smaller general units.

would this make any sense at all? this kinda dawned on me. if you lower the number of men in th generals cavalry unit, and upped their stats a bunch, so he is more for going around the line and keeping moral up, and making quick flank attacks, and quick powerful charges. he can still lead a cavalry charge too, just with your factions other cavalry in tail! you can also keep a closer eye on him, keep him out of trouble, get him around teh field quicker, so he can be in more places at once. This would make playing in hte general cam very fun i think!

Aren't they already fairly low except for your faction leader and heir? 40 is standard... on huge, they are 2/5ths the size of a regular cavalry unit.

i once had a generals bodyguard with 240 horsemen, i dont know how i got it or it was a glitch but it was awesome... 240 refillable elite 3 gold chevron calvalry that you dont need to retrain... good times


But really now, average generals bodyguards is about 40-60 men, i think thats 2/5 or 1/2 of the normal 100 per calvalry unit...

Incidentally, I was thinking of it as well. :yes: My point would be that a capable general with high influence can get an entourage wich sometimes exceeds even regular cavalry units (100 on Huge) which makes it bad for role-playing. For factions like Romans I try not to engage the general into combat at all (except in severe emergencies) and rather have him to "command" from behind. For others, like Pahlava, I think it is perfectly correct to have your general lead the decisive charges, but here again it would be better if his unt will be only a small fraction of the total heavy cavalry force (elite of elites). So yes, it is my intent to lower the base number of general units for my next campaign and let us see how it will work out...

By the way, I am also thinking of diferentiating nubers of all cavalry units so that those described as "light cavalry" will retain current setting (base value 25, 100 on Huge), "medium cavalry will get 20 (80 on Huge) and "heavy cavalry" will get 15 (60 on Huge) with corresponding changes in recruitment/upkeep costs. :idea2:

Has anyone tried such changes and what was the effects? Especially on AI recruitment???:juggle2:

Sounds ok for Cavalery generals, they are fast and need not so much protection cause they can easily evade enemies. But what about KH, Sweboz and Saba? They need their numbers to protect the general, cause they can not evade enemies as good as cavalery generals.

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

The main problem with that idea is that the smaller factions (Pahlava, for example) will be severely hampered without their family member's bodyguards, whereas the Romans could probably care less.

Though I can agree in principle that it might be more historically accurate for a general to just have a half dozen men around him rather than (in a faction leader's case on huge settings) 100+

A high stat boost is given, should even it out a bit. But the Infantry Generals would still be best suited behind the line moving along giving moral boosts to the men, and aiding flanks and what not.

There's a bit of a conceptual problem with all that, though - namely, that IRL quite a lot of folks' royalty and other leaders very literally led from the front... it was kind of a central point in the whole "Alexandrian" tactical system, too.

Yes, and you still can, His unit is more of a real bodyguard, his closest lieutenants with him. He will be much more nimble and still able to fight. his stat bonus should give him staying power in a fight and you'd be using other units with him so it would not be like 4-10 guys taking on like 200

but smaller General Units isn't that good... at least, we can add more officer to represent the private bodyguards, and let us pretend that most of their soldiers are just hand picked men... If you use smaller numbers, try to get frighten attributes on them, so their charges is still effective...

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't do much to keep the high-chevron BG units of high-influence FMs from ballooning into small armies anyway, though - and now they'd just have even more monstrous stats to boot...

you mean like Rohan Bodyguards (Rider of The King's House) on Fourth Age, Total War....

Yes, They are real monsters, even with 13 men (12 + 1 officer) as starting numbers, they still grows into 48 men army as Faction Leader... but this was good enough to represent the General's own private army... give them upkeep instead, so they didn't end as wageless elite cavalrymen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

Yes, and you still can, His unit is more of a real bodyguard, his closest lieutenants with him. He will be much more nimble and still able to fight. his stat bonus should give him staying power in a fight and you'd be using other units with him so it would not be like 4-10 guys taking on like 200

---

That turns his unit into:

A: a waste of a slot.

Or

B: unrealistically decisive.

Alexander's bodyguard was simply the first Squadron of the Cavalry. They were probably the men from around Pella, rather than necessarily the absolute elite.

KH Generals etc. were famous for fighting in the second rank as well.

Even Roman generals did this at times.

hmm it was only an Idea... I'd play with this sort of thing myself, but i don't know the first thing about modding.

Interesting concept. German generals though, should always lead from the front.

I quote Tacitus, "their generals procure obedience
not so much by the force of their authority as by that of their example,
when they appear enterprising and brave, when they signalise themselves
by courage and prowess; and if they surpass all in admiration and
pre-eminence, if they surpass all at the head of an army."

"In the day of battle, it is scandalous to the Prince to be surpassed in
feats of bravery, scandalous to his followers to fail in matching the
bravery of the Prince. But it is infamy during life, and indelible
reproach, to return alive from a battle where their Prince was slain.
To preserve their Prince, to defend him, and to ascribe to his glory all
their own valorous deeds, is the sum and most sacred part of their oath.
The Princes fight for victory; for the Prince his followers fight."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Interesting concept. German generals though, should always lead from the front.

I quote Tacitus, [/B][/I]"

---

NEVER!!! Quote Tacitus on Germans. He never went to the lands of the germans and everything he knew were stories about them. He wanted to show the roman society the good sides of beeing natural and he did certanly not describe the germans as they were.
For example he said that moose were hunted by cutting the trees, they needed to lean on while asleep cause of their big heads. The Germans cut the tree and the moose fell and were easily killed... :laugh4:

Fair enough on Tacitus' overall reliability, but in any case Germanic warfare does seem to have had its share of the "heroic leadership" principle. The leader probably needed to demonstrate his skill and bravery were at least the equal of any of his followers, and that he wasn't asking more of them than he was himself willing to do - an important enough encouragement.

"Leading from the front" seems to have been pretty common in general. Even if they weren't necessarily quite in the front rank Greek leaders AFAIK usually were at least in the immediate vicinity of the line of battle, and the Hellenistic system went one better by usually having the monarch lead from the front of the elite heavy cavalry. Heck, although they seem to have generally preferred to coordinate their large armies from a vantage point at the rear, where they could far better remain aware of how the battle was proceeding, even Achaemenid leaders were willing enough to engage in inspirational frontline heroics; Cyrus the Younger died in the thick of the fighting at Cunaxa, and before he became the King Darius III had distinguished himself by beating a Cadusian chieftain in personal combat.

The Romans - and maybe the Carthaginians? - seem to have been among the rare few who kept the commander in the rear as a "combat coordinator" rather than in the front leading by example as a SOP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The Romans - and maybe the Carthaginians? - seem to have been among the rare few who kept the commander in the rear as a "combat coordinator" rather than in the front leading by example as a SOP.

---

And still, when the battle was going badly, they often died fighting rather than ran away.

Well, it's only logical they would personally lead the remaining reserves and their bodyguard troops in an effort to stabilize a situation gone critical. (Plus the Carthies had a funny habit of executing failed commanders...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

NEVER!!! Quote Tacitus on Germans. He never went to the lands of the germans and everything he knew were stories about them. He wanted to show the roman society the good sides of beeing natural and he did certanly not describe the germans as they were.
For example he said that moose were hunted by cutting the trees, they needed to lean on while asleep cause of their big heads. The Germans cut the tree and the moose fell and were easily killed... :laugh4:

---

History is supposed to be my job, I am thus skilled enough in Source Critisism to be able to distinguish between the dross and the nuggets. I would not quote anything I estimate is invalid.

A real hellene leads his battle on the front, be it a thundering charge or a defiant phalanx.

(of course, often the brave strategos would win his battle...carried upon his shield. But nothing better than to die fighting..Victoriously!)

i think its sadder to die in your own victory. unless its the final battle. then it's just epic. I was thinking solely about cavalry generals in this thread.

Guys, reducing the size of general units does little towards...reducing thier size. In my version of EB I`ve got cavalry generals at 6, so at huge they should have 24 men in a unit. And so they have...in a first turn. Then, they grow and grow. Regular FM`s grow to about 40-50 but king and succesor units may get close to 100 anyway...

Thank you, Woreczko, for the information, good to know that!:yes::2thumbsup:

And what about my other suggestion to reduce the number of regular cavalry
- "medium" to 80 on huge
- "heavy" to 60 on huge
??? :juggle2: ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V.T. Marvin

Thank you, Woreczko, for the information, good to know that!:yes::2thumbsup:

And what about my other suggestion to reduce the number of regular cavalry
- "medium" to 80 on huge
- "heavy" to 60 on huge
??? :juggle2: ???

---

As long, as my beloved Hippeis Xystophoroi count as "medium cavalery" (come on, they are a MIC level 3 unit:beam:), I'm fine with that.
But if you change their number, you would have to change their costs and upkeep or even their attack/defence stats to rebalance them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satalexton

A real hellene leads his battle on the front, be it a thundering charge or a defiant phalanx.

---

That is something, a SPQR player never will understand. They do not know what it means to die with glory. They only die if there is no way to win the battle.:smash:

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

When I invaded Spain as Romani in recent game, (around 215BC), the Luso faction leader was 10 star, Triple Gold (never seen an ai triple gold anything before) and had 68 men on large! That gave the Cavalry 21 Melee, never mind the rest. That would be 136 Cavalry triple gold on Huge size :dizzy2: !

I trapped him in a city with just one other unit (Elite Inf). Normally I'd expect to lose at a very max 60 men talking said city...I lost 245 :oops:... The bodyguard were absolute beasts, and almost unkillable, and that's the fairly rubbish Luso Bodyguard. Something similar from a well armoured Eastern Faction, and....eek, its giving me nightmares...

At least it helps keep the ai from instantly routing though, when they blither away their general on a glorious instant charge, because you left some slingers "pretending" to be all helpless and on their lonesome :laugh4:

Wouldn't the reduction of general's bodyguard numbers also affect the Ai generals? Less bodyguards would mean that they die even faster through suicide attacks.

true. disregard. I was inebriated when i first thought of this idea... among other things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V.T. Marvin

Thank you, Woreczko, for the information, good to know that!:yes::2thumbsup:

And what about my other suggestion to reduce the number of regular cavalry
- "medium" to 80 on huge
- "heavy" to 60 on huge
??? :juggle2: ???

---

I play with such unit sizes (on huge):
- cavalry 36 men, 3 rows (they have 2hp)
- slingers 48/2
- bowmen 72/3 (72 bowmen take roughly as much place, as 48 slingers)
- javelin skirmishers, roman legionaries, samnites, elite infantry 120. 4 rows if close order (<1.0), 5 otherwise.
- post marian romans, "drilled infantry" (thureophoroi, srakir martikner, neitos etc.), iberian and getai "ambusher" infantry 160/6
- Falanxes 240/10
- Close order (<1.0) infantry 240/8
- Other "non drilled", non close order infantry 200/8

What does it achieve?
- Cavalry is more manuvreable in small numbers, easier to coordinate. It`s also cheaper (they cost as if there were 72 men/unit) = more units on the field = more flexibility and variety possible. On the other hand individual cavalry units aren`t such a morale killers and are unlikely to cause rout all by themselves. Cavalry itself is more afraid of big infantry blocks.

- archers come in smaller numbers - this is to limit their impact on the battle without changing their stats. RTW does not have a proper LOS system, so you can have literally thousands of archers firing at the single target, while on flat ground. All archers armies are quite powerful because of this. Also, it`s best to deploy archers in a square-like formation, which is stupid IMHO. Small missile units are easier to manage, do not promote "square formations", pack less punch and easily rout in face of "proper" infantry. They are more of an auxilary troops, than battle-deciders now.

- javelin skirmishers are much easier to manage in 120 size, than 240....

- Infantry. My main goal was to simulate the difference between flexible roman legions and clumsy greek phalanxes. So... I simply made legions 2 times smaller, than hoplites and phalanxes. Actually 120 size for pre-marian and 160 for post-Marian maniples is historically correct. Romans are going to have multiple weak units, which grants much flexibility (whether to flank or keep reserves), while greeks few powerful ones, who pack a lot of punch, however are too few to form a viable flankers/reserves. Greeks of course still have their thureophoroi, who use similar tactics to romans - small, multiple units. This distinction helps also to diverge the role of thureophoroi and classical hoplites on the battlefield.

:dizzy2: WOW!!! That sounds very good and well thought-through indeed! :applause:

I am tempted to try similar changes in my next campaign :yes:

Just two more questions: (1.)How is the AI copig with that on the battlefield and (2.) how does it influence the AI recruitment, i.e. how do AI stacks look-like composition-wise???