Soldiers should fight for their generals body

[TheSwordofRome]

Something I found Stupid in the original Rome 1 was that when a general died, even if the general's bodyguard hadn't routed, they just left the guys body. I was thinking on how the spartans fought for Leonidas's body when he was killed at Thermopolye. If the general is wounded his bodyguard should escort him out of the field, not routing but ensuring that the general lives. Your thoughts?

[daelin4]

routing and standing your ground were common behaviours- I think an acceptable compromise would be random 50-50 chance to either one, the bodyguards NEVER rout if their general dies, or certain traits or rare retinue that gives a boost to morale that also serves to lock it if the general falls.

Speaking of which, the "death" of the general in battle should be a chance of wound or a fatal blow. IIRC in MTW2 some kills in melee could also become prisoners, simulating them surviving incapacitation.

[krisslanza]

routing and standing your ground were common behaviours- I think an acceptable compromise would be random 50-50 chance to either one, the bodyguards NEVER rout if their general dies, or certain traits or rare retinue that gives a boost to morale that also serves to lock it if the general falls.

Speaking of which, the "death" of the general in battle should be a chance of wound or a fatal blow. IIRC in MTW2 some kills in melee could also become prisoners, simulating them surviving incapacitation.

I have to imagine the only reason general's died 100% in Rome was because there was no prisoner feature, and even if the general was only wounded if he was defeated the enemy would just kill him as a result.

It could be nice though to simply have the general be wounded though. Although I think the reason they always make them die, is because they want to make sure if the player loses a general it hurts them.

[daelin4]

I have to imagine the only reason general's died 100% in Rome was because there was no prisoner feature, and even if the general was only wounded if he was defeated the enemy would just kill him as a result.

It could be nice though to simply have the general be wounded though. Although I think the reason they always make them die, is because they want to make sure if the player loses a general it hurts them.

CA can make the message of "General Fallen!" without any implications on whether he was killed or just wounded. If he was indeed wonded and you lost the battle, then CA could redo the MTW2 prisoner mechanic of ransoming.

And I just remembered, in Shogun2 this still occurred- your general may have fallen (and have his portrait replaced by a gravestone), yet once back in campaign mode your general's still there, leading the men in a retreat.

I think a "fallen" general should survive only if the army won the field, and if they lost the general would be killed by the enemy looting the dead. The enemy army or general could also gain some effects from this like "killed a superior enemy" if he had more command stars. If CA does implement a mechanic to allow releasing of captives then further effects like "merciful commander" for the winner, and "spared by subordinate" for the loser, could be used.

[osros]

I like it. I like details like this perhaps if the general is high ranking and some sort of trat that would trigger such a thing happening in battle. I also favor the men cheering in presents of the general in battle if the general is close perhaps if the general is dismounted. Also if the general is it combat it will inspire the men more, some cheering, raised swords perhaps wounded men inspired to cheer and raise a sword where they lay as they see their general advance and engage in battle.

[Larkin]

What if he's a useless, arrogant aristocrat who would "wet himself at the notion he should ever be in command at all" and is horrible to his men? Should the opposite then take place?

[osros]

What if he's a useless, arrogant aristocrat who would "wet himself at the notion he should ever be in command at all" and is horrible to his men? Should the opposite then take place?

Yeah that's why needs to be a high ranking or a trait that can trigger it say" beloved by troops " can be gained by so many victories and well supplied army. We get rewarded with details like this.

[zg0301zg]

What if he's a useless, arrogant aristocrat who would "wet himself at the notion he should ever be in command at all" and is horrible to his men? Should the opposite then take place?

then prior to battle they would carry him to the enemy and execute him all together without any bloddy battle

[Humble Warrior]

Something I found Stupid in the original Rome 1 was that when a general died, even if the general's bodyguard hadn't routed, they just left the guys body. I was thinking on how the spartans fought for Leonidas's body when he was killed at Thermopolye. If the general is wounded his bodyguard should escort him out of the field, not routing but ensuring that the general lives. Your thoughts?

But did that happen? Are there cases where Romans fought to protect a dead General`s body?

To me it seems if you`re in the middle of a battle and the General dies, the men have to consider several things...

1. Have we won the battle or nearly going to?
2. Can we spare the men crowding around the dead General when we still need to fight?
3. He`s dead, why are we doing this when we should be fighting and\or running away?
4. Who`s the new leader in charge? What`s his orders?

It just seems to me that the only logical and realistic time to crowd around a dead General`s body is when the battle is over and you`ve won.

[stradar1]

But did that happen? Are there cases where Romans fought to protect a dead General`s body?

To me it seems if you`re in the middle of a battle and the General dies, the men have to consider several things...

1. Have we won the battle or nearly going to?
2. Can we spare the men crowding around the dead General when we still need to fight?
3. He`s dead, why are we doing this when we should be fighting and\or running away?
4. Who`s the new leader in charge? What`s his orders?

It just seems to me that the only logical and realistic time to crowd around a dead General`s body is when the battle is over and you`ve won.

Im sure a great General Or a smart one would have a Second in command and the men would know who to look to if the man who was in command died or was wounded. I think this idea should and could work Id like to see less General deaths id allso like to see no more suicidal Generals its still present in Shogun 2. Allso Im sure in a battle of wits or even a battle for survival the army wouldnt just route and would fight on and even harder to the death.

I will say this will not work if they still have Suicidal Generals in rome 2 if this is still present it will not work to well.

[The Mouth]

Allso Im sure in a battle of wits or even a battle for survival the army wouldn't just route and would fight on and even harder to the death.

In movies and etc. when the hero/general dies their comes that dramatic moment were the army looks at him for a second, and then goes absolutely berserk; the opposite is generally (Theirs always some exceptions) true.

I'd imagine it'd go down like this:

Soldier: Holy crap one of the greatest generals of Rome just fell! WHAT THE **** DO WE DO NOW?!?!

[Humble Warrior]

Yea, you guys are talking from the ROMANTIC warfare point of view. I don`t believe I`ve read a single historical account where men dropped everything because their General died during battle. Sure, it happens in the Iliad (romantic warfare with active gods by the way), but in reality you simply don`t have time for that. i`m sure men shouted stuff like, "The General is dead!" etc, and there would of course be a big moral hit depending on his fame, but after that the second in command would be looked to and the fight continued or lost.

I could see men crowding around a General in danger of getting killed, yes. But not once he`s killed. And even the enemy wouldn`t have time to do anything to him in the midst of battle any way after he`s dead. Whoever killed the General would probably die swiftly himself.

Only after the battle would men want to take their dead General`s body and would get REALLY upset if the enemy got a hold of it and would not return it or desecrated it.

That`s how I see it.

p.s. I kinda liked how MTW2 did it. No animation, but when your General was killed, your Adviser sounded really sad and if your King was killed he`d say, "Oh dear lord, our king is slain..." I remember the first time he said that, it was like a bomb had hit the battlefield, he really made me sit up and notice by the gravitas in his voice!

[General George S. Patton]

Yea, you guys are talking from the ROMANTIC warfare point of view. I don`t believe I`ve read a single historical account where men dropped everything because their General died during battle. Sure, it happens in the Iliad (romantic warfare with active gods by the way), but in reality you simply don`t have time for that. i`m sure men shouted stuff like, "The General is dead!" etc, and there would of course be a big moral hit depending on his fame, but after that the second in command would be looked to and the fight continued or lost.

I could see men crowding around a General in danger of getting killed, yes. But not once he`s killed. And even the enemy wouldn`t have time to do anything to him in the midst of battle any way after he`s dead. Whoever killed the General would probably die swiftly himself.

Only after the battle would men want to take their dead General`s body and would get REALLY upset if the enemy got a hold of it and would not return it or desecrated it.

The battle of Carrhae and Thermopylae. And before you say anything, I have NEVER even seen the 300 movie

[Alkaline Earth]

But did that happen? Are there cases where Romans fought to protect a dead General`s body?

To me it seems if you`re in the middle of a battle and the General dies, the men have to consider several things...

1. Have we won the battle or nearly going to?
2. Can we spare the men crowding around the dead General when we still need to fight?
3. He`s dead, why are we doing this when we should be fighting and\or running away?
4. Who`s the new leader in charge? What`s his orders?

It just seems to me that the only logical and realistic time to crowd around a dead General`s body is when the battle is over and you`ve won.

Perhaps his Leadership rating will determine how urgent it is to keep his body? I know that Generals had Command and Managament perhaps a new quality could be "Leadership" the ability to instill hope and inspire on the battlefield.

[Aymer de Valence]

This would be really cool actually. Reminds me of how the Greeks fought desperately for Patroklus' body after he was killed by the Trojans in The Iliad.

[TheSwordofRome]

Ok, I agree it should work only if he has a specific trait. It would be pretty cool if your generals could get wounded/ captured and your enemies would sell them to you for a ransom

[Rasic]

I don't know about fighting for a body. I'd like to see maybe a system where he could become wounded. like.. dare I say, taking an arrow to the knee. If he just flat out dies not much you can do though to help him, and making animations for carrying a body just seems like unnecessary work. Probably something they'd do after the battle anyways.

[AgentGB]

I think it would all have to depend on the charisma & leadership of a General for such a thing to occur, but if it happened on the rare occasion that your General is incredibly liked by his men, would only just add to the game, but could be represented with a temporary morale boost to the army, has a all or nothing last ditched attempt, has opposed to actually trying to carve a way to your dead General.

[Tim_Ward]

Something I found Stupid in the original Rome 1 was that when a general died, even if the general's bodyguard hadn't routed, they just left the guys body. I was thinking on how the spartans fought for Leonidas's body when he was killed at Thermopolye. If the general is wounded his bodyguard should escort him out of the field, not routing but ensuring that the general lives. Your thoughts?

Leonides wasn't just some random general, he was king of Sparta.

I know that Generals had Command and Managament perhaps a new quality could be "Leadership" the ability to instill hope and inspire on the battlefield.

You mean, like morale? Isn't that what command stars already do?

[Sir Winston Churchill]

After the battle, he would be found amongst the dead, and they would take care of it then. One heroic epic isn't enough to justify inducing this "feature".