Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Arjos]

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...