How stars are displayed

[ShaiHulud]

After a lot of play, I'm still a bit confused on what the actual ranking, in stars, is on my generals.

I've noticed that a general with a +1 star on defense, when attacked, displays that extra star on the STRATEGIC map (where you're asked if you want to command the battle personally) but when you look at the valor of troops (via F1) it isn't reflected in their valor, when they should show a +1 in valor (as in a 5-star general boosted to 6 stars). The same occurs when a +1 for attacking shows on the STRATEGIC map, but, not in battle, via F1>

I've noticed that a general with +2 stars for defending shows those two stars when seiging a castle (presumably because he's the defender against a sally or relief army.

I'm beginning to suspect that the stars shown sometimes reflect the BEST case...not the actual case. Such that a 5-star general with +2 for defending sometimes shows 7 stars, not the normal 5. I've seen this even when the generals are not committed to a battle (that is, simply sitting in a province they control completely. I say this because I've seen generals LOSE stars that they'd get for defending when they're used to attack, instead. It's very confusing....

[solypsist]

Quote[/b] (ShaiHulud @ Aug. 15 2003,19:21)]I'm beginning to suspect that the stars shown sometimes reflect the BEST case...not the actual case. Such that a 5-star general with +2 for defending sometimes shows 7 stars, not the normal 5. I've seen this even when the generals are not committed to a battle (that is, simply sitting in a province they control completely. I say this because I've seen generals LOSE stars that they'd get for defending when they're used to attack, instead. It's very confusing....
This is indeed the case. It's a reflection on their state of Command given the current situation.

To restate, for example, that guy with 7 stars (because of a +2 defense virtue) will lose them, visibly, if you invade an enemy province or even assault a castle with that banner. Just like you said.

[A.Saturnus]

Actually, when your general stands somewhere, it shows defender virtues. If you have attacker virtues, the stars will only show up when you attack.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Aug. 19 2003,12:02)]Actually, when your general stands somewhere, it shows defender virtues. If you have attacker virtues, the stars will only show up when you attack.
Exactly... this is another reason why the VI pre-battle screen is so useful

[ShaiHulud]

Saturnus......

"Actually, when your general stands somewhere, it shows defender virtues. If you have attacker virtues, the stars will only show up when you attack."

VERY significant..thanks So, the general's ACTUAL star value, when not defending/attacking is total stars minus defensive virtue stars.

That would explain a few anomalies I've seen where a general gets promoted more than one star, too. Gaining a defensive virtue that adds two stars, at the conclusion of a battle, is interpreted by the program as gaining two.....

But, wait I'm certain that the strategic screen (where you're asked if you wish to command personally) shows more stars added than there were before(when defending and having a defense virtue).... Hmm, but, when you go to the battle screen it still only grants the same number of stars as when at rest, whether attacking or defending.

I think my problem is being unable to determine the true base number of stars. When the strategic map shows stars jump to six, a base value unit (valor 0) should jump to 3 valor, but doesn't.

Are there any CA folks who might shed light on this contradiction? I'd sure like to hear from them a definitive explanation.

[TheViking]

if i have a defending/attacking v&v and attacks/defend a castle, why dont i get that bonus?

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (TheViking @ Aug. 28 2003,13:42)]if i have a defending/attacking v&v and attacks/defend a castle, why dont i get that bonus?
Because attacking/defending a castle falls under "Assault" so you have "Bad Assaulter" or "Bad Assault Defender".

Its a different situation to a field battle.

[ToranagaSama]

I've been meaning to post about this. In my last couple of Campaigns I've noticed this, and have been perplexed, but just continued.

I need to read this thread again when I have more time, but can some explain this more completely.

Sooo, my General showing 5 stars on the Campaign map, will/may not reflect the 5 star status on the Battlefield??

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

The first time I saw this, I thought it was my imagination, but then there was a second time....

Thanks for any verification and clarification.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Aug. 28 2003,15:52)]I've been meaning to post about this. In my last couple of Campaigns I've noticed this, and have been perplexed, but just continued.

I need to read this thread again when I have more time, but can some explain this more completely.

Sooo, my General showing 5 stars on the Campaign map, will/may not reflect the 5 star status on the Battlefield??

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

The first time I saw this, I thought it was my imagination, but then there was a second time....
Yep it all depends on the situation... Good Attacker, Good Defender or Good Assaulter, Good Assault Defender.

(I have rarely seen the last two myself given the how rare castle battles are, but they exist)

I have also seen listed somewhere the V&V's for, Good/Bad Sieger and Good/Bad Siege Defender... which effects the starve out time on a garrisson, but I have no idea how you would go about getting them

[ToranagaSama]

Thanks for the reply. NOW, who's idea was this? I like the aim to reflect more meaningfully V&V, I really do, BUT I don't think this is good for gameplay; or at least it needs some sort of predictability.

The effect is toooo dramatic upon gameplay. I want and need my 5 star General to act and effect his troops like a 5 star General

I mean I go into battle with a 5 Star with what, 3 Valour troops, but actually wined fighting with 1 Valour troops NOT GOOD

Hmmmm....maybe after I get used to it......but really isn't there enough variety regarding troop Valour?? The game doesn't really *need* this.

I think the V&V, perhaps, should more directly effect the *General* and not Troop Valour.

For example, if the General is a GoodRunner, then he s/b VERY quick to flee in the midst of battle, his ACTIONS would be effect enough upon the Troops.

Good Attacker, then perhaps the General stays "Close" to his troops, effecting the Troops in that way. A *Morale* effect

Good Defender, then perhaps the General is LOATHED to flee. The General will "Stand" almost until the last man. If a player had to defend with 1 or 2 Valour troops having a good defender general would effect them more positively than normal. Again a morale effect.

The more I think, the more I think that V&V should effect MORALE not Valour

Now, that I know I'm not losing my marbles, I'll playtest this more effectively.

Am *I* the last to know about this change?

Anyway, back to MedMod 3.04 beta....

[Degtyarev14.5]

I do think that perhaps these vices and virtues add up ridiculously, as in the following example:

When you begin an early Byz campaign, you start with an army of Byz inf (one unit) and naptha throwers (one, again) in Naples. A revolt in the first few years is almost a certainty.

I played a campaign a few months ago in which the revolts constitued peasants, peasants and more peasants. In the second year, my general (a Byz infantryman) gained three stars - one for winning more battles than he has lost, one for being a good defender, and one for defending against overwhelming odds. The following year was essentially a repeat performance, with another two or three stars to boot. And all for slaughtering peasants. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I think others will agree when I say, as no doubt others have already, that troop quality and not just sheer numbers should be taken into consideration when the comp awards stars, virtues, etc.

This would prevent generals from gaining the "Eager to Retreat" vice when retreat is clearly the sensible thing to do. Then again, I guess it is somewhat realistic that the uninformed masses often confuse this said sensibility with cowardice. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

A.