Little things that drive you crazy

[SirRobin]

Some little things just drive me crazy in this game, even though they are not all that important in the big picture.

For example:

1: Castles are supposed to have stronger defences than cities, but actually cities are as strong as castles. Sometimes stronger.

(both have the same weak gates, but cities have towers that can shoot at attackers on the walls, castles for some weird reason don't. Castles have stronger walls than cities, as far as I know, but this doesn't matter, as the AI basically always only makes a ram, a ladder and a siege tower.)

2: The family tree seems useless, since the game dishes out capable generals liberally, as adoptions etc. No point in marrying into other factions.

3: Traits are a random mess, with most characters a spammy jumble of bizarre personality traits aquired seemingly for no reason. I know that the game has triggers for traits, but these are so convoluted as to be nearly meaningless.

What's your personal "pet peeves"?

[Nzg]

1,2 and 3 - You're not entirely correct.

1 - Castles have towers as well, i noticed that the gate is a bit tougher. In addition, Enemy often uses siege weapons, castles can withstand more.

2 - If you run your family tree correctly(with no adoptions), you'll notice that you can build quite nice family. Marrying with other factions is also usefull. It boosts you'r relations. For example, I had an alliance with Russia as Poland, that lasted whole game and was the strongest one in my M2 history. Last game I had a marriage alliance France-Spain, it was also very strong. There also is quite good guide for this in quides section. Check it out

3 - Most of the traits are given after some actions. For example, you can get "good armour"(can't remember the exact name, +4 to general's hp), only after aquiring addequate blacksmith lvl. After building churches for example you get "chivalrous leader". When in a town with brothel you can get "drunk" traits. Even some of the starting traits are based on something("feared father" etc.), there should be a list somewhere on the forum.

[UndrState]

Totally agree with Nzg - especially about the traits. I've read the triggers for the various traits and to me it seems like they're all quite logical and meaningful, with the possible exception of the BattleDread/BattleChivalry split, and even that is avoidable if you go into battles with the odds against you to snag the BattleChiv.

Not that this is a bad topic SirRobin, but I kinda had a visceral reaction to your statements.

***

My pet peeve, skirmish mode - maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I've never seen a skirmisher that wasn't on horseback that could save their own lives, even when I have nice line of spearmen that they can run behind for safety.

If someone knows how to use this effectively, please explain.

[Nzg]

About those things that annoy me, last time I had a open field battle. Not many woods, some lone trees standing. I charged foot knights with my feudal knights and just before the charge a whole squad of foot knights hid under a single tree causing my knightst to get ambushed. Illogical, annoying and it really drove me crazy. Lost the battle because of that.

[Pakana]

Generally I love the game.

But most annoying things are poor siege AI and the thing that on campaign map AI very often has only 1 or 2 units in cities as defence. I think if you exploit these you can win the game with only peasants.

About the traits. I think it would be better if they were shown as icons. Now you got so much text there that you need to scroll it up and down. It is a mess. I like the aspect that the generals have different traits, but now I don't spend almost any time on checking them out. Also while you conquer city, it is very rare that I remember what family member I was attacking with. I can't even remember if it was dread or chivalry guy. It would be nice to see the stats while you select between occupying and exterminating.

Adoptions seem to me very strange. Sometimes you check out your family tree and all the characters are about the same age. No matter that they are actually fathers, sons and grand fathers. Thou I have not read about how it happened historically. Did families really adopt like crazy like they do in M2?

I don't quite like the victory conditions either. 45 provinces. All factions have the same (well some need Rome while others need Jerusalem). Civ games had this better that you can have different goals. Even M1 had this better, glorious achievements.

One way to calculate score would be to add the combined level of chivalry of all your generals across the years. It would make it more fun to play again and try to have better score.

[SirRobin]

My apologies if my thread caused any viceral reactions Maybe I should have started with a disclaimer saying that generally, I like the game, and that I am just nitpicking in this thread. I like that sometimes. Yes, I'm quite popular at parties.

About the castle towers: Yes, castles have towers, but the towers cannot fire upon the battlements to support your defending troops. What gives?

Also, castles don't have more powerful/faster firing towers than cities, as far as I can see. Basically, castles and cities seem to have the same firepower. Not sure if the castle gate is a bit stronger than the city gate, but if so, it's very little.

About the family tree: I always try to keep the bloodline pure, so all family members are directly related and the crown goes from father to son. I do this because it "feels right" and that it's a nice challenge.

But as far as I can see, there's no tangible benefit to doing this, is that correct?

(marriage alliances have some merit, but in MTW1 you could even inherit lands if the bride's family were vanquished. Haven't seen that happen in MTW2)


Traits: Yes I know there are triggers for the traits, but since you usually need to build all the buildings in all the cities eventually, what you end up with is a seemingly random mess of all the various traits. Are the triggers meaningful? Well, would the king become alcoholic because there's an inn down in the town? Surely he drinks the best wine in a grand hall in the castle, not down at the pub...

I just had a prince turn into a "cruel leader". Why? Apparently because he's now the governor of a city with a "normal" tax level.

[Nzg]

Hmm... Note that the greatest castles(citadel for example), have 2 layers of walls to breach(I once stopped whole Mongol army at Mosul because of that). Castles also are on a higher ground meaning siege equipment(towers mostly) need more time to reach the walls. I had seen a siege tower burn a lot more when defending in a castle.

About the traits, you don't allways need to build all the buildings. With some factions you can stop with the first lvl church. I tend not to build brothels. I usually have 2 cities with them. In cities the governor has his mansion, maybe he tends to go to brothels and than becomes a drunk?

[UndrState]

...

About the family tree: I always try to keep the bloodline pure, so all family members are directly related and the crown goes from father to son. I do this because it "feels right" and that it's a nice challenge.

But as far as I can see, there's no tangible benefit to doing this, is that correct?

(marriage alliances have some merit, but in MTW1 you could even inherit lands if the bride's family were vanquished. Haven't seen that happen in MTW2)


Traits: Yes I know there are triggers for the traits, but since you usually need to build all the buildings in all the cities eventually, what you end up with is a seemingly random mess of all the various traits. Are the triggers meaningful? Well, would the king become alcoholic because there's an inn down in the town? Surely he drinks the best wine in a grand hall in the castle, not down at the pub...

I just had a prince turn into a "cruel leader". Why? Apparently because he's now the governor of a city with a "normal" tax level.

No, there's no tangible benefit, it's, at best a, roleplaying thing - but in that sense it also adds a level of gameplay, in that keeping your family in control of your faction's destiny, and also keeping them well bred

THIS is my go to source for understanding how the traits work - here's an excerpt to answer your question:

"Mean Leader (StrategyDread 1)- +1 Dread, gained after 1 point of
StrategyDread
Cruel Leader (StrategyDread 2)- +2 Dread, upgrade after 2 points of
StrategyDread
Merciless Leader (StrategyDread 3)- +3 Dread, +1 Authority, upgrade after 4
points of StrategyDread
Malevolent Leader (StrategyDread 4)- +4 Dread, +2 Authority, epithet "the
Malevolent", upgrade after 8 points of StrategyDread
Tyranical Leader (StrategyDread 5)- +5 Dread, +3 Authority, epithet "the
Tyrant", upgrade after 16 points of StrategyDread

Again, they misspelled "Tyrannical", not me.

StrategyDread has StrategyChivalry as an antitrait.
A faction leader gains a point of StrategyDread with 5% probability when they
order a successful spying mission, with 50% probability when they order a
successful assassin mission, with 25% probability when they order a failed
assassination mission or a bribery.
A general who has no levels of StrategyChivalry who accepts a bribe gains 4
points of StrategyDread. A general gains a point of StrategyDread when he
exterminates the population.
A governor who creates an assassin gains a point of StrategyDread. A
governor who creates a spy gains a point with 33% probability.
At the end of any turn, a governor who is in a settlement for more than three
turns, a tax level of extortionate, and a loyalty less than happy with a
treasury greater than 10000 gains a point of StrategyDread with 33%
probability.
At the end of any turn, if the treasury is over 50000, any general with no
levels of StrategyChivalry gain a point of StrategyDread with 33%
probability."

[SirRobin]

THIS is my go to source for understanding how the traits work - here's an excerpt to answer your question:

Thanks a lot for sharing. I guess my problem with the traits is two-fold. First of all, many of the triggers seem bizarre, for example:

A general who has no levels of StrategyChivalry who accepts a bribe gains 4
points of StrategyDread. A general gains a point of StrategyDread when he
exterminates the population.

Accepting a bribe makes you feared? In fact it makes you 4 times more feared than massacring the population of a whole city?

At the end of any turn, if the treasury is over 50000, any general with no
levels of StrategyChivalry gain a point of StrategyDread with 33%
probability.

Being rich makes you feared?

A governor who creates a spy gains a point with 33% probability.

Gathering intelligence might make you feared, if you spy against your own people like you could in MTW1. But just sending agents to other lands to snoop should be seen as a matter of course. It would be foolish not to.


The other problem I have with traits is that many of them seem to be mutually impossible. For example, my current king is a "political animal" and really good with taxes, but he's also a complete dimwit.


Eventually I stop really caring about these characters, because they seem too random. I know each trait is the result of certain triggers, but the result just seems so silly...

[Maklodes]

About the family tree: I always try to keep the bloodline pure, so all family members are directly related and the crown goes from father to son. I do this because it "feels right" and that it's a nice challenge.

But as far as I can see, there's no tangible benefit to doing this, is that correct?

Adoption tends to give the adoptee's brothers bad traits and stuff.

From export_descr_character_traits.txt

;------------------------------------------Trigger family1 WhenToTest BrotherAdopted Affects Anger 1 Chance 5 Affects Arse 1 Chance 1 Affects Corrupt 1 Chance 5 Affects Slothful 1 Chance 4 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger family2 WhenToTest BrotherAdopted Affects Girls 1 Chance 5 Affects Gambling 1 Chance 5 Affects ExpensiveTastes 1 Chance 5 Affects Disloyal 1 Chance 8 Affects Unjust 1 Chance 10 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger family3 WhenToTest BrotherAdopted Affects Paranoia 1 Chance 5 Affects HarshRuler 1 Chance 10

Thanks a lot for sharing. I guess my problem with the traits is two-fold. First of all, many of the triggers seem bizarre, for example:

Accepting a bribe makes you feared? In fact it makes you 4 times more feared than massacring the population of a whole city?

Being rich makes you feared?

A lot of weird things add to dread...

"King Tancred the Merciless is leading the enemy army! I'm terrified! I definitely wore my routing shoes today!" "What's so scary about him?" "Well, he's attempted to give lots of money to people to switch sides and fight for him, or just go away." "Uh... any chance he'll do that with us?" "Maybe! Not only that, but he curses a lot! He's utterly profane!" "Okay... I'm still not seeing what's so scary about..." "Not just that, but he cheats on his wife! With two women and a man! A local adultress from Naples, an outlander adultress from Thessalonica, and a foreign fruitcake from Tunis!" "Right, so he's obviously not Christendom's greatest husband, but I'm still not..." "HE HAS 10 DREAD! HE IS AN EXTREMELY SCARY RULER! TRUST ME!"

[SirRobin]

Adoption tends to give the adoptee's brothers bad traits and stuff.

I never knew that, thanks !

Utterly bizarre, too. It would make more sense if the other brother(s) got traits like jealousy, especially if the adopted brother stood to inherit the crown. Oh, those civil wars of MTW1, how I miss them...

[Aeratus]

There's a lot wrong with walls and towers. Another problem is that lower level walls (the wooden) are way more effective than the bigger walls. The first reason is that archers are unable to fire downward. Thus, when the wall is too high, they are simply unable aim at units which are below the firing arc. The second reason is that the smaller wall can only fit two rows of men on top. Thus, it is difficult for the attacker to mass enough men onto the wall without getting fatigued.

[SirRobin]

There's a lot wrong with walls and towers. Another problem is that lower level walls (the wooden) are way more effective than the bigger walls. The first reason is that archers are unable to fire downward. Thus, when the wall is too high, they are simply unable aim at units which are below the firing arc. The second reason is that the smaller wall can only fit two rows of men on top. Thus, it is difficult for the attacker to mass enough men onto the wall without getting fatigued.

I'm happy I'm not the only one to notice this. In fact, it seems the bigger the city, the worse the defence, which is ridiculous... Never noticed the element of lack of space on the wall though.

About castles, it seems their towers have either shorter range or more restricted fields of fire than city-towers, or both.

And speaking of fortifications, the castles in this game look absolutely amazing, but they have a useless design for defending. For example, each layer of walls is too distant to fire at attackers as they take the outer walls. Also, you cannot reliably withdraw troops to inner layers. So, in effect, a 3-layer castle attack just plays out as 3 consecutive individual sieges.

There is so much they could do with the sieges in terms of gameplay.. I love castles, but the sieges in this game seem all good looks and not much gameplay.

[Pakana]

Being rich makes you feared?

Yes. If the king hoards all the money there is no money left for the people? Having lots of money can also be seen as having lots of resources and power. Think about USA or Soviets in cold war. If they wanted to do something to some poor nation, how could you stop them?

The other option is that the king spends lots of money. When he spends money it goes to the people.

On the adoption thing. I never thought it can make the "brothers" mad. Makes sense and now I have a good reason not to adopt people.

[SirRobin]

Being rich makes you feared?

Yes. If the king hoards all the money there is no money left for the people? Having lots of money can also be seen as having lots of resources and power. Think about USA or Soviets in cold war. If they wanted to do something to some poor nation, how could you stop them?

You have a point, but when you have lots of money in the game, it's usually because you have been spending lots on farmland, markets, ports and all other things that brings prosperity to the people.

And if you are a powerful country with lots of money, that should scare the other kings. Dread affects your own people.

[TheWanderer]

I've just lost my first big battle although at some point I had advantage but then my general got killed and everything went wrong, however I was not dissatisfied since I was vastly outnumbered and they lost more troops. After the battle had been finished, I realized that the winning side gets its prisoners automatically released. This is by far the most retarded thing I've seen in the game so far, now I have to fight the same 500 troops again. There should at least be the option to execute prisoners during the battle like in the "original" MTW.

[Pakana]

I've just lost my first big battle although at some point I had advantage but then my general got killed and everything went wrong, however I was not dissatisfied since I was vastly outnumbered and they lost more troops. After the battle had been finished, I realized that the winning side gets its prisoners automatically released. This is by far the most retarded thing I've seen in the game so far, now I have to fight the same 500 troops again. There should at least be the option to execute prisoners during the battle like in the "original" MTW.

No. If some of the enemy troops are beaten down into submission, while your troops are on some other location fighting and losing, how would they manage to execute the prisoners?

[TheWanderer]

No. If some of the enemy troops are beaten down into submission, while your troops are on some other location fighting and losing, how would they manage to execute the prisoners?

And other than that, the game is 100% realistic, right? Well guess what, it's not. The prisoners are stored in a magical invisible parallel universe until the end of the battle so killing them over there is not less realistic than their being there in the first place. What if I didn't want to take prisoners in the first place but kill the routing troops instead? Which is what we actually see on the battlefield.

[SirRobin]

No. If some of the enemy troops are beaten down into submission, while your troops are on some other location fighting and losing, how would they manage to execute the prisoners?

I always imagined that the prisoners were rounded up and sent back to the unseen off-map army camp, to be held there until the battle ends and their fate decided. I know the game shows people lying around where they got caught, but that doesn't make much sense if you think about it too literally.

[Aymer de Valence]

there's no tangible benefit to doing this, is that correct?

Correct, it's just a nice challenge. Loyalty in MTW2 isn't as dynamic as it could have been, but alas.....still the best TW game out there.

The main thing that annoys me about the game is the inability to pick faction heirs - you are stuck with whoever the game dictates is next in line, for better or worse. In my Venetian campaign, my 45 year old faction leader became......'Mad'. Unfortunately this rubbed off on his 20 year old son/ faction heir too. The result? The result was that my faction leaders would have this accursed trait for the next 60 - 80 YEARS or so unless I deliberately killed them in battle.

The other thing that annoys me is that most units seem to have a slower reaction time to the other games in the series. Perhaps it's a deliberate game mechanic representing unruly units (e.g peasant archers) disobeying orders, but it is frustrating seeing a unit of peasant archers being charged down by mounted knights because they didn't respond to my orders to pull back quick enough.

These really are clutching at straws though, love MTW2