Warlords Are Wusses! Cowardly, Snivelling.. Why Don't They Actually Lead In Combat?

90% withdrawal looks good on paper but in practise for warlord units other than siege, it makes no real differance.

In order to keep your warlord alive and well you need to use very high odd's 99.9 is what i use as it is the only % that gets you through a bad round, i term the word bad round to describe the way (i dont use a random seed) you get a round were no matter what the odd's you loose, i did an experiment an lost a round at something like 98.5 if i remember correctly, it was the third battle that turn, i reloaded, an attacked in a differant order, first two units were differant, than what i used before, i still lost the third round, i tried again differant order, third round was always a looser, to get through that looser round you need very high odd's and only 99.9 gurantee's it, of course using 90% odd's means the withdrawal chance is like 1% only if you attack a target of strength so superior will you get 90% withdrawal, in which case after a dozen or so attacks you will die, withdrawal is a great promo but not on a warlord.

I'm working on expanding the warlord promo range, due to the games mechanics there's a limit to what i can change, my own knowledge is also a factor here, what i'm aiming to do is flesh out the current warlord only promo's a bit more, you can currently get

extra moves, via morale which is nice
extra strength nice via combat 6 giving your warlord a harder edge good too
medic promo, which is a nice one
An tactics whish is a bit erm useless
Leadership which adds XP and at the odd's you need for a long lived warlord, getting double XP is essential, to creating one thats viable

Theres a few gaps in there.

First Strikes, these are crucial for comming through combat with strong health, against tough units they make only a marginal differance, an the outcome or % will change only marginally, however when fighting lots of dross, its the differance between defending a few rounds successfully or defending many, many rounds successfully, i want to add a couple of extra FS, and one or two more promotions, not to make the warlord a uber unit, but to give it more of a edge over standard units,

so rather than just extra moves + extra str, they'l be some extra FS too, these FS combined with the standard drill promo's should give the warlord some extra edge particularly in effectivly taking on lots of inferior enemies (units from a lower teck era), successfully, so when you fight someone who's just throwing wave after wave of old dross at you, you can counter that with fewer troops if you use warlords
 
My warlord units always win their battles (though one did get killed, a while ago) but nearly always take so much damage that they need several turns to heal before it's worth even trying to get them back into the action - which by the time they're ready has naturally moved on, meaning even longer before they can pick up some more XPs. There's a reference above to "the magic 200s" but the most XPs accumulated by any unit of mine, warlord or not, is just under 100. And that isn't because I avoid fighting: I usually go flat out for conquest, normally by attacking on a broad front, so lots of units get some XPs but none get piles of the things.
 
The problem with warlord units is not the fact that they run away at first sign of danger. They are supposed to do that in real life. A good general is a general that can keep himself out of harms way. The problem civ4 has is that firaxis don't get warlord units the right promotions. Warlord units should have area effect promotion, things like +10 str to all adjacent units. Thats more of a field general than a buffed up unit it is now.
 
In the early game, warlords shouldn't be attached to units at all. Using them as GP to boost XP in your high production cities are much smarter.

In the middle game, you'll probably use 1 for West Point, and then military academy. Although in practice, I find that production is easy but +XP is hard to get.

One there's armor, GG's are fantastic. Combine blitz with the +1 movement, and you've got a fantastic unit for cleaning up damaged enemy units.
 
I used mine on 79% chance and I lost him. Too bad, now I just have to wait for the next one.

Brave commanders often enough died in battle. It's the same way in Civilization.
 
GGs shouldn't get more expensive as time goes on (or at least not at the rate they do at the moment). I think that's the biggest problem.

The only reason we're scared of losing them is because we typically only have no more than a couple available as commanding generals, so we are worried about losing the super medic capacity.

Give us a few more generals each game and they will more likely get used in combat since there's there little point in settling too many or having several super medics walking around.
 
I'd say a POW system. If your GG is falled in battle, he turns into a POW which then can be bought back for a ransom. His unit is also salvaged, but at low health and he keeps all his promotions. If you're willing to pay the cost. But ransoms should only be given and paid when the POWs are in a city. The AI should be scripted to give them a high priority and not disband them if the enemy is too close (unlike Workers they capture)

POW units can also be recaptured if they're captured on the field or if they take over the city they're held in (but they still need to be protected and healed)

The POW system would solve a lot of problems actually, why can't it be in the game?
 
I think GG should appear at half the current rate and then they can nerf the Military Instructor/Academy to half strength or they just simply require 2 GGs for an Academy.
 
I think GG should appear at half the current rate and then they can nerf the Military Instructor/Academy to half strength or they just simply require 2 GGs for an Academy.

Don't you mean double the rate?
 
I think it is reasonable for the great general to survive, but an extra 20 XP each time is over powerful, I think it would be better it the efficacy was reduced each time a battle was lost eg, 16XP 12XP ... and also the other options 40% increase unit production, 30%... the additional XP to all units is more problematic as you can only go down to 1.
 
I think the warlord unit should be attached to a unit. It shouldnt get any XP or promotions (expect prehaps the +100% and +30% withdrawl one maybe automatically)

Instead the warlord unit should give an extra 10% strength to all unit in its square and those squares directly surrounding it.
 
This would provide extra tactical significance because people would want to keep their warlord near the front but not too near.
 
I am really disappointed with the worlord units. The whole idea sounds so exciting, but it turns out to be an afterthought for firaxis. Instead what that unit should be, they made it into a beefed up rambo unit. rambo ain't no general.

Firaxis gave warlords historical generals names. But their functionality is no where close to those generals. Did napoleon personnally lead his unit into battle after he became the leader of france army? I don't think so. But he's presence invigorated the whole france army and made them fight better, not just the unit he is attached to.

My point is generals are there to motivate a group of units, not just the unit he is attached to. My view of what generals should be is that generals should have a radius of effect. something like city, a noob general has a effect radius of 1 square away, level 2 general affects 2 squares away, cap the effect at 3 squares away.

The generals should not get those normal single unit promotions, they should get promotions like +1 or +5% str to all units within radius or +10% city defend, things like that. and they can further upgrade it after they level up. And generals should level up differently to. they shouldn't have to fight themselves to get exp points. The way they get xp is if any units in his radius of influence wins he gets one xp point, if any units in his radius of influence losses he gets -1 xp point. So to level up his army have to win more battles than the loss. This way they can at least live up to the names that was given to them.
 
Did napoleon personnally lead his unit into battle after he became the leader of france army? I don't think so. But he's presence invigorated the whole france army and made them fight better, not just the unit he is attached to.

I've seen a number of comments like this, which assume we're talking about modern generals. That's true for the past few hundred years. The problem is that Civ runs all the way back to 4000BC, and for much of that history leaders did in fact lead from the front. Warlords often got their leadership position because they were the best at fighting. As in so many other areas, Civ doesn't quite achieve the balance between Ancient and Modern eras.

My personal feeling is that you shouldn't be allowed to settle generals until later in the game, like Military Academies (though even those, I believe, still need to be fixed). That way, all of your early generals have to become warlords.
 
Hrm...I really like the POW idea...

I've seen a number of comments like this, which assume we're talking about modern generals. That's true for the past few hundred years. The problem is that Civ runs all the way back to 4000BC, and for much of that history leaders did in fact lead from the front. Warlords often got their leadership position because they were the best at fighting. As in so many other areas, Civ doesn't quite achieve the balance between Ancient and Modern eras.

A good point. Maybe a second "join to unit" option (field general or something) should become available after a certain tech is researched (maybe Military Tradition). It could have a different set of promotions that are area of effect, or at least that effect other units sharing the tile with the field general unit. Maybe too complicated, but who knows...
 
Personally, I've never made one in an actual game. I've tried it of course, first thing I did when I got BTS was to fire up World Builder and just try a bunch of things out to see how they work, but I quickly decided against ever using it in a real game. The other benefits a general can provide are far more worth it.

I completely agree.

I personally like to add them as great specialists. They only give +2 exp, but if you stack them in the same city, this adds up (especially with other buildings and civics that add exp). I often get a city with five great generals which (when added to a barracks along with vassalege and theocracy civics) nets +17 exp to new units built in that city. With a couple of wonders, they also boost culture and research in that city.

I sometimes build the academy in one or two unit production cities. Combined with the Heroic Epic it really makes a city crank out units. If this is the same city as the great general specialists...watch out!

I do have a question on the game mechanics. When a great general is created, does it push back the generation of other great people in your cities? I have noticed that my great person meter in my cities goes from 200 to like 400 without ever producing a great person. I have never really checked before and after a big battle to see if the general had that effect though.
 
/agree

There needs to be some way to encourage using warlords on modern units, giving them combat related upgrades and having them be the first to go into combat. Instead of just being glorified medics as most people seem to use them.

Another concept is giving the stack they are in temporary buffs when a warlords initiates combat from that stack or is targeted by an offensive unit, and either wins a combat that gives it experience or dies. So you would always want to lead with a warlord or make it the strongest defender, in order to buff the stack its in. Particularly when you are in a crucial combat, like taking a capital.
 
Top Bottom