Do generals improve over time?

[MrLongleg]

I find generals pretty ineffective - most of them are 1-1 and maybe have some special traits. But most enemy stacks are lead by similar generals too, so it does not make a big difference. While units gain experience generals seem to stau unchanged, even if they win 20 big battles in a row.

[SpeedyCM]

No they don't, but even one extra die roll can be pretty powerful.

[lostangelonline]

I agree with MrLongleg that every extra die roll is very powerfull, so 2-2 generals should be very rare, as "genius" generals were in history.

That being says, I completely agree with SpeedyCM that having 2-2, or even 1-1 generals out of nowhere is unrealistic. Even Alexander the Great became the military genius that he was because of 2 factors (same for maybe all great generals):
1. excellent education (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander ... #Education)
-this is partly simulated in game by "leader force pool" bonus (though I'm not sure what that +1 actually does, i guess gives you more generals, not better ones)
-for troops, this is simulated by building the dedicated buildings
2. extensive battle experience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander ... of_Macedon)
-for troops, this is simulated by their experience increase after battles
-this is not simulated for generals, and it should be, to be more realistic. For instance, after battles, generals should increase their experience as troops do. It could even give them attack/defense-only and terrains-specific-only bonuses (according with the battle), and if they master most terrain types, those bonuses are replaces by general attack/defense extra die roll. Would this be a better simulation for generals?

[loki100]

in one of the beta builds you could get 3-3 in some instance. They could lead an army of skirmishers to glory over anything. So yes, I regard any '2' as very able and would be worried if a default value existed above that (you can in theory get >2 from traits but that is then situational)

[lostangelonline]

in one of the beta builds you could get 3-3 in some instance. They could lead an army of skirmishers to glory over anything. So yes, I regard any '2' as very able and would be worried if a default value existed above that (you can in theory get >2 from traits but that is then situational)

Now I'm trying to image if Alexander the Great could, at his max experience, (in theory) conquer the Achaemenid Empire just with skirmishers )) - I wouldn't bet on it though.

Since the current method of only 3 values (0,1 and 2) could be not enough to simulate leveling a general's experience skill (though it could increase +1 roll after say 100 XP), the multiple D10 rolls can be replaced by just one "roll" of a random number between 0% and 100%, with a:
- 50% (to 50%) chance to win if generals are equally as good,
- 75% (to 25%) chance to win for the +1 star better general over the other,
- 87.5% (to 12.5%) chance to win for the +2 star better general over the other.
(not entirely sure my equivalence math is correct, so let me know)
Using this way of calculating RNG the game can have more than 3 values/stars (0,1 and 2) for generals. Anyway just a thought.

[loki100]

I'm probably guilty of a wee bit of over-statement

But the +3 added to other traits meant units often had a guarenteed roll around 8-10 so it really was too decisive.

[poesel71]

+1 from for generals gaining experience over time. That would make perfect sense. Also getting special traits - after fighting 10 battles in the silva hercynia you should know your way in a forest.

I think that would also do something for the story if there is some continuity and causality in a general. It makes a difference if you have to care for him and he's not just a bonus.

[lostangelonline]

I'm probably guilty of a wee bit of over-statement

But the +3 added to other traits meant units often had a guarenteed roll around 8-10 so it really was too decisive.

Should I understand that you can have a 3 star (attack or defense) general? (release version, not beta). I have only seen 2 star general so far, but I have only 170 hours of play time.
PS: indeed a 3 star general would have a 93.75% (to 6.25%) chance to win against a 0 star general (if all other troop stats are the same); 87.5% against 1 star, and 75% against 2 star general.

[loki100]

no, there are no generals >2 in the game. In theory, you can get one with 3 in specific circumstances if they are already a 2 and have a trait (say one of those that gives a +1 in clear terrain). All things being equal, these should be exceptionally rare - I've certainly never seen one.

[lostangelonline]

In theory, you can get one with 3 in specific circumstances if they are already a 2 and have a trait (say one of those that gives a +1 in clear terrain)

So far I've noticed that all general's skill bonuses (like the "+1 attack in clear terrain" you mentioned) are applied to the "total rating" (which is added to the roll result), they never add +1 die roll (and if so, they don't give the same result). Or this is not always the case?

[loki100]

you're right - wasn't paying attention, So yes '2' is as good as it can get for the leader roll protection.

[Morbio]

I would be against the improving of Generals as I think it would tip the game even more in favour of the big countries that can field more generals, support more armies and fight more battles. Having said that, I think being able to improve a 0-0 general would be a good idea.

[lostangelonline]

you're right - wasn't paying attention, So yes '2' is as good as it can get for the leader roll protection.

You were also right that, if you ever get a general with 2 rolls and +1 from skill (active for the terrain of the battle), the results should usually be very close or the same as a +3 rolls general (without skill). Though I haven't done the math to confirm.