To shell the General, or not to shell...

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

... that is the question:)

I just wanted to ask; when is it okay to shell a general with artillery?

Obviously, if you are using general units as your general, this shouldnt be a problem. The problem is when regular combat units are used as general units. At what point are you allowed to bombard enemy general units with artillery? After all, if an enemy makes their best unit their general, how can you possibly be expected NOT to pound them with artillery? At the same time, how do you balance that with the practice of simply blasting an enemy general with artillery as a general sniping tactic?

Anyone have any ideas how we can put together any sort of rules of engagement for this, or maybe to put together some rules to ensure generals are chosen and treated equally? I know that we generally (no pun intended) do not allow the shelling of generals with arty, no matter what. Does this need to change? Or are things fine the way they are, and bad bounces will just have to be lived with?

Let me know your thoughts:)

Ash

[Hoffman]

I work on a sort of Honorable, but opportunistic basis.

I won't shoot a General with Infantry, or Artillery if there are other units around to shoot, that's just decent manners.

But if a General is stupid enough to get right into my primary line of fire, or walk right into an enfilade, I will not hesitate to order his death.

Simply my reasoning is this:
This is war, everone is at risk.
I will win by any means necessary, and to do that may mean I must step on someone's toes. But I will not lose because of 'manners'.

Now, if my situation is serious, as in, outnumbered two to one by a giant army of Old Guard, Middle Guard, Young Guard and a General, I will place the destruction of that General at maximum priority.

I try my best to build my force to a relatively balanced army.
In large games, however, I am always ending up short, decently supplying my troops with proper equipment is so expensive I rarely have more than 10 units. And the amount of money that I do receive, I put into a very high valor artillery piece, I'll be d**ned if I don't use it!
The higher the valor, the more experience, the more experience the faster the reload, and greator the accuracy, essential for counter-battery fire.
This usually puts me down to light infantry that are in a support role instead of a line Regiment, like just about everyone else has. How they manage to overrun, outflank, outnumber, and seemingly outgun me in every large battle I have been in is baffling. Whereas I can only afford Battalions, I seem to be fighting everyone else who is using Heavy Regiments.


And so, if my situation is dire, expect your Generals to have a really really big target painted on them. I'll even the odds any way I have to.


But in the main I'll be honorable and only kill him if absolutely necessary, and/or he decides to walk twenty yards infront of 100 Guardsmen. That's just plain stupidity in an enemy General and I'll keep him from spreading that by removing him from the gene pool.

[[GG]ThinRedLine]

Hello,

Okay, for you new players. There is a rule.

Simply, The General is not to be shelled at range.

If the General is attached to a unit (ie you did not choose an actual General for one of your units) then he may be shelled if he is involved in combat.

If my general is in a Saxon Currasier unit and is charging your flank, or your guns, or anything for that matter he is fair game.

We gentlemen here in NTW have always played this way it is what we have all come to expect.

Opportunistic shots at units right next to the General at range have been frowned upon, but hey, If winning is the most important thing, by all means shell away.

See how many people enjoy playing with as opposed to enjoy killing/beating you.

I served in the 25th Light Infantry Division 'Tropic Lightning'. I hated to be shelled regardless of how close our CO was.

Cheers,

TRL

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

I understand that this rule exists; I just wonder, purely for arguments sake, if it is ideal. If an enemy general is embedded in a cav unit that is flanking around your army, even if it is not directly attacking your army, shouldn't you be able to shell it, knowing that, as soon as you show weakness, it will charge? Or do we assume that, since both players have access to the same rule, that it will in effect cancel itself out; that players will basically do the same things with their generals, thus negating any advantages?

This is more a theoretical thread than anything else; is there a better permutation of the rule that hasn't yet been considered, but might work? Or isn't there?

Ash

[Hoffman]

I'm all for honorable warfare. And the absence of dead Generals.
But all throughout History Officers have been primary targets.
From cavemen, to now, killing the leader will almost always crush the army before, or during the battle.

I will be respectful and I won't fire upon a General, so long as the General poses no threat. But if a General is stupid enough to get right up to my lines I will fire.

As for Generals in a Cavalry unit, or Group of Infantry.
I deem them not as Generals but Colonels, Majors, and Captains.
Fair game to me.

[KHD|HitmanM4]

I think the rule we use now is fine. We rarely have incidents where the general ends up dieing as a result of shelling.

However i think the player on the receiving end should have a greater responsibility for moving their general out of harms way. I have an example on Sunday where an Allied general was a greenjacket unit which was deployed directly behind another greenjacket unit which i was shelling. In the above case i wouldn't expect the blame if that general had died as a result.

[flippyxtrem]

I never shell the enemy general unless hes involved in combat that is endangering my flanks or arty...

I do sometimes see players move there general close to the battle line...and sometimes that general is a infantry unit...well if hes near my targets....I'll give a fair warning saying,"Hey your general is near where im shelling, you might want to move him." I give a warning...but I dont stop my shelling...and sometimes that ricochet hits that general...but not my fault in that situation...

I believe that general should never be targeted unless hes a real threat say he is charging your flanks...or charging your arty...but what Ash said...if he moves on your flank...dont use arty...just have a infantry unit there and shoot him...works all the same...concentrating a battery on one unit (the general) is really pathetic and im sure there are more targets out there of more opportunity...

and I agree with what Hitman said...we rarely have that situation of the general getting shelled...most of the time its just a ricochet...as long as both players were honorable it shouldent be no big deal...and these events wont happen...

kinda like hockey...if you mess with the other teams goalie..expect the same to happen to yours...

Cheers

[[GG]ThinRedLine]

I agree with both Hitman and Flippy on all of these points.

I know exactly what Hitman is referring to about last Sunday as I was the General in Question.

Ricochets and poor placement was the key factor for both me and Salis I am afraid.

We sort of deployed half way between two concepts and as you saw we failed pretty miserably. My general was killled by a relentless barage in the area and so was Salis'.

Unfortunate placing and not reacting quickly enough to save them was the culprit in this case I think.

Good Game til I accidentaly exited cus I was utterly destroyed and forgot I was hosting!

LOL!

How's that for short term memory?!?

S!

TRL

[flippyxtrem]

thats why you shouldent be so impatient Mr. Clan Emissary lol ;D

Cheers

[fidd]

I'll jump in here. Frankly any general that is also part of another unit deserves anything he gets. Dedicated general units present little battlefield threat, are easily identifiable, and can be hidden from deliberate harm, or else put in prominant positions clearly away from trouble.

If we all used 'em, the problem would not exist.


Ask yourself, which is "weirder", the rules requiring that 1 of 16 units be a dedicated general, or being unable to shell a manoeuvreing cavalry unit that otherwise you'd wipe off the face of the planet by virtue of it being (also) a "generals unit".

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

As I had said, I agree; I was always one to require Generals be taken as a general unit. I think the only two arguments against it are:

A) Cost: Generals cost a lot. Personally I say so what, just add 1200 florins to each general.

B) Total Units: Using a General reduces you to 15 combat units, and a battery on top of that reduces you to 13 combat units. Personally, I dont have a problem with that. Some people do.

This seems to be an argument that comes up with the more history oriented players among us, especially the wargamers out there. I know in the next patch generals will be lower cost, and I would be ALL for us making it a GG requirement that all players take Generals. Commanders werent leading infantry regiments. Commanders werent leading cav regiments. Commanders had their staff and ran around, which is the role of the General unit.

Ash

[[GG]Salis De Silver]

I think Flippy has the right idea, its not honourable to shell a General just to gain an edge. Its like an unsaid code, if the General becomes a threat then action is required, other than that he should be left un shelled. There will always be those that break the code but hey, we all can't be gentlemen.

S!

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

I would agree, if it is a General unit. But what if it is a cav unit, like many generals are, and it is hanging around on your flanks, waiting for a moment to strike?

Should you be able to shell it then? Or should you just be obligated to go after it with your own cav and troops since it is on its own and unsupported?

Ash

[fidd]

Shell the bugger.

[[GG]Salis De Silver]

lol... spoken like a true GG lol

S!