The Cataphract trait

[Digby Tatham Warter]

The trait needed by one of your Generals(Seleukids) to get access to Cataphracts was in v0.74 but not v0.81, is it exactly the same now in v1.0 as v74? I ask because it was so difficult to aquire last time and the General who had it then lost it(damm his eyes).
I don't actually need them but I want a more historical cavalry arm. 3 units of companions seems wrong, I prefer 1 companion and 2 cataphracts as my armoured punch, which I presume is a better representation of their powerful cavalry arm.

I have read you need to loose badly, both your body guard and the army to capture his interest. Does it help if he has certain traits, and if he is Intelligent etc? Then what do I do with him, stick him in any city that has cataphracts in the build cue when you look at what a barracks can build(not the cities unit roster because it won't show them yet)? Does it help if the city has one of those top of the line schools/colleges?

Sorry to be a pain with the questions, but it's a long ol trek out there to endeaver to aquire said elusive trait.

Thanking you kindly.

[bovi]

This might be helpful.

;------------------------------------------
;Section: Seleukid Cataphract Reforms
;------------------------------------------
Trigger seleukid_beaten_by_cats
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition IsGeneral
          and not WonBattle
          and I_ConflictType Normal
          and FactionType romans_julii
          and I_TurnNumber > 75
          and PercentageUnitCategory cavalry > 10
;          and NumEnemiesInBattle > 250
          and NumFriendsInBattle > 250
          and not BattleOdds > 0.7
          and PercentageOfArmyKilled > 20
          and PercentageBodyguardKilled > 20

    Affects BeatenByCats  1  Chance  100

;----------------------------
;Trigger: beaten_by_baktrian_cats
; o <ImpressedByCats>  1  Chance  100

Trigger beaten_by_baktrian_cats
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition IsGeneral
          and Trait BeatenByCats > 0
          and GeneralFoughtFaction romans_brutii
          and Trait ImpressedByCats < 1

    Affects ImpressedByCats  1  Chance  100

;----------------------------
;Trigger: beaten_by_armenian_cats
; o <ImpressedByCats>  1  Chance  100

Trigger beaten_by_armenian_cats
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition IsGeneral
          and Trait BeatenByCats > 0
          and GeneralFoughtFaction romans_scipii
          and Trait ImpressedByCats < 1

    Affects ImpressedByCats  1  Chance  100

;----------------------------
;Trigger: beaten_by_parthian_cats
; o <ImpressedByCats>  1  Chance  100

Trigger beaten_by_parthian_cats
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition IsGeneral
          and Trait BeatenByCats > 0
          and GeneralFoughtFaction parthia
          and Trait ImpressedByCats < 1

    Affects ImpressedByCats  1  Chance  100

;----------------------------
Trigger Reverse_beaten_by_some_cats
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition IsGeneral
          and Trait BeatenByCats > 0

    Affects ReverseBeatenByCats  1  Chance  100

;----------------------------
Trigger dad_impressed_by_cats
    WhenToTest CharacterTurnEnd

    Condition FatherTrait ImpressedByCats > 0
          and Trait ImpressedByCats < 1

    Affects ImpressedByCats  1  Chance  100


;son impressed that cats beat his dad
;------------------------------------------
;Trigger: SeleukidBeaten_By_Cats_season_passes
; o <ImpressedByCats> 1  Chance 100

Trigger SeleukidBeaten_By_Cats_season_passes
    WhenToTest CharacterTurnEnd

    Condition Trait ImpressedByCats > 0
          and Trait ImpressedByCats < 2

    Affects ImpressedByCats  1  Chance  100

[Basileus Seleukeia]

Ok, and now for those of us that do not understand the divine language of RTW codes.

[Digby Tatham Warter]

Ok, and now for those of us that do not understand the divine language of RTW codes.

Yes me too I'm affraid, on these parts I would like clarification, if someone could be so kind that is:
and I_TurnNumber > 75
and PercentageUnitCategory cavalry > 10
; and NumEnemiesInBattle > 250
and NumFriendsInBattle > 250
and not BattleOdds > 0.7

I think the first one is not before turn 75????
The second one is that you need to have above 10% cav
The 3rd and 4th being both armies need to be above 250 men
As for the 5th point it's something to do with having similar numbers, but I'm a tad lost, but I suspect it means that they need to beat you on roughly an equal footing, hence your general is more interested as to why he got his arse handed to him when the numbers were even. But what is: and not BattleOdds > 0.7, am I stupid or what because I don't know what it means?

Also do I have to move him to a correct city with said trait?

I think reading through bovi's generous response it also says 100% chance if the conditions are met, so the intelligence of the General and his retinue/traits have nothing to do with it.

Cheers.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Odds are that you win the battle?

[Digby Tatham Warter]

Odds are that you win the battle?

Eh, what do you mean, that I will make all this effort, and then accidently win the battle, if so good sir I will turn my army round and let them charge me up the backside, even the AI can't loose that one, or can it?

[bovi]

I_TurnNumber > 75 - It must be turn 76 or later.
PercentageUnitCategory cavalry > 10 - At least 10% of the mancount in the battle must be cavalry.
;NumEnemiesInBattle > 250 - No effect, commented out due to the reinforcement CTD
NumFriendsInBattle > 250 - At least 250 guys on your side
not BattleOdds > 0.7 - The odds must be against you.
PercentageOfArmyKilled > 20 - At least 20% of your guys die
PercentageBodyguardKilled > 20 - At least 20% of your bodyguard die

Seems there's a bug though, as it does not take unit size into the equation. Would be quite hard indeed to get on small unit size.

In general, I recommend playing as if there was no such reform. Then if you happen to lose against a massive cataphract army, you just might get a man who thinks reforming might be a good idea. If you're dominating the battlefield, why would you consider reforming to the losers' inferior ways?

[Basileus Seleukeia]

And there's still the point that this trigger is just totally stupid gameplay wise. Who in his right mind would let the enemy amry win? Ok, you get the Cata's, but you have to risk your general and be fighting a battle against a superior stack. It's just that every sensible RTW player only fights a battle against a numerically superior foe if he is sure to win it by superiority of quality in his army or by teh stupidity of the AI. I think I'll just tie Catas to the marian reform again in my EB.

[Puupertti Ruma]

Clarifications (please correct me if I'm wrong):

Condition IsGeneral
          and not WonBattle
          -- you have to lose
          and I_ConflictType Normal
          --  ??
          and FactionType romans_julii
          --  EB's internal name for seleucids
          and I_TurnNumber > 75
          --  Can't happen before 253,50 BC, which is I guess 253 BC fall?
          and PercentageUnitCategory cavalry > 10
          -- 10% of either Human/AI/Whole forces must be cavalry.
;          and NumEnemiesInBattle > 250
          -- More than 250 enemy soldiers in battle
          and NumFriendsInBattle > 250
          -- More than 250 friendly soldiers
          and not BattleOdds > 0.7
          -- This means the computer calculated odds that you see before the battle in the pre-battle screen. They cannot be more than 0.7 (=7/10), so you have to be the underdog to have this trait. Right?
          and PercentageOfArmyKilled > 20
          -- you have to lose at least 20% of your army
          and PercentageBodyguardKilled > 20
          -- you have to lose at least 20% of your bodyguard unit.

    Affects BeatenByCats  1  Chance  100

I find it weird that you have to be the underdog to have this trait. If you are already losing, is it such a wonder that you did lose? Unless of course I am mistaken and it actually means you can't be the underdog.

:edit: Damn I'm slow! :edit:

[bovi]

Who in his right mind would let the enemy amry win? I think I'll just tie Catas to the marian reform again in my EB.

The first statement is just my point in my previous post. You arrive at a completely different conclusion though.

[Puupertti Ruma]

If you're dominating the battlefield, why would you consider reforming to the losers' inferior ways?

Then how come the odds have to be against you? If you are statistically losing the match, it isn't a real suprise that you did, right? :) And in reverse if the odds are in your favor and you DO lose, that would be quite a suprise and you would be quite impressed, right? ;) I'dd just remove the odds requirement completely.

Maybe the losing condition could also be removed so you just have to take heavy casualties to be impressed of cataphracts. Maybe correlate that with bigger casualty requirements, or even better make new trigger in which you have to "suffer" pyrrhic victory in the hand of catas.

[Basileus Seleukeia]

The first statement is just my point in my previous post. You arrive at a completely different conclusion though.

Well, you seem to have edited your post right as I was writing mine, so it's no surprise. But your point of just ignoring the reforms is quite good, when I have that nasty babylonian trait removed I shall start a new campaign and try it this way.

Edit: Though I think that Puupertti Roma has some good ideas.

[bovi]

Well, you seem to have edited your post right as I was writing mine, so it's no surprise.

I see .

Then how come the odds have to be against you? If you are statistically losing the match, it isn't a real suprise that you did, right? :) And in reverse if the odds are in your favor and you DO lose, that would be quite a suprise and you would be quite impressed, right? ;) I'dd just remove the odds requirement completely.

I don't know the reasoning for the battle odds. I would guess though, that hard odds would mean that the opposition is able to field a better army than you, indicating that they have had success throughout the campaign, rather than just some random luck at wiping out your army this one time.

But I think that this time it's merely a case of having had the enemy numbers condition, then that turned out to cause CTDs and were replaced by friendly numbers and odds like everywhere else.

Maybe the losing condition could also be removed so you just have to take heavy casualties to be impressed of cataphracts. Maybe correlate that with bigger casualty requirements, or even better make new trigger in which you have to "suffer" pyrrhic victory in the hand of catas.

I think perhaps a combined condition of enemy losses and friendly losses would be more precise than our current ones. For instance, if the odds are against you, and the enemy smashes a huge part of your army while taking not very many own losses it could be reasonable. But also if, as you say, the seleukid army is in the advantage and loses while inflicting less than reasonable casualties on the enemy.

Personally I feel it could be fairly easy to gain the trait, but have a higher threshold so you'd need to get clobbered a bit more consistently. The main problem is that we can't reliably detect what units the armies are composed of, so we need to use these surrogate conditions to hopefully hit when the cats could have made the battle.

[Thaatu]

I hate to barge in on this, but "beaten by cats" sounds so cute.

[Digby Tatham Warter]

I hate to barge in on this, but "beaten by cats" sounds so cute.

Thoust of abstract mind.