Likes easy battles trait - what do you think?

[zarkis]

If the "Likes easy battles" trait (perhaps if this thread keeps running we'll have to start calling it LEB to save time) is just a commentary, maybe it's name could be changed to something a bit more complimentary to the general in question. Maybe "Prefers the odds in his favour."

That's a good idea. I personally like the new system. Getting command stars should be more difficult, it makes for a more challenging gameplay and that's the overall goal of any mod, right? Why change the system again if the overall goal is the same? Maybe you could add a rare genetic trait like "born tactician", which helps some generals to become really outstanding (to please the crowd... )

[Malrubius]

Now I just had a general drop from Even odds fighter to Likes easy battles after he won a 1:1 odds battle What's worse is that this particular general has never fought a single battle with favourable odds during his entire career. It was 224 BC and he was defender, the AI army was led by a captain.

Don't worry, the patch removes it. You'll never see "Likes easy battles" again.

I'm trying to figure out another 'score-keeping' system that would be both accurate and reveal some useful information (as well as possible within the game engine), but I'm coming up short.

A won/loss ratio is impossible to calculate. I could list a general total of wins and losses, but there are other traits that do the same thing almost. (Victor, Famous Victor, Conquering Hero, etc., go up a bit with every victory). I might do something to list whether your general has won 2 battles in a row, 3, 4, and even 5. I don't have anything that will be in the next patch though.

I have troubl in general getting commandstars. Today i fought a battle against the iberiamn factionleader. He was good: maybe 8 or 9 stars. My general had 3. His forces amounted to 2871 and mine to about 2200. So i fight and win. (he was attacking me this time) And then... i get nothing! except for the LEB. and evenoddsfighter. i thought it was a bit weird. I'd rather do away wwith it and earn CS a little bit easier.

You can't have both "Likes Easy Battles" and "Even Odds Fighter" on the same general. They're different levels of the same trait.

The amount of command stars the enemy has has no direct effect on your general (it's impossible to determine within the game engine). What's important is what the odds were (on the scroll before the battle) and what your general's natural ability is. Some generals are going to have a very hard time getting command stars (especially Langorous ones!).

In vanilla, the game made it harder for the computer to get command stars, and easier for the player. We've reversed that to put things back in the AI's favor to give more challenge to the player.

[Mindblank]

I also have a problem with this trait, and I would like to argue that it is wrong to penalize a general because he is using all the resources available to give him victory. Remember, "we are not here to be fair, but to win". As it is now, I find myself splitting a marching army into smaller groups to handle small stacks on my way, just to avoid getting the trait. I will then re-merge my small stacks and move on. How realistic is this?

My general increased his own risks of losing, and suffered easily avoidable casulaties, in the name of what? Just so that he can prove his tactical genius? I don't think there are many examples of this in history. An army that fights against odds usually does it because it has no other option, and it is usually on the receiving end. The way EB is conceived, the player will choose low-odd offensive fights, which seems ahistorical.

And in my opinion, the argument that "a general who always fights with the odds on his side is not likely to learn anything" doesn't hold. You always learn from experience - it is just a matter of degree. A general who wins a hard battle should certainly learn a little more from that particular battle, and a little less from an easy one. But the learning from one battle should not adversely affect the learning from the other.

Just my thoughts.

[Malrubius]

I also have a problem with this trait, and I would like to argue that it is wrong to penalize a general because he is using all the resources available to give him victory. Remember, "we are not here to be fair, but to win". As it is now, I find myself splitting a marching army into smaller groups to handle small stacks on my way, just to avoid getting the trait. I will then re-merge my small stacks and move on. How realistic is this?

My general increased his own risks of losing, and suffered easily avoidable casulaties, in the name of what? Just so that he can prove his tactical genius? I don't think there are many examples of this in history. An army that fights against odds usually does it because it has no other option, and it is usually on the receiving end. The way EB is conceived, the player will choose low-odd offensive fights, which seems ahistorical.

And in my opinion, the argument that "a general who always fights with the odds on his side is not likely to learn anything" doesn't hold. You always learn from experience - it is just a matter of degree. A general who wins a hard battle should certainly learn a little more from that particular battle, and a little less from an easy one. But the learning from one battle should not adversely affect the learning from the other.

Just my thoughts.

Don't worry, the patch removes it. You'll never see "Likes easy battles" again.

There's no penalty from this trait. I repeat, none. It was just a way to 'keep score', and obviously badly done. Each battle is treated separately for determining actual development of command stars. Ignore it. It doesn't do anything.

[King of the dutch]

@Malrubius
Well i'm sorry about before. I obviously said some wrong things because i didn't know what i was talking about.

Still, does anyone have some tips aquiring commandstars? I'm still not getting any

grtz kotd

[Danest]

I've gotten good tactician and desert warrior, both worth one star, and one more star from some other place, I forget what. But that's about it. The AI seems better at getting high-star generals (well, at least some factions). I'm wondering if there are any ancillaries that count toward stars left in the game (maybe a veteran or some kind of battle advisor would have something to offer in terms of strategy). I also wonder if there were specific schools that taught battle strategy rather than philosophy and such in the ancient world.

[Malrubius]

@Malrubius
Well i'm sorry about before. I obviously said some wrong things because i didn't know what i was talking about.

Still, does anyone have some tips aquiring commandstars? I'm still not getting any

grtz kotd

Well, it's a complicated system; I probably don't fully understand it!

The best way to get command stars is fighting battles where the odds are less than 3:2 in your favor. Preferably 1:1 or worse. Vigorous generals have a better chance at learning than Langorous ones. The results from a battle may not show up until later, when the general has had time to reflect on the battle.

One basic 'tipping point' in the system is that a Vigorous general who has just won a battle with odds between 0.75 and 1.5 should have a 30% or higher chance of immediately advancing 1 point in GoodTactician or GoodLeader. It takes 4 points to get 1 star, then 8, 16, 32, and 64 for each additional star (the chance rapidly rises higher as the general's Energy and the battle difficulty increases, to a maximum of 100% chance).

After the battle, when the general is resting in a settlement, he has a chance to advance in command stars as well, again depending on the general's ability and the difficulty of the battle, as well as its outcome.

Stupid generals will probably never become great tacticians, and uncharismatic generals will probably never become great leaders.

I've gotten good tactician and desert warrior, both worth one star, and one more star from some other place, I forget what. But that's about it. The AI seems better at getting high-star generals (well, at least some factions). I'm wondering if there are any ancillaries that count toward stars left in the game (maybe a veteran or some kind of battle advisor would have something to offer in terms of strategy). I also wonder if there were specific schools that taught battle strategy rather than philosophy and such in the ancient world.

The AI cheats a bit on getting stars, to try to help them out a little on the battlefield.

[Dayve]

The AI should cheat with stars... And with chevrons too! It's the only way to get a decent long-ish battle... I remember in the Roma mod every AI general automatically came of age or was adopted with a retinue member called 'Fruity little helper' which gave +3 command, management and influence... I loved it... I think EB should have one.