Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 182

Thread: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

  1. #61

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Will you make unit model for kushan and Han dynasty.As far as I know both this 2 country invaded the central asia in the time frame。Central asia is in the EBII map.Kushan and Han are 2 of the 4 greatest empire on earth at that time.It is a shame that they could not show up

  2. #62
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    8,962
    Blog Entries
    1

    Lightbulb Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕 View Post
    Could you Add more army and reble to nomadic faction and province?In nomadic area,There are loads of tribe.How could one outstand the other.Only when the nomadic faction defeat all the other competitor or rebels.They can held the whole province and lot of money and manpower.Otherwise,Nomadic faction should be poor to death
    True, but it would make for a very frustrating game when you play the Nomads. And if you don't play the nomads, the rebels will cripple the nomadic factions so they will never grow strong to threaten the player.

    Quote Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕 View Post
    Will you make unit model for kushan and Han dynasty.As far as I know both this 2 country invaded the central asia in the time frame。Central asia is in the EBII map.Kushan and Han are 2 of the 4 greatest empire on earth at that time.It is a shame that they could not show up
    Unfortunately, there is a limit too how many factions M2:TW can have. If EB included Kushan and Han, they would have to drop 2 others. Since the Kushan and Han were only occasionally interested in Central Asia, and didn't stay there, the team decided not to include them.
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

  3. #63

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    A question of courage:

    OK – here is a wee problem (you guys are probably starting to hate me right about now):

    When I am in a big battle, I like to withdraw my slingers and archers after they are out of amo, especially if they are more expensive mercenary types (Balletic or Rhodian). This gets them out of the way, and also frees up slots for reinforcements, if I happen to have any.

    But in EBII, if I do this, my general gets a black mark (a “doubtful courage”) for running away from a battle, even though he himself has not withdrawn.

    If you are trying to say he lacks courage for bringing in reinforcements, then I say “fie” – that just means he is a good general who knows how to maneuver and marshal his forces. In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark – again, it shows he is a smart commander who know when to run so he can fight again.

    I know vanilla Rome TW and Med TW tended towards rewarding bravery over intelligence – and that's all very well, winning against the odds should be rewarded – but careful and smart play should not be penalized. Historically, it is the general who wins that gets the triumph, and if he wins while avoiding losses, even better.

    Slainte,

    Cruin.

  4. #64
    master of the wierd people Member Ibrahim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Who cares
    Posts
    5,947

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Cruin View Post
    A question of courage:

    OK – here is a wee problem (you guys are probably starting to hate me right about now):

    When I am in a big battle, I like to withdraw my slingers and archers after they are out of amo, especially if they are more expensive mercenary types (Balletic or Rhodian). This gets them out of the way, and also frees up slots for reinforcements, if I happen to have any.

    But in EBII, if I do this, my general gets a black mark (a “doubtful courage”) for running away from a battle, even though he himself has not withdrawn.

    If you are trying to say he lacks courage for bringing in reinforcements, then I say “fie” – that just means he is a good general who knows how to maneuver and marshal his forces. In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark – again, it shows he is a smart commander who know when to run so he can fight again.

    I know vanilla Rome TW and Med TW tended towards rewarding bravery over intelligence – and that's all very well, winning against the odds should be rewarded – but careful and smart play should not be penalized. Historically, it is the general who wins that gets the triumph, and if he wins while avoiding losses, even better.

    Slainte,

    Cruin.
    That's a strange thing. I figured "doubtful courage" only applied to to generals running away.

    @Gigantus: any way of fixing this?
    I was once alive, but then a girl came and took out my ticker.

    my 4 year old modding project--nearing completion: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=219506 (if you wanna help, join me).

    tired of ridiculous trouble with walking animations? then you need my brand newmotion capture for the common man!

    "We have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if we put the belonging to, in the I don't know what, all gas lines will explode " -alBernameg

  5. #65
    I know the vioces aren't real Member Gigantus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,334

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    That's how the game mechanic works when you press the 'Rout' (run away in uncontrollable panic) button. If that didn't lead to a penalty then I would consider it a major cheat - use your expensive missile units and then let them rout once they expended their ammunition, like he cited, is such an example.

    In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark
    Utter BS where I am concerned - he was too dumb not to commit in the first place (unless he couldn't prevent to enter an engagement - which again is poor tactics to start with)
    Last edited by Gigantus; 02-03-2016 at 05:02.

  6. #66
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    8,962
    Blog Entries
    1

    Lightbulb Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    That's how the game mechanic works when you press the 'Rout' (run away in uncontrollable panic) button. If that didn't lead to a penalty then I would consider it a major cheat - use your expensive missile units and then let them rout once they expended their ammunition, like he cited, is such an example.
    But I think he is talking about the "withdraw" option, not the "rout" one. And withdrawing troops that cannot contribute to the battle further is a sensible precaution, not a sign of cowardice. It only becomes cowardice if the general himself leaves, or lets the entire army fall back before the battle is decided (but I get that the M2:TW trait engine cannot recognize the latter situation).

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Utter BS where I am concerned - he was too dumb not to commit in the first place (unless he couldn't prevent to enter an engagement - which again is poor tactics to start with)
    Yes, it's a sign of poor tactics, not lack of courage.
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

  7. #67
    I know the vioces aren't real Member Gigantus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,334

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    You cannot 'withdraw' single units during battle - you can just force them to rout. What's the problem with marching them to a quiet or hidden spot? That's what I always do.

    Withdrawal before battle (refusing to engage) does not cause a penalty afaik.

    Member thankful for this post:



  8. #68

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Yes -- I am talking of a simple withdrawal of some missile troops (using the "withdraw" button) -- that in itself (or the bringing in of reinforcements, I don't know which) triggers the Coward increment, and gives the general a "Doubtful Courage".

    As for withdrawing entirely, Gigantus responded to:

    "In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark"

    with:
    "Utter BS where I am concerned - he was too dumb not to commit in the first place (unless he couldn't prevent to enter an engagement - which again is poor tactics to start with) "

    Well... you have the right to think that, but it is pretty common military tactics for a force to sometimes engage with the intention of withdrawing before the battle is "over" (whatever “over” means here). For instance, one might want to weaken the enemy, or delay him, or draw him out, or provoke him, or simply probe his forces.

    You might think engaging a strong force without clear hope of winning is dumb, or poor tactics, but sometimes it is, simply, the best option open to a General.

    And, inevitably, it can happen due to things beyond a General's control – the enemy has reinforcements or some tactical advantage that was hidden by the fog of war, or expected friendly reinforcements did not arrive on time, or, as often as not, the General simply underestimated the enemy's strength. And, here finally, you can call it “dumb” – but all the best Generals in history have done this on occasion. So what would you have him do under these circumstances – bravely fight it out until all his men are killed or routed? Or recognize the situation, and withdraw his forces in the best order he can manage?

    In the simple terms of TW games, I know a lot of the above situations (of truncated engagements) do not apply -- and game battles are "won" or "lost" by a count of numbers, or by which army routs -- but that only sometimes reflects how battle are fought in the real world -- where battles have a mission, or purpose, which often goes beyond these simple terms. And that was also true in the classic world -- think of Thermopholie, where the Spartans entered a losing battle to delay the enemy, or if you want negative examples, think of Pyrrus, who bravely won battles but lost the war, or even Hannibal who could gain a victory but "did not know what to do with it."

    Anyway, interesting as the discussion is, in this case, that is not the EBII problem I am talking about. Trust me, I did not hit any "rout" button, I just withdrew missile troops and brought in some reinforcements, and the General was tagged Coward (this has happened a few times). As for whether doing this is a “major cheat” – don't be silly, it is part of the game, it is the only way you can bring in reinforcements (it is how the enemy brings in reinforcements too). It is also described in the TW manual as an “ordered withdrawal of troops” as opposed to a disorganized rout.

    Regards,

    Cruin.

  9. #69

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    OOps -- I see our replies were sent in together, so we missed each other.
    Gigantus you said-
    You cannot 'withdraw' single units during battle - "

    Sorry, yes you can. There is a withdraw button on the wheel, when the unit card is selected. And if you are fielding large armies, it is the only way to clear a slot to bring in reinforcements.

    Regards,

    Cruin.

  10. #70
    COYATOYPIKC Senior Member Flatout Minigame Champion Arjos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Prisoners upon this rock, flying without wings...
    Posts
    9,118

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    That "withdraw button" is a "rout button" really, game engine-wise you are forcing the selected unit to panic off the battlefield...

    Historically missiles troops were infamous for skirmishing, sitting the battle out and coming back to cut down heavier and slower opponents. Already choosing to "withdraw" them away from the battlefield is ahistorical and gamey...

    About the delaying tactics, harassing etc. Perfectly agreed, but silly CA made an engine not based on actual tactics and warfare. The game will always consider those as routs, for example nomadic factions cannot shoot all their arrows, withdraw and call it a victory. That's the system we have to work with...

    As for such functions "being part of the game", well the actual design behind the game isn't about accuracy, so in our mod those are cheats really...
    You have the freedom to use them, but the mod is not tailored for their use...

    Regarding the need to get reinforcements in, M2TW allows them to be led by the AI and you can even select their behaviour between defensive and offensive. Thus fielding more than 20 units on the battle map...

    Even if in the manual it is called ordered, the workaround they used with the engine is to force a rout. Thus when we script that routing causes the General to have the possibility to gain the doubtful courage trait. The scenario you've described can happen...

    Had they made that button an actual ordered retreat, then we'd have no issues here as the engine would register it as something else...
    Last edited by Arjos; 02-03-2016 at 13:24.

    Member thankful for this post:



  11. #71
    I know the vioces aren't real Member Gigantus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,334

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    That "withdraw button" is a "rout button" really, game engine-wise you are forcing the selected unit to panic off the battlefield...
    That's what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear.

    Well... you have the right to think that, but it is pretty common military tactics for a force to sometimes engage with the intention of withdrawing before the battle is "over" (whatever “over” means here). For instance, one might want to weaken the enemy, or delay him, or draw him out, or provoke him, or simply probe his forces
    Sorry for being blunt: trying to apply that to a game engine one knows that it doesn't (can't) support it and then complain about it is what eventually led me to the 'dumb' response. Guerrilla tactics simply are not supported by the game, never have, never will. It has got 'Total' in the name = if you engage in a battle be prepared to be decimated, routed, annihilated. Expecting to be able walk away when it doesn't go well for you is a 'common' desire but utterly unrealistic in this game. You either win a battle, get annihilated or rout. And leaving the battle field during the battle is routing where the game engine is concerned - regardless what the reason is.
    You want to weaken the enemy? Then you annihilate his armies and\or take his settlements.
    You want to provoke him? Then raid his settlements (raze and leave to revolt).
    You want to probe his forces? Send a spy, or sacrifice a cheap unit to reconnoiter.
    If you wish to use more realistic tactics then I can recommend the 'Order of Battle' game series (I totally enjoyed the 'Morning Sun' DLC) - Total War is the wrong choice for it.

    Once more - sorry for being blunt. But this is not an advanced combat\strategy simulator - ignoring the limitations and expecting otherwise is simply willful ignorance.

  12. #72

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    When does a withdrawal become a rout?

    I guess most of this is in reply to Arjos, but some is also to Gigantos. You guys are starting to circle the wagons, so I am having hard time seeing who is firing back from behind the wheels.

    No– the withdraw button is what it says: a withdraw button – I know it uses the same icons (the white flags) but it is different from a a panicked rout.

    For one, the unit will not, by itself “rally” or come back (they have been ordered to go)

    Neither will they run off in crazy directions. They will head strait for the border.

    It is reversible – if the unit has not left the field, you can change your mind and call them back.

    Lastly, it is described in the TW manuals as serving this purpose, so obviously, that was the original intention. Rewriting or re-interpreting that intention might be your choice, but that is what you are doing here.

    “Historically missiles troops were infamous for skirmishing, sitting the battle out and coming back to cut down heavier and slower opponents. Already choosing to "withdraw" them away from the battlefield is ahistorical and gamey...”

    I'm not so sure about this – it was sometimes true during medieval times, where archers had some armor and carried swords, and I'm sure it happened during classical times, but I don't see some poor Greek slinger going into the fray to take on a roman legionary.

    Anyway, that is not its purpose. Withdraw simply tells the unit to get itself out of harms way, so I (the general here) do not have to worry about it anymore. I expect them to go away and avoid trouble – it does not always work, sometimes they can get caught by some cavalry unit or other while withdrawing, and that is quite historical.

    Whether CA made a game based on more complex strategy and tactics or not, I can still attempt to use them in play (can't stop myself really). As for whether it gives a bad mark for withdrawing from a battle or not, it does not, as far as I know (although, as I said, it tends to overemphasize a simplistic view of heroism, by, for instance, rewarding heroic victories, even if the general stupidly lost practically all his men).

    But that does not mean EBII has to go further and penalize a general for withdrawing some troops. Forgive me if I am wrong here, but I believe the “Coward” attribute (level 1 being “Doubtful courage”) is an EBII attribute. Is this not so? If it is, then it was your decision to penalize withdrawal, not CA's.

    As for bringing in reinforcements as AI-controlled armies – I know one can do this, I just prefer not too (they are just too stupid). But obviously if the game gave me a mechanism not to have to do this, and to bring in reinforcements (slowly) as I clear slots for them, then it is not a cheat for me to do so.

    The enemy, AI armies, may actually need to rout some of their units to get in their reinforcements, I think the mechanism is a wee bit different, they seem to get all their reinforcing units at once. But anyway, the enemy AI gets reinforcements too – so it's all fair, there is no cheat here.

    Lastly, as for enemies withdrawing, you said:
    “nomadic factions cannot shoot all their arrows, withdraw and call it a victory”

    Are you talking about withdrawing some archers to get their reinforcements? Or withdrawing all their army to save from losing too many men. They do both, often, at least in Vanilla TW. They have to withdraw (or in the simplified AI options, it might actually be rout) some of their forces before they can get reinforcements. They can then easily continue to a “victory.”

    As for withdrawing all their forces, they don't get a “victory,” but neither do I get one if I withdraw all my forces. But as to them not doing it – don't kid yourself! In vanilla TW they do it all the time. Actually, I was always impressed by the way the Hun and Timmerid armies in MedII TW would attack fearlessly, and then, if the battle went against them, reverse and get the hell out of there. They seemed to care as little as I did as to whether the scroll said it was a “victory” or not.

    You can't have this both ways. You claim that it is the CA game engine that actually considers withdrawals as routs, but then you go on to assert that “as for such functions "being part of the game", well the actual design behind the game isn't about accuracy, so in our mod those are cheats really...” Which is it? It is that they don't have a “withdrawal” function, or is it that they do, but it was not accurate, so those are cheats.

    And as for saying “You have the freedom to use them, but the mod is not tailored for their use...” This misses the point: the whole intellectual discussion about what constitute good or bad generalship is interesting in terms of game design but is not the real issue – the problem of tagging generals with “doubtful courage” is an EB II problem, it does not occur in vanilla TW. If you are desciding you want to change the game and start penalizing what you percieve as some kind of cowardice, then so be it – but you must be ready to accept criticism from people who question that decission.

    Also, it's a bit like saying – “Well maybe this mod is not for you. You should just like it or leave it.” Then why invite criticism at all? Even more blatent were statements from Gigantus such as:

    “Total War is the wrong choice for it (deeper strategies). Once more - sorry for being blunt. But this is not an advanced combat\strategy simulator - ignoring the limitations and expecting otherwise is simply willful ignorance.”

    The phrase “willful ignorance” is interesting. Let me assure you, I can be plenty ignorant without any act of will on my part. But the way I chose to play my games (whether rugby, chess, checkers, MMO Siege Wars, or TW) are how I chose to play them. If I have a keen sense of strategy, then that's how I play, and I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)

    I don't expect otherwise of the vanilla TW game engine – I expected otherwise of you – the creators of EBII. I expected if I told you of a problem, that you would say “Yup, that's a problem, we can fix that.” Which you can, quite easily, by changing export_character_attributes or whatever the file is called and fixing it. Instead you give me all this guff about the limitations of the CA game engine.

    I thought these forums were about us users giving feedback? I kind of feel like I'm having to pull teeth here – I tell you of a problem, I explain why it's a problem. First you say my idea is “”BS and (by extension – seeing it it really me who is controlling the generals) that my strategies are “dumb” and “poor tactics.” When I gently are carefully explain that y ideas are quite fitting with historical military strategy, you agree, but then say that the TW engine is not built for historical accuracy – even though the whole point here was to try and improve on the TW engine. Then finally you start sort of ganging up and saying, “move on then, this game, and this mod, is just not for you!”

    I think, perhaps, I have rubbed you the wrong way, or perhaps I have just found way too many faults in your baby, but like I say, it really feels like you guys are circling the wagons.


    Look guys, I was for years a programmer, and I did a fair number of those years working in quality assurance. I am now a professional writer and editor. I am used to editing, and giving and receiving criticism.

    I know that EBII is your baby, and you have every right to be proud of it. It is a marvelous piece of work. But it does (obviously) still have a few... uhem.... problems (I have seen, already, how you react to the word “bugs”). You have invited feedback (the battlefield general I mentioned before invites feedback every time one enters a battle). I am giving you just and honest feedback. But if you fight me so hard on these (what I consider) small and obvious problems, I fear to get into some of the deeper, but more subtle, historical inaccuracies in EBII.

    So, I beg you all, try and accept the criticism I give as an attempt to help you improve EBII, and not a direct attack on your baby.

    With fond regards,

    Cruin.
    Last edited by Cruin; 02-03-2016 at 16:19. Reason: small typo

  13. #73
    COYATOYPIKC Senior Member Flatout Minigame Champion Arjos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Prisoners upon this rock, flying without wings...
    Posts
    9,118

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    You've missed entirely the discussion...

    The engine itself forces, mechanics-speaking, units to rout when you click the "withdraw" button. They might tag it as a withdraw, but they are mechanically routing...

    We have a trait that triggers when there are routs, real routs. However since the engine registers those "withdrawals" using the button as routs, it can happen the scenario you've experienced...

    As for historicity, I already said how missiles, nor any unit, left the battlefield while others kept on fighting. Unless of course generals ordered a retreat and rearguards or others slowed down the opponents. Soon as the opponent routed the missiles were again on the scene and killing routers. This is what I was referring to, not what you understood as slingers attacking legionaries...

    The feature of single units leaving the field, running away, is indeed a gamey one. We'd remove it even, but it comes from the vanilla infrastructure we are working on...

    We welcome feedbacks and continuously work on that, the whole Mechanics department is at it basically 24/7...
    When there is a problem or sensible feedback on broken behaviour we do work on it. Right now yours was a "I prefer/want it like this. Make it so" and not an objective problem...

    The point in this specific case is that you are using what we consider an exploit (removing units to have player-led reinforcements come in), but of course we cannot tell the players how to play, hence my statement that you have the freedom to use them. However that is not the playstyle, which is tailored to this mod...

    As Gigantus pointed out units not engaged in combat were kept at a distance, it would even be crazier to order units to go home basically as their comrades kept on fighting. Having even missiles as reserves could be a life-saving precaution. Nor did it ever happen that units simply run off the battlefield. Nor those units would want to leave the army themselves, lest they either became deserters, or were left to themselves to survive...

    As for the tangible problem at hand: the doubtful courage due to "withdraw". I tried and apparently failed to make you understand that for the engine, after you click that button, the unit is routing. Hence it can trigger the trait. Since for the engine all of that is routing, real routs and withdraws/retreats, we cannot script in a way that the engine distinguishes them. Thus since the doubtful courage due to actual routs is something we want in the game, we cannot change the collateral result due to withdraws...

    This is an example of the engine's limitations...

    Also we do not consider it as a problem, because the scenario you're talking about (using ammo and withdraw missiles) is to all effect an innacurate and exploitative playstyle in our opinion...

    I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)
    Nope...

    I expected if I told you of a problem, that you would say “Yup, that's a problem, we can fix that.”
    The process is: we look at a feedback, we recognise what is going on, see whether it is a problem or not, see if "fixing" it would result in unwarranted consequences in other mechanics or not and then we fix it...

    In this case there wasn't a problem and even if we acted on it, it would result in broken/undesired behaviour with the trait in question (since we cannot tell the engine, that if a player uses the withdraw button, he's not routing). The solution as we see it on our part, is to avoid exploitative playstyle on this one...

    Using a fresh source of units, outside of the battlemap, which the enemy cannot interact with until the player himself decides, is indeed an exploit. Which again you are free to use, but the mod and its features isn't going to be edited for such scenarios. For example here we'd have to remove the trait, since the engine treats them all as routs...
    Last edited by Arjos; 02-03-2016 at 17:01.

  14. #74

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Finally – someone says “we like that trait, so we want to keep it!”

    Arjos:

    your tone was a bit better in that last one, if I ignore the slightly pejorative:
    “You've missed entirely the discussion... “

    As a matter of fact, I had understood entirely what you were trying to say about the TW engine using the “rout” mechanism to withdraw troops. I'm not entirely convinced it does, though – If you watch units routing and withdrawing, they act differently, especially when you watch AI run enemy units withdraw – it is much more ordered than when they rout. If you've disassembled or otherwise seen the code I will bow to your superior knowledge of this, but I would then be curious how they achieve the differences.

    When I pointed out some of the more obvious differences to you before, I was trying to make clear the “intent” of the withdraw command, no matter how it is actually implemented in code.

    But yes, I do understand that the game engine could be setting a flag that looked the same whether a unit was routing or withdrawing. And I did understand that EBII was then picking up that flag and using it as a trigger for the Coward trait. I had, in fact, suspected as much from the beginning.

    My point was that this was a decision you made, to have the Coward trait in the first place, it has nothing to do with how it is implemented, or how limited or sophisticated or unsophisticated is the TW engine. and that is where enters the argument about what constitute cowardice on the part of a general (whether he withdraws some units, or withdraws his whole army).

    I thought the fact that it had unwanted consequences, penalizing players who played the game in a way obviously intended by the original manufacturers (who included this mechanism specifically so reinforcements could be brought into a battle), would tip the balance of the argument in favor of removing the trait. Frankly, I am surprised that you would fight so hard to keep such and unrealistic and ahistoric trait – “cowardice” – really? I wonder if anyone would have dared call Caesar a coward for all the times he retreated?

    As for your value judgments about withdrawing troops being an inaccurate and exploitative play-style, well... I would not be wanting to tell you how you should play your games. I do agree, though, that entirely removing units from the battlefield is unrealistic. I would love to tell my archers to go off and hide somewhere, only there is no option for doing so. But worse is that the battlefield interface only contain 20 unit cards, so the only way to have bigger armies, is to bring them in somehow. Trust me, I would be happy to keep those lazy slingers and archers in play to help mop up the battlefield – and despite what I said before, when I don't need the reinforcements, I usually do.

    Then you say, that bringing in fresh troops is an exploit. I'm not sure how you figure this, seeing as the AI can, and does, bring up to three armies of extra troops. But I guess, if you want really “brave” generals, who fight armies that are up to three times the size, then you can try penalizing the player who tries to bring in reinforcements by giving his generals a Coward point (and its -1 moral penalty) every time he dares to try this.

    Or you can insist that if he brings in reinforcements, he lets the AI control them (though, I'm not sure why this is not exploitative play, while if the player controls them himself it is).

    But I hazard that all this talk of what is exploitative play-style is a bit of a superior stance that you are taking in order to tell me how I should want to play my games.

    Or when I say:

    “I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)”

    and you answer “Nope...” That is a cute, but nasty sarcasm (I assume you knew I was talking about finding ways to enjoy a game, despite its limitations, and not me asserting that one should exploit or cheat to win a game).

    And all this superior moral stand on how a game should be played for what – exactly? You defend all this so that you can maintain the right to slap a coward sticker on generals who withdraw from battlefields – or are you going to claim that that is, somehow, realistic or historic?

    Anyway, I did rather like your last answer. At least now I feel we are now having the discussion we should have been having all along, about why you want to keep this trait (and why I feel it is unjustified) – and not blaming it all on the TW engine.

    Off course it is your design (or that of the EBII collective), and you have every right to take it in whatever direction you want. If you decide you really want this “coward” trait, and it is worthwhile despite it's unforeseen consequences to exploitative players like myself, then that is all fine.

    Le Beanachdain,
    With Blessings,

    Cruin.

    PS – this is nothing – wait till we start really talking about archers versus slingers.

  15. #75
    COYATOYPIKC Senior Member Flatout Minigame Champion Arjos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Prisoners upon this rock, flying without wings...
    Posts
    9,118

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Again no, the trait "Doubtful courage" is there for when the units and the general actually rout, ie they engage and run away. We want that trait in...

    Due to the engine limitations, we cannot discern the withdraw button and units withdrawing. As I said the engine thinks they rout. If you even listen to them, they start shouting run away etc (the audio files of routing units)...

    The latter behaviour of the trait (when you click withdraw and get the trait) is collateral, since it occurs during exploits for us it is a non-issue. Also as I said the only solution, since the engine cannot discern, would be the removal of the trait. Which is there to work when the units actually rout...

    I cannot for the life of me make this any clearer...

    The trait is for routing, real bonafide routing. If you use the retreat vanilla feature, which is forced routing on the engine, the engine understands that you've routed...

    We want the trait to trigger with real routs, unfortunately it gets triggered by the withdraw button, because for the engine it is a rout...

    I assume you knew I was talking about finding ways to enjoy a game, despite its limitations, and not me asserting that one should exploit or cheat to win a game
    Actually no, the way you posted that paragraph sounded that you use such quirks of the system to gain advantages and suit your tactics...
    Still I'm in no way saying your playstyle is wrong or right, I merely stated that in our opinion using fresh reinforcements from withdrawn slots is an exploit and we do not tailor the mod around that...

    There is no right or wrong playstyle, just we have to pick one to edit the mechanics around it...

    When the player avoids the AI-led reinforcements, specifically to micro them, gains an advantage and he's exploiting the engine. Since even the AI's reinforcements get in the battlefield from the start (although on this point it might depend on the PC running the game)...

    Still it isn't affected in anyway by the mod, as I said there is the freedom to use them. However in cases as this one, where a working trait has a collateral behaviour during an exploit, we won't remove the trait (had we had the engine tell the difference between rout and withdraw we'd edit that in already: we simply cannot do that)...
    Last edited by Arjos; 02-03-2016 at 19:48.

  16. #76

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludens View Post
    True, but it would make for a very frustrating game when you play the Nomads. And if you don't play the nomads, the rebels will cripple the nomadic factions so they will never grow strong to threaten the player.



    Unfortunately, there is a limit too how many factions M2:TW can have. If EB included Kushan and Han, they would have to drop 2 others. Since the Kushan and Han were only occasionally interested in Central Asia, and didn't stay there, the team decided not to include them.
    First,can you lower the upkeep of nomadic tribe.Can you lower the difficulty of buy the rebel of.If the nomadic faction win a great battle.They can get dignity .If they have the dinity so high that they and bribe the rebel into their troop with nearly no cost .But they may also rebel away easily when they were defeated in battle.In this case they may held 10 stacks of army in no time.With it,they can the settled faction .This is the most funny and historical way I can think of .
    Second.I dont means that they show as a faction in the game.can they appear as rebels.Large hords of rebles.this will be most funny.I hope the rebel will be the focus of this game.Not a occasionally small rebel.But huge hords of rebel.This is more historical
    Last edited by Ludens; 02-04-2016 at 12:00. Reason: language

  17. #77

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    what about the architecture of the taxila?Could you make it more historical?An Aztec city is unbearale.

  18. #78
    I know the vioces aren't real Member Gigantus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,334

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Let me just toss some technical stuff in here:

    Withdrawal before battle can be monitored independently from withdrawal in battle, linked to the withdrawal button of the prebattle screen:
    Code:
      WhenToTest PreBattleWithdrawal
    
      Condition WasAttacker
            and I_WithdrawsBeforeBattle
            and BattleOdds > 0.7
            and BattleOdds < 1.3
    
      Affects IndecisiveAttacker  2  Chance  100
      Affects IndecisiveAttacker  2  Chance  60
    The condition Routs tests if a unit has left the battle field during battle - regardless of the reason. The docudemons claim that it is only related to the commanding character but it would appear that it applies to all his units, eg a routing archer seems to trigger that condition. I'll set up a simple test to confirm if that is the case, eg have a one sided battle with the attacker having overwhelming odds in their favor and then forcing a regular unit to rout.

    One of three triggers using the routs condition:
    Code:
    Trigger UnhingedByDefeatAndFlight
      WhenToTest PostBattle
    
      Condition Routs
    
      Affects Deranged  1  Chance  8
      Affects Insane  1  Chance  6
    The other two are the opposing sides of "counter" traits, using trait level ranges as secondary condition:
    Code:
    Trigger battle5_brave
      WhenToTest PostBattle
    
      Condition Routs
            and Trait Brave > 0
    
      Affects Brave -4  Chance  100
    
    ;------------------------------------------
    Trigger battle5_coward
      WhenToTest PostBattle
    
      Condition Routs
            and Trait Brave < 1
    
      Affects Coward  4  Chance  100
    There are five more triggers that test the absence of the condition (and not routs).

    Members thankful for this post (2):

    ArjosCruin 


  19. #79
    I know the vioces aren't real Member Gigantus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,334

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Did that testing by using this simple script in Bare Geomod:
    Code:
        monitor_event PostBattle CharacterIsLocal
             and Routs
            historic_event FIRST_WINDMILL
        end_monitor
    First stage was to test the triggering without the Routs condition: the message fired in autoresolve, regular end of battle and forced exiting.
    Second stage was to rout a unit and then conclude with a forced exit: only the commanding officer triggered the script and only if he had exited the map completely. A simple exit from the battle (pic gone from line up) was not sufficient - the green pip had to leave the radar map completely. This can presumably be used as a minor exploit to preserve the general of an annihilated\totally routed army from picking up that trait: the battle will stop if he is the last unit over the battle line, but will not count as routed as he did not exit the map completely (requires testing).

    Summary:
    Forced withdrawal\routing (clicking that button) triggers the condition
    but only for the commanding unit (very likely for other named characters as well - not tested)
    and only if it has left the map completely

    Which means that the claim of regular units being withdrawn was the reason for obtaining the negative trait is not valid.
    Not valid as well is my assumption that the condition would fire for any unit within an army.

    Which means the exploit of expending a missile unit's projectiles and then withdraw it completely for protection (or replacement) will live on, or whittling down a unit to minimum numbers and then force withdrawing it so that fresh re-reinforcements can replace it. But then it's a prerogative of every player whether he really needs to perform actions that are not available to the AI, so let me not harp on about it.

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  20. #80
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    8,962
    Blog Entries
    1

    Exclamation Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I am getting concerned about the confrontational tone of this exchange. I believe I get where the EB team are coming from:

    1) The M2:TW engine, or at least the part that deals with traits, considers "ordered withdrawal" the same as "rout", and therefore cannot distinguish between the two.
    2) The EB team feels that because the A.I. starts with 20 units and doesn't withdraw troops (whether to get reinforcements or not), the player should do the same. Otherwise, it's an exploit, as the A.I. cannot do this.

    Both are perfectly reasonable arguments (the second is arguable, but I see your point). The problem is that they weren't explained, initially. Gigantus simply assumed we knew this, and reprimanded us for wanting to use this exploit (and messing up the real use of the 'doubtful courage' trait as well). That's not what either myself or Cruin asked for, and that's what prompted the irritable responses.

    I hope we can continue this discussion; I am very interested in Gigantus' findings about the rout mechanic. But first:


    Let's take a deep breath and try to see where the other is coming from before accusing him/her of not listening. This applies to everyone.
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

  21. #81
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    8,962
    Blog Entries
    1

    Lightbulb Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕 View Post
    First,can you lower the upkeep of nomadic tribe.Can you lower the difficulty of buy the rebel of.If the nomadic faction win a great battle.They can get dignity .If they have the dinity so high that they and bribe the rebel into their troop with nearly no cost .But they may also rebel away easily when they were defeated in battle.In this case they may held 10 stacks of army in no time.With it,they can the settled faction .This is the most funny and historical way I can think of .
    I don't speak for the team, but its sounds a bit too complicated to do in M2TW.

    Quote Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕 View Post
    Second.I dont means that they show as a faction in the game.can they appear as rebels.Large hords of rebles.this will be most funny.I hope the rebel will be the focus of this game.Not a occasionally small rebel.But huge hords of rebel.This is more historical
    There was something like that in EB1, but it didn't work very well, so it only triggered if the player was playing an Eastern faction.

    Quote Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕 View Post
    what about the architecture of the taxila?Could you make it more historical?An Aztec city is unbearale.
    Aztec sounds really wrong. Could the team comment on that?
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

  22. #82
    I know the vioces aren't real Member Gigantus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,334

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludens View Post
    I am getting concerned about the confrontational tone of this exchange. I believe I get where the EB team are coming from:

    1) The M2:TW engine, or at least the part that deals with traits, considers "ordered withdrawal" the same as "rout", and therefore cannot distinguish between the two.
    2) The EB team feels that because the A.I. starts with 20 units and doesn't withdraw troops (whether to get reinforcements or not), the player should do the same. Otherwise, it's an exploit, as the A.I. cannot do this.

    Both are perfectly reasonable arguments (the second is arguable, but I see your point). The problem is that they weren't explained, initially. Gigantus simply assumed we knew this, and reprimanded us for wanting to use this exploit (and messing up the real use of the 'doubtful courage' trait as well). That's not what either myself or Cruin asked for, and that's what prompted the irritable responses.

    I hope we can continue this discussion; I am very interested in Gigantus' findings about the rout mechanic. But first:


    Let's take a deep breath and try to see where the other is coming from before accusing him/her of not listening. This applies to everyone.
    My finding regarding the mechanics of the Routs condition is in post #79 - it should lay to rest further speculation.
    Apologies if my responses came across as harsh - in my view player's actions that the AI is not capable of are simply exploits and a very good reason has to exist why I would entertain it.


    Quote Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕 View Post
    First,can you lower the upkeep of nomadic tribe.Can you lower the difficulty of buy the rebel of.If the nomadic faction win a great battle.They can get dignity .If they have the dinity so high that they and bribe the rebel into their troop with nearly no cost .But they may also rebel away easily when they were defeated in battle.In this case they may held 10 stacks of army in no time.With it,they can the settled faction .This is the most funny and historical way I can think of .
    Second.I dont means that they show as a faction in the game.can they appear as rebels.Large hords of rebles.this will be most funny.I hope the rebel will be the focus of this game.Not a occasionally small rebel.But huge hords of rebel.This is more historical
    Upkeep is a matter of individual unit entries in the EDU file - if the unit is restricted to a certain culture or faction then there is no problem to change the value.
    Bribing is a global setting and the only thing that I imagine might have an individual influence on the monetary amount is diplomatic skill.

    Giving one faction a large army (multiple stacks) and strong rebel forces as opponents in their regions more often then not results in an attack on other settlements and not on the rebel stacks, something that could seriously mess up game play.


    Quote Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕 View Post
    what about the architecture of the taxila?Could you make it more historical?An Aztec city is unbearale.
    I am not aware of any Aztec structures in the latest version.
    Last edited by Gigantus; 02-04-2016 at 12:35.

  23. #83

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I took the advise of Ludens. I took a deep breath, and feel better for it. I am sorry for any part I had in making this discussion confrontational.

    Gigantus: Please, please, stop with the tests. You have better things you can be doing with your time.
    You don't need to prove to me or anyone how the engine deals with routs or withdrawals or anything. I know Ludens seems interested in them as an intellectual exercise, and if that is why you are doing them fine, but for me, it is not important, or germane, to know all bitty-gritty details.

    And Arjos, you can stop trying to make things plainer to me. I told you, I understood your points all along.

    I could not care less about how the engine handles routs or the withdrawal button.

    If you guys feel that the act of withdrawing is some sort of exploit, despite the fact that it was clearly intended as part of the original game, that is fine -- who cares how it is actually implemented in game code? Using the rout routines, or some part of them, as far as I am concerned, is a perfectly reasonable shortcut for the TW programming team.

    Also, I have no problems with the AI deploying its reinforcement in a different method than an actual human player. After all, it would be silly to ask an AI: "Do you want to have the AI control your reinforcements, or control them yourself?"

    I admit also that the way they get around the human's limitation of having only 20 unit cards, by allowing the human to withdraw some units from the battlefield to bring in fresh troops, I admit that all is a bit of a kludge, and, somewhat "ahistoric."

    To call it an exploit is a bit extreme, seeing as there is no advantage to the human player here -- it takes a long time to get those units off the field, and fresh troops into the fight, while the AI brings in all his reinforcements fast, in formation, almost ready for the fight.

    But if you want to call it some kind of exploit that's fine, it is really a small, petty, point to me.

    What I was really trying to argue, is that to change the original intent of the game, no matter how implemented, because you want to preserve a certain trait that you have introduced, was an important decision, and it should depend on the value of the trait you were introducing – is this trait worth making changes in the way the original game is actually played?

    Unless, of course, it was your original intent to try and discourage players from using the withdraw button – but that would be a bit of a sleekit way of going about it, and I don't believe for a minute you were hatching Machiavellian plots to change the behavior of players.

    So is this trait important enough to change the nature of the game?

    And my argument from the beginning (one that you have ignored, aside from Gigantus originally calling it “BS”), is that a “cowardice” trait is unrealistic and ahistoric. It is a silly trait, and, in my opinion, a bit “high school”. Arjos, the only thing you say in response, is the imperious “we want the trait,” – as if I have no right to question this decision. That sort of implies you invite criticism so long as it does not question any decisions you have already made. If that is indeed your stance and policy, then make that clear, and I will not waste my time making these points.

    Presuming it it not, I will make the following points (to back my assertion that a “cowardice” trait is unhistoric), and then, I really have nothing more to say on the subject.

    If a general withdrew from a battle, back in Rome, a general's enemies might snicker privately “coward”, but those enemies would be snickering about other stuff even if the general had a “heroic” success. But politically, success or failure over the campaign was what really counted. No one cared whether Varus cut a brave figure when he marched without scouts into the Teutoburg forest, they just called him incredibly stupid and incompetent when he lost the legions. No one, even in Rome, questioned Hannibal's courage for losing and withdrawing so many battles --they admired, respected, and hated him for how he recovered and came back doubly strong.

    Generals should have every right to withdraw from a battlefield without penalty of stigma, and historically they often did. Whether we call it a “withdrawal” or a “rout” depends on how much control and order the general maintains during the retreat. If some units, or even all of them, even the general's own bodyguard, “rout”, without the generals order to do so, perhaps that shows the general has trouble inspiring courage or otherwise controlling his men, and perhaps he deserves censor for that – you could strip him of a star, for instance – but as you have taken great lengths to prove, I doubt the game engine is sophisticated enough for you to distinguish between a withdrawal and a total rout, and frankly, I don't think such a persnickety censor is worth the trouble. The game already gives the player a disapproving scroll, and perhaps other censors, for losing the battle.

    Anyway, as I said in my last entry, this is really a small thing. If you want to hang onto the “Coward” trait, who am I to take it from you? For all I know it might be a favored baby of one of you, and that person spent precious time coding it and making sure it worked, and now is hurt or offended that it has caused this little controversy. If this is true, I am sorry. I really do appreciate all the time you spend on this mod.

    Regards,

    Cruin.

  24. #84
    I know the vioces aren't real Member Gigantus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,334

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I finished my tests before Ludens even asked for it
    It's actually one of the things I do for the EBII team, testing is also one of the reasons why I put together my basic mod set up that I used for this test.

    I admit also that the way they get around the human's limitation of having only 20 unit cards, by allowing the human to withdraw some units from the battlefield to bring in fresh troops, I admit that all is a bit of a kludge, and, somewhat "ahistoric."
    This was later expanded\complimented by allowing the player basic direct control over his re-inforcements. It was initially fudged by game mechanics until mods started using the unlimited_men_on_battlefield = 1 switch in the CFG file. It means that all re-inforcements enter the battle field shortly after the battle starts and that the player has limited control over them, individual unit commands are not possible - only general stance and movement of the army can be controlled. Which, I suppose, is roughly how reality might have been.


    Generals should have every right to withdraw from a battlefield without penalty of stigma, and historically they often did.
    I high lighted the main criteria (I have a number of 'should' wishes myself for the game - none of which can be implemented) - the game simply cannot distinguish between a 'natural' and a 'forced' withdrawal.
    As you pointed out, even if it was an ordered withdrawal the general might have been censored. The 'coward' trait actually removes command points (stars) at higher levels, but that would take more then just one withdrawal\rout.


    For all I know it might be a favored baby of one of you, and that person spent precious time coding it and making sure it worked, and now is hurt or offended that it has caused this little controversy. If this is true, I am sorry.
    Don't fret - this was actually one of the more easier trait sets and I can assure you no one has personal feelings about it.

    The use of the "Routs" condition to apply a negative trait\reduction of trait level is actually as old as the game itself - in 'vanilla' it reduces the dread\chivalry rating. (triggers battle3Chivalry_Dread_Routing and battle3Chivalry_Dread_Routing2)
    Last edited by Gigantus; 02-05-2016 at 03:05.

  25. #85

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    My finding regarding the mechanics of the Routs condition is in post #79 - it should lay to rest further speculation.
    Apologies if my responses came across as harsh - in my view player's actions that the AI is not capable of are simply exploits and a very good reason has to exist why I would entertain it.



    Upkeep is a matter of individual unit entries in the EDU file - if the unit is restricted to a certain culture or faction then there is no problem to change the value.
    Bribing is a global setting and the only thing that I imagine might have an individual influence on the monetary amount is diplomatic skill.

    Giving one faction a large army (multiple stacks) and strong rebel forces as opponents in their regions more often then not results in an attack on other settlements and not on the rebel stacks, something that could seriously mess up game play.



    I am not aware of any Aztec structures in the latest version.
    The rebel should be very ferocious.If players dont attack them.They will attack players.It is a things of conqueror or conquered.If players attack other settlement without defeat the rebel in his settlement .They will lose their home

  26. #86

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Could you change the space that army can move?If they are in a enemys province for too much time,they will have the difficulty of finding food.They will get the traits of short of supply.They cant move far because they need a lot of time to search food.I think supply line should be add to the game if the game want to be historical

  27. #87
    I know the vioces aren't real Member Gigantus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,334

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Modifying AI behavior is one of the more difficult things to do - the problem here is to strike a behavior balance, scripting it like you suggest would very likely result in a 'capture the castle' AI behavior, forcing you to actually play defensive.

    There are traits that simulate food supplies: "Supplies" and "FriendlyTerritory" - both change movement points based on where an army is (home land or enemy territory) and for how long.
    Last edited by Gigantus; 02-05-2016 at 03:15.

  28. #88

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Could you also change the map?Could you make zagros mountain more like a mountain not a small hills,make persia more like a basin.Could you use the map in www.map-for-free .com to reshape the map

  29. #89
    I know the vioces aren't real Member Gigantus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,334

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Elevating mountains above a certain height is only possible for inaccessible areas - it will otherwise have strange (and unwanted) effects on battles, black radar maps and units stranded on inaccessible cliffs are some of these effects.

  30. #90
    COYATOYPIKC Senior Member Flatout Minigame Champion Arjos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Prisoners upon this rock, flying without wings...
    Posts
    9,118

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    And my argument from the beginning (one that you have ignored, aside from Gigantus originally calling it “BS”), is that a “cowardice” trait is unrealistic and ahistoric. It is a silly trait, and, in my opinion, a bit “high school”. Arjos, the only thing you say in response, is the imperious “we want the trait,” – as if I have no right to question this decision. That sort of implies you invite criticism so long as it does not question any decisions you have already made. If that is indeed your stance and policy, then make that clear, and I will not waste my time making these points.

    Presuming it it not, I will make the following points (to back my assertion that a “cowardice” trait is unhistoric), and then, I really have nothing more to say on the subject.

    If a general withdrew from a battle, back in Rome, a general's enemies might snicker privately “coward”, but those enemies would be snickering about other stuff even if the general had a “heroic” success. But politically, success or failure over the campaign was what really counted.
    The point is that running away from danger was, among all the cultures in the mod, something akin to a crime. It unmade social status, it was often met with executions, exiles or falls from power. Such an important aspect cannot be left out from a project such as ours, centered so much on historical accuracy...

    And this solution is already mild, Punic FMs and generals should get basically a "kill_self" command after a defeat to represent the Karthadastim crucifying them for example...

    Generals should have every right to withdraw from a battlefield without penalty of stigma, and historically they often did. Whether we call it a “withdrawal” or a “rout” depends on how much control and order the general maintains during the retreat. If some units, or even all of them, even the general's own bodyguard, “rout”, without the generals order to do so, perhaps that shows the general has trouble inspiring courage or otherwise controlling his men, and perhaps he deserves censor for that – you could strip him of a star, for instance – but as you have taken great lengths to prove, I doubt the game engine is sophisticated enough for you to distinguish between a withdrawal and a total rout, and frankly, I don't think such a persnickety censor is worth the trouble. The game already gives the player a disapproving scroll, and perhaps other censors, for losing the battle.
    Here's the quirk: engine limitations!!!

    Unfortunately we cannot discern it and we feel that the trait occurring with real routs is more important. It is already something of a compromise as it isn't as punishing as it would've been. Collaterally it occurs with withdraws...

    No one cared whether Varus cut a brave figure when he marched without scouts into the Teutoburg forest, they just called him incredibly stupid and incompetent when he lost the legions. No one, even in Rome, questioned Hannibal's courage for losing and withdrawing so many battles --they admired, respected, and hated him for how he recovered and came back doubly strong.
    Still imo you are focusing too much on the aftermaths and specific historical figures, knowing what followed. Yours is a series of abstracted causes and effects with no humanity in it...

    The now and present is completely left out of your preferential scenario you've described, any levied man, political enemy, disgrunted/tired soldier etc would look even at tactical retreats as a sign of weakness and would lose faith in their general (think of the Cunctator, hell even setbacks by Alexandros were met by doubts). Do note that our trait is doubtful courage, you are the only one rethorically referring to it as cowardice. It is at the 3rd and 4th level of that trait chain that cowardice and fear are mentioned...

    Had Varvs run away and even survived, they would've called him stupid, incompetent and coward. Roman martial culture demanded death and sacrifice over survival of defeat. Also focusing on the decline of the Mos Maiorvm in the 1st century BC isn't a good depiction/sample of Roman culture...

    As for the picture you are referring to of Hannibal is all coming from the posterity and the knowledge of the ultimate victory by the Romani, not to mention the modern jibber jabber of military historians depicting Scipio as his disciple. It's war anyone with a brain sees something done properly by the enemy and acts on his own tactics accordingly...
    I'd very much wonder how much respect and admiration were given to Hannibal by any Roman man during the years and days they were fighting and dying, because of him...

    Plus that peachy idea of total admiration and respect is frankly again using a modern lense, the few quotes and propaganda behind them say how Hannibal could win, but had no idea of what to do with a victory for example. Far from being respectful admiration it is a statement of facts: he had victories on the field and no one could deny the dead, but he lost and in just few years lost everything, bested by Roman qualities...
    Again even the infamous meeting with Scipio as an older exile, by stating that he would've been better than Alexandros had he won against Scipio. Underneath it is pretty lampant the assertment that no one, but Alexandros could best the Romani. And that was a dead demigod, which could be admired, but the Romani are saying that no one alive threatened them...
    Not to mention this is all talks and ideas from the few educated elites, doesn't even touch on what everyone was thinking about Hannibal. A little glimpse is mothers spooking naughty children with the name of Hannibal: so much for admiration...

    Plus gameplay-wise nothing prevents you to come back hard on the enemy, like your examples of Caesar, and gain positive traits compensating and overcoming (I'm not sure, but the doubtful courage might even go away) the effects of said trait...
    Last edited by Arjos; 02-05-2016 at 14:29.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO