View Full Version : BI: Elusive Command stars?
professorspatula
10-09-2005, 20:03
Many years and many hard fought battles into my Alemanni campaign and as my generals are ever-aging and approaching the day they finally meet their maker, it's dawned on me that none of them has gained a command star through combat. Not a single one. The leader and his heir have gained command stars for cavalry, attacking, defending, ambushes and for bonuses in night attacks, but that's it. No Good Commander traits or anything. All my attempts to train the younger generation have just ended up with a single command star coming from a retinue character. I have been hoping to breed a new generation of night fighters, but if none of them gain command stars, it's impossible. I haven't really checked the character_traits file to see if anything has changed, but I've never known it to be so hard to gain command stars before. How many tens of thousands of warriors does a general need to kill before gaining command skills these days? I tried going into battle with worse odds to see if that helps, but zero-zip-nothing on the command bonus front. When my 76 year old leader and his 55+ year old son snuffs it, there goes anyone with any ability to lead.
Anyone else finding it harder to gain normal command stars or are the gods punishing my faction for some crime I know nothing about?
I've only been playing as the Franks so far, and I confirm what you say: it's harder to get commanding stars, at least when playing a barbarian faction. One of my leaders gained one and it's not by a retinue. Although admittedly, it's the only commanders to have gained a star so far. Yet, it doesn't bother me much. It's harder when you meet captains (the AI does a good job at regrouping their small stacks).
professorspatula
10-09-2005, 20:43
Now that I think about it, the AI generals seem to be pretty weak too. Aside from the initial generals that start the campaign with lots of stars, I don't recall seeing any with more than one or two stars. You have hordes sacking half the width of the world, killing everything in their path, only to be led by a wimp of a warlord who still has only one star by the time they reach your front door, which you shut it firmly in their face, killing them in the process.
Dutch_guy
10-09-2005, 20:47
yeah it's allot harder getting stars in BI, but then again this is a good thing; now it's harder facing the captain led stacks , since they have no stars too
However the down side is ,is that you now have to fight lot's and lot's of battles to get the night fighter ability....
:balloon2:
Orda Khan
10-09-2005, 20:54
Hmm I have 6 star general, Balamber who has commander trait. He is also cavalry commander of genius and his 6 stars become 9 when he takes the field. At present he is 37 and has campaigned since 18. Possibly around 15 to 20 battles, not sure but he is not a night fighter
........Orda
I think they threw command rank out the window.
That is, you can no longer gain stars simply from winning x victories. Instead, you get stars through randomly acquired traits/retinue that are linked to certain victory conditions.
The good attacker/defender traits are also far harder to obtain. In fact, I'm not sure it's even POSSIBLE to gain the good attacker trait. You might have to be born with it.
All in all, I think it's an improvement. It really makes you value the stars more when you're not getting them every round. In RTW, I was hitting max command rating with EVERY general 4-5 rounds after starting a campaign with them.
I've just remembered that mine gained his star after a heroic victory (which are also much rarer now).
rebelscum
10-09-2005, 21:46
Try fighting battles where you are outnumbered two to one. I think this helps you gain heroic victories. Large groups of peasants would do, I did gain stars when I fought some large rebel stacks. Also make sure your general is heavily invovled in the battle without getting him killed obviously.
professorspatula
10-10-2005, 00:57
Crivvens, just got a Superior commander trait for my Romano-British general, although he already had the Goodcommander trait at the start, but that's still plus +1 command. And then he died the next turn. The old git.
frogbeastegg
10-10-2005, 09:16
In my experience command stars are very limited, even after a general defeats an army more than twice the size and of better composition than his own (yay! for bridges and lucky frogs). Confident commander is the only one of that general family I've seen, either on myself or on AI, excepting those bulked up with retinue members and/or other traits.
Even the more limited command star bonuses seem harder to get, ones like 'infantry commander'.
But I really like this.
In fact, I like it so much that if it's changed in a future patch I shall probably try and mod it back to being pretty identical to this.
Captains are now dangerous animals; the single most important battle I've fought in my good Saxon campaign was against a captain, and my own general had just 1 command star. In RTW he'd been in enough action to have earned 3 or 4, and that would have made the battle easy on my side. Instead it was a very close call, and I thought I would actually lose.
A high starred general in TW has always led to the majority of battles being easy, except when another high starred general is encountered. That in RTW command stars were gained from crushing puny rebel forces and pathetic little bands of enemy junk units only exacerbated the problem, because, in my experience, there were many more battles like that needing fighting than ones against anything approaching a decent army.
It also lends more variety to the family members. While I'm on that subject, hurrah for the much less common 'scar' family of traits!
As has been said, this does make night battles hard to get. I haven't seen any; I have no one capable of performing them and the AI hasn't started any. There I am again tinkering with the idea of modding, to make it a little easier to get, but I shall wait until I feel I know the game better.
As we're talking about traits, do people find the annoying families of 'bad farmer/trader/miner' or 'useless assessor' still very common? I have a bad farmer and a useless assessor, but I don't know if it is coincidence, or if those traits still fire so half the governors in my realm are affected by them. I only have 3 cities and either 3 or 4 family members, even after about 25 turns of play, so it’s hard to get a good sample. I’ve also not been able to have more than 2 governors, one of whom lasted a whole 3 turns before I had to draft him as a general to replace one who had been killed.
Kekvit Irae
10-10-2005, 09:34
Touching on the same point as Froggy, I am annoyed at the multiple "Useless Accessor" and "Poor Farmer" traits I keep getting. I build farms and markets when I can, but it seems like it's not enough. :sadg: It's bad enough that I have to send a "potential heir" into combat to buff him up, it's worse when said "potential heir" has the Management and Influence of a flea.
I wouldn't say it is too bad really, yes I suffer from it too, but then again the same governors gain a whole lot of other triats that grant them +30% taxes and so on. Try moving out an old experienced governor with poor taxman or something like that and you will see a serious drop in income of the city.
frogbeastegg
10-10-2005, 13:29
the same governors gain a whole lot of other triats that grant them +30% taxes and so on.
:inquisitive: They do? In my experience they gain the bad traits within a few turns of arrival, or are born with them, and never lose them. My BI experience is still very limited, but that's one of the many things which annoyed me about RTW. It's such a waste of that great trait system CA have built! It's also frustrating, and illogical at times.
Just like kekvitirae I build farms, markets and so on. I never use low taxes, unless it is the only way to hold a city. Trade and farming are a priority in my build orders, as they get me money and population growth.
Camp Freddie
10-10-2005, 14:04
Command stars used to be awarded when you won battles, so long as the odds were less than 2.25:1 in your favour (1.5:1 for good attacker stars). This meant that most battles would award stars.
In BI, you don't get stars unless the odds are less than 1.2:1. So, if you want stars you need to win a tough fight, no more stars for easy victories!
Good and bad taxman traits are given randomly if you have very high taxes (10% chance of both whenever you complete a building). It is no longer based on hapiness levels. Obviously, the traits cancel each other out, so you can never have both at the same time!
Good farmer is a 20% chance whenever you build a farm. Bad farmer is 3% when you build anything that isn't a farm (assuming the farmer traits work logically).
I like the rarer command stars. I no longer dominate the world with several brigand-trained 10-star generals. I actually have to worry about troop morale in BI!
Garvanko
10-10-2005, 14:59
All generals are essentially figureheads. They have the best units because theyre are important. But that doesn't mean they are great commanders. There is an elite, and then there is the rest..
Nevertheless, family members in settlements tend to gain traits quicker, don't they...?
:inquisitive: They do? In my experience they gain the bad traits within a few turns of arrival, or are born with them, and never lose them. My BI experience is still very limited, but that's one of the many things which annoyed me about RTW. It's such a waste of that great trait system CA have built! It's also frustrating, and illogical at times.
Just like kekvitirae I build farms, markets and so on. I never use low taxes, unless it is the only way to hold a city. Trade and farming are a priority in my build orders, as they get me money and population growth.
I didn't say that my governors weren't bad taxmen or farmers, just that their other traits and ancilliaries simply outweight that more often than not. A Mining Engineer is very good often. And when you have Scriptoriums and Ludus Magna you governors tend to get Sharp and so on. I tend to have a lot better economy with my governors.
Orda Khan
10-10-2005, 16:28
I checked out my General, Balamber. He began with...
Confident commander
Pagan
Doubts the Gods
He has achieved...
Superior defender
Confident attacker
Cavalry commander of genius
Conquering hero
He is now age 43
.....Orda
ChaosLord
10-10-2005, 17:20
I've noticed it as well, even with my heroic victory in my Saxon game I didn't get any stars on my general. I have got two things from battle though. First was a Roman Turncoat after defeating a small Roman force, and then later I got the Bloody trait after defeating an entire cities garrison with just my general. So now he gets +2 command stars when fighting Romans.
This system works out much better RTWs did, where it was a joke to gain stars. It makes me value my generals more as well, considering how hard its going to be to train them up. I think the AI will still be at a disadvantage in the end though, since the human player is going to hoard their retinue members for setting their best generals up. Even with that though, battles should end up alot more balanced.
frogbeastegg
10-10-2005, 17:59
I didn't say that my governors weren't bad taxmen or farmers, just that their other traits and ancilliaries simply outweight that more often than not.
I think I'm going to squint and say "They do?" again. I've very seldom found that.
The other traits my governors collect are ones like fruitful, entirely unrelated to their jobs, or again negative in some way, such as adding to unrest. That I do not mind - it lends flavour, and I don't look about my governors to find they all are fruitful or whatever, whereas I do tend to find the vast majority are useless assessors, bad farmers, poor traders, etc etc.
Ancillaries ... my governors don't seem to get many, even with ancillary giving buildings. My generals always have, and still do in BI, get many more ancillaries. I also seem to attract mostly the same old types of ancillary over and over: basic priests, a few tax farmers, those historical characters in the RTW 1.1 campaign. Mining engineers and other such delights I have either never seen, or seen just once or twice since RTW 1.0, depending on the ancillary type. I would admittedly do better on the ancillary front if I didn't let retinues die with old governors, but that seems rather cheaty.
Also, in the earlier stages of the game when there is even less chance of getting ancillaries for governors it's harder to compensate for the traits.
There is no counter to one of the other problems I have with the predominance of these (or any) traits: the fact it makes too many of your characters look similar. Marius the bad farmer. Julius the bad farmer. Aulus the bad farmer. Publius the bad farmer ...
Traits are easy enough to mod, but I’ve no idea what to mod them to for something more likely to result in believable and varied traits for all my characters. I would dislike a predominance of great assessors every bit as much as I dislike the current crop of rubbish ones.
Mongoose
10-10-2005, 18:13
There were afew trait mods for RTW 1.2. Hopefuly they will be redone for BI, as they were quite good in 1.2.
On a related note, has anyone seen player1 Lately?
whereas I do tend to find the vast majority are useless assessors, bad farmers, poor traders, etc etc.
Mining engineers and other such delights I have either never seen, or seen just once or twice since RTW 1.0, depending on the ancillary type.
Marius the bad farmer. Julius the bad farmer. Aulus the bad farmer. Publius the bad farmer ...
Obviously, you're cursed Froggie. Nothing related to frogs though, be reassured, otherwise I'd know it ~D
Seriously, I'm the kind of players who oppress his towns by levying heavy taxes whenever possible. This, primarily to reduce the growth rate of the population. As the majority of my governors are in provinces where taxes are set on high or very high, I seldom have family members with the "useless assessor" trait. The only ones to ever gain it are the ones where taxes are set on low or normal. As for poor trader and poor farmer, I rather tend to get the opposite.
Does your construction policy focus on military, rather than economy? Personally, I favour the latter.
Bob the Insane
10-10-2005, 18:48
Like froggy I have been running a Saxon campaign, but have also been running a parallel WRE campaign.
In my Saxon campaign pretty much all my family members suck. The "good ones" are not so much good, as they are lacking in negative traits. I also find that retainers are pretty few and far between. It might apply to all barbarian cultures in BI, but as general get older and are left in the settlements they pickup a lot of bad traits.
The Romans on the other hand have far more variety and generally a lot more retainers (who tend to be positive)...
Command stars are hard to get for everyone however...
Additionally, unless it has changed (which is entirely possible) getting the "useless assessor" is based on have taxes set lower than High if the people are happy. In other words in you have set either Low or Medium and the little face is green or yellow you have a chance of gettting the "useless assessor" trait line.
frogbeastegg
10-10-2005, 19:06
Cursed :yes: I had come to that conclusion a while back. ~:mecry:
There are very high taxes? I find low/medium/high, and that's all.
I run my towns on medium taxes, unless unrest forces me to lower them. If I'm in tight financial straights I go to high taxes. I like my towns to grow steadily, not too fast but not too slow either, a nice 3.0 or so. In terms of build order I tend to favour economic for the most part, with a couple of cities going military.
My average city will go for things like roads, farms, ports, traders, mines. Then onto religion/happiness when I need to do so or when I have finished the current batch of money makers. Then I often look at things like the health and growth improving family of buildings, walls, and any educational type buildings that might be available. Finally I whack in the military buildings, just in case I need to mass produce troops in the future. Then repeat for the next set of buildings when the city levels up, but with the alteration of when I reach highways I do them as one of the last items, not one of the first.
For my military cities the order is slightly different. I go for roads first, because roads are great. Then the building which gives me the unit I want to use most at that particular level of technology, often a barracks for infantry. Then either the building for cavalry or archers. Then the final military building to round out the set. Then I pretty well work through as I do in my peaceful cities, starting with trade, mining and farming and ending with educational.
Useless assessor makes sense for low taxes. But medium? That I never did understand ...
Bob the Insane
10-10-2005, 19:20
Useless assessor makes sense for low taxes. But medium? That I never did understand ...
If you are not milking the people until they cry you simply aren't doing your job... ~;)
If the people are banging down the doors sreaming for your blood then taxes are probably just right, but you might need a few more men in the garrison. ~D
From a game perspective I found it helps to think that in MTW, medium was the default value. In RTW High is the default value.
If you need to grow a settlement and don't need the the money then get your governor out of there and set it to Growth rather than leaving the governor there and setting it to Low (unless he already has the appropriate anti-trait)...
I run my towns on medium taxes, unless unrest forces me to lower them.
I believe order over 100 and taxes below "high" gives you a chance at the poor assessor trait.
I tend to set taxes as high as they can be and still keep order over 70, unless it's a small city I am trying to grow. I will not leave a governor in that city.
Population growth tends to take care of itself after about 2000. I want to ensure I have enough cash to keep my building queues and troop making cities constantly working.
Does your construction policy focus on military, rather than economy? Personally, I favour the latter.
Ahhh I see a pattern. I too favour the economy.
I actually suffer from far too many ancilliaries. So many that my governor of Alexandria never managed to pick up the Patriarch there despite all the requirements were met. Bam bam bam and all eight slots were filled.
ChaosLord
10-11-2005, 01:20
I finally got some stars in my game, though not from the X Commander trait. After my third heroic victory with the same general in a battle of 732(my army) versus two Roman armies of 614 and 300. I defeated both armies killing 734 and only losing 89(81 to the enemy, the rest to my own archers I believe). Anyway, after the battle I got the Confident Defender trait as well as the Skilled Infantry Commander trait. Which is odd, since I would have expected to get them sooner, or at least the X Commander line of traits.
Either they made it very low chance to get them now, or you have to build up a sizeable amount of lopsided(against you) victories to qualify.
As for cities I don't make some troop producing centers and others not, I build up all my cities(I hate to have them not building something) but thats probably just my habbit from playing Civ. It does make me alot less reliant on one or a few cities to reinforce everything, with my entire empire able to produce a wide variety of troops. My build order would probably be roads-ports-barracks-temples-then as needed or however the urge strikes me.
I never use low taxes, unless it is the only way to hold a city.
I pretty much always use low taxes, however, I usually play Rome. I understand barbarians have fewer buildings to cope with unhappiness (although some, like the Germans in vanilla, really need population).
In vanilla, its to get population and hence money/power. Rome does not need the money from high taxes anyway.
In BI, as WRE, I tried to raise taxes more in the beginning, but you often have to use low taxes for loyalty. The population growth is more of a problem than in vanilla, though.
Azi Tohak
10-11-2005, 04:34
I also get the tons of ancillaries, but then, that is to be expected. I hold excess family members in Constantinople or Antioch, with their schools, so they fill quickly. Makes me happy though, they do tend to be good traits. I do have the Patriarch of Antioch, but not the other three. Ah well.
But about the command stars... I guess I do need to start fighting battles against more equal foes. I had forgotten about that. I tend to use the picket line defensive strategy, which makes defense easy... but also cheap. Juggernaut armies commanded by my 2 or 3 stars makes toast of partial armies of Persians or rebels or whatever barbarian faction has irritated me.
Azi
Garvanko
10-11-2005, 08:47
I always use the highest possible tax. Top rate 40% where possible. ~:)
As for cities I don't make some troop producing centers and others not, I build up all my cities(I hate to have them not building something) but thats probably just my habbit from playing Civ. It does make me alot less reliant on one or a few cities to reinforce everything, with my entire empire able to produce a wide variety of troops. My build order would probably be roads-ports-barracks-temples-then as needed or however the urge strikes me.
I agree with you about not wanting to leave a city idle. An idle build queue is a wasted resource.
However, in the early game I think it makes sense to build most of your cites up economically (health/order buildings are economic buildings too in my eyes) and focusing just a few cities on military.
In the late game you may have so much money coming in you just keep building everything everywhere, but if you get to this point. You probably could just spend it all on troops and steamroll the game.
On a related note, has anyone seen player1 Lately?
I'm here live and living.
As for VnV system I'm currently focused on fixing the bugs in BI, but not features such as slow command stars, harsher corruption triggers or quick disloyalty of roman generals. Those I would leave to some other mod that it's not called bug-fixer (maybe future CVP?)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.