Gross Disparity in Ability

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The AI is pretty well crippled by it's own stupidity, giving it extra stars makes it at least try to put up a fight. Without the stars sometimes it wouldn't even offer battle.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Just to clear this up ( as requested ;-) ), from the old code on my machine at CA the General's command modifier on attacks is still there in the last version, but it only applies to melee attacks and it is -inverted- so the quality of the defender's general is applied as bonus directionless defense for the defending soldier. It is also rescaled to range from -6 to +6, changing quickly at low bonus levels and then slowing down towards the top of the range. The idea was to limit the number of stacking bonusses which speed up the battles, i vaguely remember.

Also, the bonus is not limited by physical distance, and is supposed to represent a good general's ability to get superior performance from his troops through training in small scale maneuvers. The only way for this bonus to result in faster combat death rates rather than slower ones is if the defender's general has bad command traits...

If you want to test it, I would suggest a battle between some big peasant units, fighting the units 1v1 and timing the length of time to rout; then repeat giving each army a 10 star general. You should see a slower time-to-rout with the generals. In the end though 6 pts is not enough to make up huge troop quality differences, so don't expect to see miraculous differences.

[Geoffrey S]

I'd just like to jump in and mention that EB is the only mod I've seen using this approach to command stars, yet I've seen no mention of other mods experiencing the problems which this approach of increasing enemy command stars is said to solve. Has anyone got some more experience with other mods to either confirm or deny this?

[Geoffrey S]

I'd just like to jump in and mention that EB is the only mod I've seen using this approach to command stars, yet I've seen no mention of other mods experiencing the problems which this approach of increasing enemy command stars is said to solve. Has anyone got some more experience with other mods to either confirm or deny this?

Any takers?

[bovi]

Just to clear this up ( as requested ;-) )

Thank you very much .

Xehh, perhaps you should read Jerome's post again.

[pezhetairoi]

Mein gott I love Callicles. XD You can imagine Alex Megas going to his troops 'that king on the other side has only one star! He's pathetic! Look at me, I have three! Dare you follow me?'

XD

[NEver]

It's a fair complaint. Not so much so that the AI gets the extra help but the fact that the player sees this extra help.

The stars exist as a sort of measuring stick of how many victories one general has one what his fame is in the alternate history of Europa Babarorum. So it remains silly that one general who has conquered a great many people should remain unknown while another lesser victor is proclaimed as the best that ever lived.

[bovi]

The stars exist as a sort of measuring stick of how many victories one general has one what his fame is in the alternate history of Europa Babarorum.

Does it now?

[NEver]

Obviously not, but that's what their purpose should be as a visual display element. If it's only meant as part of the game engine it should be hidden

[mcantu]

Just to clear this up ( as requested ;-) ), from the old code on my machine at CA the General's command modifier on attacks is still there in the last version, but it only applies to melee attacks and it is -inverted- so the quality of the defender's general is applied as bonus directionless defense for the defending soldier. It is also rescaled to range from -6 to +6, changing quickly at low bonus levels and then slowing down towards the top of the range. The idea was to limit the number of stacking bonusses which speed up the battles, i vaguely remember.

Also, the bonus is not limited by physical distance, and is supposed to represent a good general's ability to get superior performance from his troops through training in small scale maneuvers. The only way for this bonus to result in faster combat death rates rather than slower ones is if the defender's general has bad command traits...

If you want to test it, I would suggest a battle between some big peasant units, fighting the units 1v1 and timing the length of time to rout; then repeat giving each army a 10 star general. You should see a slower time-to-rout with the generals. In the end though 6 pts is not enough to make up huge troop quality differences, so don't expect to see miraculous differences.

Jerome,

Thanks so much for dropping in. I had completely forgotten I had asked you for your input.

So you would say that what I quoted from you up above is no longer valid?

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
It currently affects both morale and combat ability - we tried it for a while with just morale, but it ended up being not enough of a bonus. The combat calculations have changed so much from Rome to Medieval as to be unrecogniseable, so it's no longer easy to equate stars to experience.

As a rule of thumb it's one point of attack per command rank, up to a maximum of 10, and this can become negative for very bad generals. This combat bonus is applied to all troops under his command on the battlefield. Experience is one point of attack and one point of defense per chevron, plus a morale bonus as well.

The general's command also controls his radius-of-effect, which is set to 30 m + 5 m * command + 2 m * influence. This is used to award morale bonusses to nearby units (in addition to the combat bonus), and when testing which units are affected it tests the distance between the actual general's position and the centre-point of the unit being considered.

[bovi]

My understanding is that it has been changed, yes. The old quotation is for a rather old version of RTW, I think it was made sometime in 2004.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Jerome,

Thanks so much for dropping in. I had completely forgotten I had asked you for your input.

So you would say that what I quoted from you up above is no longer valid?

No probs ;) It's nice to see that people are still enjoying Rome, even when we're hard at work on a new generation of tech and gameplay with Empire...

Anyway, most of the info in the old quote should still be valid, I was only referring to how the actual combat bonus works which is applied as a result of the general's command rating.

[mcantu]

No probs ;) It's nice to see that people are still enjoying Rome, even when we're hard at work on a new generation of tech and gameplay with Empire...

Anyway, most of the info in the old quote should still be valid, I was only referring to how the actual combat bonus works which is applied as a result of the general's command rating.

Ok, I think i've got it...

A generals command bonus is applied the defense score of all units under his command; the morale bonus is applied to units within a certain distance of him; with the radius of effect being 30 m + 5 m * command + 2 m * influence. Is that about right?

Could you explain what you meant with this...?

It is also rescaled to range from -6 to +6, changing quickly at low bonus levels and then slowing down towards the top of the range.

Thank you again for your help!

[Aradan]

K, I am probably being dumb here, but this needs some clarification:

the quality of the defender's general is applied

The only way for this bonus to result in faster combat death rates rather than slower ones is if the defender's general has bad command traits...

What I deduct from these two is that the attacker's command bonus is not taken into consideration... If it was, it *would* be possible to have faster combat death rates, even if the defender didn't have combat penalties (he could have 0 command and the attacker would have at least 1 command bonus). Am I missing sth?

The -6, +6 part is clearer I think (are u using some sort of logarithmic function?). Physical distance plays no part in the application of just the combat bonus or the morale bonus as well?

Is there a chance that we ever get a peek at the combat formula, as happened with MTW? Wishful thinking?

EDIT: @ Geoffrey S: Not sure which problems you refer to exactly but for the record FATW does use hidden command/morale bonuses for the AI generals, though we haven't touched the chances of players getting command stars themselves. Up to now we have had no complaints though.

[Pode]

I just would like to point out a perhaps unintended consequence of this system, in that if there are multiple generals with an army, the number of command stars determines which one will be the commander. Which can lead to a situation where all of the morale boosting traits and ancillaries assigned to your chosen commander that you did the "simple math" for are wasted because Doofus McFeeb* who was along for the ride has one command star and a -8 to morale. Not that anything like this has cost me a battle or anything, just saying I realize that this is my own fault for not doing the simple math on all 75 of my family members every turn when they get new traits I'm not told about, but even I have limits to how much I will nanomanage.

Hyperbole aside, yes the current system is workable and the Cannae argument in its favor was funny, but the system has flaws as well and the OP has a valid point that perhaps deserves less mocking and more consideration.

*Purely illustrative and no offense is meant to the honorable and intelligent Clan McFeeb, should they in fact exist

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

It's nice to see that people are still enjoying Rome, even when we're hard at work on a new generation of tech and gameplay with Empire...

Then you may bite your tongue upon seeing how many people are still enjoying the original MTW, including "converts" from RTW, if you stop by the Main Hall.


.

[LorDBulA]

Which can lead to a situation where all of the morale boosting traits and ancillaries assigned to your chosen commander that you did the "simple math" for are wasted because Doofus McFeeb* who was along for the ride has one command star and a -8 to morale.

In my experience best commanders have also most starts, so I dont think this situation is very likely.

[konny]

In my experience best commanders have also most starts, so I dont think this situation is very likely.

That would be by random, because stars and moral boosts are determined by complete different traits. There are even traits that add moral and reduce stars or vice versa. The other problem is all the traits that reduce stars out of the blue.

So, you might have some decent general with exceptional two stars that also add lots of moral leading your army, but than he becomes a lover of beatuy in two levels for sitting around in conquered towns for some time until good governors from the capital arrive; and after that your army is lead by the morose 1-star subordinate that had been building watchtowers meanwhile.

Hyperbole aside, yes the current system is workable and the Cannae argument in its favor was funny, but the system has flaws as well and the OP has a valid point that perhaps deserves less mocking and more consideration.

I agree with that. I can't see the point to treat everyone who lays his finger on this command star problem as if he was demanding something obscene. Even people who ask what's the script is and how to activate it recive more reasonable answers than people who ask "where have all the stars gone".