Why does my generals attack in Formation Group and don't stay behind the line?

[Viranto]

I hate this, my unique generals (heroes, children, wifes) are always the units which died first in a battle, because they attack the enemy, when i give the formation group
infantry or cavalry the attack order.This shouldn't happend, because as a general they should stay behind the normal units and only attack when it really necessary. They are here for the morale and orders (ingame for the boni).

But in the game I have to attach them to one of the group, to benefit from there boni to my units. But this is now the problem, because now i can't give an attack order, without risk their life, because now they behave like a normal soldier and not longer like a general. They even stand in the first line and not behind the common folk.

Is there any way to avoid this, without attach heroes to a non used group? Because they should lead my own units, but without killing them self at the fist contact and i also would benefit from the bonis which they give to the infantry. Do i have use the orders in a other way, as soon i have some generals for my formation groups (infantry, archer and cavalry)?

If not, please TW fix it. Generals should be behind the line and only risk in sticky situations their life. Of course some Generals fight at the front, maybe some of the sturgia or battania. But the most give orders.

 

[D0c1]

they just like to lead from the front

i do agree that there should be an option to have them lead from the rear.

optimally, leading from the front should give morale bonus to troops and leading from the rear a morale debuff (maybe a slight one).
enemy troops should have a negative morale if your captain is leading your troops from the front and their captain is leading from the rear. and vice versa.
also, morale should fall when the captain/general dies/get knocked out. the morale shouldn't fall as much if the captain was leading from the front.

this will give pros and cons to front vs rear and add some nice options to the game.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

It's very upsetting that they can't be placed in the rear of the formation or optioned to avoid close combat or such. They seem to purposefully put them front and center of whatever formation, sucks.

 

[TechnoSarge]

Leaders in this period led from the front. Hiding behind the commoners would get you no respect, and one of the beta dogs would quickly knock off the alpha.

That said - they ought also to be of comparable stats to the men they lead. I so many times see other Lords in my army, after a battle, get stuff like "+2 Polearm (12)" - which is hardly equal to how you come out of the Training Ground. And, oh, they're wounded. Big surprise.

PS - Even the ladies need to have decent stats, if they're leading! If we're going to be liberated and have warrior maidens, they should fight like they held a sword before today!

 

[Apocal]

That said - they ought also to be of comparable stats to the men they lead. I so many times see other Lords in my army, after a battle, get stuff like "+2 Polearm (12)" - which is hardly equal to how you come out of the Training Ground. And, oh, they're wounded. Big surprise.

The combatants do. The noncombatants don't but they aren't supposed to be leading parties. They only do it when the combatants in a clan are dead or captured.

 

[Captain Ralh]

Leaders in this period led from the front. Hiding behind the commoners would get you no respect, and one of the beta dogs would quickly knock off the alpha.

That said - they ought also to be of comparable stats to the men they lead. I so many times see other Lords in my army, after a battle, get stuff like "+2 Polearm (12)" - which is hardly equal to how you come out of the Training Ground. And, oh, they're wounded. Big surprise.

PS - Even the ladies need to have decent stats, if they're leading! If we're going to be liberated and have warrior maidens, they should fight like they held a sword before today!

I'd have to disagree. Leaders in this period would select a vanguard and they would lead in their stead, most of the time. It was a super honorable position. There was a certain amount of respect and honor to be apart of the king's guard in battle. Would be cool to see that implemented. Maybe I'll make a mod

 

[SteelBrain]

Regardless of the historical accuracy, I think for gameplay mechanics as the OP said, the leader should not be channeling their internal Leroy Jenkins and being the first casualty onto a shield wall. There does need to be a default leader position inside their formation whether that be at the rear or inside one of the ranks and not out front. Just makes sense for gameplay.

 

[Antaeus]

Regardless of the historical accuracy, I think for gameplay mechanics as the OP said, the leader should not be channeling their internal Leroy Jenkins and being the first casualty onto a shield wall. There does need to be a default leader position inside their formation whether that be at the rear or inside one of the ranks and not out front. Just makes sense for gameplay.

It should probably be related to their traits.

If they have the trait "daring" then they should probably be leading from the front.

Otherwise they should probably be behind the line.

It does help their survivability to make sure they're dismounted if they're leading infantry.

 

[Lluid]

The main problem is that the enemy lords tend to stay behind their troops. So the code for this safe behaviour is already here, but weirdly our captains don't act that way and instead die very fast.
Captains relay orders, give various bonuses, so it doesn't make sense if they charge in. Except if they're valorous.

 

[cadadr]

Leaders in this period led from the front. Hiding behind the commoners would get you no respect, and one of the beta dogs would quickly knock off the alpha.

Care to corroborate? I highly doubt a lord that has everything to lose whould charge an army upfront. And tactically speaking you either have your men behind you so you dont see what they are doing, or you turn to them and someone puts a javelin in your spine. Besides, army leaders stand back already in the game.

 

[black_bulldog]

Care to corroborate? I highly doubt a lord that has everything to lose whould charge an army upfront. And tactically speaking you either have your men behind you so you dont see what they are doing, or you turn to them and someone puts a javelin in your spine. Besides, army leaders stand back already in the game.

I'm no history professor but from what I remember this is just the opposite of what actually happened. Most leaders don't lead from the front, they issue orders from the rear or at least a semi-safe position. There are always exceptions but if most of your leaders get wiped out it's hard to regroup or continue fighting in any meaningful way. I mean an army without leaders is just a mob with better weapons.

 

[Antaeus]

Besides, army leaders stand back already in the game.

Some do and some don't.

Battanians are particularly bad at getting ahead of their forces even when they aren't going full beserker thanks to their high athletics they end up 50 meters ahead of a charging line. But I've had numerous nobles solo my infantry line - particularly if they're hopelessly outnumbered - they seem to just go the AI equivalent of F1-F3 and GG it's all over.

And most lords will charge out if you're soloing around or kiting their formation. You can lure them out and take them down right in front of their forces.


Of course, IRL, the medieval period wasn't the era of champions fighting in place of their armies... no matter how much Henry V might want to.