Would 1.2 be better with traits removed altogether?

[The Stranger]

how could you even ask such question. are you stoned thing.

[Tricky Lady]

Double post Emperor Umeu...

Well, I hadn't noticed that the traits were that bugged....
Disappointing.

On the other hand, you would take away a nice incentive to roleplay your family members if the traits are removed.
I'd keep 'em, just for the sake of gameplay (and roleplaying).

[The Stranger]

no one says high other says stoned

[Red Harvest]

Having traits this badly bugged means we end up with clones. Fight any and you get horribly scarred. You also get a bunch of stars. The AI doesn't. So I have to wonder from a gameplay standpoint if the game might actually work better without them.

A poorly executed feature is often worse than no feature at all. Simple stars based on battles won and titles seems an improvement at the moment. That and getting coward vices when you run. I don't feel that the current system is actually *adding* to the game.

[The Stranger]

RTW just sucks i'll have to wait till AoE III comes out. or Rise and Fall

[Old Celt]

I've noticed more AI generals with command stars since the patch than ever before it. The scarring thing is bugged, but making generals tougher doesn't seem like such a negative thing to me.

As far as all the hoopla about farming and tax VnVs, they don't seem like much more than little inconveniences, in that they don't change the outcome of the game in any way. I think the game is better overall with the traits than it would be without them.

[Kaldhore]

traits are spoiling the game with the logic (or lack of) of how they get them.

Ive said in another post that someone who successfully runs a city into a positive income for years should not become an inefficient taxman. Or a poor trader or a poor farmer. They should become a lecturer, teacher or even a mentor.

Im usually positive about total war, but from what ive been reading recently about poor simple coding in the txt files by CA is seriously amatuer and although they said they wouldnt do another patch - they are failing their promise to customers in releasing such amatuer style work. To have an unpaid community fix this work is not only (again) amatuer, but its actually showing contempt for the buyers.

[Pode]

I beg to differ with the Elder Celt about making tougher generals. Since they start out with more hitpoints than anormal man (up to six IIRC), a trait that adds up to +8 is a fundamental flaw, especially if it's as common as scarring is. No man, I don't give a damn how tough he is, should be as hard to kill as an ARMORED ELEPHANT! Throw in hale and hearty on top of scarring and it's Return of The Jedi. If the traits worked they'd be a nice piece of fluff. I wouldn't cry to see them gone however, and certainly wouldn't avoid an otherwise good mod that removed them.

[therother]

Well, I think we should try to fix the traits that are currently not working as intended in the first instance. Whether it would be better to remove the entire trait system if it is not possible, I don't know. Perhaps it would be better to remove the traits that aren't working correctly instead?

Several of the bugs, such as the GoodCommander bug, are tricky to fix as the AI will not fight that many battles on the battlemap, so any action to fix the current doubling will adversely affect the AI.

CA will undoubtedly fix this issue in the expansion, but who knows when that will come out, and who knows how many new issues it will cause?

One partial fix I was thinking about would involve editing (hopefully automatically) the trait file every time you play. You would use the current triggers for the AI factions, but exclude the player's faction from them. The script would then generate a new GoodCommander trigger especially for the faction player intends to use. I'm sure one of our resident coders could hack together a script to automatically do this before playing.

The player trigger could be as now, with the addition of a new trigger that would give a 50% chance of giving 1 point towards the BadCommander trait for every win. On average, that should mean 1 point for towards the Human general for each win, although 50% of the time you'd get 0 or 2. Hardly an ideal fix, but I can't think of anything better right now. Just did a quick test of this, and it seemed to work as expected.

Another possibility could be to remove the battlefield traits altogether, and replace them with a combination of strategy map traits and retinue. For instance, you could earn command points for being in a settlement with academies, or for using up your MPs a number of turn in a row, or some such. You could also make command self-perpetuating to some extent, say a small chance per turn of getting an extra point. I suppose there are a number of things you could do.

Anyway, I think that's quite enough waffle for one post.

[Medieval Assassin]

And if there wasn't traits, what would we get "Screw you CD you're are a sux0rz"
If a unit doesn't look historical, should we get rid of all the units?
Of course not.
These threads are getting repetitive.

[Red Harvest]

And if there wasn't traits, what would we get "Screw you CD you're are a sux0rz"
If a unit doesn't look historical, should we get rid of all the units?
Of course not.
These threads are getting repetitive.

Well then, don't read them. The question was an honest one. The effect on the AI gameplay is an issue.

I've been thinking along the lines of therother. The solution might be to just remove the most bugged traits or triggers, although that doesn't seem to address the problem fully either.

The real solution would be for CA to step up to the plate an put out a final patch to fix the most annoying remaining (and newly introduced) bugs. (Remember the patch to address the king always dying at 56?)

The 1.1 patch was more of an MP hotfix. We have had only one real patch in this reworked graphical and strategic engine. It would not even have fixed the pri/sec bug except for a modder discovery in the 11th hour, and the 1.2 patch also introduce the HA bug. This does not rise to what many of us consider acceptable product support. (I hesitate to say "amateurish", that has some real sting--but I can certainly sympathize with others who feel that way.)

[Proletariat]

And if there wasn't traits, what would we get "Screw you CD you're are a sux0rz"
If a unit doesn't look historical, should we get rid of all the units?
Of course not.
These threads are getting repetitive.

Does someone have to take a contrarian viewpoint any time a major flaw is discussed? Do you really think therother and Red Harvest are "CA sucks!!11 y no tr@its?!?!?!" types?

This is a horrible flaw because of exactly what RH said. Every frigging general I have is identical. Scarface with a splash of Useless Assessor, a sprinkle of Bad Farmer and you have my entire family tree.

I think therother's idea of perhaps just eliminating these traits is so simple it's brilliant. Is the way to go about this as simple as it sounds? Merely deleting the text in the VnV file?

[Colovion]

The traits need fixing - because I love the roleplay with my Generals. I'll find a nancy-boy who looks rather lily-white and force him into battle to toughen him up. I actually don't think that with vanilla RTW I could play without the traits. I mean think about it: you can't have a good battle because they're prettymuch forgone conclusions anyway, so you look to the campaign map to have the majority of your fun. A large part of that is the traits your Generals get. It's a shame that the patch broke and left open a few problems but I doubt we're going to get any response or fixes from CA until the XP...

:*(

we'd better like it or lump it at this point, before EB comes out.

[Quietus]

I've no big problems with the traits. The Scarred traits actually help. They just need to give it different "names". There are a lot of traits and retinues out there.

This isn't like the "die at 56 bug" of MTW.