Why are generals so unimportant in rome 2?

[Sun Jetzu]

Playing Shogun 2, such a big emphasis was made on the general unit that its hard not to see rome 2's general attachment as strange.
In shogun 2, you get a unique genera;, with a history, with a family. Along with an heir that can also battle within the army. Along with the AVATAR system that remade multiplayer, and making it into the most unique online experience in a any total war game to date. Compared to rome 2, the shogun 2 general system is a much deeper experience. And one of the lacks in rome 2 threatening the the quality of the entire game.
Without a family tree, the deep shogun 2 general system makes rome 2 lacks the replay value of shogun 2. I cant even tell my own general in battle let look at his stats screen.
So tell me, what do you think kills the general system in rome 2?

[daelin4]

What kills the system?

The fact that politics mean squat, and even if it did, your characters wouldn't live long enough to benefit from it anyways. The whole "gots to be 300 years mang!" mentality is one of the fundamental flaws of Rome2.

I'll just say it: the creativity among Creative Assembly is .

[eXistenZ]

At least you ave enough generals this thime, unlike in Shogun 2..

[TheCenturion24]

At least you ave enough generals this thime, unlike in Shogun 2..

That's NOT a good thing. Having a very limited amount meant you were careful with them, and loosing/gaining one was a big deal. This is just one of the reasons Rome II's are rather pointless.

[eXistenZ]

Turn it around: what is the point of generals if you dont have enough to even command 5 armies/fleets (which you abslutly need as a minimum once realm divide hits)

[Rittsy]

Nothing kills the general system, in fact it made the 'general system' easier. I don't have to worry about losing a family member and everyone is expendable. However, it does kill any 'role-play' system that may have existed; which is in part due to the speed at which generals die, ease at which I can replace them and the way I can choose my own upgrades for them (something which was in Shogun II that I did not like; skills/traits should be achieved by doing certain things with that general/army).

I don't think the 'role-play' aspect would have been possible though with the number of turns-per-year and I'll be honest, I hardly even cared about it without mods such as were available for the first Rome Total War (ie. EB, RTR [with Imperator II add-on]).

Generals are still doing what their fundamental job was, improving the morale of the army and being a last resort power-unit. CA have removed some of the frustrations that came with it, but by doing that they killed another aspect of the game that many of the more 'serious' (or committed) players enjoyed. It's a case of streamlining bringing improvements but remove a key niche of the game.

[Adamwestisgod]

I used to think they were unimportant in RTW2 till I used a 4tpy mod. I was able to "almost" fully upgrade one of my spartan generals and the result was ridiculous. This guy was almost a one man army, his stats boosted the the attack skill of my entire army by about 30% (which I then had all of my army upgraded to gold, with extra training...plus not to mention the fact that my champion in the army boosted the attack skills by another 30%). Then his bodyguard stats were just as OP too. I also had a roman general who was so highly skilled he put all of my legionnaires attack skill above 105 (some like the Preatorian guard were at 150-160). Not to mention the extra skills they get once they get higher (mass rout, mass intimidate, mass rally). So I guess to answer your question theyre only unimportant because they die so damn quickly in the unmodded game (it took me forever to get them to that level)

[Baldwin of Jerusalem]

Yeah, I quite like vanilla in its way. The only mod I would personally recommend is the 4 tpy and seasons mod as it doesn't cost you any system stability unlike some of the more ambitious ones.. This game actually has much more in it than RTW, over which there is far too much nostalgia.

[johan_d]

Because CA streamlined the game beyond ugly.. like this:

[baptistus]

So tell me, what do you think kills the general system in rome 2?

1) the 1 tpy vanilla design. It is impossible to take care about a general which will die so quickly.
2) the boring and useless politic system (which was a good idea in theory ). CA remove the family tree, the loyalty and all this kind of stuff because of the politic system. But it doesn't work at all.

[krisslanza]

I have to disagree that Rome 2 makes Generals unimportant. Shogun 2 gave you so few they were just overly important - armies without a general, are basically weaker and wasting the very limited EXP you can possibly gain in the game usually. So if you had say, 2 generals... sure hope you like only ever having two effective armies, and this isn't even touching on navies (which are almost pointless anyway, the AI never invades via sea that often). While the game gave you some ways to get more - they also hurt the Loyalty of ALL your Generals: even ones you got the same way!

Though I will admit the lack of Avatar Conquest is one big failing of Rome 2's, that was one of the best MP decisions CA had done.

[baptistus]

I have to disagree that Rome 2 makes Generals unimportant.

you give absolutly no argument. You only say generals in shogun 2 are overly important.

[krisslanza]

you give absolutly no argument. You only say generals in shogun 2 are overly important.

Fair enough.

Rome 2's Generals are required to lead your armies (as it should be), and they have useful skill trees. Their traits give enough to the character to give them some substance to their character. The ability to pick their bodyguard units also gives you some immersion/RP choices in how you decide various armies, or that particularly general, should lead/be protected/what have you.

As armies also track their records, you can also build up a story with the armies, not only the generals. The generals are, if anything, more important in Rome 2 then any prior game where you could (in theory) never use a single one, and you'd be fine.

[DeliCiousTZM]

CA makes sure that there are no skills strong enough to make a difference. Shogun 2 had Stand and fight, an epic general trait that you just had to get, while the bodyguard tree of the General was completely useless. CA looked at that and said you know what we need? More useless marginaly useful skills like the bodyguard part of the Shogun 2 tree.

However to say that Generals are useless is a lie ofc, there is a lot of semi good traits for generals to have but nothing on par with Stand and fight for Shogun 2.

[iWarsaw]

Though I will admit the lack of Avatar Conquest is one big failing of Rome 2's, that was one of the best MP decisions CA had done.

I concur. I still hurts me to know we have no army customization for Rome 2. The one thing I don't see mods doing is creating a MP experience like the Avatar Conquest so I figured they would of really fleshed out the MP... but no.

Oh and aren't Generals still overly important? You need them to have an army. I mean now they are waaaay more overly important arent they? You are forced to take one for each army. And whats worse is now this time around you don't have the family tree (or some substitute) that allows for general immersion. So it's a way worse system.

[Skurvy5]

In addition to the other reasons that people have mentioned (die too quickly, useless politics system) you now have the fact that EVERY army HAS to have a general. This dilutes the importance of generals - previously they were a strategic resource that the player had to manage (Do you risk your awesome general on a long campaign? What if he dies in Gaul and you can't replace him?). Now, however, it matters not who is commanding your armies. They are not unique and only serve, as someone else mentioned, as stat boosters. What is the point then? Where is the strategy?

Don't even get me started on how a new general will arrive instantly to the army even if your army is invading Parthia and you are playing as Rome. Again, in a supposed "Strategy" game - where is the strategy in that?

Also - remember in Medieval 2 or Rome 1 when you fought a battle with a captain and won a awesome victory you would have a chance to adopt the captain into your noble family? Touches like that from the previous games really add to the immersion of the campaign. Something that is sorely lacking from Rome 2.

[Plain Speaking]

Fair enough.

Rome 2's Generals are required to lead your armies (as it should be), and they have useful skill trees. Their traits give enough to the character to give them some substance to their character. The ability to pick their bodyguard units also gives you some immersion/RP choices in how you decide various armies, or that particularly general, should lead/be protected/what have you.

As armies also track their records, you can also build up a story with the armies, not only the generals. The generals are, if anything, more important in Rome 2 then any prior game where you could (in theory) never use a single one, and you'd be fine.

Rome 2 is the only game in the TW series that requires a General to be in command of military forces. I would be interested if it could be arranged for a poll on whether other TW gamers think this is "as it should be."?
The short life span of Generals in vanilla, the lack of a family tree and lack of strategic flexibility when positioning military forces are factors which significantly reduce my enjoyment of RTW2 compared to other games in the TW series.

[baptistus]

Rome 2's Generals are required to lead your armies (as it should be),

yes. It make them important

and they have useful skill trees. Their traits give enough to the character to give them some substance to their character.

like in all TW. Nothing new here. But it is less important now than in previous total war. There is a lack of traits.

The ability to pick their bodyguard units also gives you some immersion/RP choices in how you decide various armies, or that particularly general, should lead/be protected/what have you.

yes, but you overestimate the choice of the bodygard. It is not something which create an incredible immersion .... it is only a small good idea, nothing more.

As armies also track their records, you can also build up a story with the armies, not only the generals.

we are talking about the generals. The army traditions is one of the very good new feature in rome 2. But It doesn't make the general system in rome 2 more or less important

The generals are, if anything, more important in Rome 2 then any prior game where you could (in theory) never use a single one, and you'd be fine.

Sorry but you prove nothing. The only argument you have is "you need them to lead an army" and "you can choice the bodygard". Everything else was in the previous total war since years, and more.
And, as usual , you forget all the points which are not in rome 2 :
-you talk about the Rp for the bodyguard, but you forget the family tree is the best RP parameter possible for a general in a TW.
-You forget to say because the game have a 1tpy design, the generals all die very quickly, so they don't have the time to be great general,
-and you don't have time to take interest of a general because in the next 20 turns He will die.
-You forget to say there is no more parameter as "loyalty",
-a lack of possible traits,
-general can not be governor of a region/province,
-it is now extremely very hyper rare to see a general to rebel agaisn't you
ect... ect...

You only want to see what it is good, and you close your eyes about everything is not good or as good as before. That is why your opinion always looks totaly biaised, to not say more ...

[iWarsaw]

yes. It make them important


like in all TW. Nothing new here. But it is less important now than in previous total war. There is a lack of traits.

yes, but you overestimated the choice of the bodygard. It is something which create an incredible immersion .... it is only a small good idea, nothing more.


we are talking about the generals


Sorry but you prove nothing. The only argument you have is "you need them to lead an army" and "you can choice the bodygard". Everything else Was in the previous total war since years and years, and more.
And, as usual , you forget all the points which are not in rome 2 : you talk about the Rp for the bodyguard, but you forget the family tree is the best RP parameter possible for a general in a TW. You forget to say because the game have a 1tpy design, the generals all die very quickly, so they don't have the time to be great general, and you don't have time to take interest of a general because in the next 15/20 turn He will die. You forget to say there is no more parameter as "loyalty", a lack of possible traits, general can not be governor of a region/province or a town ect... ect...
You only want to see what it is good, and you close your eyes about everything is not good or as good as before. That is why your opinion always looks totaly biaised, to not say more ...

not to mention he generals are randomly generated like out of a magic pool

Youve been able to raise kids to be generals in previous games and you could win battles with armies that had no armies and you had a choice to promote a general for the leading unit if it was a massive victory.

[krisslanza]

yes. It make them important

But no longer so limited, its impossible to field more then maybe a half dozen armies - and that isn't even counting navies. This also discounts that before, you needed generals to also be governors. A settlement without a governor is less efficient, and somehow not ruled by anyone which makes no sense.

like in all TW. Nothing new here. But it is less important now than in previous total war. There is a lack of traits.

There is a sufficient number of traits to give character, without the silly overload the older games had. I should not have a scroll bar to look at traits. I don't think most people have enough "traits" to justify a scroll bar. You only need to show the most important, or most prominent.

yes, but you overestimate the choice of the bodygard. It is not something which create an incredible immersion .... it is only a small good idea, nothing more.

A small good idea is better then every general being a carbon copy of one another, even across cultures (excluding Rome 1).

we are talking about the generals. The army traditions is one of the very good new feature in rome 2. But It doesn't make the general system in rome 2 more or less important

Each their own I suppose there.

Sorry but you prove nothing. The only argument you have is "you need them to lead an army" and "you can choice the bodygard". Everything else was in the previous total war since years, and more.
And, as usual , you forget all the points which are not in rome 2 :
-you talk about the Rp for the bodyguard, but you forget the family tree is the best RP parameter possible for a general in a TW.
-You forget to say because the game have a 1tpy design, the generals all die very quickly, so they don't have the time to be great general,
-and you don't have time to take interest of a general because in the next 20 turns He will die.
-You forget to say there is no more parameter as "loyalty",
-a lack of possible traits,
-general can not be governor of a region/province,
-it is now extremely very hyper rare to see a general to rebel agaisn't you
ect... ect...

You only want to see what it is good, and you close your eyes about everything is not good or as good as before. That is why your opinion always looks totaly biaised, to not say more ...

The family tree is completely useless. Why should you need one? It's a nice, tiny cosmetic feature but is in no way "essential" to having an immersive experience. Make it up yourself.
If you need 80+ turns to make a general do something useful with their life, then you must be in a long, long period of peace where nothing is happening anyway. You can get a lot done in the typical lifespan of a general, the lowest of which I've seen is about 50 (barring death from battle).
They're, naturally, loyal enough. There's no need to add it in if it isn't needed. An excess of features, or mechanics, does not necessarily make the game better.
3 traits is more then enough. You don't need 50.
I never liked that much anyway. Because you never have enough generals to both command your armies and navies, and to govern every settlement you own.
I never had generals rebel against me in prior TWs anyway.