Empire: Total War Discussion
The two of them which are relevant to this are typified by Alexander and Arthur Wellesley.
What these two represent are the ideal required by the expectations of the men they led and by the requirements of the type of warfare being engaged in.
Alexander represents the classical age (RTW) through the beginning of the renaissance (M2TW). The soldiers expected their leaders to be leading the charge. Alexander led from the front, as did all good generals of the day. The combat was close and brutal so a general had to be in the middle of it to lead.
In the era represented by ETW, the generals were almost entirely drawn from the ruling class and you had class expectations. They were expected to be aloof and stoic. At Assaye, Arthur Wellesley (later the Duke of Wellington) had two horses shot out from under him, so he was always near the fighting. But, except on a few rare occasions, he did not engage in it himself. He was aloof, as his men expected, but was always right behind them. In danger, but detached from it.
But, having said that, I agree. The general unit should have more effect on the battle. Especially a high level one.
Having a good general nearby should make even the weakest infantry stand longer.
It should take into account that the range of musketmen is far longer than that of a sword. I've had a general lose his entire bodyguard from being directly behind the line, with no appreciable effect on the soldiers in front of him.
personally empire's campaign map became overly complicated IMO but im sure others were happy about that ^^
* Updated game trainers and cheats daily
* Get notified when new cheats are added
* Request which games get new trainers
* Priority support with any problem
• Unlimited Movement
• One Turn Construction
+ 12 more options