If you don't thing generals are useful, then you're obviously not used to fighting large wars.
I'm frequently resolving several battles after a single turn. Most of the times, these involve several close calls. I'll resolve the most pressing one myself, but the other one where I can't be at?
I completely disagree with this thread. The generals as they are now, have saved my ass over a dozen times.
There actually isn't that much difference between 46% without and 53% with a general. In either case, the outcome is up in the air. You have slightly better odds in the second fight, but not enough to justify the cost, in my opinion. And if cost doesn't matter you're already winning, anyway.
a 7% difference? Try 15%. My 40% fleet gets easily buffed up to 65% if I use Catherine. I completed my generals' storyline.
Also, I got into these multi-battle resolves so often, that I would save and try to chance certain battles without a general. That wouldn't work and the generals made all the difference.
In fact, I'm completely confident that the percentages don't accurately reflect my general's influence.
I've won far more 40% auto-resolved battles with a skilled general, than I've lost 60% auto-resolved battles with the Imperial army. Even the game says that there are always "outside factors" that make things uncertain.
Now, this might just be human superstition not able to grasp luck-based statistics, but I'm quite happy with my generals' performance... not that I wouldn't stand even more improvement.
