Leaders survive stack annihilation - bug or feature?

[L G]

As a one time huge player of MP, i definitely think Smn is correct. Though i think random death should still happen it definitely sucked worse than when you lost your stack.

You at LEAST should have a pretty high percentage (60%?) of losing your leader if you lose your stack. Its honestly one of the best things when conducting a huge war and you let your greatest leader get attacked and his army annihilated. If that happens you should lose your leader not gain him back. I know it was great sending a couple armies chasing a smaller army to destroy his leader, which was even the point of the war some times... And after losing that leader I've even seen nations surrender.

Please reconsider heh.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Sounds like that's needed yes, what a shame.

It's really quite funny, my MP experience was so the opposite, losing a leader with stack annihilation was deserved, losing the leader randomly in battle was the suckiest thing ever. I seriously hope Johan reconsiders this.
Reasoning: Just try killing a good leader from a good warlord like Tonio or King John. It just doesn't happen. It just doesn't.

I'd like to say i like the change, and not because of the lag, but exactly because of the MP perspective. I wouldn't like it with historic leaders, but with bought ones, its good.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Yeah, one of my worst moments in Eu2 MP was losing frederick in his second battle due to random death. That was simply not fun and ruined the game.

On the other hand losing Suvorov to a huge coaltion army in Holland after he marches across Europe and takes down 3X as many enemies in his last glorious battle was one of the better times playing MP.

I am pretty mystified why they would chose to give random chance far more importance than being able to spend time and effort to attrition down an uber leaders stack and finish him off

The thing is, in EU 2, you had no chance of getting second Frederick. In EU III you have. Same for trying to kill enemy uber leader. Yes, you lose a lot of troops, but you gain tradition that way. I think it will work well.

 

[unmerged(64768)]

Actually, this is historical. It was the exception, not the rule, when a leader died in battle.

Most leaders had an entourage that would flee before things were completely lost. They didnt see their army falling to pieces and then run into battle to martyr themselves.

Napoleon didnt die at Waterloo.

 

[minority]

Although I think explorers should have a lower chance of surviving stack annhilation, conquistadors should be a different breed.

Aren't there cases of Spaniards surviving with the help of the locals and then being rescued later by relief ships?

cheers

 

[Snake IV]

Although I think explorers should have a lower chance of surviving stack annhilation, conquistadors should be a different breed.

Aren't there cases of Spaniards surviving with the help of the locals and then being rescued later by relief ships?

cheers

There is a chance, but it is much lower than if it had happened in Portugal for example.

 

[unmerged(59737)]

Explorers should NOT survive stack destruction, but they are a special case. I suppose that most generals would surrender and be ransomed but explorers can’t be ransomed by the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[grumbold]

A smaller chance of random death but the reasonable possibility of capture for ransom when decisively losing a battle would be good.

 

[knul]

I suppose that most generals would surrender and be ransomed but explorers can’t be ransomed by the Atlantic Ocean.

Maybe if Neptune has some money woes?

Your suggestion is a good one, hopefully implemented in 1.1 or later patch.

 

[smn_]

A smaller chance of random death but the reasonable possibility of capture for ransom when decisively losing a battle would be good.

The way it should be:
Enemy stack gets annihilated ->
33% chance general/monarch dies
33% chance general/monarch escapes
34% chance general/monarch is captured, which launches a series of events:
"You have captured enemy general/monarch X, what do you want to do?"
A Demand ransom
B Imprison him for now, decide later
C Release him as a gesture of goodwill
D Off with his head

Ransom depending on generic 'goodness' of the leader and biggest for monarchs. If the other side doesn't pay ransom, the leader stays imprisoned/dies.

And admirals that sink at a non-coastal province should always perish. Good chances to survive at a friendly coast, small chances to survive at hostile/uninhabited coast.

But I don't think the engine is moddable enough to allow this.

 

[Grubnessul]

what we really need is an event when a general returns to chop of his head, who wants a general who losses a battle?

 

[contecorti]

I totally agree with SMN what's the point of having leaders which always survive if your stack is annihilated.It's not only unrealistic but makes the game more arcade and cut som strategy to the game.
I would also really like the proposal of SMN of having a chance to lose a ganeral,escape and capture general, with the option to release him or cut his head.
About the explorer it is a lot worst than i thought because as other people pointed out you can just use one explorer and discover all the world.
Please fix it!

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

It's really quite funny, my MP experience was so the opposite, losing a leader with stack annihilation was deserved, losing the leader randomly in battle was the suckiest thing ever. I seriously hope Johan reconsiders this.
Reasoning: Just try killing a good leader from a good warlord like Tonio or King John. It just doesn't happen. It just doesn't.

Well, my EU2 MP experience was the opposite of yours. Losing a leader happened primarily through random die rolls in battle (which sucks, but those are the breaks), and secondarily when lag between my computer and the host caused my retreat order to arrive just one or two "ticks" of combat too late resulting in stack annihilation. The cases where I was so very badly pressed that there was nowhere to retreat and I lost leaders due to being outgeneralled were incredibly rare - there's always somewhere to retreat unless your realm is as good as gone..

Overall, I like the change - it reduces the need to watch armies with leaders in like a hawk, ready to retreat and break combat on a second's notice (it doesn't eliminate that need, of course, since you'll in most cases want to preserve regiments for auto-reinforcing, just lessen it) and makes lag a non-issue where leader survival is concerned.

 

[smn_]

Well, my EU2 MP experience was the opposite of yours. Losing a leader happened primarily through random die rolls in battle (which sucks, but those are the breaks), and secondarily when lag between my computer and the host caused my retreat order to arrive just one or two "ticks" of combat too late resulting in stack annihilation. The cases where I was so very badly pressed that there was nowhere to retreat and I lost leaders due to being outgeneralled were incredibly rare - there's always somewhere to retreat unless your realm is as good as gone..

I have a reasonably similar experience in terms of leader loss, but I draw different conclusions from it. The reason for not losing them more often were mostly due to restraint, careful picking of fights and good planning of reinforcements. Also I have more than enough experience of fighting under enormous leader disadvantage then turning the catastrophe around by annihilating the invading superleader. In my opinion the risk of getting a few days of lag is something one needs to prepare for, instead or risking it all to see one more round of combat.

What I'm worried about with this change is that it removes the sanctions from risk-taking. Why not sneak your monarch-superleader to Mexico with 25k and sneak-dow Spain? You can reinforce him magically with the regiment reinforce thing, and if Spain brings the sufficient troops to Mexico to counter, well, your monarch is going to be safe even if you lost the naval superiority. Likewise, where is the risk with invading the British isles now? Basically with this death-evasion capability one risks a whole lot less when planning offensive operations. Also, no more need for daring rescue operations.

Of course there are a few new factors in EU3 which even the score somewhat. With slowly replenishing garrisons an EU2-like superleader blitz is much less possible. Another factor is that the opponent will gather a lot of MT when fighting the superleader so having a superleader is not as clear an advantage as it used to be.

Summa summarum, I don't like the change since it doesn't penalize over-risky operations, it removes some of what was the best tension of EU2 warfare and also it's somewhat unrealistic.

Oh yes and in EU2 MP, there still exists that a lag-related bug that occasionally 'ghosts' an army when retreating. That's the suckiest way to lose a leader, random death coming next.

 

[unmerged(27108)]

Actually, this is historical. It was the exception, not the rule, when a leader died in battle.

Most leaders had an entourage that would flee before things were completely lost. They didnt see their army falling to pieces and then run into battle to martyr themselves.

Napoleon didnt die at Waterloo.

I do agree with that.

It also open more option :

A group of players could sign a treaty that says that a defeated leader couldn't be re-used. What would be funny is the end of this treaty sometime in the game.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

What I'm worried about with this change is that it removes the sanctions from risk-taking. Why not sneak your monarch-superleader to Mexico with 25k and sneak-dow Spain? You can reinforce him magically with the regiment reinforce thing, and if Spain brings the sufficient troops to Mexico to counter, well, your monarch is going to be safe even if you lost the naval superiority.

That specific example - as applied to monarch-superleaders - is much less clearcut. Losing your monarch in battle, even a trivial skirmish, can be anything from a trivial nuisance to a catastrophy depending on the outcome of the succession and the overall strength of the opposition you are facing. Evaluating the overall benefits of using a super monarch in war vs the risk of him dying is non-trivial and very much dictated by circumstance. However, scratch the monarch from the equation and talk just about an ordinary general, and you are right. I still prefer having my best (non-monarch) leaders on the right front to start with but your milage may vary.

Likewise, where is the risk with invading the British isles now? Basically with this death-evasion capability one risks a whole lot less when planning offensive operations. Also, no more need for daring rescue operations.

I'll admit that losing the daring rescue operations for leaders is a shame - but it is a price I'm happy to pay overall. There's still the daring rescue operations for cut off regiments left. Particularly before regimental camps become available losing a significant portion of your regiments can seriously crimp your style, even if you have the manpower and money to replace them.

In EU2 losing an invasion force in the British Isles wasn't that big a deal - assuming you had the manpower, you could stamp a new effective army out of the ground in no time flat from a few high-recruitment provinces. That's no longer the case.

Still, let's see how it works out in practice in MP.

 

[unmerged(49182)]

I have to say that I pretty much agree with Smn.

 

[vertinox]

Leaders have random chance to die in combat.

Not just guaranteed cause army surrendered.

Shouldn't leaders still die if their ships die? It would be really impossible for Christopher Columbus to to row back by himself.

Also shouldn't distance be a factor?