Proposition considering regional title ancillaries

**Dominick** · September 05, 2011, 11:07 AM

I have come to an idea... Instead of all those silly, quite random descriptions and effects... That those ancillaries... Have a generic effect AND a long historical description for each region.

F.e.

Earl of Essex (or whatever is it called)

(Generic effect) +1 Command, +1 Loyalty/Authority (if its a member/general or a king), +3% tax income, +3% trading income...

(Description) The most important city of Essex, London, was founded a long time ago, in the times of the Britonic Celts, the Romans have taken it over... ... ...

Or

King of France

(Generic effect) +3 Command, +2 Authority, +2 Piety...

(Description) France is a land inhabited by the Franks, nowaday French people, who have lived here since the fall of the Western Roman Empire. A great land, that with its all vastness and glory is an honor to be ruled upon...

What do you think? I hate those effects that say "Ireland always wanted sovereignty, this general might organize a rebellion. -3 Loyalty" or whatever.

**Waffen9999** · September 05, 2011, 11:47 AM

What's wrong with getting bonuses as well as negatives from a title? I don't see anything wrong with the current ones.

**Fred Putz** · September 05, 2011, 12:00 PM

There´s a project in work.

For the descriptions: I like the shorter ones for a reason.

**Dominick** · September 05, 2011, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Fred Putz

There´s a project in work.

For the descriptions: I like the shorter ones for a reason.

Interesting, I'm going to check it out!

@Waffen9999 What's the point of bad ancillaries? Or traits? TBH I hate them both -.-

**Caesar Clivus** · September 05, 2011, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Dominick

@Waffen9999 What's the point of bad ancillaries? Or traits? TBH I hate them both -.-

Because no-one is a saint. They have bad characteristics too. Plus without negative traits, the whole trait system would become unbalanced. You'd have 10 command, 10 chiv/dread, 10 loyalty, 10 piety generals EVERYWHERE.

**Waffen9999** · September 05, 2011, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Caesar Clivus

Because no-one is a saint. They have bad characteristics too. Plus without negative traits, the whole trait system would become unbalanced. You'd have 10 command, 10 chiv/dread, 10 loyalty, 10 piety generals EVERYWHERE.

Glad I'm not the only one to see that.

**Dominick** · September 06, 2011, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Caesar Clivus

Because no-one is a saint. They have bad characteristics too. Plus without negative traits, the whole trait system would become unbalanced. You'd have 10 command, 10 chiv/dread, 10 loyalty, 10 piety generals EVERYWHERE.

Why is someone better/worse just for governing a certain province?

**Hadrian I** · September 06, 2011, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Caesar Clivus

Because no-one is a saint. They have bad characteristics too. Plus without negative traits, the whole trait system would become unbalanced. You'd have 10 command, 10 chiv/dread, 10 loyalty, 10 piety generals EVERYWHERE.

I agree.

**Ichon** · September 05, 2011, 08:44 PM

I'd like to see more titles with offset characteristics other than loyalty. It seems that is the most common "negative" characteristic. How about +3 command, +2 authority, -20% tax income? Or -4 morale, +2 authority, +15 trade income. +4authority, +3 dread, -4 piety, -3 public order, -10% trade income. My favorite would probably be +4 chivalry, +2 piety, -4 command, -20% taxes(he donates to the church), +2 morale(common troops believe he is touched by God but divine inspiration can be rough for the lords to understand- hence lower command).

o make some tougher decisions because lets face it- most of the time -loyalty is not that painful under MTW2 mechanics.