General or character must be leading an army

[MathiasOfAthens]

I like this idea. It led me to thinking today that not only does this force players to focus more on thinking in terms of armies instead of units but it adds another gameplay element. Take out the general to immobilize the army.

So does this mean we can assassinate generals or kill them in the battle and immobilize the army?

What happens if the general is assassinated? Is another one promoted right there? Is there some system where the next general is chosen from a menu or sent from a city recruitment window? If a general is killed on a battlefield what happens to the army.

[Durnaug]

I like this idea. It led me to thinking today that not only does this force players to focus more on thinking in terms of armies instead of units but it adds another gameplay element. Take out the general to immobilize the army.

So does this mean we can assassinate generals or kill them in the battle and immobilize the army?

What happens if the general is assassinated? Is another one promoted right there? Is there some system where the next general is chosen from a menu or sent from a city recruitment window? If a general is killed on a battlefield what happens to the army.

Very, very good questions.

I also thought it prevents the spamming of armies aswell.

[TotalWarker]

Think it was said somewhere that a new general is chosen from the ranks of the army. In terms of the penalties, I like the idea of a turn immobilized.

[Sharpe]

Consolidating stacks is no longer a problem it would seem with the addition of limited general also.

Good news I suppose.

[Revan The Great]

I wonder how important family members are though. Playing as some sort of Royal dynasty - the Macedonians, for example, the King would almost always lead troops in person, and his family members tended to be the kind of upper command structure of the Kingdom - sons, brothers, nephews, etc.

But are we going back to the Empire: Total War system where generals are, essentially, an unlimited, disposable resource with little characterization and the monarch and his family are mainly just names without any real value? I very much hope not. It just seems that if generals are those easy to come by, there must be a severe lack of family members.

[Stavroforos]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is only a limited pool of generals you can choose from, and if for some reason you can't find a new general, your army will eventually start to be reduced as soldiers mutiny. Maybe it could even turn rebel?

[MathiasOfAthens]

I remember someone from CA saying generals are limited but you gain more general slots as you acquire something. Regions maybe?

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I remember someone from CA saying generals are limited but you gain more general slots as you acquire something. Regions maybe?

Nope, bastards!

[Jester]

good questions. i hope for some severe penalties

[Emperor Domitianus]

Would be more obvious a new one being appointed.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Yeah I would think a new one is appointed as well but hopefully there is some sort of delay or penalty to the army. This would add a certain benefit to assassinating generals.

[crzyrndm]

With reference to Romans only, I recall a statement that they come from the political characters. So if you lose many generals, you become politically weak which in turn leads to internal issues.

[babydoc]

Good question!
Wonder what CA has in its sleeve for us?

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Maybe an army without a general becomes immobile and build itself a garrison fort, whilst waiting for a replacement to be sent from Rome. Would be the most realistic.

An army that is long without general should develop bad traits and lose discipline so that the general have to decimate them when taking over.

[Raikou]

So does this mean General's won't see much combat and be like Al said "mobile morale unit" for the entire army? I'll make sure my fine Suebi officers fight alongside their men each battle and not hide away like those filthy Roman generals !!

[nomercysniper]

I think different generals will have different strength. Roman General will have high mobility, decent charge. Suebi general (if on foot) will be much tougher but obviously not as quick as the roman counterpart.

OT: Would be nice to see a turn at stanstill and maybe a small attrition penalty.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I think different generals will have different strength. Roman General will have high mobility, decent charge. Suebi general (if on foot) will be much tougher but obviously not as quick as the roman counterpart.

OT: Would be nice to see a turn at stanstill and maybe a small attrition penalty.

Well yeah, infantry tends to run a tiny bit slower than horses...

[Nihahs]

Is another one promoted right there?

Yes, they said in a video, sorry I can't find it righ now that, if the general is killed during battle or get assassinated you can recruit a new general directly from the army. Like the next lower "general" in the army get promoted if I remember right.

[babydoc]

In Rome 2, every army must be led by a general. The number of generals you can field at any one time is dictated by a kind of power/status level called (in this preview at least) “Imperium” which increases as you capture territories and exert your influence over the world. By the conclusion of this preview I owned two complete provinces and a scattering of other regions, enabling me to field Mark Strong and a pair of other generals. Each of them could command 20 units in total. Fleets are limited in much the same way.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Maybe some generals are only able to field certain numbers of units. Until they achieve skills they can not recruit more than 8, 10, 14 units.