Battlescars

[hrvojej]

It would seem that with the 1.2 generals get +1 in the battlescarred trait after every battle, even one where they didn't even get into the fray at all. Now, I've found the trigger in the export_descr_character_traits:

Trigger battle1
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.3

    Affects BattleScarred  1  Chance  30 
    Affects Brave  1  Chance  15

but I'm not sure what exactly I need to change to get it back within reason. Chances seem ok, but the HP ratio is not; so, do I change 0.3 to 3 (or 30), or "greater than" to "lesser than", or what?

Thanks for the replies.

[Myrddraal]

I think you should increase the number to 0.6 or something. It would seem that it works for if the general losses 30% of his men. Changing it to 0.6 would mean 60% etc.

[hrvojej]

I think you should increase the number to 0.6 or something. It would seem that it works for if the general losses 30% of his men. Changing it to 0.6 would mean 60% etc.

Are you sure it's about men lost and not general's own HP? I would have guessed it's the latter. But it feels wrong since my generals never even come close to action and still get these traits.

[Simetrical]

I would assume that GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle refers to the amount of HP the general lost in combat, expressed as a decimal equal to the ratio of lost HP to total HP. In case you don't remember how ratios work from math class, that would effectively be percentage times 100. A GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle of 1 or greater would therefore mean the general would need to be dead, if not more than dead. Since generals don't have that many HP (normally six, I believe, but theoretically ranging from one to 15 or so), values greater than .83 would also require an average general to be dead. If .3 is giving you trouble, I'd go for .6—that would require the general to take some heavy wounds to become Scarred, which is as it should be. Currently, any light bruises result in scars.

Note that Romans are apparently more liable to be scarred. The trigger battle1R is a duplicate of battle1, but only for Romans, and the Brave trait is replaced with the RomanHero trait—but the Romans can get both triggers, so they're twice as likely to get scarred. However, the cases where generals don't come near the fighting but are still awarded the Scarred trait definitely bear investigation.

-Simetrical

[Malrubius]

I tried changing the ratio there to .6 and the first battle I did afterwards resulted in a scarred trait for the general who did nothing but ride his horse. Neither he nor his bodyguards ever entered combat. I'm thinking it may be something hard-coded to beef up the AI generals so they'll last a bit longer during a suicidal charge.

[Camp Freddie]

I've changed the trigger to:

Condition not GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.3

Bizarely, this seems to fix the overabundance of scarred generals (though I haven't played extensively since doing this). This suggests that the trigger has somehow been messed up in the patch to that it's back to front.

[eadingas]

But that doesn't make sense, it should work for general getting _more_ wounds than less. I think increasing the number from 0.3 to more should solve the problem...

[hrvojej]

Hmmm, I think playing around with ratios and probabilities didn't help. As far as I'm able to tell, they still get it all the time, even when they just observe from a galaxy far far away. The trouble is that it's hard to tell when the trait *is* in fact working properly, since there's no way (that I'm aware of) to determine how many HP the general did lose in a battle in which he fought. Only one thing is for sure, and that is that they do get scars even when they don't lose a one single HP. If they don't lose any through mental strain imposed by commanding an army, that is.

I've put in a condition that the general has to fight, and make at least one kill, but I'd prefer to have a proper fix.

[Helium God]

Hi all! I chose a fairly simplistic solution, which was to raise the trigger values of levels 3 & 4 of the scarred traits...

So instead of having the triggers for levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 be 1, 2, 3, and 4, I changed the triggers to be 1, 2, 6, and 9. This means that the first two levels of Battlescarring will occur as often as before, but that levels 3 and 4 (where, in my experience, "Scarface" as a name suffix appears) will occur half as often simply because the generals are required to appear in a good number more battles in order to reach this threshold.

I won't pretend that this is a proper fix in any way, but it does at least reduce the instances of "Scarface" and individuals who have their influence reduced (a significant proportion in the case of my pitiful, low attribute Julii generals) to a select few of my generals who are truly mixing it up with their enemies on a more or less constant basis.

You guys are discussing a more proper fix than what I have proposed here, in the sense that you are working on the actual mechanic that causes the scarred trait to be generated in the first place, but I thought I'd throw in my .02 pieces of eight into the hat here, since I hadn't seen anyone mention this in particular!

[Oracle]

Hello all,
I post my thoughts on this here https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43379.
First of all for romans there is a bug, there is one condition to get scar for romans and other for everybody else, but everybody includes romans so in order to fix this i's better to add condition
and not CultureType roman
Second GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle clearly bugged. For test purpose I set chance to get scar to 100 (Affects BattleScarred 1 Chance 100), and got Cruelly Scarred(threshhpld 4) after single battle when general was standing all battle and hadn't touched even single enemy.
So this identifier is not related to general itself but probably related to all army + enemy army too.
Another issue is that somewhere GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle checked for values bigger then 1. For example in heroic saviour, thus there is no chance to get it at all, so i change 80, to 0.8 But then it started to give this anc. to often, so probably it's better to lower chace too.

As for BattleScars after adding condition that excluded romans scars frequency started to look ok, but it obviously not related to general, only to general casualities. So devs should fix this one.

[Camp Freddie]

This is becoming a real mystery.

I did think that the hp lost/start ratio had got messed up so that it was actually looking for hp remaining/start ratio. Hence I thought that adding a 'not' to the trigger would fix it.

I've done some testing, and if you use the "not GenHPLostRatio" trigger, then you don't get scarred, even with "battlescarred chance 100".
This would seem to contradict the idea that it's tested for all units on the battlefield, since with the not clause, you would still get scarred from all the people that didn't lose HP.

I intend to properly test my theory that it checks the amount of HP remaining and not the amount of HP lost. To test it properly, I need to change it to "not GenHPLostRatio >0.9", with "battlescarred 100" and get my general to lose some hitpoints. If I'm right, then this will trigger "been in the wars". I'm not entirely convinced though...

If you've been getting a "hideously/cruelly scarred" general in one go, (without already having "been inthe wars" or "scarred") there must be something funny going on. It should be impossible to get more than 2 ranks of the trait in one battle (or more than 1 rank for a non-roman general).

I'm pretty sure the old 1.1 traits file needed GenHPRatioLost to be >30. It seems that someone noticed this was an error and changed it to the >0.3 figure (i.e. changed from percentage to a ratio). However, this seems to have uncovered the fact that the GenHPRatioLost calculation is buggered and always returns something >0.3 (but <30).

I might try and set the required GenHPRatioLost to >1. Has anyone tried this? It should make getting the feat impossible (your general would have to be 'greater than dead'), but I want to rule it out!

If this trait turns out to be totaly fubarred, I'll probably just change the trigger to GeneralNumKillsInBattle >10. It's far from ideal, but it's the closest I can get to a trigger that reflects the risk of the general getting a scar.

[Oracle]

This is becoming a real mystery.
However, this seems to have uncovered the fact that the GenHPRatioLost calculation is buggered and always returns something >0.3 (but <30).

I might try and set the required GenHPRatioLost to >1. Has anyone tried this? It should make getting the feat impossible (your general would have to be 'greater than dead'), but I want to rule it out!

It's buggered, but from my test with chance sett at 100, I found that it returns something more then >0.3 most of the time, but not allways.

Yes I tried 30 and 1, , my general never got any scar. But from the other hand there is an anc. "shieldbearer" in condition it checks GenHPRatioLost <= 80, funny stuff I never seen any gen that got this anc. I changed it to 0.8 instead of 80, with the same effect.

[Camp Freddie]

I think I've got it! The GenHPLostInBattle actually returns genral's hp remaining after battle! Changing >0.3 to <0.7 seems to work!

I've tested my fix and it seems to work. Idle generals don't get scarred. A general who stood in for a few minutes while being pelted with javelins got scarred!

I've submitted the modified txt files to the TWC downloads. Theres also a thread about it here, with the files as an attatchment.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index...ntry1811965396

If a .org mod (or anyone else) wants to host these files, that's cool.

[hrvojej]

I think I've got it! The GenHPLostInBattle actually returns genral's hp remaining after battle! Changing >0.3 to "less than"0.7 seems to work!

I've tested my fix and it seems to work. Idle generals don't get scarred. A general who stood in for a few minutes while being pelted with javelins got scarred!

I've submitted the modified txt files to the TWC downloads. Theres also a thread about it here, with the files as an attatchment.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index...ntry1811965396

If a .org mod (or anyone else) wants to host these files, that's cool.

If you use the sign for "less than", the rest of the post will not show. Hence my quote, otherwise your post seems a bit... unfinished. (and I know you cannot edit yet)
So, if you don't mind, I changed the "reverse of >" sign to "less than", for anybody who wants to try this out. I will try it out as well as soon as I have more time.

Cheers,

[Bob the Insane]

oops, repeating Oracle's post...