VICES ! ! ! ! ! !

[Kalt]

After reading through the virtue/vices text file discussed in a previous post, it appeared to me that there are "sets" of virtues and vices that go together.

The most obvious of these appears to be the many vices related to paranoia/ assassination. In THIS case, it looks like you take the good with the bad. The paranoia vices seem to be pretty lose/lose, with few benefits given the sometimes dramatic penalties, but it looks like those vices go hand in hand with a couple virtues that boost defense versus assassins.

In another case, the virtues achieved by fighting in melee alot (leader/warrior) seem to have a few vices that go with them as well! The one related to scarring from combat and the butcher/murderer one from killing so many enemies with your bare hands. Is this true? It kind of sucks that you must take the good with the bad!

If not, what determines whether you emerge from a bloody battle with hideous scars (bad) or as a legendary hero (good)? Is it just luck, or do your stats play a role? Can't you delight in leading the charge without fear of turning into an evil murderous despot??

There are some vices that you can avoid, of course, like cowardice, but I am concerned about the vices that you may pick up just because you play well and kick some butt!

And how the HELL do you get saddled with INCEST and/or PEDOPHILIA!! That is just nasty. I mean, wouldnt you just want to START OVER? How could you run around having fun with your mighty warrior feared by all only to pop open his menu to be greeting with the fact that he is fond of playing with little boys.

Oh and the sister incest thing reminded me of commadus from the Gladiator movie, heheh, sheesh. Go knock up some slave-wenches or something.

[Thane Talain MacDonald]

I believe that the king cannot be saddled with that many of the virtues, looking over the list it looks like only a few of them apply to the king.

Which makes sense, a ruler would be too BUSY to develop vices http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Kraxis]

And remember there is a large number of unknown V&V's. They should prove very interesting.

[fubi]

i thought all could be applied to kings but the ones marked king would be for kings only.

also this means if heirs get any V's or V's that they would lose them when becoming king

i think horribly scarred has to do with being wounded heavily in battle

[Kraxis]

No I believe the Kings Vices are some Vices only Kings can get, along with the normal Vices and Virtues.

It would be directly stupid if my Dreaded Prince became an Acumen-heavy King in just a year. It is not very likely that the world has forgotten his actions that fast.

[This message has been edited by Kraxis (edited 07-26-2002).]

[Del]

Well, getting some sort of penalty for killing dudes in battle seems to be total crap. I cannot think of any ruler, nor can I recall ever having half-consciously overheard any slight mention of any theoretical incident involving any ruler, in which some got a BAD rap for kicking butt on the battlefield.

All is fair on the battlefield, if you kill you are a hero, at least for your side, if not for your vanquished foe. Its the killing OFF the battlefield, and maybe in excessive number or in nasty ways, that'll earn you the bad rap.

Del

[This message has been edited by Del (edited 07-26-2002).]

[Aelfred Magna]

I think the set of vices to which you refer apply to incidents where a king butchered prisoners needlessly, even when he was winning the battle, and was thus in no danger of their being rescued by their own forces. (Like Henry V has been accused of at Agincourt - although the merits of his actions could be, and have been, endlessly debated - so I'm not taking a position on that here) This is a good bit different than "kicking butt" on the battlefield. If I recall, the only ones that actually applied to doing well IN BATTLE were the "scarring" v&v's . . . and they raised dread - which is not necessarily a bad thing . . .

[Yager]

I think the murderer vice means that if a company surrenders and you still slaughter them just for fun.

[Funky Phantom]

The option to ransom troops back leaves me with problem, i dont want a reputation as a murderer but yet if i give them back, they could be marching victoriously through my nations capital having returned with some friends and succeeded in conquering me on the second time of asking in a few years time :\

I guess the answer is to simply massacre every damn one of them on the battlefield :P

[fubi]

i have to say that i am not going with dread here, ransoming gives you piety AND money, what if your making a big dread rep where you dont spare anyone and you capture an enemy king!? thats a real fortune no matter what faction they/you are, im just gonna use shock troops to smash the enemy generals unit then round up the routing troops with some light cavalry.

plenty of cash to build more units that can capture them again and again and again!!!

[Funky Phantom]

I might give one of my generals a particular reputation for ruthlessness, but in general im gonna ransom their troops back to them, i think having a couple of scary generals would be useful, but they wouldnt be good as rulers of provinces.

[DarknScaly]

Consistently killing all prisoner taken in battle - especially once the battle is all-but-won will result in the Vice "Merciless".

This will raise your dread but LOWER your army morale as your troops will miss the potential income from ransoming.

Thus: WHEN you kill them is as important as IF you kill them.

[Wavesword]

Incest and paedophilia are rather more common among historical figures than we'd like to think. Cultural standards being rather different marrying 9 year olds should hardly be something that any proponent of mediterranean domination should baulk at.

[This message has been edited by Wavesword (edited 07-27-2002).]

[Nobunaga0611]

This is probably my favorite vice, just cause of the name:
http://www.fourbelowzero.com/games/strategy/MTW/images/loon.jpg

Unhinged Loon. haha. Also, I don't think I'll really ever ransom ALL the prisoners back, unless one of them is like a prince or king I really don't care about. Capturing and releasing a king might serve my purpose better than actually killing the king, as he might get paranoid and start executing his own people. Then when they're demoralized, I'll just attack them. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Otherwise, for the most part, I'll just kill the ringleaders (one of your options), and ransom the rest back.

[Funky Phantom]

Lol!

"Convinced that he was made pregnant by an elephant" http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif