Indian generals -- assets or liabilities?

Indian Generals -- Assets or liabilities?

While trying to survive as the Chichimeca (starting economy about -3500 per turn), I kept losing troops, yet my expenses went up. Finally I figured out the problem: all the generals I had adopted were costing me a fortune.

Consider this:

1. There is no chivalry in the Americas, and it is not clear that a governor helps with money, growth, or order.

2. The general's unit is heavy infantry, good but nothing special, with a fairly high upkeep.

3. A general's salary seems to be about 400 florins. I tried to estimate this by sending a general on a suicide mission.

4. The Nomad trait (forced march) appears not to work.

5. The AI now targets generals, so your general may get killed while most of his unit remains. In that case you lose the entire unit.

6. Some starting generals have zero loyalty. This can cost you a large army.

7. This leaves only Command and Dread as potentially useful qualities.

My next Chichemeca campaign is going to start by sending the zero-loyalty faction heir on a suicide mission, and I am going to stay with only two generals until my economy is solid.

I have found high star/high dread generals make a lot of difference. A few of them together makes a formidable force and giving a few easy rebel battles to a general will improve his loyalty. A stack without a general is more likely to rebel than one with a general with limited loyalty. I have lost a few generals to revolt as the Aztecs, but the good generals more than earn their keep. Weak generals are a liability, I agree. Still I try to see if they can be improved by sending them on some risky tasks. That said, if I try a poorer faction I might be far less patient.