Generals/National Leaders in battle

[Evalation]

Dont know if its been brought up yet but would just like to get your thoughts on this.

AS history has shown time and time agian, there is a big difference between Generals/Kings that say "Okay send em in" rather than "Follow me boys!"

Im suggesting that this be used in game as moral bonuses/penalties. For the troops under this generals command it could raise the moral of the troops to fight a little harder and for the enemy troops it could lower morale a bit.

The effect could be different for generals who do it often rather than generals who only do it when forced to.

Examples:
Richard the Lionheart
This man fought every battle on the frontlines with his men, He put his life on the line just like the average frontline infantryman would and he earned respect and loyalty from his troops for it.
Enemy troops would sometimes be unnerved just by this mans presence on the field would be enough to make the enemy think twice before charging towards his men. A good example would be the siege of Acre when King Richard rode out in front of the enemy causing them to halt and watch in terror as he would rally his men to fight harder and begin to push back the men sent before them.

Nero Ceasar
This man was an absolute disgrace to Ancient Roma He said once "Ill stand before the rebels.. and i shall sing and that they will see my sadness at their rebellion and lay down their wepeans."
Nero held no authority over his troops, the senate, or the people of Rome. They took this man as a joke and a uncapable leader which lead to his suicide when he was made an enemy of the state. The only reason people obeyed his orders was out of fear of being executed, but all in all his enemies were not afraid of him and would meet him on the field if it was possible just to kill him, and his soldiers probably wouldnt have cared much anyway.

The morale bonus/penalty should have different effects as follows.
A: A general who has always fought in the thick of battle, and has won many battles should get a sugnificant increase in moral for his troops plus cause some unrest in the enemy army.

B: A general who does not fight with his men and just chooses to watch the battle or sit from affar should not have as much influence on the field as compared to the general above.

No matter what the politcal ranking of the two men has that goes away once men start falling on the field.

If someone needs a better explanation ill be happy to explane further if neccesary.

But post your thoughts on this.

[Erwin Rommel]

I liked Shogun 2's daimyo/general tech tree, whether to focus on melee and battle map bonuses like new abilities, "Stand and fight', "Ganbatte", more bigger and effective general radius or go sipping tea and earn bonuses in research tech, honors, make generals and populace more loyal, diplomacy bonus, lets not forget the customizable retainers.

I hope some elements are still retained for R2...........like "Ganbatte".

[IGdood]

I hope some elements are still retained for R2...........like "Ganbatte".

"And remember this above all. The gods are watching us from above. Make sure they are NOT ASHAMED. Roma victoria, GANBATTE!"

Legionnaires: EY! EY! OOOOIII!!!

- Legio Ichiban I Nipponus

[NovaForce1]

I agree with Erwin Rommel i hope they keep retainers and things like that

[daelin4]

The thing with the generals' combat bonuses were that they were very meagre, and it did little to help if your general wasn't fighting or worse killed in battle. Meanwhile the rest of your army will go without any bonuses you would have otherwise chosen. Conversely, keeping your general behind the fight and choosing all the bonuses go towards your other units was far more effective, since the aforementioned bonsues affected ONLY that specific general, while the other bonuses effected the entire army or unit types. So it was far less practical to choose the right-side skill trees since they neither boosted your general very much, nor did it help other units as much.

There's also the fact that most generals don't fight in battle or only fought in specific circumstances. This is because they were generals and were the ones giving orders to how things were done, who goes where, when it was time to advance, etc. You can't really bark orders when you're slashing down enemies in a confused melee or getting gutted by them. A general has to be able to observe army movements to make crucial tactical decisions, this is why a defender on a hilltop had a significant advantage. Most of what I read about generals/kings/etc. fighting in battles come from the medieval period.

[Ichon]

Stand and fight was fairly useful and did put your general in some danger so having some skills from the right side of the tree made sense if going to use it. I prefer the current system rather than going back to the OP BG of MTW2 and earlier. It would be nice if as generals gained rank (separate from skill tree and based on position within faction) general would also gain larger staff so bigger BG and slightly larger radius- or perhaps even ability to detach parts of the BG into the rest of the army to improve generals radius in exchange for making general more at risk with smaller BG.

[Ticklestick]

This has already been implemented since at least rome, your generals would give morale bonuses based on how much combat your general took part in. During the imperial years, armies were more loyal to their general than they were to rome itself; that's how you ended up with so many civil wars. Maybe if they bring back senate positions, tribunes/consuls would be able to have a bonus effect on their men compared to say a regular general during the republic years; I don't think just being the faction leader should give battlefield bonuses a normal general wouldn't have, outside of maybe a different bodyguard or something.

Some kings/generals were fighters, some weren't. I don't think a soldier would love his heroic general any less than he would his heroic king.