Command or Morale wich is better?

[Chris1959]

Firstly apologies if this has been asked before.

But wich do you feel is more useful for your Commanders from thier traits and ancillaries, given that you often get traits that cancel each other out.

So if you had two Commanders one gave -1 command but +4 morale, the other +2 command but 0 morale wich is the better leader for your field army ?

Especially if they are young and you want to develop them as warrior.

[Foot]

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

Foot

[Cybvep]

Doesn't the Command Stars also affect the attack value?

[Foot]

CA said it did, but our testing suggests that if it does its too low to actually make much of a difference.

Foot

[EdwardL]

CA said it did, but our testing suggests that if it does its too low to actually make much of a difference.

Foot

You'll notice it with a 10 star general

10 stars = attack bonus of 5 for units in range IIRC, which is why AI generals cut a swath through everything.

The tradeoff though is that the AI is so stupid that in many battles it exposes it's generals to unnecessary risks, therefore I would guess that's why EB takes the approach to overstacking AI generals with stars, since battles that result in early loss of generals turn into insta-gib routs.

They've made moral a serious factor for armies to kinda counterbalance the stars program.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ah yes, I remember those from Vanilla... Their bodyguards usually would be pretty though; but I must say that the difference between 7 and 10 stars wasn't too noticeable either.

Granted the difference between 1 and 10 would be a bit more significant; still it is not much enough to make you win or lose battle by it. Not even on unit versus unit basis.

[EdwardL]

Ah yes, I remember those from Vanilla... Their bodyguards usually would be pretty though; but I must say that the difference between 7 and 10 stars wasn't too noticeable either.

Granted the difference between 1 and 10 would be a bit more significant; still it is not much enough to make you win or lose battle by it. Not even on unit versus unit basis.

The difference between 7 and 10 is only 2 attack, however i beg to differ on 1 vs 10 which is 5 attack (attack increased by whole values in integers of 2), and would be noticed.

Firstly apologies if this has been asked before.

But wich do you feel is more useful for your Commanders from thier traits and ancillaries, given that you often get traits that cancel each other out.

So if you had two Commanders one gave -1 command but +4 morale, the other +2 command but 0 morale wich is the better leader for your field army ?

Especially if they are young and you want to develop them as warrior.

Keep in mind the value of real generalship is determined by the players decisions, not by the tally of 1's and 0's . One inherit weakness of building the success of an army around command stars is radius of the general. One just merely has to create a diversion with the AI general and pull him away from his army whilst the main body of your force eats the AI army.

[Foot]

10 stars = attack bonus of 5 for units in range IIRC, which is why AI generals cut a swath through everything.

No that is what CA said was the case, but our own testing suggests a far less obvious connection, and certainly doesn't boost attack by 5 for 10 stars.

Foot

[TWFanatic]

If you can get the influence to accompany command stars, then they become effective over a wider area.

Personally, I feel that EB's system of giving general's morale boosting traits more often than command stars is superior. I've never found a more realistic traits system in any other mod.