"Disgraced" trait

[bisthebis]

I'm playing as Carthage, and after a successful skirmish against a small Roman army I had spotted (2000 vs 600, I won by losing only 5% of my troops and killing/caputring all of the 600s), my general received the "Disgraced" trait, which gives -5 morale, -50% of movements, -10 of command, among other things, because he "retired from public life because of his gross incompetence".
Is this WAD ? It seems weird to gain this after a succesfful battle (with minimal losses, and he even gained positive battle traits), and it's quite annoying because there are some armies all around who are eager to attack my army weakened by such a hard trait. I'm thinking about cheating to remove it (especially as I put some big investment on his training and he's a very talented, unselfish, sharp/charismatic/vigorous, etc. And the people from the camp didn't reject him, so I don't understand.

I don't know if it's a bug, but if it isn't, are there some tips to not gain this trait again ?
Is this a reversible trait ?

[QuintusSertorius]

As a general rule winning with overwhelming odds tends to create bad traits in the leading FM. Looks like you were unlucky with this set of triggers:

;------------------------------------------	
Trigger CarthageDisgrace_Gen1_Bad
	WhenToTest PostBattle
	
	Condition FactionType f_carthage
		and not I_IsFactionAIControlled f_carthage
		and Trait Rb_mhnt = 2
		and not WonBattle
		and BattleOdds >= 0.75
		and BattleOdds <= 1
		and IsGeneral
		and not IsUnderSiege
	
	Affects Carthage_Military_Disgrace 1 Chance 100
	Affects Rb_mhnt -2 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------	
Trigger CarthageDisgrace_Gen1_Worse
	WhenToTest PostBattle
	
	Condition FactionType f_carthage
		and not I_IsFactionAIControlled f_carthage
		and Trait Rb_mhnt = 2
		and not WonBattle
		and BattleOdds > 1
		and IsGeneral
		and not IsUnderSiege
	
	Affects Carthage_Military_Disgrace 2 Chance 100
	Affects Rb_mhnt -2 Chance 100
	Affects Rb -3 Chance 100
	Affects Carthage_Priest -2 Chance 100
	Affects Wealthy -8 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------	
Trigger CarthageDisgrace_Gen2_Bad
	WhenToTest PostBattle
	
	Condition FactionType f_carthage
		and not I_IsFactionAIControlled f_carthage
		and Trait Rb_sny = 2
		and not WonBattle
		and BattleOdds >= 0.75
		and BattleOdds <= 1
		and IsGeneral
		and not IsUnderSiege
	
	Affects Carthage_Military_Disgrace 1 Chance 100
	Affects Rb_sny -2 Chance 100

[lolIsuck]

As a general rule winning with overwhelming odds tends to create bad traits in the leading FM. Looks like you were unlucky with this set of triggers:

;------------------------------------------	
Trigger CarthageDisgrace_Gen1_Bad
	WhenToTest PostBattle
	
	Condition FactionType f_carthage
		and not I_IsFactionAIControlled f_carthage
		and Trait Rb_mhnt = 2
		and not WonBattle
		and BattleOdds >= 0.75
		and BattleOdds <= 1
		and IsGeneral
		and not IsUnderSiege
	
	Affects Carthage_Military_Disgrace 1 Chance 100
	Affects Rb_mhnt -2 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------	
Trigger CarthageDisgrace_Gen1_Worse
	WhenToTest PostBattle
	
	Condition FactionType f_carthage
		and not I_IsFactionAIControlled f_carthage
		and Trait Rb_mhnt = 2
		and not WonBattle
		and BattleOdds > 1
		and IsGeneral
		and not IsUnderSiege
	
	Affects Carthage_Military_Disgrace 2 Chance 100
	Affects Rb_mhnt -2 Chance 100
	Affects Rb -3 Chance 100
	Affects Carthage_Priest -2 Chance 100
	Affects Wealthy -8 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------	
Trigger CarthageDisgrace_Gen2_Bad
	WhenToTest PostBattle
	
	Condition FactionType f_carthage
		and not I_IsFactionAIControlled f_carthage
		and Trait Rb_sny = 2
		and not WonBattle
		and BattleOdds >= 0.75
		and BattleOdds <= 1
		and IsGeneral
		and not IsUnderSiege
	
	Affects Carthage_Military_Disgrace 1 Chance 100
	Affects Rb_sny -2 Chance 100

Pardon my ignorance as scripting is not my forte but doesn't this apply to losing battles despite the odds being in your favour? Or am I misunderstanding the "not WonBattle" condition?
Going by its description and effects it doesn't make any sense if the battle is won either as the man was succesful and not at all incompetent. I can somewhat understand a general getting some negative traits regarding cruelty and bad character when systematically destroying smaller armies but if he does so succesfully I don't see how he could be called incompetent.

[QuintusSertorius]

Pardon my ignorance as scripting is not my forte but doesn't this apply to losing battles despite the odds being in your favour? Or am I misunderstanding the "not WonBattle" condition?
Going by its description and effects it doesn't make any sense if the battle is won either as the man was succesful and not at all incompetent. I can somewhat understand a general getting some negative traits regarding cruelty and bad character when systematically destroying smaller armies but if he does so succesfully I don't see how he could be called incompetent.

In that case, then the and not WonBattle condition might not be working. Traits can be tempermental that way, where the placement of a condition can affect whether or not it fires.

[bisthebis]

Thanks. Does this mean I should try to lose more men, or I should only engage in fair battles ?
(I guess I'm just plain unlucky. I'll get used to it )

[QuintusSertorius]

Engage in fairer battles; if you see a half-stack coming your way, let it pass so it can merge with another force, or split your own army to meet in on more equal terms.

[paleologos]

This whole trait trigger is ahistorical.

[Trarco]

This whole trait trigger is ahistorical.

Why do you think so?

There are several examples of punishments among the Carthaginian generals, and it wasn't an uncommon practice in the Mediterranean world (think of Athens for example). We also wanted to apply death sentences but unfortunately, it wasn't doable.


As Quintus said, the above situation is not intended. The punishment should be just applied on incompetent generals. The honourable/despicable actions are not taken in account.

[Rad]

Why do you think so?

There are several examples of punishments among the Carthaginian generals, and it wasn't an uncommon practice in the Mediterranean world (think of Athens for example). We also wanted to apply death sentences but unfortunately, it wasn't doable.


As Quintus said, the above situation is not intended. The punishment should be just applied on incompetent generals. The honourable/despicable actions are not taken in account.

He thinks the trigger is ahistorical when the general WINS.

[QuintusSertorius]

He thinks the trigger is ahistorical when the general WINS.

Which isn't intended for that trait. As we've established (look at the triggers) it's not working properly, most likely because of the order of the conditions. That happens sometimes with trait triggers.

[Jurand of Cracow]

it's not working properly, most likely because of the order of the conditions. That happens sometimes with trait triggers.

QS, have you got any insights (technicalities) on when does it happen? Maybe a link to a discussion (with Gigantus, Withwnar or other experienced guys...). I'd be gratefu.

[Genghis Skahn]

Is this a reversible trait ?

Unfortunately no. Normally that's a good thing for RP, but in your case as it's a bug, it's troublesome.

This whole trait trigger is ahistorical.

Maybe the trigger conditions/battle odds could use some tweaking but it met Trarco's(our Carthaginian FC) approval--the trait itself was specifically asked for by him(to represent military disgrace in Carthage) and the triggers met his approval AFAIK.

I personally think that the and not WonBattle condition should be moved to the top of the list--as opposed to the FactionType f_carthage at the top right now.

[Rad]

No one would look down on a general for winning a battle against smaller enemy forces with little to no casualties. Had he lost, though...

[Paltmull]

In that case, then the and not WonBattle condition might not be working. Traits can be tempermental that way, where the placement of a condition can affect whether or not it fires.

That is very weird. I haven't done any m2tw scripting, but those triggers should definitely fail if the battle was won. They're clearly not working as intended.

Is there some bug where checking the negation of a condition modifies the condition or something? So first not WonBattle is checked when testing CarthageDisgrace_GenX_Bad, returning false but resulting in WonBattle becoming negated. Then, when CarthageDisgrace_GenX_Worse is tested, not WonBattle returns true.

Probably a stupid suggestion, but oh well...

[Jurand of Cracow]

That is very weird. I haven't done any m2tw scripting, but those triggers should definitely fail if the battle was won. They're clearly not working as intended.

I share this opinion. It's a strange behaviour of the code, or there's another trigger which prompted the Disgraced.

I recall a simiar system in the BGR_IV submod to Stainless Steel, done by Byg. He wanted to prevent a player from fighting battless at good odds all the time. Or maybe he wanted to make a player fight the battles personally - and with a challenge.
I find this solution difficult to role-play ("The general spotted the enemy army. He divided his forces and attacked with only half of them, so that he's not disgraced at home for fighting with good odds" !?).
But what's more important from the moders perspective, we should provide players with positive experience, not negative threats. A player should try to fight personally challenging battles because he is looking for hefty rewards for Heroic victories (Command star, ancillaries etc.), not because he's afraid of losing (Command stars, in the case of BGR).
In the SSHIP we don't have such punishing triggers, but I avoid playing non-challenging battles - for fun of the battles and for the rewards for a general.

[parthian8]

If the AI can't be stopped from feeding up cannon fodder armies that need to be dealt with, then the player cannot be punished for taking no chances and winning by weight of number with minimal casualties.
Generals should be rewarded for bringing overwhelming force to bear by strategic means. That is the very essence of war. Punishing the player for not saying "would you gentleman awfully mind firing first?" would clearly be a weighting move too far.
But I don't think its by design.
My king got a Doubtful Courage trait for turning the tide in a neck-or-nothing charge in a heavily in the balance full stack battle. Which for a Lougione king is worse than disgraced. His name stunk afterwards.
It is just one of those flukes when the code gets it wrong.

[Trax]

My king got a Doubtful Courage trait for turning the tide in a neck-or-nothing charge in a heavily in the balance full stack battle. Which for a Lougione king is worse than disgraced. His name stunk afterwards.

I've also experienced "doubtful courage" without any apparent reason. The general fought and did not rout or anything.

[QWE_asd]

I'm playing as Carthage, and after a successful skirmish against a small Roman army I had spotted (2000 vs 600, I won by losing only 5% of my troops and killing/caputring all of the 600s), my general received the "Disgraced" trait, which gives -5 morale, -50% of movements, -10 of command, among other things, because he "retired from public life because of his gross incompetence".
Is this WAD ? It seems weird to gain this after a succesfful battle (with minimal losses, and he even gained positive battle traits), and it's quite annoying because there are some armies all around who are eager to attack my army weakened by such a hard trait. I'm thinking about cheating to remove it (especially as I put some big investment on his training and he's a very talented, unselfish, sharp/charismatic/vigorous, etc. And the people from the camp didn't reject him, so I don't understand.

I don't know if it's a bug, but if it isn't, are there some tips to not gain this trait again ?
Is this a reversible trait ?

If you still have the log, please upload it so people can see what's actually going on.
Otherwise try reproduce the bug and upload a new log.

[bisthebis]

I've lost the log, sorry. I'll think about it if it happens. (Though I guess it's unlikely)

[Brihentin13]

Yeah, I really don't like this. Losing traits for winning with good odds is pretty lame. If honorable tactical victories were all that mattered, I'd be living in the Confederate States of America right now. Lee won tactically but couldn't win strategically, so he lost the war. An even more relevant example to our timeframe here is old Hannibal. He won some great tactical victories, but couldn't overcome Rome on the strategic level. A player should not be punished for winning strategically and bringing overwhelming local numerical superiority to bear. Hell, even look at the modern era. When America invaded Iraq in 2003, the military didn't send the troops in one-by-one. They drowned Iraq's smaller, worse-equipped and trained force in a flood of airstrikes and tanks. "Shock and awe" is a very, very legitimate strategy. The system we seem to have discovered here sounds like some memes about bushido and the samurai.

"Oh yes, we ONLY use glorious nippon steel in one-on-one combat to determine who is the greatest warrior in all of leaf village! Nani? Why did you bring an actual army? Shame on you and your ancestors!"

The samurai didn't do that. Rome didn't do that. This is bad. Of course, there's also the possibility that this is just some script not working, which is much less worrying. Occasional bugs are just a part of modding, I'm afraid.