Printable View
What triggers this trait?
The description says that I want to win at any cost and it comes with +1 dread but I keep on getting it on my generals that I want to be chivalrous. Obviously it is something I am doing in the battles but what? I release the prisoners and only occupy settlements.
Do you have large losses amoungst your own troops?
Not really. Usually less than 25% of my men die. Attacking a city (alot of my fights) I'll sometimes lose more than the enemy but still it is not a big number compared to my total.
I thought maybe it was because I chase down routers (don't know why I do that since I release them anyway). That seems like a dishonourable thing to do but I wouldn't class it as "winning at all costs". Might get some to chase and some not to chase and compare results to test it.
For XP !Quote:
Originally Posted by Noong
Its just a hunch and unproven but i thought this came from friendly fire. I get it a lot with my english generals and i use cheap levy spearmen to pin down an attack as my longbows rip them to pieces. It does, however, cause the odd friendly casualty. :inquisitive:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noong
To be honest I don't understand half the traits that are assigned to generals. Most generals will have several set traits upon adoption or coming to age, but after that it seems as if they receive traits somewhat randomly. The troops that you chase down are not the troops you capture. Captured troops translates into a percentage of the enemy's you already "killed" on the battlefield. The more troops you "kill" the higher the number of total prisoners after the battle, or atleast thats what I made of it.
To be honest I think releasing prisoners is over rated, and although I do it most of the time just to get Chivalry, the enemy doesn't seem to take this into account at all when attacking you or signing treaties.
I'm not so sure they don't take it into account - In my VH/VH trial campaign as France I have always released prisoners, and found that every one of battles that I have lost, I've had my prisoners released too. Whether this is (a) random, (b) based on my King's/Generals' traits or Chivalry level or (c) based on a course of past dealing I'm not sure, but it's certainly happening.
I have it a bunch too, and if it's friendly fire, that's going to irritate me a little. I get a lot of friendly fire casualties - well, not really a lot, but in a typical fight I'll take between 5-25. They are all from the same cause, too: horse archers getting in each others way. I'm not deliberately firing into a melee; it's just that one unit is blocking another, or I charge and some of the guys are still going through shooting animations.
100% Wrong. Sorry. :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Werner
Troops you chase down are the troops you capture. Captured troops do not translate into a percentage of the enemies you already killed on the battlefield. The number of troops you kill does not affect the number of total prisoners after the battle (except that if you kill more there will be less left to capture).
I think this trait is also triggered by using your General unit as bait to pull enemy units out of position. Typically getting enemy units out of position means he's sort of "running away" even though he's not scared to fight, he's just being used as a means of ensuring victory by destroying an opposing army piece meal instead of openly charging the lines. I get this trait all the time, because that's generally how I fight most of my battles. I charge and pull back until a unit decides to get baited then I'll run him away until he's way out of position and far from his support before finishing the unit off. It's hard to do against archer heavy armies though, but then archer heavy armies are easy to crush with cavalry.
I tend to get this trait when using lots of gunpowder units and not fighting in melee, mostly toward the end game. In the early game when I charge everything with knights, the generals tend to get + chivalry traits instead.
I think it has to do with any manoeuver that the AI deems is a "sacrifice" of your men.
F'r'instance, I've had it on a general because in his very first battle I used a band of merc crossbows to shoot at the city square, to force their militia to charge me, exposing themselves to my own peasant bowmen in the process. Won the battle with few casualties proportionally, but that single unit got butchered (lots of back and forth skirmishing, losing some men each time). Could have been friendly fire too though. Or, as Arifel says, could be because of the archer-heavy fighting, which is not so sportly.
Then again, with my gun powder armies those cannons in the back seem to aim too low every few shots and blow a chunk of my own hand gunners into smithereen. So a high rate of friendly fire is very likely to affect it. Ranged troops and friendly fire seem to go hand in hand most of the time it'll be quite hard to trial it, unless running friendly cavalry through pikes still kills them....
Pretty certain that this is a trait from friendly fire when shooting into a mellee and hitting your own engaged troops.
I VERY rarely do that but the last (night) battle I fought became a real mess and i needed to do just that - general got the "winning first" trait immediately afterwards.
Friendly fire sounds possible. Though it must have a very small pre-req to get it. I'd say I'd have no more than 20 friendly deaths (and usually no more than 5) in a battle, because I do turn off fire at will before the melee engage and position my ranged troops very carefully, but I still got the trait.
It could also be heavy losses per unit, so the AI thinks you are sacrificing units to "win at all costs". Because I am English I don't have proper spearmen. A cavalry charge into my levy spearmen still gives me heavy losses to those units. I wonder if the AI thinks I am killing them on purpose?
Would be handy to know so you can use it to your advantage too. Got a dread general who wants an easy dread point, so send in the melee then pepper them with arrows :beam:
Being puzzled by this trait again (got it in a very, very simple battle : my general alone vs a pair of catapults. Couldn't have been friendly fire.) I checked the files... Here's what I found, and what I understand from them, please correct me if I got things wrong (BTW Winning First is the first of the BattleDread line of traits) :
Trigger battle3Dread_PickingOnWeak
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition WasAttacker
and WonBattle
and BattleOdds > 2
and PercentageEnemyKilled > 75
and not Trait BattleChivalry > 0
Affects BattleDread 1 Chance 100
This one is fairly straightforward : if you greatly outnumber your enemy and still you win by killing people instead of routing them (ie through cav charges and archers), you get "Winning First". Interestingly enough, if you're already chivalrous, you can do dreadful stuff without penalty :inquisitive:.
Trigger battle3Dread_TotalAnnihilation
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition WonBattle
and BattleSuccess >= crushing
and PercentageEnemyKilled > 90
and not GeneralFoughtInCombat
and IsGeneral
and BattleOdds < 0.95
and not Trait BattleChivalry > 0
Affects BattleDread 2 Chance 100
Somewhat weird... Your general need to have not fought and killed the entire enemy army. I get the annihilation part making you dreadful, but why would a passive general be more scary ?
Trigger battle3Dread
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition GeneralNumKillsInBattle > 8
and not Trait BattleChivalry >= 1
Affects BattleDread 1 Chance 50
Affects Bloodthirsty 1 Chance 10
Affects Brave 1 Chance 20
Trigger battle3Chivalry
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition GeneralNumKillsInBattle > 8
and not Trait BattleDread >= 1
Affects BattleChivalry 1 Chance 50
Affects Brave 1 Chance 20
These two are interesting in that there is the exact same trigger for opposite traits. So essentially, sending a newb general to fight will either make him knightly of roguish, 50/50. After that, every battle he's in and fights will have a chance to increase either Chivalry or Dread, whichever he's got. I like how a chivalrous knight cannot become bloodthirsty :laugh4:
And...that's it. That's all the triggers for BattleDread, save for adoption/coming of age. So it's not friendly fire, nor sacrificing your men, it's plain ol' killing people.
This raises a couple questions though :
- Does taking prisonners count towards PercentageEnemyKilled and GeneralNumKills ?
- What are BattleOdds ? Pure number of men, or is it an army florin-worth total ratio ?
General consensus in the RTW days was that it was the "stength ratio" you would get in the battle preview screen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
If you cursored over the red-blue troop strength slider, it would tell you something like "strength ratio 2:1" (presumably this is BattleOdds=2)
This number takes into account more than numbers - unit quality, upgrades, etc.
Well, the battle odds you get pre battle and in battle are significantly different.Pre- battle I could have 2:1 and in battle it would tell me "defeat is a distinct possibility"
That's based on how many enemy dead vs yours. The game does seem to be smart enough to tell how good quality your army is. Routing a full stack of peasants in RTW gave me nothing, but routing half that number of urban cohorts give command stars.
I don't think that is quite right, the 50/50 comment...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
I bet it tests the triggrs in order so your noob general will be test for dread first, 50/50 he gets it or not. So there is only a 50% chance of the second test being applied and again it is 50/50 whether he gets anything. So rather than a strifgth 50/50 split you have 50/25/25 split for Dread/Chivalry/Neither...
Which intersting makes Dreaded general more likely so if you want Knightly ones you need to make the effort to to get that first Chivalry point and then you are good...
A bit of extra research brings up:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So you can loose Dread too down to Zero which would allow the Chivalry triggers to apply.
EDIT - Aww... there is a StrategyDread trait too... And a CaptorDread, RansomDread, DreadLegacy...
Not trying to make it easy are they...
The in game odds calculator updates based on the current situation. It seems to incorporate some different factors, perhaps morale and terrain. Obviously, once the battle has been joined, it factors in losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
We had a fairly long thread back in the (RTW) day trying to figure out how battleodds worked, and what triggered a "Heroic" victory. I'll see if i can find it.
Edit:
Here's one of the discussions. There was another about heroic vcictories but I didn't find it:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=41122
Look back at the OP's question, what gives you Dread? Or negative Chivalry in fact...
High levels of the Feck trait
The Beserker trait
The highest level of the SpyMaster trait
The AssassinMaster trait
Higher levels of the Disloyal trait
Higher levels of the Unjust Trait
The HarshRuler Trait
The Bloodthirsty trait
Higher levels of the Anger trait
The Genocide trait
The PopesEnforcer trait
The BattleDread trait
The StrategyDread trait
The CaptorDread trait
The RansomDread trait
The DreadLegacy trait
The EasternWarlord trait (Mongols?)
The JaguarWarlord trait (Aztecs?)
Ancillary adultress
Ancillary adultress_foreign
Ancillary adultress_she_man
Ancillary knight_dread
Ancillary torturer
Ancillary ark_of_the_covenant (???)
Ancillary seal_of_solomon
Ancillary vlad_tepes (OMG!)
Ancillary johannes_faustes
Note also that simply joining a crusade will give you positive Chivalry (100% with no get out clause) so it is something to be aware of if building the ultimate Dread general...
Vlad the Impaler awesome! Also the Ark of the convenant I beleive is supposed to contain the 10 commandments. Or atleast it did at some point.
A little bit off topic, but something I noticed in regard to the "Winning First"-trait:
While playing the German version I found this strange trait I couldn't understand: "Siegerfaust". Only after playing the English version I found out that they translated it wrongly: "Siegerfaust" means literally "Winning Fist". They didn't see the "r" :laugh4:
Well, Winning Fist isn't too bad really, still fits to an extent. But good find!
Oh no.. that means I'll have to correct a lot of typos and bad translations again, because that's in all likelihood not the only case where they messed up.. ~:doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Barny Bangs
Does anyone know a answer on this question? Sometimes my general get battle dread even he didnt killed much but capture a lot of prisoners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
For example, my general unit killed 30 men and capture 150+ ppl. I dont believe my general have killed more than 8 in those 30 killed. However, if capturing prisoner called into num killed than it will be a totally different story.
As i remember while the game calculate the experience gained in battle, they count 2 capture prisoner as 1 killed ?? Would that apply in counting VnV too?? :help:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob the Insane
~:eek:
This trait annoys the hell out of me which is why I requested something be done about it in patch 1.3. I always try to be chivalrous but this scuppers my efforts most of the time. It's stupid.
Well, the thing is, if you want a chivalrous general, he'll either have to start the battle with battlechivalry, or you'll have to make sure that his first battle gives him battlechivalry. The reason is, that once he gets fair fighter, he is immune to 90% of the dread triggers, and can concentrate on being chivalrous. The easiest way to do this IMO, is to simply attack a stack of a different religion.
Well taking Prince Rufus to the Middle East before taking York might hamper Englands' conquest somewhat.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Well, england isn't made to be chivalrous, really. Though you can easily launch a crusade at the Moors as soon as you can get a diplomat to rome....
But it's not a very viable option, so if you want to be chivalrous playing as one of these factions, you'll either have to:
1. Let the enemy attack you with slightly higher odds(0.8 or less odds in your favour). Easiest way of doing, is to make a small stack of good troops, well suited to the enemy, stick them in their lands somewhere you have a defensive advantage, and wait for them to attack.
2. Attack them with odds less than 1:2. You can easily do this against a numerically superior opponent if they lack cavalry, as you can easily run your own cavalry around and smack them from behind.
If you do this in the first battle the general takes part in, he will be chivalrous. It's not hard at all to avoid dread traits, if you know what you're doing...
Those are still ridiculous measures to take just to be honourable. I can understand things like not firing arrows at your own men but must I risk losing the battle just to be a nice guy? Doesn't make sense to me personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
If you have a good army yourself, and the enemy has a crap, but large army, you shouldn't have any problem winning the battle, especially if you have a good position. After that first battle, you can go your merry way and not worry about dread.
BTW, I believe chivalry is supposed to be the hard way, while dread is the easy way.
Okay. And once you have a point of Chivalry you are immune to evil effects thereafter?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
yea, it seems a bit odd to me as well. Also, once a general get his first score of battle chivalry than he can do whatever dread thing on the battle without penalty is making no sense at all!!
other than attack the other religious another way to get the first chivalry point it to get 8 num killed with your general [and that why i am asking if capture prisoner take into account]
Now you will have a 50/50 chance to be chivalry or dread.
Not exactly. You can't gain any battledread points if you have a point of battlechivalry, however, you can lose battlechivalry if you rout or don't fight with your general and withdraws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quickening
Note that it only protects against battledread, you can still get evil traits like strategydread if you recruit an assassin, for example.
Thanks for the information HoreTore. Right, so this is the situation.
When an English campaign opens you have Prince Rufus with the following troops:
Two regiments of peasant archers.
Two regiments of spear militia.
To the North of Prince Rufus is York which is garrisoned by:
Two units of peasant archers
Two unit of peasants
One unit of spear milita
It seems pretty damn random whether or not I get "Winning First" in this battle (which Ive played like, a zillion trillion times). So how should I conduct this battle to ensure that I do not get "Winning First"? Bearing in mind that it is near impossible to do anything other that annihilating the rebels to the last man.
Well, it's been some time since I played the english, but if you send him alone to attack york, it should be possible to get odds of 0.8 when the garrison sally, and you shouldn't have any problem routing and killing them. It's a bit tricky to rout them, although it certainly is possible if you charge and destroy the spear milita, then turn back and charge into the heart of the enemy, which should trigger a mass rout.
But I fully believe that england in this game is not made to be chivalrous.... It's so much easier to be evil with them.
So Ive got to attack York with my general alone and waste turns waiting for the rebels to come to me? Like I said, ridiculous.
Anyway it's always easier to be evil. But one of the great aspects of this game is that you can supposedly rule your kingdom as you like. I DON'T WANNA BE EVIL!!!!!!!! :sweatdrop:
Well, you only "waste" one turn... Although it's probably possible to assault right away too.
yea, the total annihilating or the picking on weak thing makes no sense at all in siege battle, therefore i mod them both not counting in any siege battle at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quickening
and i have read there is a bug in 1.2 which the AI dont take city defensive in battle odd. Which means even you pick your general vs the AI general with a citadal, the battle odd is still 1:1...... :furious3:
Sucrafice Men = Get this trait
winning first says in the description that this generl will do every thing to win a battle.... or something like that
:inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive:
Chivalry is a load of garbage anyway. I like the "winning first" trait, since that's how medieval military leaders were, like military leaders in, to my knowledge, every epoch in human history. This is probably why it is so difficult- only a complete dunce of a general would have any scruples about how to win a battle or campaign.
I think you're playing MEDIEVAL TOTAL STAR WARS....:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
why everbody wants to get high chivalry? Is dread so bad or chivalry so great? Shouldn't both have good sides and bad sides? Or chivalry is so superior(that doesn't make sense imo)
Neither of them are really superior. But they are different.
Governor bonus:
Both gives a PO bonus of 5%, however, chivalry gives a 0.5% boost to population growth too. This can be a bad thing, and it can be a good thing. Generally speaking, it's good for small towns and castles in your own lands, while it's bad for big cities far from your capital. This is very easy to see when you complete a crusade to the levant. When you first get there, the populations is small and nice to control. However, it grows so incredibly fast due to the governor, that in just a few turns, it's impossible to control.
Battle bonus:
Chivalry gives a morale bonus to your own troops, while dread gives a morale penalty to the enemy. This is why your troops are very likely to run away when they are facing the mongols.
BTW, I like Dread :whip:
Not true at all. You can sacrifice all the troops you want, you wont get a the trait anyway. The description doesn't have anything to say in how you get the traits, take a look in the trigger file to see how to get them.Quote:
Sucrafice Men = Get this trait
winning first says in the description that this generl will do every thing to win a battle.... or something like that
One of the problems with having a high-chivalry governor is that it also adds to the population growth for some reason, and that means big cities tend to get really huge really fast with a high-chivalry governor. Now how does that make sense, realistically? :dizzy2:
Squalor and public order problems in general are alot easier to deal with in M2TW and having a nice ruler means that he will care about the people and fight disease as well as make sure they have something to eat causing large population bursts
I've always thought the chivalrous governors held yearly orgies...
Okay I started a new English campaign to put all this to the test and as of turn twenty-three Ive only got "Winning First" once and I can understand why in that instance.
Basically, to be ultra-ultra-chivalrous, I have been laying siege and waiting until the defenders sally forth to attack me. I don't mind this since I find assaults to be quite tedious. Also, waiting for the enemy to sally has not set me back in the game as much as I thought it would have. In fact, my current game is the best Ive ever had with England.
When the defenders sally I have been raining fire arrows on them, engaging them with my infantry and flanking with my cavalry. Basically doing everything possible to break them and end the battle quickly so as to spare as many of their lives as I can.
This has been working a charm and I have some super-chivalrous generals. And the more I think about this, the more sense it makes. I mean if someone is truly Chivalrous then surely they value the life of all men and therefore would go to great pains to make sure that as many are spared as possible.
So all is well although I still think the "winning first" triggers are odd to say the least.
prisoners count towards the percentage killed in the coloured bar but not towards the total number killed displayed in the post battle reveiwQuote:
Originally Posted by RickooClan
I think i can answer this question now after some testing on the winning first trait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
PercentageEnemyKilled = the total number of enemy men lost during the battle
Which means it include the men you killed, captured, and those lost to their own friendly fire or whatever reason....
It is very misleading as it say PercentageEnemyKilled but not PercentageEnemyLost. :juggle2:
Personally, I prefer chivalrous generals to dreaded generals. I usually will guide a "character" through actions I think he might do himself. Example: Fritz Fritziwitz has trait fair fighter or fair in rule = I will have him be chivalrous. Though I have had a character by the name of Dietrich von Sachsen who despite being noble in rule ended up getting the winning first trait (damn it) and later on cruel and cunning. So I seen it as he is noble in rule yet on the battlefield he is cruel and cunning.
I do agree much so with Quickening, the winning first trait is a pain in the arse. It is especially tough to avoid in the early game when you are engaging the enemy with a roughly 1:1 ratio of troops. IMO I believe the triggers for winning first should be fixed. A few ideas on how it could better be triggered: 2,5-3:1 ratio in your favor, overuse of missile weapons with little or no melee engagement of the enemy, ( which if I am not mistaken does gain you winning first? ) or using underhanded units such as battlefield assassins.
Tschüß!
Erich
The interesting thing about these:
Is that because of their order you have a 50% chance to get battle dread but only a 25% chance of getting battle chivalry (50% of the 50% that you don't get battle dread above) which could be intended but rather more probably shows CA coders have no idea about statistics :laugh4:Code:;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle3_Dread_fighting
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition GeneralNumKillsInBattle > 8
and not Trait BattleChivalry > 0
Affects BattleDread 1 Chance 50
Affects Bloodthirsty 1 Chance 10
;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle3_Chivalry_fighting
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition GeneralNumKillsInBattle > 8
and not Trait BattleDread > 0
Affects BattleChivalry 1 Chance 50
You could change the first trigger to 33% so you have a third chance of getting either of these and a third chance of getting nothing
That said I hate how they did these traits because it's basically dependant on luck which one you get and there's no turning back...
It's the 'no idea about statistics' part - the spy % chance of opening the gate is equally stuffed ~:)
I will likely mod M2TW once a good trait/ancillary mod is released for v1.2. The stats triggering for some of the most foolish and mundane reasons almost ruins the fun in playing the campaign anymore. I almost had more fun in v1.1 despite all the short comings and lack of trait triggers. At least then my generals did not trigger winning first by breathing or something as equally cruel and cunning. :wall:
Tschüß!
Erich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quickening
The main problem with this is other than rebels, infidels and the excommunicated, it's hard to manage a full-length siege without the pope riding you. I hate it when he tells me to bugger off six turns into a seven-turn siege.
I like chivalrous generals. I'm playing the Turks right now and I don't use governors for the extra income anymore. My experience is they get more bad than good traits, especially while sitting in cities, so I don't bother. I use my generals mainly for leading my armies and as a powerful unit in battle. But, in this campaign, I've started putting my chivalrous generals on the cities/castles that need a population boost. It helps them tech up much faster.