Secondary Generals

[Nazgûl Killer]

My brother recently pointed out to me that I constantly use secondary generals in my armies. As in, one general as the leading army general, and a secondary 'backup' general.

I use this in case my main general dies, I abhor captain-controlled armies. That and because that if I go to crusades, this way I can have two generals (Or more) gain the "Crusader" traits and retinues at the cost of one army.

I wanted to know how many else of you use secondary generals, and why.

[Aymer de Valence]

I don't usually use more than 1 general in an army at a time, but when i do, i use the general with the best command stats as the overall commander (keeping out of the battle unless absolutely necessary), while the secondary general i use as the commander in the field, where i have him leading cavalry charges, and attacking weak points

[kevindrosario]

I don't usually use more than 1 general in an army at a time, but when i do, i use the general with the best command stats as the overall commander (keeping out of the battle unless absolutely necessary), while the secondary general i use as the commander in the field, where i have him leading cavalry charges, and attacking weak points

I read that in "The Most Interesting Man In The World" voice.

And I also usually keep a secondary general for the same reasons as the OP. I don't like having captain led armies. In fact, I usually try to keep an age gap between my primary and secondary general so that the secondary can take over when the primary dies. I always thought it would be great if the secondary general could get stat gains from battles just like the primary. I mean, he's gotta learn something from taking part in all those battles and seeing what the primary general is doing.

[In3x]

I put whatever units I can scrape together into one army. Sometimes I will have armies where half the units are generals while armies in another part of the map will have no generals at all. I do always like to have a general however, and I will attempt to spawn generals from small enemy stacks that I otherwise would not have attacked.

So, in answer to your question, I do not make a conscious use backup generals even if sometimes I will have more than one general per army.

[Enarec]

I don't use them a lot. One general is enough for me usually, unless I'm on a conquest. Then I take 2 or more general in one supreme army and leave 1 general behind in every settlement I conquer, while the others move on with the army.

[Freakie]

I rarely have more than one general in an army outside of a town unless I'm simply relocating to one of my provinces.

[Kelvinator]

I use only secondary (and tertiary and so on) generals on battles against very tough enemies like the Mongols instead of other cavalry because they are stronger and more resistant to arrows, and also mainly because they replenish without retraining.

[Bringer Of Storms]

My brother recently pointed out to me that I constantly use secondary generals in my armies. As in, one general as the leading army general, and a secondary 'backup' general.

I use this in case my main general dies, I abhor captain-controlled armies. That and because that if I go to crusades, this way I can have two generals (Or more) gain the "Crusader" traits and retinues at the cost of one army.

I wanted to know how many else of you use secondary generals, and why.

Two things. (this is a pretty cheap exploit though) If you wanted both the generals to get traits from the crusades, one thing I've done before, although extremely unrealistic is that when I besiege the crusade target, I enter all of my generals into the crusade, then take the settlement, viola, all your generals just fought the crusade without even moving.

But back to your question, I most often use captains and hope for the man of the hour event. I don't like constantly accepting adoptions, then having to move the new general over 3 or 4 turns to find some action. That's upkeep that could be going to something else. So I often send captains into battle getting Men of the Hour 75% of the time. Not to mention not many adoptions are exactly general material, captains almost always come with command points, and tend to be young and fresh. Although some times I have two generals with their own armies and have them travel near each other, in the event of an ambush, or an unseen army, only one of my generals was surprised, while my other comes in as reinforcements.

[tudor93]

Two things. (this is a pretty cheap exploit though) If you wanted both the generals to get traits from the crusades, one thing I've done before, although extremely unrealistic is that when I besiege the crusade target, I enter all of my generals into the crusade, then take the settlement, viola, all your generals just fought the crusade without even moving.

hmm, haven't played a M2TW SP campaign in a while ...but IIRC: for example the Pope calls a crusade against Jerusalem, I create an army led by lets say my heir and send him into the holy lands, he arrives near Jerusalem in ~5 turns and he sieges it, if I try to join the crusade with the other FM's from my homeland I get a message like "no more generals can join the crusade now" or something like that ...

[In3x]

hmm, haven't played a M2TW SP campaign in a while ...but IIRC: for example the Pope calls a crusade against Jerusalem, I create an army led by lets say my heir and send him into the holy lands, he arrives near Jerusalem in ~5 turns and he sieges it, if I try to join the crusade with the other FM's from my homeland I get a message like "no more generals can join the crusade now" or something like that ...

10 turns after the crusade is called and you can no longer join. I regularly join every single army I have to go on crusade. Then I use a crusade exploit so that I can continue to use them as if they weren't on crusade.

The exploit is you leave and rejoin the crusade every turn with the general of the army, in effect this resets the crusade and means you will never take any desertion losses no matter which direction you travel in. As mentioned before, due to the time limit on crusades this no longer works 10 turns after the crusade was called.

This is a really good way to build up money as you will no longer have to pay for your own troops, additionally you also get a nice experience bonus for all your troops. Even better is that if you share borders with catholic factions and you are stationing one of your crusading armies in a border settlement it makes that settlement completely impossible for anyone but an excommunicated faction to attack.

[StealthFox]

One tactic I use quite often is to combine a high command and dread general with one with high chivalry. That way the dread general in charge gets more dread by executing prisoners and sacking settlements, and the chivalrous general manages the city to boost population growth and add other positive benefits.

[Bringer Of Storms]

One tactic I use quite often is to combine a high command and dread general with one with high chivalry. That way the dread general in charge gets more dread by executing prisoners and sacking settlements, and the chivalrous general manages the city to boost population growth and add other positive benefits.

Wait, so how does that play out in battle? Does the dread general cause your enemies to flee easier while your chivalric one keeps your troops rallied?

[StealthFox]

In battle, only the general with the highest command is taken into account. So only the dread is taken into account and not the chivalry of the secondary general. (at least I think so) I use the secondary general with high chivalry to govern the city. So, if I have a high command general with high dread, I will often send a secondary general with high chivalry along with him. This way the dread general commands the battles and the chivalry general governs the city.

[ChivalrousKiller]

My armies rarely have a secondary general in Med 2. In Rome I use it all the time though. I need the extra cavalry power.

[Nazgûl Killer]

To be honest I'm quite surprised that so few of you use secondary generals, but I can easily understand your reasoning.

[ChivalrousKiller]

To be honest I'm quite surprised that so few of you use secondary generals, but I can easily understand your reasoning.

I probably would, but I am more concerned with keeping order in my family tree
If recruiting generals (not family members) was possible, I think I would

[AJStoner]

I do more often then not, in fact it is not uncommon for me to have 3 in an army. I like to have a main general who is leading my armies as they advance and sub-commanders who stay behind to become governors of the captured cities. They are also excellent cavalry if nothing else.

[Doge Domenico]

Sometimes when my family tree starts sprawling, and there's like 8 generals in a city, I'll send them with some spearmen and archers on a campaign. That's the only time I conciously add more than one general.

Recruiting generals is possible. In a fortress with kings stables you should get access to like 1 GB every 15 turns.

[ChivalrousKiller]

Recruiting generals is possible. In a fortress with kings stables you should get access to like 1 GB every 15 turns.

In certain mods, yeah, but not in vanilla

[PrestigeX]

I do it when I have family members come along, who are both fairly young and have Dread Stats -- I keep them together with an army, and don't use them to stay in a settlement.

Also happens sometimes when I have a extra slot or two in an army, and lot of F.M. in a particular region -- I love to use my kings / faction heir in battle, so I take that kid that just turned 16 and put him with the king to gain experience. It's better than filling up with mercs, which is what I normally do if my army has room.