Not Enough Great Generals on Marathon?

[Randolph]

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.

Jesus, why does everything have to be a flame fest? I wasn't claiming to be an expert on the abilities or historical general, or military history in general. I was simply pointing out the distinction between military ability and being a ruler in a time of great conquest. Can't you disagree with someone without insults? Isn't it possible to be wrong without being an idiot?

I’m remembering why I stopped coming to this site. For every poster interested in intelligent dialogue, there’s ten who are just out to prove how brilliant they are, and how stupid everyone else is my comparison.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

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.

See, that is the problem, even with an extreme focus on GGs, you only got 3 normally by the midlate game.

The fact is if you had picked a Philosophical leader, and focused on just about any type of other GP (except maybe engineers) you could probably have had 6 (not countiung Free ones) by that point in time.

The fact is the GG levels should be designed so that an Imperialistic warmonger should get about 6 over the course of a game.

As for getting a tech from the GG, that option only shows up on a GP if there is a tech they can research (get a Late game Prophet for example and you might not see the option, not even grayed out)

Since I'm guessing GGs can research relatively few techs, then it would be rare for the option to be seen.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

As far as MacArthur, I was thinking more along the lines of Korea. Inchon was pure genius because it was thought to be impossible. I'm not a big fan of his, but can ackowledge that he was a great general with many weaknesses. Heck, if you look at Lee, he made many a blunder but is still debatable the greatest "American" general ever.

 

[Watiggi]

Hmm. I am playing a normal speed game (with Genghis still - Imperialistic) and I have 4 generals and am about two thirds towards my fifth. I am researching Education and do not have Guilds yet. So the game is still early.

As far as MacArthur, I was thinking more along the lines of Korea. Inchon was pure genius because it was thought to be impossible. I'm not a big fan of his, but can ackowledge that he was a great general with many weaknesses. Heck, if you look at Lee, he made many a blunder but is still debatable the greatest "American" general ever.

I was not stating that he didn't accomplish anything, I just had a problem with the idea that he was compared to the major comquerors of our time with regards to military genuis.

Jesus, why does everything have to be a flame fest? I wasn't claiming to be an expert on the abilities or historical general, or military history in general. I was simply pointing out the distinction between military ability and being a ruler in a time of great conquest. Can't you disagree with someone without insults? Isn't it possible to be wrong without being an idiot?

I’m remembering why I stopped coming to this site. For every poster interested in intelligent dialogue, there’s ten who are just out to prove how brilliant they are, and how stupid everyone else is my comparison.

What I said was NOT flaming. I said that the comment about MacArther's strategic genius being compared to Genghis, Alexander, Napoleon and Hannibal was a bit rich - nothing more. That is not a flame. What is a flame, is your reply suggesting that I - and other people who decide to speak up about such a statement - are idiots. I don't appreciate it, nor will I tolerate it. That is also a reason why people leave these boards, because they have a problem with their ideas being challenged and so they retort aggressively, which in turn results in a flame war.

I will let this go so as to not destroy this thread, but dude, chill out. I had a problem with MacArther being put on an, imo, unrealistic pedestal and spoke up. That isn't a crime. I was not attacking you personally.

 

[Watiggi]

I just finished a game on normal speed as Genghis. I ended up with 5 GG's and 6 Vassals before I even got Gunpowder. Warring on multiple fronts at once is the way to go. By warring on many fronts at once, you're attacking multiple cities at once thus gaining more experience per turn. I started the multiple front idea towards the end of my 4th GG and flew through the xp needed for my 5th GG (180xp on normal) - I would venture to guess that it felt like my 2nd GG the rate that I got it. I was attacking 5 cities at once, 2-3 empires at the same time, where I would split them up so that they would effeciently take the cities quickly. As I was doing it, I got the feeling that, that is what the Imperialistic trait is made for. The problem was, I ran out of room (large Pangaea). Aggressive/Imperialistic/Ger combo works wonders

 

[MisterBarca]

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.

ROFL.

Probably the most unintelligent comment I've read on this site.

 

[Dearmad]

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.

Can't resist. I'll give you:
Washington- he lost long enough to win...

Lee- brilliant tactician, brave, inspiring. Field general.

Grant- he managed to run a new type of army the way it ought to be run. A pioneer. His methods are much more refined now by modern generals and sem old hat... but they weren't at the time.

Ike- management style extraordinaire- clearly the best man to run the western ally show- thank god he did and not Montgomery...

Patton- fiesty bastard who understood how to out blitz the germans. Good for him. Saw opportunites that were real, not imagined.

Maybe Sherman- an ugly tactic to use, ugly ugly ugly... but it worked. He was right, I hope I never live through it, but war is hell.


MacArthur was an ******* we could have done without. The others were competent... which is better than the alternative.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

Here's why I listed the others, and remember, its not about being compared to other great generals but what and how they accomplished what they did under the circumstances;

Morgan, and Greene: not sure which one had the bigger impact on saving the south from the British, but up until them, it was beginning to look like the south and the war would be lost. They devised a new way of fighting while outnumbered and frustrated the Brits into Yorktown
Harrison (Ohio Indian wars): heck guy got elected President for securing the Ohio country. Might not seem like a big deal now, but then it was.
Scott (Mexican-American war): came, saw, kicked some butt
Jackson: Lee was never the same after Stonewall died
Sheridan: started straggling the south by not getting his butt kicked like every other Union general
Pershing: didnt fall into the same "build a trench" mentality that the allies had in WW1. Right guy, right time. Granted my info on him is limited.
Bradley: I've heard alot that Bradley was the man behind Ike. later goes on to be a 5-star general so I'm guessing the rumors were accurate.
MacArthur: arrogant sob, but probably saved South Korea. Then almost lost it to the Chinese....LOL Not impressed by his WW2 antics.
Nimitz: managed to keep Mac in line and managed to take a whole like of islands.
Halsey: never saw a Jap ship that he didnt think needed to be sunk ASAP. Arrogant, but still the best admiral in the war.

 

[Watiggi]

Does anyone know where the list of Great General names is amongst the Civ code and data?

 

[alpha wolf 64]

Does anyone know where the list of Great General names is amongst the Civ code and data?

IIRC, its in the specialist XML.

 

[Older than Dirt]

I just started a Prince level game on a Terra Map, marathon speed and have a great General waiting for my first praetorian unit. I havn't destroyed the Vikings yet but have crippled them. This is my second Warlords game and here again the AI is building almost every city on a hill. Did they change the AI's priorities? It is really not easy to take such cities, even with level three city raider axmen you can wind up suiciding some to kill defending archers. The AI is "smart" enough to repeatedly try and take out my bronze mine, which it did one time, which has helped me to acquire the 90 points more easily.

 

[Watiggi]

IIRC, its in the specialist XML.

No, I found it. It's in the CivIVUnitInfos file in the Units folder.

Here is a list of all of the Great General names in the Warlords game, excluding mods and scenarios: (sorry about the caps)

SARGON
NEBUCHADREZZAR
SUN TZU
LEONIDAS
LYSANDER
CHANDRAGUPTA MAURYA
HAMILCAR BARCA
GAIUS MARIUS
SCIPIO AFRICANUS
VERCINGETORIX
ARMINIUS
BOUDICA
CAO CAO
ZHUGE LIANG
BELISARIUS
KHALED IBN AL WALID
CHARLES MARTEL
CHARLEMAGNE
JAYAVARMAN II
EL CID
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR
SUBUTAI
TIMUR
JEANNE DARC
PACHACUTI
AUITZOTL
HERNAN CORTES
FRANCISCO PIZARRO
IVAN THE TERRIBLE
AKBAR
GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS
MICHIEL DE RUYTER
CROMWELL
EUGENE OF SAVOY
LORD NELSON
ROBERT LEE
YAMAMOTO
PATTON
MONTGOMERY
GUERDIAN
ROMMEL
ZHUKOV

 

[jimbob27]

I don't think it's that bad. It just depensd on your style of play. I've had 5 of them before the end of the medieval age in my latest game.

I was playing as Genghis, I built the great wall early on, and then augustus caesar attacked me with preatorians. I had a huge war, and eventually my keshiks fought them off, and I had a chance to rebuild. I built a ton of crossbows and maces, and then went on a rampage through augustus' cities (and ragnar, his vassal as well).

After these 2 wars, I had 5 of them. I know my game was biased towards general production, what with most of the combat being on my land with the great wall, and me having to fight tons of 50-70% battles against preatorians, but it resulted in me having the most rediculous military production city. It had a military academy, 4 general specialists, the heroic epic and soon to get west point. It was producing 20+ experience cavalry every 2-3 turns. I know I'm probably going to get lots more generals before the end of the game, as I'm planning on a domination win, and haven't even started attacking with my rediculously powerful cavalry.

I really don't think this should be possible in most games. Military might is already the most powerful factor in the game. It would be really unbalancing if people are generating 5+ generals during a fairly peaceful game.

 

[Watiggi]

I really don't think this should be possible in most games. Military might is already the most powerful factor in the game. It would be really unbalancing if people are generating 5+ generals during a fairly peaceful game.

I think the problem there is more that 4 generals could be stacked to give +8xp rather than the number of Generals that you got in total.

 

[Older than Dirt]

Using a GG as a specialist to give new units in one city 2 extra experience points seems to me to be a huge waste. I played as Genghis in a marathon Terra Map game and used my first GG to increase production and the second to give the 2+ ep. I waited until the third to attach a GG to a keshik. I think that the first GG should be attached to a unit and the second and the third. The units you get are a joy to a warmonger. As I stated earlier, I am now in a game in which almost every AI city is on a hill with at least 2 archers and usually more. Attacking is painful enough even with the level 6 praetorian whcih has my first GG attached. Catapults can't come soon enough.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Using a GG as a specialist to give new units in one city 2 extra experience points seems to me to be a huge waste. I played as Genghis in a marathon Terra Map game and used my first GG to increase production and the second to give the 2+ ep. I waited until the third to attach a GG to a keshik. I think that the first GG should be attached to a unit and the second and the third. The units you get are a joy to a warmonger. As I stated earlier, I am now in a game in which almost every AI city is on a hill with at least 2 archers and usually more. Attacking is painful enough even with the level 6 praetorian whcih has my first GG attached. Catapults can't come soon enough.

I hear you and agree, altought entirely dependent on circumstances. With huge maps, you generally need at least 2 military cities, so often I'll use a 2nd GG to add to the "2nd military city", as a 25% prod boost, while building heroic epic in "1st military city". Making them generals is fun, but for all the turns you are not at war (still the great majority for me) they are going to waste.

And yes I have noticed the AI's fixation of building every city possible on a hill, even though a plains right by it is often the better long term choice, and I have started playing "rocky" fractal maps, (because you get more interesting terrain, and properly defined mountain ranges) so a city NOT built in a hill is beoming a rarity....

 

[jimbob27]

Using a GG as a specialist to give new units in one city 2 extra experience points seems to me to be a huge waste.

I'm of the opposite persuasion. I think attaching generals to units is a waste. They're paradoxical. You end up with this super-powerful unit, but then you can't actually use him for anything useful because he's so precious, and you're constantly terrified of him dying. Much better to settle him in a city and guarantee you'll benefit from his effects for the whole game.

I think the problem there is more that 4 generals could be stacked to give +8xp rather than the number of Generals that you got in total.

I never looked at it like this. Personally I think it'd be nicer if GG generation was doubled, but then the xp reduced to 1 extra, and the military production bonus reduced to 10%. That'd boost the usefulness of warlord units, and would mean they'd be far less precious on the battlefield, and you'd be willing to risk them more in difficult battles, because you know another one will be generated soon.

 

[Jaybe]

.... I think attaching generals to units is a waste. They're paradoxical. You end up with this super-powerful unit, but then you can't actually use him for anything useful because he's so precious, and you're constantly terrified of him dying. Much better to settle him in a city and guarantee you'll benefit from his effects for the whole game.

The alternative would be to let go of your terror of him dying. Have FUN while he still lives.
Understand, I DID increase their appearance for marathon (xml changed to 20 & 0).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well the original issue stands, because XP is not accumulated on a 'per turn' basis but rather on a 'per unit' basis, the XP required should be comparable to the number of units buildable in a game, ie roughly the same on every game speed (with Marathon as an exception, GG on Marathon should cost 150-200% of what they do on all other speeds)

 

[Watiggi]

Well the original issue stands, because XP is not accumulated on a 'per turn' basis but rather on a 'per unit' basis, the XP required should be comparable to the number of units buildable in a game, ie roughly the same on every game speed (with Marathon as an exception, GG on Marathon should cost 150-200% of what they do on all other speeds)

Yeah. You can actually keep up with the scale with Imperialisitic if you fight multiple fronts (I am talking about Normal here), but the problem is, is that you run out of map and units to conquer, which leaves me to believe that it shouldn't be based on speed at all.

The only way you can increase the rate of conquest is by fighting more units during the turn, for more turns. You can get quite a few (I got 5 before getting gunpowder in mine - by 1750ish, and the last one I got, I got it much quicker than the one or two before due to the multiple fronts war campaign - heh, an Imperialisitic campaign ). I reckon I could do much better though. BUT, I ran out of territory.

Maybe it shouldn't be scaled at all, regardless of map size or speed. I guess Marathon has more turns, but does it have more units to conquer than a typically same sized map with a different speed game? I think it either should scaled to map size or not at all. I am leaning towards 'not at all' right now. If it should be scaled, it should be based on the expected number of units in the game (and their ability to create new units). Maybe this should be an algorithm seperate to map size and game speed.

I'm of the opposite persuasion. I think attaching generals to units is a waste. They're paradoxical. You end up with this super-powerful unit, but then you can't actually use him for anything useful because he's so precious, and you're constantly terrified of him dying. Much better to settle him in a city and guarantee you'll benefit from his effects for the whole game.

Wow. I am a Warlord fan, personally. In the above game, all but one of them went on as Warlords. 4 Warlords equals 80xp distributed amongst your units. I know that over the long term, +2xp for each new unit will give you more xp, but that doesn't help you are capturing the enemies city right at that point in time. I will generall give an old Warlord 10xp when I create the new Warlord so that it gets my original warlord over the later big xp gaps between promotions. I just like the immediate returns it gives.

Mind you, I just played a game whereby it was more appropriate to have the Military Academy instead as I was not doing well in a war and needed to regroup. Warlords were very much undesirable in that situation because my units were dying left, right and center. In normal games though, where I have tactical control, my Warlords and highly promoted units stay alive, so I would prefer that over the other two options.