I can agree with you, Skirlasvoud, if you're engaging on 3+ fronts a turn with forces only equal to your opposition. But if you're playing a more measured campaign, fighting fewer battles, then there isn't much reason to use them. It sounds like you're playing a bit recklessly. I suppose I could as well, but it's not really my style.
I take that "not my style" thing back. I think that because they cost so much for a single turn, that it's actually keeping me from engaging on too many fronts.
I think one way to make generals more useful is to bring back the round-robin rules.
In the multiplayer campaigns, I would have two countries with about equal numbers of troops bordering on an enemy country which had about as many troops as both my countries combined. My plan was to invade from both countries at once. If the enemy went first, though, they could block half my forces by pushing a single Trooper across. That trooper isn't a threat by itself, but suddenly, my invading force is cut in half from what I expected. If there's another good-sized attack on another country of mine, then I would have to leave one to a general. But because I always go first in single-player, the enemy can never block my invasion plans.
I don't think this is a realistic option though. If they are more useful they will be too powerful and make stomping the AI too easy. It's already pretty easy, the last thing the player needs right now is another advantage the AI can't use.
Okay, that's a fair point. You could lower the cost of sending a General into battle, without boosting them. They cost so much to use in the mid-late campaign that it doesn't seem worth it unless there's a surprise attack.
Another alternative is to take away one of the advantages the player has: as I suggested above, change it so the player doesn't always move first in single-player.
