If you have more than one General, it doesn`t matter if one dies... Or so I thought!

[Humble Warrior]

I am in the middle of a long war with the Sassainids. Many men have fought and died, including Generals too.

However, one battle has me confused: I was certain that if you have two generals in an army you can sacrifice one without your men routing in panic. In one battle, I face a large Sassanid army of about 3000 men and his cavalry General. I had around 2500 defending on a hill plus reinforrcements of another 2000 men coming directly opposite and behind the enemy General. Both my armies had a General each.

The enemy AI General sent a small amount of his men, including his own General to tackle my reinforcements. My reinforcements depatched those men including his General who, for the first time just sat at the back and did nothing until he was overtaken.

The main enemy army still headed for my main force waiting on the hill was now `shaken` having lost their only General. Confident of success, i charged all my men down the hill at him. I even charged in my General, knowing that even if he died, my other General of the second army would take up the slack.

Well, my carelessness cost the death of that General. I wasn`t worried because I had my other General closing in with his reinforcement army.

To my surprise, the men around my dead General all started routing. Ok, so maybe it was a distance thing, so I marched my other General and his forces hard to get with the main army. But even when my General had reached the spot, men kept routing, while the `shaken` Sassanids continued fighting and even some were `confident`.

Then I noticed the second army and its General were `Shaken` and they too started routing. i was like, `What the hell?` Eventually everyone ran and I lost a battle I was certain was won early on!

So what the heck happened there? In every TW game I`ve played having 2 generals was always a safe way of keeping your forces intact, even if one died, even if he was part of a reinforcemnt army, but this time, my second General had no effect at all on the men`s morale, even when he caught up to the group- even acting `Shaken` himself and losing the whole battle!

What happened? A bug? What?

[Neige]

Huh? In my experience it has always been like that. Maybe I'm wrong?

[Humble Warrior]

Huh? In my experience it has always been like that. Maybe I'm wrong?

In my experience that`s how it`s always been. I could even have sworn it was like that in Attila until today. I`ve fought all my wars on this and won on this.

I just can`t figure out what happened- and there was NO other enemy General.

[Slaists]

In my experience that`s how it`s always been. I could even have sworn it was like that in Attila until today. I`ve fought all my wars on this and won on this.

I just can`t figure out what happened- and there was NO other enemy General.

Maybe the other AI army came in with a captain? Sometimes happens that way if their general gets assassinated.

[Slaists]

It's the first general on the battlefield that matters. He's the one everyone cares about. He's the one in "charge" of the battle.

There are some units who are immune tho shock though. They should have better staying power after you losing a general.

[RGA]

Kind of realistic if you ask me

[Aeratus]

I know that in M2TW (the TW game I've played the most), only the first commanding general matters. The reinforcement general has zero impact on his reinforcement army and also has zero impact on your original army. Additional generals in the original stack also have zero impact.

[Humble Warrior]

I know that in M2TW (the TW game I've played the most), only the first commanding general matters. The reinforcement general has zero impact on his reinforcement army and also has zero impact on your original army. Additional generals in the original stack also have zero impact.

I take issue there with that. I played it recently.

Maybe the other AI army came in with a captain? Sometimes happens that way if their general gets assassinated.

He was definitely a General.

[Bramborough]

I'm with the others, OP. I've played quite a few earlier TW games, but most of them I don't quite remember on this specific point. In R2 and Attila, however, it's definitely the "primary" general who matters. Reinforcing generals are relegated to being just simple unit commanders of their bodyguard forces. Notice that they don't even have their usual abilities available (War Cry, Rally, etc).

I'm ambivalent on whether it should be this way or not. On one hand, it does seem that a capable general, even if subordinate to an overall commander, ought to have more influence on a battle. On the other hand, I can see where losing the general in overall command would affect morale of the entire force. I've been reading up on Belisarius lately, and at least in his Africa/early-Italy campaign, he had some pretty good generals working for him (as opposed to 2nd Italian campaign, where he seemed to have a bunch of bozos). Solid-reputation guys who did a lot of effective independent campaigning on their own. Had Belisarius himself fallen at Ad Decimum or the Siege/Battle of Rome, however, it's hard to see how these generals, however capable, would've been able to salvage the situation.

There should probably be a happy medium. I do think that the entire combined army should suffer a morale hit if the primary general dies. But the secondary/reinforcing general should retain his abilities, command aura radius, and still exert his own influence on the troops directly under his command (although not the troops of the dead guy...except perhaps those who located within the command aura). With this scheme, a second general could still pull out a win, mainly by using his own troops and perhaps a few more nearby-located units, but not by taking over the entire army mid-battle.

[Humble Warrior]

I'm with the others, OP. I've played quite a few earlier TW games, but most of them I don't quite remember on this specific point. In R2 and Attila, however, it's definitely the "primary" general who matters. Reinforcing generals are relegated to being just simple unit commanders of their bodyguard forces. Notice that they don't even have their usual abilities available (War Cry, Rally, etc).

I'm ambivalent on whether it should be this way or not. On one hand, it does seem that a capable general, even if subordinate to an overall commander, ought to have more influence on a battle. On the other hand, I can see where losing the general in overall command would affect morale of the entire force. I've been reading up on Belisarius lately, and at least in his Africa/early-Italy campaign, he had some pretty good generals working for him (as opposed to 2nd Italian campaign, where he seemed to have a bunch of bozos). Solid-reputation guys who did a lot of effective independent campaigning on their own. Had Belisarius himself fallen at Ad Decimum or the Siege/Battle of Rome, however, it's hard to see how these generals, however capable, would've been able to salvage the situation.

There should probably be a happy medium. I do think that the entire combined army should suffer a morale hit if the primary general dies. But the secondary/reinforcing general should retain his abilities, command aura radius, and still exert his own influence on the troops directly under his command (although not the troops of the dead guy...except perhaps those who located within the command aura). With this scheme, a second general could still pull out a win, mainly by using his own troops and perhaps a few more nearby-located units, but not by taking over the entire army mid-battle.

Interesting points. Sure if Julius Caesar had died while fighting the Gauls gainst Vercingetorix, the Romans would`ve lost a great deal of moral and even the battle, but there would have been at least others below him to keep the men rallied. Surely those who were like secondary Generals - or did Casaer have no other Generals with him?
If there were other Generals there, then they should be able to rally the men somewhat.

Anyway, I know for a fact that I`ve won battles when my main General has died, but my spare one has kept the men fine. I know this.

Maybe CA changed it in Attila, though I don`t understand how I`ve been fighting these battles and never noticed this until now. Something does not add up.

[LestaT]

Maybe the second general was someone new and have a negative or non warrior type of traits ? A believable scenario for me would be if the dead general is a highers ranking general then the effect would be felt as a whole but if the dead general are of lower stat then the reinforcement general should be able to take proper command of the whole army if the first general died.

[Humble Warrior]

Maybe the second general was someone new and have a negative or non warrior type of traits ? A believable scenario for me would be if the dead general is a highers ranking general then the effect would be felt as a whole but if the dead general are of lower stat then the reinforcement general should be able to take proper command of the whole army if the first general died.

This is a possibility since the reinforcing General was relatively new and I didn`t check his stats. He may have had some negative stats, maybe. Good point.

[Bramborough]

Anyway, I know for a fact that I`ve won battles when my main General has died, but my spare one has kept the men fine. I know this.

Well, that's a separate question. Dead general isn't necessarily an automatic loss. It's certainly possible that you've fought battles where your guys had enough morale advantage that they were able to withstand the morale hit and go on to win. Especially if you had a few units with the Encourage/Disciplined traits. Doesn't necessarily mean that the troops kept fighting specifically because of the second general.

On the other hand, I have to admit it's been extremely rare for me to lose a primary general in any battle where I had multiple armies...I would go so far as to say I don't think it has happened to me in Attila, and if it happened in R2, it was rare enough and long enough ago that I just don't remember. My earlier opinion was based on what I do know; that the secondary general doesn't have any abilities available, just doesn't act as a general at all, at least as long as the primary general remains alive.

So now I'm interested in using some save-points to play a few multi-army battles and intentionally get my lead general killed, to see what happens. As far as I know, that can't be tested in Custom battle, which I think only lets you have one army & general...

[Aenima]

It does seem to be the case that the first general "on the scene" in Attila determines the morale of all units in a battle - do the other generals essentially become just another unit that doesn't affect morale, then?

I could have sworn that previous TW games had each army's morale affected by their respective general, so this was quite a surprise to me.

[Lugotorix]

The way I thought it worked until recently is that the reinforcing general's stats would assume command of the army. Not so: Similar thing happened to me. Didn't notice it until recently, because I've won many battles with generals dying. You do get the secondary or third general's AoC and abilities for the remainder of the battle though.

[RedGuard]

I guess the real answer is ...no one really knows for sure. I could have sworn each general was responsible for its respected armies, However I remember in M2tw that if the enemy general had a high dread, it wouldn't really matter. half your men would route on first contact. perhaps whatever the Attila equivalent of dread(zeal perhaps?) or like others have said negative stats are affecting your game.

[Lugotorix]

I guess the real answer is ...no one really knows for sure. I could have sworn each general was responsible for its respected armies, However I remember in M2tw that if the enemy general had a high dread, it wouldn't really matter. half your men would route on first contact. perhaps whatever the Attila equivalent of dread(zeal perhaps?) or like others have said negative stats are affecting your game.

Yeah, I could have sworn each general would apply his benefits to the reinforcing army. This is useful in auto-resolve, for example.

[Zwirbaum]

General you start battle with is considered "main" general of the battle. Bonus to morale (generic one, not the one coming from stats, retinues and skills) or penalty in case of dying is applied to all your armies depending if that general is alive or dead. Generals of each army, modify units in their army with their stats/traits/retinues etc.

So, always try to keep your "starting" general alive.

[Butan]

You can check if the morale penalties/bonuses take the second general into account by hovering on the "Morale" bar while in-game. The tooltip will expand and show you the activated buff/debuff triggers, some of them being directly linked to the general.

[PointOfViewGun]

Was the general that died a faction leader or heir?