Generals are still dying like flies in ground combat

[Nerisande]

Spending your leader limit on generals is a quite questionable decision, but this thread is not about it. I'll say only that the idea of making the first leader of each type not count towards leader limit is really good.

Let's assume that you don't want to have an another scientist and hired a general (or got some cool Paragon one with interesting backstory and fancy portrait). You've spent a lot of time with him, invested to his traits, probably he became an important person in your Council... And he just died in the middle of combat while your forces have complete superiority and you are winning.

I am okay with idea that the leaders can die, but for generals the chance to die is probably too big, too random and does not take in account the probable outcome of the battle. I can't imagine why the general, which is supposed to stay in headquarters far away from frontline, always rush forward like it's WH40K. This behavior can be true only if you have some specific society, where staying away from combat (even if you are a highly valuable officer) is absolutely unacceptable.

This leads to a strange situation, when you won't use your generals where they are most needed - in really big battles for fortress-worlds or Fallen Empire planets because the chance of losing the general in such battles is close to 100%.

 

[RoverStorm]

As far as I know, generals have a 5% chance of dying every time any army (of yours) is destroyed in combat.

Which is really darn high.

For comparison, admirals have I ~think~ a 10% chance per destruction of each "largest ship in their fleet". Which if you have a fleet with one cruiser and enough corvettes to cover a planet, well usually the nearest ships are targeted, which means that all those corvettes dying are at zero risk of killing your admiral.

 

[garyriley1982]

I think I agree, I’ve tested myself, and they seem to die in every ground combat, upping the amount of armies doesn’t make a difference.

 

[ASGeek2012]

I think I agree, I’ve tested myself, and they seem to die in every ground combat, upping the amount of armies doesn’t make a difference.

This sounds like a regression then. This was a problem in the past that (I thought) had been fixed.

 

[Kabian]

I think I agree, I’ve tested myself, and they seem to die in every ground combat, upping the amount of armies doesn’t make a difference.

this happens because everytime an army dies a roll happens to see if it kills the general.

More armies dont help solve the problem, in any case it makes it worse, because more armies dying = more rolls

 

[garyriley1982]

Hmm, then we need progressively bigger armies, and have it work like ships in fleets… but the bigger armies tend to be locked behind events, ethics, or rare techs. Perhaps we need progressively more powerful army techs like we have for ships. And maybe in a similar system as we have with fleets and defensive platforms

 

[forbiddenlake]

As far as I know, generals have a 5% chance of dying every time any army (of yours) is destroyed in combat.

The GENERAL_DEATH_CHANCE was actually reduced to 2% in 3.8.1

 

[Kabian]

The GENERAL_DEATH_CHANCE was actually reduced to 2% in 3.8.1

and pre-ftl civs shouldnt nuke themselves the moment they discover fission, but well, bugs be bugs

 

[Jman5]

Is it still the case that the general is attached to a single unit?

 

[Offe]

It's 2% divided by the number of units, so if you have 50 units and one dies its 2%/50 chance that the general dies, however if the entire army is wiped out then i think the general will die, but you can retreat when you are attacking

 

[Ryika]

Or in other words, if you don't want your generals to die, bring a huge stack of armies that's way bigger than what you need to conquer the planet.

 

[Nevars]

Do people not bring doomstack army to invade a planet?

The cost is negligence and the cap is very high so it's easily doable and should even be default thing any half decent player do tbh.

Do people think that ground combat is so easy that they just use subpar army and let's fleet bombardment carried them to victory?

It's kind of amusing seeing various people complaining about their general always die in battle and thay ground combat is bad when in reality it's them who is bad at ground combat.

 

[moyang]

Do people not bring doomstack army to invade a planet?

The cost is negligence and the cap is very high so it's easily doable and should even be default thing any half decent player do tbh.

Do people think that ground combat is so easy that they just use subpar army and let's fleet bombardment carried them to victory?

It's kind of amusing seeing various people complaining about their general always die in battle and thay ground combat is bad when in reality it's them who is bad at ground combat.

Man I brought 7k army to invade FE capital which had about 3.5k defenders, and my general died in first month. FML

 

[Nevars]

Man I brought 7k army to invade FE capital which had about 3.5k defenders, and my general died in first month. FML

That's very strange cuz I just recently invaded FE capital with 6k army and my general is fine.

Though my army is pure psionic army with some sprinkler of psionic avatar and titanic beast.

 

[Nakkivene]

I'm thinking just pick the combat disengagement traits. Army attrition is pretty high now and if your general only dies when an army dies, that should protect him a bit? At least before minerals are no longer a concern and you can just stack 50 space marines or smth

 

[Abdulijubjub]

Do people not bring doomstack army to invade a planet?

The cost is negligence and the cap is very high so it's easily doable and should even be default thing any half decent player do tbh.

Do people think that ground combat is so easy that they just use subpar army and let's fleet bombardment carried them to victory?

It's kind of amusing seeing various people complaining about their general always die in battle and thay ground combat is bad when in reality it's them who is bad at ground combat.

There is zero benefit to ground combat itself from bringing a larger force than you need to conquer the planet without going entirely through your reserves. If 100 troops will die/disengage, and the combat width is 8, then the battle will progress exactly the same with 108 armies as with 10,000. Ground battles are not like fleet battles, where overwhelming force makes victory cheaper.

The general death mechanic is not visible to the player; you have to read the code or experiment to discover it.

 

[Nevars]

There is zero benefit to ground combat itself from bringing a larger force than you need to conquer the planet without going entirely through your reserves. If 100 troops will die/disengage, and the combat width is 8, then the battle will progress exactly the same with 108 armies as with 10,000. Ground battles are not like fleet battles, where overwhelming force makes victory cheaper.

The general death mechanic is not visible to the player; you have to read the code or experiment to discover it.

My bad, using the doomstack term might be a bit misleading.

I do not means it in a sense of numerical superior but inferior quality, if you mananged to read my further comment you will be able to inferred that I means superior quality army such as psionic army and psionic avatar doomstack.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

My bad, using the doomstack term might be a bit misleading.

I do not means it in a sense of numerical superior but inferior quality, if you mananged to read my further comment you will be able to inferred that I means superior quality army such as psionic army and psionic avatar doomstack.

Whether you bring 250 good armies or 500 weak armies, if it's barely enough to win, the chance for the general to die is basically the same.

(Assuming the math is actually working as described in this thread) Disengage chance is the only thing that saves your general, or carrying twice as many armies as you need just because.

`product 1-.05/(250-k), k=0 to 242` gives a 17% chance of death every battle.

`product 1-.05/(500-k), k=0 to 492` gives a 19% chance of death every battle.

If half disengage, or you bring twice as many as you need, though, `product 1-.05/(500-k), k=0 to 250` gives a 3.5% chance of death. Keeping your general alive means bringing extra troops that are not rewarded by any other mechanic to appease a hidden RNG mechanic which is not shown anywhere in the UI.

 

[Nevars]

Whether you bring 250 good armies or 500 weak armies, if it's barely enough to win, the chance for the general to die is basically the same.

(Assuming the math is actually working as described in this thread) Disengage chance is the only thing that saves your general, or carrying twice as many armies as you need just because.

`product 1-.05/(250-k), k=0 to 242` gives a 17% chance of death every battle.

`product 1-.05/(500-k), k=0 to 492` gives a 19% chance of death every battle.

If half disengage, or you bring twice as many as you need, though, `product 1-.05/(500-k), k=0 to 250` gives a 3.5% chance of death. Keeping your general alive means bringing extra troops that are not rewarded by any other mechanic to appease a hidden RNG mechanic which is not shown anywhere in the UI.

In white room scenario sure.

But Stellaris is not symmetric, there are a lot of scenario that the enemy defence army might be strong enough to kill all of your regular assualt army, no matter how large a number there is while still fall to your uber army easily with only light casualty on your side.

Also the stronger army tend to successfully disengage more due to regular assualt army tend to die too fast before they can even attempt to disengage.

 

[Nerisande]

Or in other words, if you don't want your generals to die, bring a huge stack of armies that's way bigger than what you need to conquer the planet.

What do you mean by "huge stack"? 100k army power? 200k? 1 million?
A stack of several hundred armies with 12K+ power is enough to crack almostly any defence in singleplayer. But it is not enough to keep generals from inevitable death every time they encounter a FE garrison.