Larian Studios Forums Dragon Commander Dragon Commander - General Not a lot of reason to use Generals in battle.

Go ahead and catch that nap General, I won't be needing your services today.

I've been finding myself avoiding using generals unless I absolutely, positively have to. Their salary is pretty high for such a small boost to the chance of victory, and their salary goes up the more territory you have, which doesn't help.


You only seem likely to finish off one General's arc on a playthrough - maybe two on a long one. Unless something unexpected happens, a lot of my battles are in the 85%+ chance of auto-resolve and I have the Imperial army do it. The problem is that there are way too few battles where the odds are bad for me.

Here's why: A big part of this problem is because the unexpected almost NEVER happens. There's no round-robin, you always take your turn first in single-player, meaning that you almost always choose the battlefields that turn, and so you use your general even less than you would otherwise.

I just don't have any motive to use the generals - not at that expense.


I do have some kind of idea, but I'm not sure if it's a good one or not: Have the Generals gain experience when used in battle, and have that help boost their stats. That would at least give a reason to use them, or engaging in more fights than you can do yourself, knowing that a General is capable of doing it.

This would probably lead you to focus more on using Generals whose story arcs you are progressing, which would help playthroughs feel more unique. The different generals specializing in different areas would actually matter more, maybe?


Additionally, one complaint I have with the current generals system, is that you only seem to be rewarded with boosts to their stats for certain choices. If you pick "wrong", no boost for you. For Catherine, I finished her arc and she gained 3 new stats. I finished Henry's arc and he only gained 1. EDIT: My mistake, he gained 2 stats.

I'd prefer minor stat boosts for all choices, but different stats are boosted depending on what you chose.

There's also little use for cards other then the mercenary cards.

In fact, all you need to do is sit around and collect like 20-30 mercenary cards (with a bunch of taverns that doesn't take long at all) at the end of the chapter then go stomp the next chapter by sending in a single unit to take over territories and bolstering it with a bunch of cards.

I myself am not very good at micro managing but i enjoy the risk type gameplay. Perhaps they should allow some sort of ai to control your army and you just be allowed to use your dragon. That would make it easier on using your dragon and a reason to use a general.

I haven't conpared the differences but it feels like the generals add 5-8% of winning battles so the problem for me is they are just too damn expensive, if I'm engaged in 2 50% battles I'm actually less likely to use a general because it typically means less is at stake. If they gained experience that might help but really I think they just need to be better and cheaper.

Regarding the other cards I've found some of the strategy cards to be very powerful (250% gold production for 2 turns, -100% gold production on an enemy tile, 75% cost reduction on air units for one factory for one turn) but the Wizard Tower and Academy do consistently throw out cards that have only marginal utility at best.

I agree (in fact I had opened a similar topic a few days ago ).

I like the experience idea, but even without it, the bonus from generas should be increased.
If they would give 10-20% better chances, their wages would be justified.
Currently, most of the time I don't see any reason to use them.

In addition to their different bonuses to different unit types, other "traits" might be added. E.g. one general might give a particularly large bonus, but the risky nature of his decisions lead to very high losses.

I don't have quite the same problem as you (I'm often outnumbered on the strategy map), but I still agree. The boost to your chances is just too low to justify the cost, so I almost never use them. I'd much rather save the money so I can buy an extra Devasator next turn. I feel that Larian should both make them more useful and decrease the cost, possibly even to zero. Right now, I feel that Catherine and Edmund are so annoying relative to their usefulness that I'd like to just kick them off my ship.

I think the way to make generals matter is to make it cost something for the imperial army selection. Even small cost like 1-2 gold. Then drop the general prices by 25-33%. Perhaps only do this on hard though because having the IA cost money could easily lead to the game being un-winnable.

The only general I use on a regular basis is Scarlett for the defense bonus. Helpful if it want to resolve an attack on my capital and don't want to risk even a small chance of defeat.

You can only do one RTS combat per turn, so charging gold for the imperial army could lead into situations where you'd have to go into negative gold.

The way to make the generals more attractive is to make them more useful, not have the army auto-resolve penalize you.

The Generals odds of winning do get better as you advance their story, in my previous playthrough, Catherine's arc was completed and her odds of winning were noticeably better than anyone else, but mam, using them can get expensive. At one point in late Act 2, the fee for a single battle was like 30 gold. For that I could buy a bunch of units on the strategy map and boost my odds of winning for more than one battle.

Right now, with Karthan gone and Sybille down to 3 territories left (Farhan is the biggest remaining threat), his fee is 23 gold. Granted, his arc is done, it has taught him 2 new skills, and his chances to win are up to 9% (compared to 0%, 1% and 3% for the others), but that's still pretty expensive for a one-off.

See, it's just not worth it. You're better off buying new Armours and Devastators for that money. I like the role-playing aspect of the generals, but on the strategic map they're mostly useless.

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 auto-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.

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.

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.



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.

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.

I never used anything besides auto resolve afte chapter 1... just made 10 juggernaugts and did imperial army resolve...

rts part was horrible so it that much of a loss

The RTS part is actually loads of fun once you figure it out, probably even more so if you have a good computer. I myself had to turn the resolution all the way down, but I still enjoyed it.

I had some use for generals. I fought many battles at once, and advanced aggressively. Does the turn counter increase throughout the game, or reset per chapter? I think it goes ever upwards, because I don't think I played the last chapter for 33 turns.

Most of the time, though, I was very low on gold, pouring into units. I never used more than one general in a single turn, even though I'm rather bad at RTS.

I played somewhat recklessly on the strategy map and was not punished for it at all. (I was deliberate about the resources and locations I exposed to danger and the value of potential conquests, so not entirely reckless, but I was always expanding, hardly ever losing more ground than I gained.)

I don't think my generals gained any abilities during play. Or did they start out with less than 2 each?

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.

I'm not sure what the percentage really shows at this time. When you have a luck bonus you might have 52% whatever while your opponent has 50%, and that's a bit much, isn't it?

"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."

You present two scenarios:
Player 40% using general
AI 40% chance <presumably no general>

Are you saying that you won a larger percentage of your 40% chances than what the computer did, and was that more than 4 victories in 10 battles?

Did you try any 40% battles that were 40% without generals?

I agree that Generals desperately need some love. 8 gold for their boosts isn't that great. This is especially early on, where that 8 gold is better spent on a random unit.

I'm guessing that a General's individual contribution scales better when more units are deployed on both sides. With small armies, you are better off just hiring another unit than wasting 8 gold on a general...

However, when stakes are that high I would rather use the Dragon.