BUT the KT instantly rout; not only that, they don't stop running away, and the 20 Ghulams chase and decimate them; they killed 35-39 of the 40 KT without one single loss on their side...

What I would like to have is an explanation of the KT's behaviour...I don't really see how a valour of -1 could have been the only cause for this; as far as i can tell, this would have given the unit -2 morale, which would have only been offset by the +2 morale that the unit got from being the general's unit. Also, we're talking knights here, so that still leaves them with +8 morale. Also, they were charging the ghulams downhill (extra bonuses from charge, from higher position), and they outnumbered them 2 to 1. All these in my opinion should have offset even the death of the general (the -6 penalty)...

any opinions ?

thank you
blodrast

[Seven.the.Hun]

well it definetly starts off with that -1valour, that's no good for a battle, the rout seems to be inevitable, but shoulda taken longer one would think, ur right there

[Cebei]

Yeah thats funny to me too.. I think they hit themselves while swinging their sword http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Schrodinger's Cat]

My only guess is that your general had some other VnVs as well, giving the unit a big morale hit. I don't know if that stays around after the general dies though. I think you were probably a little overconfident charging ghulam bodyguards, especially if it was a prince. It's best to take the charge with spears and then flank with your knights. Ghulams have a charge of 8 compared to Templars' 4, so when the valour modifiers come in it's not that surprising that your knights got spanked in the initial charge, even downhill.
Morale modifier for general's death is actually -8 for the first few seconds, and presumably the unit loses it's +2 general bonus. If it's still -1 valour, that takes the morale from +8 to -2. It's losing the fight so that will cost it anywhere up to 8, but it's fighting downhill and outnumbers the opponent so it will gain some back. This puts it at approximately -6 to -8, and it needs to be -16 before it routs. I'm assuming it's not tired and it's flanks aren't threatened; they would make a difference.
All in all it sounds like your general was a complete muppet, and your probably better of without him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif . By the way, did you manage to win the battle?

Schrodie's Cat

Edit: And welcome to the org http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[Blodrast]

Schrodinger's Cat:

thank you. I've been reading the boards for a while now, but I didn't feel like I had anything worth wasting other ppl's time with :P

No, I lost the battle. The strange thing was that my other crap troops (UM, peasants) did not rout after the general's death. They did eventually rout because they got overwhelmed, and my plan backfired on me (I was hoping to rout their general; was also firing archers/xbows at him; it works, occasionally :P)
heck, _I_ would have routed if I'd seen the best army in my group running away like chicken chased around by a group half their size... and if I were a peasant, shucks, I would have considered that divine intervention telling me to buzz off... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

oh well, I guess you might be right, what with the -8 penalty and all. I sure don't see any other explanations...


thanks all
blodrast

[katank]

the thing is that they clearly saw the general die but othe units may not have.

I think seeing friendlies routing is a bigger hit.

also, the ghulams are likely high valor due to being a prince.

v0 ghulams would be demolished but jedi ghulam can take all of your KT for breakfast.

also, there is likely a penalty for being isolated from the main force with flanks not shielded etc.

normal KT can stand that easily but a dead general, negative morale, and exposed flanks woudl likely be too much.

[Blodrast]

they were v0 ghulams. crappy prince too :P

the penalty for being isolated: you're absolutely right, i had forgotten about that. however, that should have applied to both of them.

about the seeing him get killed part: i'm not so sure. I know there is a penalty that _ALL_ units get when there are 2+ routing friendlies (i.e., regardless of whether the routers are in sight or not). However, in my case, nobody else was routing ; http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[katank]

hmm, if they are winning, they get something like +4 or +6 to morale besides, high ghulams are very high morale to start with.

[Petronius]

But the whole thing is that they was at a negative morale rating when they hit the Gulams, which probably prompted such crappy fighting in the first place and their general getting killed.

[Blodrast]

no, they were not at a negative morale rating. They just had a negative valour (-1), but afaik that should only mean a factor of -2 morale. But they have +8 by default, +2 for general, etc. see above. Why do you say they started with negative morale ?

[katank]

actually, negative health might be a problem.

it's possible to get a general to have so many vices that he has something like -15 health and he is even easier to kill than regular fella

I typically don't want geenrals who will die if I so much as look at him slightly funny or sneeze on him.