Not Enough Great Generals on Marathon?

[jimbob27]

I still don't really see the value of making warlord units.

If you use them to take out an enemies best defender's, chances are you're going to get about 70-80% odds. If you're lucky, your warlord is going to take out 5 units before he dies: Hardly an efficient use. You could take out the same 5 units, by suiciding some city raiders into them, and then cleaning up with the rest of the stack.

But then.... like your example where you had to re-group, I may be biased by my recent game where I had to defend against a full scale preatorian attack.

 

[Watiggi]

Most games I play, when I am on the offensive, I generally am pretty good at being able to keep the Warlords alive. Occassionally I make a mistake, but the odds are ok with me. I tend to only use them when odds are greater than 90%. If the Warlord has a high withdrawl, then I will tend to risk it more. I do generally give it leadership first though (+50% experience).

 

[MisterBarca]

This is one more instance of about a dozen or so times playing Warlords saying to myself, "great game... but did anyone actually playtest this thing?"

I don't think Firaxis playtests Marathon. Solver, one of the testers, pretty much said so himself.

 

[MisterBarca]

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.

The more I learn about the mechanics of this game, the less confidence I have in Firaxis.

 

[MisterBarca]

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.

Lee, while the epitome of southern gallantry, was no military genius. His tactical prowess has been spectacularly over-rated.

Perhaps the only American general who can rank with the great military commanders of history is MacArthur. And even that's stretching it.

 

[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.

Eisenhower and Lee "at least equal to" Hannibal?

LMAO!

 

[MisterBarca]

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.

When you say something as unintelligent as you said, I think harsh words are warranted.

 

[MisterBarca]

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.

I agree; you did not "flame" Randolph at all. What you said were common sense historical observations.

 

[Handel]

I play Warlords with 2.08 on marathon and about 1500 AD I had 8 generals (one was from the fascism). Weird enough the AI don't rush for the fascism. They usually rush for every civic giving tech, but stay away from this one. I put used one general for the military academy and put the rest for XP. So I am able to churn out 2 units every 3 turns and they all are lvl 6.

 

[Watiggi]

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)

...
SCIPIO AFRICANUS
VERCINGETORIX
ARMINIUS
BOUDICA
CAO CAO
ZHUGE LIANG
BELISARIUS
KHALED IBN AL WALID
...

Ha! I wonder whether Boudica is still a great general in BtS?

 

[MisterBarca]

Ha! I wonder whether Boudica is still a great general in BtS?

Just open up the damn file, if you are so curious--LOL!

 

[MisterBarca]

I still don't really see the value of making warlord units.

If you use them to take out an enemies best defender's, chances are you're going to get about 70-80% odds. If you're lucky, your warlord is going to take out 5 units before he dies: Hardly an efficient use. You could take out the same 5 units, by suiciding some city raiders into them, and then cleaning up with the rest of the stack.

But then.... like your example where you had to re-group, I may be biased by my recent game where I had to defend against a full scale preatorian attack.

I don't agree. If you nurture it well (e.g. attacking far weaker or wounded units only), you can pretty much ensure that it will attack with 95-plus percent change of winning (I only attack when he has 99-plus percent chance). If you are a cavalry or a submarine, you can also have a very high withdrawal percentage--to the point where even low winning percentage matters little.

The only time I lose my Warlord unit is if he is defending.

 

[Handel]

I don't see any real use of warlords as units. The guy above said "nurture them" etc... It is much more easy just to use them for XP. This way with several generals you can churn out lvl 5 units every other turn. This means those units are almost unbeatable. As town defender they start with +110% town defence (with fortify).