Printable View
i have been using armenia in my first try at EB and it seems I rarely have a general with more than one star, when he comes of age or marries into the family. and after many victories in the field, the stars rarely increase... is this something that is built into EB to reflect tribal weaknesses?
I'm sure someone else can give a better explaining answer than I can, but EB has made it so that any faction that's played by the human will find it hard to gain command stars for it's generals. EB handles that kind of things through traits instead.
Stars are crap. They give a bonus to morale, but only around the general, not all the troops on the battlefield. To better represent the morale of an army we use traits, whose morale increasing abilities effect all the troops on a battlefield. It is possible to get better in command stars, but don't expect it to be as easy as in Vanilla - you have to work for it.
Check your general's traits to see what areas of war he is good at and use him accordingly.
Foot
Is this topic in the FAQ? If not, we need to put it in there and link it whenever this question comes up. (Which is to say "weekly.")
Hmm, I guess a couple of battlestars would make campaigning easier.
Here's an anology to help explain the difference between the benefits you gain from command stars versus those from traits:
Let's say you see a real general and he has two stars on his uniform. Does that mean he's "better" than the guy with one star? Maybe, maybe not. What really separates the two are a host of intangibles and real life experiences, which is exactly what traits provide in EB.
So if you want clearly defined limits, go play RTW. If you want real life depth and complexity, come on over to EB.
Command Stars are really only useful if you want to auto-resolve, since more command stars means easier wins, which means more command stars.
Overall though I agree, its better to get traits to increse Morale for all your units and the capabilities of your General's Bodyguards.
To get Command Stars only have one Character fight all the battles, and never (or incredibly rarely) lose.
I managed, in fifty or sixty turns, to get Caius Aurelius Cotta, Romanii, to an eight star, four management, six influence Character. He also got +1 star for attacking, +2 stars whenever he fought Greeks, and +1 star for fighting Eleutheroi.
It just takes a butload of Clear/Heroic Victories in a row. (The only time he lost was when he died, against two Epeiros Generals (7 and 8 stars), and outnumbered 2:1))
It also depends on the intelligence and charisma of the character. For example, the Casse faction leader has a very high intelligence, so he will rack up "good commander" traits much faster than normal family members (although still not as fast as in vanilla). There are six levels of intelligence and six of charisma, but unfortunately you can only see the broad trends so it's hard to guess which characters should be developed.
Because the designers made it so. All game designers, both amateur and professional, compensate for AI deficiencies by making things more difficult for the human player - and often get a little carried away in the process.
Here's a quick workaround: go to the traits file, search for "command", and lower the thresholds needed for successive star levels, so to speak. Don't feel guilty, either -right now, the system is out of whack. You'd have to fight two battles per turn with the same guy for a hundred game turns to have a chance of getting the maximum number of stars possible (10). To say nothing of AI generals that spend their entire career sitting on their asses in a city and have a bunch of stars, while your guys fighting battle after battle have none. It's irritating.
Stars are important, because they let you win battles on autoresolve without cheating. The way the system operates right now cheats the AI, too - an AI army is far more likely to attack your army if your general has no stars or maybe just a couple. The fact that your general has ten units while the AI general has three doesn't seem to matter much. As a result, it's very easy to provoke the AI into making kamikaze attacks.
Stars are very effective in battle. They give give boosts to morale and unit stats, so with a ten star general, there will be a very huge boost to your units. Now it may only be in a specific area, BUT this area is increased with each point of influence your general gets, with ten points letting it almost encompass a full stack army on the field. Now a ten star and ten influence general will have huge boosts applied to almost every unit on the battle field. Not so useless now eh?
Our testing at EB make us believe that it only gives a boost to morale and not to stats. There is a difference of opinion on this point, but we stick by our own findings on this issue. With only a morale boost, command stars lose out against traited morale boosts, which is how we play it in our system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbass
Foot
And even if command stars do bost stats, that hardly very historical, is it?
me, for example, im of the party of people who is quite sure the command stars affect the stats of the unit (+1 attack for every CS)
I had a general who had 5 CS with a lot of morale penalty, and a 0 CS General with a lot of morale boosts, and nothink to do, the 5 Cs generals army, was umbeatable, with very few losses. No-one will change my mind on this:laugh4:
yeah, I can see how its been a big problem for me, even though I like the occaisonal battle, I am more of a campaign person. So I autoresolve often, and end up getting my brains beat in even though I have strong stacks. So i will try the file mod that was suggested to me.
But I do think that the developers have made a really nice game, especially in terms of the campaign map, and making the autoresolve option a problem is counter intuitive to the spirit of the game.
well, there are a lot of system to make battles "more interesting" according to various mods:
one aspect of the EB system is to give more easily gained CS to enemy general, and "hard" CS to the player, so the battle are more balanced.
(the disavantage of this system is that you can play almost only on Medium Battle difficulty, because on hard/very hard, the enemy has the AI stat bonus + the CS bonus)
other mods, will give an huge boost on "moral" to every unit stats so the battle are longer, but this can make the thinks a bit unrealistic, cause i expect the enemy cheap units to root as i charge them, and if i charge an unit of akontistai with my brihentin, or cataftact, i expect them to rout, as they do in EB.
other mods again (im thinking of ATW) give 4/5 experience bonus to every units (allied and enemy), this system has his avantage/disavantage too.
it's all according to the mods favorite system. (every system has its avant/disavantages, but on Medium difficult the EB system is quite realistic, cause the enemy units rout as they have to do, and also your units)
Just think about it this way, you are being lead by a legendary general, an Alexander reborn, he knows no defeat and laughs in the face of death. He leads a charge near you, and seeing him fills you with confidence, pride, renewed courage and it gets you fighting even harder not to let this man down. This is not reflected by a morale bonus, as rtw morale only makes your unit less likely to break. confident troops fight better and harder (until they become too overconfident) and this is not taken into account.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharnakes
I'd rather not have the old MTW "half the command value to unit exp level" back, thankyouverymuch. It made Byzantine armies in particular a bit of a nightmare.
Maybe you could, with traits, make ten-star-general better logisticians(the right word?) and such.
So a ten star gereral can spend a long time in enemy land without suffering from moral lost for exemple.
Maybe its impossible?
Maybe thats what managment points are for?
(damn my english is gettin worse by the minute :wall: )
Hmm, I don't quite see what relevence this has to topic, but I have always wondered how does a general get logistic traits? It says they're there, but I have only ever seen it once IIRC, surely it ought to be a trait tied to educaton, as surely logistics and army managment was one of the areas covered by a military education? Or prehaps a anncilary should be avalible, something like a quatermaster, that gives improved logistics and maybe +1 morale to troops?
Good point...Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelis
The whole post.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke, CA
Then we are going to have to talk about this.
Foot
that quote by bovi does change things a bit :laugh4:
I just wanted to reemphasize that the biggest problem IMO are the kamikaze attacks that many-starred enemy AI generals are very prone to make.
It makes battles easier when they don't wait for more reinforcements and just come a quarter stack at a time.
I've seen enemy captains do it too, so the problem is on both sides because human controlled generals get so few stars the enemy is over-confident but a many-starred AI general is extremely confident to say the least.
I'm okay with the many stars of enemy generals they clearly need all the help they can get in battles, but the stars also seem to mess with their strat map behavior too.
So perhaps a hidden trait for AI generals giving them morale boosts for all troops will give them the needed help in battles while keeping them somewhat more under control on the strat map.
I wouldn't expect things to change too much in any release until after we rework the battle model. At that point, even 10 stars won't be as big of a difference.
I'm not so sure if the number of command stars has any affect on the AI's aggressiveness. Was this tested? Actually, I'm not even sure if what Jerome posted is correct either, maybe therother knows more about it. They used to do a lot of testing when the game was released.
My post was not saying that anything should be changed, just adding what I'm willing to accept as fact given its source and lack of personal experience to the contrary. It's been quite a while though, the code may have changed since then.
Well, from what therother has posted, he tested it and could not find any empirical evidence for Jerome's claim. I've taken therother's word for it, as he's a pretty rigorous empiricist and on reflection, his conclusion does fit my casual observation (unlike STW/MTW where high star command generals were monsters).Quote:
Originally Posted by BozosLiveHere
It would be very easy to test - just mod the stars of a starting general in the descr_strat and see how the outcome of a small fight varies with his command stars. You could mod his units' attack stats if you want a benchmark for comparison.
If the AI was to be given a boost to make battles harder, then why not do it with the morale bonus? Why should there be a different set of "rules" for AI and human generals? To me command stars have one thing that really breaks the system: Eleutheroi garrison commanders. Battles fought against them in autobattle are most likely to go down in defeat, but as the player battles them manually, it only affects the AI expansion.
The Eleutheroi part is intended to stop AI steamrolling, the problem is that sometimes a faction gets lucky and gets a many-starred general(this is damaging in the early game mostly).
I saw an Epeiros general (the guy that starts in Taras) beat a lot of Romans and gaining many stars also with the help of the many mercs in southerm Italy (especially the very strong Saminticii Milites) he took out Rhegion (rebel city) and then methodically defeated the Romans until he took Arpi, Capua and Rome.
I mean he just obliterated some strong armies led by young generals or captains.
Granted. the Romans kept trying to take the strong Eleutheroi cities to the north and losing many men there (I agree with the strong Eleutheroi BTW)
EDIT: On second thought sometimes Hannibal happens, so to speak.
What sort of changes will that involve?Quote:
Originally Posted by blacksnail
AFAIK it will involve units having larger values in all catogories, so the effects of experince ect will be dampened.
I'm sorry to hear that... For me, taking care of units so that they get plenty of experience is great fun. The experience bonus reflects reality well, too: in RL, "green" soldiers constitute the vast majority of casualties in every fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharnakes
More because they were always the most prone to breaking and running, which is where most casualties in premodern battles came from.
I have played XGM (Extended greeks mod) that have that system and I think the EB one is much better. Its an little anoying to charge an levy infantry unit with two medium cavalry units and to see the levys win...Quote:
If the AI was to be given a boost to make battles harder, then why not do it with the morale bonus? Why should there be a different set of "rules" for AI and human generals? To me command stars have one thing that really breaks the system: Eleutheroi garrison commanders. Battles fought against them in autobattle are most likely to go down in defeat, but as the player battles them manually, it only affects the AI expansion.
Glad to hear it. I've been a little annoyed in my current (Romani) game by certain unassailable settlements - ones that have beaten off AI attacks so many times that the computer just can't deal with them, due to unit experience and accumulated command stars. The Gauls were wasting their time on Tolosa, the Lusitani on whatever Galicia is called in-game, and the Sweboz in the Lowlands. Then I turned up, stormed these little settlements first time and proceeded to conquer the factions they had for so long tied up. I'd be happy to see that stop happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharnakes
I expect this effect is somewhat negated when the original Eleutheroi family members die off, but I don't think that's good enough.
Massive ones that will dry my eyes out to husks and send Arkatreides on the warpath, I'm sure of it. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Underhand
The biggest issue here is that experienced missile units can break game balance. With bigger numbers, going from a 2 attack to a 12 attack won't have as destructive an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelis
Could I tempt you to elaborate? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by blacksnail
All I can say right now is that we're replacing Polybian hastati with wardogs.
...what? ~:)
Ah. That sounds okay. It would be great if the charge boni/cavalry melee stats were looked at, too - my little pet issue. IMO the melee values suck, while the charge bonus is way too big. Once, I wiped out a 62-strong phalanx plus half a hoplite unit (ca 20 men) plus around two dozen of assorted infantry (unit remnants) with 6 Getai general bodyguards. Another time, I wiped out an entire army - two full strength (60 something soldiers) and one half strength phalanx units, three understrength hoplite units, and maybe half a dozen of seriously weakened units (anything from 6 to 20 soldiers) with around 20 horse (including two Epirote generals with bodyguard - 6 and 7 respectively). I remember those numbers well, because those two fights took sthg like an hour each. All this due to the charge bonus, of course, and plenty of micromanagement. If that's not an exploit, I don't know what is. Naturally, without micromanaged charges, in a regular rumble, my cavalry would have been defeated by three lame slingers and their pet blind dog. I regularly cut up enemy horse with charging archers, which seems very far fetched. Agincourt was an exception, not the rule, and anyway the French knights tried to fight on foot in mud up to their knees. IIRC, those that weren't taken prisoner were drowned by archers pushing them over face down and sitting on them, most likely while making plenty of rude comments. Hardly the standard situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by blacksnail
Sorry for the confusing post, had a long day, but had to get a little EB fix to finish things off ;).
Actually, I've always held that the inclusion of war dogs was historically justified. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar contains the line: "Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war!" Julius Caesar was a Roman. This seems to me sufficient evidence to justify the Romans fielding war dogs.
Is that a joke?
Of course it was. I may not be well known around here, but I'd have thought you'd give me a little credit. Though admittedly it was a bit mean of me to not use a smiley ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Nice one underhand. :laugh4: It really sounded like you meant it.
Thanks. I rather enjoy pretending to be a moron, although some might question how much of it is pretense ~;)
Romans should also get head-hurlers because they were shown on Trajan's Column.Quote:
Originally Posted by Underhand
Charges are inherently goofy. There was a bugged charge bonus in previous iterations of Vanilla RTW and some of the old bonuses may have slipped through the cracks. That's also something we're investigating for the big stat change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelis