Making leadership matter

[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.