Difficulty effects in battle?

**bamff** · 10-13-2008, 03:20

Thanks for getting us back on track, Brandy Blue!

My mod experience has also been limited to XL, and I would agree, each of the changes that you have noted certainly improves the level of competition/challenge that the AI offers.

I would also add that the elimination of the land bridges also helps to level things up somewhat.

**Vantek** · 10-13-2008, 20:31

Haha, this thread made me laugh several times.

A question, does a 0 star general increase the morale of his men with his presence at all? I as if remember soldiers get the text "encouraged by the general" when even a rookie general is near, but that's probably just an automatic assumption I've always made. If this is the case, then in some fights it might make sense to actually withdraw the general in the beginning of the battle to avoid disaster.

**caravel** · 10-13-2008, 21:16

It's a trade off. You can withdraw the general to keep him safe if morale is already high and you're confident of winning the battle, but there is a morale penalty for units that are more than 50 metres away from the general. On the other hand if the general is part of a battered unit and looks likely to get picked off anyway, then withdrawing might be worth the risk. But there are vices to be gained for doing so...

0 star generals don't bestow any valour or battlefield moral bonuses on the units under their command. They are basically "not a general yet", but just a regular unit leader that just so happens to be leading the army. So having one of these commanding your army is like having no general at all. If this 0 star general is too far from any units under his command they won't suffer any penalties because no bonus was given in the first place. The only penalty is the temporary morale plunge if the "general" is killed or routs.

**Vantek** · 10-14-2008, 09:24

The latter was what I had in mind; if then the only possible effect a 0 star general could have on the battlefield is causing a disaster by getting killed or routed, then it might be better to not deploy him in the first place. Well, doesn't happen too often I guess.

**Knight of the Rose** · 10-14-2008, 12:24

Originally Posted by Vantek

it might be better to not deploy him in the first place.

On the contrary. Loosing a 0-star commander is not a real loss, and you should only give battle when you are winning. So why not let him promote to 1-star (1 victory needed)? And should you loose him, well, you should be unlucky not to regroup an be able to mount a second attempt while attacking, or if you are defending your routing units will be close to where the reinforcements are coming in.

If you are defending and don't have reinforcements, well, then you need the commanders unit even more.

Furthermore, withdrawing can inflict vices, whereas staying in there could give you virtues.

/KotR

**Vantek** · 10-14-2008, 14:58

: O does he not get the promotion if he is not present on the battlefield?

**Knight of the Rose** · 10-14-2008, 15:07

I *think* the general who starts out as general on the deployment screen before the actual battle loads will get the star. BUT I've sometimes been surprised by somebody else getting the victory. So just keep him in there...

/KotR

**caravel** · 10-14-2008, 18:55

Originally Posted by Vantek

The latter was what I had in mind; if then the only possible effect a 0 star general could have on the battlefield is causing a disaster by getting killed or routed, then it might be better to not deploy him in the first place. Well, doesn't happen too often I guess.

I think you might just be missing the point. Every unit is led by at least a 0 star general so it is impossible to go into battle without one, unless you have a 1+ star general.

**Vantek** · 10-14-2008, 20:04

I guess that must mean someone else assumes the role of general once you withdraw your original general, which I had no idea of :P

**Knight of the Rose** · 10-14-2008, 20:58

That is - to the best of my knowledge - incorrect. When battle commences, there can be only one general, and is he withdrawn, then the battle concludes without a general. Though as there appearantly is no bonus, the difference is academic.

/KotR

**caravel** · 10-14-2008, 21:13

Originally Posted by Vantek

I guess that must mean someone else assumes the role of general once you withdraw your original general, which I had no idea of :P

No you're still slightly off. Your question was regarding it not being worth deploying a 0 valour general in the first place. My point is that you either deploy a 0 valour general or a 1 star plus general. There are no other options.