Why are generals so overpowered??

**spanish_emperor** · May 17, 2008, 04:40 AM

i know this has been asked many times and there are other threads but im asking a specific question. Why did they make generals so overpowered in SS6??
i believe it was because they die too often for the ai and kong thought that this would solve the problem. but he didn't realize that they would become indestructible machines.
wouldn't it have been smarter to make ai not go straight for enemy or make ai general route before he dies and make ai ask for ransom for the general?? of course make ai accept ransom more often so general isn't rejected.

Anybody like generals being so strong??

**Col Poutting** · May 17, 2008, 04:50 AM

Well im no big moder, but as far as i understand, you cant tell the ai to be more carefull with there gens, nor to retreat when his BG are dead. So I suppose the only way is to make the gens tank like war machines. Otherwise, theres a big risk the factions turns rebel if they kill all there gens in battles..Happened quite a few times actually lol.

It also is a question of ballence..Which is very hard to find a good "middle" and even harder is to make veryone happy with it.

If it disturbs you to much, mod them yourself to lower their capacitys.

**Point Blank** · May 17, 2008, 06:55 AM

If you find them too strong, reduce them to 1HP.

**Santiago de Pola** · May 17, 2008, 07:01 AM

Hasn't generals strength been lowered in 6.1 patch? I recall them being a bit strong in 6.0, but since I patched I have no trouble killing them with spearmen!

**tup** · May 17, 2008, 07:30 AM

Yea, they have been nerfed and while there are still situations where BG kill much, they are weaker than the heaviest cavalry or Cataphracts.
So I like it as it is.

And for me the AI always accepts ransom when I captured a general.

**s0meguy** · May 17, 2008, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by tup

Yea, they have been nerfed and while there are still situations where BG kill much, they are weaker than the heaviest cavalry or Cataphracts.
So I like it as it is.

And for me the AI always accepts ransom when I captured a general.

Oh really? now that's unrealistic, I mean the general has the best men as his bodyguard, but now heavy cavalry is stronger than the general? i don't think I'll be getting 6.1 anyway.....

**Barser** · May 17, 2008, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by s0meguy

Oh really? now that's unrealistic, I mean the general has the best men as his bodyguard, but now heavy cavalry is stronger than the general? i don't think I'll be getting 6.1 anyway.....

Heavy cav are not stronger 1 vs 1 but as a unit (the catapracts have bigger unit size).

I like it in 6.1 though I got a chock that they suddently couldn't slaughter trough anything like 6.0. That was ridiculous owerpered.

**tup** · May 17, 2008, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by s0meguy

Oh really? now that's unrealistic, I mean the general has the best men as his bodyguard, but now heavy cavalry is stronger than the general? i don't think I'll be getting 6.1 anyway.....

I'm not that sure if it's realistic that a 14 year old freshman has the most powerful troops at his side.

So if you have a general with some more men and battle experience he's strong as ever. Well, maybe not that strong like before, where a general cuts trouth Lancers like it's nothing, but he's surely up to them.
And I would get 6.1 alone for the feature of less cities revolting. It's still there, but not to an overly ridiculous extend.

**war927** · May 17, 2008, 07:36 AM

I think their willingness to accept the ransom has something to do with the capturing generals Chivalry rating, and your faction overall status. For instance, if you are labeled dubious, untrustworthy, etc... I think they assume you'll just ransom the general back to them and then go recapture him once again. So in the long run, letting the general die to refused ransom is more economical. : )

**Mhydrian** · May 17, 2008, 11:11 AM

Someone had mentioned giving the general himself a lot of toughness feats automatically. And that seems like a very good idea. In fact it's something I can even do. Then you can change the BGs to 1 HP troops.

Although to general toughness feats apply to the whole unit? Or just him?

**dstarsboy** · May 17, 2008, 12:14 PM

I don't find generals unbalanced. I think they're perfect the way they are. It adds a little strategy to the game. There's no way in hell I'm sending my troops in against a 6+ star general without taking the proper precautions or expecting heavy losses. It makes me think a little.

**lesterthenerd** · May 17, 2008, 12:27 PM

i think they are perfect too. i sometimes use 5 units of archers on em and they die in like 8 volleys.

**Snesopp** · May 17, 2008, 01:08 PM

5x120x8=4800 arrows. Yeah, that sounds about right for 20-40 men.

Anyways, just do what I did. Lower the hp to 1. A litte more armor, attack and charge. Poff, everythings fine. Well almost.

**lesterthenerd** · May 17, 2008, 01:37 PM

so u want them to die in one volley? giving them 1 hp makes them worthless... this isnt medieval 2 total realism.

**Snesopp** · May 17, 2008, 01:55 PM

I don't think there's a big diffrence anyways. They you shooting arrows at them, they die fast no mather what, 1 hp, 2hp, longbowmen, pesant archers. And when they attack the genral allways goes in first, geting himself killed. And 1 or 2 hp has litte to say then, as there's about 10 sec diffrence in how fast he dies.