Difficulty effects in battle?

**Knight of the Rose** · 10-15-2008, 07:22

You can see the effect by swapping say a 4-star general with a 1-star general. The valor marker on all units changes immediatly. I havn't checked if you can keep your king (and your army) out of harms way by doing so, but I would imagine it was possible.

But again, sometimes the game has a difficulty finding the "real" general when assigning a victory.

This needs testing IMHO

/KotR

**Vantek** · 10-15-2008, 07:25

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.

Sorry, I used "not deploy" as a synonym for "withdraw immediately in the beginning of the battle" :P

**Ironside** · 10-17-2008, 18:30

Originally Posted by Knight of the Rose

You can see the effect by swapping say a 4-star general with a 1-star general. The valor marker on all units changes immediatly. I havn't checked if you can keep your king (and your army) out of harms way by doing so, but I would imagine it was possible.

But again, sometimes the game has a difficulty finding the "real" general when assigning a victory.

This needs testing IMHO

/KotR

This is one thing that really messes things up, the replacement will lead the battle but everything except death will transfer to the default general. And some negative v&v works thruogh even that (the not so bold line).

Had a buggy general once (the former king of a died out faction that I inhierited the lands, but the faction had a civil war that ended up with only the general unit left).
Bascially he was an immortal. He never comanded the battle himself (didn't show up on the battlefield), but he had a stand-in with the general bonues (aka high star general, ended up with 8-stars on def). But that stand-in could die in battle normally and things were normal, except that a new stand-in was chosen.
But unlike his stand-ins he never saw battle (how do you engage with a unit that doesn't exist?) and started to be "not so bold". I don't think I tried this, but I'm pretty certain that he would get good runner if his stand-in ran though.

Yep the game can be pretty wierd sometimes.

**caravel** · 10-17-2008, 20:23

Yes, this is a known issue. I've seen battles where vices were gained by more than one general, and where a prince gained the vices even though he wasn't leading the battle. There are also a few bugs that pop up when the king leads the battle.

**Ironsword** · 10-20-2008, 00:14

^^ The one bug I usually get when my King leads the battle is 'You have lost.'

Oh wait, that's just my bug from firing up a game at 2am when i'm tipsy.

**m52nickerson** · 10-20-2008, 13:17

Originally Posted by Martok

bamff:

Indeed. The greatest 9-star commander in the world is useless if his vices cause his men to flee the battlefield right away.

My general rule of thumb is if a general inflicts more than a -2 morale penalty on his troops (*maybe* up to -4 if he's otherwise truly awesome), he gets retired from military duty. (I usually won't disband them, however -- that just comes off as ungrateful on my part.

)

On the flip side I will take a 4 star general with a +2 to moral over a 6 star no virtue any day!

**Knight of the Rose** · 10-23-2008, 13:46

Originally Posted by Ironsword

^^ The one bug I usually get when my King leads the battle is 'You have lost.'

Oh wait, that's just my bug from firing up a game at 2am when i'm tipsy.

I get a somewhat more sophisticated version of this, don't know why - but suddently the game charges my line of archers straight into the enemy, cavalry runs into the forrest, and when I *clearly* clicked on the halt button, the game routs my units. Not my fault.

/KotR