Likes easy battles trait - what do you think?

[CorporateSlave]

I, personally, like the idea of this trait, especially since it introduces another level of complexity into the gameplay - specifically, making sure that the player's army does not exceed that of the AI to avoid the trait. I do, however, object to it on the RP grounds. Surely, in real life there could be a general who likes easy battles (and who doesn't?!), but should the penalty really be that severe? Many of my generals seem to pick up that trait very quickly - often after 1 or 2 battles, and in many cases where the numerical advantage was either negligible (such as 10 men) or necessary - especially when fighting against the Gaesatae with an infantry force.

What's worse is I am yet to find a good way to remove this trait - I tried fighting other battles with large numerical disadvantage to myself, but the trait is still there. Should it be more temporary instead? Say, last for ten turns and then disappear if no more "easy battles" are fought? Or maybe a bit harder to get and be more dependant on such traits as "Lazy" or "Dull"? Would that be more realistic?

What do you guys think?

[O'ETAIPOS]

Also playing Makedonia I just cant fight against odds - prebattle screen informs that odds are even in battles when I fight enemy having two times as many man - do i have to actually lose battle to get some comand traits other than 'confident soliders"?
(on the other hand my problem may be 2HP general though )

[Perky]

Pompeius Magnus only ever fought if the odds were on his side.

[mediobogdum]

I just seems wrong to penalize a general for having the good strategic sense to avoid direct confrontation when the odds favor the enemy. Part of my survival strategy is to fight only when I can assure victory. I get this trait on almost all my fight gens (and quickly too).
Sun Tzu says: "If you are outnumber the enemy fight, if outnumbered flee, if even outmanuever" (paraphrased of couse, I probably butchered it). Sounds good to me.
Maybe reducing the penalty a bit but keeping the trait would be a good compromise.

[Malrubius]

The trait itself doesn't do anything, it's just a signal for the player as to why he isn't getting a lot of command stars. The description will be more explanatory in the next patch.

In vanilla, you advanced towards more stars with every victory. Sometimes you could get a star every battle! We've made advancement more difficult, but even defeat can teach your general something. If your general is smart enough to avoid battle unless he's got overwhelming odds, he probably doesn't become a better tactician than he already was. Also, there are other ways to get command stars, usually through situational modifiers or advancing in other traits.

[Chester]

I think all generals waged war thinking the odds were on their sides. Unless of course they were the ones under attack. But if you're taking charge in an attack, I doubt easy battles would reflect poorly on you. Victory is a victory I say!

Perhaps relpace the the "easy battles" trait with a "pyrrhic victor" trait if the general can't control casualties.

[paullus]

How is it determined whether a general gets that trait or the others in that vein? I had a KH general fight a battle outnumbered 3 to 1, then the next turn he overtakes the stragglers retreating from the previous battle, where he outnumbers them by a very slim margin, and yet he gets the "likes easy battles" trait. From the context, that made no sense to me. Is it something like, if there's an easy battle, that turn, there's a 70% chance he'll get the trait, and so on for even battles and hard battles? Thanks. (And luckily, this general got other good traits to make up for the easy battles one)

[Malrubius]

If RTW thinks the odds are heavily in his favor, he gets a hidden trait denoting that his battle difficulty was low. We use that hidden trait, along with another hidden trait denoting degree of success, to calculate a number of BattlePoints. The more BattlePoints, the greater the chance of getting a command star. The traits you see (Likes Easy Battles, Crushes his Enemies, etc) are just visible versions of these traits, acquired over time. The way I adjust them over time may not be accurate or may be bugged. Also, due to a bug in 1.2, there's a problem with a general fighting more than 1 battle a season.

If you want to help me figure out if there's a bug with this trait, start keeping detailed records like so:

271, Spring - Attacker - 1:1 Odds - Heroic Victory - Even Odds - Crushes His Enemies
271, Autumn - Attacker - 3:2 Odds - Narrow Defeat - Likes Easy Battles - Barely Victorious

This lists the year, season, whether you were attacker or defender, the battle odds on the scroll before the battle.

Hover your mouse on the bar between the two generals--In this picture, the odds are 3:1

Then tell me the outcome (heroic victory, close victory, etc)
Then tell me what traits your general had after the battle (Likes Easy Battles, Normally Victorious, etc) and if he got a command star from tactics or leadership or something else.

This would be a tremendous help in testing. As you can imagine, I haven't fought a lot of battles out over the course of a campaign myself, in testing.

[jebes]

The trait itself doesn't do anything, it's just a signal for the player as to why he isn't getting a lot of command stars. The description will be more explanatory in the next patch.

Unless I misunderstood this post, this makes the whole topic irrelevant. The trait is just commentary (whether or not it works correctly) on which battles your general has choosen to fight. Is this correct Malrubius?

[Malrubius]

Unless I misunderstood this post, this makes the whole topic irrelevant. The trait is just commentary (whether or not it works correctly) on which battles your general has choosen to fight. Is this correct Malrubius?

Well, if this isn't working properly, there could be other problems with the underlying hidden traits. So I'd appreciate posting results like in my post above, so I can be sure there's not a problem.

[Dayve]

I think this trait is bugged... In my Baktria campaign today, i had just started it, and i disbanded some troops and took my faction leader north to capture a rebel city, but he was ambushed by an army about 6 times his size in a forest with absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning... He lost all of his army but i managed to withdraw him... Although one of his sons perished in the forest.

So him and his bodyguard are making their way back to Baktria when he is ambushed again! By rebels, again with an army many times his size... So i think, meh he's going to die anyway i might as well just auto-calc, so i did, and he was crushingly defeated, but managed to escape with 2 bodyguards and get back to Baktria... When he got back, i built a unit of militia phalangite doods to defend the city along with him, his son and a unit of them that was already there, when the city was sieged by a large rebel army! Albeit mostly foot archers, where i won a crushing victory, and got the 'likes easy battles' trait...

[Malrubius]

He didn't get any trait from the ambushes, I guess?

[Dayve]

Yeah but only the one which says something along the lines of "This man is a loser but it's not too late for him to turn things around".

[MeroFromVero]

I think this trait is bugged... In my Baktria campaign today, i had just started it, and i disbanded some troops and took my faction leader north to capture a rebel city, but he was ambushed by an army about 6 times his size in a forest with absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning...

I had this exact same thing happen in my Bactria game! I took Theodotus and, uh, that third loser-general dude, two pantodapoi phalanxes and two arstbara units and marched them into Dahyu Haomavarga, and they got ambushed by Thuxra and 9 units of horse archers. I specifically remember, though, that even though my army was outnumbered by 3:1, the odds were still calculated to be 2:1 in my favor (perhaps the AI already knew it was just going to charge its HAs directly into my pike-tips ).

He didn't get any trait from the ambushes, I guess?

In my case, Theodotus got Likes Easy Battles (and it was an easy battle; I just stood on top of a hill and watched them impale themselves), and he got Barely Victorious (I assume this is because his win/loss record after the battle was 1/0).

All my generals get Barely Victorious after their first battle, except for two who went straight to Crushes His Enemies (and drives them before him, etc; I like that write-up). I've only ever got generals to Normally Victorious after like three or four battles.

[Hildico]

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."

How many different levels of battle difficulty are there? Fighting slightly easy battles should maybe lead to some positive traits reflecting superior strategy and/or organisation whilst ridiculously easy odds should lead to negative traits. After all, if you arrive at the battlefield outnumbering your openent 2:1 you've outmanouvered him at a strategic level; if the odds are 200:1 you're paying too much for your army!

Perhaps relpace the the "easy battles" trait with a "pyrrhic victor" trait if the general can't control casualties.

A pyrrhic victory trait seems so obvious I'd imagine it's already in the mod (although I haven't seen it yet), going to be in the mod, or has been looked at and rejected for some reason as unimplementable. I would expect it be something along the lines of "Pyrrhic Victor: When this man fights, many die - and not just the enemy. So far he's been successful, but what price victory? +x command, -x morale." I know I'd be wary of following a man into battle, no matter how many times he'd won, if I knew there was a fifty-fifty chance I wouldn't be around for the victory parade!

[Conqueror]

I've got two problems with the traits. First one is that the Seleukids seem to like attacking my Baktrian field armies despite themselves being severely outnumbered. Just recently I had a fight with 3:1 favour in my hands, and there was nothing I could do to avoid it. I actually ended up reloading back to the previous turn and change my army movement so that the battle wouldn't happen, thus preventing my general from getting a bad trait for it. When I'm the attacker, I can control things by leaving some of my units behind as reserves and attacking with only those ones that I need, fixing myself difficult (or at least even) odds. But when it's the AI attacking me, I can't do that; I'm forced to use all the units I have. I suggest that the chance for developing bad traits from fighting an easy battle be reduced in the case that battle was forced on you.

The second problem is with the outcome of the battles. I've seen too many battles where the enemy just turns tail and retreats off the map before the battle even begins. As they are not actually routing, I dare not send my cavalry after them (they would turn and fight back and overwhelm my cavalry, especially with so many spearmen) so I let them escape without a single casualty. But this results in what RTW deems a "close victory" which again has a bad effect on an EB general (if he was clearly victorious he probably won't be anymore after that "battle").

[Malrubius]

Neither of those events will have a negative effect on a general. In vanilla, losing battles would cause you to lose stars. But very few outcomes of battles will cause a permanent loss of command stars in EB. Fighting an easy battle just means you aren't likely to learn (earn command stars) from that battle. You could fight a battle next turn that is difficult, and even though you might still have the LEB trait, you could still earn command stars from that difficult battle. The LEB trait is just my attempt to show what behavior is more likely and less likely to earn stars.

It will probably be removed altogether in the next patch, since it's so confusing. I may replace it with some type of measurement of total battles fought, and/or a won/loss average.

[jebes]

Win/loss average or individual stats? That would be awesome. Hooray for Malrubius.

[Conqueror]

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.

EDIT: Here's screenshots showing the battle odds and the armies involved.

[King of the dutch]

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.

kotd

I will try to remeber to keep track of battles and traits and stuff

[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.

[Malrubius]

Funny.

EB's AI generals and governors get varying degrees of help, depending on what they are doing. It's easier for them to get command stars after a battle or when out campaigning. They can't complete missions like triumphs or Alexander's body, so they are at a disadvantage to the player. I also block them off from getting the Bored trait or other things that they couldn't possibly know to avoid.

[Dayve]

Could it possibly be scripted for something like, every AI city has an invisible building which gives +2 chevrons and morale to each unit trained there? It wouldn't even make much of a difference because a large percentage of units in EB have a missle weapon to throw before fighting, and the human player knows how to line his men up and throw the missles as the AI are charging, or before we charge into the AI, which lowers AI morale considerably... Resulting in a very short and not very enjoyable battle...