Being a warmonger in most of my games, I've been thinking about this particular debatible topic.

the general is capable of doing 2 critical things to a military production city.

25% boos in production when making units
+2 exp to each unit produced

since the barracks is dropping to +3 exp, they will miss that critical promotion we are all used to, be it medic or the specific anti-unit promotions.
so the +2 there would be immediately helpful to every unit produced.

on the other hand, the 25% would mean more units in a shorter time... resulting in a bigger but less promoted SOD.

I have a hard time seeing how attaching it as a warlord could be more useful than either of those 2 options... the first 4-6 generals should be dedicated to those 2 uses, assuming you have 2 production cities and the capitol which could be used for serious unit production.

I guess the big point in a warlord's favor would be when they say "the UNITS attached"... could be similar to armies from civ3.. will definately have to see how that plays out and factors into this.

well that is where I'm sitting so far, hopefully we can get a good discussion going on the subject

NaZ

The value of the GG as a warlord seems to be about 40 XP. That's going to dominate the value of 2 XP per unit, unless you build an awful lot of units. Plus you get the benefit immediately.

My feeling is that using GGs to buff up an army immediately before it marches off to war (or in the middle of the war) is going to be the most common and powerful tactic.

well the info we have now is 20 xp divided amongst the stack. so for 10 units would be an instant buff.. but unless they came out of a barracks it would be a moot point. the other end of that.. they would have all just gained enough xp to spawn the GG.. so would probably be up for promotion anyway.

we wont know till we play with it, but if the warlord is joined with multiple units.. and can actually function the way armies did.. we would have higher level of survivability for the units bound to it.

very eager to see how that plays out.. this discussion will have a lot more information over the next couple of days.

NaZ

well the info we have now is 20 xp divided amongst the stack.

I think that's in addition to the benefits to the warlord unit itself. I could be confused about that.

I don't think the Warlord unit itself gets any Extra experience, it seems to only get
1-Access to new promotions (not actually getting them, but it can use the burst of experience)

2-Free Upgrades to new unit types

3-Possibly a few Free promotions

I don't think the Warlord gets any Additional experience on top of what it gets as part of the stack (it probably gets the biggest share though)


As for what to do with the General that you Don't use for a Warlord / Tech or Golden age

I think it depends on how much experience you are getting already

Assuming you have a Barracks

a General is equivalent to Vassalage or Theocracy (or a Stable for Mounted units) or the Pentagon, or the UB of the Mongols or the Spanish for specific unit types.

So Count how many "General Equivalents" you have [Barracks is assumed] the key points come at

1... allows 2 promotions
3.. allows 3 promotions for Charismatics
4...allows 3 promotions for Everyone else
5.. allows 4 promotions for Charismatics
7...allows 4 promotions for Everyone else

Another thing to Remember is that this is your military city... so after Heroic Epic (+100%), another +25% won't be that impressive.

I'd say using the First one for a Warlord would give you one solid unit, able to help rack up xp safely and immediately

to get the next one, which should either go into an
XP bonus (for the second promotion)
OR
+% to Production (if you are mostly using Stable+Mounted units, or Vassalage, or Theocracy...ie you are already getting the Promotion)

So whenever the next GG will give you a new Promotion level from your Military city, do that, otherwise put it in as the Production booster.

If the Production Booster is already In the Military City, and a new General won't get a new promotion. Then...
Choose between Warlord or
General=easier for new units to get new promotion/opportunity to stop using Theocracy or Vassalage.

I tell you what, I wont be wasting my first ever General on a +2 xp bonus or a +25% military production, tech or golden age. I will be using it as a Warlord - even if it is just to see how it turns out.

I do hope that there are lots of Generals in a typical war game, especially considering the number of uses they have (Military Academy and Military Advisor in every city - or many in one, etc).

I think that's in addition to the benefits to the warlord unit itself. I could be confused about that.
My interpretation is that if you put 2 units on a tile, then put the General there and click on the Warlord button, a menu appears and you choose who to attach the General to. The 20 xp is then divided between them both - so in this case it would be 10 xp each (resulting in 2 units in total, with the Warlord attached to one of them). I think there was some mention though of the Warlord getting free promotions and or something, so maybe it isn't so clear cut.

I got Warlords today, and in a Barbarian Hordes game, I have gained three of them. The only use you have for them in that situation is to burn them on Warlord units. They tend to die when you use them against anything under 75 % odds...

exactly gnarfflinger.

units are far too expendable to rely on a unit to survive long enough to take advantage of the free promotions a warlord offers. but if you use a great general to produce either of its in city effects it will last you the entire length of the game!!! Its too bad that we cannot use the warlord to produce an "army" like in civ 3 but what can we do about it (nothing) so atleast firaxis gave us those other options, otherwise it would be a useless unit that we'd never like to see

NaZ

Actually, it's the only use you have for one in the Barbarian Hordes scenario...

Actually, it's the only use you have for one in the Barbarian Hordes scenario...

well, you get more generals and they die sooner.
looks like barbarian horde to me;)

Some of my warlord won't see combat. I'll give the warlord's 20 xp to a horse unit and give it commando promotion. The unit will repeatedly pillage and retreat to a mountain where a guerilla promoted friend is waiting providing cover. Keep doing it until gunship available and then do it more :D

well now that i've had the ability to use it a bit I have to say the BEST use especially in MP is to build the building that gives you the +25% to military production.

more production = more units = more wars = more exp = more generals = more production etc etc etc

after you get a few of those buildings set up you drop more generals into those cities for the +2 exp pushing the post barracks to an actual promotion. if your also running either civic that gives you exp bonus you get closer to their 2nd promotion.

running a charismatic civ is awesome for this warmongering strat.. and seems even more powerful than the aggressive trait. happiness to deal with warmongering, cheaper promotions means a promotion right out of the barracks.. and 100% boost to general emergence makes your military production stronger and stronger over time

NaZ

i would rather have better promoted units than more units (in single player)

exactly hermit.. in single player the xp is more valuable. in mp the building really shines because you MUST crank units out as fast as possible to even survive a war with another player.

the % magnification applies to whipping.. making it all the more powerful :D

NaZ

well now that i've had the ability to use it a bit I have to say the BEST use especially in MP is to build the building that gives you the +25% to military production.

more production = more units = more wars = more exp = more generals = more production etc etc etc

NaZ

I only have very little experience with MP, so I will argue for SP aspect only:

Your point about production is well taken, but don't forget in SP, it is crucial to have early war to take cities from enemy. This move has 2 effect: give you more city, save production (not building settler etc..) and cripp;le the enemy atthe same stroke (less city). It would be important to use the GG as warlord to ensure easy taking of anemy city (early too, since you can start attacking with less units than without the warlord). This move, in the long run, gives you a bigger boost to production than just dedicating the GG for city production in the first place, I would think.

Just look at the guides for any high level gams, almost all players agree that early war is obligatory, to negate the advantage that the AI has. The GG would be a big help used as warlord for this strategy.

My interpretation is that if you put 2 units on a tile, then put the General there and click on the Warlord button, a menu appears and you choose who to attach the General to. The 20 xp is then divided between them both - so in this case it would be 10 xp each (resulting in 2 units in total, with the Warlord attached to one of them). I think there was some mention though of the Warlord getting free promotions and or something, so maybe it isn't so clear cut.
This is exactly how it works. Warlords get no free promotions merely access to a couple of special promotions. All are good but the ones I'm most interested in are Medic III (+15% healing to all tiles within one of the warlord, Leadership (+50% experience from combat), and to a less extent Combat VI (+25% strength)

Honestly the key to using great generals effectively is to not get sentimental when you create a warlord unit. Take the +20 xp and use him like you would your first CR III axe. No good great general dies in bed if he can help it :viking: .

I think I like the +2xp on my HE city best, being able to kick out 2 promotion units without worrying about civics is very nice. Often I have that one city pumping out units while my others focus on buildings, it would help a lot. And once I get WP built in that city, I can start pushing CR3 maces for upgrades with only one of the +2 xp civics.

The immediate experience bonus to a stack is probably the best way to use a great general. A stack of beefed experience units roll over the enemy, immediately producing even more great generals with very little time. This seems particularly powerful for an imperial civ or a charismatic civ, that both take advantage of experienced stacks a bit better (charismatic more promotions than typically, and imperial will produce more great generals making a nice cycle). This is taken purely from a MP perspective, which I play most frequently. In SP, I don't see it being any differently, though, as taking over early cities is far better than a small little boost to experience or production in only one city. In fact, I'd say that the +2 experience and +25% boost should perhaps even be global, or buffed if only 1 city...it seems far too weak in my eyes.

I would agree that Charismatic civs have more to gain from the immediate use of the warlord on a unit. For example, let's you're playing as Carthage and you get your general. You make a warlord out of a Numidian Cavalry (replaces horse archer), and turn it into a commando. Now you have a unit with 7 strength that can use enemy roads, and has a 50% bonus against melee units (so spearmen aren't going to help against it much), and that's still fairly conservative. I have no idea how many promotions 20 xp and charimatic would get you, but based on ekanata's post, this seems like it would be the minimum.

Once you have enough experience you can give it leadership, at which point it should remain quite powerful for a long time. At max strength bonuses, it will be up to 8.75 strength, and more like 11.25 strength against melee units. Until you get up to knights, this unit would be unstoppable. Musketmen simply wouldn't be able to catch up with it. Melee units would be useless against it. Cavalry up until knights wouldn't have the strength to bring it down. Since this unit would be so powerful so early, it would have time to get a lot of promotions while fighting easy units. For example, mobility, morale, and march. With those, it would still be useful well into the middle ages, for destroying terrain improvements and stealing workers. Once railroads come along, having a commando with this kind of mobility would just be devastating, assuming you can keep it away from knights and other cavalry which with Flanking I & II, and Tactics, seems likely (if it doesn't win, it still has a 50% withdrawl chance, and if it withdraws, it can use mobility and morale to move into terrain where the knight can't follow, faster than the knight could follow anyway).

Charismatic leaders definitely have a lot to gain from having an ultra-upgraded unit like this running around causing mayhem, or at least 25% more than everyone else. As for non-charismatic leaders, particularly imperialistic leaders, having the 25% extra production in a city will help get all the cities pumping out an army, and that will lead to more generals, which will lead to a stronger and stronger supply of troops, etc. The +2 experience is really only good for two things. Either you've gotten the 25% bonus on all the cities pumping out military already, and now you want them to put out higher level units, or you're playing defensively, and want a strong military that won't tax your treasury much, if at all. The +2 experience is really only worth +10% strength, if that, so it's like a 10% production bonus, compared to a 25% bonus of unit strength overall.

At max strength bonuses, it will be up to 8.75 strength, and more like 11.25 strength against melee units. Until you get up to knights, this unit would be unstoppable.

Elephants would be 12 vs 8.75 against it and pikemen 12 against 11.25, I'd prefer those as counters. Still quite a nasty unit, but you'd need to watch for those and use your mobility to keep from getting caught.

The +2 experience is really only worth +10% strength, if that, so it's like a 10% production bonus, compared to a 25% bonus of unit strength overall.

I think it's worth a lot more than that because it opens up the 2nd (3rd for aggressive) level promotions. It's not the straight difference between combat I and combat II that I would want it for, it's being able to produce medics (especially things like medic scouts who can't really get xp), cats with accuracy, the +25% unit strength of starting with CR II instead of I (which makes it much easier to win that first fight against a longbow), +25% unit strength of starting with shock or cover, and for an aggressive civ +25% from formation (formation pikes will slow even cavalry down a lot). I often run theocracy instead of organized or free religion for this, so using 1 great general in my HE city effectively opens a line of civics choices.

Also, since I'd use it in my HE city, the city will be producing at 200% from HE so adding a genral would make it 225% total, which is only a 12.5% increase in overall unit production, not 25%.

Elephants would be 12 vs 8.75...

Ah yes, I forgot about their bonus. However, it can get formation (high promotability from Charismatic and Leadership), which brings it closer to 12 vs 10, there's still the 50% chance to withdraw, and elephants are fairly slow. Assuming it's not absolutely necessary to use it on the elephant, then the elephant can be treated like a later age unit. It can just be avoided. If the elephant does manage to miraculously hunt it down, it still has good odds of getting away.


...against it and pikemen 12 against 11.25, I'd prefer those as counters.


Which with shock would be 12 against 12.5 with the Numidian Cavalry having a 50% chance to withdraw if the fight goes bad. I wouldn't want to try it, but in a pinch the odds are in favor of the Numidian Cavalry. Both of these, units, however, are more defensive than offensive. They aren't of much use if you want to hunt down the elusive Numidian warlord, due to their slowness (it gets 3 moves, so it can destroy something and move twice, well beyond what it needs to stay away from either of these). They can be avoided until you're ready to upgrade to a gunship.

Knights present the first genuine threat to our Numidian warlord. On smoothish terrain, a knight has a chance of attacking the warlord when the warlord doesn't want to fight. If it tries to destroy more than 1 building per turn, or moves ineffciently due to not knowing where are roads are, or runs out of actions with a knight in range, then knights might be able to catch up to it.

If it has sentry, it can see at least two squares away. If it ends its turn away from a road in a safe spot, nothing will be able to hurt it, except for a knight. If it ends its turn and can see a knight, and the terrain between it is flat, the knight can attack it (so it can wander into a trap). Only the knight can do this to it. It would have to move right up next to a pikemen or elephant before ending its turn if it were to be attacked by them (and since it can see them, that wouldn't happen). The unit will be uncatchable without something as fast as a knight. Horse archers could catch it, but you'd need a very large stack of them, possibly several large stacks, devoted to hunting it down in order to get it. The level of promotions you can get by the time you can make knights (like mobility) also improve their odds of catching up to it, compared to horse archers.


Still quite a nasty unit, but you'd need to watch for those and use your mobility to keep from getting caught.


Exactly. In the hands of a good player, this thing could wreak havoc on enemy civilizations, and force them to devote significant forces to protecting their lands, or suffer the effects of having little to no improved terrain. All the force they devote to stopping this one unit is force that they're not devoting to stopping your army, or to attacking your cities, which makes it all the easier to bring them down or stop them. Until knights come around, it's extremely difficult to have the spare production worth in units to go after this. You'd have to draw off all your own raiding forces and possibly more to deal with this single unit. It's an absurd annoyance. There's practically nothing you can do about it, yet if you leave it alone your economy and your cities will die.

The point I haven't mentioned so far is the most important, and to some extent voids what I have mentioned previously. Not long after, or possibly before you get elephants and pikemen, this unit will have upgraded to a knight. It will have doubled in strength. Knights have 10 strength, so the Numidian warlord would have 17.5 strength against the pikeman's or elephant's 12. That would rise to 20 with the unit specific promotions (shock and formation). It might need to dodge enemy knights, the elephants and the pikeman for a while, but very quickly it would be a knight too. At that point, it would again be the most powerful unit for that time, and you'd need stacks of knights to hunt it. When cavalry come along, this happens again, and again when gunships come.

Because of the sheer mass of upgrades (particularly with charismatic leaders) warlords will always be one of the most powerful units on the battlefield. Typically, it's going to be anywhere from 1.75, to 2 times as powerful as anything else, and have a number of other advantages on the side. Consider modern armor made into a warlord. It would have 75% more strength, and with unit specific upgrades, that would effectively double its strength, i.e. it would be like a unit with 80 strength, but maybe with collateral damage, good chance to withdraw, the ability to attack three times in a round, and to heal on the move in enemy territory, using enemy railroads to do so. :eek:

I just checked the civlopedia to find out how much xp you need for a promotion. It says you need 2 xp for the first promotion, 3 for the second, 4 for the third (total of 9) etc. So continuing this pattern, a charismatic leader should be able to get 5 promotions for their warlord immediately, with 5 xp left over (depending on how the rounding works, if there is rounding). A non-charismatic leader will have no xp left over, or might only have 4 promotions if it had any other promotions on the unit before making it a warlord.

With stables and barracks, I believe the Numidian cavalry would start with 6 experience. A warlord made from that could get a sixth promotion, and be well on its way to a seventh. This would let it get all the strength bonuses, or just 5 of them and leadership. After killing a few units, it could get the last strength bonus, or leadership. From there it should get promotions 87% faster than normal. This will get it all those other essentials very quickly, and then it will be ready to set loose on the terrain improvements of civilizations that have elephants and pikemen. Once it's a knight, it can start fighting and getting promotions again. As soon as more powerful units show up, it can return to raiding. This can happen again at cavalry and at gunships.


I think it's worth a lot more than that because it opens up the 2nd (3rd for aggressive) level promotions. It's not the straight difference between combat I and combat II that I would want it for, it's being able to produce medics (especially things like medic scouts who can't really get xp), cats with accuracy, the +25% unit strength of starting with CR II instead of I (which makes it much easier to win that first fight against a longbow), +25% unit strength of starting with shock or cover, and for an aggressive civ +25% from formation (formation pikes will slow even cavalry down a lot). I often run theocracy instead of organized or free religion for this, so using 1 great general in my HE city effectively opens a line of civics choices.


All of these are at best, equal to 25%. However, these are specialized increases, so they only count for 25% in specific roles. Having 25% more units is good no matter what you need them to do. It's just more versatile.


Also, since I'd use it in my HE city, the city will be producing at 200% from HE so adding a genral would make it 225% total, which is only a 12.5% increase in overall unit production, not 25%.

This is true. The +2 experience bonus might be worth it on your HE. However, if you don't have a HE yet, and you got your first general well before you'll have an HE, then the production bonus would be better.

basic exp curve

regular its: 2, 5, 9, 14, 19 (mind you this is total to next level..)
creative : 2, 4, 7, 10, 14

the creative #'s are rounded so i'll have to test that in game.
knowing that the barracks produces 3 exp, aggro civs should still get their (including combat 1) 2nd promotions.

even a highly upgraded troup though needs to be considered expendable.. except for trying to get to level 5 for heroic epic and then level 6 for west point.. which isnt easy.

this does leave us a potential use for a warlord:

if you dont have someone close to level 5 or 6 you could burn a warlord to give a single unit +20 exp.. enough to get to level 5 if they've had any exp or pre-training from a baracks etc.

i'm not as good as ppl like eggman at crunching #'s for this game. if someone wouldnt mind running a few scenarios and giving us some hard #'s that would be EXTREMELY helpful for this debate.

my thought is that you have to gain the exp in the first place to get the warlord to show up. if you had a new stack (reinforcements) might not be a bad idea to burn the warlord on them to get everyone to roughly the same exp level.

but in that case would it be more efficient to put the +2 exp at the city?? for the first 10 units its only break even.. but then the exp is going to continue to contribute for the rest of the game.

that puts a different spin on the debate. you can only have 1 military academy per city so only 1 25% bonus. but if you took multiple generals and made them specialists, you could be spawning units with
+3 from barracks
+2 from theocracy
+4-6 from specialists
so 9-11 exp right away. in either case thats 3 promotions before they even see combat.. that might be more useful in a heroic epic city... now cranking out super upgraded units.

only problem with that (and why its not overpowered) is the amount of exp required to generate those generals becomes rediculous.

i think firaxis did a good job on this one.. a single unit with soo many possibilities.

NaZ

norse read your post while i was reviewing mine..

good to point out that burning a warlord on a single unit and NOT distributing the exp can make a rediculously strong unit. I'll probably try that online (I play cyrus a lot charismatic and imperialistic) and see how quickly an immortal can wreak havok.

warlords also offer the leap to next tech level for free.. so you'd just have to get back to your territory and upgrade and resume the assault.

do consider though that if you put 3 warlords in a city as specialists, they'll be coming out with 11 exp (barracks and stable or barracks and theocracy)
thats already 4 promotions deep.. why make one UBER dude when you can have an army of highly trained units?

lots to consider

NaZ

the shame is that AI will not use its generals efficiently... we human will be able to build veteran units 3 or event 4 promotions (for aggressive / charismatic leaders), and still the AI will attack with stack of longbowmen promoted combat 2

All of these are at best, equal to 25%. However, these are specialized increases, so they only count for 25% in specific roles. Having 25% more units is good no matter what you need them to do. It's just more versatile.

I don't agree at all. Being able to knock down all of a city's defenses in 1 turn with 4 cats, or 2 turns if you lose 2 to collateral, is better than 1 more cat. Having medic units without needing to kill something is better than the occasional extra unit, that's 1-2 free xp for a good unit. Having city raiders with an extra +25% on that key first attack is huge, CR I vs CR II is often the difference between crappy odds and decent odds - translating to more than 1 in 4 losses on the skillup. Plus you don't need as bulky of armies if your units start off better.

This is true. The +2 experience bonus might be worth it on your HE. However, if you don't have a HE yet, and you got your first general well before you'll have an HE, then the production bonus would be better.

Why exactly? Long pre HE I'll have most of my cities produce units, not just one, so +25% to one of them isn't that big of a deal. It's only like +10% to my production overall. Plus early on I often whip about as many units as I build naturally, and those food-heavy cities often are not going to be producing military later.

+2 XP on my HE (later HE+WP) city and maybe one other production city (especially a coastal one) looks to me like it's going to be far better than a +25% production bonus.

Also, I'm not saying not to use them as a general - I plan to make a super unit early on too, and to use it on one unit to be sure I can build the military buildings (especially since they take 1 more level now). It's just that the +2 xp on my HE city looks like a given, while I'm not even sure about the +25%s.

do consider though that if you put 3 warlords in a city as specialists, they'll be coming out with 11 exp (barracks and stable or barracks and theocracy)

I don't think you can do that, I think it's a single building like the academy.

I don't think you can do that, I think it's a single building like the academy.
No you can. The +2 experience effect is the equivalent of joinging the city as a superspecialist. The +25% military production is equivalent to building an academy. Finally making a warlord would be the equivalent of discovering a technology.

So if you really want to have +4 or +6 experience in one city you can do it.

basic exp curve

regular its: 2, 5, 9, 14, 19 (mind you this is total to next level..)
charismatic : 2, 4, 7, 10, 14


NaZ

So they changed the exp levels for Warlord?
(in Civ 1.61 its
2, 5, 10, 17, 26, 37, 50, 65......

the reason the 25% is soo valuable is how it relates to whipping... especially at blazing spd multiplayer.

the xp bonus is a longer term goal, providing an endless stream of upgraded macemen etc. leverage w/ the agressive, charismatic, or protective traits and you have monster attack or defence units. but if you are planning to do that you had better protect that city, those specialists will dissapear if it is lost to another civ.

NaZ

So they changed the exp levels for Warlord?
(in Civ 1.61 its
2, 5, 10, 17, 26, 37, 50, 65......

i got this math from the cililopedia
it said +2 then +3 then +4 then +5 and so on.. it didnt elaborate on further up the curve. if someone knows where its buried in the xml that would be great.. i havent been able to find it yet

I tried 2 generals as an early West Point for my Heroic Epic city. With Charismatic, barracks and Theocracy or Vassalage, you can crank 3 promotion units out for most of the game. If I built a stable and add a third general before military tradition, I'll have 4 promotion cavalry.

I don't know how the AI will counter players stacking generals. There is even more incentive for lots of early agression. The AI won't get many generals because the rarely fight early (unless you attack them). Generals can be used to support extreme city specialization with a couple of cities poring out units with huge buffs.

i'm pretty sure that the xp for non-charismatic is 2, 5, 10 and for charismatic it's 2-4-8...

i got this math from the cililopedia
it said +2 then +3 then +4 then +5 and so on.. it didnt elaborate on further up the curve. if someone knows where its buried in the xml that would be great.. i havent been able to find it yet

OK, that bit in the Civilipedia was wrong before, the basice rule in Civ Vanilla (and probab ly still in Warlords) is the base amount of exp needed is

NxN+1

(where N is the number of promotions)

so its
+2(the start), +3, +5, +7, +9, +11, +13......

so
2,5,10,17,26,37,50,65
Cha
2,4,8,13,20,28,38,49

the reason the 25% is soo valuable is how it relates to whipping... especially at blazing spd multiplayer.If you're talking about one of the rounding error situations I believe they fixed those. At least the most common one of 31-37 needed to complete to get 60 hammers for one population point.

There is a couple of points that I wanted to make and I'd appreciate your opinions:

If you are going to use your general on a stack wouldn't it be better to group them according to how many points they need for their next promotions?

For example, you could use a stack of ten units with 8 XP and get ten free promotions because the general would award each of the ten units 2 XP.

Also, wouldn't it be better to attach the warlord to an outdated unit like a warrior or an archer or a horseman rather than a more advanced unit? You can quickly upgrade it to the more advanced unit for free.

By giving this unit the leadership promotion and guarding it carefully you can use it to mop up injured opponents and it will quickly gain enough XP's to get you the new eligibility for Heroic Epic and West Point.

For example if your warlord is cavalry going against a musketman in a city you can whittle down this opponent by sacrificing a lesser unit and then bring in the warlord unit for mop up duty. Continue this strategy and you will gain the necessary XP in no time.

i would only use a general to create a warlord if it let me get a single unit up to the level nessessary to build the heroic epic. I would then keep it around and upgrade it for free so that later it could advance to level 6 to unlock the west point..

ahh choices choices

NaZ

well in multiplayer the general has shown its true strength. deciding to test out the bonus to a stack, I generated a warlord on a pair of swordsmen. being an aggressive civ, they ended up with combat 1-4 which is NASTY and let me just beat up on stuff.

of cource that could also be potentially quite nasty if you have the protective trait.. and burn your promotions on a pair of xbows, ckn, or other ranged unit and give them drill 1-4 resulting in +6 extra first strikes.. I dont think things would actually survive that if they dont have first strike or immunity to it.

good times..

NaZ

I don't know about anyone else, but Aggressive looks extremely weak when compared to Charismatic. Aggressive only benefits with a free promotion for only two types of units; Charismatic caters for all units. Aggressive will get to Combat V first (for ONLY the melee/gunpowder units) but Charismatic can get to Combat V two xp later for EVERY and ANY unit. It just seems really unbalanced.

As for the best use of Generals: I played the Genghis scenario and razed and pillaged everything thus only giving me the ability to use them as Warlords. I found that the 20xp they give is fantastic. I must point out that in the scenario, Genghis is Charismatic/Imperialistic, so the xp goes a long way (I have 3 Warlords with 8-9 promotions each ;)). I think it all comes down to the players skill/interest in unit preservation: If the player values highly promoted units, then they would probably want Warlords (with the extra promotions and xp) while those who rely on production of mass number of units (or being able to crank out decent unit quickly) would probably want the Military Instructor/Academy. Personally, I would rather the Warlord with its extra xp as I tend to place an emphasis on being careful to keep getting xp while not being reckless. Just using it on a couple of units - especially already highly promoted units - helps wonders. Plus they can be upgraded for free and shouldn't lose their xp (so a level 9 Axemen can be upgraded to a Macemen and its xp shouldn't go back to 10xp).

Watiggi