vices & virtues (again)

[desdichado]

Although I like the V&V's (except the good runner vice) I was thinking it would be better if they had a more tangible effect on gameplay.

Instead of just +1 command or -10% happiness etc. how about if your drunkard general sometimes doesn't even turn up for battle becuase he can't stand up or if one of your impetuous generals launches a raid by himself on a nearby province causing a diplomatic spat or all out war.

I guess there would be examples of this happening in real life and could easily throw your well laid out battle plans into total disarray.

I'm sure there are plenty of other possibilities. I just think it would give your generals & governors more character and enhance an already good idea.

Any thoughts out there?

[Ktonos]

Great idea

[Azrael]

Hey Desdichado,

I used to think that the vices and virtues weren't really having an appropriate effect on gameplay.

Then, somehow, one of my generals managed to aquire "Coward" as a vice.

Smaller, lesser equipped armies started clobbering this guy. I could be defending a mountanside and they would still all route.

I disbanded the general in questions unit. I had to get rid of him immediately. Since then, I pay much closer attention to who's got what Vices and Virtues as I've started to feel a very tangeable impact on the game.

Azrael

[A.Saturnus]

yes, "coward" is a really bad one.
I would love it to see generals sometimes to act out of their own. Of course I would hate it at that moment, but after I have his head on my table, I would say "great game"

[Kraxis]

Ohh that would be fun But of course it should be something along the lines of Morale, I mean we should have the option to turn it off. Generals behave along their V&Vs or generals are your obedient slaves.

Imagine a govenor that is a Heretic... HEY Where did my Cathederal go???? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

A charming king will be much better at getting allies (much needed feature).

A Hesistant/Indesive general might call off the attack even if you don't (will not go up into the next level if he does it himself). That might cause great probelms for your offensive.

Monopoly Trader (and the others of the same line), enemies cannot trade with that port if it has any. That makes it a little less devastating, but only a little.

I could go on... but this is a great idea...

[desdichado]

Quote[/b] (Azrael @ Dec. 04 2002,21:05)]Hey Desdichado,

I used to think that the vices and virtues weren't really having an appropriate effect on gameplay.

Then, somehow, one of my generals managed to aquire "Coward" as a vice.

Smaller, lesser equipped armies started clobbering this guy. I could be defending a mountanside and they would still all route.

I disbanded the general in questions unit. I had to get rid of him immediately. Since then, I pay much closer attention to who's got what Vices and Virtues as I've started to feel a very tangeable impact on the game.

Azrael
Azrael,

Point taken. I agree "coward' vice has pretty tangible effect. Reduced a promising 5 star heir to a quivering waste of space in one year in my previous danish campaign. Not even sure how it happened.

However, imho wouldn't it be more realistic that instead of just a morale modifier that a general who was a coward might disobey your orders and not even engage the enemy but retreat to the castle. We are supposed to be dealing with real people who would not always do what you command.

Over a far flung epire news would travel slowly and unreliably and some governors/generals might feel they can get away with being disobedient.

Obviously you wouldn't want this happening every round as it would make the game unplayable but I guess i want a little bit more of the human fallibility factor involved through some uncontrollable events (on top of my own fallibilty of course).

I mean if your general leading a unit of royal knights is a complete crackpot he still fights on the battlefield like a normal soldier, charges the enemy and follows your orders with only a morale modifier. It is more likely he would turn up to fight dressed in full battle armour riding a donkey.

Appreciate your thoughts though

[scipio spinx]

I think this is a great idea. The V & V's of the general commanding a battle should have a wider and more autonomous affect than they currently do.

For example, a general with the gentle knight virtue, shouldn't be allowed to kill prisoners or rebels, whereas a general with vices of scant mercy or butcher should have a chance of summarily deciding to kill all the prisoners they happen to capture.

This would add another layer of realistic consequence to player decisions to slaughter prisoners to gain the scant mercy vice.

I also think that the computer should react to your choice of brutality or chivalry when you are involved in a war with an AI faction. If you slaughter prisoners, the computer should be more likely to kill any prisoners that it may take. Also, enemy soldiers should get a morale boost when fighting your troops due to their hatred and their fear of being captured.