Printable View
In RTW vanilla, getting a good combat general was quite easy: just take any ol' character and meat-grind him through enough battles until he got his stars up. With EB however,the trait system, age, and the various temples and educational concerns make developing a good general tricky. What is your secret?
I prefer mine to be educated men first, and generals later. That's why in the later stages of the game nearly every settlement has the highest level of the school building.
Then choose one who's S/C/V, and go get 'em.
The meatgrind thing seems to work, too, because the traits increasing unit morale are the most important ones, and they come with experience.
Having your general command in battles where the odds are even or against him is the best way to gain command stars. Just tagging along as a second general in the stack won't do any good. It is also good to give him rest between battles if he doesn't immediately gain a star so he can think about what he did right and what he did wrong so he'll do better next time. The stars are nice to look at, but the morale traits are more useful on the battlefield. Putting the general in the thick of battle is something that can help out there, with traits like Brave resulting.
resting helps? I never knew that and rarely have time, but thanks.
I find that the proper Roman way of having your youths studying strategy in military academies from coming of age till 20-ish then having them be tribune for a while till they are 30, then govern cities for a while, then command armies works well with some generals. Those with the right traits that is ;-) and I think that what it comes down to is a combination of governing in cities with high level educational building and actually commanding will do the job.
Resting is something all of your worthwhile generals and FMs should indulge in on occassion; it's bad enough suffering from supply-related morale penalties when your general is on extended campaign without exacerbating the problem by having him repeatedly making a full move each turn (Forced Marching and Tired etc. penalties combined can be truly horrendous). I didn't realise that your generals would "reflect" on actions from previous turns, though: many thanks for the tip, Malrubius!Quote:
Originally Posted by Macilrille
...about how long could this after-the-fact learning potentially remain, though? A turn? Two? Five?
I downloaded Konny's mod which gives command stars in relation to the experience, so 25+ battles is +4 command stars. I really do enjoy that change to the traits. The one thing I don't quite understand is why most of my generals get the hesitant attacker trait even though I don't often wait til the end of a siege to attack a city.
I will say I just decide when a boy comes of age if they are going to be a general or a govern. I base the decision on their stats, but moreso I let the situation dictate. If I am just undertaking a new war or at a time of "relative" peace. If they are to be a general I have them make the circuit through my cities picking up the proper retinue members.
educate, marry, and then send him to war. I don't keep most of my characters in a city for too long, unless they develop "attuned governer" trait. then i keep them.
My generals never rest, their unstoppable armies kill everything on the way and they do the job. Getting better on and on, no time for the feeble. They only rest in Rome to triumph and replenish their men. I only educate them on young age then they hack and slash trough the enemy!
This looks like one of the results....
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1234480527
Actually I should show you one of my best generals with it to prove my point.
EDIT:
YAY those Epirotes from my other campaign are slower:clown:
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1234481258
I use the career mentality, except I normally use my most outstanding general as my faction heir. Once he becomes the faction leader I have him return to my capital to rule the empire.
If you play the Saka, you will get excellent generals automatically due to the fact that you have to use those FMs or perish...
Rome: Total Domination by 195 BCEQuote:
Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus
Epeiros: Total Domination by 190 BCE
Clearly this is a serious game balance issue that needs to be addressed in the next patch. I refuse to play this ridiculously unbalanced release until the bias is corrected ~;)
Now dont take me for the standard EB player. The thing I did is an extreme exception. I only chose to play the fastest I was possible to do!Quote:
Originally Posted by soup_alex
Other people play more historical and slower. The game really is not unbalanced I just totally rushed against extreme odds.
Play this awesome perfect and historically correct mod, play it like you want to do it. Dont mind me
You breed them.
It's simple, really. Survival of the fittest. First, you send them to the Agoge, then if you have Academies, send them there... then let them breed. Spawn children like crazy.
Finally you have them butcher the enemy, particularly where odds are against him.
And, of course... those family members you don't like... send them off to a heroic death, or out at sea never to be heard from again.
And yes, starts are pretty to look at... especially when the star column is bigger than your general on the campaign map.
Yes, their original traits will help. Being older actually helps as well. Winning big battles does more than tiny ones. Keep your treasury lower than 50,000 or you could not use selfish men as generals. Lover of beauty and other traits like that will give negative stars.
Sarcasm, Fluvius!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus
I'm still a little staggered by the speed of your campaign success, though: but I suppose the vast majority of my FMs (and I never seem to have very many) are left to govern the most profitable and the most unruly cities I possess, while perhaps one or two are one campaign (sometimes rotating) and one "trains" at schools and brigand hunts. I'd like to be able to try a speed run some day, but I'm not a very rapid or aggressive player and I don't often tend to think very far in advance—only on occasion laying a plot when the chances of several conditions being met are very strong (and it's not as if you can rely upon the AI to do much at all, apart from rapidly balloon when one faction has a slight advantage over its neighbours; commit all of its troops to engage your greatest concentration of troops when it attacks, or leave everything on guard stance on the highest available hill when defending).
My generals... tend to do alright (if not always brilliantly). As I seldom have many significant leaders in the field at any one time, I can concentrate all the best combat ancilliaries on one character and indeed switch them to "meat grinder". They may not become superhuman within a season (their bodyguard might!), but they'll certainly only improve with age, heh heh.
I only used 1 or 2 (3 on a large empire) FM as generals, trained on the field (or some 4 years on academy first, before sending them to living hell), take them to every battle available with matching (not overwhelming) army of sightly lower quality. (use odds less than 0.9 on my side...)
Let the other FM sit down and enjoy their governing duty, so that my General FM can have 8 or even 10 stars.... without any mod rather than standard EB! (but almost all of my generals (except him and his other 1 or 2 comrade) didn't have any stars at all and become fat bookworms:embarassed:)
That's just sick :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus
Ow, you got me there!:sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by soup_alex
Interesting look on things too!
I usually assign directions(viewed from Rome here), the southern army + general (focusses on Carthage). The western army (Iberia), the Northern army (gaul) and the eastern army (greece). I dont start with that right away, I make the armies as my economy grows, so the upkeep can be afforded. The direction with highest priority gets an army first, in my case that was Carthage.
Good luck with your campaigns!
1) It's good for him to 'Take AFter His Father', him being a good tactician
2) Sharp/Charismatic/Vigorous
2) Spartan Agoge training
3) Fighting battles
That's what seems to work for my Strategoi. Of course, my Makedones are the best Strategoi in the world, so the rest of you pesky people will have to pray to the gods to get as good as ours.
Maion
I see, and what about Phyrros? Against him it's the Makedones who should start praying...:juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios
Yeah the Mini mod, which gives gives stars for experience is pretty cool, but anyways I get good generals by,
-Taking dull ones
-Fight and lose(win and lose around 50% each) a lot against Eleutheroi
-Pray for luck
-Pray for luck
-Pray for luck
-Give them the combat bonus acillaries of other Generals
I manage to get 7 Stars Generals sometimes and with atacker threads they have 10 when they atack.
Never(!!!) take the smart ones. As soon as they pause in cities with schools they get absolut pussies.
Sometimes Allied Generals are good too, but thats a big question of luck.
Of course starting Generals are strong sometimes but building your own ones is hard :sweatdrop:
if he really was that good than he would not be killed by a falling brick by an old hag xD
Hmmm. True but wasn't Megas Alexnadros killed by too much alcohol (plus his wounds and him taking too much medicine)?:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
Curious screenshots Fluvius. Did you use any mini mod or something in your campaigns? Whats the dificulty you played the game at? How many full stacks did you support most of the game?
Regardless, pretty impressive to have finished conquering the world so fast. Can you give some timetables of the date you obliterated each faction?
Ah, a curious one!Quote:
Originally Posted by BurningEGO
Epeiros was 1.0 and Romani 1.1, Epeiros was 100% clean and Romani only the official fixes (especially the sprite one, ctd'd so much because of that).
Difficulty is VH/VH or M for both. Forgot the difficulty, at least one of them is M. I forgot how many armies I had as Epirus, only that they owned everything!:smash: The Romani were 6 armies + 2 more who couldnt catch up with my frontier armies:laugh4: (This was of course built up during the campaign, just starting with a half stack army.
To keep this thread on topic, I got various pics from my campaigns on an other thread, so take a look at:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=112224
Did Alexandros die by a brick? No. Did Pyrrhos conquer half the known world in less than 10 years? No. So please save this for another time. No one surpasses the greatness of the one and only Megas in the world.
Plus, Julius Caesar did cry under the statue of Alexandros when he was 19 for a reason, you know:yes: And of course, Hannibal named his the best Strategos of all time.
Maion
Didnt Hannibal actually prefer Pyrrhus? I always heard that for him Pyrrhus was the greatest... And come to think of it, Pyrrhus did crush some roman skulls, and that was a good thing for Hannibal.
And there is someone that beated Alexander in terms of conquest... Genghis Khan. :clown:
Pfft. The British conquered more :P
NO man, he said he was 3rd after Alexandros and Pyrrhos...Quote:
Originally Posted by BurningEGO
Maion
This is an awesome page to compare!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
Haha glory to the Netherlands! Our Dutch Empire was larger than that puny Third Reich muhaha:laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurningEGO
IIRC, different sources compose different lists. According to Livy, it was in a conversation with Scipio (Africanus Major, naturally) that Hannibal rated Alexander, then Phyrrus, as the greatest generals, and himself third—but would have considered himself the greatest general of them all if only he hadn't been defeated by Scipio.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Hannibal and Scipio: BROS 4 LYF
Well I think we can agree that Megas alexandros was one of the (if not THE) greatest generals in Antiquity. (if we take the period of Antiquity to last until the birth of Christ.) Who could be the greatest general of the "dark ages" (if we take it from the birt of christ till the fall of the western Roman empire) I couldn't say (although I think Great King Attila would surely be a potential candidate). The greatest General of the Middle ages would probeably be Genghis Khan but I can"t be sure.:idea2:
But now back to topic: I believe the Nomad factions might have the most easiest to get good generals - since they often need there Bodyguard Horsemen to decide the battles and they can easely win battles where the chances are seriously against them.
According to Hanson, Alexander was a stupid, "drunken thug" and Hitleresque mass murderer, and Epaminondas could kick his butt any day.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Well desert you sure seem to be heading towards you goal.
Wait a minute... Oh damm I think I hear a squadron .. no .. two squadrons of Hetairoi aproaching...
Well see youz later. (Gallops of far away..:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:)
The exact timeframe of Antiquity and the Middle Ages is still disputed and there has not yet been a general agreement reached.
From a (Western) European point of view, Classical Antiquity probably ended with the "birth of Christ" whence the divide in the calendar between BC and AD (or, as I prefer to use them BCE and CE- respectively, (Before) Common Era), though a lot of scholars take the Roman Crisis of the Third century as a more historically-oriented (or, if you will, less "mythological") turning point. Afterwards came Constantine the Great and I'm sure you all know what that meant for the European world.
Late Antiquity is the transition from the Classical Era to the Middle Ages, circa 300 to 600 CE. The "Dark Ages" are the part of the Middle Ages from their beginning up to the "Renaissance" or the rebirth of education and all of that.
Now, the Middle Ages is another cause for dispute... they could begin with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the reign of Charlemagne, the death of Justinian I... there is as of yet no consensus on the topic.
With that in mind, I'd say the greatest General of Classical Antiquity would be, without a doubt, Megas Alexandros. Greatest General of the Late Antiquity: Belisarius or maybe Flavius Aetius?. Dark Ages (depending on which reference you take) Charlemagne. Middle Ages: Jeanne D'Arc? =p
Some of the 'barbarian' generals were pretty good too.
Well I only described those "time borders" because I myself am not sure how to place these "ages". But thats not important. Burebistas timeframe seems to fitt very well.
Surely with no doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burebista
I don't know too many details about Belisarius but I think he would surely deserve it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burebista
I'm not 100% sure about Aetius though - sure he was a capable commander but the Greatest of his time.... I don't know... his fame is based alot on the draw at Katalaunum (or Chalons as some call it) and him defending Italia against "the barbarians from the east". I would no doubt call him a good commander - he knew that as soon as the Huns came over the alps the only thing the "Emperor" could do was to sue for peace many of his actions prove his capabilities and after his death no one could replace him. (can be said about all the three I have named below)
I still say Attila would deserve to be among the candidates. Nobody doubts his capabilities as a Warleader and his conquests and acions have left an important mark on History - he "forced" the founding of Venice and also took part in streghtening the power of the pope (even if it was not his goal).
The greatest commanders of Late Antiquity would be (according to my judgement): Belarius, Aetius, Attila - the later two were Allies and supported eachother for a long time and that makes the situation even more complicated.
I don't know too much about these eras so I will not add anything to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burebista
Alexander as the greatest general of all time... He is definetely overrated. :clown:
Oh come on, beating a "military genius" such as Darius III shows no real skill. When Alexander fought in the Hydaspes, and fought someone smarter he had eventually to stop his conquests even after winning that battle with a lot of dificulty.
Hannibal on the other hand... Fought one of the greatest superpowers with limited resources over more then one decade, used similar strategies like Alexander but much more refined. I mean, the guy used every single thing to his advantage. Things like the wind, the sun, or even the sand. Definetely, the best general of the ancient era, if not the greatest of all.
As for the dark ages... Belisarius. Beating Persia, conquering Italy and northern africa usually with outnumbered forces, was a great feat. And I wouldnt consider Charlesmagne a great leader simply because of his rather simple, and brute tactics.
For the middle ages its really hard to choose one. Henry V, Edward III or Timur are some that come to mind, but i think i would definetely pick Timur. He virtually created an empire from nothing, from India to Anatolia, and never lost a single battle.
You're all wrong. Belisarius is the greatest
EDIT: So, err, props to you BurningEGO. Sorry, i read these posts too quickly.
BEST NAME EVAR ^
As stated, Alexander was the greatest conquerer. In one lifetime, he took over an empire that had taken countless to make. Tactically speaking, he was only above-average. Hannibal could win any battle, but he couldn't siege, and he couldn't take advantage of them. Alexander took the greatest cities, with the greatest walls.
I support a campaign to take Alexander and Hannibal into a teleporter, and cause a The Fly moment and create the most awesome general ever.
Or their heads will be conjoined at the neck and they'll spend all eternity bickering as to who is the greater generalQuote:
I support a campaign to take Alexander and Hannibal into a teleporter, and cause a The Fly moment and create the most awesome general ever
Hannibal: What? You're full of it, I'm so much better than you!
Alex: Um, except, you lost...n00b
Hannibal: Oh please. Just because I didn't fight against a guy who ran away every time doesn't make me any worsea general.
And so on into infinity...
You wouldn't happen to know Alexander the Pretty Good, would you?
To tell you the truth, between Alexander and Hannibal I always prefered the latter. But I have to be honest... that's only because he stuck it to the Romans.
I'd say Hannibal was an excellent tactitian but, overall, Alexander was better. Not to mention the fact that he accomplished all that he did before he was 33. The only other man to have such a great impact on history in such a short amount of time was Jesus of Nazareth.
It would certainly be interesting to see a battle between those two. I'd have my money on Alexander to tell you the truth. Hannibal was an expert at choosing his field but Alexander could make the best of any field you gave him. Hannibal was very creative when it came to tactics, but Alexander knew how to exploit his adversary's weaknesses.
En fin, we'll have to accept the fact that we'll never know.
The only reason I chose Aetius over Attila (without neglecting the Hun's impact on History) was because those two actually fought each other.
Oh, and Hun... as for medieval times, there's one general I'm sure you'll recognise who's perhaps one of my personal favourites: Janos Hunyadi, The White Knight.
Ah, so much Hannibal-love in this thread. Don't be ashamed; embrace it! :beam:
At least only until humans discover time travel. Yes, I have watched Bill & Ted's etc. etc. recently (and let me tell you I would do thinks differently; I mean, Billy the Kid (aged 33)?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Burebista if you think I am going to open Character Map and even ATTEMPT to retype your name you are joking but I guess I could just copy/paste it but I prefer typing pointless rubbish like this
Also +1 for Charlemagne.
*A long, machine like noise that steadily rises in volume is heard in the background as Maion enters Rage Mode*Quote:
Originally Posted by desert
Maion
need help? *pulls out a wormhole based mechanism that allows one to summon a full stack of Cyborg Makedonians armed with Plasma Sarrisae and beam Javalins* =D
I surely agrre on that one. ButQuote:
Originally Posted by Βελισάριος
Amen to that brother:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Βελισάριος
I hope we won't start a Alexander vs. Hannibal debate:sweatdrop:.
If someone wants to see one like that then go here:http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=184720
An unusual argument if you ask me but lets leave it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Βελισάριος
Yes youre right - I know the history of Hunyadi János the "turk-beater" quite well. In fact for me he is the greatest General of Medieval times (at the same level as Genghis Khan) but I don't know much detail of the Medieval history of other nations so I couldn't say for sure. (Good to know you respect him aswell. I always remember him when I hear the noon bell.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Βελισάριος
However I know for sure that Hunyadi János and his son Mátyás had a great affect on History. Not just that of Middle- and East-Europe but also that of whole Europe. You can even hear it today...
Waitaminute... wasn't he the guy who killed Vlad Dracul's father?
back to the topic.
I seem to be having a small problem with training my romani generals. Everytime i leave them for a year or two in Italian academies they always seem to be getting the nasty pedantic/scholastic trait. This only seems to have happened when i leave them in Italian cities. :dizzy2:
Currently my best general was a Athenian educated bloke.
While Janos and his son Mathias might have had some impact upon Hungarian history and of those of nearby countries, i fail to understand how he was that great. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Oh and how many times did you actually do that saber?
Athens is perhaps one of the best school cities in the game. I built Sparta up in my KH Campaign but Athens is better for any potential governor.
Wait wait... Regions matter when building your characters skills? I thought it was tied to Academies, to their "Sharp" trait and to their nationality (Syrios, Hellene, etc).
I dunno, it just seems like that. Placebo effect and the fact that you usually end up with a school one tier better there than in most other places.
They were both champions of Christianity. And Janos killed Vlad II Dracul, who was Vlad III Dracula's father, or Vlad the Impaler. Ironically, since Vlad II and his son were both champions of Christianity as well. But Janos was (half) Hungarian and Vlad Romanian... the two nations have always hated each other and it looks like they'll continue to do that for a long time to come, but let's not start that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BurningEGO
To give you an idea of what an impact Janos had on history, here's what the Pope said when he died: "the light of the world has passed away".
Sultan Mehmet II, the Conqueror of Constantinople admired him, though they were mortal enemies.
But this is a discussion for a Medieval II thread, so we can continue it there if you like.
Returning to the original topic. In my experience I've never really gotten any good combat traits by sitting my generals in cities. At best an "understanding of tactics" which you'll sooner get through campaigning against your enemies.
A solution I accidentally came upon was to "role-play" only one general. Leave the others to administrative tasks or support, that way one general sees most of the action and it greatly increases his traits... ensuring that his offspring will likewise be a breed of fine warriors.
I've actually had more success from guys sitting in Athens than a general I've used since 272 BC. Especially if they're selfish, which will give them some ridiculously negative ratings
I am surprised how many people readily assume that Darius was incompetent. I suppose this is part of the general devaluation of the enemies of Rome and Greece. Darius wasn't a military genius, indeed, but if you look at his tactics, they actually make a great deal of sense. Unfortunately for Darius, he was up against a real military genius who anticipated Darius' actions and planned accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by BurningEGO
well, I see that alot of people here can cnquer the EB world; they have got to be really ,mighty good and apatient players...also ones with a lot of free time?:clown:
:beam::laugh4::smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
Maion
Strangely enough, I find that the Celtic Lesser Kings make AMAZING generals (playing as Getai here). IF you throw them into the fight, they'll gain morale boosters like crazy. My current best general is a Celt who has 7 command stars and a whole slew of morale boosters, he's also got 2 gold chevrons since I always use him to reinforce the centerline. My only annoyance is that he's also the most disloyal bastard out of my entire empire.
Cavalry based commanders are better for mobility but they always lack the staying power of the infantry based ones.
If you want a defensive general, just take a town that several enemies want badly and try to keep hold of it. My best defensive general held Nikaia against about 2 Seleuikid full stacks and 2 Macedonian full stacks. He's now got 5 commands stars and many morale boosters.
I gotta say though, Genghis Khan is probably the best all round general ever. Why?
1: His grasp of tactics was amazing.
2: He employed psychological warfare and used it VERY well, have a look at the Europeans at the time, they believed that he was sent by god to punish them. He was the one to claim he'd been sent by god to punish them.
3: He knew how to keep the cities under him happy.
Happy? If you kill half the population, its fear that makes them "happy"
No he didn't. Genghis Khan died in 1227. The Mongols hadn't even attacked Russia yet, let alone Eastern Europe.
Europe is generally divided from Asia to its east by the water divide of the Ural Mountains, the Ural River and the Caspian Sea. Taking in consideration that by the time of Genghis Khan's death in 1227 the mongols got past these barriers, one can easily reach the conclusion that they did at least enter Europe.Quote:
No he didn't. Genghis Khan died in 1227. The Mongols hadn't even attacked Russia yet, let alone Eastern Europe.
Extent of Genghis's empire and campaigns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ge..._empire-en.svg
Yes, that technically is Europe, but the Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, etc. probably only knew them as a vague threat in the steppes to the east, and Western Europe likely had heard next to nothing about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heldelance
How do you use the vollorix in battle? Defend mode on or off? Playing KH, I send the generals into melee ahead of all the rest on defend mode as they don't really die as long as the enemy is coming from the front, but I do keep the rest of the infantry *very* close behind to prevent the bodyguards from getting double- or triple-enveloped as this renders defend mode useless. Kinda serves role-playing rather well (charging ahead of their armies like Megas Alexandros before them).
Also makes for nice chevrons by the time they become veterans, which is when I let the next, still green general fresh from the academy take over while the veteran takes a governor's position in a city with a government befitting his ethnicity. The only thing that gets in the way of this is when they become warmongers (still could not quite figure out how exactly that is triggered. Maybe something to do with the ratio of "turns ended on home turf", "in cities" and "in hostile territory" *or* an increasing percent chance with consecutive turns spent on campaign.
But back to the battle formation - KH generals have the "defend"-mode tweaked to simulate a phalanx which was historically capable of pulling off Thermopylae and the likes AND this even works in frontal attacks against phalangitai (pinning them for others to surround them, but not killing them of course). But the vollorix is no phalanx unit, so - does defend mode still do something to make them survive longer? My role-played Galatian allied army constantly gets ripped to pieces in the city-battle for Ipsos against a klerouchoi phalanx, a pantodapoi phalanx, some miscellaneous assorted AS spear- and peltast- units plus a handful of tindanotae and of course the general (who stays well out of sight). Numbers are not the issue here. but the vollorix just doesn't seem to cut it like a hoplite.
Could be wrong, but from my own experience pretty much every unit except cavalry last longer in defend mode. Although some will do terribly (regarding units killed) under defend mode, while other certain units like Triarii/Hoplites do extremely well in defend mode.Quote:
does defend mode still do something to make them survive longer?
As for Celtic Lesser Kings, i always use them without defend mode. They are a heavy swordsmen unit, not a spear-based unit. But given their armor they should do their job just fine in defend mode, if you just use them to "hold the line" while you flank the enemy army with a better unit. Although i wouldnt expect a good kill-death ratio from them if you just use them without proper backup in defend mode.
In my opinion, KH generals is best used when flanking enemy lines, I usually put tham on the very right side, and put the missile on the left, cavalry on both, and watch the enemy line rolled up from the right...... they are just amazing flankers...:2thumbsup:Quote:
does defend mode still do something to make them survive longer?
Using them to hold the line against quality phalangitai usually ends up as suicide...:wall:
Interresting - I never trust any client king or allied general to lead my armies - unless in two cases - I don't wan't to keep the place he was governing till now to stay a client kingdom or allied state and want to get rid of him - as arrow fodder all of them will do ... and they take many of the enemy with them. The other case would be were they are generals of the same culture, origin as my faction (nomad mercenary nobles for Pahlav, Saka and Sauros, Helenics for all Hellenistic factions and so on..) and I do trust them in that case -Quote:
Originally Posted by heldelance
Interresting idea - I might try it in the near future.Quote:
Originally Posted by heldelance
Youre right on that one - he was a great tactican.Quote:
Originally Posted by heldelance
He did use psychological warfare very well. However he never made it to Europe - it was his descendents who would fight against the eastern european Kingdoms. They would be victorious in there first attacks but after a few years the Europeans built many frotresses and denied the Mongols any open field battles. The second "Mongol invasion" hardly had achieved any succes.Quote:
Originally Posted by heldelance
The second half of your statement is true in the cases of Attila and later the Mongols. Not all Europeans were ivolved in the fight against the Mongols, but the Huns had almost conquered all of Europe all the way to France.
I would rather aggre with A Very Super Market - the term "he made sure all of his subjects knew that he would kill all of them if they didn't obey" might be more fitting.Quote:
Originally Posted by heldelance
Sorry, what I meant was "He knew how to keep them in line" :sweatdrop:
Now with Vollorix, I usually use them without guard mode. If I have hoplite units I use the Vollorix as a right side unit otherwise they're on the centerline and their job is to smack into the enemy line and hold it there till my guys get around.
I've fought a general vs general battle with my vollorix and the KH leader (not mounted mercs, what I've noticed is that the KH ones are better on the whole because of their spears. They do quite a bit of damage when charging (Vollorixes can withstand a charge but they don't cause casualties like spearmen) and charging them with Vollorixes is just plain stupid because of their spears.
Against Elites, they hold VERY well. Against light infantry and even Principe level infantry (the last reform before legions) they seem to cut them down without too many casualties. As for the trust thing, most of my client kings seem to be loyal, except for my leading general who has the seditious trait. With the Warmonger trait, notice that if the general has more combat related traits and you throw him into a battle or two then chuck him into a town, he becomes a warmonger, he gets worse when you keep him away from battle.
My best ever general in my roman campaign was a vollorix, i recruited him at a time when i was comming up short on family members (i later realised this was because i had about a dozen unmarried daughters:wall:) and the germans attacked. He went on to single-handedly take every german settlement and died at the grand old age of 35, while leading the final push to crush the last resistance in a siege on the final german settlement. He had 8 command 7 management and 10 influence i was planning on settling him down in a celtic city before he died, but he was a warmonger so maybe he wanted to go out fighting rather than going soft in a settlement.
As for tactics if i was being attacked he would make up the centre of the line while others flanked, and if attacking he would always lead the charge while again, others flanked. I love the infantry generals for their staying power, standing there in the front lines, fighting alongside and inspiring the men taking the worst of the fight while others take the relatively easier job of flanking, rather than taking the easy job themselves. Appeals to my infantry loving side of a good honest soldier (rather than those cowardly horses always running away:whip:) :laugh4: