Should the base cost of general and admiral be reduced?

[Limyx826]

As of 1.33, the capacity of general and admiral is scaled with force limit in addition of the previous limits from before. With the capacity increased, should the base cost be reduced?

As many players knows, one of the AI advantage to player is no cost for general and admiral. So now the capacity is increased and the AI is much smarter, they can hire as many as miltary leaders they want to the limit. I not sure the AI ever go over the capacity but now the advantage is a bit skewed towards the AI.

I am recommending the base cost reduce to 30 monarch point compared to 50 of the previous.
Note that I am recommending reducation of cost not removal as removal of the cost with give the players too much advantage to the players.

 

[Elu Thingol]

Well, im not realy good about balancing, but sure, if leaders (as a "rescource") is to be more common, the price should reflect that.

 

[Guibou]

If they reduce the amount of point to hire one they should also reduce the profesionalism it gives because it would be to easy to farm manpower from it at 30 points. There's already modifiers available that reduce the cost of hiring anyway.

I'd rather see (I think it was in I:R ?) an event, just like you can get for adviser, that says a soldier was impresive in the field and we promoted him to general. It could scale with army tradition gain from battle and the more you fight, the more promotion you get. One free general every 5-10 years wouldn't brake the game.

 

[windwalker14]

I believe reducing the cost of generals and admirals ( the game already has ways to do this) would really unbalance the game.
5 leaders = manpower or 250 mil points = manpower; seems like a good ratio here
army prof would become easier than is already is and the last 2 bonuses are very good imho
, so making it easier to beat the AI than it is now seems to reduce the quality of each difficulty level.

The AI ( is decent with the intentional limits put on it ) needs help in beating us. not the other way around.

 

[bokorthedust]

You get an extra slot per 80 FL. By the time you reach 80 FL, or going further, multiples of it, you can also afford higher level advisors for more MIL generation. It's not like you have to hire one every year, running you into a deficit of military points. I like the change and I think they balanced it well with the FL numbers, but there's no need to reduce leader costs.

 

[necro84]

Cost reduction would have one negative impact - with small FL I still would be able to hire many generals and keep the best one instead of random like now

 

[MachopPower69]

If they reduce the amount of point to hire one they should also reduce the profesionalism it gives because it would be to easy to farm manpower from it at 30 points. There's already modifiers available that reduce the cost of hiring anyway.

I'd rather see (I think it was in I:R ?) an event, just like you can get for adviser, that says a soldier was impresive in the field and we promoted him to general. It could scale with army tradition gain from battle and the more you fight, the more promotion you get. One free general every 5-10 years wouldn't brake the game.

Maybe if a General was 40 mil, the professionalism could be reduced by 50% like 0.5 prof per general rolled. Or rolling a general could decrease the professionalism like mercenaries do (That sounds counterintuitive but that could be an option if there was a second option to ask for a better roll. Better general chance for the cost of 4 prof)