Being named imperator?

[Imperator of rome]

Having a problem...I have a general that has owned the Getai so many times I can't count,does anyone know how to get the imperator trait?

[Imperator of rome]

Nevermind..I knew what the problem was....automating the battles isn't a good idea when you want to win a heroic victory,lol I'm gonna fight and win a heroic myself instead of letting the general win 4-8 heroics in a row.

[Avicenna]

They are major battles, right? Minor skirmishes don't count towards Imperator.

[Imperator of rome]

Yep,I would call fighting 4 2000-3000 macedonian armies major battles lol.Anyway I solved the problem,my general has been named imperator twice and atm I'm taking a break off the Romani to try out one of my favorite factions Carthage^^.

[Avicenna]

Let me guess: they started making more powerful armies so the odds were against you?

[Imperator of rome]

At first the Getai declared war on me,the Getai had large stacks too and I stoped them every time,soon after I got the polybian reforms.Makedon attacked me and now I'm massing by making more legions(plan to make four)but I need more leadership.My best general isn't even roman,hes Thracian or getai and basically he has wiped the floor with Makedon and Getai but after exterminating two towns and taking more of Epirus for Rome,hes depressed and dying.Im probably gonna let him rot in Rome and get a new general at the front.He deserves the title Imperator and his last name is Dacicius or something like that I forgot.I'll probably continue later when I'm interested in playing with the romans.

[stufer]

Glad to hear someone's been named imperator. None of my generals have acheived that distinction yet. Mind you, I don't really use tactics so much as brute force in my battles so I haven't gained many heroic victories. I'll keep trying.

[Imperator of rome]

Use the traditional roman formation and use rorarii,they are superb skimishers and are great at holding flanks.I rarely use triarii because most of the time everything is routing or dead by the time the pricipes comes in the battle,also flank with equites too.Right now I'm checking out the carthagianians and they have niccceeee units.

[stufer]

Yeah my Triarii never really get a look in - only there to cover a retreat if necessarry. I definately agree about rorarii - they have a nice range and can pack a decent punch in melee. I use them behind the triarii though, then deploy to the flanks if needed.

Essentially my battles consist of a Hastati charge, they fight until they break, then a principes charge supported by rorarii to the flanks. Then the remnants of the hastati come back to help out. I do sometimes flank with cavalry but if the enemy has cav too, I just charge mine at theirs and let them pursue them to the edge of the map. I feel it to be more authentic like that. They can come back once that's done to chase routers and help finish off the tough nuts. Doing it like this I get defeated sometimes which in my opinion is a bonus.

[Imperator of rome]

The Camillian roman army is more effective at defeating the Getai then the Polybian because my velites are slaunghtered by the skimishers,I'm beginning to skimish for a few moments with velites then make them retreat behind hastatii and support the flanks.The general I have talked about above defeated 5 or more large Getai armies in a row,my army was so messed up I reloaded a earlier file because he was near the capital with nearly no troops and he was tired of fighting.

[aecp]

I'm also having trouble getting my generals named imperator. Recently i fought a battle as Romani against the Egyptians in one of my provinces in northern africa that i really think would have merited the title. I had 2600 troops against 3700 enemies (led by a captain) and won a heroic victory with about 300 of my troops dead against 2800 dead egyptians. Most of my units where already slightly understrenght from a previous battle. Because my general was not named imperator I have some questions.

Is it only possible to be named imperator when fighting factions that you can win a triumph for defeating (Gauls, Sweboz, Casse etc.)? I read on the TWC EB forums that replacing or retraining troops will hinder your generals from being named imperator, is this true? (I don't think it was posted by an EB member). Does it matter if the hostile force is led by a family member or a captain? Does the battle have to be one of conquest? (as in not in one of your own provinces) And lastly, I started this campaign in 0.73 and have since installed 0.74, could that play any part in this?

In my current campaign i have fought at least a dozen battles I think should have merited the title of imperator. I've had generals named Africanus, Gallicus and Brittanicus, but not one imperator and consequently no triumphs.

[Malrubius]

It does seem too difficult to get the title, at least judging from all the anecdotes. It's something that needs to be adjusted for future versions.

Replacing and retraining have no effect, and can have no effect, on traits of any kind. The same goes for fighting an enemy captain or general. You do need to fight one of the factions for which you can gain a triumph, however (you can't become "Imperator" from fighting rebels). Upgrading from .73 to .74 shouldn't have prevented you from gaining the title.

[aecp]

Thanks for the info, making it simpler to become imperator sounds great. After all it's pretty frustrating to play an entire campaign as the romans and not being able to gain a single triumph. To balance the imperator trait being easier to attain, perhaps it would be a good idea to restrict the achievability of triumphs. This to keep them from becoming "watered down" if made to easy to achieve by lowering the requirements for the imperator trait.

Maybe you could restrict triumphs to the offices that would hold imperium/delegated imperium, and princeps/heir? If nothing else, it would compel the player into using his family members somewhat historically correctly in the roman manner.

Anyways, it's just an idea. Thanks for the info on the imperator trait, I'll keep trying.