New general system?

Put it this way, in half of Napoleon's battles, he had Massena on his left and Davout on his right (figuratively speaking). Just as soldiers do not fight alone, generals don't command armies alone. Napoleon's marshals, often used as his corps commanders but often given independent command, were a principle reason for his success. The same is no less true on the Allied side. However, the antiquated ETW system, where one general is the commander and everyone else does diddly, won't represent this well. I heard in NTW, generals will be given special abilities, does anyone know any more details?

Essentially, general's abilities are more or less a 'spell casting system' by which they can bulster their units morale/charge/attack/defense and what not within a given radius, or do the opposite to the opposition. It has nothing to do with realism, and everything to do with wanting to make generals more relevant.

As to the whole general staff thing, I always sort of figured that the 'General's Bodyguard' more or less represented not only his guards but also his staff and officers.

If you ever played the Warhammer 40000 tabletop or the games, think of the generals now as 'Sanctioned Psykers' who posses psychic abilities to bolster thier allies and harm their enemies.

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

Essentially, general's abilities are more or less a 'spell casting system' by which they can bulster their units morale/charge/attack/defense and what not within a given radius, or do the opposite to the opposition. It has nothing to do with realism, and everything to do with wanting to make generals more relevant.

As to the whole general staff thing, I always sort of figured that the 'General's Bodyguard' more or less represented not only his guards but also his staff and officers.

If you ever played the Warhammer 40000 tabletop or the games, think of the generals now as 'Sanctioned Psykers' who posses psychic abilities to bolster thier allies and harm their enemies.

It's not fair to characterize this as psychic magic; isn't one of the ETW quotes Wellington saying that Napoleon's presence on the battlefield was worth forty thousand men? That's not just his skill as a general; good leaders also inspire their troops to fight better (witness all the officers that led charges from the front, where they could be seen and could urge on their men).

Originally Posted by TommyAtkins

It's not fair to characterize this as psychic magic; isn't one of the ETW quotes Wellington saying that Napoleon's presence on the battlefield was worth forty thousand men? That's not just his skill as a general; good leaders also inspire their troops to fight better (witness all the officers that led charges from the front, where they could be seen and could urge on their men).

He was just implying that Napoleon was fat, is all.

Nothings stopping you from having two generals or more in an army. in Egypt or Italy (where forces are limited), it's more than likely.

Originally Posted by Pro-opera Jungian

Nothings stopping you from having two generals or more in an army. in Egypt or Italy (where forces are limited), it's more than likely.

Nothing is, but my point is that it doesn't do anything, because ETW made no distinction between having one or three good generals on the battlefield whereas in real life, having the right guy command a wing, leading a charge, or even whisper advice in your ear, can turn the tide of a battle.

Originally Posted by Stellerex

Nothing is, but my point is that it doesn't do anything, because ETW made no distinction between having one or three good generals on the battlefield whereas in real life, having the right guy command a wing, leading a charge, or even whisper advice in your ear, can turn the tide of a battle.

But here it will. Seeing as how Generals in NTW have abilities and effect the units around them, having more than one general means you are able to effect more men with their radius and use different abilities.

Originally Posted by McCarronXLD

But here it will. Seeing as how Generals in NTW have abilities and effect the units around them, having more than one general means you are able to effect more men with their radius and use different abilities.

In earlier games generals had a rally function, but if I remember rightly, only the general actually in charge of the army could use his ability. Does anyone know if this will happen with the new general abilities?

Originally Posted by Stellerex

Put it this way, in half of Napoleon's battles, he had Massena on his left and Davout on his right (figuratively speaking). Just as soldiers do not fight alone, generals don't command armies alone. Napoleon's marshals, often used as his corps commanders but often given independent command, were a principle reason for his success. The same is no less true on the Allied side. However, the antiquated ETW system, where one general is the commander and everyone else does diddly, won't represent this well. I heard in NTW, generals will be given special abilities, does anyone know any more details?

they could make a mode where 1 guy is the supreme commander, and he selects the army, then deatches units to the two other human players during the deployment phase. couple this with the ability to write on the minimap and you've got a human commander and human corps commanders. this is in MP of course.

single player i wouldn't count on any innovation in this area. they may have a button like a rally button but with a different effect, but that's it.

Having a 'command radius' is quite a good idea, I think. It means you might have to think about where you position your general, or give an advantage to having more than one on the field (as has been mentioned). There was a similar system in 'Rise of Nations' that worked fine.

This is more 'realistic' than the general having a C&C effect over the entire battlefield, even on units that can't possibly know where the general is.

Of course this only matters if the AI is not as stupid as a housebrick, as it's easy to defeat a stupid AI irrespective of what you do.

I saw a screenshot of Napoleon being surrounded in game by his marshals, not guards! If I find it, I'll post it!

If they had kept the AI reinforcement thing from Kingdoms, it would've represented this perfectly. You as Boney control one stack, and hand two other stacks to some underling generals, who are controlled by AI and can walk right in and join the fray. You also have some basic control over what the AI generals could do, like stay, exchange missiles or charge in.

This was all already implemented back in Kingdoms, then they take it away. And they drag us back to MTW with that pathetic reinforcement in ETW. That dumb wait-in-line-outside BS is just lame. They've always advertised about bigger battles and they clearly won't let go of the 20-limit, so why don't they just give us back AI reinforcement? I think even CA know cutting it was a bad move so they all avoid talking about this.