Why aren't we talking about this??

[amritochates]

Note: I would like to clarify that this thread is a response to the orignal query tossed out by Khelvan in one of the Preview Threads, and therefore i may claim no credit or discredit for it. All I intentded to was to provide a forum where the views of the community on this could be aired.

Some of us might remeber an offhand comment tossed out by Khelvan in of the previews that came out in the last few months, regarding the desirability of solely family member controlled armies.The suggestion was to do away completely with captain led armies and to make family members as defacto compulsory army commanders.After a few assorted sundry comments, nothing further was said and the topic vanished.

But on mature reflection any one will realise that this is a matter of utmost importance that deserves a through discussion about its merits and demerits since if impelemented it has immense consequences for gameplay both tactical as well as strategic.

Let us first start off with implementation, now a similar concept came to me while playing RTW1.5and considering that great minds do tend to think alike :idea2: , let us assume that the EB team followed the same thread of reasoning that I conceptualized, one can postulate that what will happen is that though you can produce units at all your settlements without any restictions, but any such units cannot be transported in any sort of manner from that settlement until and unless commanded by a family member. This would be accomplished most probably by giving all captains 0 movement points.

Though it might seem as a lot of unnecessary micro-management at this point
the benefits as we shall see are immense.

Firstly, we shall see no more half stack armies, or the infamous single unit captain led armies that the AI seems to be inordinately fond of.This in itself is enough in my opinion to justify its inclusion.

Secondly, this in turn means a more challenging Ai as well as fewer but more Epic and decisive battles.

Thirdly, it totally does away with the captain re-inforcement bug

Fourthly,We can finally have diffrential movement rates for armies, namely that armies should have different movement rates for travelling within the confines of your empire and in enemy territory.

Fifthly we can also have weather specific movement points where it is not only affected by winter by also random weather effects such as snow storms or landslides.

At this point you can very well visualise the significance of such a developement and the need thereof, of there being an extended discussion on this feature.So feel free to add your two cents.

To start off I would like to suggest that Khelvan or any other member of the EB team elaborate further their initial comment, so that we may have a cleare picture.

[paullus]

I know you said you'd like an EB person to start off, but I figured I'd go ahead and voice my main concerns. There are two, for now at least.

1. In large provinces of a different culture than the starting culture, it may be--for many years even--impossible for a capable governor to leave the city to deal with brigands, simply because his skill is the only thing keeping the city in line. In those cases, it is nice to be able to have small guard units available to fight rebels.

2. I dont know about everyone else, but I like to be able to move a unit trained in one province to another province, say, from a main city to a border province, in preparation for an invasion. Why should I have to take my governor along, and then bring him back, leading the units by the hand the whole way?

Now, these are bothersome objections more than anything, and while I question several of your "advantages," perhaps they do outweigh my concerns. But is it even possible to give a captain 0 movement points?

[Sdragon]

I can see the ai reacting badly to such a thing. Such as tones of ai captain led armies being abandoned in the middle of nowhere by the main army, or huge ai stacks forming in a city and no governor ever arriving to move them somewhere useful. I just don’t see the ai being able to handle this.

Rebels will be a nightmare for a large empire to deal with. Sending a general all the way across Italy to kill a unit of rebel Rorii sounds ridiculous. Not to mention generals wont be used as governors since they will be so busy moving armies around, lets not forget that large empires tend to have around 1 general per 2 provinces anyway.

[O'ETAIPOS]

While interesting idea, I think it would totally screw AI.
There is no commands saying to move unit X send family member and take the unit with him and this means that AI will be moving only with family members and units that accidentally have been trained in city from where he started moving.

But I'm not a specialist so maybe I'm wrong here...

[Conqueror]

What would happen if your general dies of old age or is assassinated, leaving your army general-less? Would said army just sit still (when it might be in the middle of enemy territory) untill you can send a family member to fetch it? :dizzy2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This would require recruitable generals, ones different from family members, probably leading normal heavy cav, or equivelant, elite units.

In short, while its a great idea RTW's engine probably can't handle it, not unless movement points are increased to the point where Generals actually move at a realistic speed.

[Ambiorix]

Maybe there could just be a way to reduce the movement points of captains by a huge amount, just not make them unable to move?

[Dayve]

Clearly the AI would not be able to understand this.

So the solution which i can't believe nobody has yet mentioned is as follows:

Captain led armies can move only in provinces that you own, but can never enter enemy/neutral territory without a family member.

[Foot]

The reason that General led armies are so involving compared to Captain led armies is because captains cannot be given traits but generals can. However, all that you have suggested, in discriminating between captains and generals requires traits, which we cannot do.

Foot

[Wardo]

amritochates, I find your idea very interesting and fun. I would enjoy your suggestions.

However, and you must have predicted a but comming, I don't think it's possible to do it with the RTW hard-coded engine, nor will it be with MTW:II engine since it will be so similar.

I believe the fundamental problem is that our Generals are our Family Members.

So, for example, as a royal family kingdom I don't want to recruit Generals that are automatically possible Heirs or ruin my entire family line because I had to send them to the grind. And as Rome we shouldn't even have a Family Line untill somebody "wins" a "civil war" as emperor.

So, I believe, like others have said, the rough implementation of these good ideas would create more problems than add gameplay and fun.

Having a separate Family Line from Generals, and having Generals have their own family line if that's the case, would already help, because then every "Captain" would be a "General", and captains wouldn't really exist, non-family line Generals could have an extremely low birth rate, not because they don't have children, but because not all their sons reach the officer rank like them.

It's hopeless with RTW, let's see if MTW:II can surprise us.

[amritochates]

While interesting idea, I think it would totally screw AI.
There is no commands saying to move unit X send family member and take the unit with him and this means that AI will be moving only with family members and units that accidentally have been trained in city from where he started moving.
Is this a confirmed phenomena or merely an educated assumption, If the latter then it surely bears at least some experimentation or all we know the AI may react quite unexpectedly faced with such a restiction. But before any descion is reached a certain degree of empirical knowledge is a must.

lets not forget that large empires tend to have around 1 general per 2 provinces anyway.
Not if generals are recruitable.

So the solution which i can't believe nobody has yet mentioned is as follows:

Captain led armies can move only in provinces that you own, but can never enter enemy/neutral territory without a family member
Motion seconded

[Musopticon?]

lawl@cheesyenglish.com

Not that I don't agree with you that the idea has some merit.

[Divinus Arma]

It is impossible to have general-only armies.

Nothing about movement or traits can extend to a captain.

It is a common misperception that "forced marching" allows a general to take his entire army farther. In fact, it only allows HIM to move farther. We can do nothing to restrict or increase movement.

It has been dreamed of, but alas it is impossible. Trust me. I ran the gambit, as I thought we could do some great things with movement. That was back when I first joined EB and opened my mouth more than I should have. :laugh4:

[GodEmperorLeto]

I think captain-led armies are also incredibly important. I have a tendency to send small horse-units into enemy territory head of my main force as reconnaissance. If they get ambushed it's no huge loss and I know the enemy is there anyway. Captain-led armies are also useful to lure larger enemy armies into ambushes yourself.

The idea has some merit. Sometimes I wish my captains had more personality or captains rose to generalship more often. However, the existence of captain-led armies is, in my opinion, not only necessary, but useful and beneficial.

[Kull]

At the risk of letting the cat out of the bag (although I think it's been mentioned elsewhere), the internal discussion was focused on something just a tad different - making EVERY unit a general unit. This means that captains cease to exist, and every unit is led by a named individual. There are many pluses and minuses, but the concept is quite intriguing. It would be interesting to get your thoughts on this.

[Sdragon]

I’d hate to lose a whole unit when the dude in charge is killed. Especially if it's an elite or expensive unit. Wouldn't it also result in countless 'General killed' messages filling the left side of the screen?

[Musopticon?]

As far as I know, both of those issues are fixable.

If you ut it that, very reminiscent of earlier Total Wars, like Shogun which had named leaders for units, but you'd take it farther, wouldn't you? If I'm guesssing right, the captains or sergeants would be units in the battlefield, which you could kill to devastate the units morale or which could rally themselves(kinda self-defeating feature though). WOuld the armies still be lead by a family member? Sort of prime general?

Oh, how I wish it would be possible to simulate commands and such and the AI would learn from experience how to deal with different threads and you'd only control the general unit straightbase. That could be so awesome.

[Ludens]

There are many pluses and minuses, but the concept is quite intriguing. It would be interesting to get your thoughts on this.
It sounds very interesting, but I would like to know more about the pluses and minuses involved. I haven't played BI, so I don't quite know how non-family generals work.

[Kull]

I’d hate to lose a whole unit when the dude in charge is killed. Especially if it's an elite or expensive unit.

Also when he dies of old age! :laugh4: But here's the "plus"....no more "replacements". Units just naturally replenish. So yes, you lose an entire unit when the leader dies, but over the life of that unit you experience no replacement costs. Probably a wash. It also eliminates (i think...not sure) a lot of the exploits like replenishing a damaged, low experience unit with a high experience one (and essentially winding up with two high experience units). It also prevents the development of ridiculously high experience in units. They'll get as good as they can, but eventually the whole unit dies when the the general does, and the experience goes with it.


Wouldn't it also result in countless 'General killed' messages filling the left side of the screen?

Nope. Think about it. When you fight a battle involving multiple family memebers (on ewither side), and one of them dies...and he's NOT the "Battle General", do you get a message?


It sounds very interesting, but I would like to know more about the pluses and minuses involved. I haven't played BI, so I don't quite know how non-family generals work.

The pluses are just amazing. Scripting and traiting don't work when applied to captains, but they absolutely DO when applied to family members and named generals. So you could implement supply, logistics, give bonuses on home soil and penalties when far from home....Basically the sky is the limit. EB was hampered in this regard since we didn't want to "incentivize" players to use captains instead of generals (and thus avoid all the restrictions) or the reverse whenever the situation would give a bonus to the general instead of the captain. Plus the AI would be completely ignorant and not use the system to it's advantage. All-generals units eliminates the exploit potential and makes a level playing field for all. On the other hand it's so completely different from EB as we know it, that perhaps it's best used/tested as an EB-based mod.

[Ludens]

On the other hand it's so completely different from EB as we know it, that perhaps it's best used/tested as an EB-based mod.
Good idea. I would imagine it increases the already-long between-turn time (more traits to be awarded). Also, doesn't this make it very hard to identify unit types because the unit icon is replaced by the general's head?

[Geoffrey S]

Also, wouldn't it create instability akin to the reinforcement CTD? If that was caused by family members being checked for traits multiple times after a battle, presumably causing the CTD due to the large amount of traits involved, wouldn't having an all-general army be even worse in that regard?

If you can pull it off it would be most intriguing, please keep us posted on what testing may show!

[Kull]

Good idea. I would imagine it increases the already-long between-turn time (more traits to be awarded).

Possibly, but I doubt that awarding of traits is a significant time-adder.


Also, doesn't this make it very hard to identify unit types because the unit icon is replaced by the general's head?

Bingo. That's one of the minuses.


Also, wouldn't it create instability akin to the reinforcement CTD? If that was caused by family members being checked for traits multiple times after a battle, presumably causing the CTD due to the large amount of traits involved, wouldn't having an all-general army be even worse in that regard?

Not a problem (theoretically). The issue is not the number of family members in the battle, but the number who are leading armies. I believe traits are only awarded for leading armies into battle, not participating in the fight.


If you can pull it off it would be most intriguing, please keep us posted on what testing may show!

Well, there is no active testing. We ran a few to see if it would even work - and it did. But that was about the extent of it. On the priority list of "things we must do", this isn't even on there. FYI - QwertyMIDX was the guy who came up with the concept and pushed forward on the testing.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Not a problem (theoretically). The issue is not the number of family members in the battle, but the number who are leading armies. I believe traits are only awarded for leading armies into battle, not participating in the fight. Didn't realize that. I guess also it would mean that the CTDs weren't happening when at least one of the three (or two if it's four, three if it's five) died in the battle. Would that be correct? If only two are left leading them at the end?

I had a battle yesterday as Epeiros, and I had one general there, outside Sparta. I fought against three KH generals and their army, and then a reinforcement of one KH general and an army came in too at the very end, just as the last unit of the first group routed. But since I killed all four KH generals (and killed off their faction right there I might add, since two of the four were faction leader and heir), I had no problem.

[Geoffrey S]

Not a problem (theoretically). The issue is not the number of family members in the battle, but the number who are leading armies. I believe traits are only awarded for leading armies into battle, not participating in the fight.
You sure about that? I know I've had at least two battles with two armies involved, at least one of which contained more than one family member, which crashed my game when returning to the campaign map but didn't if I autoresolved.

[Kull]

You sure about that? I know I've had at least two battles with two armies involved, at least one of which contained more than one family member, which crashed my game when returning to the campaign map but didn't if I autoresolved.

If I was "sure about that", I wouldn't have used phrases like "theoretically" and "I believe". However, I've personally never seen a family member who wasn't leading the battle acquire traits as a result of the battle. If you can post screen shots proving otherwise, please do.

[Geoffrey S]

I'll keep an eye out next time I play EB; but it seems likely that traits such as 'scarred' would be awarded whether a general is in charge or not.