Generals, Army, Agents Automated/Random Skill selection

[Garensterz]

As I have played Rome 1 through the days, I always liked the feature that my generals and spy's having randomized traits depending through their quests of choice. In Rome 2, when my empire gets huge and having numerous Generals and Agents the skill selection gets a bit old and becomes boring at times. And I just wanted them to automatically pick their own skills when they reach a new level.

So the question is, do you guys think that having these Automated Skill selection as an option (can be set individually) for Generals and Agents would be a good idea for Attila and better yet also in Rome 2? Not just that, but it feels more realistic rather than the user player picks the Generals/Agent's behaviour.

Edited:

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE ON WHAT'S LISTED ABOVE AND YOU THINK YOU HAVE OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO POST IT BELOW.

[Abdülmecid I]

Probably, it's my biggest gripe with the new TW games. The trait system is essentially replaced ruined by a ridiculous levelling system, like we're playing DOTA. I'm really amazed that there's not a more decisive reaction on behalf of the TW community against that stupidity. And I used to consider myself as one of the most casual TW players...

[Garensterz]

Probably, it's my biggest gripe with the new TW games. The trait system is essentially replaced ruined by a ridiculous levelling system, like we're playing DOTA. I'm really amazed that there's not a more decisive reaction on behalf of the TW community against that stupidity. And I used to consider myself as one of the most casual TW players...

And yet you voted "Not a good idea?" I'm confused.


Just to be clear though. I do not want Rome 2 skill feature to be replaced entirely, I was suggesting for an optional skill leveling for individual Generals/Agents to be automated. For example, I wanted General B,C,D to make their skills automated but still I wanted General A to be still manually pick their skills by pressing a button.

Please, feel free to voice out your opinions on this.

[stevehoos]

I want everything in game -generals/agents- to be randomized by the game -hopefully based on your actions. What's the fun of creating the exact same general every time because you know what traits best fit your playing style. It takes away the uniqueness of your characters when you select all the level ups.

[Garensterz]

I want everything in game -generals/agents- to be randomized by the game -hopefully based on your actions. What's the fun of creating the exact same general every time because you know what traits best fit your playing style. It takes away the uniqueness of your characters when you select all the level ups.

Exactly, like the classics right? When you work your General's butt on siege battles and gets him the siege expertise trait afterwards? Yes they did it right in Rome 1. But at least my suggestion above would likely please both types of gamers, by making the randomized traits and skills, etc. as an optional decision. Not similar to Rome 1 but it's still close. I think we all know CA won't rewrite all those codes just to bring back the old randomized skill/traits and there is no way in hell they will make it in time for release if they do so.

So think of it like it's an autoresolve feature for battles. As soon as the General/Army or Agent increased their first level, you will be given an option to Automate them on what's available in the skills/traits poll. So it's up to you if you wanted the skills Automated or Manually selected, in general it's still your choice.

[Butan]

Good idea.

I like to have triggerable skills but not selectable ones.
One other reason (apart from allowing for min-maxing) is that it can quickly become a bore when you have multiple agents/generals all needing your attention every few turns. With a random skilling, you can have FUBAR results but they are funny to play with (gotta adapt to them) and it makes up for the few time you have OP skill/ancillaries combiations where you basically have a god of war ready. Where in Rome 2 you can easily spec up all your generals to be gods of war, making it both unimportant and boring.

[PeonKing]

I preferred Shogun 2's method, with an actual skill tree you could go down, and plot out the direction where you're going. The Rome 2 skill sets seem very disorganized to me, it's at least a poor way to display the information, particularly considering how unfriendly the encyclopedia is so looking up info is difficult. All of the Rome 2 traits are basically straight stat boosts, unlike in Shogun 2, where if you built a Warrior-General, you could make them have a pretty devastating charge (or in RoTS become an awesome Cav. Archer) or you could make a Leader-General(I know redundant title) that had stand and fight, which was an awesome buff for castle defenses in particular, or a Statesman-General that made capturing new provinces smoother, army upkeep cheaper, and increased loyalty/honor. It was nice, I actually did use variations of General traits and would actually feel at a disadvantage when I accidentally used the wrong General for the wrong thing. In Rome 2, I basically build every General the same way, one because it doesn't seem to really matter that much, and two because high zeal makes your General a juggernaut in melee.

So no, I don't think randomization is better. I'd prefer a better displayed, more meaningful leveling system like Shogun 2. I mean I can kind of understand where they were going with the less detailed leveling system in Rome 2, because you end up fielding multiple Generals for the same army since Generals were designed to die and be replaced, it would be frustrating if your specialized level 7-8 General die and get replaced with a crap level 1 General so they basically made leveling less important. That removed the problem by replacing it with a bland choice, it's too bad they didn't just make the skills hereditary or something.

[Påsan]

Nah randomized is by far the best system, as best seen in Stainless Steel or CK2. It feels much more organic and real than some sort of skill level selection.


"I'm going to make the best admiral in the world from a guy that have never seen the sea"

[Clock]

I prefer the skill tree system of S2 myself, as I found it invested me far more in my Generals and Agents than the random skills of previous titles. R2 was a bit of a mess without the trees, but I did like that they expanded this system to include army skills too. I'm glad we're returning to clearly defined trees in Attila. I do agree with this though -

"I'm going to make the best admiral in the world from a guy that have never seen the sea"

For me, the perfect system would be a skill tree, but one in which skills can't only be unlocked by experience, but by completing certain actions. So to unlock 'admiral' skills, for example, you'd have to use your general accordingly.

[Garensterz]

@Peonking,

The shogun 2's skill/trait feature is a good suggestion too, it has been a while since I've played that, it slipped though my memory. It's a good balance of arcadey but yet still fun to get a hang of. However the main problem on these skill leveling just like Pasan said "I'm going to make the best admiral in the world from a guy that have never seen the sea". So it was never really immersive at all to be honest.

[PeonKing]

@Peonking,

The shogun 2's skill/trait feature is a good suggestion too, it has been a while since I've played that, it slipped though my memory. It's a good balance of arcadey but yet still fun to get a hang of. However the main problem on these skill leveling just like Pasan said "I'm going to make the best admiral in the world from a guy that have never seen the sea". So it was never really immersive at all to be honest.

I suppose you're right, but why would you do that? Especially the way armies work currently, switching a General to a Admiral is kind of a pain, since you would have to wait a turn to let him go back to Statesman Status, and then wait another turn to put him into a Navy. Gameplay wise it doesn't make sense to do that. The player has a vested interest in forming a General to fit the way you're going to use him. IE: Using a General to help convert newly captured territory, it behooves you to use him in that fashion as you level him. You don't have to, you can use him to charge around on the field like a melee General, but you're risking his death as you won't be leveling him to survive melee combat. Secondly I could see it getting annoying if you accidentally have a war declared and have to defend a settlement multiple times, turning one of your statesman themed Generals into a combat General because he had to defend against a few surprise attacks. I would much prefer a meaningful player controlled progression than a meaningful 'randomized' progression. I like being able to tailor my Generals, it gives me something to plan about when I level them.

What we got in R2 was a meaningless player controlled progression, which was probably the worst choice. The whole way Generals functioned in Rome 2 was just not great, since they were more of a vehicle in which the army moves around (Since you have to have a General in each army) instead of the leader of an army, that shapes the army based on his command style.

[Garensterz]

@peonking

Although I still prefer Rome 1's randomized skill feature, but yours has the highest possibility on making it on the game. Since Shogun's skill trees is more similar to Rome 2's skill leveling feature.

On the side note, I should be probably adding (if possible) "others" on the poll soon, so other people can suggest on what's outside the box.

[AQUILIFIER]

Hi lads! In my oppinion the system in Shogun 2 was really good, because:
1. The skills are yours to choose, however the traits were mostly rendom like in the old games
2. The skills were not overpowered, and reaching level 5 or 6 (the best skills) was possible with only your most used commanders
3. The skill tree was Wonderfull (in Attila looks great too); every time in Rome 2 I have to enter the encyclopedia to see the tree
4. The traits in Shogun dont have that strong effect they bare in Rome 2 (I personaly hate the new ones)
The old system of RTW and M2TW was good, too but since they are not going to use it, Shogun is the best inspiration.

ps: I dont like the armour and weapons selection in Attila, but the actual skill TREE makes it up for me

[Caligula's_Horse]

I wouldn't mind the option being there (so long as it can be switched off), though I'm quite unlikely to use it myself. I like having a combination of random traits and selectable skills, as it retains a random and emergent element without being completely at the mercy of the random number god (which I think hates me, and from what I've heard, hates everyone else too).

So indifferent, I suppose.

[AnonMilwaukean]

I put "Not A Good Idea" and here's why:

Attila is not 1 turn per year. The whole reason Rome 2 indeed would have benefited from automated skill choosing is because it was 1 turn per year and you ran through way too many agents and generals simply due to losing them through natural causes. But Attila is nothing like that... Attila has multiple turns per year and, beyond that, has a much better UI for skill trees and leveling up. Hence, if Attila had an automatic system of picking skills that you could enable, there's a high risk that some people would enable that feature thinking that the game is like R2... which it isn't.

I mean, it's not like it'd be a game-breaking feature, and there's probably even times where you could use a toggle-able automation of skill selecting and do right by it, but I just don't think it's a good idea when everyone who played R2 is going to think they need to use such a feature immediately when Attila is not going to have the same problems that R2 did.

Seriously. In Attila, I'd expect that my primary army would lose its general only very rarely if I am careful with him and don't have him assassinated by an enemy agent. Whereas, in R2, even when I did everything humanly possible to protect my main army's general, well, I still lost that general to old age practically every 50 stinkin' turns. Meaning I had a new level 1 general every 50 turns or less and had to re-pick the same skills a dozen times over just for the generals of my main army. Which is ridiculous. But Attila, again and again, is not going to be anything like R2 in terms of how bad the UI was for leveling up (no skill tree, just the choices for that particular level), nor will I lose generals once every ten turns after I get up to having 6 or 7 armies floating around.

[Garensterz]

@Anon

I just watched the army management for Attila recently, and it seemed they changed the skill leveling into a skill tree which is similar to Shogun 2 i guess. Either way I think the automated/randomized skill trait still stands in this situation. Not entirely against on the skill tree though but there will still come to a point that you will have numerous Generals and Agents afterwards. Maybe some other players here (like me) just wanted their General/Agents have a life of their own and more likely to save you from these repetitive actions like I mentioned.

So in "general" it is not an actual change of feature, it is just a "harmless" addition for the minority.

[swoosh so]

Since Attila is one of the most in depth campaigns ever to be released in a totalwar game I would hate randomisation, these generals are going to be with the player a long long time and I'd hate to see my most favoured general get useless abilities when levelling up. Part of the depth of Attila will be fearing to lose that general you have for 80 turns being building and levelling into a legend. Also picking abilities allows us to tailor that character to be a governor or tailor them to be a tribune since we can now give characters political positions within the faction at a cost of influence.

[Garensterz]

@swoosh

Again, it is optional. Not a complete change of design.

Could you please explain further why you would hate such feature that is completely optional for all players? I just want to deeply understand,