I don't think it's possible to have a general who is worse than no general.
Quick questions / Quick answers Thread
- Thread starter Headshotcatcher
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Taken from the wiki, the leadership traits for having no general:
Attack -2
Defense -2
Morale -20%
Organization -20%
Speed -10%
Experience -50%
Attack -2
Defense -2
Morale -20%
Organization -20%
Speed -10%
Experience -50%
Also check the tooltip on the "no general" picture. It lists the effects.
I wouldn't care to definitively say that "Pisspoor Unfit: Attack -5, morale -50%" is better than no general.
He'd still be better at defending than no general, just don't expect him to lead the charge to Paris.
A follow up of my own -- does anybody know the formula that applies to this?
Some generals are worse than no general. It really just depends on the situation and whether or not you engage in general swapping.
To confirm: Am I right in thinking there's no way to remedy a "I have a bazillion brigades with 10 men each" situation except wait for them to all reinforce?
I have a non-gamey Lux (A-L Revolt 1850s?), what to do with? France won't ally, and I have no military, so I need a GP to conquor me some land.
You could theoretically disband said brigades and raise new ones; that might well be faster.
Depends how big your country is. It could take ages to march them over to where they are needed.
Also, after being disbanded, they may not be able to be recruited again. In my experience simply waiting is best.
What is necessary to trigger Italian unification? Playing as France, without the whole peninsula under my influence, the Garibaldi event just fired in 1853 and unified all of Italy outside the part owned by Austria. I thought it was much harder to unify Italy than this?
Garibaldi's Redshirts are a special kind of rebels to ensure Italy forms fairly quickly. Remember that it was historically unified in 1861. Germany is much more difficult to unify.
And never get Garibaldi and Gaddhafi confused.
And never get Garibaldi and Gaddhafi confused.
Unfortunately, in the particular circumstance of that game, that wouldn't have helped. (I'd made the mistake of declaring an unlikely-to-be-quick war without first getting my military supply industries up and running.)
That's a tricky question. If you can afford it, obviously, max it all the time. If you can't, to the best of my knowledge, keeping the military spending slider does not affect combat effectiveness. Sure, it'll make your soldiers mad, reduce your overall pool, and maybe even starve a few, but the stockpile (i.e. supplies) is more important from a strictly combat perspective. However, it could keep you from reinforcing your army, as soldier POPs choose new professions.