Page 1 of 1

Simple question

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:07 am
by Khanti
I've seen this sentence:

Cardinal Ape wrote:Yup, I am saying there is NO combat penalty for inactive generals.

To be extra clear, I am also saying there may be no combat penalty for inactive generals in any ageod game since CW1.

I've spent a good chunk of time testing it. In CW1 the penalty can be seen in the combat logs, any game released after CW1 has nothing in the logs. I've tested several games (not every one) from BOA2 to The Thirty Years War, I've found no evidence that inactive generals suffer a combat penalty.

Ya, inactive generals still get their stats for frontage in clear terrain. The movement traits don't have an impact on frontage.

in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=331&t=51365

And the question is: Really? Is it true? No penalty? In any Ageod's game since CW1?

Re: Simple question

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:43 am
by loki100
well there are plenty of penalties for being inactive - but most affect movement and the related rules.

As far as I know, the statement is correct. If an inactive general is attacked then they fight as normal.

The cost of low strategic rating (or being unlucky otherwise) is you can get badly outmanouvered, or depending on your game settings, actually cut off when the weather changes. Thus when you come to fight, you may well have low supply/cohesion etc but that is a product of the pre-battle marching and gaining an advantage not hard wired into the combat itself.

Re: Simple question

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:16 am
by Durk
Yes indeed, there were never penalties for anything other than maneuver and marching. A way of thinking about this game concept is that inactive or locked status is the general has not carried out the march command given. However, this failure to comply, whether due to laziness, tardiness or cussedness does not impact the general's ability to command troops in battle.

Re: Simple question

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:00 pm
by Khanti
Thank you both for clarification.