Leader/general frustration thread

[darianstarfire]

I like EU4 and believe it's one of my favorite games for sure and I've logged over 1000 hours on it. Yet, I have a problem with the leader system.

In 1.8 generals are significantly more important than they were in previous versions. When I first played the game in 1.1, I felt that having a great leader didn't make a huge difference mostly to do with the number of pips involved. Maneuver didn't seem to matter at all except for speed and maybe choosing where the defender fought.

Again in 1.8, maneuver now lets a general avoid river crossing but it's certain what bonuses a defender will get based on terrain. These were good changes.

The trouble is that getting a particular stat is still too randomly obtuse to be useful. I'll have 90 tradition with no bonuses and I'll click the button for general and get a 2 fire / 1 shock / 5 maneuver / 0 siege. At that point, maneuver doesn't do me almost any good because I'll get slaughtered during the shock and fire stages of battle on average. Shock, especially prior to military tech 10, is too important to not get. At this point, I'll use cheat codes to make sure I get a decent shock leader based on my tradition. I usually go tradition for shock divided by 4. So, 80 tradition would get net a 4 shock and I leave fire and maneuver to whatever is generated.

I hate doing that but the random generator makes me crazy. Shock is way too important in 1.8 to not get a decent shock leader based on tradition. Leader options should be closer to Victoria II where you have a pool of leaders to choose from based on tradition and national ideas.

It feels like the leader system is something leftover from EUIII like a lot of the other systems they've updated to make less obtuse.

 

[Achanei]

well, while I agree that generals are very powerful currently, I have to say your complaint is not entirely valid - even in a non-westernized muslim game I had enough mil MP leftover to at least roll for something with 7+ pips in the damage modifiers. It gets a bit random when you go lower in tech, but then, as long as you only compete with your neighbors, you can get away with slower miltech (and thus more MP for generals) because your neighbors fall behind just the same. it only gets tricky when the europeans show up, but taking on the european powerhouses as a less advanced nation is a challenge just for that reason, and westernization is viable even as a large empire now.
So it boils down to good positioning and timing to take on the big blobs when you are catching up, but when fighting uphill, general pips can just as well work in your favor, its not like the AI has always perfect generals...in fact, it is disappointing to see great powers with their 3/2 general sometimes, and you can capitalize on that very well if you stay on your toes.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Generals were actually stronger in 1.7! I was actually surprised to see their impact weakened due to less impact from dice variance.

 

[darianstarfire]

My problem is specifically with getting a 1 shock general with 80 tradition when most of your neighbors have 2-3 or if France is around, 6s in the 1400s. The general creation is far too unpredictable and that's the major problem I have with the system.

I just realized that I can make a mod do exactly what I want by using decisions with army tradition as a trigger. Wouldn't be hard to do but time-consuming to make.

 

[IIWW]

There are ideas, policies. Use them if You find them useful enough. You can influence it legaly, but without modifiers, yeah, this is very random.
EDIT: Summa summarum You can get +2 Fire, +3 Shock, + 2 Maneuver and +1 Siege, but thats very costly (there are 3 policies). But just get offencive idea, if it bugs You that much. It's +1 shock and +1 fire.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

I like that leaders are more powerful.

And the randomness is fine, too. Napoleons should be very rare.

Since leaders are generally more powerful now, even an above average leader can be useful.

 

[darianstarfire]

I like that leaders are more powerful.

And the randomness is fine, too. Napoleons should be very rare.

Since leaders are generally more powerful now, even an above average leader can be useful.

I agree that Napoleons should be very rare but I do want to be able to consistently predict what I have available to me. I'm the kind of guy that's almost willing to work no dice in a game like Axis and Allies so it doesn't surprise me that I don't like predictability very much.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

If my nation has cultivated a fine tradition of soldiers and generals, shouldn't that be reflected in the generals that get benefits in the stats that matter for combat?

It's especially ridiculous that fire pips have equal weighting before fire ever matters. What, that general is a genius with military tactics that haven't been invented yet? Where did he learn about proper musket drills and use of field artillery if muskets are never used, and cannon are still just used for sieges?

IMO, there should be extra weighting for shock pips, decreasing gradually with tech as the fire modifier increases, representing the growing role that gunpowder plays in warfare, and the adaptation to this style of warfare by commanders. And at 100 tradition, you should be virtually guaranteed 2-3 pips in fire and shock, or 4-5 pips in shock if fire hasn't become useful yet. Maneuver and siege should be important, but priority should be given to men who can handle themselves on the field of battle.

 

[Hopit]

I quess you'd consider me to be a massive dick, if I said I managed to get a 6/6/6/6 general after "only" using 900mil points?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I agree that Napoleons should be very rare but I do want to be able to consistently predict what I have available to me. I'm the kind of guy that's almost willing to work no dice in a game like Axis and Allies so it doesn't surprise me that I don't like predictability very much.

Its way, way too dependent on chance instead of army tradition. The variance at a given tradition value should be much lower. Even Napoleon himself has a nice quote about talent vs opportunity.

Especially early game when fire is largely junk, a high shock general is king. The problem with that setup is that you can roll shock 2 generals at 100 AT and shock 5 generals (rarely) at sub-20. However, there are lots of nations in the game, and each can roll a few generals. This means that in virtually every game, you will have minors rolling generals with performance comparable to a late-game Napoleon due to shock 4-5+ during the window where that's the only stat that does a lot of damage. 2% chance isn't big, but when you have 100 nations rolling a few times, they're going to get that 2% draw.

As it stands right now, EU IV has a few Napoleons on the map at any given moment during the early game due to the singular importance of shock and how the general rolls work. Having so much of the game riding on what is (for a single nation) relatively few RNG calls is bad design, in the same vein as ruler stats.

Late game when you have a glut of military points, ideas, and huge AT, it's easy to keep a stable of strong generals...which is exactly the time you don't need them in SP. They're still useful of course, but the RNG screwjob potential here is heavily biased towards early game, same with idiot monarch point weak monarchs for non-western nations.

 

[FrosT37]

I like EU4 and believe it's one of my favorite games for sure and I've logged over 1000 hours on it. Yet, I have a problem with the leader system.

In 1.8 generals are significantly more important than they were in previous versions. When I first played the game in 1.1, I felt that having a great leader didn't make a huge difference mostly to do with the number of pips involved. Maneuver didn't seem to matter at all except for speed and maybe choosing where the defender fought.

Again in 1.8, maneuver now lets a general avoid river crossing but it's certain what bonuses a defender will get based on terrain. These were good changes.

The trouble is that getting a particular stat is still too randomly obtuse to be useful. I'll have 90 tradition with no bonuses and I'll click the button for general and get a 2 fire / 1 shock / 5 maneuver / 0 siege. At that point, maneuver doesn't do me almost any good because I'll get slaughtered during the shock and fire stages of battle on average. Shock, especially prior to military tech 10, is too important to not get. At this point, I'll use cheat codes to make sure I get a decent shock leader based on my tradition. I usually go tradition for shock divided by 4. So, 80 tradition would get net a 4 shock and I leave fire and maneuver to whatever is generated.

I hate doing that but the random generator makes me crazy. Shock is way too important in 1.8 to not get a decent shock leader based on tradition. Leader options should be closer to Victoria II where you have a pool of leaders to choose from based on tradition and national ideas.

It feels like the leader system is something leftover from EUIII like a lot of the other systems they've updated to make less obtuse.

When I'm ahead in tech and have excess military points, I like to spam 4-6 generals and then keep the best of them.

On top of that, if you have high tradition, it's almost certain you'll get a 3 stars general among them.