The ability of generals

[martin goddard]

In CK the general is important in many ways.
He is key piece.
He must not become too key/Hollywood.


How about a wars of the roses attribute system? 
Morale, assault, target,?
A complexity, but interesting.



martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

Martin,

The WOTR system could be a good basis. Maybe a good starting point is "what is the general known for?".

In some CK, instances, the Morale adjustment might be negative (bad generals, in whom troops  have little confidence)?

There may also be scope to apply modifiers at an army (rather than unit) level e.g. if I know that Caesar has my back and will feed in reinforcements as may be required, I may be more inclined to stand and fight those big scary, hairy Britons?

These shouldn't be game-changers. The reasons good generals often won probably lie at least as much in planning, choosing the ground, logistics, knowing when not to fight, etc. as in battlefield "magic", but a little period flavour that could encourage troops to be more ready to attack, or to stand and take it, would I feel be appropriate.

Simon

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

The cult of personality was a strong one in the ancient and medieval period, particularly so in the Roman Empire. Sharing the same campaigning hardships as the troops went a long way to gaining trust. Shakespeare was not wrong when morale was often determined by the 'little touch of Harry in the night'. Historically, the Romans were far more superstitious than generally supposed. A 'lucky' general was a mascot for the Legions and went a long way to explaining why legions sided with their former commanders in the factional fighting in the Republic.
I'm planning to use attributes for Generals/Leaders more widely for my homegrown MexRev campaign. A cruel or sadistic leader is more likely to incur a strong negative reaction among the enemy and promote possible defections from less hard-line allies and units. An aggressive and successful one is more likely to attract recruits and get to re-roll for reclaiming casualties after a battle. An unlucky one will likely have more desertions as well as less chance of rescuing casualties, that sort of thing. This I gather is more of the preamble that you guys use in other systems like AK47 to determine the troops and their quality that get to fight on the table. Still, there may be similar elements you can use....

[Nick]

I think using some different general attributes would be a good idea for Ancients. Those used in Bloody Barons work well.

Nick

[Moggy]

Agreed, I think this would differentiate then a bit. Wouldn't want anything complex though. The game is simple at heart and any change to Generals should reflect this.

A possibility would be an option to roll for a trait. Whatever trait you gained your second general got the opposite!  +1 attack dice (making the benefits +2 and +3) and -1 attack dice (making him only benefit if he leads from the front)

Derek

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

One of the big failings in my book of 'Triumph of the Will' is that the strength of a unit is determined by the number of figures in that unit. This is such an obvious 'tell' that all the opponent needs to do is avoid the strongest and pick on the weakest. I like the idea that you won't know the calibre of a unit until you test it in combat so all my units have the same number of figures.
Would it be obvious under the system Derek proposes who is the dodgy CO? If not then I DO like the idea that the weaker one would have to put his best foot forward and lead from the front else suffer penalties in command and control... Is there the possibility of getting a Rash General? - there's historical precedent and it can prove rather fun... I have fond memories in DBA of losing control of a unit of Templars and having to pitch in after them before I was ready...