Traits!

[Veho Nex]

well its getting close to that time again and the one thing i've loved about the total war games is the generals traits....


So what do you think is going to be in good bad and neutral?

I hope they actually have a trait "Dislikes Gunpowder" Would mean that you would gain a command bonus when fighting with only melee units or you receive negative buffs for fighting with gunpowder in your stack.

"Hold the line" Where the general would be known to hold off the enemy advances for such time over accumulated battles.


How bout your ideas?

[Martok]

I'm curious to see whether there will be some version of the "is good against Faction X" traits again. It would be especially interesting to see a variation where a general/admiral hates a certain faction so thoroughly that they receive a command penalty (but a morale bonus).

[Zarky]

I think in M2TW already should have been that when you hate faction enough (i think there are 3 levels from dislike to loathe) you get -1 command but morale bonus, and funny battle speeches of course.
I hope there will be some sort of like/dislike gunpowder, but not that every general has them. Also drinking, gambling and other bad traits need to be made less annoying, or at least make them harder to gain.

[Sir Beane]

Personally I would like fewer traits per person, because the huuuge lists in Medieval 2 were rediculous.

I would also love it if traits had more of an effect on the general and his armies. It would really help build up atmosphere and aid roleplaying if generals could develop personal rivalries or friendships.

It would also be great if generals could develop traits related to preferences for fighting in certain terrain. For example:

Loves swamp:

This man thinks there is nothing better than to see an enemy soldier slowly sinking into the mud... +2 command when fighting in swampy terrain

These sort of traits would mean generals could specialise at fighting in a paticular region of the world, as they often did in history. They might also be used to represent a sort of 'home ground' advantage.

[I] Born in England:

This man grew up amongst the hills and fields of England, and he knows all the best ways to use the land to his advantage. +1 command when fighting in England/I]

I would also be really pleased if CA managed to stop generals and characters developing contradictory traits this time.

[Sheogorath]

Hmmm, maybe not a 'dislikes gunpowder' trait. That wouldn't really make much sense given the era. Perhaps a 'Suvurov' trait? Or a 'Prefers Bayonets', that would lower your troops accuracy, but give them a bonus in hand-to-hand combat.

[Monk]

Ever since my kings first danced in moonbeams I've been a big fan of the trait system (and the vices and virtues before them), but I really hope as a poster before me has said perhaps we could see less contradictory traits appearing for characters.

The trait system is already pretty good it just needs a little tweaking in this regard and it would be ideal imo.

[ULC]

Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but does the M2TW trait system adapt? As in a chivalrous character has a higher chance of gaining chivalry b ased traits and an almost nill chance of getting dread traits? If not, maybe they could integrate a system where we have "trait trees", in the same way we have "tech trees". This might reduce the clutter a bit, and make it easier to understand the character.

[Martok]

If not, maybe they could integrate a system where we have "trait trees", in the same way we have "tech trees". This might reduce the clutter a bit, and make it easier to understand the character.
I too hope that there's something like this in Empire. :yes: The traits system in RTW/M2TW was an improvement over MTW, but it still could've been somewhat more logical than what it was. Hopefully Empire will see an improvement in this area.

Also, I'd really like to see random traits be reduced in frequency. It's admittedly always bugged me somewhat when my generals & governors in MTW receive the "Strange" or "Odd Number of Toes" vices for absolutely no reason -- and far more often than they should. :sweatdrop:

[ULC]

I too hope that there's something like this in Empire. :yes: The traits system in RTW/M2TW was an improvement over MTW, but it still could've been somewhat more logical than what it was. Hopefully Empire will see an improvement in this area.

Also, I'd really like to see random traits be reduced in frequency. It's admittedly always bugged me somewhat when my generals & governors in MTW receive the "Strange" or "Odd Number of Toes" vices for absolutely no reason -- and far more often than they should. :sweatdrop:

Maybe they lost a toe?

:clown:

[Polemists]

I'd like to see my traits earned. One thing I preferred about Rome was that generally when I played I got someone with two traits or so and then as he went on he gained more of them. So I really felt like the character developed. In MTW2 when I first got the guy he had like 14-15 traits, and then after a crusade he had like 36. It was just to much to even view or read really. I'd like to see more traits, but less actually given to individual characters.

I did enjoy dislike-loathe mechanic but it rarely worked right. One time I fought the scottish for 30 years and then fought the french one season and my general got loathes of the French :P.

[ULC]

It just (re)occurred to me, something I wish Total War games would do is to have the traits influence the commanding officers tactics, and that we abolish the command stars.

Instead, we have a rank system, based on the said factions historic ranks, that would determine combat effectiveness of the troops, first and foremost. Second, traits such as "ambusher", "guerrilla", "cavalry commander", "artillery mastermind", "melee specialist" etc, influenced the commanders tactics and which troops the AI decided to give him.

What results is that we know have to face a general with troops he knows how to use in a battle to his favor, with a competent AI. This will force players to think more about how they are committing their forces and with whom.

[Sir Beane]

It just (re)occurred to me, something I wish Total War games would do is to have the traits influence the commanding officers tactics, and that we abolish the command stars.

Instead, we have a rank system, based on the said factions historic ranks, that would determine combat effectiveness of the troops, first and foremost. Second, traits such as "ambusher", "guerrilla", "cavalry commander", "artillery mastermind", "melee specialist" etc, influenced the commanders tactics and which troops the AI decided to give him.

What results is that we know have to face a general with troops he knows how to use in a battle to his favor, with a competent AI. This will force players to think more about how they are committing their forces and with whom.

This is an excellent idea! I have often wished that A.I generals had a little bit of character to them and this would certainly help. I don't think we have to abandon stars completely though, they still serve as a useful indicator of effectiveness. Stars could effect the abilities of a general in any situation, not just one in which he has related traits. They could also tie in directly to morale.

I wish stars had an effect on the campaign map as well. Better, higher star generals should be able to travel further and have a larger area of control due to superior logistical ability. They should also be able to train troops with higher morale or experience if stationed in an area with training facilities. This would represent the effect of having a military genius take a hand in deciding what to teach the men.

[ULC]

This is an excellent idea! I have often wished that A.I generals had a little bit of character to them and this would certainly help. I don't think we have to abandon stars completely though, they still serve as a useful indicator of effectiveness. Stars could effect the abilities of a general in any situation, not just one in which he has related traits. They could also tie in directly to morale.

I wish stars had an effect on the campaign map as well. Better, higher star generals should be able to travel further and have a larger area of control due to superior logistical ability. They should also be able to train troops with higher morale or experience if stationed in an area with training facilities. This would represent the effect of having a military genius take a hand in deciding what to teach the men.

Well, instead of command which seems to be a blanket term for military ability, why not have governors and military personnel separate? It might be a bit ahistorical, but we might end up with -

Officers would have -

Logistics, which would influence area of control, movement speed, and troop morale and possibly upkeep.
Tactics, which would influence the units under his commands ability to be effective. No, not just plain stat bonuses, that doesn't make much sense. I am talking about how much more effective, say, a unit is ambushing, or how much better they are at using terrain.
Authority, which increases the speed at which units respond to orders, increases the experience level at which units are trained, and does such things as having more cohesive unit formations etc.

Governors would have -

Management, to effect overall income, as well as determining the price of units and buildings.
Reputation, mostly a replacement for chivalry and dread
Authority, a stat which would influence public order as well as other things that the other aren't covering (man, I should never be put in charge of a city :sweatdrop:)

[Sir Beane]

Officers would have -

Logistics, which would influence area of control, movement speed, and troop morale and possibly upkeep.
Tactics, which would influence the units under his commands ability to be effective. No, not just plain stat bonuses, that doesn't make much sense. I am talking about how much more effective, say, a unit is ambushing, or how much better they are at using terrain.
Authority, which increases the speed at which units respond to orders, increases the experience level at which units are trained, and does such things as having more cohesive unit formations etc.

Governors would have -

Management, to effect overall income, as well as determining the price of units and buildings.
Reputation, mostly a replacement for chivalry and dread
Authority, a stat which would influence public order as well as other things that the other aren't covering (man, I should never be put in charge of a city :sweatdrop:)

This is a truly excellent idea. What's even better is that seperating generals and governors is something CA are almostly certainly doing. They have mentioned in several interviews that we will see elected ministers in your home cities and governors for new world colonies, so your idea could very well be implemented. :beam:

[Polemists]

Good ideas but the screens I have seen already have the stars.....so I think your stuck.