Combat Dice Rolls and Generals

[Iceking688]

I believe that the Generals in your armies should not just add the total number of pips to your overall combat roll, I believe that how good generals are (1 star, 2 star, 3 star) should also affect this.

Currently combat in the game is same regardless of whether you have a leader or not i.e. a random dice rolls from a 0 to a 9.

What I propose is the following:
An army without a leader works the same way as it does currently
1 Star Generals cannot roll anything below a 2
2 Star Generals cannot roll anything below a 4
3 Star Generals cannot roll anything below a 7

 

[magnusvejby]

Sorry this gotta be an respectfully disagree from me, the way i think of the dice rolls is the random events that happens in the middel of a battel, and still your generals stats adds up in the big picture, because the dice rolls, and the generals fire and shock stats gets added up, and maneuver helps with river corssings.

So sorry this gotta be a -1 from me.

 

[ThePatriotOfDreumel]

Sorry this gotta be an respectfully disagree from me, the way i think of the dice rolls is the random events that happens in the middel of a battel, and still your generals stats adds up in the big picture, because the dice rolls, and the generals fire and shock stats gets added up, and maneuver helps with river corssings.

So sorry this gotta be a -1 from me.

-1 River crossing penalty for me too.

 

[Iceking688]

Sorry this gotta be an respectfully disagree from me, the way i think of the dice rolls is the random events that happens in the middel of a battel, and still your generals stats adds up in the big picture, because the dice rolls, and the generals fire and shock stats gets added up, and maneuver helps with river corssings.

So sorry this gotta be a -1 from me.

My whole reasoning behind this suggestion came from this thought process:

[QUOTE[Surely a leader in charge of an army no matter how bad they are would prevent these random bad events from happening.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps instead of this it could instead be more a weighted system where better generals CAN still roll badly but it wouldn't be very likely.

For example
- A 1 star general would roll badly 40% of the time.
- A 2 star general would roll badly 30% of the time.
- A 3 star general would roll badly 20% of the time.

 

[zocke1r]

the thing is that their skill already affects every single dice roll as they add the difference in skill to every roll, if they would implement your idea generals would become absolutely overpowered, so what exactly would be the point of it, what would the game gain from this?

 

[magnusvejby]

My whole reasoning behind this suggestion came from this thought process:

[QUOTE[Surely a leader in charge of an army no matter how bad they are would prevent these random bad events from happening.

Perhaps instead of this it could instead be more a weighted system where better generals CAN still roll badly but it wouldn't be very likely.

For example
- A 1 star general would roll badly 40% of the time.
- A 2 star general would roll badly 30% of the time.
- A 3 star general would roll badly 20% of the time.[/QUOTE]


Yes as zocke1r wrote, the generals skills is making up for bad rolls, or just making good rolls better. So sorry still a no with your new system :/

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Double counting generals and putting even more battle dependence on a random factor that's rolled less frequently is a direct request to make strategy less meaningful in a strategy game.

No thanks.