General Command Skill

[Cryoshakespeare]

So, I don't know about anyone else, but I have found that my generals gain traits like "Understanding of Tactics" and "Good Commander", the like, far more often when I auto-calculate a battle than even when I fight the battle and get a heroic victory. Is there a reason for this? My Faction Leader can win three heroic battles in a row and *possibly* gain one command star (though he will gain the Victor and Famous Victor traits), compared with auto-calculating a single battle and having a decent chance at gaining a command star.

It's fine for the most part, because in most battles command stars are just a nice bonus, really it's down to the tactics you use in the battle that determine the kind of victory or loss it is. But it does bug me that I nearly *have* to autocalculate at least a few battles early in a general's career just to gain a base level of command. It just feels wrong, because I know I could have lost less troops and gained a better victory if I had fought the battle myself, and yet my commander gains experience from leading a worse battle than a better one.

*I suppose* you could have some strange rationalisation whereby "fate" or chance is guiding the general's hand when I'm fighting the battle myself, and that when auto-calculating the general is actually making their own mistakes and gaining experience on what not to do, rather than just relying on the gods or some omniscient force (the player ) to guide them.

Still, it's weird. Any of you guys experience this, and is there an explanation?

[Khwarezm]

I think that there is a different calculation for gaining traits after auto calc.ing and fighting it yourself. The following is a theory of mine. When fighting a battle yourself, things like, how many troops routed influence how likely it is to get certain trats. This does not apply when auto-calcing, in this case, there is simply a certain chance to gain a trait after winning a battle.

My generals tend to get negative traits after winning battles, which is very strange. Does someone know how this is possible? One of my generals started out with one star, which is now deteriorated to -2. He gained the trait: "poor disciplinarian" (-1 command), and deteriorated to "kills with knidness'" (command -3, -1 morale and -20% movement speed). He also got the trait "Poor defender" (-2 command when defending). This paradoxial allong with traits like "proud veteran", "great tactician" and "Famous victor". He gained these traits after winning battles and conquering 6 provinces...

[Cryoshakespeare]

My generals tend to get negative traits after winning battles, which is very strange. Does someone know how this is possible? One of my generals started out with one star, which is now deteriorated to -2. He gained the trait: "poor disciplinarian" (-1 command), and deteriorated to "kills with knidness'" (command -3, -1 morale and -20% movement speed). He also got the trait "Poor defender" (-2 command when defending). This paradoxial allong with traits like "proud veteran", "great tactician" and "Famous victor". He gained these traits after winning battles and conquering 6 provinces...

Well, after looking through the files, it appears that there is a chance that generals with either high or low disciplinarian traits will just automatically progress further in either being overtly or underly (is that a word?) disciplinarian - referred to in the files as "perpetuating_discipline", something like that. It seems to happen to a few traits actually.

What are you looking for is buried in the export_descr_character_traits.txt file in section "Section 3.1 - Secondary Triggers - HIDDEN BATTLE MECHANICS".

Thanks for the tip, V.T Martin, it was quite interesting to look through. I might make notes, or begin to create a guide on what actions have what effect in battle - for as much as I love EB, its mechanics are very opaque and there is no manual for it currently, so..

Unfortunately the same happens in vanilla and RTW.

And I see, z3n, though I have found a way to (possibly) more reliably get my generals command stars, which is to actually have my units slog through and *kill* most of the enemies in the battle, rather than just hammer-and-anvil mass routing them with my FMs and taking them down while routing - because as I noticed, units who are defeated when routing count as "captured", and I'm wondering if that means that they don't technically count towards the >75% or so *killed* enemies that the character traits file says needs to occur in order for a general to gain command stars. Just a hypothesis, I have no way of confirming whether or not that's actually true, however.

[Cryoshakespeare]

Well, I had a pretty extensive look through the EB XML files, and I couldn't find anything

Glorious mod developers (or anyone with the know-how)! Do you know where I could find the information in the files relating to the actual acquisition of traits? So far, all I've been able to find are the trait names and their effects.

[V.T. Marvin]

What are you looking for is buried in the export_descr_character_traits.txt file in section "Section 3.1 - Secondary Triggers - HIDDEN BATTLE MECHANICS".

There were several points in the mod history when the possible issue that the very complicated system we use here might sometimes produce unintended results was flagged. However so far nobody picked it up to design a better/more reliable one. Generally though it seems working fine, so I guess it is not proven to be sufficiently broken to require a fix.

How the traits are assigned after auto-calc battles is a mystery to me.

[Funkmaster Rick]

Clearly the issue is that you failed to sacrifice enough of your men to the gods, and they were displeased. That's why the Fates give your generals better traits when they lead worse attacks. Just don't start your fights with your line infantry facing away from their archers; though the gods desire sacrifice, they hate it when people try to manipulate their favour.

That or what VT said.

[z3n]

Unfortunately the same happens in vanilla and RTW.

[V.T. Marvin]

I can confirm that suspicion from my own testing - when implanting the Spoils of Victory minimod from EB1 I have to lower the "PercentageEnemyKilled" condition, because the captured ones are no longer considers "killed" by the engine. The triggers thus fired only very rarely with the RTW/EB1 values in the condition.

[Khwarezm]

Thanks for all the input guys! I got a new general and wanted him to gain some nice command traits. Well it failed, but I knew when he gained the bad disc. trait. It was after fighting one rebel army and I got the save from before the battle. So I have done an experiment. I started with quicksaving and trying to reset the seed: sending a spy towards something before attacking the army (does this reset the seed?). Each time my general would gain the poor disciplinairian trait after autocalcing the battle or fighting it myselve, I tried it atleast 10 times, everytime with the same result.

What are you looking for is buried in the export_descr_character_traits.txt file in section "Section 3.1 - Secondary Triggers - HIDDEN BATTLE MECHANICS".

So I started looking into this file. I am playing as Pontus and have three generals with the Poor disciplinairian (or worse) trait. I found the following lines in section 2.10 (first spoiler). Which shows that some ethnicity causes your generals to have a chance to gain this trait upon coming of age. Contrary 4 of my generals (one hellen), received this trait after fighting battles. So I think it has to do with fighting battles.

I have found the lines describing this in the same file (look at an example of this in the 2nd spoiler). It shows that there is a chance of 50% to gain 1 point in the bad discipline trait if the following conditions are met:
- After winning a battle
- With the odds of victory higher than 0.7
- A general with a discipline value of 1 or lower
- The percentage of troops routed off the field (higher than 12%). -> Does anyone know what this parameter means? Does this include: Your troops & Routing in general, or do the units specificly rout from the field.

This event did not fire, because no troops routed of the field and my general would gain the bad discipline trait every time. If this event would fire, then there is a chance of 50%. There must be something else coding for this. Causing my unfortunate generals to suffer from the disease of bad discipline . Funkmaster Rick is right, because I did not sacrifice enough man, which must be a curse upon my generals!

Cryoshakespeare[/COLOR]]Well, after looking through the files, it appears that there is a chance that generals with either high or low disciplinarian traits will just automatically progress further in either being overtly or underly (is that a word?) disciplinarian - referred to in the files as "perpetuating_discipline", something like that. It seems to happen to a few traits actually.

Well I think it could be THIS, it seems like there is NOTHING that is stopping them from gaining this stupid trait. The development of this trait is, as you say, automatically progressed further into being over or underly disciplinairy. where did you find this?. The export_descr_chartraits only describes what causes generals to start with a certain traits and what causes them to develop certain traits based on a chance and triggers. The last one doesn't make sense based on my "experiment".

1st

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

;------------------------------------------------------------------------------------; Section 2.10 - Ethnicity Triggers - PONTOS
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
;------------------------------------------
; Section 2.10.1 - Ethnicity Triggers - PONTOS - CharacterComesOfAge
;------------------------------------------
Trigger PonticPharnakides_CharacterComesOfAge2
WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge


Condition FactionType f_pontos
and Trait PonticPharnakides > 0


Affects Xenophilia 2 Chance 60
Affects Xenophilia 2 Chance 60
Affects GoodSiegeDefender 2 Chance 35
Affects BadDisciplinarian 2 Chance 35
Affects Just 2 Chance 35
Affects ExpensiveTastes 2 Chance 35
Affects Scout 2 Chance 35

2nd

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

;------------------------------------------Trigger VeryBadDiscipline_Undisciplined
WhenToTest PostBattle


Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle
and BattleOdds > 0.7
and PercentageRoutedOffField > 12
and Trait Disciplinarian < 1


Affects BadDisciplinarian 1 Chance 50
Affects BadDisciplinarian 1 Chance 50

[Cryoshakespeare]

The development of this trait is, as you say, automatically progressed further into being over or underly disciplinairy. where did you find this?. The export_descr_chartraits only describes what causes generals to start with a certain traits and what causes them to develop certain traits based on a chance and triggers. The last one doesn't make sense based on my "experiment".

This would be what you are looking for:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Trigger BadDisciplinarian_Selfperpetuating
WhenToTest CharacterTurnEnd


Condition IsGeneral
and Trait BadDisciplinarian > 1


Affects BadDisciplinarian 1 Chance 2

[V.T. Marvin]

A tip for generals with proclivity to be too lax disciplinarians - give their boys a hell: a few forced marches can do wonders even in modern armies...

Since next iteration this effect will be more pronounced though, together with negative effects stemming from letting the grunts loose on a conquered city and positive effects from reining them in (occupy rather than sack/enslave). So thanks for flagging this issue to us anyway!

[Khwarezm]

I found this: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...a-general-tips

To add (I don't have the rights to edit posts yet), the trait line (Bad Disciplinarian/Too Kind/Kills With Kindness) is supposed to be caused by having 9% or more of your army rout off the map in a winning battle (battles where you have 70% or less force strength compared to the enemy do not count), but the condition that CA's documentation says checks how large a percentage of a general's army routed isn't returning the correct value, with the result that all generals can get the trait as a result of fighting battles regardless of whether their units actually routed or not.

Where it is claimed that this is a bug. Which makes sense, because all my generals have this trait. I am now just going to change the chance for gaining bad discipline to 0. * which does not work, because the game goes full ctd when you change anything in this file *. Does someone have an idea to fix it?

[V.T. Marvin]

I found this: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...a-general-tips

Where it is claimed that this is a bug. Which makes sense, because all my generals have this trait. I am now just going to change the chance for gaining bad discipline to 0. * which does not work, because the game goes full ctd when you change anything in this file *. Does someone have an idea to fix it?

We do not use the "PercentageRoutedOffField" condition anymore, paying attention to the community-provided feedback/advice.

Well, sometimes...

[Cryoshakespeare]

We do not use the "PercentageRoutedOffField" condition anymore, paying attention to the community-provided feedback/advice.

Well, sometimes...

Awesome devs are awesome!

[QuintusSertorius]

The game CTDs because it will only work after deleting your map.rwm and starting a new campaign. It won't work for a game already in progress.

You also need to make sure you're using Notepad++ or another proper editor, not Windows Notepad.

[Roma_Victrix]

You also need to make sure you're using Notepad++ or another proper editor, not Windows Notepad.

Thanks for sharing! I'm going to need this as a future reference.

[Pooploop]

*Facepalm*. Firstly, I would like to say that EB2 is a brilliant mod. However, why is it the devs make it so hard to get good traits for one's general? It has already been determined that generals' bonuses and stats really don't do that much or affect anything that much in Real Time Battles. So, seeing those stars, crosses, or good traits stacking is more of a pleasure for the player who likes a bit of roleplaying here and there. So, devs, why don't you give that to prospective players? If you are firmly clinging to the idea that those stats "don't matter much anyway" at least make the system of acquiring them reasonable. I'm not saying after one victorious battle a general gets +3 stars and crosses and like 2 good traits, no! But if the current system is one after a hard won victory by the player ends up with NEGATIVES, guys, that's a little too harsh.

[Barnabas]

If it's possible with the engine, the generals should gain command stars pretty easy after gaining decisive/heroic victories for forces which they don't outnumber too much.
It's really bad to have a general who never lost a battle and see him with 3 command stars in contrast to a random rebel dude having 9 (I know the reason for him having 9). It's an immense pleasure for the player to develop his characters, see them gain influence/command stars and watch them rise.
As Pooploop says, if there is no specific reason to keep command stars/influence points low because of a game mechanic, give the advantage to the player. EBII players play their own battles anyways and command stars are for RP/emerge of a campaign.

[QuintusSertorius]

The AI can only auto-calc for the most part, which is why they get the AIGeneral trait, which gives them bonus Command stars. Furthermore, no matter how creative we get with the BAI, they will never be equal to a human opponent. Any comparison to AI generals is totally futile and a meaningless yardstick.

[Barnabas]

I tried to explain that I'm well aware of that. I'm not complaining about AI having many command stars, just saying that if it's not going to damage any gameplay mechanic, I also want my generals who never lose battles to be able to gain 9 command stars. Never had a general in EBII above 6 command stars (I never autocalc battles).