Concerned about character household, traits, and skills

[Riekopo]

In the Army Management Feature Spotlight video CA showed us a lot of new stuff regarding army leaders and armies. A lot of it seems really good, but some of it concerns me. It's great that characters can marry, the UI looks improved, a loyalty mechanic is great, and the skills are now in a tree.


However, there are some things that concern me. It appears that characters can still only have three traits just like in Rome 2. In the previous games traits were the most interesting thing about characters and they could have more than three. I'm not sure how many exactly. Where your character was, what he was doing, etc determined the traits he got and they were all interesting. It was great immersion and roleplaying. It made the character feel alive. Now however, the traits system seems to be getting sidelined for the household and skills tree.


The household system concerns me because it appears to basically be an inventory system that has a magical effect on your character and/or army. Nobody liked the magical abilities in battles so I don't see why anyone would like magical abilities on their character. At first I thought the household would function like a retinue/retainer system with you gathering followers. However, it appears you can equip items that give you bonuses like in a RPG. This is too far for me. I don't think that makes sense as a mechanic in Total War.


I am disappointed that CA have kept the Authority, Cunning, and Zeal system. I never liked those as I felt they were unintuitive and too abstract. I think the Command, Chivalry/Dread, Authority/Loyalty, and Piety system in Medieval 2 was a lot better and makes more sense. Or the Command, Management, and Influence system from Rome 1. Ideally, I would set it up like this. Command would be how good a general your character is. It would replace rank. Management would be how good a governor your character is. Influence would be how politically powerful your character is. Loyalty would be as it is. The character you play as, instead of having Loyalty would have Authority. Piety would possibly be in the game depending on how fleshed out the religion mechanics are.


The skill tree also concerns me. In Shogun 2's skill tree many skills unlocked something and had a profound effect on your character and game. However, Attila's skill tree seems to be like Rome 2's where the skills are uninteresting and merely unlock small percentage bonuses. Actually, this issue seems to be rampant based on this video. The "Effects Summary" shows a huge list of small uninteresting bonuses. Managing massive numbers of percentage bonuses is not fun or interesting. It's very dull and tedious.


http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/...4044803544.jpg

http://www.mobygames.com/images/shot...lding-here.jpg

[Sheridan]

Agreed on all points. There appears to be space for more than 3 traits, perhaps the double, but it doesn't conclude if a character will be able to have more unfortunately.

On the household bonuses, most of it doesn't make any sense at all. For a start, shouldn't the characters themselves pick their own household retainers? It seems like an effort on CA's side to involve the player more, but it's both tedious and really just detracts from having characters develop independently as they should be doing - it's the thing that gives them personality and individuality. That's what made them unique back in the days -they felt like individuals shaped by their environment and experiences and their personality (based on traits and retinues) made you actually form an opinion about them, be it positive or negative, and using them accordingly. Some of the household bonuses look utterly useless, like +5% here and there just isn't interesting and in some cases even lacks attachment to reality.

Last but not least, the effects summary.. come on CA :p

All the bonuses can already be found in their respective skill or tech tree. There's little point in listing them again - in fact it only occupies space that could be used for better purposes, such as listing effects a disease would have on your army. Now, these will be more difficult to find, because they're imbedded in long lists.

[Linke]

I agree with you but its anying when you get traits that you dont want or that dont fit in with the others.

[Abdülmecid I]

I completely agree with you, OP. Since Shogun, TW has turned family management to Warcraf-style levelling system. I personally despise it and I'm afraid the household system is another step to the wrong direction. We already have ridiculous bonuses, we don't any enhanced Bow of Diana to increase our archers' hitpoints.

[Flavius Julius Nepos Augustus]

All those in favor say AYE!
Give life back to characters!

I agree with you but its anying when you get traits that you dont want or that dont fit in with the others.

Qui est vita


PS: in Rome and Medieval you can trade some traits if the characters are on the same place

[Huberto]

The household system concerns me because it appears to basically be an inventory system that has a magical effect on your character and/or army. Nobody liked the magical abilities in battles so I don't see why anyone would like magical abilities on their character. At first I thought the household would function like a retinue/retainer system with you gathering followers. However, it appears you can equip items that give you bonuses like in a RPG. This is too far for me. I don't think that makes sense as a mechanic in Total War.

No it doesn't make sense in TW, if TW were a series about military campaigns and building empires, but this is the New TW after all and we are likely to see Warhammer next, so it does makes sense, albeit in a disappointing way. All I can say is that it could be worse, which I recognize is not saying much. The Constantinople reveal was pretty cool though so we'll always have that.

[Fredrin]

Good OP,blackberryalpha. This sums up a lot of my own concerns very nicely. Who can deny that occasional but deep sense of irritation you feel when you go to end a turn and are confronted with a list of 20 odd generals/armies/agents that need upgrading in some insignificant way that will make little to no difference to your campaign.

The danger with much of the proposed character skills tree and household style improvements is that they are likely to worsen this kind of shallow, meaningless micromanagement without actually addressing the real problem: characters will still not feel particularly human/relatable. Until CA put some imagination into how they can help players actually engage with family members, we're likely just to see more of this button-clicking mundanity... and with Attila being based on Rome 2, it seems likely we're going to get more of the same before the radical overhaul that is really required.

There is complexity for the sake of it and then complex game mechanics that are interesting to figure out/play around with... let's hope Attila will have enough of the latter

[Doe3000]

I liked the old system they had with Rome and Medieval 2, although that too had its flaws. For instance, you could usually end up with long lived generals getting a mass of completely contradictory traits such as being simultaneously brave and cowardly, or boring and adventurous etc. You also ended up with other problems - I remember that in my Welsh Campaign for the Kingdoms' Britannia, nearly all of my generals ended up with the insane trait.

[Humble Warrior]

I liked the old system they had with Rome and Medieval 2, although that too had its flaws. For instance, you could usually end up with long lived generals getting a mass of completely contradictory traits such as being simultaneously brave and cowardly, or boring and adventurous etc. You also ended up with other problems - I remember that in my Welsh Campaign for the Kingdoms' Britannia, nearly all of my generals ended up with the insane trait.

I loved the traits that popped up as a result of their lifestyles.

MTW2 was the ONLY game I actually started writing my own personal AARs for detailing the characteristic quirks of my Generals. This was before I realised people did AARs and could post them on TWC, I might have done a couple for MTW1 as well actually. I`d have a little journal book and write the events down whenever I played!

But I don`t think CA of today have any real clue what made their games great. The Atilla depth is nice, but it isn`t clever, as in it doesn`t treat each General like individuals you govern. They`re more like robots you add skills too. That`s not how a King deals with Generals in reality. In reality he chooses the best men for the job then sends them on their jobs hoping they`ll turn out even better. MTW2 allowed you to do that, warts and all. That`s what we really need.

[RogueLeader]

I loved the traits that popped up as a result of their lifestyles.

MTW2 was the ONLY game I actually started writing my own personal AARs for detailing the characteristic quirks of my Generals. This was before I realised people did AARs and could post them on TWC, I might have done a couple for MTW1 as well actually. I`d have a little journal book and write the events down whenever I played!

But I don`t think CA of today have any real clue what made their games great. The Atilla depth is nice, but it isn`t clever, as in it doesn`t treat each General like individuals you govern. They`re more like robots you add skills too. That`s not how a King deals with Generals in reality. In reality he chooses the best men for the job then sends them on their jobs hoping they`ll turn out even better. MTW2 allowed you to do that, warts and all. That`s what we really need.

Humble I usually agree with what you say but didnt you just say you liked the look of this with another post? This looks like Rome 2 again just reorganized a bit with an add on here and there.

[Cope]

I've got to agree that the whole traits thing looks like its mess. Just a tonne of modifiers to armies, generals, agents etc. You know after a while you're simply not going to care and it will get boring spending 5 minutes of every turn just clicking the same buttons over and over again.

In addition, I agree that the zeal, cunning and authority things are counter intuitive and pretty meaningless. I've played countless hours of Rome II and I still have no real idea what the difference between them is. They are indistinct and ambiguous. The same can be said for agents, non of which feel unique. I wouldn't be surprised if we continue to see the ridiculous agent spam in Attila. I mean are we meant to be impressed that they've finally added in a top down skill tree instead of that disorganized mass of boxes?

In any event, if you want to bring characters to life, then really you should be looking at the way its done in Crusader Kings II. In other words, characters should automatically acquire their traits based on their in game actions, not just the player clicking on the same bloody skill tree every single turn.

Sadly, CA seem to have no idea what they are doing anymore.

[Zwirbaum]

I've got to agree that the whole traits thing looks like its mess. Just a tonne of modifiers to armies, generals, agents etc. You know after a while you're simply not going to care and it will get boring spending 5 minutes of every turn just clicking the same buttons over and over again.

In addition, I agree that the zeal, cunning and authority things are counter intuitive and pretty meaningless. I've played countless hours of Rome II and I still have no real idea what the difference between them is. They are indistinct and ambiguous. The same can be said for agents, non of which feel unique. I wouldn't be surprised if we continue to see the ridiculous agent spam in Attila. I mean are we meant to be impressed that they've finally added in a top down skill tree instead of that disorganized mass of boxes?

In any event, if you want to bring characters to life, then really you should be looking at the way its done in Crusader Kings II. In other words, characters should automatically acquire their traits based on their in game actions, not just the player clicking on the same bloody skill tree every single turn.

Sadly, CA seem to have no idea what they are doing anymore.

Zeal - modifies commander unit's weapon/missile damage based on the Zeal.
Zeal above 3 increases weapon/missile damage while below 3 decreases.
Also at 4,7,10 and (forgot next thresholds) it gives special abilities to your commander starting with War Cry at 4 zeal.

Cunning - modifies recharging rate of special abilities based on the Cunning
Cunning above 3 increases while below 3 decreases.
Also at 4,7,10 and next threshold unlocks special abilities for your commander starting with Second Wind at 4 cunning

Authority - modifies command aura radius.
Above 3 increases, while below 3 decreases
Also at 4,7,10 and next threshold unlocks special abilities starting with Inspire at 4 authority.

Also Authority/Zeal/Cunning are used to check against enemy agents actions. The higher your value of said attribute, the greater chance you have to avoid enemy agent action.

Simple as that

[Fredrin]

Zeal - modifies commander unit's weapon/missile damage based on the Zeal.
Zeal above 3 increases weapon/missile damage while below 3 decreases.
Also at 4,7,10 and (forgot next thresholds) it gives special abilities to your commander starting with War Cry at 4 zeal.

Cunning - modifies recharging rate of special abilities based on the Cunning
Cunning above 3 increases while below 3 decreases.
Also at 4,7,10 and next threshold unlocks special abilities for your commander starting with Second Wind at 4 cunning

Authority - modifies command aura radius.
Above 3 increases, while below 3 decreases
Also at 4,7,10 and next threshold unlocks special abilities starting with Inspire at 4 authority.

Also Authority/Zeal/Cunning are used to check against enemy agents actions. The higher your value of said attribute, the greater chance you have to avoid enemy agent action.

Simple as that

Thanks for clarifying for those that didn't know, but ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

What real impact does any of this have on how you play the game?

Commander units are generally soft as hell even after the highest modifiers, so I will regularly go several battles in a row without using special abilities. How often is it you come up against a battle that is challenging enough to need them anyway? Very rarely. How often have special abilities genuinely swung the tide of battle? Even more rarely.

Also, speccing a general to be particularly resistant to a particular kind of agent seems like madness to me. You have no idea which type you're going to encounter on the campaign map, so it's just a convenient bonus if your general happens to have the right attribute endowment when you do.

In regards to teaming generals with agents, to give one example, using a spy for counter-intelligence in an army has always just seemed like a waste to me when they could be out actively sabotaging your opponent.

The summation of these points is that Zeal/Cunning/Authority are a generally redundant set of features that only the obsessive would bother paying much attention to.

[Doe3000]

Looking at the list of what Zeal, Cunning and Authority does, I noticed how unintuitive Rome II tends to be in comparison to the old games. Back in those days, the systems were easy to understand because they reflected real life in many ways - for instance if your general had the 'insane' character trait, it generally wasn't good to put him in charge of a large army. Also, you knew it wasn't a good idea to charge light cavalry head on onto the enemy's pikes because they'd get slaughtered. Now it's a weird mess - apparently building a delicatessen causes the peasants to riot, while having a general with cunning causes his men to recharge their fire javelins faster.

With the older games you tended to check the manual to understand the controls, but with Rome II I find myself checking the (annoyingly slow) encyclopedia just to find out what building a dockyard does, just in case it has some weird in-built negative modifier.

[EmperorBatman999]

My question is whether or not the Warscape engine is actually capable of allowing for the same level of characterization seen in previous games? Since Empire, we've gotten a slew of games with very one-dimensional characters. Even Shogun II was lacking in this department. Perhaps Warscape is just as bad with the campaign as it is with battles. It seems like there is a real disconnect between everything with this engine. This has the consequence of detaching characters from the environment.