Moral penalty when general dies

[Fenix7]

What? Sun Tzu's book discusses strategy, not tactics. The Art of War has absolutely no relevance to the moral penalty of a Gen. You should re-read the last part of your quote as you are not one of the few.

Nem if you go through the words I wrote then you might notice that when I mentioned The Art of War I didn't have in mind anything with moral penalty of a Gen and as well I have no where mentioned that Sun Tuz's book is discussing tactics. This is how your understanded and interpreted my words. Besides you have left out the Lao Tze.

And Sun Tzu book is not only about strategy. It is a lot more then this.That's the reason why I've mentioned that few understand it.

The few who understand the where people like Hannibal, Nelson, Julius Caesar etc, not the likes of us.

They probably never even heard about Sun Tzu. And beside Hannibal, all others like Aleksander, Caesar, Nelson and many others known in western history have more fortune that many want to admit.

Those who understand it were people like Miyamoto Musashi, and many other martial artist or warriors if you like. There are as well people who live today and they DO understand those words. Of course there is very few of them as mentioned.

Sun Tzu was a martial artist in first place. Befor you want to understand the way of massive battles, you need to understand the situation when you are facing one opponent. Is there any differences between two opponents or two armies? When you are facing many opponents imagine as you are fighting one and when you are facing one opponent imagine as you are fighting many.

I was playing Shields yesterday and he was beating me, and then out of nowhere his gen died and his army chain routed. Every unit. Was good for me but a pain for him :D

I know the feeling Shields.

[Lavos]

Eh, Chinese and tactics, they had great military philosophers but when it came to practice, they always got their buts kicked, first by Koreans then by Mongols.
Only reason Sun is being tought at military academies is becouse his teachings are theoretical and can be translated through time to modern warefare. Actual military strategy books and reports of the time (byzanitne, turkish...), can't be used now becuse they specificaly state what forces and strategies to use in what situation, but at the time wroten they all were much more usefull than theory. Its same with Clausewitz and Marchiavelli, great theory, but when they it comes to battle it leaves everything open.

[Fenix7]

Only reason Sun is being tought at military academies is becouse his teachings are theoretical and can be translated through time to modern warefare.

I would not refer to them as theories.

but when they it comes to battle it leaves everything open.

Like everything else in life. Like the death of your general or not.

p.s. Lavos few days ago I've sent you an e-mail. Any possibility that you could send me your reply on it?

[Lavos]

I expressed myself badly all books on warfare are theory, this is a fact. Point I wanted to make is that some just frankly tell more how warfare was organised. Just compare Sun Tzu to Vegetius or Burnold, and you'll see what I'm talking about. http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war

While Sun tells general to: '' Throw his soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength.'' Vegetius teches him about selecting recruits, keeping army healthy, how to deploy, and among other, where a general should be in battle.

Now, while were at that, and before going way too far from topic, (and putting Samurai Wars in bolds in every second sentance), let me just state that I also don't like how generals death can chainrout your whole army, while some other time it appears like nothing has happened.

[Cheetah]

It is very simple IMO. If your men are steady then nothing happens when your general dies (except that they will drop to "wavering" but they will fight on and later likely to recover to steady). If however your men were already shaken or wavering then your general's death will chainrout those units. Of course you will get shaken or wavering if you already have other morale penalties like being charged, under fire, heavily depleated, etc.
So you should always keep an eye on the moral of your troops and adjust the "bravery" of your general accordingly.
In general the sooner he dies the less likely that it will have any effect (as your men be are expected to be still steady). On the other hand if he dies in the later "last man standing" phase of the battle then indeed it can chainrout your army (as your men are likely to have several other moral penalties at this stage).

[RTKDinadan]

What? Sun Tzu's book discusses strategy, not tactics. The Art of War has absolutely no relevance to the moral penalty of a Gen.

You're wrong on both accounts. Sun Tzu does talk about stuff on the tactical level, though the focus is what we'd consider strategy. The death of a general is discussed as well, and an example is given The army in question suffered a huge morale (and organisatorial) penalty.

Back on topic, I don't think general deaths are much of a problem in the game, nor that it's exaggerated compared to what could be expected in real life.

As for the game, I've lost several generals in victorious battles, and killing the enemy's leader never single-handedly won me a fight like described above.

In real life, the death of the general was always a huge shock to his army, especially as leaders would often be the princes or lords who gave the cause for the fight in the first place! Even if that's not the case, when the guy who usually gives the orders is suddenly killed, there ought to be panic and confusion.

Just don't over-commit the general in the game. He's not supposed to lead your cavalry charge, let the second-in-command do the suicide

[RTKDinadan]

The 1st line of the above post is a quote from Nem.

I clicked on the quote button in his post... it seems that didn't work. I can't edit my post either, guess that's related to being a "junior member"

[RTKBarrett]

The 1st line of the above post is a quote from Nem.

I clicked on the quote button in his post... it seems that didn't work. I can't edit my post either, guess that's related to being a "junior member"

Anti-Hungarianism on the .org
Dins right though, dont overcommit ure gen and fingers crossed he wont die

[pike master]

doesnt the generals death only have a morale penalty within a certian radius of the event and only temporary.

if he dies at the first it wont matter. maybe you can get one of your musketeers to shoot his head off when the battle starts. then on the other hand he is a good fighter with multiple hit points and with some units you can use the bugle which seems to give a morale boost as well as a dread bonus.

its funny though that only half of the units in the game will allow your general to use his bugle. a lot of times i wont use a generals bodyguard so my general wont be as visible.

[Agravain of Orkney]

If there is a concern about the death of your general being the decisive event of the battle then just keep him out of harms way and do not commit him to battle until that decisive event is upon you. Or buy a peasant gen and withdraw him from the start (I recall some players using that approach in the original MTW).

AFAIK, the generals death creates a temporary morale drop across all of your troops ...so whether they rout depends upon the individual moral state of each unit at the time of his death.... but then of course the routing of the weaker units will inflict their own morale penalties on the stronger units, infecting them like a virus and possibly leading to the chain rout.

[RTKBarrett]

I dnt understand why u would want to withdraw ure general from the start as his prescence prevents units from wavering within a certain perimeter...
Having him near the centre of the conflict but out of harms way is the best position.

[pike master]

not to mention his effecivness in melee but like napoleon he used his most effective troops at the moment of decision not at the first of the battle.