On the number of Generals allowable.

To: Appropriate Readers,

For the Settlers Online to remain sustainable; to remain competitive in an ever growing gig market economy; it is highly recommended to have the number of Generals, for each username registered, restricted to one allowable. Though the Settlers Online is an online simulative game; a fictional universe rather than of a real-world environment; it would be highly advantageous to do so because of the following reasons:
- The monetary value invested from players, whether new and old, would be worthy rather than unworthy, because of the immersive experience the Settlers Online provides, that many other games, whether of the same or similar genre, or completely different in genre, don't have in such experience. Thus, to remain competitive in an ever growing gig market economy, keeping the immersive gameplay that many other games don't have, compared to Settlers Online, should be of priority.
- In the real-world of experience, each country usually only has a General, to lead armies of command. Thus, for an immersive experience that the Settlers Online provides, and to remain as so, so gameplay remains competitive in an ever growing gig market economy, to provide a simulation as close as possible to real-world of experience, would be a great boon for the company of developers and stakeholders. Each personality trait given to in-game Generals, would thus find difference in either a Player versus Environment and Player versus Player engagement, to which both newcomers and experienced gamers would be able to appreciate to their in-game experience.
- Restricting to the number to a General per username, means that players, whether newcomers or experienced gamers, are "forced" to be more co-operative with each other, as an in-game General can only field a number of troops, per garrison. And, as counter-intuitive as this may sound, "forcing" players, whether newcomers or experienced gamers to be more co-operative with each other, Player versus Player environment is no longer redundant, but exciting, that would have game developers and stakeholders find the appropriate level of monetary gain, as advertising and marketing is generally reliant on an extraverted excitability, rather than of an introversion contemplation.
In realistic terms, having a redundant Player versus Player environment, is going to land the game company into bankruptcy, rather than remain in business. Thus, to ensure that a competitive edge is always gained ahead of games of either same or similar genre, or completely different in genre, as an entertainment business, it would be prudent for any business manager to implement, in this particular case, an immersive gameplay to which such simulative environment comes close as possible with the real-world of things, of our everyday experience.

There's many more reasons I can add as to why the number of Generals allowable should be restricted to just one per user. However, if requested, these reasons will be provided by ad hoc.

Thank you for your time to read this post.

Seems you want a different game than what the game has been for the past 12 years or so ....

Multiple generals/armies with various skills and disciplines , strenght and weaknesses are a core part of the game and hence can not really be changed just like that- It would mean a fundamental redesign and basically a new game

I think you need to manage your expectations - that boat has sailed - even before beta testing began so it is in the realms of wishful thinking

I'm sorry but if your going to use how things are in the real world you could at least do us the decency of ensuring that your information about the real world is correct.

what the heck are you going on about??

Are you all able to provide your assumptions. Because all your comments, unfortunately, short, snarky and rude, shouldn't be posted at all; especially when there is no constructive feedback.

To reply to "Qualan": the skills, disciplines, strengths and weaknesses weren't mentioned to be changed. Only the quantity, not the quality, of the in-game Generals, to be restricted in number. There is no fundamental redesign of the game, only to have the number of Generals reduced in number to one per username. More Generals available to hire or purchase, isn't a problem at all; all with different skill-sets, would only add more to the gameplay experience. Having a restriction on the number of Generals, would make players choose more wisely, and add more of a dynamic to the gameplay, for example: with a restricted number to a General, perhaps the player may have to hire a different General or improve by the skill tree available in-game, before starting an adventure quest, or entering a Player versus Player environment.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a "boat" that has "sailed". Considering how many market-crashes has happened in the past, in every economy thus far.

a lot of adventures are designed to use more generals and/or have sacrificial strategies needed to kill a camp- especially leader camps

This means needing more generals -if every general is unique, they will soon run out of options of uniqueness and end up cloning generals with a different name.

Already we see new generals coming into game that are only marginally different from another- not enough to warrant a new general really as they are used interchangable.

for example we have the major general- hardly used anymore - and the old Gemini General which are basically the same except of number of troops in 1

In many cases you can use either general without additional troop losses. Ofc as we have multiple OGG, we chose on the whole to use that one as it is easier on general management on the big adventures (where you are limited by landing slots and then have to fish em out of star menu) Adding the layer of unique generals that are almost similar will just get us to lump em together in play style (so a guide would state to use general x now and then it will state use general x, y, y etc- but listing exacly the same setup of troops.

So i think the concept might sound cool but in practice will just add annoyance to players ( like you can use x,y,x and a for camp A and x,y, a for camp B and you accidentally managed to kill off general z and didnt realize you needed it for this particular camp.

As to quantity- there are adventures where you need 15+ generals to finish it in a timely manner - so either we get a ton of generals that are more or less the same but just slightly different or we end up restricted by absolute numbers due to lack of more unique generals - Waiting for generals to recover is not fun, all that had to do this when starting and having limited generals can tell you - esp if real life doesnt always allow you a timely return and adventures end up running out of time

Ofc some generals we have so many of, that you can have a 1 type general strategy to win, but even that wont be solved with 1 general of 1 type system as in the end we will end up with a bunch of generals with marginal differences just to fit the mold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordloocan

what the heck are you going on about??

---

Style of writing makes me think someone is playing around trying to troll people with ChatGPT generated text.

I find it unlikely someone joined the game after it existing for 12 years just to post dumb opinions out of nowhere.

The members list shows you have a join date of just 4 days ago. this means one of two things either you are a new player or you are an established player with a additional account on a new server. If the former you can't possibly know how the game works for established players as you are still learning the basics of the game.

If you are an established player you will know what was needed to acquire the items you keep starting threads saying we don't need.

One point of commonality with both your threads is the lack of any suggestion of how we should be compensated for those losses. Could this be because you know full well there is no way to compensate us which would not destroy the balance of the game. If the developers reimbursed what we used to get those items then that would give us a unfair advantage in future events.

In short your suggested solutions to problems which don't exist would in fact create those very problems which would then need to be fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkz

Style of writing makes me think someone is playing around trying to troll people with ChatGPT generated text.

---

As much as I want to believe this, ChatGPT actually produces readable content. I asked it to write a response to this post. With one or two factual tweaks in the first paragraph, it could be a decent response. It is attached for your consideration below.

ChatGPT Response:

Hello,

Thank you for posting this question on the forum. The number of Generals that are allowable in The Settlers Online depends on a few factors, such as the player's level, the number of soldiers in their army, and the type of army. In general, players can have up to three Generals in their army, but the exact number may vary based on the player's specific situation.

It is also worth noting that having more than one General can increase the strength of your army and provide additional bonuses, so it can be beneficial to have multiple Generals if you are able to recruit them.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask. The community is always here to help.

Best regards,
A member of the The Settlers Online community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuseboy

As much as I want to believe this, ChatGPT actually produces readable content. I asked it to write a response to this post. With one or two factual tweaks in the first paragraph, it could be a decent response. It is attached for your consideration below.

ChatGPT Response:

Hello,

Thank you for posting this question on the forum. The number of Generals that are allowable in The Settlers Online depends on a few factors, such as the player's level, the number of soldiers in their army, and the type of army. In general, players can have up to three Generals in their army, but the exact number may vary based on the player's specific situation.

It is also worth noting that having more than one General can increase the strength of your army and provide additional bonuses, so it can be beneficial to have multiple Generals if you are able to recruit them.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask. The community is always here to help.

Best regards,
A member of the The Settlers Online community.

---

To: Fuseboy,

Thank you for your consideration.

Unfortunately, I must be quite blunt in my reply. Please be prepared. I, for one, knowing how military actually works in real-life, compared to virtual reality, know that there has to be a supreme commander whom ultimately has the last word. For example, in a corporate business, there is only ever a Chief Executive Officer, whom runs the business by a corporate governance, to whom he, not trying to be sexist, is the sole interpreter of what has being laid out in a boardroom meeting. To have multiple Chief Executive Officers, frankly, is quite unrealistic. All this post is really about, is to try and honour what goes on in real-life, with a profit basis as an incentive, to not only sustain such a wonderful game in continuing to be maintained by the reasons provided, but to also make gameplay significantly much more immersive on top of what is already immersive with graphical aesthetics and realistic civil administration; that isn't founded in other games, whether of similar or same genre, or in other games completely.

We can further state, for example:
- The user is sovereign; over in-game island society in a virtual network.
- The in-game General is supreme Commander of the in-game island society's inhabitants.
Delegating commanders would be entitled to be Lieutenants or Sergeant, rather than multiple designated Generals. I believe there is something similar to that already, being an in-game Field Marshal, would be an example.

Thank you for your response. I truly do appreciate a feedback to which I may improve on my comments and suggestions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissTweak

To: Fuseboy,

Thank you for your consideration.

Unfortunately, I must be quite blunt in my reply. Please be prepared. I, for one, knowing how military actually works in real-life ...

---

LOL I live in the nation with the most powerful military in the world, in a city with the nation’s largest concentration of military personnel. I might know a thing or two.
But it really doesn't matter, because all of that is irrelevant. More on that below.

ChatGPT wrote that response, not me. Since you are concerned with my opinion, however, I'll share that below, but only because you asked so nicely.

This is, if you haven't noticed, a game, not "real-life [sic]". It's not meant to be realistic. How many generals you know do a good job while dead? (Ghost)

If you want realistic this is not the game for you. I don't want to play a game with logistics officers and taxes and government contractors and a "realistic civil administration." That sounds boring as hell. And you're alternately complaining there is no "supreme commander" and then in the next breath admitting "the user is sovereign." You're literally contradicting yourself here. My advice to you is quit this game and find one that suits you, or play longer than a month and give the actual game a chance.

Please stick to the topic if you want to join the discussion, and please remember to follow our rules - there is no place for political discussions here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissTweak

I, for one, knowing how military actually works in real-life, compared to virtual reality, know that there has to be a supreme commander whom ultimately has the last word. For example, in a corporate business, there is only ever a Chief Executive Officer, whom runs the business by a corporate governance, to whom he, not trying to be sexist, is the sole interpreter of what has being laid out in a boardroom meeting. To have multiple Chief Executive Officers, frankly, is quite unrealistic.

---

To be blunt in my response - what utter rubbish.
Each General is not the equivalent of a CEO. If you want to attempt to user that analogy then the Player / Username who commands those Generals across his domain is in fact the CEO and those Generals are his executive team that are there to follow his direction.

The last time I looked CEO's didnt command armies but I will remain on the thread you choose of a CEO running a business....
No player in his or her right mind that operated as a CEO would want to be restricted to 1 only for each product type they could buy. That would mean many of the worlds largest companies today couldnt have evolved out of their garage / shed / small shop as they wouldn't have the capability to build a multi-factory production line or use economies of scale to bring their unit costs down to create a profitable organisation.

I agree with fishslice, I can't think of a single thing I like about this idea, but never fear! I just had a different, even more wonderful idea. Us experienced players can show you a way to have the game you want, and what's even better, you can play that way right now.

Here is how you do it.

First, do not buy any more generals after your first one. If you already have more than one, choose one to play with, and don't use the others. If you really want to be a purist about this, you can get rid of any generals you have already acquired beyond your first one. You are new, so you might not know that you cannot delete a general once you own it. Not to worry, I can get you sorted out there. But use caution! Don't run afoul of the rules (again)! A very important rule is that you cannot have two accounts on the same server. So you can either start over again on a different server, or ask BB to delete your account on Sandycove and then start over on Sandycove.

Once you have your account that has the one and only one general, that general can be your CEO. Although why you would want this is beyond me, as fishslice so eloquently stated, generals and CEOs are two very different things. But that's alright, it's clearly important to you, so if you really want a general that is a CEO, I can show you how to do it.

Now the last step. To rename a general, click the general, then click the pencil icon (it's blue) next to the general's name, then type in the new name of the general. Name your general "CEO." Don't forget to click the green checkmark to save your changes. And voila! You have exactly one general, your CEO, that you can use on any adventure.

You can thank me later. Enjoy playing!

To: Fuseboy and Fishslice,

I, from this username's account, highly suggest you both:
1) take a break from the game.
2) look at real-world corporate organizational business hierarchical charts.
3) Don't make this personal. You all came to this post first.
Then leave quietly, as you have taken the topic of this post off-subject.

What, you don't like the idea? It's exactly what you were asking for! We could be friends in game. Send me a request and we'll do some co-ops together. I'll even use only one general, just the way you want it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuseboy

What, you don't like the idea? It's exactly what you were asking for! We could be friends in game. Send me a request and we'll do some co-ops together. I'll even use only one general, just the way you want it!

---

The problem with your latest post, is the following:
- You have caused a ruckus for a community manager, whom is now liable for misuse and abuse of authority.
- You are placing the blame on the consumer, rather than on the game developer, whom must adhere to business finances, rather than on his own whim and will. The consumer takes at face value, of whatever is provided on the market, i.e. video games, whether free-to-play or pre-packaged; in this particular case, on the number of generals available to field an in-game armed force.
- You have boasted about a sensitive issue, to which the community manager is now liable, exactly with a news corporation that has being apprehended by a Federal Police Force, of a country that has have real-world experience with a Nation that is known to be a military superpower.

Until you resolve these matters, especially with a community manager, and what you have posted, there won't be a friend request. Unfortunately.

I'm sorry you no longer like your idea, that you came up with. That's a shame. Having just one CEO general was such a good idea! It seems like lots of people might like that idea. If you do want to pursue your idea about having one general, I'll be here, waiting to support you.

i have no words...