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.
Bookmarks