Effect of Generals- statistical study

[PDiFolco]

I was wondering what was the exact effect of 1 or 2 grade generals... So did a few stats calculations and here it is:
First I may remind anyone that the game uses a 10 sided die for each fight; this means a linear distribution with equal 10% chance to get anything from 1 to 10. Average is 5.5.
Now a 1 general allows to roll 2 dice and keep the highest one: the distribution becomes squared instead, with only 1% chance to roll 1 (both dice must roll 1s), and nearly 20% to roll 10. Average jumps to 7.2, that's 1.7 more!
And rolling 5 or worse has now 25% chance only instead of 50%
With a 2 general, you keep the highest of 3 dice, distribution is cubic, now you have 1/1000 only to roll 1, nearly 90% to roll 6 or above, 30% to roll 10, average is 8, that's +0.8 vs 1 general and +2.5 vs no general roll.
This means that everything else being equal, even skirmishers led by a 2 general can win vs heavy inf that don't have a general bonus , even in open terrain, because they'll quite often roll 4 above the HI!
So we can conclude that good generals have a HUGE impact on battles, to a point I even find a bit excessive...

[loki100]

early in the beta there were one to two *3 generals in the system ... that made it plain just how dominant leadership was, to the extent that truely rubbish troops became unbeatable

[pnoff]

Thanks, PDiFolco!

I think minimum roll from experience will smooth things out a bit.

But I actually like the current system, when each empire has one or two top guys, who are required to do serious job. Quite historical, in my opinion.

[13obo]

Doesn't the manual say that 0-0 general still adds 1 extra die roll?

"The number of D10 available is determined by the relevant rating (attack or defence) of your general +1."

So 2* general would give a unit 4 die throws to determine outcome. If so, then it's truly imbalanced that a random factor such as the general a player gets would be the primariny determinining factor for a lot of the outcomes of battles.

[PDiFolco]

Doesn't the manual say that 0-0 general still adds 1 extra die roll?

"The number of D10 available is determined by the relevant rating (attack or defence) of your general +1."

So 2* general would give a unit 4 die throws to determine outcome. If so, then it's truly imbalanced that a random factor such as the general a player gets would be the primariny determinining factor for a lot of the outcomes of battles.

No it means that all units roll at least 1 die even without general or with a 0* general...
I agree that the randomness+huge effect of good Generals is rather unbalanced

[MoLAoS]

Doesn't the manual say that 0-0 general still adds 1 extra die roll?

"The number of D10 available is determined by the relevant rating (attack or defence) of your general +1."

So 2* general would give a unit 4 die throws to determine outcome. If so, then it's truly imbalanced that a random factor such as the general a player gets would be the primariny determinining factor for a lot of the outcomes of battles.

This is not correct. 0+1=1. 2+1=3. So 1-3 dice.

Also relevant is as many mentioned the minimum roll. Though its unclear how this works in practice. If my minimum roll is 6 does that just mean rolling 1-5 gives me 6? Or does it set the floor on rolls?

[13obo]

My bad, the 0-0- general comes into help in sieges, not combat. I was remembering incorrectly.

[LDiCesare]

Don't forget that veteran /strong troops have a minimum roll, so they may roll 5-10 instead of 1-10 on every die, which makes things a bit more complex.
Also, flanker (for instance) is straight +1 to the roll, which is awesome.

[Geffalrus]

So what's the point of a 0-0 general with no special trait? Cause I end up with more than a few of those. For the longest time I honestly thought they provided - some - benefit to an army. Have I really just been sacrificing XP on existing units for no gain? That sort of trap seems like bad game design. Every general should have some sort of utility.

[13obo]

The only benefit of a 0-0 general is for sieges. From sieges section of manual:

"To this is added a maximum of +4 if a leader is present (+2 for having a leader, even a 0-0, and then their attack value). In addition some leaders have the siege trait (10.4.3) and can further improve this value. The leader score cannot exceed that of the combined value of all relevant infantry. So if only 2 units with the besieger trait are present, the leader value is capped at +2"

You should try to kill-off the general by sending him on a suicide mission! Would be great if it was possible for leaders too...

[jimwinsor]

I tend to post my 0-0’s as siege defenders. They help my hapless urban militia avoid siege hits and breaches, then might even die during an assault, allowing a positive integer leader to take his place in the roster.

[vakarr]

The effect of generals on Field of Glory 2 battles is similarly huge - if you have a general and your opponent doesn't, your entire army could be promoted to superior, elite, or "above average". Similarly, if you don't have a general and the AI does, your entire army will be downgraded to raw, average, or below average.

[Soar]

Also relevant is as many mentioned the minimum roll. Though its unclear how this works in practice. If my minimum roll is 6 does that just mean rolling 1-5 gives me 6? Or does it set the floor on rolls?

Manual, section 10.7.4:

Each D10 has a guaranteed minimum value determined as 1 plus unit experience (from 0-3 depending on if it is a recent recruit or an elite unit) and its current effectiveness (from 0 to 2 for a fresh, properly supplied, unit). Any dice with a value below this level will be rerolled until it, at least, matches the minimum value (and it can, as a result of this process, exceed the minimum).

[MoLAoS]

Also relevant is as many mentioned the minimum roll. Though its unclear how this works in practice. If my minimum roll is 6 does that just mean rolling 1-5 gives me 6? Or does it set the floor on rolls?

Manual, section 10.7.4:

Each D10 has a guaranteed minimum value determined as 1 plus unit experience (from 0-3 depending on if it is a recent recruit or an elite unit) and its current effectiveness (from 0 to 2 for a fresh, properly supplied, unit). Any dice with a value below this level will be rerolled until it, at least, matches the minimum value (and it can, as a result of this process, exceed the minimum).

Ah that's actually not bad. Re roll. Kinda in the middle between moving it to minimum and rolling on a range that begins at minimum.

[kvnrthr]

The only benefit of a 0-0 general is for sieges. From sieges section of manual:

"To this is added a maximum of +4 if a leader is present (+2 for having a leader, even a 0-0, and then their attack value). In addition some leaders have the siege trait (10.4.3) and can further improve this value. The leader score cannot exceed that of the combined value of all relevant infantry. So if only 2 units with the besieger trait are present, the leader value is capped at +2"

You should try to kill-off the general by sending him on a suicide mission! Would be great if it was possible for leaders too...

That actually sounds like a great idea. It might even be worth losing units just to get rid of a healthy young 0-0 coward.

[Pocus]

Why the "It's strong (implied too strong), lets nerf it, because obviously not historical? "

There are not shortage of examples in history, from antiquity to modern day where a good general is just instrumental to victory. And the reverse. A bad general, even leading a large body of troop, can be soundly beaten.

Also experience and effectiveness changes all the calculations made in the first post. Without general, an unit with +4 to minimum roll (i.e. +2 experience and 2 effectiveness, nothing to write a book about) has ... 50% chance to have a 10.

So please revise with that in mind.

[loki100]

....

Also relevant is as many mentioned the minimum roll. Though its unclear how this works in practice. If my minimum roll is 6 does that just mean rolling 1-5 gives me 6? Or does it set the floor on rolls?

you've read 10.7.4 of the manual?

[ledo]

Pretty sure the issue with good generals was already raised like 2,500 years ago by the Persians. Would link but I can't find the post.

[Altipueri]

This should link to a list of the undefeated.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander ... t_a_battle

[Altipueri]

And here is another approach to ranking generals..

https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon ... efed303eeb