Should Generals be more Vunerable?

[MonkeyD]

Historically battles could be turned from a single stray arrow. In total war games Generals could potentially charge into a hail of arrows/bullets and survive if their personal bodyguards were large enough. It seems that Rome II has made generals much more vulnerable to missile attack as seen in the Skirmish vs AI Macedon vs Rome gameplay video where around 7:00 a general is charging skirmishers that fire one last volley before contact and kill the general even though he had plenty of men with him.

Is this a positive or negative addition?

[chadwicknight]

Actually historically most of the commanders kept their distance from the heat, always trying to stay on a hill where they could see better the development of the battle.

This time I was hoping CA gave them a much larger influence radius, so you could actually use them as an inspiring figure only.

Not a chance it seems.

Not a big deal either.


Peace

[Hadro]

Not a chance it seems.

Not a big deal either.


Peace

well said! rep+

[Archimonday]

I like vulnerable generals. Generals which are not more than your average man, and in the most random events, or the epic of last stands, can find themselves killed. I used to love it in Empire Total War when a stray musket ball would take out my general, and I'd go "WHAT?!"

[omzdog]

Is this a positive or negative addition?

Haha what?

[osros]

So far I think its fine the way it is/was, I had generals die many times they don't seem overpowered to me and I keep them out of harms why mostly so not sure on the missile fire. If the General dies due to missile fire its your fault. How Rome2 plays out is yet to be seen. Micro the general is important not only to help the troops but to keep him from dying.

[GatorMarine1833]

This also seems to be in keeping with the idea that "the army is more important than the individual man who leads it" that R2 is going for with traditions and whatnot.

[omzdog]

Oh I see, is the generals vulnerablitity positive or negative?
Ya, Shogun two generals were a bit much especially seeing them surrounded by ashigaru spears and winning from higher morale and such nots.

[BroskiDerpman]

Generals in Warscape engine TW already die pretty fast from all sorts of things compared to RTW and Med2, keep it this way; Don't make it even more faster...

[Eisenhart_IV]

I would say it's a tough question. I liked the balance they had in Medieval 2. Generals were not easy to kill on the battlefield, but they were not invincible. The pace at which the unit of bodyguard recovered was very quick - in a couple of turns you could have full numbers again. In Shogun 2, as little as i played it, generals still seemed tough, but the pace at which the bodyguard recovered was much, much slower. I prefer weaker generals, but quicker recovery in terms of the number of soldiers in the bodyguard.

[jakeswe]

I would say it's a tough question. I liked the balance they had in Medieval 2. Generals were not easy to kill on the battlefield, but they were not invincible. The pace at which the unit of bodyguard recovered was very quick - in a couple of turns you could have full numbers again. In Shogun 2, as little as i played it, generals still seemed tough, but the pace at which the bodyguard recovered was much, much slower. I prefer weaker generals, but quicker recovery in terms of the number of soldiers in the bodyguard.

The balance in M2TW?

The general bodyguard was the best unit throughout the entire game and with a bit of practice you could take out entire armies with just one unit. If your general survived a few battles he would get so many hp traits that he became practically unkillable and could chill around surrounded by enemy spear units for hours.

[razr19]

No comment.

[Nicolaos]

No need to make them even more vulnerable, I barely used them in Shogun 2, only if I gave my generals the fighting perks to increase attack, defense and charge

[theDaedricPrince]

I always loved the idea of having about 3 people in a general unit. Just so the player would be compelled to protect the general at all costs. Unless the general is apart of an infantry unit..then I guess he can charge into battle carelessly

[need help]

I like that idea, generals were absolute tanks in RTW1

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Depends. CA allready said that the Generals of the Roman faction will be more like the Generals in Nappy, a tactical unit and not a primary combat one, which is the reason why their generals can only be a cavalry unit. Other faction can decide if the general has several infantry and cavalry bodyguards. In the early times, we have also Roman generals who fought and died in battle, but later it became rare, specially for important leaders. The entire opposite are for example Parthian Kings. After the first 250 years, the half of all Parthian Kings until than, died in battle, not primary because they lost, propably because they were Warrior Kings and took actually part in the heat of the battle.

[Rittsy]

I'd like to see it vary between factions ie. Macedon might have the more powerful general leading his Companions in a charge, whereas Rome would have him behind the lines buffing the units.

...and after reading some posts that might be exactly what they did with this game.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

It will also no doubt depend on what bodyguard you choose for your general. An infantry general will probably be harder to kill.

[jthewonder]

I really enjoyed the traits a general could get in M2TW that would make him harder to kill, and i would love to see something similar return. I'd prefer it happening in a way where you could gain skills by doing stuff, for instance if your general tends to lead from the front, he should become a better warrior as a result. Or if you prefer leading from the back, it could improve his vision of the battlefield, resulting in a tactical improvement of some sort?

[vietanh797]

Spartan generals and kings in battle always fought on right flank first line as Hoplite with 2 "super bodyguard" protect his sides. And it is quite rare to see Spartan kings die in battle