Increasing command

[Dumbass]

The level of command proficiency actually has relatively little to do with deciding the outcome...morale is where it's at.

Good luck!

I'm not sure why everyone thinks command has little to do with the outcome of battles, because it plays a much larger role than morale. Firstly, with each point of command, every unit within range of the general recieves +1 morale, +1 attack and defence. Also increasing the number of command stars and the influence of the character vastly increases the range. My 10 star, 10 influence commander's general inspiring range covers the whole of his army.

That means his whole army gains +10 morale, +10 defence and influence, plus the morale bonuses given through traits. So command plays a major role, and I don't understand why people keep stating it doesn't.

You'll probably notice that when fighting those 6 star rebel generals, that their troops fight much harder than they should do and are very hard to break. However, once you kill their general, they break much more easily, and do not fight very well. That's why I always make it a priority to kill the general.

[mcantu]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks command has little to do with the outcome of battles, because it plays a much larger role than morale. Firstly, with each point of command, every unit within range of the general recieves +1 morale, +1 attack and defence. Also increasing the number of command stars and the influence of the character vastly increases the range. My 10 star, 10 influence commander's general inspiring range covers the whole of his army.

That means his whole army gains +10 morale, +10 defence and influence, plus the morale bonuses given through traits. So command plays a major role, and I don't understand why people keep stating it doesn't.

You'll probably notice that when fighting those 6 star rebel generals, that their troops fight much harder than they should do and are very hard to break. However, once you kill their general, they break much more easily, and do not fight very well. That's why I always make it a priority to kill the general.

not quite right...

Just to clear this up ( as requested ;-) ), from the old code on my machine at CA the General's command modifier on attacks is still there in the last version, but it only applies to melee attacks and it is -inverted- so the quality of the defender's general is applied as bonus directionless defense for the defending soldier. It is also rescaled to range from -6 to +6, changing quickly at low bonus levels and then slowing down towards the top of the range. The idea was to limit the number of stacking bonusses which speed up the battles, i vaguely remember.

Also, the bonus is not limited by physical distance, and is supposed to represent a good general's ability to get superior performance from his troops through training in small scale maneuvers. The only way for this bonus to result in faster combat death rates rather than slower ones is if the defender's general has bad command traits...

If you want to test it, I would suggest a battle between some big peasant units, fighting the units 1v1 and timing the length of time to rout; then repeat giving each army a 10 star general. You should see a slower time-to-rout with the generals. In the end though 6 pts is not enough to make up huge troop quality differences, so don't expect to see miraculous differences.

the formula for morale radius of effect is: 30 m + 5 m * command + 2 m * influence

[Cullhwch]

You could do what I did and simply remove the incredibly complicated "becamebettergeneral" line of triggers from the relevant file. I substituted the Vanilla RTW GoodCommander triggers in their place and used GoodTactician and GoodLeader with lower odds to make a +2 jump less likely. This may hurt the roleplaying aspect a little bit, but it's much more satisfying to see Dennoros oi Neamha, conqueror of Gaul, Germany, Italy, and Spain as a 10-star demigod instead of some 3-star plodder.

[Dumbass]

I stand corrected, but command stars still make a big difference.

[Tarkus]

Mulceber, this is a topic that has received alot of attention in historical posts...I suggest you search the forums to get the full body of information. For example, check out this thread.

Yes, command stars do have a positive effect on the outcome of battles...especially in auto-calc. But when you're in control, you're much better off having a general that gives lots of morale bonuses (which boost the performance of his entire army) instead of one with lots of command stars (which boosts the performance of a subset of his army that is in closer proximity to him).

[mcantu]

Mulceber, this is a topic that has received alot of attention in historical posts...I suggest you search the forums to get the full body of information. For example, check out this thread.

Yes, command stars do have a positive effect on the outcome of battles...especially in auto-calc. But when you're in control, you're much better off having a general that gives lots of morale bonuses (which boost the performance of his entire army) instead of one with lots of command stars (which boosts the performance of a subset of his army that is in closer proximity to him).

you have it reversed...command stars give an entire army a bonus to defense; morale bonuses (not ones through traits though) affect units within a certain distance (30 m + 5 m * command + 2 m * influence) of the general

[Tarkus]

you have it reversed...command stars give an entire army a bonus to defense; morale bonuses (not ones through traits though) affect units within a certain distance of the general

Hmmm...in the thread I reference above, I quote from Foot:

"Morale affects all units on the battlefield, command only affects the morale of units within a small radius of your general."

Nothing personal ...but I believe Foot.