Wow! This feedback/info is worth gold

Thanks. I
really appreciate it.
+ I love the way they retain their general graphic. I had quite modern units being led by a guy in deerskins with a cape. That made them unique. So much so that I started giving them names "General Steel", "Colonel Hill", "Leiutenant Shabash", etc. It really added to the game in a great way to have such identification with the units.
I thought a lot about this. An alternative could be to give them "modern" look in modern times, but they could easely be confused with Warlord Generals. So I'm gonna stick with "General Steel", "Colonel Hill", "Leiutenant Shabash"
I don't have much to say in terms of balance - I almost never used them as private armies on their own. At the technology level they appeared at, there was almost more military advantage to adding them to an existing unit, for reasons of promotion synergy mostly.
In v1.5 I gave them some more strenght/bonuses which should bring them to at least an equilivant opponent. Might have to up their strenghts even more. The new stats are updated in Spoiler in the first thread.
- AI did seem to fairly consistently use them as they were, not adding them to units, though. Bug/feature, or limitation of the game structure possibly. In the past, the AI had quite regularly used Great Generals attached to units, so there clearly is code to do so. Perhaps giving them strength/abilities and xp made the AI treat them like UNITS instead of GREAT PEOPLE.
I started make warlord (1) before the update to 3.19. One of the reasons why I made Warlords II was that the AI wasnt happy about building them as single Warlords. So I added the private army and vupti, the AI builds them. The AI should be "fixed" in 3.19 making it better at joining vanilla Generals with units, but already in 3.17 they were pretty good at using the captured Warlords for leaders (nothing else to do with them).
- Whereas, on the other hand, after dabbling with one or two as armies, I started using them ENTIRELY the other way, as additions to an existing unit.
Because (a) there was a limit on the number of army units you could use, and (b) there were better synergies to be achieved by ROM's many various over-promoted base units, and (c) the benefit of free xp with general promotions was just too good.
My biggest problem is the way the Warlords are now. They can be exploited by human players. When I uploaded 1.5 I actually thought about making an optional patch taking away the Warlords (Army) ability to <Join Unit As Warlord>. That way the only way human players could attach them was with captured Warlords as the AI does, making them more valuable (have to give them bigger xp bonus). On the other hand : the xp bonus the Warlord gives when build now, is so small that it would propably be a better strategy to build something else (examples : 1 Chief (str6/100

) or 2.5 axemen (str5/100

) / 1 Captain (Str12/200

) or 2 macemen (str10/170

). Later when the xp becomes better its still an expensive way of boosting the armies. When that said, I actually had Warlords on all the major cities by the medieval era. Which is why I will make them not able to join when they have their private army (in v1.6), but make a patch with the second for those who still wants warlords all over the place.
Which got me thinking - I think there are two units here, not one.
There are Army units - which have a place in the game, as leaders of stacks of doom with different promotions. Flexible units that can reduce walls, raid, and so on.
And there are Commander great people - like half-a-great-general that get added to units because they can't be added to a city.
The problem is the AI. They cannot see the huge advantage by building the Commander type, which means they wont build them at all.
I'm not sure of the value of Army units, I think they'd need to be rebalanced according to their cost and rarity. Make them DAMN GOOD, but make them damn expensive as well, so that at comparable tech levels, the AI won't just build entire stacks of them.
I tried to balance them by giving them some bonuses (+against mounted or melee etc), and I dont know which version you used, bet they have been boosted to fit their era. Might give them more,
But the Commander units are awesome enough to be a mod on their own.
I'll make a small optional patch, but I dont think the AI will build it, making it unbalancing.
What I did find was that I was farming XP for my best "Generals" though. The mechanic for adding xp to the entire stack means that I could:
- make 2 production-heavy cities.
- build units in the main one with the great generals (bonus xp)
- build warlords in the other one
- move warlord and unit to the same tile
- meet them there with an existing general I wanted to "boost"
Damn. With the 20+xp from the vanilla Generals plus the 15xp from the Warlord General. Would have made som SoD
- click "Add to unit"
- the 5/10/whatever xp that gets divided onto the stack then would go HALF on the newly Warlorded unit, and HALF on the general being boosted.
Could also be done with the vanilla generals, but another good reason not to be able to join the built warlord, but only the captured ones.
Exploit? Perhaps. Expensive enough to be fine as is? Maybe.
Exploit for sure. I dont like when the human player can use the system in an unfair way giving a huge advantage. It should be our strategy not the "BUGS" that makes us victorious

. I too spammed Warlords, giving my city defense good bonuses and making upgrades cheaper (At least they are not for free anymore, Thanks Zappara

)
What my thinking led me to, was that possibly the best way to handle this would be to split these two functions into two separate units.
Maybe make an "Armies!" modmod and a "Commanders!" modmod.
Its actually only a couple of 0's being replaced by 1's in a single file that makes the difference. If people wants warlords in every stack (and I have to say I kind of liked it, having feudal warlords guarding every major city, and I guess realistic enough) then they can dl the "patch". No sweat.
Final bits of feedback -
- the promotion tree for generals is a bit "muddy". It's got all sorts of various unequal options, making some promotions a "must have" and others a very dubious choice at best. I think some time could be spent cleaning it up a bit to make it a logical tree of equally valid choices, with rewards for specialisation.
I agree on this one too. And not only for the generals (IMO), I usually end up giving my units the starpromotions (at least until they have 3 stars and can get some interesting promotions) Unfortunately the new WoC standard makes it nearly impossible to change existing values, so that changing the promotions couldnt be done modular.
That's not something to do with this mod really (unless you decide to make it to do with this mod). But it does distinctly impact the effectiveness of this mod, so I thought it worth mentioning.
In warlord (1) I made an alternative leader promotion for my Warlords. Unfortunately the sideeffect was you could join BOTH a warlord and a general to the same unit. So I skipped it.
And one final bug - I had a lot of normal GP great generals - as I played on Aggressive AI, with August Caesar (Imperialistic). A few of my "normal" great general pops came out as Warlords. This was always a bit of a let down, as a great general is worth more overall. Is this intended that you sometimes get one of your Warlords from normal Great General generation?
I had a slight suspision about that, and it was confirmed in a test game I just made, where a Warlord General (Army) was born in the middle ages. I'm almost sure where to locate that BUG (I used the great general as a template when I made the warlords). It will ofcourse be removed from Warlords II v.1.6
And again : Thanks for you very valuable information/view. I'll see it will be put to good use
