Generals on the battlefield

[Cheetah]

Generals on the battlefield; here is a few tips:

1) Give them a command radius (somewhat like in Centurion). Outside this command radius units would behave in a less reliable manner, i.e. would not attack when ordered, rush at the enemy even without orders, go home to have lunch, etc. Of course, on the one hand this would be a constant source of embarrassment, however, on the other hand it would give a safe excuse after every lost battle http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

2) Give different types of generals. Currently the only difference is in the moral bonus they deliver. However, it would be nice to have defensive-, offensive-, infantry-, cavalry generals, etc. For example, units would perform poorly in ambush or in flanking maneuvers with a defensive general but would defend to last man; units under an offensive general would be eager, perhaps to eager to rush at the enemy; infantry generals would be crap at handling cavalry, etc.

3) Give the general as a single individual on the battlefield. That is, there would be 16 units + general. This would eliminate the problem of what unit to choose as general. Of course, generals could have been killed, so defending them would be a sensible thing to do, but it would be optional. It would be your choice to risk them leaving them alone or throwing them into the heat of the battle.

4) Allow more than one general in a battle. This suggestion is not necessarily tied to the previous point. Advantages: (a) safety, i.e. one general gets killed the other can take over the command; (b) gain more control of the battlefield (make sense only in the light of point 1); (c) complement the abilities of different generals, i.e. a cavalry general + an infantry general (obviously related two point two http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif ); (d) give a moral boost to the units.

5) In the light of the previous points it would make sense to allow buying generals in MP battles. Then there would be a trade-off between buying high quality troops and high quality generals.

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

Some nice ideas, but unless they let you have more than one general, point 1 and 3 don't really go together. Most would keep their generals out of the way so as to not lose them because they are a single unit, and so then their radius would be well away from your units and they would move out on their own.

------------------
He is the Messiah
No i'm not the Messiah
Only the true Messiah would deny it.
Alright then I am the Messiah.
HE IS THE MESSIAH HOORAY!!!

[MagyarKhans Cham]

A Mongol general never take part in battle, thats why noone can claim taking my Great Khans head as well...

[pdoan8]

Which general? The one who leads the whole army (army commander)? or the one who leads a single unit?

The army commander is always at the safest and most defensive place of the whole army. He is the one who will give order to each of the unit leaders. Losing him can mean same as losing the whole army since the whole army doesn't know what to do without him.

The unit leader usually is the brave, tough and skillful fighter who usually leads the unit in the combat to boost up the moral of the soldiers under his command . He will execute the command given by the army commander.

All of us here are army commanders since we control all of the units in the army. As in STW, if the Taiso of the commanding unit is killed, you lose control to the whole army. During the Mongol Expansion period and the war peroid in China, both before and after the Mongol, the most important attribute that seperate a legendary commander with a so-so commander is the ability to decide the outcome of the battle even if he is miles away from the battle field.

[This message has been edited by pdoan8 (edited 03-29-2002).]

[Gothmog]

2) Give different types of generals. Currently the only difference is in the moral bonus they deliver. However, it would be nice to have defensive-, offensive-, infantry-, cavalry generals, etc. For example, units would perform poorly in ambush or in flanking maneuvers with a defensive general but would defend to last man; units under an offensive general would be eager, perhaps to eager to rush at the enemy; infantry generals would be crap at handling cavalry, etc.

This can actually implemented to an extend.

A general can have diffrent type of bonuses. Say: Attack bonus, defense bonus, anti-cavalry bonus; anti-infantry bonus.

When a general is promoted, you can be given a choice of how to allocate his allowance.



3) Give the general as a single individual on the battlefield. That is, there would be 16 units + general. This would eliminate the problem of what unit to choose as general. Of course, generals could have been killed, so defending them would be a sensible thing to do, but it would be optional. It would be your choice to risk them leaving them alone or throwing them into the heat of the battle.

If you do that, then you will only see one type of general: some medieval version of Japanese Kensai.


4) Allow more than one general in a battle. This suggestion is not necessarily tied to the previous point. Advantages: (a) safety, i.e. one general gets killed the other can take over the command; (b) gain more control of the battlefield (make sense only in the light of point 1); (c) complement the abilities of different generals, i.e. a cavalry general + an infantry general (obviously related two point two http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif ); (d) give a moral boost to the units.


This is how many other strategy games are implemented. Here are how they are done:

a. each general is commanding (and giving bonus to) a group of units.
b. the higher the rank, the more units you can command. Say for instance, while a rank 6 general can command a full banner, a rank 1 general can only lead 2 units.


------------------
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
http://members.fortunecity.com/argus1000eyes/fighter.gif

[Vlad_The_Impaler]

maybe the general is good to have an personal guard like the daimyo in STW;I dont think is a good ideea to be like an kensai;

[MagyarKhans Cham]

yup i like the idea of a general unit like in SP as well

just 1 general with 10 guards, mounted or infantry. very well trained with a commandradius u can buy which gives +1 honour for your troops within that radius.

the big advantage as well is that it makes roleplaying more fun, esp for those with homemade campaigns and tourneys....

[Gothmog]

Quote Originally posted by MagyarKhans Cham:
yup i like the idea of a general unit like in SP as well

just 1 general with 10 guards, mounted or infantry. very well trained with a commandradius u can buy which gives +1 honour for your troops within that radius.
[/QUOTE]

Right now there are some big issues about the Daimyo and his hatamoto in shogun.

1)Hatamoto comes in free, which can be abused. Especially if you make every general this way.

(or, how about only allow one such a general in multi player, and 10 in single?)

2)Hatamoto can't be updated. And they start as honor 0. This will make the Daimyo extremely vulnerable when the clans' become more technologically advanced.


------------------
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
http://members.fortunecity.com/argus1000eyes/fighter.gif

[Catiline]

I think it's relatively simple to arrange. You just build generals and their guards. they upgrade like normal troops, honour upgrades increase the number of units they can effectively command.

ie you have a n army of 3 YA and 1 SA. An honour one general can command 2 units, and honour 2 4 units. That way by the time you raise an general to honour 4 through battle he's earned the right to command a full army. Do away with the general honour bonuses which i tihnk are foolish anyway; unit honour should be based on it's own experience, it's daft whacking newly raised YA upto honour 4 purely because they're under Takeda Shingen, an instantly are as effective as a unit thatt's earned it's veteran status over 10 years of campaigns.

Any units outside the generals quota can stillbe commanded but with a reduced set of commands.

Of course in MP everyone will just whack their general up to honour 4 and go from there, but it would add something extra to SP.

[Gothmog]

Well, silly as it is, the general's bonus is a valid way of reflecting the superior leadership of a battle-hardened general.

Reduced set of commands? The order you can give to the units in shogun are limited already.


------------------
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
http://members.fortunecity.com/argus1000eyes/fighter.gif

[Catiline]

it depends where you want to take the game really

I don't want a click click game where i can always ,make every unit do precisely what i want, I don't need that level of micromanagement. Others do. From what you're saying you want more control over the troops. That's fine but it's a different sort of game. It's more likely to be made because i think it has more appeal.

I want fog of war. I want the generals physical presence to be as important as it genuinely was, maybe apply the honour/ morale basis on a locational basis. In an ideal world I'd prefer to see a game in which orders take time to reach their destination, requiring more anticipation of possibilities. I'd like the AI to have enough sense to close the ranks itself if caught by cav in loose formation. i don't want to have to command that as a general. i want subcommands that mean something.

That said I'd also like a generals staff that go diappearing off to carry commands to units and wings, making you think about where you actually need to use your commands, and not just fire them all off in the first minute, then spend ages waiting for your staff to return. I want the possibility that commands will not be interpretted properly at the ohter end.

The other good thing would be the possibility to set out some sort of battle plan during deployemnt, ie right wing take hill A, Centre engage and hold, cavalry sweep flanks clear.

Ideally these things would all be optional you can turn on command of everything, and i can have what i think is realism.

------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri

[Vanya]

I want to see the generals go about collecting and counting heads during the battle. What could motivate the men more than having their leader creep up behind him and say "Oh! A dozen heads! For me?? Gah! Thank you! Job well done! Keep it up! Chop, chop!"

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[Khan7]

Well, Catiline, I will have to agree and disagree.

Basically I see where you're going with all that, and that's great. However, a few fundamentals would have to change--

Firstly, attrition in the current game is way too fast to accomodate a nice, realistic C&C system like you advocate. I mean, it could work I guess, if you have a great deal of responsibility placed upon suborndinate auto-officers, but I still think attrition would be the first thing you would seek to "real"-ize before moving to such a richly realistic C&C system like you talk about.

Another thing is that to make such a system really worth it you would have to "real"-ize the scale of the battles. Currently they are as you know quite small and thus such a detailed C&C system would seem silly when you are sending orders to a battallion of only 60 or even 120 men.

So really it would take alot more than just an iteration or two for the engine to be ready for your type of system, IMO, Cat. I am of course with you in wishing for a game this good, but it may be a while and quite possibly not within this brand name.

Matt

[First Knight]

Quote Originally posted by Toda Nebuchadnezzar:
Some nice ideas, but unless they let you have more than one general, point 1 and 3 don't really go together. Most would keep their generals out of the way so as to not lose them because they are a single unit, and so then their radius would be well away from your units and they would move out on their own.

[/QUOTE]


What about an idea of having one General and then having division commanders. This way you can put the commaders on the front lines to add moral support to the troops in his radius, while not having to constantly worry about him. If the commander dies, his troops lose moral but still are under command of the general.

[Whitey]

that would be a good idea if we had maybe 30-40 units on the battlefield...

Now in theory I like the idea of a commander for every 3-5 units but in practice and with the current attrition rates those units are almost unusable after the first fight.

Now make the game more realistic and then I'd be perfectly happy with commanders and sub-commanders on the battlefield, but they would be a wasted implementation with the current battle set-up, maybe for total war 5 or 6 when we have a meaningful amount of men on the battlefield...