Guns of Infinity



I’d consider Truscott a better infantry commander, especially given Bradley’s mixed record in Normandy. Then again, considering what I’m working on, I might be a little biased.


Post 1900: William Slim
Post 1800: Original Moltke

Maximise your strength, and make your army into a force of nature, able of continued and concentrated pressure. Not just a one-hit lightning strike.


@Studwick Who would you pick for the 17th or 18th century?



If we chose to capture Khorobirit’s daughter, Renard ends up hating us. And I’m assuming Sandoral does as well, considering he also objected, and appeared to be traumatized after the battle was over.

But what about Blaylock? In my most recent playthrough, he was my second in command, and was excited when I gave the order to hold the gate against the Hussars. And considering how if you send him to run down the partisans, he gives a report of “Eight dead, six wounded, not too bad” I’m assuming the losses won’t affect him as much. And if you choose to go east when escorting Cassius, and buy fodder, he grumbles about money, so surely he must grateful to receive a share of the ransom?

But at the same time, we almost got him killed and he lost far more men than he ever had before, so what’s the deal? Does he hate us too?

Edit - Also, I forgot to add: Blaylock for King.


I’m not sure Sandoral hates the PC, but I could be wrong. He reads to me as someone who could probably be talked into believing it was okay on moral/military grounds, even if he’d never be able to order such a thing himself.

Blaylock might actually approve of it - after all, he got to fight mounted Church Hussars.

Hard to tell if that’s going to overcome that even to him, this has to look ugly as all hell.


[quote=“Elfwine, post:43928, topic:2656, full:true”]
I’m not sure Sandoral hates the PC, but I could be wrong. He reads to me as someone who could probably be talked into believing it was okay on moral/military grounds, even if he’d never be able to order such a thing himself.[/quote]

Well, he is described as “listless” in the aftermath, and needs Blaylock to drag him around, so he probably has some sort of shellshock or PTSD. Even if he doesn’t hate us, he may be difficult to work with.

Yeah, he was definitely hyped for it when I gave the order, but then it turned into a disaster.

Maybe it was enough of a shock to affect him. He may show a disregard for the lives of his men, but he cares enough to stand up for them in a duel (though that could have been for his own rep), lead by example (could just be his own bravado/hunger for action), and can even be seen sitting with them if you visit your men before the Battle of 2K. At the same time, he could also approve of it for the reasons I have already stated. Who knows?


I’m not sure being bummed out after a battle is necessarily a symptom of long term psychological problems. Lost of people get it without actually having been in a battle at all.


There’s being bummed out, and then there’s being unable to function. The game doesn’t exactly go into detail on his mental state afterwards, so we have no way of knowing how it affected him until Lords.

Besides, he wouldn’t be the first commander to suffer long term psychological damage after losing a large number of men.


@unoriginal_username Oh, I’m sure it’ll leave scars - but I don’t think he’ll feel the same way Lord Renard does.

Not sure what exactly it is about him.

And Blaylock.- I think Blaylock is less concerned with the lives of baneless dragoons than Lord Renard is.

Not necessarily utterly heartless, but the justifications the PC can attempt on Lord Renard don’t seem like they’d make him angrier the way it’s kind of unsurprising anything you say just makes Lord Renard more furious.

That’s the only part I’m reasonably sure of on him.


I think the belief that the long term effects of combat and military services has broad longterm phycological consequences for veterans may be a bit overblown due to the way the VA’s compensation system currently works. I submit the following for your consideration:

Now this article is written by someone who is a little emotional about the topic. I certainly wouldn’t take it at face value, but I can tell you it is a topic of discussion among my contemporaries.

In any case before the modern age the number of soldiers who were disabled for life from their service for purely mental disorders was relativly small.


I do hope there’s a way to mend things with Renard. I mean, it’s not like I murdered a child or anything.

He’s going to be our regimental commander when Duke Cunaris dies, so I’d rather not be on his bad side.

And if we can’t mend things… who knows? Maybe some other Lord or the King himself will start another Dragoon regiment, and we can transfer to that. Or maybe if we become wealthy enough we can start our own. But all of those seem somewhat unlikely.

But, on the subject of commanding our own regiments, out of all the officers in the series, who would you want as your MC’s second in command?


I wasn’t saying he would be disabled for life. I was saying it might have a permanent effect on his future judgement or his relationship with us.


Caius d’al Cazarosta.

I can’t imagine myself as Enrique d’al Hunter’s superior officer, but if we put that emotional reaction aside, him.


Personally, Caius is someone I would rather have out in the field than by my side. Same with Hunter.

I think Sandoral might be a good option. He has a good tactical mind, is interested in army reform, and out of all the Lieutenants I think he gives the best advice, and is the best suited to high command.

Not restricting myself to the Lieutenants, then possibly Lefebvre. He’s a great tactician, cares for his men, and is not above getting his hands dirty, but is also fully aware of the consequences of his actions and knows they are not to be taken lightly. Only downside is he will probably go behind my back at some points.


If we’re just talking who I like working with the most, it’s Lord Renard (his weaknesses are easy enough to compensate for), but Cazarosta and Hunter are the men I’d be the most confident in.

And if we’re fantasizing I can be a colonel, we can fantasize Cazarosta respects me enough to not need an explicit leash.


I think it may be a hold over from the horrors conscripts went through in the relatively modern wars in Vietnam and Korea, since with conscripts you’re by definition not taking only people who are cut out for the life of a soldier, so I don’t think it’s that surprising those conflicts saw a rise in PTSD and other mental disorders. Putting people who are already prone to them in high-risk, high-stress situations on a daily basis is bound to go wrong sooner or later.
Now with our more modern, professional armies it is indeed possible some less than scrupulous individuals may try to take advantage of a branch of psychiatry that has mainly been shaped by Korea and more recently the last conflict any Dutch conscripts saw action in, Bosnia. Still I’d be careful to accuse possibly genuinely mentally ill or disabled people of such things without an overwhelming preponderance of evidence against them. Mental health is notoriously hard to assess precisely because it has such a huge individual component.

I may be able to better handle more blood, death and killing in my life then my neighbour for example and you may be able to handle far more of it then I, but I’d be very careful with throwing accusations around here.

Also your author’s claims about the recovery of crime victims is at best overly general and highly inaccurate, some crimes, such as rape do scar victims for life, even if some may be more easily able to cope with the aftermath and thus make a quicker “recovery” and from my own professional, though decidedly non-psychological experience it is more adapting and being able to live with the new “normal” than true recovery in many apparently successful cases.
The victims of some of the recent London acid attacks who received what the UK police euphemistically called “life-changing injuries” are likely to never fully recover, both mentally but most certainly physically and how well they cope with the aftermath and changes and their new “normal” is so individually different and determined by so many factors it is difficult to make any scientific judgements of it.


[quote=“Elfwine, post:43938, topic:2656, full:true”]

If we’re just talking who I like working with the most, it’s Lord Renard (his weaknesses are easy enough to compensate for), but Cazarosta and Hunter are the men I’d be the most confident in.[/quote]

It’s not about who I like, or who I trust, I genuinely believe those two men are best utilized in the field. They’re both fighters. Hunter won’t back down if I give him a dangerous task or a high-risk scenario. And the game itself points out that not placing him in the field or not having him lead an assault is a waste of his talents.

Meanwhile, Caius isn’t afraid to get his hands dirty or engage in unconventional warfare (it’s not just about finding men who can give the orders, it’s about finding men who can carry them out.)

In addition to this, they are both willing to act with independence, and can react quickly if they are in a scenario where they can’t afford to wait for orders. But they also aren’t independent to the point of insubordination.

Meanwhile, people like Sandoral are planners. I’d rather have them hunched over a map or by my side giving me advice than charging into battle. Also, if Sandoral was a Lieutenant-colonel, then I could call him ‘Colonel Sanders.’


I might be thinking of a different role for the second in command than you are - I can think of no men in these games I’d be more comfortable saying “Okay, X has half the (deployed part of the) regiment.” in a tight spot or as someone I can assign command of any detachment that needs to be made for some reason.


Well, the danger with giving Cazarosta half the regiment is that his warped sense of morals might lead him to make questionable decisions.

If we are ever given orders to do anti-partisan or raids into enemy territory. I would give it to him and Hawkins, that is where they will shine. But, I don’t trust Cazarosta to make decisions like a rational person in the thick of battle. Since he can decide that two squadrons can be used as a distraction and get massacred to win. When someone else can figure out a win that doesn’t involve senseless slaughter.

Also if he’s a Major, there’s only one person who can sell him a further commission aka you (if you’re Lieutenant-Colonel).

If you don’t take it and Keane gets cashiered, I believe Cunaris decides who gets it and he will never choose Cazarosta.


If we’re worried about senseless slaughter, I’ll take Cazarosta’s icy indifference to human life over Blaylock’s contempt for tactics, Lord Renard’s denseness, or Elson’s obsession with glory.

Caz at least is a calculating bastard. I don’t see him sending two squadrons to their deaths unless he’s fairly sure there’s a good chance of them doing something besides getting to die bravely, which is not something I’d say of all the officers we’ve worked with.