You get 100% of the Shield defense at the front, and 50% at each side (nothing at the back).
Defence Skill you get 100% at front and at each side, nothing at the back.
Armour defence is 100% all round.
Printable View
You get 100% of the Shield defense at the front, and 50% at each side (nothing at the back).
Defence Skill you get 100% at front and at each side, nothing at the back.
Armour defence is 100% all round.
Hey, welcome back. Antitraits are... erm, funny. I'm experiencing wierdness with some of them. They don't wipe each other out like pre-patch, but I'm getting things like 'Understands Trade' (GoodTrader) and 'Incompetent Trader' (BadTrader) traits on the same character, or 'Fair in Rule' (StrategyChivalry) and 'Mean Ruler' (StrategyDread) on my king. More testing is required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
Otherwise, they did a pretty thorough review of the traits system and fixed up quite a bit of stuff. Things to watch out for:
1. Not having a market in a town is 100% chance of BadTrader for the governor every turn (!).
2. Not having a town center is 6% chance of Unjust for the governor every turn.
3. Generals stuck on a boat will pick up drinking and arse (sodomy) easily. Watch out for those American expeditions especially. No more cryofreeze cruises for generals.
4. A princess can become a HumbleWoman or PretentiousWoman depending on your treasury level. PretentiousWoman leads to WifeIsBitch.
5. Not having an academic building of some sort in a town gives any character there a 4% chance of Ignorance (since not every faction gets academic buildings, and they require pretty high population to build, this may be a little unfair) per turn, which is fairly high.
6. Being outside a settlement for no good reason is a little chancy now, with several bad traits waiting to be picked out. Don't stay still for too long.
7. Having a church/mosque can help keep your characters on the straight and narrow with Prim and Upright. Lots of positive traits waiting to be picked up if you have the right buildings built.
Thank you Dopp, that is amazingly useful. I had noticed the rash of bad trader going around in the early game but have been too lazy to look at the new EDCT, lol. I did notice prim and upright a lot too, and they are GREAT at nipping those bad traits in the bud.
I'm guessing the question mark is because you don't understand what HarshRuler would have to do with the town center?Quote:
2. Not having a town center is 6% chance of HarshRuler(?) for the governor every turn.
If so, then I think the implication is supposed to be that the town hall series represents, among other things, the chance for the people to be better represented and possibly also the implementation of a judicial system. Depriving the people of that could be viewed to be an intentionally harsh act perpetrated by a ruler trying to keep the people down. At least, that's what I get out of it.
How did we come by this information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
brandybarrel got it from CA Oz i think.
"3. Generals stuck on a boat will pick up drinking and gambling easily. Watch out for those American expeditions especially. No more cryofreeze cruises for generals."
If I were stuck on a boat for 20-30 years, I'd take up drinking and gambling too. :laugh4:
Gambling, yes, but where are they getting the drink? The rations of ram are going to be limited on a journey to america ( a couple of barrels among 800 troops), and the Aztecs haven't invented banana daiquiris yet.....Quote:
Originally Posted by gardibolt
No, it's for I-can't-remember-exactly-atm. The trigger is settlement-without-law, so it's pretty clear why you pick it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
Edit: It's Unjust you can pick up, and the two traits for staying on ship are drinking and arse (a bit illogical, the last, since you can always bring women along).
quoth Moah:
assuming you mean rum and and not ram (sheep memory?), there wouldn't have been any rum on the first ships to cross the atlantic from europe.Quote:
The rations of ram are going to be limited on a journey to america ( a couple of barrels among 800 troops), and the Aztecs haven't invented banana daiquiris yet.....
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum
(OK back to the patch discussion..)
Plus defense skill only counts in melee - high defense skill won´t save your skin when shot at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
Gah ! Women ? On me here ship ?! Thar be bad luck, matey ! :pirate2:Quote:
Originally Posted by dopp
True, but there wasn't any freshwater either, because it doesn't keep well at all, and (at least crossing the Atlantic) a refill from the nearest river was not an option. At sea men had to drink beer or watered down spirits/wine and hope for the best, because 1) they're boiled during the distillation process, killing any pre-existing germs, 2) alcohol itself kills many bacterias and 3) if you have to spend six months in the sole company of hundreds of sex-crazed unwashed illiterate sailors, you'd rather be drunk :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rozanov
Speaking of ships, the game just got a little harder, because the AI invades by ship all the time. Naval superiority, inland reserves and watchtowers along the coast are all essential to prevent opportunistic attacks on your territory. Any nation that borders on water must take this new vulnerability into account.
I do wish the AI would pull a few generals off governing towns and put them to leading armies, because after going into all the effort to pull off a strategic 'hop' down the coast, boldly leapfrogging the enemy border defense with a full stack of elite troops (reminds me of the Malaya campaign), the lack of a decent commander usually results in the expedition's failure (it might even go rebel as captains are set to be fairly disloyal).
Yeah, you would think the AI might be able to use some sort of routine to allocate generals (especially dread generals) to lead large stacks of troops instead of just sit in towns. Certainly the dread generals at least would help out troops stacks far more than they usually help out settlements, and I'd go as far as to say that 3/4+ stacks should always have priority to get a general over any governorship duties, even if it must be a chivalrous general. If one exists, the stack should have him.
One possible reason it doesn't go that way is if the devs are worried about family members being allocated to such duties and consequently being lost in silly attacks. Such behavior, if family members were used, could easily deplete the royal family and end factions well before their other resources are exhausted. Even so, you wouldn't think it would be very difficult to simply exclude members of the ruling line from being used like that...
AI priority seems to be governing first, with extra generals being allocated to field command. A 50%-50% split is probably a better option. For one thing, governing is not that much safer than field command, because sitting in a town with only your bodyguard invites assassins (number of troops in a stack influences assassination chances the most for generals).
This is one area where I wouldn't mind a little more AI 'cheating'. The AI should get even more 'man of the hour' and 'adoption' events if it is low on family members (say enough to fill all settlements plus a few field armies), to ensure that most armies are properly led. My entire current campaign map is filled with 'King Rodrigo' vs 'Captain Nobody' decisive battle markers, which just makes me feel like a bully. When my spear militia start beating dismounted feudal knights simply because of the general's bonus, I feel really bad for the AI.
Can't believe I skipped over that one. Sorry, dopp, really. And yeah, I noticed the trait/antitrait coexisting thing too sometimes, but it's fairly rare as far as I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by dopp
1. 100% ? That's harsh ! I suppose/hope there's a "And SettlementType = City" check or something, since castles don't have markets ? And speaking of that, did they add that kind of check to the BadTaxman one ?
2. Fair enough, I'd say. I seem to recall I did something like that in my old CherryVanilla file to make more use of the Lenient/Harsh Justice traits. Besides, Unjust is not that bad a trait.
3. Good :)
4. They did do a number on the Princess traits didn't they ? I'm getting a whole lot of princesses with unique traits like "Head Turner", "Humble Woman" etc... which is great. Though for some reason most AI princesses I find are still in the 0-2 Charm range (ie the "Wife is a wretch" zone)
5. Meh. But kinda realistic though - as most medieval lords really were ignorant bastards. Plus in my current Danish campaign, I've seen quite a few generals born Smart, which IIRC counters ignorance.
6. That's always been the case, no ? I remember you could pick up Feck, Cuckold, Ignorant and all that much easier than Hale and Hearty and Ascetic, especially in enemy lands. Plus, it's a "good" thing in that it kinda forces you to assault instead of sieging for 12 (well, 24) years.
7. Yeah, that one did puzzle, and then bug me. Hate to have a perfectly dreadfull fellow who'll flog his peasants for fun lose dread just cause he's got religion :) I actually had to extract the file and browse a bit to find out why my best sociopaths were picking up StrategyChivalry so much, setting me down the dark, dark path of reading the descr_character_traits file. I expect the file's unholy lure will take its toll on me soon. OOOoooh yes.
On a related topic, I'd say that the balance of things is now skewed in favor of Chivalry - a LOT of religious traits (and the stuff leading to them) give you Chivalry, and since Piety is Acumen... Same goes for Loyalty (but that can be worked around through "Feels Appreciated")
Possible problem antitraits: StrategyDread and Chivalry, BattleDread and Chivalry, BadTrader and Good, PublicPiety and Antheism. The antitraits system is decidedly unpredictable. Might submit it for bugfixing (again) if enough people have this problem. Maybe my modded file is causing problems, although I really haven't made that many changes to it.
1. Yes, walls (ie city) are a requirement. The 100% chance should maybe be 50%, but note that this is the only way other than random birth/adoption to pick up BadTrader in the entire game, and it is easily avoided by building the most basic market.
5. Meh, my concern is the high building requirement and also the rather high chance of triggering (4% is pretty high). Alchemist Labs are advanced buildings and I don't think they are common to all factions. A better building would be the town center line of buildings, which is also associated with learning (as well as justice)
6. Some new triggers double the chances of nasty camp habits outside. No longer are settlements the sole (or even the biggest) source of sin and corruption, so you shouldn't hang around aimlessly in the wild. Makes more sense.
7. Well, I generally like the new religion triggers, so now I let the hardened criminals led my armies (with much torture and massacre to build up their reputations) and the nice folks govern my settlements (unless there's a crusade brewing). Piety is pretty important, because a) it was very difficult to get before, b) it keeps the inquisitor away, and c) the population is religious, so you need a pious governor or there will be 15% religious unrest (or you'd eventually have to do without governors for the really large cities, which sort of defeats the purpose). There is definitely a tendency towards chivalry rather than dread on the strategy map. It's still much easier to be dreaded on the battlefield.
I didn't really change the files very much except for some (one, actually) minor errors. Only the evil corruption triggers disappeared to make room for some new governing traits.
Well, regarding 5), I'd like to see it as an organic progress, ie having a bunch of illiterate (sp ? Ironic isn't it ? I'm never 100% sure how one should spell that word) idiots in the 1200s, with the occasional exception, the enlightened soul ahead of his time, then gradually winding up with more and more smart fellows over the course of the game. Though maybe the Muslims ought to have smart fellows from the start, since their culture was the apex of science and culture for a long time ?
And while the gunpowder academia perhaps isn't ideal for that purpose, it is at least suitable for it. The town center... Well, when you reach a certain point you just HAVE to build that line of buildings to avoid rebellion, whereas Academia is purely optional and makes a definite "better governors" statement, ie setting your town on the road towards the Renaissance. I probably won't change that (although I'll prolly make Academias available to all factions, including no-guns Byzantium).
7) They certainly make sense, but being made aware of them certainly helps playing/planning :) CA really oughta have given more detail rather than merely stating "made changes to the traits" in the patch readme...
Agreed on the battlefield Dread front though, especially considering sieges and battles use the same traits. No one ever attemps an assault without an overwhelming advantage, and besides in a siege attack you're almost guaranteed to have to kill everyone (you might get the "End battle ?" popup if you rout every single unit, but that only happens in sallies and/or assaults on wooden walls...). And you can't really exclude sieges from the triggers, because 80% of all battles are sieges or sallies... Meaning the only definite way to make your lads chivalrous is to pwn brigands :sweatdrop:
Sure, you can make somewhat sure your general picks up at least one level of BattleChivalry by staging his first fight, but that's kind of useless if he doesn't pick any more levels in "real" battles.
LOL. You know why I'm laughing. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by dopp
I generally like the religion triggers too, it's nice to not only have some nasty VnVs, but also some reliable ways to help cure the wicked.
In regards to pious governors, do you (or anyone for that matter) have any info on how that mechanic (and the associated religious unrest) is behaving in 1.2? I seem to recall that piety randomly caused the unrest at various amounts both above and below 5, and with no apparent pattern as to which amounts gave unrest and which gave religiously calm citizenry. I'm kinda hoping they changed it to something that makes sense, like maybe 5% unrest for every point of piety under 5 the governor is... but I guess that's a pretty tall order. Here's hoping.
I also did notice the emergence of more clear domains for Chivalry and Dread. I have to say, I really like it. It always felt like Chivalry should be tied more closely with governing and Dread more closely with battles, but while the benefits pre 1.2 reflected that, the methods for gaining them did not. You could gain either one from either aspect of the game. You still can get either one from either place, but the balance is more like 3 to 1 (favoring Chivalry for governing and Dread for fighting of course) instead of even like it was. It makes it easier to get a guy the chivalry or dread that goes best with the job you're putting him to, and harder when he's doing the other thing, and as a result setting a general up for one role or the other feels much more like job training than it did before. Also the AI is apt to get better use of its governors, as they stand much better chances of gaining chivalry from governing. So not only does it make more sense and reinforce that chivalry and dread are each better suited to a given set of tasks, it also should help the AI. What more could we ask for?
Okay, I must be losing it, because CA in their wisdom did make a city hall (large city) negate the ignorance trigger. I still think the chance is a little too high for what is effectively a blanket trigger (maybe 1-2% would be better), plus there should be some way to block its effects in castles (library is only available to Scots and a few others).
Bullying bandits with generals is still more likely to result in 'Winning First' than in 'Fair Fighter' because you can only pick up BattleChivalry if the odds are fairly even, not more than 30-50% either way.
The religious unrest and piety relationship is as clear as mud to me. Hopefully someone will care to enlighten us.
I would like to groom a chivalrous general sometime, but my battles are always fought in the 'total war' style: relentless, efficient and with the complete annihilation of the enemy as the only objective. Too much Clausewitz before bedtime is bad for you.
Hi guys,
I just want to clarify or confirm some things here regarding Unit Defence.
Unit defence as illustrated on the last page of the FAUST v1.2 or FUSIL v1.2 is the correct one for M2TW. This was confirmed in my communications with CA-OZ. The above posters are correct in the new interpretation.
Unit defence as illustrated in the FAUST ver1.1 is the correct one for RTW and based on statements made by Jerome Grasdyke (CA) here in 2004. Call me nuts but I did take notes.
Unbeknownst to me or the community, a change had been made for M2TW. I don't know when but it probably was with the release of the game itself and not Update 1.2.
Cheers, :beam:
Gniii ? You can get "winning first" for winning a battle grossly in your disfavour ?Quote:
Originally Posted by dopp
If not, it's fairly easy to achieve a good ratio by sending them alone against roving bands of not-too-teched brigands. With 2 HPs and ultra high stamina they're really panzers, plus being alone you can control them better and get a lot of solid charges. One of my generals managed to off something like 3 Town Militias + 1 Trebizond archers + 1 peasant + 1 Byzantine Cav all by himself in my current stint as Turkey. Ironically enough, the lad was a Coward (-3 Morale for all troops) that I had sent to die against an errant Byzantine army to get rid of him and take as many Greeks as possible with him to Hell (or whatever it is the Muslims have) :laugh4:
No I think you actually can't get winning first from battles grossly unfavorable to you, or if you can then only maybe 1 trigger of the many actually doesn't check for high battle odds. The Dread triggers check for battle odds above given amounts: like, above 1.5, above 3, etc. As I understand it, battle odds are always given with respect to the general's side who is using them for computation. So when you are disfavored 3:1 in a battle, the enemy generals will be fighting a 3.0 battle odds battle, but you will be fighting a 1:3 or ~ 0.33 odds battle, which should rule out most (if not all) dread triggers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
However, it's likely not going to get you chivalry if you go off attacking bands of brigands, even if you're outnumbered. IIRC Dread is generally tied to high odds AND attacking, while chivalry requires both low odds and defending most of the time in its triggers. The only surefire way I've ever found to gain chivalry in battle is to post a guy in a desirable settlement, and give him a small-ish complement of men to defend it. The AI decides to attack, you slaughter it, he gains chivalry.
No, but you cannot be the attacker if you want to pick up Fair Fighter based on battle odds. The other way to pick up Fair Fighter is for your general to kill 8 or more foes in battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
The tendency for field command to favor dread rather than chivalry is because a) dread is easier to get than chivalry and b) gaining one trait line 'locks out' the character from gaining points in the other.
I'm really enjoying my nation's new vulnerability to seaborne invasions. Everyone hates me. Even nations I have never met before show up with their entire army from the other side of the world, just to have a go at grabbing some prime real estate in my empire.
Hmmm. Safish still, as you only have to worry about that silly coin toss, 50% Dread, 25% Chivalry for fighting and killing 6 people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
Right. The triggers are very deceptive in that regard: you have to think about it a bit to realize how disfavored Chivalry is simply because it appears second. The dread trigger obviously gives you a 50% chance to get dread. But then since the Chivalry trigger also misses half the time, you are correct that overall you get chivalry only 25% of the time, because the other 25% you fail to get anything at all. I wonder if the developers actually understood that they had done it that way. It would actually make more sense if you got chivalry automatically if you hadn't gained the dread, which would give a true 50/50 split and you'd always get one or the other... which is why it made me wonder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
As I've mentioned before, I think it's a coding/understanding error, as CA also got other percentage based calculations (such as adding the % of two spies to open the gates in a settlement) wrong.
For a true 50/50 you want the first trigger to have 50% and the second 100%...
Care to look at 'battle3Dread_TotalAnnihilation'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
Gives you 2 BattleDread points instead of 1 too :)
No, not really. I was being lazy, which is why I didn't cite the file in the first place! :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
For the record I did say there might've been one trigger that didn't check for high odds, too... lol. I just didn't realize there are only 3 triggers that give BattleDread (aside from birth and coming of age, etc). So the 1-point one is for >3:2 odds attacking with at least 50% kills... and the 2-point is for < .95 odds, heroic victory, and >70% kills. Jesus I might need a flowchart to plan my generals' conflicts.
I have that right, don't I? The game file says "crushing" as the condition to meet, but I don't think I've ever seen the game use that term in display info, where it does use close, average, and clear. So is "heroic" on the display screens the same as "crushing" in the files? If there is a difference, then can someone explain what you have to do to get either one, and how exactly they're different?
In any case I'm happy to see generals can get dread in hard odds battles, cuz it would be annoying if I always had to have a superior force to keep a general moving toward dread.
It makes sense, too - I have to say, I'd be scared of the guy too if he mopped the floor with armies that should beat him.
I believe that 'crushing' = 'heroic' (if you get beaten in a herioc victory for the opposition, it's a crushing defeat for you)
I rather think that one's a bug/mistake and it really should be >0.95 instead of <
As in :
- >3:2 odds means you have willingly attacked with so much more guys it wasn't fair and the enemy didn't have a "sporting" chance (hence not chivalrous, hence dreadfull).
- 70% dead means you took active steps to kill more of the enemy than was strictly required (ie lots of archers, chasing routers down etc...), and the >0.9 plus heroic victory is there to ensure you didn't HAVE to kill so many people to win, whereas when you're outnumbered the enemy's morale is that better, takes more punishment to make them go away. The Heroic Victory part means you haven't lost a lot of your guys, so the fighting wasn't desperate for you and you could have just let the enemy go. The dreadfull part is in the killing, not in beating the odds. That's where chivalry comes from, not dread IMHO.
Both of these triggers oughta be disabled in sieges, where superior numbers are the only way to win, and where you can't do anything but slaughter every last one of them... But there also should be some triggers allowing for dread to be gained sieging soooo, any ideas ? :)
I just thought I'd point out that after installing the official 1.2 patch and unpacking the files, that the traits file is exactly the same as the leaked 1.2 file.
used Beyond Compare 2 to compare the files.