Catering your General/RPG Elements? Your thoughts...

[Muffin Top]

Hello TW Community, I'd like to know your opinion on this aspect of the game that I personally find breaks immersion since S2TW

When playing RTW (Vanilla or modded) your general's randomized traits often appear by chance or is highly influenced by his father/mother (ancestry), class/title, tribe/family, experience in governing and battles, dealing with a conquered settlement, and the buildings within the settlement such as an academy and so on. Which imo, is a great feature that breaths life and character into the game and inevitably gives it soul. Also, If your general/character was the designated heir and was stripped of his right, it can add a new trait and eventually cause problems. I believe that was included in S2TW as well.

However, my main concern is that by allowing players to upgrade their general to their liking, this kills their individuality since the player is catering them to their taste rather than having to deal with subjects with various personalities. I know traits have always been there and are still included in R2TW but it has been seriously watered down and feels very limited. However, does anyone here find it as a positive addition to the series?

So, my fellow TW kinsmen, do you like the fact that you could choose their upgrades to increase their command skills, authority, zeal, etc etc? Or would you have preferred to have it the same as RTW, especially in mods like RS2 and EB?

Let me know

[Muffin Top]

anybody?

[Shawn1066]

Ideally, I'd like a mixture of choosing and of picking. There are some things about a person's life that they have control over, like what kind of career they take and what kind of friends they have. There are some things that one has very little control over--like their own temperament in many occasions. So there should be some traits that you have no control over and other traits that you do have some control over.

[Inhuman One]

I'd like to see the silly leveling up stuff removed from the game for both generals and agents, it makes no sense. Some should be born conquerors, others wouldnt be fit to lead battles. That's how it is. Not everyone will become a competent general simply by participating in enough fights. I also miss it that battlefield behaviour affects traits.

As for player influence on traits, I'd suggest adding this in a different form. For one, the family tree should return. Secondly, it should be possible to choose how you educate the family members who have not yet come of age.
Buildings could affect the options available.
Through education, you could choose to focus their studies on warfare, naval warfare, economy, philosophy or religion.

This should also not have the same effect on each person, and it should be possible to see their traits develop before they come of age. It should take some years before you choose an education for them, age six for example. Gives them ten years of education. They'd have personality traits at that point and based on that you could choose the right education for them.
If they have a weak stomach, you shouldnt put them on naval warfare for example. A seasick admiral would be of little use. If they are bloodthirsty, better to put them on warfare or naval warfare than economy. etc.

Of course they should pick up different things from it. With warfare, some might become a great warrior while the more intelligent ones could be better at strategy.
Once the education is completed, you could still assign them to whatever task you'd want to. A general groomed to become a governor could still be required to lead the defense of the city. He'd simply be better at management.

Each type of education could affect their appearance as they come of age too. Philosophers and economy graduates could be unlikely to wear a helmet, while those with a warfare or naval warfare education could wear a helmet and could generally look a bit tougher, as someone who has experienced battle.
Those with a religious education could differ quite a bit, it could depend on the temple that theres present in the place they got their education.

Each education could also bring along additional benefits, like a unique bodyguard option unavailable otherwise.
Those with a naval education could get marines as their bodyguard, those with a religious education could get druids, sacred band or some other kind of religious warriors as their bodyguards.
Economy graduates couldnt get a unique bodyguard, but could get discounts on training agents.

If a family member is particulary daft however, they might not learn much from any education. These cases could be rare. However there should also be the occasional protege that learns a lot from their education.

By education, I do mean any means of it. Not just reading books, but also by doing. Whatever works for the faction involved. Quality of education could be different for each nation.
Greek factions would have a bonus for philosophy educations, exept for Spartans who could get a good bonus for the warfare education.
Carthage, Athens and other naval factions would have a better naval education. Carthage would likely have a solid economy education as well.
Barbarian factions would have less education, but to compensate for this all their generals would generally be better warriors due to more exposure to warfare and violence. Wont help their command rating, but could increase their hitpoints and morale.

[Muffin Top]

I'd like to see the silly leveling up stuff removed from the game for both generals and agents, it makes no sense. Some should be born conquerors, others wouldnt be fit to lead battles. That's how it is. Not everyone will become a competent general simply by participating in enough fights. I also miss it that battlefield behaviour affects traits.

As for player influence on traits, I'd suggest adding this in a different form. For one, the family tree should return. Secondly, it should be possible to choose how you educate the family members who have not yet come of age.
Buildings could affect the options available.
Through education, you could choose to focus their studies on warfare, naval warfare, economy, philosophy or religion.

This should also not have the same effect on each person, and it should be possible to see their traits develop before they come of age. It should take some years before you choose an education for them, age six for example. Gives them ten years of education. They'd have personality traits at that point and based on that you could choose the right education for them.
If they have a weak stomach, you shouldnt put them on naval warfare for example. A seasick admiral would be of little use. If they are bloodthirsty, better to put them on warfare or naval warfare than economy. etc.

Of course they should pick up different things from it. With warfare, some might become a great warrior while the more intelligent ones could be better at strategy.
Once the education is completed, you could still assign them to whatever task you'd want to. A general groomed to become a governor could still be required to lead the defense of the city. He'd simply be better at management.

Each type of education could affect their appearance as they come of age too. Philosophers and economy graduates could be unlikely to wear a helmet, while those with a warfare or naval warfare education could wear a helmet and could generally look a bit tougher, as someone who has experienced battle.
Those with a religious education could differ quite a bit, it could depend on the temple that theres present in the place they got their education.

Each education could also bring along additional benefits, like a unique bodyguard option unavailable otherwise.
Those with a naval education could get marines as their bodyguard, those with a religious education could get druids, sacred band or some other kind of religious warriors as their bodyguards.
Economy graduates couldnt get a unique bodyguard, but could get discounts on training agents.

If a family member is particulary daft however, they might not learn much from any education. These cases could be rare. However there should also be the occasional protege that learns a lot from their education.

By education, I do mean any means of it. Not just reading books, but also by doing. Whatever works for the faction involved. Quality of education could be different for each nation.
Greek factions would have a bonus for philosophy educations, exept for Spartans who could get a good bonus for the warfare education.
Carthage, Athens and other naval factions would have a better naval education. Carthage would likely have a solid economy education as well.
Barbarian factions would have less education, but to compensate for this all their generals would generally be better warriors due to more exposure to warfare and violence. Wont help their command rating, but could increase their hitpoints and morale.

I think that's a good direction however, lets say if two generals were to undergo the same education, they both should have different outcomes due to their different traits and characteristics. Like you said, certain generals should be exposed to different learning curves.
I can't believe the family tree was stripped off and all we get are limited traits and a shallow progression...
but it's good to know I'm not the only one

[Humble Warrior]

Hello TW Community, I'd like to know your opinion on this aspect of the game that I personally find breaks immersion since S2TW

When playing RTW (Vanilla or modded) your general's randomized traits often appear by chance or is highly influenced by his father/mother (ancestry), class/title, tribe/family, experience in governing and battles, dealing with a conquered settlement, and the buildings within the settlement such as an academy and so on. Which imo, is a great feature that breaths life and character into the game and inevitably gives it soul. Also, If your general/character was the designated heir and was stripped of his right, it can add a new trait and eventually cause problems. I believe that was included in S2TW as well.

However, my main concern is that by allowing players to upgrade their general to their liking, this kills their individuality since the player is catering them to their taste rather than having to deal with subjects with various personalities. I know traits have always been there and are still included in R2TW but it has been seriously watered down and feels very limited. However, does anyone here find it as a positive addition to the series?

So, my fellow TW kinsmen, do you like the fact that you could choose their upgrades to increase their command skills, authority, zeal, etc etc? Or would you have preferred to have it the same as RTW, especially in mods like RS2 and EB?

Let me know

A leader`s Generals can be a worse enemy than the enemy`s Generals.


I actually don`t like this system in RTW2 at all, neither did I like it Shogun 2. I much prefered the system in MTW2.

What I loved about MTW2`s system (and RTW and MTW) was that you never knew what you`d get in your General`s. I like to play my strategy games realistically, emulating real leaders of the world`s history. Real leaders couldn`t choose their Generals traits. If you got an alcoholic General, you had to live with it or sack him- But what if your drunk had flashes of brilliance on the battlefield? Are you willing to get rid of him because he`s a drunk and maybe lose a Campaign? Maybe another General you have regularly dances naked in the moonlight and thinks he`s got a blue donkey invisible, but again he wins almost every battle. maybe another General is a wife batterer, but he`s crucial to you winning a war that`s almost lost? Get rid of him now and lose the war? What to do? It created problems like this.

Another thing I liked about MTW2 is sometimes you could CURE them of these bad traits if you took the trouble to. Just like in real life, keep a General constantly moving and he won`t settle and be a drunk or a womaniser. I remember once I had a General who was afraid of Blood, `Afraid of blood? ` I thought, `Right, I`m gonna show you so much blood you won`t believe it!` So I sent him out on every battle possible. He need some baby sitting (due to low morale and running away), but I eventually cancelled his fear of blood with the `Bloodthirsty` trait.

I loved it- It made Generals Human for me.

Big mistake when CA removed it, because they removed an immersive, realistic aspect that evey true Leader had to deal with. But many TW fans whined it away to death.

Now you can choose your General`s traits, something that NO ONE could do in reality.

[Muffin Top]

I whole heartedly agree with you, Humble Warrior!
This made my experience with RTW and M2TW, modded or not, full of character and soul...I didn't know the TW community hated it This is actually one of the main reasons I feel TW lost its essence these days...
I hope CA (highly unlikely) revamp/reintroduce this feature! This rpg element really kills it for me