Likes easy battles trait - what do you think?

**CorporateSlave** · 01-09-2006, 00:25

I, personally, like the idea of this trait, especially since it introduces another level of complexity into the gameplay - specifically, making sure that the player's army does not exceed that of the AI to avoid the trait. I do, however, object to it on the RP grounds. Surely, in real life there could be a general who likes easy battles (and who doesn't?!), but should the penalty really be that severe? Many of my generals seem to pick up that trait very quickly - often after 1 or 2 battles, and in many cases where the numerical advantage was either negligible (such as 10 men) or necessary - especially when fighting against the Gaesatae with an infantry force.

What's worse is I am yet to find a good way to remove this trait - I tried fighting other battles with large numerical disadvantage to myself, but the trait is still there. Should it be more temporary instead? Say, last for ten turns and then disappear if no more "easy battles" are fought? Or maybe a bit harder to get and be more dependant on such traits as "Lazy" or "Dull"? Would that be more realistic?

What do you guys think?

**O'ETAIPOS** · 01-09-2006, 00:34

Also playing Makedonia I just cant fight against odds - prebattle screen informs that odds are even in battles when I fight enemy having two times as many man - do i have to actually lose battle to get some comand traits other than 'confident soliders"?
(on the other hand my problem may be 2HP general though

)

**Perky** · 01-09-2006, 20:41

Pompeius Magnus only ever fought if the odds were on his side.

**mediobogdum** · 01-09-2006, 21:01

I just seems wrong to penalize a general for having the good strategic sense to avoid direct confrontation when the odds favor the enemy. Part of my survival strategy is to fight only when I can assure victory. I get this trait on almost all my fight gens (and quickly too).
Sun Tzu says: "If you are outnumber the enemy fight, if outnumbered flee, if even outmanuever" (paraphrased of couse, I probably butchered it). Sounds good to me.
Maybe reducing the penalty a bit but keeping the trait would be a good compromise.

**Malrubius** · 01-09-2006, 21:22

The trait itself doesn't do anything, it's just a signal for the player as to why he isn't getting a lot of command stars. The description will be more explanatory in the next patch.

In vanilla, you advanced towards more stars with every victory. Sometimes you could get a star every battle! We've made advancement more difficult, but even defeat can teach your general something. If your general is smart enough to avoid battle unless he's got overwhelming odds, he probably doesn't become a better tactician than he already was. Also, there are other ways to get command stars, usually through situational modifiers or advancing in other traits.

**Chester** · 01-09-2006, 21:40

I think all generals waged war thinking the odds were on their sides. Unless of course they were the ones under attack. But if you're taking charge in an attack, I doubt easy battles would reflect poorly on you. Victory is a victory I say!

Perhaps relpace the the "easy battles" trait with a "pyrrhic victor" trait if the general can't control casualties.

**paullus** · 01-09-2006, 21:41

How is it determined whether a general gets that trait or the others in that vein? I had a KH general fight a battle outnumbered 3 to 1, then the next turn he overtakes the stragglers retreating from the previous battle, where he outnumbers them by a very slim margin, and yet he gets the "likes easy battles" trait. From the context, that made no sense to me. Is it something like, if there's an easy battle, that turn, there's a 70% chance he'll get the trait, and so on for even battles and hard battles? Thanks. (And luckily, this general got other good traits to make up for the easy battles one)

**jebes** · 01-09-2006, 22:44

Originally Posted by Malrubius

The trait itself doesn't do anything, it's just a signal for the player as to why he isn't getting a lot of command stars. The description will be more explanatory in the next patch.

Unless I misunderstood this post, this makes the whole topic irrelevant. The trait is just commentary (whether or not it works correctly) on which battles your general has choosen to fight. Is this correct Malrubius?