You Bastards! You Killed Henry V !

[unmerged(9895)]

so anyone have a good reason it does not tell you when the opposing leader dies in a battle.

seems to me like it would be a thing of great celebration.

why not even add in a morale boost when the opposing leader dies, or a morale loss when a leader of your nation dies in battle

you could even go as far as a +1 to stability or -1 to stability for the loss of a leader. What would of happened to the americans if George Washington would of died in battle? surely their hearts would of been broken.

or maybe a small minus to morale on all troops for 3-6 months once a leader dies

i dont know, i guess my question is that it seems like it is a perfect spot to have something happen, and i wonder why nothing was done, not even a message saying "your troops have taken the head of napoleon"

 

[Owl]

I think this could be good, but quite complicated to program perhaps.

For example, whether losing King Kenny affects stability much or at all would depend on the stats of the monarch (since we don't have "popularity" in the game) - and whether there was a good heir lined up.

A serious hit to morale for any army led by the deceased would make sense.

 

[Petrarca]

The loss of Ivan the Terrible or Henri III might even increase stability.

 

[unmerged(8576)]

Seems like a good idea, that it would lower morale. And what Owl said.

 

[unmerged(6816)]

If someone like Washington dies early in real history he would be forgotten as an obscure general and someone else would be the hero.

 

[Sabaron]

Or no one would be the hero and we'd all be drinking tea and speaking English right now.

 

[unmerged(8576)]

But you are speaking English...

 

[unmerged(9895)]

ok , but who said he had to die at the begining of the war, what if he died after valley forge, there certainly would of been some disastrous results for morale of military and civilians.

plus , anyone in eu2 who becomes a great leader is already established as a "great leader" so when your great leaders get replaced by the not-so-great its got to have some kind of effect on those around him

a lot of people think hitler was dead before world war II ended, but the word was never let out because the whole of germany would of collapsed if word had spread

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Actually Washington kinda sucked as a general (as a Politician I dunno), we might have a state or two in Canada if we didn't have a commander-in-chief who's strategies fit into Communist Russia's...
I doubt it tho.

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

At least he kpet the troops together, including the notoriusly unreliable militia, and thats no small accomplishment compared to many other leaders.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by HisMajestyBOB
At least he kpet the troops together, including the notoriusly unreliable militia, and thats no small accomplishment compared to many other leaders.

Did you not read the other thread. Mel Gibson won the war.
Those Auzzies, they set Scotland free, USA free, Who's next!

 

[unmerged(11008)]

Originally posted by Castellon

Did you not read the other thread. Mel Gibson won the war.
Those Auzzies, they set Scotland free, USA free, Who's next!

...The Irish!

Kwangtiger you're correct, Washington wasn't a very good general as far as tactics go. However, he did excude the leadership necessary to eventually win about as HisMajestyBob (that just sounds wrong ) points out.

Sort of like the Opposite of Moltke in WWI - had he kept his cool in September 1914, who knows?

 

[Duuk]

Pssst, Mel Gibson is an American.

Born in New York state, lived there till he was 11, then moved to Oz and got the nifty accent.

Duuk

 

[unmerged(8576)]

That would explain the movies..

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Duuk
Pssst, Mel Gibson is an American.

Born in New York state, lived there till he was 11, then moved to Oz and got the nifty accent.

Duuk

Well he calls himself an auzzie so who am I to question him!

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by Truskar
If someone like Washington dies early in real history he would be forgotten as an obscure general and someone else would be the hero.

Think of it not as Washington dieing, but that he suffered a serious injury and had to retire permanently from the field.

 

[Talmonious]

I think Washington was mainly a figurehead for the revolution. He did however have something most folks in America didn't have... Experience. I'd say that even if he wasn't a good general, his military experience was more experience than most folks in the militia.

 

[Kelvin]

KrisKannon

Slightly off topic, but I have to ask. Is the construction "would of" instead "would have" perhaps a new feature in American English or what? It keeps bugging me, as I've seen a number of American poster (mostly on Usenet) using it, and I've never heard of it and I'm majoring in English Language & Literature.

Hope I didn't offend you in any way.

 

[Castellon]

Re: KrisKannon

Originally posted by Kelvin
Slightly off topic, but I have to ask. Is the construction "would of" instead "would have" perhaps a new feature in American English or what? It keeps bugging me, as I've seen a number of American poster (mostly on Usenet) using it, and I've never heard of it and I'm majoring in English Language & Literature.

Hope I didn't offend you in any way.

Conversational English/American is much different from formal English you may be studying.

 

[Kelvin]

It still doesn't seem right to write it that way. OK, I'm probably biased because I'll be teaching English grammar for living in not so distant future, but still, I'm not using my own language in its "proper" form, but I certainly write it properly, even for my own class notes/whatever.