An idea to fix BattleDread

[Kobal2fr]

OK, we all know it's much easier to become Cruel & Cunning than Chivalrous on the battlefield. Part of the problem is that the "general has fought" set of triggers is imbalanced and to that I have no real answer, save perhaps make the first trigger a 33% chance, and the second one a 66% chance.

The other two battledread triggers are the real problem, namely "Picking of Weak" which is triggered whenever you win a battle that had >3:2 odds, and "Extermination" which triggers when you kill/capture >70% of the enemy army with an inferior army.

Both present a problem when dealing with siege assaults, because to even attempt them you *need* overwhelming numbers, and you can't fight them without pretty much killing everyone. Cunning manoeuvering can result in total AI rout which ends the battle, but more often than not there's one unit camping the city square, meaning total extermination is the only way.

Now, you could specifically exclude sieges from the triggers, but then there wouldn't be a way to become dreadfull fighting sieges, which kinda defeats the purpose. So...

I think PickingOnWeak when sieging, or attacking a river crossing for that matter, could be pretty much dealt with with an additional "PercentageArmyKilled < 30" condition. Meaning : if you had a big numerical superiority, but still got a third or more of them killed, then it wasn't "unfair" superiority, but a tactically needed one. Thoughts ?

The Extermination one is more tricky. It shouldn't happen much in sieges because of the odds <0.9 condition, but still... In this particular case, excluding sieges specifically is the only thing I can think of right now I'm afraid.

[FactionHeir]

Still not optimal.
The Siege type of battles includes sallying too, and its more than likely that you tend to kill more than 70% of the besieging force when sallying.

Also, using the <30% makes all cavalry tactics count as more dreadful, as you don't tend to lose a lot if you charge properly, while with infantry you do.
Using massive missiles or projectiles would also result in more dread.

To be honest though, I don't really get what is meant with BattleDread in the first place. Sure, the various traits seem to point towards "wanting to win a battle more than doing so honorably" or "Mutilates the current foe to inspire fear in the next" or "Pikes a few heads" but those are subjective and its not like you have an option to mutilate foes during battle, or using dirty tricks.
I've been thinking about linking BattleDread and BattleChivalry to releasing/executing prisoners, although those already have their own traits.

Similarly, BattleChiv requires you to not hunt down/kill too many enemies.
That means you have to give them opportunity to rally and fight again, which may or may not be intentional either, as an infantry heavy army cannot keep up with the enemy, making him more likely to rally and similarly such an army would not be able to hunt down routers.
Also, It makes little sense that winning a heroic victory while being outnumbered should necessarily give you double the dread points. For all I know, fighting against the odds would certainly be more chivalrous than bringing twice the number of troops your enemy has.

Conclusion: take both traits out completely or just don't bother. They don't make much sense anyway.

[Kobal2fr]

Still not optimal.
The Siege type of battles includes sallying too, and its more than likely that you tend to kill more than 70% of the besieging force when sallying.

See ? I didn't know that. Why doesn't anyone tell me these things ? :)

I'm not sure that sallies are any different than field battles though. All those I've fought up till now have started with the AI moving well out of range of my walls and staying there unless baited with archers.
Only once has it ... kind of siddled along Venice's walls only to stop a stone's throw away and, incidentally, well within a crossbow's throw. Thunk, thunk, thunk. But that may have been the famed passive AI, and had I wished to turn this thing into a "real" battle, I could have. I just didn't .

Also, using the <30% makes all cavalry tactics count as more dreadful, as you don't tend to lose a lot if you charge properly, while with infantry you do.
Using massive missiles or projectiles would also result in more dread.

Having already dismissed the sally thing, we're left with assaults. Cavalry tactics in assaults account for precious little, even more so in cities than in castles. Those rickety, winding cut-throat alleys are definitely not suited to knights, and charges will more often than not "bump" into the invisible walls and not charge at all, but stroll gently into the spearheads.
I may be a bit prejudiced here, admittedly, as I rarely use massive amounts of heavy cav, and when sieging they stay right out... but that's been my experience.
As to massive missiles, well, personally I'd lump them in the whole dreadfull pile -they're murderous, they're safe for the user, they don't give any mercy and they're a woman's stratagem, not a manly man's first choice. I've said in another thread that chivalry is akin to willfull stupidity, and that's a fact : essentially, it's looking for a "fair fight" (a.k.a. "badly planned fight" ). Striving to "give them a chance", let the better man win and all that tripe. In this sense, three hundred crossbow bolts down the length of a street would definitely be frowned upon as dashed unsporting.

To be honest though, I don't really get what is meant with BattleDread in the first place. Sure, the various traits seem to point towards "wanting to win a battle more than doing so honorably" or "Mutilates the current foe to inspire fear in the next" or "Pikes a few heads" but those are subjective and its not like you have an option to mutilate foes during battle, or using dirty tricks.

Well, I take it as "kills more/much more than is strictly necessary". Dirty tricks being the aforementionned crossbows, mass canons etc..., basically anything more underhanded (or clever) than a stout sword right inna face.

Similarly, BattleChiv requires you to not hunt down/kill too many enemies.
That means you have to give them opportunity to rally and fight again, which may or may not be intentional either, as an infantry heavy army cannot keep up with the enemy, making him more likely to rally and similarly such an army would not be able to hunt down routers.

Nope, not exactly, because if they rally, regroup and re-charge, you have to kill even more of them to send them back again. Rinse, repeat. The chivalrous thing is apparently to see them off the field by giving chase but without actually reaching/capturing them. Then you can organize another brawl with the same lads, over and over again. And add sideline judges and medals. Maybe even a hot-dog stand and sponsors !

OK, so the guys at CA didn't really think the chivalry triggers through either.

Also, It makes little sense that winning a heroic victory while being outnumbered should necessarily give you double the dread points. For all I know, fighting against the odds would certainly be more chivalrous than bringing twice the number of troops your enemy has.

Yes, that one has always bothered me. I'm convinced the "<" sign should be the other way round, i.e. "you didn't need to kill that many to win given the odds, but you did, you MONSTER !", but another trait authority (I think it was Foz, not sure anymore) dismissed the idea.

[FactionHeir]

The problem with not killing more than you need to can't be easily fixed either, due to PercentageKilled including captured units. Capturing too many gives you Dread, releasing them subsequently, Chivalry. So again, that is kind of silly.
Similarly, not killing more than you need to in a field battle scenario only applies to infantry armies, not to missile or cav ones. I suppose a lance in your face isn't as chivalrous as a sword or axe?
As for that < vs > sign, I think that was me saying so.

So the problem that remains, if that you cannot check for whether its a siege assault vs a siege sally and that the triggers and traits still don't make much sense

[Kobal2fr]

Yup, it's a real bummer about PercentageKilled lumping prisonners in, I know... I wonder if we could maybe come up with something creative with NumCapturedSoldiers in conjunction with PercentageKilled and/or PercentageRouted... is there a variable or condition for "total number of soldiers in enemy army" ?

[FactionHeir]

I don't think so, no. The only way you could force that is by using odds, but then you'd have to make every unit have the exact same stats and be melee

[alpaca]

Actually I believe that from a gameplay point of view BD and BC should be seen as a way to get a more extreme character. What I mean with that is, make the first level of battle dread depend on the general either having BattleDread or having exterminated at least two cities/killed his prisoners at least two times.
I interpret these as an intention (and a means) for the player to get a more dreaded/chivalrous general, in which case I allow him to get one.

But anyways, I'd rather have a system where you get your dread/chivalry points by being either bad or good.

[FactionHeir]

Interesting suggestion alpaca, I think that would be perfect for the trait's sense too.

[alpaca]

Sorry, there's a mistake in the above post that came from editing. I meant "make every level of battle dread depend on..." not "make the first level of battle dread depend on...", but I guess you already figured that out

[atheotes]

The chivalrous thing is apparently to see them off the field by giving chase but without actually reaching/capturing them. Then you can organize another brawl with the same lads, over and over again.

now i understand why CA had Cavalry escort routing troops off the map... But you all had to complain and now they capture a few off the routers... I blame the community for depriving my generals of battlechiv