Great men

[Martok]

So here's a question I don't think I've ever seen asked here before:

When it comes to generals, do you usually focus on cultivating only a very few army commanders (but with uber stats and abilities)? Or do you tend to spread the wealth and have a larger number of good-but-not-great generals (4-6 stars)? Or do you even really pay attention to such things?


I've realized that I seem to lean towards the former. While I don't consciously have a specific plan per se, most of my campaigns usually end up with my faction fielding a good number of generals that have decent but unspectacular stats. It's pretty rare for me to have an "uber-general" with 7 stars or more, unless he happens to be a Hero who has an extremely high command rating to begin with.

I'm curious as to what other people do.

[Knight of the Rose]

IMHO, one of the most important factors is out-maching your enemy in valor. Yes, due to the combined arms concept, you need to keep, say camels away from spears. But if you have high valor camels against low valor spears, then you have a good shot at coming out on top anyway. I'll show that in the next update on the camel-campaign due shortly. As another example: Once as France vs. Byzzies, I saw Treb.Archers (vanilla) cut through FMAA as they were peasants, and this was only due to the fact that my 3-star general was facing a 8-star enemy.

So I believe firmly that one *very* high-command (8-9 stars) general is worth much more that 3-4 with 4-5 stars.

It depends on the map ofcourse - as simultanious action in multiple regions demand many decent generals, but (armies being equal) I tend to retreat when the enemy commander has 3-4 stars more than me, hold firm when equal, and only attack with my über-general.

I find that it is somewhat rare, that you need to fight 3-4 battles a turn anyway. But that is just the way I play the game.

/KotR

[I of the Storm]

I try to spread it and have a couple of generals with good abilities and 4-6 stars. Since the AI doesn't have that many 9ers either it works well. Should I happen to have a handful of former princes with many stars (Byz e.g.), I try to cultivate them further, of course. Same goes for recruited heroes. I clearly remember an Albrecht der Bär who appeared almost maxed out in every ability once...

[Jxrc]

Really depends which faction I am playing as.

For some factions you can easily get a just a few provinces to guard (Spain, Elmo, Aragon, Sicily, Denmark) so you can max out just a few generals. For others it's much more complicated to get short land borders (HRE, Poland, Hungary, Italy ...) so you're probably better off with several general wityh a few stars than with one uber-general.

Whom you face is also quite revelant. IF you're up against a faction with great generals (byz, eggies) it might be wise to try to have one very good general with a chance to win one decisive battle rather than having all your 4-5 stars general beaten one after the other ...

Finally it goes without saying that it all depends on what kind of heir or historical generals your get ... Some faction are blessed with nice heirs (Spain, Byz, Elmo) while other gets loads of nice historical general (England, France, Egypt) rather early. With any of those factions you usually end up with enough decent generals to be able to max out some of them with titles.

"an Albrecht der Bär who appeared almost maxed out in every ability once" .... Lucky you. He has normally just four stars and get pride or chinless wonder one year after I get it ....

[drone]

I probably spread it out more than I should, but that's mainly because I don't really plan out my invasions and armies, I just look at what I'm up against and adjust accordingly. In my current campaign, I've got a couple of 6-7 star generals, but I use others in smaller battles. My style is strategic mobility and opportunism, if I see a weakness I jump on it with whatever I have available.

I do tend to use my heir a lot, I like to get him experienced and leveled up before he takes over the kingdom.

[Ironsword]

Well, usually, at the beginning of a campaign I have a just a couple of warmasters, (6+) and use them in a remorseless advance across the map.

Later, when the marshals palace and admirality are built I spread out my generals, as the AI can stab you in the back over multiple territories. But by then with a few victories under my belt I can usually get a few 4* generals generated randomly.

[Timsup2nothin]

I think I don't fight enough, from what I see here.

Maybe my background in economics is the problem. I seem to generate pretty overwhelming odds, and usually take territory by retreat far more often than battle. Other than the occasional 'born with five stars' heir I seldom get anyone past four, and consider myself lucky when I can field more than one of those.

[seireikhaan]

Generally depends a bit, but I try to get a few really good generals whom will fight the vast majority of my battles, especially when I'm not planning to make major colonization efforts.

Of course, this has backfired in the past when a Papal inquisitor decided to "purify" one of my 8 star generals while playing as France once, and I ended up getting invaded and trounced in that province the next year...

[Ironside]

I breed.

In other terms, that means that every front got at least 6+ star generals and to reinforce a new front I'll simply go to the capital province and get my best ex-hier still there to lead the new army front. Should I lack hiers, my king's high influence and command will give me access to 4-star generals fairly easy as well.
I rarely specifically train those generals afterwards though, but some will still gain stars, seen both the 8-star promotion message and 9-star one.

Early in the game it's not as prounounced, exept that the strong generals usually leads the major offensives and that I try to keep the stars within a 2-star range. That is, an 8-star is countered by atleast a 6-star if possible.

[Haccapelite]

I also try to develop a few really good generals, since my gaming style usually includes only smallscaled, focused attacks which usually aim to snatch a few provinces at a time, then develop them, move in a garrison and then continue the invasion or move the conquering army somewhere else. With this style, I don't expand very quickly, but I think it's only good, since then I have time to use those units coming available on high/late (I always start on early) and lets the AI factions grow bigger so they give a bigger challenge to me
I try to keep my borders as short as possible so that I have very few provinces that need to be defended. I have found this tactic really effective, since it reduces the army upkeep and enables me to keep most of my generals in the frontline conquering new provinces. With this tactic it is important to find those key provinces that are easy to defend with as little troops as possible. Some nice ones are e.g. Kiev (bridge) and Navarre and Aragonia (mountains). I think there is a coplete list of these "special" provinces in the numerology thread in the .com.

[Roark]

I usually try to groom 3-4 generals who are at least 6 stars. This is via heroes & ex-princes plus titles.

I invariably end up with a number of 4 star generals who result from building elites (1-3 stars) and giving the mathematically gifted ones titles (1-2 stars).

[The Unknown Guy]

I usually play(ed) with -green generals, so I tried to groom them (particularily the royal family, as they inherit stats after a fashion, and in theory at least better dread-and-command rulers should experience less civil wars- althrough I´ve been told around here anything from it being counted to all stats save influence being ignored in the ruler-, and are prolific), but whithin limits, as to keep a surplus of decent second-line generals to step up and take their forefather's mantles

[Scurvy]

I usually only have 2-3 really good Generals who i put to defend the most vulnerable provinces, and tend to use princes or more average generals to lead any offensives (as attacking is less reliant on val etc.)

[Kamakazi]

In all honesty it doesnt really matter to me. I usually end up with good 5-8 star gens after all my attackin and stuff.....to me men matter more than one specific general unit.

Lets say i have 5000 men under a no star general and i get attacked by an eight star with like 2000-5000 man army ill still fight....numbes matter to me not generals

[The Unknown Guy]

Actually, I´m willing to tackle on several stars generals with rookies, provided I´m defending, and have a strong position.

That 5000 men battle example is one I´d turn down, but only because such long battles get terribly dull after a time. MTW doesn´t handle too well the time limits. There should be an option to lower them down drastically, or fix an upper limit. I dont want to spend 90 minutes waiting for the enemy to run out of reinforcements.

In fact, I think there should be some "total disaster rule", in which if your first wave gets utterly crushed, (aka: a total rout, or maybe even having a very bad kill ratio -say, ten or twenty to one-), the attack fails immediatedly and the reinforcements get sent to their home provinces, instead of coming over and over into the slaughterfield.

[The Unknown Guy]

Actually, I´m willing to tackle on several stars generals with rookies, provided I´m defending, and have a strong position.

That 5000 men battle example is one I´d turn down, but only because such long battles get terribly dull after a time. MTW doesn´t handle too well the time limits. There should be an option to lower them down drastically, or fix an upper limit. I dont want to spend 90 minutes waiting for the enemy to run out of reinforcements.

In fact, I think there should be some "total disaster rule", in which if your first wave gets utterly crushed, (aka: a total rout, or maybe even having a very bad kill ratio -say, ten or twenty to one-), the attack fails immediatedly and the reinforcements get sent to their home provinces, instead of coming over and over into the slaughterfield.

[seireikhaan]

I've actually has many a time whereupon I utterly crush an invading army's first wave so badly that the AI pulls from the battle, and several troops don't ever make it to the field.

[Scurvy]

Lets say i have 5000 men under a no star general and i get attacked by an eight star with like 2000-5000 man army ill still fight....numbes matter to me not generals

not sure i'd take that, the army with eight stars should win everytime... if you outnumbered them 3-1 then maybe

[The Unknown Guy]

Depends on the ammount of reinforcements. I had one french resurgence in which they had around ten thousand troops, very unbalanced (As in, thousands of crossbowmen). I massacred throughly every wave, but in the end, my knights were so tired that the crossbowmen horde ended up being able to pummel them into submission.

[Haccapelite]

I agree with Kamakazi in the fact that it's not only ther general who matters, the units in the army are also important. But it is also a fact that a general with 8 stars gives his entire army a +4 to valour, which can be overwhelming against weaker enemies and can be that straw which breaks the camels back (my apologies about this proverb, I hope I didn't insult anybody.. ;) ) for your favor against an equal army with a weaker general.
I actually find the battle timer annoying, and I haven't been using it for a long time. Since my own armies are usually superior in quality comparing to the AI army, I find it just fair to let them be able to use their large armies. It can sometimes get a bit boring to fight these long battles, but I really enjoy battles in MTW, and it lets me try lots of different tactiques. (And since I am almost always able to win even the longest battles, I get huge kill counts and nice valoured units, plus the enemy can lose huge armies in one battle.) When attacking, I also found the timer really annoying, especially against enemies with really fast and mobile units, for example the Mongols and the Spanish. (Its not fun to try to corner jinetes with AUM, I tell you..)

[Kamakazi]

not sure i'd take that, the army with eight stars should win everytime... if you outnumbered them 3-1 then maybe

well i used that example cuz ive done it...and i won...not to say that im rly good at mtw but sumhow i routed their gen and their whole army broke

[The Unknown Guy]

It can be done. Even with a smaller army, if you manage to kill the general. Which might be harder than it sounds, as such a high ranking general might well be a jedi. If you have crossbows, or arbalests, and an opening to aim, you could pull this through more easily.

[Martok]

Indeed. Crossbow bolts and (if they get a lucky shot) artillery crews are generally the most cost-effective way of bringing down jedi generals.

[macsen rufus]

I find it varies from faction to faction - playing as HRE it can take a while before any decent generals turn up, and you usually rely on those heroes (Albrecht der Baer being a major asset ). If I find someone who shows promise in the early game, then he'll get a lot of the jobs going to boost his stats and earn some V&Vs. Generally by the late era (assuming a start in early) then I typically have three or four 8 or 9* generals, and a dozen or so who are 5-7*, the rest being reasonably competent "also-rans". One of the best generals I had in one HRE campaign was a mounted X-bow, who ended up at 8*, valour 9 + VnVs, max weapon upgrade, and could trash kataphracts in melee.

I often find myself wishing the old king would hurry up and die so a bunch of "uncles" can be converted to governors to take advantage of their high command/acumen/etc etc. If in the process they get good provinces that add to their star-rating, then so much the better

When it comes to taking out enemy generals, I favour arbalesters. I usually keep my arb line with fire-at-will turned off, wait til the enemy are close, then toggle fire at will back on. That way you get an instant, mass salvo, which rips through the enemy charge and often as not causes most units to rout. Add to this one "sniper" unit targetting the general, and you can take out a RK unit quite quickly. Another favourite for this style of tactic are bashkorts, holding formation & position, with fire-at-will off until the right moment. A line of bashkorts like this can totally eliminate a unit of chivalric knights before their charge hits home. If any do survive the mssiles then they land straight on the spear points in such diminished numbers it's another insta-rout. These tactics are particularly suited for those Jedi-generals with the kamikaze tendency

[The Unknown Guy]

I seldom use "fire at will" I find it tends to make units waste ammo. I pick useful targets by hand (for instance, spearmen will seldom deserve bolts. They might deserve arrows, if there are a lot of them massed in one place)

[Knight of the Rose]

It migth be slightly off topic, but I'll give a little shout-out for "fire-at-will". Yes Unknown Guy, I agree that it is very often a waste of ammo, and I always keep it off. But in cases where I'm being rushed by the enemy and have slow loaders (x-bows, arbs) I fire once at maximum distance. If the enemy is slow (footmen) I give it another shot. Then I turn off "skirmish". And then I wait.

I wait for them to come closer. And closer. Closer still. And then, at "can you see the white in their eyes?"-distance I turn on "fire-at-will" and they shoot instantly into the enemy at point blank range. Sometimes (usually when I'm not playing expert) the shock of being under fire and at the same time loosing a third of their numbers in one second, routs them immediately.

But mostly, FaW is bad for you.

/KotR

[Haccapelite]

I had totally forgotten about the historical heroes. I don't usually get much help from them, since at least when I'm playing, they almost instantly start to find those extra toes or prefer beer as a refreshment over water. Poor Birger Jarl dropped from a five-star expert attacker to a one or two star general in a mattr of years, and with the Turks, the historical heroes have nearly all faced a simular destiny. (Oh, expept that one who charged into the rear of a unit of cataphractoi who were surrounded from three directions with spears and camels and heroicly died the same second when his ghazi-unit hit the enemy rear.. Well, you should never underestimate the power of a heavily armored horse-rear, I guess. )

[Vider]

It migth be slightly off topic, but I'll give a little shout-out for "fire-at-will". Yes Unknown Guy, I agree that it is very often a waste of ammo, and I always keep it off. But in cases where I'm being rushed by the enemy and have slow loaders (x-bows, arbs) I fire once at maximum distance. If the enemy is slow (footmen) I give it another shot. Then I turn off "skirmish". And then I wait.

I wait for them to come closer. And closer. Closer still. And then, at "can you see the white in their eyes?"-distance I turn on "fire-at-will" and they shoot instantly into the enemy at point blank range. Sometimes (usually when I'm not playing expert) the shock of being under fire and at the same time loosing a third of their numbers in one second, routs them immediately.

But mostly, FaW is bad for you.

/KotR

Thanks KotR and everyone who discussed FaW. This is something I never really learned much about, and last night I used this tactic to kill off a Pope to get rid of my excommunication. I don't know why the Pope was sitting in Rome with other units (2 ballista) but after his successor asked for peace I have been able to use those crusades I built.