Traits that are bugged in 1.2 with fixes. Part 1: Scarred, Farmer, Trader

[unseen11]

yeh i suppose i didnt take the 3 trade opportunities in consideration but the level one roads might not count as trade.

I suppose as long as when you get a new governors building upgrade and build a trade or port or road building up to its max level then the good trader trait won't be to hard to get (as long as the governor lives long enough to get it)

[Sinner]

just another note - there are three building triggers for goodtrader: road, port, and trade. so you could easily have 3 points added in one turn from the building triggers alone.

You can't get 3 points in one turn by building because you can only complete one building per turn. Instead you'd be able to get a maximum 3 points per level of settlement (excluding temple effects), and once you've got those 3 you have to wait until the settlement grows to the next level or move your governor to another settlement.

Regarding the Farmer/Trader traits, I've been reading the triggers as follows...

Trigger governing5
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished >= farms

Affects GoodFarmer 1 Chance 100

To me that says when a building is completed and it's any level of farm then you have a 100% chance of getting 1 point towards GoodFarmer. This sounds logical to me, your governor oversees the building/improvement of his settlement's farmland and his agricultural skills improve.

Trigger governing6
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished >= farms

Affects BadFarmer 1 Chance 8

While this says that when a building is completed and it's not a farm then you have a 8% chance of getting 1 point towards BadFarmer. Again it sounds logical to me, by effectively ignoring farming your governor's agricultural skills perhaps atrophy and he maybe becomes a bad farmer.

There is what I consider a bug with the latter since that trigger occurs even if you've already built the farm for that level of settlement and so have no farm available to build. Perhaps that's why CA set the chance of acquiring GoodFarmer to 100% and BadFarmer to just 8%, even with the BadFarmer trigger occuring more frequently your governor should hopefully gain more GoodFarmer points and thus force the opposing BadFarmer trait to be ignored.

[Jambo]

I'm in agreement with Sinner here.

Reason being "trader", "roads", "port" and "farms" are only the lowest building in the corresponding upgrade tree. Respectively, the upgrade trees are "market", "hinterland_roads", "port_buildings" and "hinterland_farms".

Therefore, I'm not sure how this factors into the calculations and reasoning here? For instance, what happens when the "> ______" no longer becomes relevant, e.g. for "> trader" and the trader becomes a market, forum, great_forum or curia?

[gregab25]

Just one question:

You said that for Trader, the lower or equal to building requirements are steep to get Good Trader virtue so maybe the amount of buildings you have to build to get Good Trader are bugged and need to be edited?

I think tai4ji2x answered this pretty well here so i won't go over it again:

just another note - there are three building triggers for goodtrader: road, port, and trade. so you could easily have 3 points added in one turn from the building triggers alone. plus, there is also a trigger if your governor stays where there's a trading temple - and that alone is a big 12 point jump

Regarding the Farmer/Trader traits, I've been reading the triggers as follows...

Trigger governing5
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished >= farms

Affects GoodFarmer 1 Chance 100

To me that says when a building is completed and it's any level of farm then you have a 100% chance of getting 1 point towards GoodFarmer. This sounds logical to me, your governor oversees the building/improvement of his settlement's farmland and his agricultural skills improve.

You are right that the game reads the default triggers in that manner. And that is precisely why they are broken. Let me explain.

How many farms can you build that are greater than the first level of farms? Answer = 4.

Now, what is the threshold for receiving the first level in GoodFarmer? It is 6.

Therefore, you can see that with the default settings your governor will never receive the first level of GoodFarmer which is "Grower." Because you cannot break the threshold.

This is why in default patch 1.2 you never see your Governor getting any GoodFarmer traits.

I believe the corrections i posted fix this problem. Where if you prioritized farms, and then built 7 more buildings of equal or lesser value you would then meet the threshold and receive first level of the GoodFarmer trait.

Trigger governing6
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished >= farms

Affects BadFarmer 1 Chance 8

While this says that when a building is completed and it's not a farm then you have a 8% chance of getting 1 point towards BadFarmer. Again it sounds logical to me, by effectively ignoring farming your governor's agricultural skills perhaps atrophy and he maybe becomes a bad farmer.

There is what I consider a bug with the latter since that trigger occurs even if you've already built the farm for that level of settlement and so have no farm available to build. Perhaps that's why CA set the chance of acquiring GoodFarmer to 100% and BadFarmer to just 8%, even with the BadFarmer trigger occuring more frequently your governor should hopefully gain more GoodFarmer points and thus force the opposing BadFarmer trait to be ignored.

Again, you are right about the game reading it that way, and again that is why it is bugged and you yourself take note that something is amiss. However, you did not account for the factor of thresholds. Lets look at it:

The Threshold for BadFarmer is only 1 compared to the 6 for GoodFarmer. This means with the way you are reading (which is the way the game was handling it), that EVERY TIME you build a building that is NOT a farm, you get tested for BadFarmer. Since the threshold is only 1, that means you have an 8% chance of becoming a BadFarmer every time you complete a building.

This is why in default 1.2 the governors are picking up BadFarmer traits very quickly. The buildings early on only take a couple turns to complete, so your governor is being tested every turn or every other turn for the trait.

Again, the correction i suggested fixes this problem. And i explained how it does so in that post.

I'm in agreement with Sinner here.

Reason being "trader", "roads", "port" and "farms" are only the lowest building in the corresponding upgrade tree. Respectively, the upgrade trees are "market", "hinterland_roads", "port_buildings" and "hinterland_farms".

Therefore, I'm not sure how this factors into the calculations and reasoning here? For instance, what happens when the "> ______" no longer becomes relevant, e.g. for "> trader" and the trader becomes a market, forum, great_forum or curia?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to stab at it anyway. You can tell me if you were talking about something else.

As I said, it is my belief that the "SettlementBuildingFinished", the "trader", "roads, "port", and "farms" used in the triggers refer to any level of that respective building. e.g. "farms" can mean "land clearance", "communal farming", "crop rotation", "irrigation", and "latifundia."

Have you had a chance to try the corrections yet?

Also, I replied to your thread over at TWcenter.

[Ginger]

Can I just say, this is a really useful thread, Keep up the good work guys!

[Jambo]

Greg, I've sent ya a PM. I'll try having a look into these in more detail and see if I can verify your theory. I do agree that the way both myself and Sinner have interpreted it doesn't make much sense.

Cheers

[drone]

Can I just say, this is a really useful thread, Keep up the good work guys!

No doubt. Two questions.
1. Is there a common thread/doc on the Org that contains all of the mod-fixes to bugs like this? (bugged VnVs, the HA fix, jumping horses, build/recruiting bugs, etc.)
2. If not, can we get one stickied? Sort of like one of the guides, with someone in charge of editing/updating the list.

Not saying I'd like a mod thread (not everyone is going to want the same "adjustments" to units, etc.), just a single point of reference for true fixes that the players can do. Maybe call it "Things to do AFTER installing the game".

[Sinner]

You are right that the game reads the default triggers in that manner. And that is precisely why they are broken. Let me explain.

How many farms can you build that are greater than the first level of farms? Answer = 4.

Now, what is the threshold for receiving the first level in GoodFarmer? It is 6.

Therefore, you can see that with the default settings your governor will never receive the first level of GoodFarmer which is "Grower." Because you cannot break the threshold.

You can quite easily break the threshold, simply move your governor to another settlement. Remember he only needs to be present the turn that the farm is completed so if you stagger the building times correctly you could have a governor circling around a group of cities arriving just before a farm is completed, thus gaining a point towards GoodFarmer every turn.

Personally I don't like the logic of changing the trigger conditions to give GoodFarmer points on buildings other than farms. It might make acquiring the trait easier, but it's not for me.

Again, you are right about the game reading it that way, and again that is why it is bugged and you yourself take note that something is amiss. However, you did not account for the factor of thresholds. Lets look at it:

The Threshold for BadFarmer is only 1 compared to the 6 for GoodFarmer. This means with the way you are reading (which is the way the game was handling it), that EVERY TIME you build a building that is NOT a farm, you get tested for BadFarmer. Since the threshold is only 1, that means you have an 8% chance of becoming a BadFarmer every time you complete a building.

This is why in default 1.2 the governors are picking up BadFarmer traits very quickly. The buildings early on only take a couple turns to complete, so your governor is being tested every turn or every other turn for the trait.

The problem with the triggers lies in two areas: the most important being that the condition doesn't allow for the possibility that the appropriate building has already been built for that level for settlement, it's only then that the effects of the unbalanced thresholds become a problem. If you correct the first problem then the thresholds don't matter so much. Conveniently enough, there's already an official example shown in the handling of the BadMiner vice - simply add the condition that the Advisor is recommending a farm/trader is built, although like the BadMiner triggers this will probably require one trigger for every level of building.

As I said, it is my belief that the "SettlementBuildingFinished", the "trader", "roads, "port", and "farms" used in the triggers refer to any level of that respective building. e.g. "farms" can mean "land clearance", "communal farming", "crop rotation", "irrigation", and "latifundia."

I think you're wrong here... the label of farms simply refers to the first level of farming building, the label for all levels is hinterland_farms. Following your reasoning the label mines should mean all level of mines, however the two BadMiner triggers refer to the labels mines and mines+1, but why bother with mines+1 - the second level of mining buildings - if mines covers all levels?

The use of the greater than & less than signs together with the equals in the conditions is how you refer to multiple buildings:
- If you want all levels of farms, you can use '...>= farms'
- If you wanted all but the first level of farms you could use either '...> farms' or '...>= farms+1'
- If you wanted all but the highest level of farms you could use either '...< farms+4' or '...< = farms+3'.

Examples of this occur with the triggers for temples which read '... and SettlementBuildingExists >= temple_of_fun_temple', ie. you only get the trigger on temples or greater, not on shrines.

[tai4ji2x]

hehe, man, now i'm all confused... whomever can sort all of this out in their head has my respect. oh and please also post your final fix suggestions as well

[Jambo]

Ok, I have some interesting results performed today:

I modded several traits and ancillaries and then used the non-faction leader Julii general to assault Segesta on the first turn of the Julii campaign. These were the modded traits and ancillaries:

Trigger battle1
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.7
          and GeneralFoughtInCombat

    Affects BattleScarred  1  Chance  100 
    Affects Brave  1  Chance  100

Trigger battle1R
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.7
          and GeneralFoughtInCombat
          and CultureType roman

    Affects RomanHero  1  Chance  100

Trigger trigger_heroic_saviour
    WhenToTest PostBattle
    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.3
          and GeneralFoughtInCombat 
          and IsGeneral

    AcquireAncillary heroic_saviour chance 100

Trigger trigger_shieldbearer
    WhenToTest PostBattle
    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.2
          and GeneralFoughtInCombat
          and WonBattle
          and not Routs
          and IsGeneral

    AcquireAncillary shieldbearer chance  100

During the battle I charged the general in and he survived with 14 men left (obviously a tough battle). I have slightly modded thresholds to cover the fact that traits obtained from the battle map are doubled. Anyway, on returning to the campaign map, my general had received the following things:

First level Battlescarred
First level RomanHero
Heroicsaviour
No Brave (Romans are excluded from this trait)
And no Shieldbearer

I'm not quite sure on the ramifications of this yet and whether the shieldbearer HP condition is broken with the sign that way around... anyone? As far I was aware the shieldbearer was supposed to be the easier of the two ancillaries to acquire?!

Regards

[gregab25]

You can quite easily break the threshold, simply move your governor to another settlement.

I am not Kreskin so i cannot read CA's mind, but I don't think they meant for your governor to run around all the time to get a single virtue. Of course like I said this is just my opinion and your opinion is as valid as mine. We just disagree.

Another thing to support my reasoning though: Remember you want to get your virtues to a high level in part because they then have a chance to be passed down from father to son. However, in order to qualify for these inherited virtues the father must have a very high level of that virtue. Getting the Farmer and Trader virtues to the level they need to be passed down would be nearly impossible with the default triggers even if you did run your governor from province to province.

Personally I don't like the logic of changing the trigger conditions to give GoodFarmer points on buildings other than farms.

This is just an erroneous statement as that is not what is happening at all. If you apply the corrections i suggest you get points for GoodFarmer because you build Farms before other buildings, not because you build buildings other than Farms. That would just be silly.

The problem with the triggers lies in two areas: the most important being that the condition doesn't allow for the possibility that the appropriate building has already been built for that level for settlement, it's only then that the effects of the unbalanced thresholds become a problem. If you correct the first problem then the thresholds don't matter so much. Conveniently enough, there's already an official example shown in the handling of the BadMiner vice - simply add the condition that the Advisor is recommending a farm/trader is built, although like the BadMiner triggers this will probably require one trigger for every level of building.

Please clarify what the "appropriate building" you are referring to is and why it you came to the conclusion it is the "appropriate building"? Im trying to understand what you are saying. Perhaps you can post an example of how you think the trigger should look?

If you want all levels of farms, you can use '...>= farms'

I'm sorry but I just do not understand this. The >= sign is part of an equation to compare Farms to the previous subject which is "SettlementBuildingFinished." It is not there as a stand alone arguement to qualify Farms. You cannot just arbitrarily remove the subject "SettlementBuildingFinished" and use half of an equation.


Again, if you would try the corrections i suggested before commenting you could at least see that they work precisely as I explained them.

As far as how CA intended them to work, that is open for disagreement. I have tried to use what mathematical evidence that there may be in the files to support my arguements. No one can claim to know for sure what CA meant unless CA stated what they meant. So argueing about what CA intended is really just an exercise in futility. If you disagree with the supporting evidence i gave then just don't make the changes.

Quite frankly, I wish CA would respond with what they intended so we could quit the speculating and get on to fixing the problem. I especially would like them to comment if I am giving wrong advice, because i don't want to that, even if it meant a bunch of egg on my face.

If we knew what they meant it would probably take all of five minutes to fix the problem if the corrections i suggested do not fix it already.

[gregab25]

Heya Jambo , this is just a quick reply.

I think shieldbearer is for non roman cultures.

And also I sent you a PM.

I'll look at the rest of your post in more detail now.

[gregab25]

Jambo:

From the Ancilliary Data Section -

;------------------------------------------
Ancillary shieldbearer
Image helmeted_soldier_ancillary.tga
ExcludedAncillaries swordbearer
ExcludeCultures roman
Description shieldbearer_desc
EffectsDescription shieldbearer_effects_desc
Effect BodyguardValour 1

;------------------------------------------

If you remove the line ExcludeCultures roman I think it might work.

[Jambo]

I repeated the battle above and got what i was looking for: a battle which awarded the BattleScarred and RomanHero trait, but NOT the heroicsaviour ancillary (meaning that the HP's lost weren't sufficient to award the saviour).

I was never awarded the shieldbearer ancillary and therefore the > sign doesn't appear to work for this condition.

As a result, I can recommend the following GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle conditions for the following traits (as CA intended, but got wrong):

For BattleScarred/RomanHero:

GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.7

For heroicsaviour:

GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.3

For shieldbearer (the easiest to get):

GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.8

Now on to test Greg's Good/Bad Farmer and Good/Bad Trader traits... :)

Regards

[tai4ji2x]

Quite frankly, I wish CA would respond with what they intended so we could quit the speculating and get on to fixing the problem. I especially would like them to comment if I am giving wrong advice, because i don't want to that, even if it meant a bunch of egg on my face.

the more i think about it, i don't think they'll ever tell us, since if they admit that something's screwed up, that would justify a patch... and we wouldn't want that, now would we?

[Jambo]

Ah, well spotted mate! Maybe GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.2 for the shieldbearer will work just fine then! ;)

[Jambo]

Remember the biggest bug of them all:

The fact that traits obtained from the battle map are giving twice their supposed amount towards the trait's threshold - this means super fast climbing of the traits, e.g. gaining the first two levels of GoodCommander, BattleScarred, RomanHero after just one battle.

To counter this, double the threshold of traits you can receive on the battlefield, particularly the combat related ones as these can really offset the game's balance in favour of the human. Alternatively, look for the next release of the CVP. :)

[gregab25]

the more i think about it, i don't think they'll ever tell us, since if they admit that something's screwed up, that would justify a patch... and we wouldn't want that, now would we?

Hehe, are you being tongue'n'cheek tai4ji2x? I'm not that cynical.

Besides didn't your momma teach you can catch more flies with sugar?
Hehe.

[Simetrical]

If we have an arithmetic comparison, the two sides of the comparison must be members of ordered sets. According to gregab25's interpretation of the game files, in "SettlementBuildingFinished >= farms", "SettlementBuildingFinished" and "farms" are both variables that the game sets as numbers depending on the situation. "SettlementBuildingFinished" would become the number equal to the level of the structure built in the trigger condition, while "farms" would become the number equal to the level of the farms in the settlement.

But Sinner raises an objection. "Farms" is already used by the game as a building name. That is, the first level of the hinterland_farm tree is known as "farms". Building names are evidently valid arguments in export_descr_character_traits.txt, as evidenced by all sorts of triggers. gregab25's interpretation would require that "farms" be used in EDCT.txt as an entirely separate variable—but how would you check anything relating to the structure "farms" if the game reserves that word for a special purpose?

The answer to this is that even if "farms" is reserved for special use, the SettlementBuildingFinished condition under gregab25's interpretation wouldn't accept a building name as an argument. Therefore, the game would know not to parse the term as a building name, but rather as a special reserved term. In this, it would be distinct from SettlementBuildingExists.

So what's Sinner's approach? Seemingly, the same one I stated before: that the variable SettlementBuildingFinished returns the building name, not the level number, and ">= farms" means what you'd think it means, that the previous argument is checked as to whether it's at or beyond the level "farms" in the ordered set of hinterland_farms. Thus, the trigger would work if and only if the building built was a farm of some description.

It should be very easy to test this. First of all, set the threshold of Grower to 1. According to gregab25's approach, building any nonfarm building equal to or greater than the farm level would cause the governor to gain a level of GoodFarmer; according to Sinner's, it wouldn't. I'll run the test in a minute. I'm betting that Sinner's right, but we'll see.

-Simetrical

[gregab25]

According to gregab25's approach, building any nonfarm building equal to or greater than the farm level would cause the governor to gain a level of Growing

Maybe you just made a typo but to be sure i'll correct you. According to my approach, building any nonfarm building equal to or LESS THAN the farm level would cause the governor to gain a level.

Not greater than... EQUAL OR LESS THAN.

[gregab25]

BTW, I still cannot believe you guys are still so vehemently argueing without running the tests first. That's pure folly!

Run the tests first and I'll be happy to admit that I am wrong if I am!

Cheers.

[therother]

The fact that traits obtained from the battle map are giving twice their supposed amount towards the trait's threshold - this means super fast climbing of the traits, e.g. gaining the first two levels of GoodCommander, BattleScarred, RomanHero after just one battle.

Sorry, trait newbie butting in, but has this been confirmed as a bug in the code, rather than in the traits file? Could there perhaps be another explanation? For instance, have you doubled the "Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger" to "Affects GoodCommander 4 Chance 100" to see if your general becomes a Great Commander (Threshold 8) after one battle? I ask as after reading a few threads about the scarred issue, I was surprised to get only the first level (Been in the Wars) after a test battle for something else (the effect of Command).

[gregab25]

Sorry, trait newbie butting in, but has this been confirmed as a bug in the code, rather than in the traits file? Could there perhaps be another explanation? For instance, have you doubled the "Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger" to "Affects GoodCommander 4 Chance 100" to see if your general becomes a Great Commander (Threshold 8) after one battle? I ask as after reading a few threads about the scarred issue, I was surprised to get only the first level (Been in the Wars) after a test battle for something else

Sorry, beyond the obvious Scarred trait bug, i had not heard about a problem with the GoodCommander or RomanHero traits. So I don't know much about them.

Briefly looking at the triggers reveals there is one trigger for GoodCommander and it seems in order.

The RomanHero Trait has 3 seperate triggers 2 with a 20% chance and one with 15% i think. So, it is not surprising that your general would receive this trait quickly.

I did not see any doubling of the triggers left by the omition of the condition Culture Type Non Roman. Which was why you got tested twice in the case of the Scarred trait.

Maybe Jambo has more information.

[Simetrical]

The results are in. I modded the file as I said, then built a Shrine to Ceres in Arretium. The governor gained no traits. Then I built a Communal Farming—and the governor gained Grower. Bingo. Question answered.

But gregab25 might be a little confused at this. After all, he's been playing for a while with his mod, and he's been gaining GoodFarmer traits. If I'm right, then he should have been setting the trait trigger so that it only rewarded him for building the first level of farms and no other buildings—i.e., it should be extremely unlikely that he'd gain even Grower. So what gives?

The answer is that he's confused ≯ with ≤—"not greater than" with "less than or equal to." He assumed that they were equivalent, when they're not. What's the difference? None, if you're only dealing with elements in an ordered set. gregab's belief was that both terms represented numbers, so that's fine—all real numbers are elements of the same ordered set. If a real number isn't greater than another, it has to be either less than or equal to.

But if you read my (admittedly a bit technical) explanation of how the condition in question actually functions, you may have realized that not all elements in question need to be in the same ordered sets. If the ordered set in question is hinterland_farms and I build a dirt road, the road isn't greater than or equal to the farm—but it's not less than it, either, since they aren't in the same ordered set. ~(Roads ⋚ farms) in the same way that ~(i ⋚ 42). (Dang, I wish Unicode specified a "not greater than, less than, or equal to" symbol.)

gregab25 therefore thought that the ≺= operator was bugged, so he changed it to NOT >. Unfortunately, this made every non-farm building increase his traits, tricking him into thinking that his interpretation of EDCT.txt was right.

Maybe you just made a typo but to be sure i'll correct you. According to my approach, building any nonfarm building equal to or LESS THAN the farm level would cause the governor to gain a level.

Of course, you're right. Typo.

Sorry, trait newbie butting in, but has this been confirmed as a bug in the code, rather than in the traits file? Could there perhaps be another explanation?

I don't think so. There aren't any duplicate triggers that could explain the observed phenomena.

I ask as after reading a few threads about the scarred issue, I was surprised to get only the first level (Been in the Wars) after a test battle for something else . . .

It's not certain that you'll gain any Scarred trait at all after battle—most trait triggers have a percentage chance associated with them. The trigger could have been checked twice, but only returned positive once.

-Simetrical

[Jambo]

It's particularly noticeable with the combat traits (or rather easier to test). Try a battle with a fresh naive general (no GoodCommander trait). If he wins and the odds make him elligible to receive the 1 Chance 100 in the GoodCommander trait, what you find is that he skips Confident Commander (+1) which has threshold 1, and goes straight to Good Commander (+2) which has threshold 2.

On occasion it's actually possible to get straight to Superior Attacker/Defender (threshold 4) from just one battle. The battle has to be a crushing victory with battle odds of >=0.5 to less than 1.5. According to the character_traits file, this awards GoodAttacker/Defender 2 Chance 100. Due to the doubling bug this gives 4 Chance 100 instead.

This isn't for autoresolved battles, only those fought out on the battle map.

[Pode]

Bugger. I was really hoping double tests for romans would be the explanation for the double awarding "feature". There's no good way to mod around this one. Doubling the threshold prevents the AI from leveling up appropriately, and God knows it needs all the help it can get. Halving the odds for each comabt trigger would be slightly better, since it would tend to keep AI and player generals mired down in mediocrity, but where's the fun in that?

[tai4ji2x]

ugh... this is SOOOO confusing i wonder if there will ever be a definitive answer...

anyways, simetrical, i don't understand this:

gregab25 therefore thought that the . Unfortunately, this made every non-farm building increase his traits, tricking him into thinking that his interpretation of EDCT.txt was right.

seems like your sentence got cut off?

[Jambo]

double post somehow....




EDit: may as well use this slot.

Pode, there's a cunning strategy that the CVP uses, which helps this unfortunate doubling problem. Basically, it uses the BadCommander traits as a means to combat the meteortic rise that's possible with the GoodCommander trait. Essentially, the higher a general is in the GoodCommander trait, the greater the BadCommander award he'll receive should he lose a battle. For instance, a general at level 4 GoodCommander will have a bigger fall in the trait should he lose a battle than a mediocre commander at level two would get.

[hrvojej]

Sooo... Do you think that maybe adding "and AdviseBuild >= farms" to BadFarmer trigger would counter the apparent abundancy of this trait while also preserving the actual probabilities?

[Kraxis]

This is getting highly confusing... I'm lost.

Simetrical what did you do? And what was the effect?
Temple of Ceres grants 3 points out of 6 right? And building another farm adds 1 point? But that is only 4 out of 6 so how come you got the trait?