Using parallel armies

[HeinzHarald]

I just watched the tutorials and it is mentioned (if I understood correctly) that there's a benefit to having two armies move in parallel with a general each. They will fight as one (if both are able to reach the destination at the same time obviously) and if the general dies and there's a follow up battle the general of the weaker army will now be the acting general.

What I'm curious about is if there's a particular reason (other than possibly technical/time) for this mechanic rather than just give us the option of picking a deputy general for a single army? Sounds like unnecessary micro to use parallel armies.

[Yaitz331]

I just watched the tutorials and it is mentioned (if I understood correctly) that there's a benefit to having two armies move in parallel with a general each. They will fight as one (if both are able to reach the destination at the same time obviously) and if the general dies and there's a follow up battle the general of the weaker army will now be the acting general.

What I'm curious about is if there's a particular reason (other than possibly technical/time) for this mechanic rather than just give us the option of picking a deputy general for a single army? Sounds like unnecessary micro to use parallel armies.

It's actually somewhat historical. The Romans usually had two armies working together in particularly large campaigns in the early-mid Republic.
Although I'm not sure if that's the reason.

[loki100]

I just watched the tutorials and it is mentioned (if I understood correctly) that there's a benefit to having two armies move in parallel with a general each. They will fight as one (if both are able to reach the destination at the same time obviously) and if the general dies and there's a follow up battle the general of the weaker army will now be the acting general.

What I'm curious about is if there's a particular reason (other than possibly technical/time) for this mechanic rather than just give us the option of picking a deputy general for a single army? Sounds like unnecessary micro to use parallel armies.

There is a disadvantage here - which I suspect is not immediately obvious due to how the turn resolution works out.

For the battle the smaller army is 'merged' with the larger, at that stage its units take a hit of an experience level (say from regular to recruit) as they have changed commanders. So that can strip out 10-15% of your combat power. if the larger stack leader is killed, then yes the second commander takes charge but then the larger army is treated as being 'merged' with the experience hit.

Now its a judgement as to whether this loss of combat capacity outweighs the safety net of having two generals but its not as clear cut as the video implies. When making this choice worth thinking about how many combat rounds are likely to happen. If one, doesn't really matter if your general died (for that combat sequence), more than 2 and yes the chance of death goes up. You tend to get long battles either mid-game with larger armies or early game in very restricted terrain (mtns/swamps), so I think the trick has value but its very situational.

[Pocus]

Also ... two generals, means two rolls for an arrow in the knee!

[Qwixt]

Also ... two generals, means two rolls for an arrow in the knee!

Skyrim reference?

[HeinzHarald]

I just watched the tutorials and it is mentioned (if I understood correctly) that there's a benefit to having two armies move in parallel with a general each. They will fight as one (if both are able to reach the destination at the same time obviously) and if the general dies and there's a follow up battle the general of the weaker army will now be the acting general.

What I'm curious about is if there's a particular reason (other than possibly technical/time) for this mechanic rather than just give us the option of picking a deputy general for a single army? Sounds like unnecessary micro to use parallel armies.

There is a disadvantage here - which I suspect is not immediately obvious due to how the turn resolution works out.

For the battle the smaller army is 'merged' with the larger, at that stage its units take a hit of an experience level (say from regular to recruit) as they have changed commanders. So that can strip out 10-15% of your combat power. if the larger stack leader is killed, then yes the second commander takes charge but then the larger army is treated as being 'merged' with the experience hit.

Now its a judgement as to whether this loss of combat capacity outweighs the safety net of having two generals but its not as clear cut as the video implies. When making this choice worth thinking about how many combat rounds are likely to happen. If one, doesn't really matter if your general died (for that combat sequence), more than 2 and yes the chance of death goes up. You tend to get long battles either mid-game with larger armies or early game in very restricted terrain (mtns/swamps), so I think the trick has value but its very situational.

Thanks, that makes a certain amount of sense. Good thing it's not something that's always a smart move.

[Pocus]

Also ... two generals, means two rolls for an arrow in the knee!

Skyrim reference?

fus ro dah?