Unlimited (or really far) movement for generals and agents

[Ichon]

I don't mind the movement of army speeds in any TW games as it is quite a task to move thousands of men and their supplies but the fact agents and generals are stuck moving at the same speed has always seemed weird. I figured it was due to pathfinding AI issues but seeing how increased movement ranges work in even older MTW2 mods I am not quite so sure that is the reason.

Allowing generals to move from receiving a new office in Rome back to command a front in 1 or 2 turns would be awesome for roleplay and immersion. Losing bad on 1 front, send a new commander! It happened historically many times and also a single man or a small staff could move rapidly quite far changing horses and using only a fast ship. It could have a cost attached where now you can enlist a new general in NTW who is presumably dispatched to the current army instantly except if the list allowed you to pick from generals currently serving who would appear on the next turn- or a suitable time later depending on how many turns per year. So instead of enlisting a new general for 1500 you can send a general from another front for 500.

Senate for a Roman general might also set some restrictions on which fronts a general could move to based on rank- IE a consul could move just about anywhere while a legate might be able to move only throughout the eastern Mediterranean or something.

[weirdoascensor]

Makes sense. Unlike a Army of Thousands, who need enormous logistical organization, an character or agent could travel swiftly...


After all, how many trips back and forth using ships from...lets say Pillars of Hercules to Kolkhis in 4 months? assuming it would be four months per turn, of course...

Using Land routes, how far could you go in Roman times for 4months?

[DarthRuanek]

As I recall in TW games (or maybe just RTW and M2TW, I've played those the most) cavalry travel a bit faster than armies with infantry. Historically that actually wasn't always the case, because logistically they'd also need supplies and such, which would likely slow the group. But smaller groups have always been faster, because they don't take as much organization to get moving. This could be a really cool, and historical, feature.

[krisslanza]

I think it's kind of a gameplay balance issue. I know I've seen videos of a general, by himself, defeating and routing an army of hundreds.

ESPECIALLY in RTW. Unless generals were vastly weaker, a crafty player could probably use a massive movement of a general to basically snipe weak armies.

[Ultra123]

too much temptation for player exploit, its bad enough people are using armys with 4 generals plus never mind allowing them to move entire stacks of the best cavalry anywhere on the map.

[Ichon]

too much temptation for player exploit, its bad enough people are using armys with 4 generals plus never mind allowing them to move entire stacks of the best cavalry anywhere on the map.

If the generals are restricted by rank what theaters to move and have a cost attached I don't know if we'll see entire stacks of generals moving about not to mention this applies only to generals which at least in Shogun 2 took a long time to become the best cavalry, it is unlikely players would have that many of awesome cavalry generals around since they are smaller unit size than regular cavalry and need skill path developed to be awesome.

There could be other limits as well such as each army can only have 1 general re-assigned per turn if the instant transport similar to enlisting a new general is used. So if a general needs to return to Rome to take a new title or get a triumph just put him in command of the garrison there then put him back in command of his old unit- each army would have only used 1 new assignment of a commander but in the 3-6 months represented in a game turn the general could have traveled there and back again.

[weirdoascensor]

krisslanza, Ultra,

Shogun 2 generals are not those Medieval 2 uber generals...command stars do not automatically translate into bodyguard fighting power...

Only if they took Warrior skilltree they'll be good enough to fend for themselves...even that, maxed warrior generals would end up dead if sent charging into a prolonged melee, spearwalls, or musket lines...

They are best encouraging and inspiring troops behind Ashigaru Pike and Shot ranks that rips any charging samurai...

[Markas]

I always felt agents and perhaps generals should be able to embark at a port, choose a destination with another port and get there in a turn without any having to create/move a ship. Kinda like a limited version of railways in FotS.

[permanent666]

try this to find out how far one could travel in 4 month:

http://orbis.stanford.edu/

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

I always felt agents and perhaps generals should be able to embark at a port, choose a destination with another port and get there in a turn without any having to create/move a ship. Kinda like a limited version of railways in FotS.

I like that idea, i beleave you had this in my older thread about turns per year too. It would made it impossible that our young generals would be really old when they arrive their boarders of the realm. This could give them a real career. Legate in a War, than after a good career and senatorship finally Consul and Proconsul in another province.

[Ichon]

I like that idea, i beleave you had this in my older thread about turns per year too. It would made it impossible that our young generals would be really old when they arrive their boarders of the realm. This could give them a real career. Legate in a War, than after a good career and senatorship finally Consul and Proconsul in another province.

It would also be nice if traveling by ship did not use 100% movement. I feel that was strictly an effort to try and prevent 'surprise' attacks. Since naval fleets themselves can now attack hopefully they will do away with 0 movement after loading or unloading army into a fleet. I can see reduced movement for sure but not 0. Maybe 50% or in a reverse that cavalry slow down remaining movement during loading and unloading compared to infantry.

[DarthRuanek]

It would also be nice if traveling by ship did not use 100% movement. I feel that was strictly an effort to try and prevent 'surprise' attacks. Since naval fleets themselves can now attack hopefully they will do away with 0 movement after loading or unloading army into a fleet. I can see reduced movement for sure but not 0. Maybe 50% or in a reverse that cavalry slow down remaining movement during loading and unloading compared to infantry.

If I remember things correctly, movement was based partly on how far the fleet moved. So a fleet could move its full movement but the army could not, or the fleet could move only a portion of it and the army could move farther. It is realistic, because they both take time to move, and it's all supposed to happen on the same turn but not at the same time.

[Ichon]

If I remember things correctly, movement was based partly on how far the fleet moved. So a fleet could move its full movement but the army could not, or the fleet could move only a portion of it and the army could move farther. It is realistic, because they both take time to move, and it's all supposed to happen on the same turn but not at the same time.

That was in MTW2- in more recent games boarding or unboarding uses full movement so if you are crossing to an island for example and barely miss landing turn before and only need to move 1/15 of full move if you land you use 100% of the move so you might as well sail around the island or something.

[B. W.]

I don't mind the movement of army speeds in any TW games as it is quite a task to move thousands of men and their supplies but the fact agents and generals are stuck moving at the same speed has always seemed weird. I figured it was due to pathfinding AI issues but seeing how increased movement ranges work in even older MTW2 mods I am not quite so sure that is the reason.

Allowing generals to move from receiving a new office in Rome back to command a front in 1 or 2 turns would be awesome for roleplay and immersion. Losing bad on 1 front, send a new commander! It happened historically many times and also a single man or a small staff could move rapidly quite far changing horses and using only a fast ship. It could have a cost attached where now you can enlist a new general in NTW who is presumably dispatched to the current army instantly except if the list allowed you to pick from generals currently serving who would appear on the next turn- or a suitable time later depending on how many turns per year. So instead of enlisting a new general for 1500 you can send a general from another front for 500.

Senate for a Roman general might also set some restrictions on which fronts a general could move to based on rank- IE a consul could move just about anywhere while a legate might be able to move only throughout the eastern Mediterranean or something.

Excellent idea!

[Asgaroth]

I don't mind the movement of army speeds in any TW games as it is quite a task to move thousands of men and their supplies but the fact agents and generals are stuck moving at the same speed has always seemed weird

They shouldn't move in the same speed. It is nice you thought of this topic.

I agree, one man and one army of some thousand troops shouldn't move in the same speed.

[HusKatten]

Once again another great idea by you! it would very much increase roleplay and make the late game generals moving back and forth less painfull.

[Raimeken]

More than moving generals, I want generals to have some decent survivability in R2. Since ETW, generals have been really fragile, but since the AI loves to send the general into the fray its counter productive. In RTW/M2TW, generals were a very useful asset in early armies due to a free unit of heavy cavalry and their high survivability, now I usually just sit my general around because if I engage and he gets in a bad spot, he will most likely die.

[Ichon]

More than moving generals, I want generals to have some decent survivability in R2. Since ETW, generals have been really fragile, but since the AI loves to send the general into the fray its counter productive. In RTW/M2TW, generals were a very useful asset in early armies due to a free unit of heavy cavalry and their high survivability, now I usually just sit my general around because if I engage and he gets in a bad spot, he will most likely die.

I don't mind generals being non-heavy cavalry but maybe they could have a couple HP but I don't want to see return of 12 or more hit point generals surrounded by a bodyguard of the best heavy cavalry in the game.

Hopefully it will be a mix of MTW2 traits with Shogun 2 skill leveling system. So certain generals might just be born as a better fighter or administrator but as they gain experience they can either increase those skills or make up for slight deficits in other areas. In Shogun 2 generals could eventually become decent fighters but never quite to the point you would really want to risk them in a fight. It would be nice if they became good enough you could occasionally put them very near or in melee as Alexander or many other generals who did intervene personally. There should still be a risk but in recent games it seems less of a risk and more of a guarantee that a general would die even leveled up in Shogun 2 if they try to fight though a leveled general in Shogun 2 could do a pretty strong flank charge with little risk, putting him in middle of a melee is death though.

I'd actually love if formations around general actually protected him so a wedge or a rhomboid would have general more towards center front of a formation and not so easily separated and killed.

It would require another topic to really address though. For now I just hope we see commanders and some agents able to travel quite far in less time than armies.

[HappyGoodVibes]

This is a great idea. Keep the agent limit much lower than in Shogun 2 though, spamming agents is stupid. I really don't like agents at all, they don't really add much to the game in my opinion as they are done.

Agents need to be refined. Spy networks should simply be bought, you don't send a roman into a german territory and expect him to fit in. Generals should be able to move quickly to the army they need to get to, and be able to flee from armies that fail (they did that often in real life). Agents in general should not be present on the campaign map I believe, the game needs to focus on combat, not moving agents about. Armies are what need to be moved around, agents would have been bought where they needed to be or simply managed by government automatically.

[Ichon]

I don't mind the idea of diplomats as agents since a good or bad diplomat can lend much to gaining a factions aims or not while also only a limited set of people have the authority to negotiate. In this era though it might be that generals are the diplomats and when meeting any army there is a chance for local negotiations(bribe, surrender, ceasefire) or faction negotiations(peace, war, trade city, trade tech, etc)- it would work even better if generals had more movement. Spies I agree it seems more likely there would be teams of and networks of informants etc, not a single spy going in and learning all the movements of enemy troops or the composition of every unit in an army.

Really I am not sure what types of agents might be in RTW2 and I am pretty sure CA will put some in though adding diplomatic skills along with combat, administration, and command skills on generals might make some interesting choices. Any agents though should have more movement than armies by a significant factor.