i must be stupid but...why cant my generals gain any command stars?

no matter how many battles they win, no matter if they're dull or sharp, charismatic or uncharismatic, they NEVER gain any command stars.

Its really annoying when my king and his sons are such pathetic weaklings when compared to most any other rebel general or faction leader. Kinda hurts the role play.

command stars are a rare thing in Eb for the player, but you can get some anyways, actually with the Romani I have two 2-stars generals without doing much.

I asked the same numerous of times :wall:

note: it is really the EB team 'solution' of how to make general's more powerfull with trait's that boost army moral but don't add the 'number' of star's - I perssonally like the star's as a visual effect - much more:shrug:

The command stars have their main use as:
1) Brag about it material. Silly.
2) Win auto-calc more easily. Only needed for the AI.
3) Bonus in near vicinity of the general's unit.

The traits have their main use as:
1) 'Bonus' for the entire army.
2) Serving as a base for new even better/worse traits.

In my KH campaign i had several generals with 5+ command stars, the best guy having 7. It certainly looks fancy :beam:

the problem is that if the enemy has a 10 star general he will anhialate your army if you auto resolve the battle even if the army strenght is 3:1 in your favour

Quote:

---

the problem is that if the enemy has a 10 star general he will anhialate your army if you auto resolve the battle even if the army strenght is 3:1 in your favour

---

EB recommended difficulty level for campagne is VH.
On this difficulty auto calc will always anihilate You so additional command stars dont make much difference ( You dont want to autocalc in VH, unless You use auto_win ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

The command stars have their main use as:
1) Brag about it material. Silly.
2) Win auto-calc more easily. Only needed for the AI.
3) Bonus in near vicinity of the general's unit.

The traits have their main use as:
1) 'Bonus' for the entire army.
2) Serving as a base for new even better/worse traits.

---

Tellos, you I must admit that 1) is very important to me - I don't have to explain the ''Life need scale'' - that is basic to life:curtain:

And Trait's are bonus I know I play VH/VH but I really need to rely on my strategy and tactic's.

I really think that 'bonuse's' for the entire army are just compensateing someone's characteristic's or quality deficit's. While giving the advantage to bonuse's (to entire army) like the most trait's we get in EB - you are making the game much easier for Human player and when you add the RTW.exe AI battle engine to that - you have only winner's (that mean's less competition and battle moves development)

Don't you think:shrug:

Why do you make all your posts strange sizes and colours?

Fighting against the odds is, I think, the best way to get stars. Take fewer numbers and weak troops, and, somehow, defeat greater numbers of more powerful troops, and the command stars will roll in.

One can accumulate lots of command stars defending a frontline city from waves of enemies. This assumes you lack the men, money, and/or desire to go on the offensive in that area.

Example: Parkev Hayasdanits, Hayasdan Governor of Mazaka, six command stars (eight against Greeks). He's been slaughtering Ptollies by the thousands for about a decade, averaging two sieges broken per year. Another FM did the same to AS much earlier at Karkathiokerta, reaching around five stars and getting the only "Seen the elephant" veteran trait I've yet seen. Perhaps this is a case like Danest suggests - the battles were cakewalks, but if the game doesn't properly account for the power of archers on walls or the ability of horse archers to massacre the AI's silly all-infantry armies it might have treated these victories as being "against the odds".

Anyway as others have said, the stars are just decoration, I'd trade them for more management or influence if I could.

If you want a ton of command stars, play as Saka Rauka. I have two 10 star generals and an 8 star, all of them are under 50 years of age. You can get insane cavalry command and attack bonuses that pile the stars on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

Why do you make all your posts strange sizes and colours?

---

I just like that :sorry:

so, does being sharp/charismatic make it easier to gain stars?

I'll try just winning a lot of battles like you guys suggested, I havent been able to breed any general to go higher than 2 command stars yet.

breeding generals and heirs is something ive done since shogun total war. I'd kill off weaker princes so that my stronger sons could be king. I'm dissapointed to know that this no longer works in EB. Its become a habit for me.

:(


I wish people would realize your not suppose to play with very hard battle difficulty .

there is more than command stars in EB. these threads pop up all the time because you must look at the many, many ancillaries that are given to your generals. they are much more potent and useful for role playing than simple command stars.

and anyways, command stars have very little effect anyway, other than for your own visual satisfaction.

EB 1.0 is pretty good about stars now, in .80, all thsoe hard won stars got gobbled up by lover of beauty *GRRR.*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

the problem is that if the enemy has a 10 star general he will anhialate your army if you auto resolve the battle even if the army strenght is 3:1 in your favour

---

That's realistic. All the great generals in history won their battles with inferior numbers. Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar. They all won their main battles fighting forces with odds of like 8-1 against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russia almighty

I wish people would realize your not suppose to play with very hard battle difficulty .

---

Agreed. But even more frustrating is how they then complain about something not being realistic, or how a certain unit is "too uber," a phrase I hate. Of course it isn't realistic and of course the enemy's slingers are too uber; the game is designed for medium battle difficulty. Playing on VH battle difficulty is equivalent to voluntarily breaking the mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxsimus

I really think that 'bonuse's' for the entire army are just compensateing someone's characteristic's or quality deficit's. While giving the advantage to bonuse's (to entire army) like the most trait's we get in EB - you are making the game much easier for Human player and when you add the RTW.exe AI battle engine to that - you have only winner's (that mean's less competition and battle moves development)

---

I don't understand what you mean by this. Doesn't the AI get both the bonuses from traits and the bonuses from the command stars? That should add up to far more difficult AI generals with EB system rather than the vanilla command star system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iwwtf_az

there is more than command stars in EB. these threads pop up all the time because you must look at the many, many ancillaries that are given to your generals. they are much more potent and useful for role playing than simple command stars.

and anyways, command stars have very little effect anyway, other than for your own visual satisfaction.

---

what is more beneficial to a general destined for battle than command stars? I'd like to know. In every other mod they seem to be rather important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callicles

I don't understand what you mean by this. Doesn't the AI get both the bonuses from traits and the bonuses from the command stars? That should add up to far more difficult AI generals with EB system rather than the vanilla command star system.

---

AI can never 'follow' Human player in the amount's of trait's gained - no matter what, CPU just get's some that would make it for human a bit harder to win.
- I am not saying that vanilla system is better it's just that I think EB should have 'some' balance in star's verses trait's so you can actually compare two general's using universal parameter - THE STAR, or you can spend 10-15 minutes with a calculator when you want to see 'who is the general' to use for battle :shrug: - That is quite annoying:wall:

Anyway, one universal measure must exist (by my opinion) and the best way to make it work are the number of Star's per general - Trait's system add's more moral bonuses but less star's - so that it is harder to compare anything among general's.

In vanill,a I alway's used general's with star's to fight and the other without them to run the Empire - that was logic - but in EB that value system is gone - you can have general with 5 star's that is not as good for battle as one general with no star's at all:shrug:

For me, Star's are not just a measure that can be used to see 'who is the best' - they are a symbol of visual power that are giving me MY OWN moral boost to ''use that general with 9 star's'' (for example)... I can't help it:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rzzza

what is more beneficial to a general destined for battle than command stars? I'd like to know. In every other mod they seem to be rather important.

---

Traits that give morale bonuses.

Adding up morale bonuses is just 1+1. Shouldn't be too hard/take too long. Takes me about 15 secs to calculate the enemy bonuses vs. mine. It also helps you know your generals. My best general had 10 stars when attacking 6 when defending and morale bonus (without supply) of +8, but he was also a bloodthirsty berserker and a poet.

Anyway, if your worrying about a generals command, you should also be worrying about his influence, since it affects the range of the command bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callicles

...or how a certain unit is "too uber," a phrase I hate...

---

Sorry for being OT but I just have to second this.

I guess most people don't know where the term "uber" originates. It is from the German word "über" that usually means "above" or "over" and can rarely mean "superior". But apart from ancient phrases that have sounded awkward for decades, it was only used in this meaning (superior) by the 3rd Reichs "Übermensch" meaning a member of a genetically superior race.
So every time I (and many other people of german mother tongue) hear "uber" I get annoyed. Because people are unconsciously using terminology of Nazis. In a meaning that was coined by them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kham

Sorry for being OT but I just have to second this.

I guess most people don't know where the term "uber" originates. It is from the German word "über" that usually means "above" or "over" and can rarely mean "superior". But apart from ancient phrases that have sounded awkward for decades, it was only used in this meaning (superior) by the 3rd Reichs "Übermensch" meaning a member of a genetically superior race.
So every time I (and many other people of german mother tongue) hear "uber" I get annoyed. Because people are unconsciously using terminology of Nazis. In a meaning that was coined by them.

---

BULLSH*T

Nobody used "Übermensch" in that meaning to describe oneself. On the contrary, "Untermensch", i.e. sub-human was in common use, reserved for Jews and Gipsies and Slavs (no, not slaves). Be precise about a foreign language if you don't fully master it.
Übermensch was a concept used first by German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder in the 18.th century and later made famous by Friedrich Nietzsche concerning the artist/composer/philosopher/author who is above the perceptional range of the "normal", i.e. average person.

"Über" in German means as well: about, across, at, atop, beyond, by, of, on, over, surplus, via, etc. etc. in all possible combinations.

Besides, I never got annoyed by the word "uber" in English texts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kham

Sorry for being OT but I just have to second this.

I guess most people don't know where the term "uber" originates. It is from the German word "über" that usually means "above" or "over" and can rarely mean "superior". But apart from ancient phrases that have sounded awkward for decades, it was only used in this meaning (superior) by the 3rd Reichs "Übermensch" meaning a member of a genetically superior race.
So every time I (and many other people of german mother tongue) hear "uber" I get annoyed. Because people are unconsciously using terminology of Nazis. In a meaning that was coined by them.

---

Godwin's Law you're a very cruel mistress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thaatu

Anyway, if your worrying about a generals command, you should also be worrying about his influence, since it affects the range of the command bonus.

---

what do you mean here? I dont understand. I always thought influence was the most useless trait for everyone except diplomats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rzzza

what do you mean here? I dont understand. I always thought influence was the most useless trait for everyone except diplomats.

---

It supposedly determines the size of the general's bodyguard.

I think Influence also has an effect on city unrest. The more influential your general is the less unrest there will be. Can make the difference between highly taxed green faces and lowly taxed red ones.

Or so I thought.

I've seen AI generals with plenty of morale traits.
Also, I consider influence to be very important. Keeps taxes high, prevents bribes, prevents revolts.