Kings, Princes and Generals!

[PershsNhpios]

I am playing my first campaign in a while through XL as the English on Hard.

(It is now 1146AD and I have Scotland to Aquitaine, Brittany to Friesland - predictably - after some very sizeable conflicts with the French, who stole the initial status of western superpower)

Every pitched or well-matched battle so far has been resolved due to the death of a general or king, and many tense moments have manifested through these deaths also.

Of course, the effects of a leader's death on the field are rather well known, but as I played today I wondered what the subtle situational differences were.

For example, the Frenchman sent 3808 men against me under King Philippe I, with an average of 2 valour, against my 1830 with an average of 2 valour.

Prince Alfred was laughing somewhat when Philippe found himself caught between a shelf of sergeants five hundred metres long and a swarm of charging hobilars and knights.

Yet despite the fact that Philippe the elder was never seen again, along with one third of his army, the other two thirds did not seem influenced by the matter whatsoever, and their third-rate spearmen fought like foxhounds against my Men-at-arms.

In contrast, my valour two veteran swords routed with 80 men still in the unit when their 1st rank "general" was killed by an off chance.

What are the variables affecting the amount of havoc wrought on unit morale when a leader is killed or captured?

Is there a noted difference between not only Kings and Generals, but also Princes, and Generals of varying rank?
Is all unit valour owing to the general forfeited immediately at his death?
Is it better for the sake of momentary victory to capture rather than kill?
Is a fleeing general more persuasive than a dead one?

How effective is the assassination of a general before attacking an army?

I always enjoy reading not only paragraphs of guaranteed statistics but also in-game experiences of players, please!




----------




Now to press a rather different subject:

Knight of the Rose, because you have decided to create an AAR so uniquely rebellious, you must finish it, and give to it priority above all other things until it becomes a completed work.
Thank you.

[drone]

What are the variables affecting the amount of havoc wrought on unit morale when a leader is killed or captured?

For a short time frame, all units suffer -8 to morale when the army general is killed. This penalty then drops to -2 for the rest of the battle. Any vicinity morale bonuses from the general's rank are lost (+1 for all units per 2 stars, +1 per star when within 50 meters).

Is there a noted difference between not only Kings and Generals, but also Princes, and Generals of varying rank?

I don't believe there is any difference within the battle. The King will always be the general is present however, regardless of rank.

Is all unit valour owing to the general forfeited immediately at his death?

Units lose the vicinity morale bonus the general gives, plus the attack/defense bonuses.

Is it better for the sake of momentary victory to capture rather than kill?

, especially the King.

Is a fleeing general more persuasive than a dead one?

Not sure what you mean by this. I think the vicinity morale bonus will still apply until the general exits the map. I don't think his army suffers the -8/-2 morale penalty if he flees off the map though, and the attack/defense bonus also stays, so it is better to kill/capture.

How effective is the assassination of a general before attacking an army?

This will depend on the skill of his "second in command". Taking out a high rank general is always nice, it's even better when the next highest in the stack only has 2 stars...

[PershsNhpios]

Thank you drone, and the other 23 users who viewed this thread.

When Philippe III of France invades Flanders again with his 4000 bagel-scoffers, I shall recite those numbers to him and watch him retreat indefinitely!

Here is another question regarding Kings, Princes, and Generals!

Many wish their heir to the throne to be in the thick of fighting and training to be an excellent ruler.

However, how many of you enjoy using your regent as general-in-chief?
Do you consider it wise to risk the effects of having your king stationed far away on the continent, fighting wars for example as the English?

Do you rather the princes do this instead?

Or is it really more efficient to mak use of those prodigious five-star royal knight units which appear once every two decades?



Especially when the game is still young, I ensure that every prince is out in the battlefield, and I usually have all the brothers in my first major army as a potent cavalry arm in any case.
But certainly as England, once I began warring with France, the king never left Britannia.

Is it better to leave him in Wessex or should I ship him out to Tolosa immediately?

[Ironside]

I don't believe there is any difference within the battle. The King will always be the general is present however, regardless of rank.

You can manually switch that if you prefer though. Any unit that's placed in the "general field" on the pre-battle screen will be the commander. Rarely worth it though, but that's another matter.

About the kings and princes, the main problem with using the king in battle is that the "distance to king" loyalty factor will always be maxed out (aka your king is trapped on Ireland with no porth) when the king attacks. So it's devastating to do it when your kingdom is large, because it will cause massive rebellions.

The princes don't have this disadvantage though, so use them freely. Placing them all in the same army unless you need to is quite disadvantegeous though. The non-commanding hiers don't aquire traits as easily inside a stack and on the battlefield. They can also easily get killed by accident (they have more hit points than the lieutenant, but less than the commander) as the game doesn't inform you of thier death. And losing your entire royal family in one loss is devastating to say the least.

Finally I can say that you don't need to command the royal family into battle at any point to breed them to have 7-9 in all stats, but it's easier (and "accidental" deaths of lousy elder sons helps as well).

[HopAlongBunny]

However, how many of you enjoy using your regent as general-in-chief?
Do you consider it wise to risk the effects of having your king stationed far away on the continent, fighting wars for example as the English?

I almost never use the king as a general.

The kings most important attributes are his "feathers" for administration, and V&V's that are useless in battle (steward, builder, trader...). As the game progresses the king is usually entombed in a coastal province filled with spies, surrounded by provinces filled with spies. Movement often results in an assassination (despite all the spies :p)

Princes get to play! Usually even if I don't have an heir-and-a-spare. A RK unit is useful on the battlefield, and any useful V&V's should be used.

There are exceptions. Early game, you may not have enough - or any - decent generals. You may get so attached to the battle prowess of one monarch that you just can't resist.

Good luck in smashing the French!

[Vantek]

Hopefully this isn't the wrong place to ask...

Is shooting at enemies enough to avoid the "avoids combat" line of vices? In other words, are ranged generals (Archers, Arbalesters, HA, siege etc) safe from this vice or do you need to charge them uselessly into melee once in a while as a proactive measure?

[Jxrc]

Hopefully this isn't the wrong place to ask...

Is shooting at enemies enough to avoid the "avoids combat" line of vices? In other words, are ranged generals (Archers, Arbalesters, HA, siege etc) safe from this vice or do you need to charge them uselessly into melee once in a while as a proactive measure?

Yep that's enough. Just kill one man with a bolt or arrow and your are fine. It's an advantage but personnaly I don't really enjoy it when my general is in a missile unit (or even worse IMHO in a spear-unit or UM) so that I always try to have them in a unit of RK (my favorite since they never become obsolete), FK, CK, CMAA, FMA or MS

Regarding attacking with the King, I almost never do it except with the first and second ruler. After that I normally have enough decent general not to need him. As fas as possible, I try to give the eldest son some experience before he becomes king himself but after that he will sit in his palace unless attacked.