3 Generals - excessive?

Civ4Brains

imperfectus
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
109
Location
UK
What would you do with your third general? I'm thinking Golden Age having just ended a successful war and low on GPT, but until now having two Generals has proven very useful. Holding down multiple fronts has been extremely important in my current game since I am in the middle of the map, no one likes me and war always feels imminent. 2 Generals in my last war was vital as I split my forces to take two cities simultaneously followed by a swift third.

I have a decent tech lead and will get artillery way before anyone else which makes me think I'll start another fight sometime soon:) so again, multiple Generals feels like a good idea.

thoughts?
 

futurehermit

Deity
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
5,724
In the game I'm playing right now I used two generals to create forts at a chokepoint where my territory connected to Genghis's territory. I knew we were destined to fight it out because I was branded a warmongerer and he is an aggressive dude.

When I declared war on him, I let him send his units into the area of my forts and the combination of extra defense for the 2 units in the forts and the -3x2 health to his nearby units allowed me to take out his units quite easily (I also had a nearby city for bombardment).

Once the core of his army was wiped out, it was just a matter of taking out a city or two until he sued for peace giving me all but 2 of his cities, which could be taken out after the peace treaty expired.
 

BritishSeaPower

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
21
Location
New Brunswick
If I have a very limited front or a clear choke point I'll usually opt to put down a citadel, especially if I have extra GG's to bulk up the spot even more.
 

Civ4Brains

imperfectus
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
109
Location
UK
In the game I'm playing right now I used two generals to create forts at a chokepoint where my territory connected to Genghis's territory. I knew we were destined to fight it out because I was branded a warmongerer and he is an aggressive dude.

When I declared war on him, I let him send his units into the area of my forts and the combination of extra defense for the 2 units in the forts and the -3x2 health to his nearby units allowed me to take out his units quite easily (I also had a nearby city for bombardment).

Once the core of his army was wiped out, it was just a matter of taking out a city or two until he sued for peace giving me all but 2 of his cities, which could be taken out after the peace treaty expired.

I quite like the Citadel option. It has saved my bacon a few times.


If I have a very limited front or a clear choke point I'll usually opt to put down a citadel, especially if I have extra GG's to bulk up the spot even more.

yes, the citadel might be a good idea for a choke point between me and the ottomans (second largest empire after mine) - he does seem to be massing more troops up that way. Citadels got me thinking, combine a GG with a GA and you could culture bomb into enemy territory, potentially right next to the city tile, construct the citadel and you have an extremely potent city assault.
 

ColinTH

Prince
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
441
Location
Bedford
yes, the citadel might be a good idea for a choke point between me and the ottomans (second largest empire after mine) - he does seem to be massing more troops up that way. Citadels got me thinking, combine a GG with a GA and you could culture bomb into enemy territory, potentially right next to the city tile, construct the citadel and you have an extremely potent city assault.

You seem to know what you are going to do. You have more than expanded on any advice given, I am just talking in general terms of course!
 

AfterShafter

Deity
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
2,057
Location
World's largest lentil producer
Three generals isn't excessive - I can oftentimes find a place for a third general, though definitely diminishing returns (the third front is usually pretty tertiary). I guess the question you have to ask is, is it better to have that third general than to have a golden age? And sometimes a particular spot just cries out for a citadel...
 

skallben

Diplomat
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
1,005
Location
Cold Country in Europe
Unless you plan fighting on more than one front, or a very broad one, the third is seldom useful. I'd pop a golden age, I find it rare with a situation where a citadel is justified. Strategic construction of forts and fortified defenders can make a powerful defensive line and putting a citadel on a contested front is not particular good investment if you will make progress on the front. However if you really do need a defensive chokepoint then it should be excellent with a citadel, effective and potentially a good investment.
 

Civsassin

Immortal
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
831
Location
Virginia Beach
Unless you plan fighting on more than one front, or a very broad one, the third is seldom useful. I'd pop a golden age, I find it rare with a situation where a citadel is justified. Strategic construction of forts and fortified defenders can make a powerful defensive line and putting a citadel on a contested front is not particular good investment if you will make progress on the front. However if you really do need a defensive chokepoint then it should be excellent with a citadel, effective and potentially a good investment.

I agree with this post wholeheartedly. If you plan to pop the GA, wait until you start the next war. I like GAs when I am at war.
 

ColinTH

Prince
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
441
Location
Bedford
If for what ever reason I obtain a general, I will keep him for the whole game, he could make the difference, and is worth the gold out-lay (you never know what's rounnd the corner). I probably should have said "coroner" instead of corner!
 

sh4d3

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
10
Location
Singapore
To me 3 generals are abit excessive.
usually i have 1 general sticking around in case theres a fight. if i get another during a war, i'll send him to a second front or to build a citadel if the situation requires.

3rd general almost always will start a GA.
 

Dark_Jedi06

"Deus ex Machina."
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
1,399
Citadels can be awesome in the right location.

Other then that, there's often more then one front that needs protection, so I like to have multiple Great Generals stationed wherever there's the potential for hostile invasion. The combat bonus could be enough to hold the front until reinforcements arrive.
 

Camikaze

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
27,333
Location
Sydney
Keep a spare. Unless you have a really pressing need for a citadel or a golden age, keep the extra general for when you'll need it; either for a third combat zone or a golden age further down the line.
 

CTH

Prince
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
399
Location
Göteborg, Sweden
Remember that you can move the GG around within the same turn often get him to cover quite a large area. I usually have a GG around my artillery and then move him up to the units a little bit up front when the artillery has fired (they usally fire before I move any other troops).

However I think a third is a bit redundant and I am not to fond of citadels, they are very nice when you can use them but more often than not I will expand my borders to quickly with my army for a citadel to be worth it. If the AI was better at waging war I would perhaps have more use of it...
 

_hero_

King
Joined
Feb 21, 2002
Messages
805
I like keeping the spare until I need a GA. Yes, it costs you some gold, but you will more than make that back during the GA in the future. A well timed golden age can make or break a tight game.
 
Top Bottom