Printable View
I'm dedicating this thread to all of those guys who either bravely fought for our causes or used their brilliance to make money for their us. They have either high acumen or command. They are uber generals. Here are some from my current campaign.
https://img207.imageshack.us/img207/...eneral19rv.jpg
https://img233.imageshack.us/img233/...eneral39tw.jpg
Aren't they good?
I once had a Polish general who had full stars, dread, and accuman. He was also a great warrior, and legedary leader. I posted him in a couple of threads with pics but have since gotten rid of them.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...gstinsects.jpg
I posted this months ago. I think I've had better since but didn't take a screen of them.
These ex-royal units should be excluded. I mean with some Catholic nations or Byzs you have have plenty of 8/9 star princes, some of them get high acumen (if not, you can give them title to improve their c and a) and here you are, you have 9l,9c,9a and for example 6p and 5d general.
How can non-royal generals compete with them ??
Check my guys. They aren't of royal blood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Templar
Yes, they are, when ex-prince with royal surname dies, he's replaced with general with exactely same characteristics(l,p,d,c,a) and V-and-V.
No, they're not. They don't have the crown left of their portrait which signifies thet the are of noble birth. Governor of Sicily was the first royal knight I trained and I remember being suprised with how good he was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Templar
Like I said, if an ex-prince dies he's replaced with general with equal charcteristics, but different name and surname (for ex. Orsini instead of royal Macchiavelli). If genaral (ex-prince) has no more royal surname, he cannot have a crown which indicate his royal blood.
Good generals are pretty easy to get, but what's the highest valour level you've ever seen?
https://img231.imageshack.us/img231/...00322zx.th.jpg
https://img230.imageshack.us/img230/...00337oh.th.jpg
Probably an ex Prince, but as the virtues show, he's fought long and hard. He had full piety I think or maybe 8 points but Butcher knowcked that down.
Can valour go above 9?
My game glitched once and I had a Valour 37 Viking Unit. It didn't lose any men at all for 300 years.
Why? The question is best general, not best non-ex-royal general. They're generals like everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Templar
I've never got valour above single digits, but I've heard of a 16 valour Joms Vikings unit(MTW).
And they're not exroyals anyways. Miho's generals are not exroyals. The crowm stays afterward or else what would be the point of it. ANyone could jsut read the pricne part and know they're royals. Do you need screen shots to prove it. Ill take a shot of a prince before and after his brother becomes King.
I dont even need to do that anyways if you notice Graphics general is referred to as Lord not prince so hes obviousl had one ofhis brothers crowned yet at same time he still has the crown indicating royal blood. So princes keep the crown thing.
The screenshot isn't neccissarily to prove it, it's just cooler to look at =)
@lugh What's the other faction on the pics?
It's the Genoese in XL Mod.Quote:
Originally Posted by miho
How did they get so big? You're gonna have some hard time defeating them.
I remember seeing a screenshot of a late Spanish royal knight with 40 valour. He was the only survivor of his unit. Mind you, combat calculations are capped at +20 and -20, so there is a limit to how much valour will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtafanboy
In VI all generals, not just royal ones, will eventually die of old age. They are replaced by a general with identical stats (unless you use the green_generals command line), but a different name and no royal connections. They don't show the crown symbol as well, though they are in fact just copies of ex-royals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen_Warrior
To confirm this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
https://img403.imageshack.us/img403/9445/gen15ta.jpg
https://img403.imageshack.us/img403/9462/gen28dj.jpg
From my Byzantine campaign. Although they don't have crown simbol, they are ex-princes with different names, wich can be noticed through their very high command for example.
But then they are not ex-royals if those died. The fact that their replacements are as them the same doesn't matter. The point is that these are not ex princes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
And KT your generals don't have a crown. They might aswell be "normal" ones You should have taken pics of before and after the royal one died.
But why are we having this argue? Why couldn't princes compete as best generals? The thread is called "Your best generals" not "Your best non-royal generals 'cause others can't compete with them"Quote:
Originally Posted by knight templar
1. I know, but it's obvious they're ex-royals (look at their stats)Quote:
Originally Posted by miho
2. Ok, I'll post letar pics of mine good generals ~:cool:
But what's the point in not having ex-royals compete as best generals?
I think the whole issue is that some people see it as "competing" - when I believe the point of the thread was just to show and tell stories of your best generals. There is no prize - it is not a competition - princes', kings, and ex-royalty should all be considered - just show us your favorite/best generals.
IMHO of course...
DE
That was my point. I wanted people to show their best generals so we can admire each other, not compete. This has gone in the wrong direction. Just post pics of your generals and if you want you can tell a story about them.
So, 1 non-royal general (Byzantine campaign)Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Templar
https://img178.imageshack.us/img178/4327/gennr16ud.jpg
https://img178.imageshack.us/img178/1417/gennr29cg.jpg
and 1 ex-prince from my Croatian campaign
https://img178.imageshack.us/img178/4025/genr17le.jpg
note, he has no titles for improving acumen and command ~:cool:
They're both good. How come Ivan Šubić isn't a governor?
Hey those are some generals there!
I would like to point out that royals loose thier crowns when the next generation becomes king. So, for instance in a recent campagne as the Danes, in which I had far too many sons running around, My king died (as tends to happen). So, then his oldest remaining heir (after I had culled the herd a bit) took over. His younger bros were still running around causing trouble for Ze Germans, but the he died, and his only son, nephew of the other Jorg and Sven and all them, who had just come of age took over... and his uncles ceased to have crowns, thereby freeing up some room for new blood...
He was prince since 1285Quote:
Originally Posted by miho
Well I had to dig this guy up ~;p
https://img226.imageshack.us/img226/...general1pr.jpg
Not that special right? But here's were he really shines.
https://img226.imageshack.us/img226/...neralvv8yo.jpg
10+ in morale ~D
Here are the V&Vs of my guys
https://img214.imageshack.us/img214/132/general87vx.jpg
https://img214.imageshack.us/img214/...eneral79ee.jpg
On the ex-royals issue:
The reason I think some people want them excluded is that you can get unbeleibvably good generals fromsecond sons. Try fulfilling all the crusades in a single Kings reign and see what his younger sons turn out as, they're godamn monstrous. Put them in charge of a decent army and those 9*s' worth of extra valour is going to tear through enemy armies allowing the general to rack up even greater stats. Take a look at mine, expert attacker, great against poor odds etc etc.
On the Genoese:
Yeah, the Marquis is right, Genoese in XL. I was turtling mainly, took the peninsula and the Holy Lands and just teched up and had fun destroying massive French and Egyptian armies (I had 5 9* generals by the end of that campaign). I only had ships to keep the Holy Lands in contact with home and hadn't spammed bishops to spy everywhere.
The Genoese appeared on my borders in Spain and the Holy Lands around 1320 and I realised something was very badly wrong. I spent a century and a half supporting other factions against them, kind of in a cold war scenario, we never traded blows ourselves. I'd assasinate, burn generals, cause revolts where I could and scoop up the provinces when they rebelled. Pretty much all the territoty but Spain and the mid east was taken in that manner.
I still won though on GA points, so it's all good.
Exactly, just look at the Byz in early with all those high command princes just given to you early in the game. Also princes are "born" with V&vVs that also boost stats. I think some feel that those guys who came from the ground up (1 * or 2 *), duking it out battle after battle eraning those * to be just a little more amazing then the random 8* star heir born with valor and stat pumping V&V's. It doesn't make those guys less valuable, just less amazing.Quote:
On the ex-royals issue:
The reason I think some people want them excluded is that you can get unbeleibvably good generals fromsecond sons.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have any of those guys shown in this thread. ~;)
Absolutely, I tend to like my 4-5 star generals who came from nothing better then the 7-8 star princes. I also like generals who are in infantry units. I always put them right in the fight with there men, were a good leader should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Champion
I had a 9 star Katank die within a couple of minutes of routing the center of the mongol line after charging downhill into a mass of warriors. I don't get it. Perhaps someone shot him?