The Weak Attacker? But I won!

[The_Emperor]

I once invaded some rebels in Swabia. Now my army was good, the rebels were slightly inferior (remnants of the HRE), but with an ok general (3 star compared to my 5 star)

Now the Hungarians also joined the battle on my side, so i was very happy about that.

When the battle began the enemy was on the high ground, so I knew it was going to be a tad difficult. I advanced up one part of the hill keeping my strong forces on the high part of the slope... Ready to flank left and downwards.

The Hungarians were busy running around like headless chickens in the valley below, they wouldn't attack.

So I went in, the enemy crashed downhill into my Left side (as I suspected) so my forces came around on the Right and charged downhill into their flank. The fighting was brutal and I took heavy losses, but the enemy was routed and I killed around a couple of hundred more of them than they did of me.

By this time the Hingarians had got their act together and their cav came running to mop up... But I still had more men so the province was mine.

Now I was amazed to find that following on from that battle my General had got the Weak Attacker vice! I thought he did quite good considering the enemy was in a superior position and the AI would have just legged it... Plus I got more kills!!

My question is, Why is he a weak attacker if he won a clear victory??

[HicRic]

I think if you look at how many people were on your side (as you had those allies) and then compared it up with their army and the heavy losses you took, the relative casulaties mean you counted as being a 'weak attacker'. Seems harsh to me, though.

[Procrustes]

I haven't been playing for long, but I get the feeling that many of the V&V's are pretty random. I got that same vice last night. Thing was, though, that I got it on the same turn that the general was formed. I'm playing a game as the French - I built a unit of holibars in Aquitaine and they showed up sporting a three-star general! But the same turn they showed up I got a message that the same general was "poor on offense". Thing was, he had never done anything - he was brand new!

(Worked out OK, though - the Spanish were acting agressive and getting ready to invade across the Pyranees. I put the bulk of my forces in adjacent provences or places where I had ports and ships that could reach Spain. Soon the Spanish took a big army into Aquitainne. I fought them with my general and a bunch of lower cost units (archers, spearmen, UM, peasants) - figured he was still good on defense. He was killed along with a lot of his men, but he took a lot of the Spanish with him and the rest holed up in a fort. Next couple of turns I counterattacked all across Iberia. Still in the middle of it now - just got my Pope warning - but the Spanish are hurtin'. Now lets just hope that the Italians and Hungarians wait before they do the same....)

[Despot of the English]

I haven't been playing for long, but I get the feeling that many of the V&V's are pretty random. I got that same vice last night. Thing was, though, that I got it on the same turn that the general was formed. I'm playing a game as the French - I built a unit of holibars in Aquitaine and they showed up sporting a three-star general! But the same turn they showed up I got a message that the same general was "poor on offense". Thing was, he had never done anything - he was brand new!

Sounds like that guy was a historical hero. Heroes start the game with a number of their own vices and virtues.

[The_Emperor]

I think if you look at how many people were on your side (as you had those allies) and then compared it up with their army and the heavy losses you took, the relative casulaties mean you counted as being a 'weak attacker'. Seems harsh to me, though.


Yes but I am surprised by that... I mean the Hungarians were doing nothing but running back and forth and not attacking, I did all of the work and got none of the credit it seems.

it is harsh, but it wasn't too bad for me, an Heir came of age the following year and he had a great command rating. So I was able to 'retire' that general.

[King Edward]

I guess the game lookes at the kill ratios and then factors in the army size. My guess is that if the Hungarians were not on your side you would not have got the vice. Bit unfair but at least you got the province! would have been hard to swallow if you had got the Weak attacker AND had the smaller force!!

[Tozama]

I haven't been playing for long, but I get the feeling that many of the V&V's are pretty random.

After playing countless campaigns since the game came out I can tell you for sure the "weak attacker" vice and all vices and virtues associated with "attacker" or "defender" are not random.
You can easily test this for yourself.
Play a game where you control Scotland. Leave it with no garrison at all and no governor and highest taxes so it will rebel. It may take a few years between rebellions but its a for sure rebellion in Scotland if you do all this.
When the rebels appear look at what troops they get. Put together your most elite force BUT send less than 1/2 the total amount of troops the rebels have. At 1:2 odds when you win (which is quite easy against the low star generals the Scotts get) its 99.9% sure that your general will get the "skilled defender" virtue. Repeat this with same general it will become "expert defender". Go in at 1:4 odds and it will accelerate this process.

Instead you can choose not to defend and let the rebels have Scotland and instead invade it as the attacker. Same as stated above for odds and you will for sure get skilled attacker etc. instead of defender.

I suspect the "Weak Attacker" vice The_Emperor got was just plain bad luck of having the Hungarian allies join his attack which made his odds vs. the defenders so overwhelming that the AI demanded he have fewer losses even if he won. The fact his ally did little to help is beyond the AI's ability to judge I think. It probably uses simple math of odds vs. losses in each battle for that vice. I can only recall getting that vice a few times.

[Sociopsychoactive]

YOu can get it randomly generated on new generals aswell, but i;ve neer seen it rabdomly generate on an existing general.

More than once I;ve had a crown prince with 'weak attacker' and 'strange' given from birth, and a younger prince with 'greta warrior' and 'natural leader'. Almost always been able to make the elder die in glorious battle though...

[The_Emperor]

Yeah I wouldn't have been in such a rush up that hill if the timer wasn't on (th eonly reason it was is because I had fought a Byz vs Mongol Khazar battle in a different campaign, and forgot to remove it)

Normally I'd happily send the allies in first to get slaughtered... Thats the kind of guy I am! ~D

[Tozama]

YOu can get it randomly generated on new generals aswell, but i;ve neer seen it rabdomly generate on an existing general.

More than once I;ve had a crown prince with 'weak attacker' and 'strange' given from birth, and a younger prince with 'greta warrior' and 'natural leader'. Almost always been able to make the elder die in glorious battle though...
"Strange" is random yes. I have never had a guy born with "weak attacker" but if you have then maybe its also a random possibility. But it is a for sure event based on battle stats no matter what else and not random when a battle took place. Great warrior and natural leader are random.....as far as I have seen you cannot "cause" these virtues to happen by events.
The "attacker and defender" items you can - whether on purpose or not. ~D

[Procrustes]

Sounds like that guy was a historical hero. Heroes start the game with a number of their own vices and virtues.

You're right! I play in fits and starts - usually have a mix of saved games from my current campaign. Went back and looked and he was Sir Gerard de Ridefort. I felt bad that I had killed him off so quickly until I read a little more about him here:

http://members.tripod.com/DeTyre/Articles/GERARD2.html

A quick question, are all the new generals historical? (I mean, if a unit other than an heir is born with some stars, does that mean they are historical or am I just lucky sometimes?)

Thanks,

P.

[Accounting Troll]

A general only ever gets born with the weak attacker vice if he is one of the pre-set heroes (eg, El Cid). If you have installed Viking Invasion, you can create your own heroes or edit existing ones.

I had a similar situation where I did all the hard work of winning the battle while my ally who had a smaller army got routed, and the AI gave the good attacker virtue to my pathetic ally. I think it's just a bug.

In single player mode, I always let my ally go first. He usually gets slaughtered, but he draws the enemy out of position for me. Of course, it's bad form to do this in a multiplayer battle.

[TonkaToys]

Went back and looked and he was Sir Gerard de Ridefort... I felt bad that I had killed him off so quickly until I read a little more about him ...
Quite a fellow... do you reckon he was barmy or was he a great warrior? :knight:
Interesting how a single person (albeit in a position of authority) can have such a big effect on a Kingdom.
Thanks for posting the link.

[Despot of the English]

A quick question, are all the new generals historical? (I mean, if a unit other than an heir is born with some stars, does that mean they are historical or am I just lucky sometimes?)


A general who appears with 1, 2, or 3 stars won't always be a historical hero. I find that once you have a fair number of advanced buildings you tend to get a lot of units who appear with 1, 2 star command generals (sometimes 3.) Historical heroes will tend to have one or two v&vs which make them stand out. For example, you might have one who immediately has Skilled attacking against the odds, or a Rebel Killer.

[Mablung]

Not all heroes actually have V&Vs although from experience the maximum command for a non-hero general without commanding is 3. This generally needs high influence. As to the poor attacker, I have won battles before with bad ratios and never recieved it. ~:confused:

[Procrustes]

Quite a fellow... do you reckon he was barmy or was he a great warrior? :knight:
Interesting how a single person (albeit in a position of authority) can have such a big effect on a Kingdom.
Thanks for posting the link.

Glad you liked the link. I get a real kick out of the historical aspects of the games - I like that historical characters show up and want to try to replicate some of their historical feats in my GA games. (Hopefully not too many of their failures!) The same game I spotted an English bishop named Thomas Beckett roaming around Europe - three stars.

I got the feeling the guy was a bit of a nutter. I recently picked up a copy of "The Templars" by Piers Paul Read - fun read so far, though I haven't gotten to anything about Sir Gerard yet.... Given his online bio, I thought the "poor attacker" vice was pretty appropriate.

Best,

P.