Would 1.2 be better with traits removed altogether?

[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.

[Old Celt]

But that's just the point, if the general is as hard to kill as an armoured elephant, then they have much better survivability, and most of us like to face general led enemies over captains. How hard is it to kill an armoured elephant after all?

Hasn't someone come up with a simple edit fix for the scarring trait anyway? Yeah, I know CA should have done it properly, but if it's a big problem, we will have to look to each other for a solution.

[Red Harvest]

Old Celt,

I agree to some extent (hence the question for the topic rather than a statement). The AI has more starred generals now. However, even the best have fewer stars than the average player (edit) general. The apparent doubling (and perhaps even quadrupling) of some traits appears to be behind some of this. If the AI benefitted from this to the same degree, then I would not have posed the question. As it is I am concerned about the imbalance...if it worked the other way around (benefitting the AI more than the player) it would tend to balance the game better.

In MTW certain factions had some really powerful generals, and titles that bestowed up to 4 stars if memory serves (something like 2 stars for "master of the stables" and another 2 for being gov. of certain provinces.) On expert you had to be very cautious about attacking of defending against these giants. Early in the game it was difficult to get a general trained and titled in a fashion that could handle them with equal forces (or even if you had notably better forces.) The Byzantines had incredible generals. However, with some factions I always seemed to get drunks, genetic throwbacks, or perverts. Pruning the family tree became critical with some factions. No, this isn't a MTW was better statement. Just a reflection on the differences of what the player faces in the way of campaign opposition.