The Lack of Generals

[w_michael]

I am playing a fun pair of MP games, both Scots-Irish vs. Ancient British, and I am playing a different side in each game. In one game I have two generals vs. my opponent's four, and in the other game I had one general less than my opponent. In both games I experimented by taking the least number of chariots that I could in order to maximize the number of foot. I suspect that this is the reason why I had fewer generals for the same sized army. Is the formula for the number of generals based on having a left and right wing non-light cavalry force, and not the number of troops in the army?

[w_michael]

Sorry for the re-post. The forum gave me an error message when I posted this before, so I re-booted and tried again.

[zakblood]

no worries, we have had some minor board issues but hopefully it will be sorted soon

[stockwellpete]

I am playing a fun pair of MP games, both Scots-Irish vs. Ancient British, and I am playing a different side in each game. In one game I have two generals vs. my opponent's four, and in the other game I had one general less than my opponent. In both games I experimented by taking the least number of chariots that I could in order to maximize the number of foot. I suspect that this the reason why I had fewer generals for the same sized army. Is the formula for the number of generals based on having a left and right wing non-light cavalry force, and not the number of troops in the army?

Yes, you need a minimum of 3 cavalry or 3 chariots to get 4 generals. In the deployment phase these 3 units need to be placed on each flank and at the centre rear of your army and you should then get 4 generals. You can then allocate some or all of these generals to your foot units.

[rbodleyscott]

I am playing a fun pair of MP games, both Scots-Irish vs. Ancient British, and I am playing a different side in each game. In one game I have two generals vs. my opponent's four, and in the other game I had one general less than my opponent. In both games I experimented by taking the least number of chariots that I could in order to maximize the number of foot. I suspect that this the reason why I had fewer generals for the same sized army. Is the formula for the number of generals based on having a left and right wing non-light cavalry force, and not the number of troops in the army?

Yes

[w_michael]

Thanks Pete. I played around with it and the allocation of generals works exactly as you describe. If I have three chariots, I only receive three accompanying generals if one is on each flank and one in reserve. Light horse do not count, but other mounted do (like camelry). I never really bothered with serious deployment during the army picking stage, but organized my army into commands and specifically deployed them in the following Deployment Phase. I guess that I have to artificially make three groups of mounted in specific locations in order to maximize the number of free generals first, and then organize them how I want them for battle.

This seems a little arbitrary to me. What happens with predominately infantry armies in other eras like early Anglo-Saxons or Norse vikings?

[rbodleyscott]

This seems a little arbitrary to me. What happens with predominately infantry armies in other eras like early Anglo-Saxons or Norse vikings?

They only get one general - but they weren't exactly renowned for their manoeuvrability.

This may or may not get changed at some point.

[TheGrayMouser]

Thanks Pete. I played around with it and the allocation of generals works exactly as you describe. If I have three chariots, I only receive three accompanying generals if one is on each flank and one in reserve. Light horse do not count, but other mounted do (like camelry). I never really bothered with serious deployment during the army picking stage, but organized my army into commands and specifically deployed them in the following Deployment Phase. I guess that I have to artificially make three groups of mounted in specific locations in order to maximize the number of free generals first, and then organize them how I want them for battle.

This seems a little arbitrary to me. What happens with predominately infantry armies in other eras like early Anglo-Saxons or Norse vikings?

Obviously cavalry armies draw more dashing leader type individuals to their ranks than the base villein style armies

[GiveWarAchance]

Ya seems like those old school viking armies had no chain of command and only one dude in charge, and even more crazy, that leader dude always threw himself into the thick of the fighting to help soak up arrows and draw large numbers of enemies to himself to take some pressure off his troops.

[w_michael]

I didn't notice this before, because I usually Autofill. It don't think that it is realistic to pick your troops after seeing the layout of the battlefield. These games were an exception.

[SnuggleBunnies]

This system of getting more generals seems weird to me. New players are unlikely to know about it while vets ruthlessly take advantage of it, giving them an additional advantage. The +50 POA that generals provide is a significant advantage in melee. As things stand, a player that buys 3 cav and puts them on one wing gets 2 generals. The player that buys 3 cav and splits them up gets 4 generals. However, these 4 generals can subsequently be shuffled into infantry commands, and all the cav put into one command during the deployment phase. Thus the player gets up to 4 infantry generals for the cost of 3 cav units, which could be as little as 120 points.

Honestly I must say that FOG1 handled generals better, forcing the player to spend points for them, thus making them choose between more men and more command. As things stand, it seems that there is one right way to buy armies; get a minimum of 3 cav, split them up during buy phase, get 4 generals, dump most of them into the infantry line and reshuffle the cavalry during deployment phase.

[w_michael]

Do sub-generals only provide benefits to units in their command, or any non-allied unit in the army? The manual makes me think the latter. If so, the number of generals is very significant.

As far as the sub-generals go, the combat/morale bonus can be as important as the maneuver bonus. I would think that the main battle line of infantry-only armies would be composed of sections, each commanded by a sub-general; something like the van, battle and rear of medieval times. Anglo-Saxon armies might have the king as the C-in-C, and ealdormen would certainly be commanding components of the infantry. They might not make the battle line more maneuverable, but they would certainly provide morale benefits to nearby troops.

The current allocation method doesn't scale well either. I can get four generals in a Very Small battle, but no more than four generals in a Huge battle. Very Small battles, like a Scots-Irish raid, would not likely have the proportion of Celtic chariots in that raiding force to have four generals, but they can achieve that in the game. Perhaps sub-generals should be purchased like other troops, or given out based on the army size.

[rbodleyscott]

Do sub-generals only provide benefits to units in their command, or any non-allied unit in the army? The manual makes me think the latter.

Correct.

If so, the number of generals is very significant.

As far as the sub-generals go, the combat/morale bonus can be as important as the maneuver bonus. I would think that the main battle line of infantry-only armies would be composed of sections, each commanded by a sub-general; something like the van, battle and rear of medieval times. Anglo-Saxon armies might have the king as the C-in-C, and ealdormen would certainly be commanding components of the infantry. They might not make the battle line more maneuverable, but they would certainly provide morale benefits to nearby troops.

The current allocation method doesn't scale well either. I can get four generals in a Very Small battle, but no more than four generals in a Huge battle. Very Small battles, like a Scots-Irish raid, would not likely have the proportion of Celtic chariots in that raiding force to have four generals, but they can achieve that in the game. Perhaps sub-generals should be purchased like other troops, or given out based on the army size.

As I say, it is something that is under consideration.

[w_michael]

As I say, it is something that is under consideration.

Thanks. It is not as big a deal once you know the gaming trick. I was just surprised to be outnumbered 2:1 in generals.

[GiveWarAchance]

I use auto-deploy every time. Does that configure deployment to make generals?

[TheGrayMouser]

I would prefer not have to "fiddle" with the game to get extra generals. I havent done it yet ( honestly forgot all about it until saw his thread)
I'd rather it be random too, maybe once you make your purchases final, the game determines the minimal # of generals you should have and the maximum you could have and then randomly assigns somewhere in that range. Seems fairer and no fiddlyness.

I have no issue if an army that can muster the prerequisite cavalry can have more generals than an infantry based one, such armies should be more nimble and cavalry , being much more brittle than in FOG1 need the leaders combat/cohesion bonus even more than a big old pike block.

The transferring of cavalry generals to infantry units seems more a problem. I might go so far to say it seems quite cheesy. Also, you will now have cavalry units that are assigned an infantry command which would be pretty rare for the period. I don't know how this could be prevented except via house rules but then players get divided into camps of "doing whatever the engine allows is ok" vs the "what was the intent/historical angle" types. Just some initial thoughts, not married to them

[klayeckles]

new issue...i actually had a battle where i had NO generals! couldn't figure out why...any suggestions?

[rbodleyscott]

new issue...i actually had a battle where i had NO generals! couldn't figure out why...any suggestions?

There is a bug that can cause this if an army suffered high enough losses in the previous campaign battle that the reinforcement points are insufficient to fully refit the existing units, so there are no points left for recruiting new units.

This fix for this bug will soon be released in a patch.

[the_iron_duke]

I think one needs to be clear on how many generals one has at the troop-purchasing stage, as the number of generals affects strategy, which then affects the troop selection. If I only have two generals then I can't effectively do pincer movement tactics, or would certainly have to do it differently than if I had three generals.

[klayeckles]

new issue...i actually had a battle where i had NO generals! couldn't figure out why...any suggestions?

There is a bug that can cause this if an army suffered high enough losses in the previous campaign battle that the reinforcement points are insufficient to fully refit the existing units, so there are no points left for recruiting new units.

This fix for this bug will soon be released in a patch.

just so you have all the info...this occured on a MP skirmish i created.

and since i'm talking to the creator...(the game, not the universe (or at least i think)) i've been playing since the first tabletop version, and must say that the system is a fantastic effort. it can be played beer and pretzelie, but that style will always lose to a cagey vetran...so a great simulation, AND a wonderful chess match. FOG II is closer to the table top version...and likely closer to the real thing. as great as FOG i has been, the hexes do make things more manouverable and a bit "gamey" (great for the gamers like me). So congrats on the BEST ancient system ever. research and army builds are great too. just guessing you'll never get rich on this baby...but you have given millionss of hours of enjoyment to many dreamers/gamers !!! THANK YOU!!
klay