DLV Hyper-expansion method 2: Who needs an army? (or, I can't believe they still love me)

[Callawyn]

Send 1 General to each nearby province and besiege, send follow up troops for garrison but don't have them adjacent to your general. The AI will stupidly sally forth and attack you. Charge/withdraw as necessary and you can easily destroy any rebel faction army and achieve a Heroic victory. Next turn, send in 1 unit to garrison so your general can move on to the next province.

All your sieges will last a single turn, so your finances will be in good shape after the first couple turns, can generally avoid the 'Offends Nobility' trait due to bankruptcy, so no rebel generals or massive attacks on your capital. You'll get lots of Heroic victories, so nice traits/ancillaries for your generals, and lots of chivalry too if you "Occupy" after all wins. Better yet, no losses, since generals regenerate troops and you're not engaging any other units in combat. If possible, park your follow up troops in ships, to avoid any chance of treason and also because ships can keep pace with your generals when conquering coastal areas.

Easiest way I can see a mod defeating this is to drop bodyguard hitpoints to 1 (the general himself gets bodyguard hp + 2 as base).

[Premaximum]

I definitely echo the bodyguard hitpoints thing.

When I tried to attack with a general who had the "Recovering But Weak" trait, due to having just gotten over sickness, I played him just as recklessly as I usually play Generals. I found him dead at a time when I never would have expected it. Took me completely by surprise, and I lost my faction heir because of it.

However, if you lower their HP by one, you'll have to tamper with traits like that. I'm not sure what starting with 0 HP would do to someone on the battlefield...

[Callawyn]

Could also mod in a General/bodyguard as part of the garrison for every rebel settlement, wouldn't be able to take them down so easy.

Of course, the overpowered bodyguards are a problem throughout the campaign. Regular use of generals on the battlefield, running around through the thick of the fighting, performing heroic feats, is pretty silly. Historically, these guys would be hanging out in the back giving orders, where they're supposed to be. But, in the game, they're so powerful, the general himself so seldom dies, and gets replaced almost immediately with an adoption if he does, that there's really no reason not to use him aggressively.

[hellbard]

i don’t mind the bodyguards with 2 hp.. some generals did watch from behind same did not.. it would really suck if there would be 50% chance for your general to die in battle.. you would end up never sending him in close combat..

[Callawyn]

General himself has 2 more hp than his bodyguard, so currently bodyguard all have 2hp, general himself has 4, what I'm suggesting is to change that to 1 and 3. Wouldn't be that big a change in the rate of general getting killed, but you wouldn't be able to do nearly as much with his bodyguard during the battle.

[hellbard]

i would like to see generals on foot..!! why are they always on horses..? why..!!? i made a great suggestion earlier about heroes..? a local unit champion.. with extra thitpoints, and a picture..

[hoek]

Historically, these guys would be hanging out in the back giving orders, where they're supposed to be.

that is wrong. armys were usually led from the front in medieval times with the generals in the thickest of the fight to inspire their men.

[Callawyn]

That's a silly myth, much popularized throughout history, either for the glorification of the leaders or to make more exciting tv/movies. Leaders of any stature would almost never get involved in any actual fighting, the rare exceptions usually when a situation became most desperate and a leader would stupidly get himself killed rather than withdrawing while there was still time. The depiction of Longshanks in Braveheart, sitting on his horse, in the rear but with a good view of the battlefield, giving orders, which were then carried by aides to division/company commanders, is a far more realistic image of how commanders actually functioned in a field battle.

Then, as now, the role of officers in battle was command and control, with only the lowest grade officers actually going into combat with their men.

[Abe Froman]

Send 1 General to each nearby province and besiege, send follow up troops for garrison but don't have them adjacent to your general. The AI will stupidly sally forth and attack you. Charge/withdraw as necessary and you can easily destroy any rebel faction army and achieve a Heroic victory. Next turn, send in 1 unit to garrison so your general can move on to the next province.

All your sieges will last a single turn, so your finances will be in good shape after the first couple turns, can generally avoid the 'Offends Nobility' trait due to bankruptcy, so no rebel generals or massive attacks on your capital. You'll get lots of Heroic victories, so nice traits/ancillaries for your generals, and lots of chivalry too if you "Occupy" after all wins. Better yet, no losses, since generals regenerate troops and you're not engaging any other units in combat. If possible, park your follow up troops in ships, to avoid any chance of treason and also because ships can keep pace with your generals when conquering coastal areas.

Easiest way I can see a mod defeating this is to drop bodyguard hitpoints to 1 (the general himself gets bodyguard hp + 2 as base).

-Did you try this on vh/vh?

-I can see it working for one or two settlements, but at least in the east there are rebel provinces with spearmen, horsearchers, and heavy cav with long range archers to boot.

-Doesn't seem like that big a problem if it is indeed one at all. at most you will get a couple extra rebel provinces before you meet your neighbors. You will still need to garrison and put together an army to deal with the rebels that will be popping up.

This actually seems more difficult and time consuming than just taking your starting units and dividing them into 1 or 2 large armies and doing a bunch of 1 turn autoresolve sieges to take out the rebels.

[hoek]

That's a silly myth, much popularized throughout history, either for the glorification of the leaders or to make more exciting tv/movies. Leaders of any stature would almost never get involved in any actual fighting, the rare exceptions usually when a situation became most desperate and a leader would stupidly get himself killed rather than withdrawing while there was still time. The depiction of Longshanks in Braveheart, sitting on his horse, in the rear but with a good view of the battlefield, giving orders, which were then carried by aides to division/company commanders, is a far more realistic image of how commanders actually functioned in a field battle.

Then, as now, the role of officers in battle was command and control, with only the lowest grade officers actually going into combat with their men.

hm, i dont think so. the older did so for sure. but i was just reading [Osprey] Campaign 119 - Marston Moor 1644 - The Beginning Of The End.pdf, where cromwell got hurt while leading from the front. and [Osprey] Campaign 120 - Towton 1461 - England's Bloodiest Battle.pdf, where one side won cause their king was in the most pressed flank and the other side lost, cause their king wasnt present at battle.
the other thing that comes to my mind is...is there much to command and control once the melee has started??