Diplomats take time to move between courts; why not do the same with leaders between armies? 
Diplomats take time to move between courts; why not do the same with leaders between armies?![]()
Yes. I was agreeing with you guys.I uh... weren't we just discussing that?
Yes. I was agreeing with you guys.
Diplomats take time to move between courts; why not do the same with leaders between armies?![]()
Whilst I like the idea, I'm not sure it's possible. Wouldn't that mean you can have armies in limbo? They have to be in one province or another, not somewhere in between the two.I also think that armies which marched halfway to another province should march back first, not teleport on the province instantly. So if it'd take 30 days to get to the next province, and after 29 days you cancel the move, the army needs another 29 days to march back to the original province.
Whilst I like the idea, I'm not sure it's possible. Wouldn't that mean you can have armies in limbo? They have to be in one province or another, not somewhere in between the two.
You advance less in military technology because you hire Napoleon Bonaparte...when you already have four other generals, each with their own strategies, tactics, and demands. Some of the resources/focus devoted to your military has to go towards keeping them all in check and coordinating their actions; this is represented by a small but stacking penalty to military points.So let me get this straight: You advance less in military technology because you hire Napoleon Bonaparte. Yeah, makes sense alright...
This is the pinnacle of gamey mechanics in Paradox games. Oh, how much fun I'll be having constantly juggling the same leader to fight successive battles in three different continents.
So let me get this straight: You advance less in military technology because you hire Napoleon Bonaparte. Yeah, makes sense alright...
I've never really understood why generals cannot be physical units on the map in EU games. Sure, it takes a bit of micromanagement, but IMO that's not a bad thing for such a powerful factor. It would solve this whole insta-teleport thingy completely.
I've never really understood why generals cannot be physical units on the map in EU games. Sure, it takes a bit of micromanagement, but IMO that's not a bad thing for such a powerful factor. It would solve this whole insta-teleport thingy completely.
You get one free general, not four. Many other generals also were active in wars throughout Europe during Napoleon's time and yet France was the leading power in military technology at the time. They didn't detract from the advancement of technology, if anything, they contributed to it. Napoleon didn't teleport to Americas, Spain or wherever when a battle needed to be fought. He also didn't lead those armies just by himself. Same goes for other grand military powers.You advance less in military technology because you hire Napoleon Bonaparte...when you already have four other generals, each with their own strategies, tactics, and demands. Some of the resources/focus devoted to your military has to go towards keeping them all in check and coordinating their actions; this is represented by a small but stacking penalty to military points.
EDIT: Apparently I hadn't refreshed this thread for a while before posting...
I very much doubt that Bonaparte himself ate up 100% of the resources available to whole French commanders, including admirals. Because the game begins penalizing if you recruit just another commander.No, you devote military resources to Bonaparte's needs, thereby depriving other areas of military importance of those resources.
Heck, we cannot even have the historical commander numbers available to those countries. I'm not asking for HoI numbers but just 3-4 including admirals?!!
Curiously, the game files show that some countries (not looking at anyone in particular, heh, France?) have huge numbers of pre-set historical generals, the same as in EU4. During the Napoleonic Wars, you have all the big names including His Majesty the Emperor, but also half the Marshalate plus lots of others. If you start the game in 1805, does it seriously expect you to either take half their batons away and fight all your battles with the Emperor, Murat, and Villeneuve or suffer a constant decrease (!) in military power? Really, I hope the leader cap is scaled to a country's base tax or something like that. Or better still, remove the leader cap and tie leader support to money, not power, like advisors (though that might give awkward situations if you have a leader who is also an advisor). I always considered power to be an abstract depiction of the political head-banging you need to do to force your bureaucracy to accept major changes; supporting a leader and his staff, even if it's Murat, shouldn't fall under that.
Isn't that just 'names' though? I mean, isn't it simply the case that there are simply more French generals in the history books compared to, for example, ottomens?
You might argue that there are more big names because the Revolution produced an unique officer corps that rewarded brilliance and boldness which is precisely the kind of character you want in your history books, while their adversaries, say, Wellington, Blücher, Kutuzov, Archduke Charles and so on were solid generals and remarkably dull fellows.
It was like that in EU2, you know. It wasn't so great whenever it turned out that your super-general spawned on a small island colony on the other side of the world. This was particularly fun as France and having Napoleon spawn in the Pacific.
There's also the question of what to do when an army containing a general is wiped out. Obviously it is a design decision from Paradox not to have generals disappear as soon as they lose a battle. Which is honestly quite historically accurate.