AI generals

[Sturmmann]

Hi All..

I was wondering why you can´t have AI generals in a campaign.
For example you attack a provence with 32 formations. You control 16 of them i the normal manner, and a AI controls the other 16. It would give a more massive attack feeling, and you can use more foprmations in the same battle.
If it ís possible in custom battle why not i campaign?
And the same for the AI of course, when he attack or defend with more formations.

[katar]

sort of defeats the purpose of playing the game.

i don`t think the code can work with more than 16 on the field per side at one time in campaign mode.

Rome TW might be able to control more, i`m not 100% on that.

and welcome to the forum.

[Templar Knight]

It might be a bit more realistic having other generals commanding other parts of your army and giving them orders, but I prefere it the way it is

Templar Knight

[Dhepee]

I think that for the purposes of the game the AI for each unit acts as the general and that it is historically accurate to the middle ages to have it done that way. According to Oman and Tuchman, there was little generalship in your typical medieval army. At least not like in say the Napoleonic era where there were dozens of generals under Napoleon.
What was more likely was that you had leaders in each unit who would determine if the unit would attack, hold, retreat, etc. The general of the overall army might send units out on the flanks and say hold or attack, but there was no real sense that this would be obeyed. It often wasn't, as in the Battle of Roosebeke. There was no officers corps in the middle ages like the one that developed in the 18th century. Knights, who made up the core of an army in Europe, were in it for glory and wealth, their actions might be dictated more by chivalry and the rights of independent action, since each was an independent landowner, than a sense of overall military strategy.
You saw more unit cohesion and discipline with mercenaries since they were under a defined leader.
Really the only real general was the leader who determined the time and place of action. He would have been even more limited than we are in a game because if he sent a body of knights off to the flank they might protest that they were being sent away from the action and the glory of combat. According to both Oman and Tuchman, the primary problem with armies of knights and people tied to the concept of chivalry, was that to them the ideal battle was more like a tournament in that it should be a head on rush of mounted knights at one another and that to flank might indicate that you were afraid of making the charge, hence Poiters and Agincourts outcomes for the French.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

You guys are going to have to wait for Rome (total war). AI controlled contingents, allowing you to field more than 20 units a side, have been confirmed.

[Archlight]

In the campaign, if you and an ally attack a province at the same time, you will have more than 16 units on your side in battle. The AI controls his forces, you control yours. Pretty neat when that happens I think.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Quote[/b] (Archlight @ Sep. 26 2003,16:18)]In the campaign, if you and an ally attack a province at the same time, you will have more than 16 units on your side in battle. The AI controls his forces, you control yours. Pretty neat when that happens I think.

Ah yes, but even if you do ALL, and I mean ALL the fighting, if your ally had a larger force, he gets the province.

[Gregoshi]

Hi Sturmmann. Nice question.

It certainly would be nice since they have 8 player slots they can fill. For the really large battles like those against the Golden Horde, you could split the 8 player slots according to the total troops on both sides, i.e., 4v4 or 5v3 or 6v2, whatever. However, it may come down to performance of the PCs used. An 8 player battles might choke too many machines used by TW players.