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

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.

I agree with you here that warlords need a second XP promotion, back in warlords leadership granted only 50% XP bonus, firaxis quickly woke up to the fact of how naff this was since the XP you get from using a warlord is pretty low due to the high odd's combat you need, in order to have it survive past 9 or 10 fights, so in BTS they upped it too 100%, however a second 100% upgrade promo is needed, so someone who gets to around 100 to 200 xps now, will see around 150 to 300, which is what you need to get to have a warlord justify itself, a medic warlord is fine but even a standard unit can fill this role very well too (A standard level 5 unit with woods 3 an combat 1 + medic gives 25% healing) but those wanting to use things like combat 6 etc and use there warlord in a more agressive manner than stack healer, need a unit with a good 200+ XP for the unit to really stand out from veteran (level 4 - 6) standard units
 
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.

I don't know much about western ancient history. But in china sun ze in his book art of war suggested that a good general is a general that can keep himself out of harms way. After all you can only lead your army and give out orders to different units from behind the scrammage line, if you throw yourself into the foray, you are not leading the army anymore. Sun ze wrote art of war somewhere in the 1500 bc time, not sure exact date, that would be roughly the first GG spawn time in civ4. obviously in ancient times, a general has to be at a close proximity to or on the battle field to lead the army. But sun ze is against the idea of generals engaging and in turn endanger their lives even if just a little bit by engage in hand to hand combat voluntarily.

I understand your position that in ancient times, some warlords, alot others got it from other means like blood lineage, got their leadership position because they were best at fighting. But they proved that before they become leaders, when they are still subordinates to the general. probably before the professional armies like roman legions appeared, generals do often engage in hand to hand combat. But in civ4 you won't get a GG with warriors, you probably get your first GG with praetorians, thats when romans had professional soldiers. I don't know much about roman armies, but i want ask, when caesar was the commander of his legions, do he personally engage in hand to hand combat often? or he only do that because he don't have much other alternative? Please do not respond by telling me in the movie gladiator russel crow engaged in hand to hand combat as a basis, hollywood don't respect history to details. If the answer is that caesar choose to engage the enemy hand to hand himself often, then I can only be amazed by his incredible luck on the battlefield. In china, those generals that were famous for leading armies into battles, are not the real commanders of the army, they only have the title of general, but in reality they are just a subordinate to the commander in chief. For example one of the GG in civ4 is caocao, He lead numerous military campaigns during romance of three kingdom period. But he never once engaged in hand to hand combat by choice, in fact, he actually fled the battle field many times to avoid danger, in one of the battles he had to cut off his beard and give his cloth to a general under his command to escape. its the generals under his control that did all the dirty job. But caocao is still considered to be a great general, and i personally considers him to be the greatest leader during his time because of his leadership ability, eventhough he fled from battlefield so many times.

My point is firaxis gave the GG's names of the famous army commanders like caocao who don't engage in hand to hand whatsoever, yet they implemented warlords as either a super medic or a buffed up rambo. Those warlords do not live up to their names at all. Warlords should be able to make the whole army that is in proximity of him fight better, at least that way they can live up to their names.
 
The trouble is there's so many variety's of GG, from the genghis khan's an alexander the greats who did get stuck in to people like sun tzu who concentrated more on overall planning.
 
I don't know much about western ancient history. But in china sun ze in his book art of war suggested that a good general is a general that can keep himself out of harms way.

I understand your point, and I agree -- sort of. I don't feel like doing the research right now, but I'm sure you could find countless other examples of leaders who were successful because they went in with their troops. Leadership is more than just strategy and tactics. It's also about inspiration and motivation.

Anyway, I guess the problem is that we're both making sweeping generalizations about history, neither of which has any real basis in fact. History is just too varied to make such claims, which (as I hinted at in my earlier post) Civ doesn't handle too well.

I guess the complaint that drove my earlier post was simply that, due to the way things actually play out in the game (as we've seen in this thread), using GGs for instructors and academies is a far better option than creating warlords. I just wish that the balance was a little more even, so I wouldn't feel like I was damaging the long-term prospects of my civilization simply for the fun of having my Warlord storming a city shouting "Once more into the breach..."
 
Perhaps if a warlord dies in battle a large amount of points should be deposited towards future great generals. The warlord's epic defeat will have inspired future leaders :D.
 
Thats not a bad idea actually, would certainly make replacing lost units a little easier, say half the warlords XP at time of death gets added to your current XP tally toward your next general
 
I'm working on a expanded promotions mod for the warlord unit at the moment, i'd love to make that kind of change but i've a feeling it's going to be beyond my skills, it's almost done now so will give it a good shakedown over the weekend and have one last go at trying to get some code in there that would transfer it to another unit
 
Play with an imperialistic leader and you'll have no qualms about having your generals lead stacks to take out the toughest defenders.

I don't think I've seen less than 6 a game as Augustus, and 9 isn't out of the question. You rarely lose a CR3 Praet to archers and you can rack up some serious exp before longbowmen make the scene, so they won't be trouble either.

If you're worried about losing your medic - don't attach your GG to a combat unit - snag a scout or explorer - if they ever come up to defend, especially in the late game, you're going to lose him soon anyway

If you want more GGs than that though, grab the experience from barbs mod
 
In my last game, I decided to use my generals in a more fun way. I beelined to tank and got there first, then made the first GG I got after that upgrade a tank that already had 2 levels off Drill up to level 4 drill and added 30% withdrawal. That tank was really useful, and with 3-6 first strikes often didn't need as much healing even though I usually attacked with him first. Was great for cleaning out Riflemen and such, and a lot more fun to play with without any fear.
 
well, i'll chime in ...i am an opportunistic player but i have to agree with the warmongerer's comment. I make em to either die in defense or attack and can't imagine "saving' them because they are... important?...Important smortant- they are hyper war units- to not use them and lose them does not make sense unless u need them to build West Point. Into the Fray! (i say)
 
In the early game, settling a Great General makes more sense than creating a hyper unit.

I'd rather be able to build dozens upon dozens of level 3 units in my military production city, than build one level 5 unit using up the Great General.

Usually by the time I hit the Modern Age, my military production city is able to make level 4-5 Infantry every single turn.
 
Stop thinking like gamers for a sec and think like a tactition and historian, in history the warlord and or general is a target and leads the troops into battle not sitting behind the lines drinking tea, catching a show, and sometimes looking in on the battle, these facts make him weak he is a single man with a target painted in decorations on him. escaping does not make you a general it makes you a coward heroism in battle makes you a general now I like the idea of making a general a high cost buildable unit and a conduit for higher promos but making him into a coward focusing only on survival rather than what made them great generals in the first place now make it so great generals make units much harder to kill and stronger than the standard unit but not a snivelling weasel.
 
Top Bottom