Making leadership matter

[sourdust]

Been thinking about the role of leaders and leadership in this game. It's curious - lack of leaders is almost never a real constraint on the ability to move troops around, and with a few limited exceptions the leaders have no effect on the troops they lead. Funny how giants consent to be led by paltry human independent commanders, etc. Further, most leaders (even those with battle skills) usually tend to hang back, rather than being in the thick of the fray, leading their troops!

In short, leadership is there as a concept, but has very little impact on the game play itself.

Here's an idea to make leadership important: have all leaders grant bonuses / penalties to the troops they are in charge of. In this way, a powerful general could take mediocre troops and make them do great things - and on the flip side, powerful troops would not reach their full potential if ineptly led.

Example: I'm playing Atlantis LA. Normally, there is no reason to recruit snow captain or ice captains. Human independents or Angakoks can led your troops just as well, and why waste time recruiting an ice captain when you could recruit a mage instead? But now suppose that a snow captain grants a +2 morale and +2 attack to all Atlantian troops under his leadership? And suppose that human independent commanders grant only a +1 morale to humans ... and a -2 morale and -1 defense to any non-humans they command? Now there is a real reason to use snow commanders and ice commanders, and the decision about which commander to recruit each turn at each fortress is more complex.

This also opens up possibilities for truly legendary generals, and even greater differentiation among nations. I'm thinking of heroes here that have average abilities for themselves, but extraordinary leadership bonuses - how about hero of Man that grants +5 accuracy, +5 range and +1 damage to all troops under his command? Or a hero of Ulm granting +3 defence and +3 reinvig? Or a hero of Pangaea which automatically barkskins all troops under her command?

Finally, commanders should be in there with their troops fighting, not hanging back! This is a fantasy game, not WW2. Not sure of the best mechanism to achieve that...

[iRFNA]

It'd make more sense to have higher leadership open up more options for advanced troop commands/placement rather than mysterious bonuses that are basically battle spells. Also, ye olde generals tended to not wade into battle. Of course, there's nothing stopping people from sending commanders in with their troops, or else thugs wouldn't exist.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by iRFNA

It'd make more sense to have higher leadership open up more options for advanced troop commands/placement rather than mysterious bonuses that are basically battle spells. Also, ye olde generals tended to not wade into battle. Of course, there's nothing stopping people from sending commanders in with their troops, or else thugs wouldn't exist.

Actually, Rome was the first power where the general wasn't in the thick of the fighting.

Alexander the Great notably had to make all his battle plans ahead of time, because come fighting he was in the thick of things riding with his Companions (heavy cavalry).

At least in the 'ancient era', commanders were expected to lead from the front to inspire the men. And even after Rome many militaries continued to adhere to that for quite a while.

[WraithLord]

sourdust, I concur with your observation but not so sure about the solution you present.
I tend to favor more iRFNA suggestion re. commands/placement but doubt that it's doable.
So, perhaps good commanders can be recruited together with a few of the troops of same race/kind.

Oh and in modern warefare there's at least one army in which the motto and practice is for commanders (low - to medium lvl, not top generals) to be in the thick of battle. Said army has sadly been involved in too many wars over the last century

[Makinus]

maybe another thing is to limit leadership a little more.... as it is the number is too high for most commanders... specially after experience increases... to make leadership more important we should reduce the current number at least to half...

[earcaraxe]

FYI: the last time each army was under the personal command of its monarch was in 1859 at solferino where the armies of napoleon the 3rd and victor emanuel the 2nd defeated the army of franz joseph (the first )

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Actually, Rome was the first power where the general wasn't in the thick of the fighting.

Alexander the Great notably had to make all his battle plans ahead of time, because come fighting he was in the thick of things riding with his Companions (heavy cavalry).

At least in the 'ancient era', commanders were expected to lead from the front to inspire the men. And even after Rome many militaries continued to adhere to that for quite a while.

[Sasooli]

Originally Posted by earcaraxe

FYI: the last time each army was under the personal command of its monarch was in 1859 at solferino where the armies of napoleon the 3rd and victor emanuel the 2nd defeated the army of franz joseph (the first )

Yeah, but there's a difference between personal command of the monarch and the mid-level commander actually fighting with his men.

The easiest way to motivate recruiting that kind of unit would be to play a non-Indy map (or just remove the Indy commander and leave in special Indy mages if you prefer) and drastically reduce the leadership of all national commanders who aren't clearly military leaders - so a grizzled old mage can take a dozen bodyguards to a fight but you need the more commandery looking units to cart big armies around. You still wouldn't get bonuses from your particular commanders, but at least the Snow Captain-type units would see a lot of play, and deciding whether to recuit a mage or a 'commander' from each fort would be a significant decision.

[thejeff]

Reducing leadership would just mean you recruit twice as many indy commanders.

That's not really solvable without giving specific bonuses to national leaders. Or removing indy commanders. No Independents maps exist.

I like the idea of troop bonuses for national non-mage commanders. Unfortunately the only similar thing that can be modded is Standard. Useful, but not quite enough in most cases.

[fantasma]

you could give them a autocast sermon of courage or strength of giant, legion of steels, etc., couldn't you?

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by fantasma

you could give them a autocast sermon of courage or strength of giant, legion of steels, etc., couldn't you?

True. Most of the spell effects seem overpowered though. Other than maybe on expensive capital only commanders.

Might be a nice concept to base a mod nation around.