Generals' skills analysis - does one exist?

Jean-Luc Picard, I thought junius was talking about Sophia, not Fatimah.

I am in full agreement with you about all generals needing to be fighters in this scenario. Fatimah is good for a conquest played for fun or familiarizing yourself with the ground, or working up to the 1815 medal grind, but too many trainers are required in order to make a good field commander out of her, and as an econ general she has no particular combat skill.

Are you sure? The basic damage range shown in unit stats (1-6, 4-8, whatever) is presumably randomly selected. And the random number from 2-6 range gives better results than from 1-6 range. For maximum damage it is similar (1-6 vs 1-7).

I'm told that the computer rolls the die (as it were) TWICE, then averages the two rolls and rounds down the result (amputates the decimal point). I haven't done a probability table on this (though I probably should, if only for the exercise), but I would think that the result tends to favour a number below the average of the upper and lower stats. For most units, unless you intend to save and reload repeatedly to get the best result, it's helpful to have a higher minimum. If your general has Assault Art, you have a one in six chance of inflicting the theoretical maximum - in which case s/he needs to lead a unit with the HIGHEST possible stats, and save/reload becomes less of a grinding chore.

I know Defence Art (its counterpart) throws up a blue shield whenever a general who has it uses it, but I've never used a general with Assault Art - can someone who has please tell me if there's a similar indication when it works?

Absolutely true. Even if you were to upgrade her to five stars in anything, she still lacks a combat skill set and will lose against any general of identical stars who has one. The best you can hope to have in her is a five-star general with max health and nobility, which is not terrible in itself, but you might as well pour the money/medals/effort into someone who's got skills that match their best stars. Once you have the Napoleonic Code, her economy mastery is redundant and the money that brings in is more than enough to outweigh the benefits of her architecture skill. Perhaps the strongest case for keeping her is if you're playing a smaller nation with the aim of simply winning (or in the 99-turn version, at least surviving to the end); then you need the income she brings to build your army and your nation up quickly and cheaply. Her being busy doing this is less of a burden because you can have up to five more fighting generals in the field while she does it, and she can move to a Level 7 city when and if you conquer one. But in a running-for-princesses scenario or playing as a major power, she becomes a burden pretty quickly; she either has to finish her turns in a city (port, stable, etc.) to be of any use or stay home in your biggest city and be a complete waste.

What a coincidence.

I tested it there now.
Moldavia 1809, the starting general on line inf has fence as his only skill, cost: 20 gold 15 industry
Double form grenadiers with no general equipped, cost: 20 gold 15 industry.
Same thing happened when I had Hull with trench, no reduced cost to building them