Making leadership matter

[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.