Not Enough Great Generals on Marathon?

[DrewBledsoe]

Personally, before Warlords came out, I was expecting to encounter about 15 Great Generals per leader per game for a total war game - that is a leader that spends all game expanding his/her territory with conquest. I still like the idea of Imperialistic getting -25% cheaper Generals rather than 100% GG emergence. The former effectively means that the Imperialistic trait will generate Generals for longer before it becomes too unrealistic to get.

Hmm, dunno about 15, sounds rather a lot, but anyway, they're actually not that incredibly powerful (nothing like creating an army on CIV III) so the defaullt number really isn't enough to my way of thinking...and to give a quick example, which would you rather have, a great priest to build an early shrine, or a grt general?

I'd take the priest every time, and even though its a slightly scewered example, I don't actually think pound for pound, that they are much more valuable than other great people...

 

[Uty]

Just a side note - the first to discover Fascism gets a free great general. I'm pretty sure that isn't mentioned in the manual.

It would be nice if raids on Barbarian cities led to great general points.

 

[gdgrimm]

Sure, its up to the individual But from what you said, you got your 1st grt gen in medieval times, which doesn't sound too fast for me, and if you were playing "normal" speed, you would have got the 1st grt gen much earlier.

I suppose its down to how many you think shouild actually appear in an "average game" with an "average amount" of combat, 4 or 5 doesn't sound too many to expect to me, which is still only probably a third of the nos of grt people I'd expect to get, and remember changing the rate affects how fast the AI gets them too.

Yes naval combat does count towards the xp needed

Yes, it really matters what one expects.

In that game, I played mostly peacenik, played a civ that wasn't Imperialistic, and won by Space Race (though probably should have gone with Culture). I only took/razed 5 cities the entire game, and I received only 1 GG.

For me, in that type of game, that felt about right.

Now if I play a warmongering game, win by Domination while taking/razing 30+ cities (like my last CivIV game), I'd expect to get about 4 GG's.

And though I haven't tried it yet, I actually think many more than about 3 GG's a game could get pretty unbalancing. If I know I'll be fighting a lot of wars, I'd use each of them to create Uber units, and by the modern era have a SOD consisting of, like 6 or so, Uber Infantry and some minor support help (like SAM and Gunship). That would be, pretty much, a fast steamroll through any AI.

 

[Watiggi]

Na, think about it:

If you set your empire up, you can get more than 50 GP's per game. Why do people consider 3-4 GG's acceptable? A GG cannot give you a free tech and don't seem to be able to give you a golden age (am I right in that?). ALL they can do is the 3 functions. If you have 20 cities or more - as an imperialist generally would - it becomes impractical putting +2xp in every city because there aren't that many GG's. I don't know about anyone else, but when I have 20+ cities, I ain't interested in a 'one military production city'. I am after many. On top of all that, you get a GG from war. War doesn't give you GP's and GG's don't give you free tech so there is no harm in allowing a warmonger to have significantly more GG's than a peaceful player.

The flip side of all this - which is in my opinion the ONLY reason why there aren't alot of GG's in the game - is because the human player would put all the GG's into one city as Military Instructors and crank out 30xp units. That is why.

Why not make the Military Instructor a building (thus allowing one per city, like the Military Academy) or restrict it to a certain number of Military Instructors per city (like 2 or 3). A massive empire needs - and should generate - more GG's, especially a massive empire who's land was conquered.

When you compare GG's to GP's: You get more GP's in the game. Hell you could get more Great Scientists who can give you free tech than you would get GG's in the entire game for a player who spends ALL game conquering and to top that off, the GG's don't even give free tech. Doesn't sound right. Doesn't sound right at all.

Free the GG's I say! They are the bread and butter of conquerors. They should be quite REGULAR for a civ that is CONSTANTLY at war. Right now, they disapear into an incredibly steep xp-needed climb which make GG's impractical in the long run - even for Imperiailists. I think they should be constant and regular because gaining xp is the ONLY way to get them, and unless you are fighting fifteen fronts, attacking 5 cities at once, then the xp accumulation is going to be constant. Unlike GP's, there is no way of increasing the rate of getting GG's.

...unless it was designed this way in order to entice Imperialists to fight multiple fronts and multiple cities at once.... Hmmm. I will have to look into that...

 

[AriochIV]

A GG cannot give you a free tech and don't seem to be able to give you a golden age (am I right in that?).

Actually, Great Generals can give you free techs and help create a golden age, just like other Great Persons.

 

[Watiggi]

Actually, Great Generals can give you free techs and help create a golden age, just like other Great Persons.

Really!! I can only ever remember seeing the Military Academy button, Military Instructor button and the Warlord button. I don't remember ever seeing any Golden Age button (dimmed down when not available), nor seeing any 'discover free tech' button.

In the Genghis scenario it has a golden age button, but that is all. Maybe that is because I didn't have any cities in that scenario. But I cannot remember seeing those options in the main game.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

I think the free GG should come with military tradition not fascism. Also, a GG should be able to give a free purely military tech, such as military tradition or artillery.

I modded to 30, 45, 60 and am not overly warmongering and got 3 in a game. Mostly because I prefer high percentage battles that result in only 1 XP. Just looking at the US and its short history, I count the following as GG: Washington, Morgan, Greene, Harrison (Ohio Indian wars), Scott (Mexican-American war), Lee, Grant, Jackson, Sherman, Sheridan, Pershing, Patton, Ike, Bradley, MacArthur, Nimitz, Halsey (I know these are naval but you cant deny greatness), so thats 17 in 230 years.

 

[magfo]

I think the free GG should come with military tradition not fascism. Also, a GG should be able to give a free purely military tech, such as military tradition or artillery.

I modded to 30, 45, 60 and am not overly warmongering and got 3 in a game. Mostly because I prefer high percentage battles that result in only 1 XP. Just looking at the US and its short history, I count the following as GG: Washington, Morgan, Greene, Harrison (Ohio Indian wars), Scott (Mexican-American war), Lee, Grant, Jackson, Sherman, Sheridan, Pershing, Patton, Ike, Bradley, MacArthur, Nimitz, Halsey (I know these are naval but you cant deny greatness), so thats 17 in 230 years.

And for me, being non-american, those 17 counts as... 1. If I'm kind. I see no Alexander the Great, I see no Napoleon, I see no Hannibal nor do I see Ghengis Khan. Etc.

For me a Great General is one who will be remembered throughout history. Not someone who a single country deems great but noone else knows of. Thus: Great generals should be pretty rare. (Altho, as for game balance, it's a question of how much they contribute as well!)

 

[alpha wolf 64]

True, if you take it that way, there will only be few for all the civs for the entire game. But then they'd have to be way more powerful than they currently are. I'd never even heard of the generals I'd gotten my first game.

 

[werdna]

I modded my game to get GG at 45,66,90,111 levels on marathon speed and I just got military tradition at 1350AD, which is my last tech almost always as I switch to full military production and game here, and I got 4 GG so far after conquering 4 civs. I don't think 4 is too high.
WIth default settings I would have gotten 1 or 2, which is way too low.

 

[homan1983]

This was a HUGE miscalculation on Firaxis' side. They used the same multiplier on the general as they did for other great leaders and this is simply WRONG.

They had assumed that an epic game has 1.5x the number of units than normal. But that is NOT the case. This is because epic units cost 1.5x more than normal ALREADY! And hence UNLIKE Great Scientists [who get more turns to eccumalate their great leader points] Great generals automatically have their cost scaled.

 

[Saluki]

And for me, being non-american, those 17 counts as... 1. If I'm kind. I see no Alexander the Great, I see no Napoleon, I see no Hannibal nor do I see Ghengis Khan. Etc.

For me a Great General is one who will be remembered throughout history. Not someone who a single country deems great but noone else knows of. Thus: Great generals should be pretty rare. (Altho, as for game balance, it's a question of how much they contribute as well!)

For me, as an american with the same standards, I would say that Lee would qualify as great, but not any of the others. He had a very impressive string of victories (often against stronger forces) during our civil war. I don't see that kind of greatness with any of the others on the list.

 

[Randolph]

And for me, being non-american, those 17 counts as... 1. If I'm kind. I see no Alexander the Great, I see no Napoleon, I see no Hannibal nor do I see Ghengis Khan. Etc.

For me a Great General is one who will be remembered throughout history. Not someone who a single country deems great but noone else knows of. Thus: Great generals should be pretty rare. (Altho, as for game balance, it's a question of how much they contribute as well!)

The people on your list strike me more as civilization leaders then as simply great generals (in fact they all are civ leaders). They might have been great generals also, but a large part of the reason they’re so famous is because they were leaders of the nation, not just the military. In terms of pure military success/ability I would put Eisenhower, Lee, and McArthur at least equal to Napoleon and Hannibal, and only slightly below Alexander and Ghengis (but I admit I’m no expert). They just aren’t as prominent because they weren’t heads of state.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

I think people on putting too much emphasis on the great part of the GG. I see them as generals that increase the effectiveness of their troops, but not being the head of state. (forgot that Washington is an American leader already) Each of the generals I listed either where good on their own, or accomplished what previous generals had failed to do. Another way to look at it is to imagine the outcome of those wars without those generals.

 

[Watiggi]

Actually, Great Generals can give you free techs and help create a golden age, just like other Great Persons.

Ok, I had a look and I do NOT see any 'discover free tech' nor any golden age button. I do not have any GP's so there may be a reason why I do not have a golden age button (but I would expect it to be darkened). There is definitely no 'discover tech' button though.

The people on your list strike me more as civilization leaders then as simply great generals (in fact they all are civ leaders). They might have been great generals also, but a large part of the reason they’re so famous is because they were leaders of the nation, not just the military. In terms of pure military success/ability I would put Eisenhower, Lee, and McArthur at least equal to Napoleon and Hannibal, and only slightly below Alexander and Ghengis (but I admit I’m no expert). They just aren’t as prominent because they weren’t heads of state.

Are you kidding? That's a little rich comparing MacArther with Alexander, Genghis, Napoleon and Hannibal! In terms of military genius I would not put MacArther up there at all. Overcomming an enemy who over expanded across islands does not in my mind make for a military genius or any sort. His history is also filled with numerous errors in judgment as well as bad planning. I would put Subedai, Jebe or Muqali *far* higher in the list of great generals before MacArther.

Having said that, I don't think Napoleon, Genghis, Alexander, Julius or Hannibal (or Shaka for that matter) should be in the Great General list at all. It wouldn't seem right. People like Subotai, Macarther, Jebe, etc - those who are ONLY distinguished as generals in their own right - should be in the list. There is a big difference between a person who is a military general and a person is a leader of a nation - whether they are a great military tactition or not.

 

[AriochIV]

Ok, I had a look and I do NOT see any 'discover free tech' nor any golden age button. I do not have any GP's so there may be a reason why I do not have a golden age button (but I would expect it to be darkened). There is definitely no 'discover tech' button though.

May be limited to the scenarios, which is odd. I used a GG in the Genghis Khan scenario to learn the Trebuchet tech (don't know how you're supposed to conquer Qin without it), and I know I've seen Golden Age buttons on them in the other scenarios.

 

[Watiggi]

May be limited to the scenarios, which is odd. I used a GG in the Genghis Khan scenario to learn the Trebuchet tech (don't know how you're supposed to conquer Qin without it), and I know I've seen Golden Age buttons on them in the other scenarios.

Hmm. I have seen the golden age button there in the Genghis scenario, but not the 'discover tech' button. I got the Trebuchet tech from taking down 2 of his cities (and leaving his capital alone until you get the tech because of how well fortified that city is). You get techs in the game from capturing (or razing) any two cities of each empire. I didn't realise you could also get it from GG's.

 

[Gladi]

Hmm. I have seen the golden age button there in the Genghis scenario, but not the 'discover tech' button. I got the Trebuchet tech from taking down 2 of his cities (and leaving his capital alone until you get the tech because of how well fortified that city is). You get techs in the game from capturing (or razing) any two cities of each empire. I didn't realise you could also get it from GG's.

Bright day
Yes GG in Geghis Khan can 'discover tech', though it feels wrong- generally there are several cities you can capture.

And I would say that GGs should be more avaible than normally,gosh my own country has at least four of them in history and we are no mongol hordes.

 

[Watiggi]

Well, I certainly remember not having the option of getting a tech from the GG. I didn't have any cities though, and sometimes a Great General would randomly pop out of the camp units, so maybe that had something to do with it.

 

[Eggolas]

I'm playing a marathon game and have managed 4 GGs so far, with one coming from the Fascism discovery I believe. The key was being Imperialistic and buiding the Great Wall, then waiting for counter attacks in my cultural boundaries. The four generals went to the West Point/HE city to become instructors giving new units another 8 pts xp at the outset.

After building enough tanks to choke the world and gaining another voluntary vassal state, game went on cruise control. I couldn't get Catherine to declare was even though I was -10 on outrageous demands and -18 overall.

Charismatic and Imperialistic might be an intriguing combination: Persia.