Command-based valor

[EatYerGreens]

It's possible that they did it in version 1.0, but in the other versions they don't.
An 8-star general with doubtful curage (-6 morale) is less useful than a 0-star general without morale penalties, unless you got high-morale troops. If the high ranked general is a coward (-9 morale), then it's always worse.

Yikes. You mean the morale penalty applies to the entire army in the field, not just the men in the general's unit? That really would be a pain.

Just fought a rather bloody battle in Syria, which I looked to be losing for a long while, only my shaky-looking reinforcements swung it against edge-hugging opponents (lots of desert archers, hordes of Eggie-pez and the odd camel unit).

My Katank general was 6-star but went in with only 4 men in his unit, being a former prince and I lack the tech to restock his unit. His cohorts got killed, he got swamped and he routed off the enemy's end of the map!!!

So the turn ends with the longest list of V&V awards I've yet seen, 10 in all, two or three of which were for him. One for killing prisoners when things looked to be going against him and the other was this doubtful courage thing.

I can understand it if the penalty means he, personally morale-wise, is more prone to rout in future and it's logical that his unit will tend to follow his lead. Penalising the morale of the entire army under him, in future, is a tad severe, IMO, especially since the victory was won by units which entered the fight some time after he had routed off (so they seem not overly worried about him legging it in any given battle).

Either that, or the fact that they retained their valour bonuses after he routed is wrong, since that is most likely how they managed to pull it off at all - just about every unit remnant I had left was exhausted, except for 26 merc Faris, 30-odd merc Hobilars, 200 Slav Warriors and a pair of 20-man merc Spanish Javelins in the reinforcement column, which seemed to be the ones who finally turned the tide. Even my (Treb) archers were resorting to desperate meleé attacks. SlavWs are supposedly only just better than pez and the Eggies had about 600 of those on the field at any one time. A plus-2 valour boost seemed to have done them a power of good.

Player Name:: The Byzantines Player Name:: The Egyptians

-------------------------------------------------------
Player Type:: HUMAN Player Type:: CPU
Stance:: Attacker Stance:: Defender
Florins Allocated:: 0 Florins Allocated:: 0
Florins Spent:: 0 Florins Spent:: 0
Number of Units:: 29 Number of Units:: 40

Total Troop Count:: 1740 Total Troop Count:: 2400
Total Men Killed:: 614 Total Men Killed:: 1176
Total Men Captured:: 328 Total Men Captured:: 332
Total Men Routed:: 53 Total Men Routed:: 345
Total Enemy Killed:: 1337 Total Enemy Killed:: 597
Total Enemy Captured:: 125 Total Enemy Captured:: 328
General's Rank:: 6 General's Rank:: 6

[Ironside]

Yikes. You mean the morale penalty applies to the entire army in the field, not just the men in the general's unit? That really would be a pain.

It certainly does. The worst general I've seen was the Spanish king with -10 in morale. Most of the army routed even before I could shot an arrow.

That's the issue I've got with gluttony. It equals very poor fighting and prone to rout. I've seen them wavering chasing routers. And if they rout... Even more annoying is routing, rally and then another rout. It can give you doubtful courage (-6) in one battle, instead of "only" giving good runner (-3).

And the keeping command bonus when the general is of the field feature can be quite challenging. Ever faced a 8-9 star general that immidiatly withdraws? With morale bonus too? That's scary.