Too Many Bad Traits?

[Flaminus]

I've restart a new Roman 1-turn Campaign, but just in the second turn, I found many of my characters got bad traits, like Hot-headed, Harsh, Conceited ...
So, my question are:
1. What are triggers of such bad traits? Those traits emerged just in the second turn without any other movement or operation. Are the scripted or just random?
2. Those traits are permanent or not? Could we do something to get rid of them, like winning a battle, making them government officers?

[ur-Lord Tedric]

The traits system remains as it was designed, before a good understanding was gained about Probability and Statistics.

The triggers for many of the low level general traits are indeed random - and can occur every turn - which is why there is a 'problem'. For, with 2 turns per year and about 50 years of life for each character, then there is a good likelihood that every character will get every trait (of that ilk).

So, the result is not entirely as the designers intended, however all is not lost. For the result is still reasonable, for a player will get many characters that 'average out' over their life, with only a few 'outliers' - ie some that are really bad and some that are outstandingly good.

It is therefore incumbent on players to watch their characters, remove/re-purpose/replace the bad ones and get most out of the good ones. It's just a realistic part of the game/simulation.

[Flaminus]

The traits system remains as it was designed, before a good understanding was gained about Probability and Statistics.

The triggers for many of the low level general traits are indeed random - and can occur every turn - which is why there is a 'problem'. For, with 2 turns per year and about 50 years of life for each character, then there is a good likelihood that every character will get every trait (of that ilk).

So, the result is not entirely as the designers intended, however all is not lost. For the result is still reasonable, for a player will get many characters that 'average out' over their life, with only a few 'outliers' - ie some that are really bad and some that are outstandingly good.

It is therefore incumbent on players to watch their characters, remove/re-purpose/replace the bad ones and get most out of the good ones. It's just a realistic part of the game/simulation.

Thanks!
I used the "~ give_trait ... ... -1" method to remove traits when I played original RTW and it seems also works in RS2.6. But the problem is I can't find the right character name, the name displayed in the "character detail scroll" is not the name they used in the program, i think.
So, is there any place that we could find the name list of current characters? Because some really bad random traits are frustrating and ruin a promising general, I think maybe we can do a little modification.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

................ Because some really bad random traits are frustrating and ruin a promising general...................

I've met several 'Generals' like that - seems realistic to me.

[Alavaria]

A bunch of my best generals have these random little negative traits, it still doesn't stop them from having maxed out command and influence.

If anything, it's the game's way of punishing you for taking too long to rack up a hundred or so Clear Victories and settlement captures etc


It amuses me that after conquering everywhere, my top general, at 50 years old, has become a "Tedious Speaker" poor chap. He probably still talks about the Romans, though most of the fellows in his army were born after the roman empire was destroyed

[Humanoid293]

[...] a stupid cousin who enjoys whoring and drinking all the time, only to have him thrust upon the battlefield at a dire hour. several times, through natual mechanics, my stupid drunk cousin has saved rome. not because he leveled up through a screen, but because when the damn barbarians came, he was the only one home. he held it, he earned his upgrades. he was still a drunk idiot, but a drunk idiot thats proved himself.[...]

*chuckle*

[Alavaria]

Should've surrounded Roma with forts then. Why the heck the AI was attacking it in the first place is also worth asking, as the frontier should be well away from there.


The fact that your generals can get worse due to these traits is also why it helps to get them started early. From "16 to 61" is the way to get your 10+starred and 10+ influence generals.

A large number of nice traits are triggered by winning battles (usually "Clear" or "Crushing" victories) so get out there and start stomping on people.




Despite having taken tons and tons (50+?) of settlements, he does not have any of the GoodBesieger traits. Presumably it requires Crushing assault victories, of which he has only a few.


You can see he's both a Fluent Speaker and a Tedious Speaker

[tungri_centurio]

WOW alavaria how the hell do you get that many traits with one guy? did he conquered the world by himself?+rep

[Ovidius Empiricus]

WOW alavaria how the hell do you get that many traits with one guy? did he conquered the world by himself?+rep

He at least conquered all of Italia, Gallia, Greece, and Hispania.... can't do that with many generals. Also, they can't all be King. I don't remember what the Spartan one gets in terms of command stars, but I'm sure it's something.

Besides winning battles, it helps to let them sit and study for several turns (without moving) in cities with academies. And if you want them be great governors, make them governors. Pretty simple. They'll increase their management ranking over time, assuming they're not driving the cities into the ground with crazy tax schemes or not building stuff or failing to deal with corruption and unhappiness and other stuff like that. Usually my problem is trying to redistribute the unneeded management-related ancillaries from established governors to newbs, because they eventually have more enough from traits without that extra boost (and the newbs need the boost, as I'm expanding to new places which will need a new governor).

[tungri_centurio]

He at least conquered all of Italia, Gallia, Greece, and Hispania.... can't do that with many generals. Also, they can't all be King. I don't remember what the Spartan one gets in terms of command stars, but I'm sure it's something.

Besides winning battles, it helps to let them sit and study for several turns (without moving) in cities with academies. And if you want them be great governors, make them governors. Pretty simple. They'll increase their management ranking over time, assuming they're not driving the cities into the ground with crazy tax schemes or not building stuff or failing to deal with corruption and unhappiness and other stuff like that. Usually my problem is trying to redistribute the unneeded management-related ancillaries from established governors to newbs, because they eventually have more enough from traits without that extra boost (and the newbs need the boost, as I'm expanding to new places which will need a new governor).

yea but that many traits i have never seen

in my roman campaign all my young FM go to cannae,within 10turns they have 5managment,3influence.
dunno why but did not build something special there,even no ludus magnus in there.from there on they travel to other city's

[Flaminus]

Thank you guys, now i get a better understanding.

[Grimbold]

The best course for your FMs/generals is to have him out in the field and battle for a while. You could have one stay in an city for his entire life and he'd still be crap at managing it.

Quite a while back - i think it was on RS forum that this was mentioned - it was said that the way to "grow" your characters differed according to your faction's culture, meaning if you play a "barbarian" faction, you'd need to have your chars out in the field battleing, while with "civilized" factions it'd be better to have them start off in the cities for a few turns.

Dunno if this is still in place, but regardless of culture, i just have all my chars out on the field, which is why i sometimes have 3 to 5 characters in one single army. Maybe 2 or 3 out of those, will start gaining some major bonuses (command, management etc).

Also, i believe this is was back in XGM mod, but if you built academies and what not, the character in that city would improve, management wise. Again, dunno if this applies to today's RS.


Edit: Alavaria, did you manage to put 4 turns into your 1 turn campaign or what?

[Alavaria]

Alavaria, did you manage to put 4 turns into your 1 turn campaign or what?

Why do so many people jump to this assumption? This is just 2 turns per year on a 0-turn campaign. He starts the campaign as a 16 year old (with completed Agoge and everything) and started a murder spree across the world.

It's just that the campaign is 66 or so turns in and most of the world has been conquered is all. As he starts as the heir and the faction leader is super old and dies pretty fast, he's the leader of the faction since he was 20 or something like that. Even so, he is only a "Natural Born General" and cannot achieve the level of that trait that is given to Hannibal at the start (ie: Military Genius).


Actually a lot of my other generals have a mega long list of traits. There are a few who also have multiple "conqueror of" traits.

if you built academies and what not, the character in that city would improve, management wise. Again, dunno if this applies to today's RS.

For management it does.

The traits/ancillaries that affect command (and generally influence as well) are best obtained battlewise.

[Alavaria]

Just a simple academy is enough to get a bunch of nice traits/ancillaries for management (and somewhat for influence).

It's a handy building due to giving law, so I have them everywhere, the governors run to their spot while 16years old and train while governing

[Alavaria]

Oh man, such bad luck, my #2 general lost his Hierax (scout) title and instead he got this...

Such is life. Probably too many two-handed lances (kontos, I think) to the face when fighting Seleucid Generals... (The Spartan Bodyguard is pretty much the best spear unit ever) Now I am actually careful because I don't want these guys to die, so usually they enter the fight only after the enemy has been properly tested and tired by a unit or two of cheaper Ekdromoi hoplites.

Because nothing like "anti-cataraphact force" like a bunch of guys with no armor beyond a helmet and their shirt.

[Ownager]

Such is life. Probably too many two-handed lances (kontos, I think)

Xyston. Kontos are Persian.

[Grimbold]

Scarred liked tittles are the most common thing for a general that hangs around on the field.

[tungri_centurio]

the kontos and xyston where cavalry spears and used with both hands,the dory was used by hoplites and was used single handed.
the kontos however a persian weapon is developed mid or early 1 century AD.possibly by the sassanid persians(or before by parthia)
source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontos_(weapon)

[Ownager]

Yeah I knew that, but according to Europa Barbarorum the Kontos was in use during the Parthian and Armenian Kingdoms before the 1st century.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Alavaria]

Yeah I knew that, but according to Europa Barbarorum the Kontos was in use during the Parthian and Armenian Kingdoms before the 1st century.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well poor Pelops had not fought Armenia/Parthia. Just the various seleucid heavy horse.

I was wondering the difference between some (xystonphoroi) who use lance one-handed vs the cataraphacts etc who use their lance two-handed. Mostly because the latter looks better, compared to the one-handed lance users who don't know how to carry a shield or something. (Lonchophoroi use a shield, though I think it isn't the same lance).