Tips and Tricks - For new EBII players

[gangster19]

Autoresolve uses a completely different set of mechanics to assess changes to a general's stats.

So what should I do to get stars and good traits when I fight manually?

[QuintusSertorius]

So what should I do to get stars and good traits when I fight manually?

Fight battles with bad odds - ie when you are outnumbered and against better quality enemies. Use your general as cavalry, if you want courage-related traits.

[Marvzilla]

Is this hardcoded ? So either I plan badly and go into a campaign with inferior armies or I get great commanders way slower.

[Lusitanio]

Is this hardcoded ? So either I plan badly and go into a campaign with inferior armies or I get great commanders way slower.

If you fight battles by yourself, you won't care about the stars the general has. You can always send your Generals with small armies to fight rebels and try to gain traits in auto from that.

[QuintusSertorius]

Is this hardcoded ? So either I plan badly and go into a campaign with inferior armies or I get great commanders way slower.

Not hardcoded, it's how the traits system is written. Why would we want to reward taking the easy route? Great generals are bred in adversity, not through overawing everything in their path with bigger, better armies than their opposition can field.

[Marvzilla]

Yeah most battles are no problem when I fight them myself, but also you can get great generals even when using strong armies and assuring local superiority in numbers, just takes longer.

[Beckitz]

Not hardcoded, it's how the traits system is written. Why would we want to reward taking the easy route? Great generals are bred in adversity, not through overawing everything in their path with bigger, better armies than their opposition can field.

So wrong, wtf are you talking about Quintus. Point to any capable argument at all for a link between adversity and growth in antiquity. I don't believe there's ever been a general who became talented specifically by dealing with adverse circumstances and Napoleon doesn't count. More to the point, in antiquity it's exactly what you say it isn't. There's literally no ancient state which endured on the back of a military smaller than its neighbors. There's also precisely 0 accounts of a smaller nation defeating a larger one, except in self-defense on one (1) extraordinary occasion amidst remarkable elements of chance. If you were to name the greatest generals of ancient history: Caesar (infinite manpower), Alexander (myth of the 'tiny army' plus the Persians are just one tribe), Hannibal (his army was enormous), oh, I guess there aren't any others, because the Roman Republic was easily able to squash the ecosystem of the Ancient Mediterranean purely through manpower and organization, despite the meddling of completely corrupt and unprepared military commanders.

In terms of the (false) premise it's more like your own quote from the loading screen: "Adversity reveals the genius of a general, good fortune conceals it."

[mAIOR]

So wrong, wtf are you talking about Quintus. Point to any capable argument at all for a link between adversity and growth in antiquity. I don't believe there's ever been a general who became talented specifically by dealing with adverse circumstances and Napoleon doesn't count. More to the point, in antiquity it's exactly what you say it isn't. There's literally no ancient state which endured on the back of a military smaller than its neighbors. There's also precisely 0 accounts of a smaller nation defeating a larger one, except in self-defense on one (1) extraordinary occasion amidst remarkable elements of chance. If you were to name the greatest generals of ancient history: Caesar (infinite manpower), Alexander (myth of the 'tiny army' plus the Persians are just one tribe), Hannibal (his army was enormous), oh, I guess there aren't any others, because the Roman Republic was easily able to squash the ecosystem of the Ancient Mediterranean purely through manpower and organization, despite the meddling of completely corrupt and unprepared military commanders.

In terms of the (false) premise it's more like your own quote from the loading screen: "Adversity reveals the genius of a general, good fortune conceals it."

His is a fair point. I will add something else, a truly great general is the one who does everything in his power to reach battle with the best possible advantages over his adversary. Caesar in Gaul, Napoleon in the 1805 campaign, Scipio in Iberia, the Spartans in Syracuse. They all took strategic decisions that meant their opponents would be in a worse position than they were be it through manoeuvre, logistics or terrain.

[QuintusSertorius]

Themistokles and Kimon, remembered for great naval victories against much larger (and sometimes better quality) Persian navies.

Phormio, who despite having small fleets at his disposal, achieved major victories against larger Peloponnesian navies through superior tactics.

Agathokles in Africa, who despite being essentially stranded on a foreign shore and outnumbered, still beat a number of Carthaginian and other armies, all while keeping a disparate band of mercenaries loyal to him.

Seleukos I who started his independent command with 200 cavalry and 800 infantry. From that base beat larger armies and eventually won himself an empire.

Lucius Licinius Lucullus, who repeated beat significantly larger Mithridatic armies (with more and better cavalry) through skilful maneuver. Pompey (who was nothing more than an average general with great PR, though an exceptional organiser) claimed the credit for the strategic gains he'd won in the East.

Quintus Sertorius, who welded a collection of Roman rebels and Iberian natives into a force that beat larger, better-equipped Roman armies time and again.

As just a few examples off the top of my head of great generals who didn't just have "one extraordinary battle" against the odds, but multiple. And that's just a handful from our period, never mind looking beyond the scope of wider history.

[mAIOR]

Your first examples are classical examples of a battle being won before it started. The Athenian navy positioning negated the Persian numerical and qualitative advantage.

You even state in your other examples that through manoeuvring they managed to beat larger forces and that was my point exactly. Sadly you cannot mimic those feats in total war games. You can't have a field battle with 1k troops vs 6k and expect to win. Well you can because the AI is retarded but if Seleucos was also known for being patient and waiting for the right moment t attack which is also hardly possible to represent here and if on the second war of the diadochi he did what you propose we do, attacking a larger force with a smaller one, he would've been crushed.

I mean, manoeuvring is part of the actions you can take to ensure an advantage. I even mentioned it in my post and you in yours sadly, total war games don't represent that well. Toy either have a field battle or a siege. Sure you have the odd bridge crossing but besides that, there is no difference. Again, I don't exactly have a problem with the system as it is to increase difficulty for the player because again, AI is retarded, but it is not for historical reasons imho.

[QuintusSertorius]

Your first examples are classical examples of a battle being won before it started. The Athenian navy positioning negated the Persian numerical and qualitative advantage.

You even state in your other examples that through manoeuvring they managed to beat larger forces and that was my point exactly. Sadly you cannot mimic those feats in total war games. You can't have a field battle with 1k troops vs 6k and expect to win. Well you can because the AI is retarded but if Seleucos was also known for being patient and waiting for the right moment t attack which is also hardly possible to represent here and if on the second war of the diadochi he did what you propose we do, attacking a larger force with a smaller one, he would've been crushed.

I mean, manoeuvring is part of the actions you can take to ensure an advantage. I even mentioned it in my post and you in yours sadly, total war games don't represent that well. Toy either have a field battle or a siege. Sure you have the odd bridge crossing but besides that, there is no difference. Again, I don't exactly have a problem with the system as it is to increase difficulty for the player because again, AI is retarded, but it is not for historical reasons imho.

Now you're splitting hairs. The statement from Beckitz was that aside from defense of the nation, there were no examples of generals who won multiple battles against the odds. I just reeled off a host of them without even doing any further research.

As is often the case, the greatest generals aren't the ones who survive into popular consciousness, but lesser figures known only to those who do any reading on the topic.

[Mamlaz]

There's also precisely 0 accounts of a smaller nation defeating a larger one, except in self-defense on one (1) extraordinary occasion amidst remarkable elements of chance.

There was once this small northern satrapy called Parthia...

Caesar (infinite manpower)

The Roman manpower argument is exaggerated.

If he had infinite manpower, he would have just recruited more soldiers to deal with both the Britons and the Gauls, instead of costly retreating all his troops from Britain to Gaul because he had far too few men in Gaul to deal with Vercingetorix.

Though, I do agree with you a bit, just not completely.

Warfare in more difficult settings should bring about more experience, though, warfare in general should also bring experience in war regardless imo.

[QuintusSertorius]

Warfare in more difficult settings should bring about more experience, though, warfare in general should also bring experience in war regardless imo.

And it does, that's why the CommandExperience and AuxiliaryGeneral traits give bonuses to Command and other facets simply through fighting battles.

[mAIOR]

If that was his point then I misunderstood this whole argument.

Ups. My point just to be clear is that we cannot mimic what historical generals did very well because of the lack of options to manoeuvre and take advantage of strategically important terrain the way they used it to maximize their chances. Seleucos attacked the other guy (totally forgot his name) on a river crossing and fought a series of withdrawals always avoiding getting pitched into an open field battle, the Athenians lured the Persian navy into an area where their numbers would be a hindrance and not an advantage etc. That is why we can't argue that historically good generals weren't the ones who fought against bad odds but those that made the sounder strategical decisions who ensured the maximum advantage on the battlefield. Besides bridge crossings, in TW titles you cannot do this.

[gangster19]

What about Rommel in North Africa? He won several battles with inferior numbers

[Lusitanio]

So wrong, wtf are you talking about Quintus. Point to any capable argument at all for a link between adversity and growth in antiquity. I don't believe there's ever been a general who became talented specifically by dealing with adverse circumstances and Napoleon doesn't count. More to the point, in antiquity it's exactly what you say it isn't. There's literally no ancient state which endured on the back of a military smaller than its neighbors. There's also precisely 0 accounts of a smaller nation defeating a larger one, except in self-defense on one (1) extraordinary occasion amidst remarkable elements of chance. If you were to name the greatest generals of ancient history: Caesar (infinite manpower), Alexander (myth of the 'tiny army' plus the Persians are just one tribe), Hannibal (his army was enormous), oh, I guess there aren't any others, because the Roman Republic was easily able to squash the ecosystem of the Ancient Mediterranean purely through manpower and organization, despite the meddling of completely corrupt and unprepared military commanders.

Oh men, this is so wrong that I had to reply, and you should respect more other members from this forum, be they members like Quintus who have put a huge amount of time to make this game what it is or new members.

Anyway, let's start. You don't believe there's a general who became talented by dealing with adverse circumstances? Let me tell you about Pompey and the Sertorian War. While the Romans waged their first great civil war, the one between Sulla and Marius, Pompey became famous for aligning with Sulla and forming an entire army to help Sulla in Italy without even having the legal age requirements to do so. Later, he was sent to Hispania to wage war against Quintus Sertorius. This is where Pompey got his war lessons from the prodigy general that Quintus was, with superior numbers, Pompey was being defeated in battle after battle by Quintus, to the point that Pompey had to request urgent reinforcements from Italy in order to win the war. Eventually, Pompey and Metellus won the war by attrition, conquering city after city, diclining Quintus authority which led to him being betrayed and assassinated by Perpenna. Following Quintus death, the rest of the rebels were soon defeated.

Now lets talk about your examples. Firstly, Caesar hadn't infinite manpower, he just managed to do a lot more with fewer resources and succeding with luck and his tactical genius. Lets not forget about the siege of Alesia where despite greatly outnumbered by the Gauls, he managed to win, and even more important, Caesar last battle against Pompey, the battle of Pharsalus, where Caesar forces, facing another roman army, were once again greatly outnumbered and isolated, but managed to achieve a decisive victory.

About Alexander, well, in my opinion he wasn't that great general, he was good but it was his father that had done the hard work, transforming the Makedonian army in the unstoppable war machine that Alexander commanded. Despite that, he didn't fought only small Persian tribes, he fought the Persian empire and soundly defeated it.

Now, Hannibal, lets talk about him... He achieved many victories in Iberia even before the Second Punic War, demonstrating his tactical genius, to the point that even after 120 years, the Lusitanian still remembered him, calling Quintus Sertorius the "New Hannibal". He marched to Italy with limited resources, in harsh and unknown lands, won two major battles against Roman armies and later won the battle of Cannae, where he was greatly outnumbered by the Roman army and not only won but managed to wipe out the larger Roman army. He later endured in Italy for years without reinforcements until being called back to Africa to fight Scipio, a general that also managed to achieve many victories in Hispania, also against superior armies and without reinforcements.

I can write a lot more to tell you that manpower and organization helped the Roman Republic but that didn't stop the "corrupt and unprepared military commanders" from being defeated against german, gaulish, carthaginian, parthian and many more armies. Even capable generals like Anthony were defeated by the parthians. The manpower and organization helped, but only really good generals and leaders of men achieved the great victories that the Romans would later be proud of.

There is also a General I really like, Belisarius, a General of the Eastern Roman Empire, which was instrumental in the reconquest of most of the Mediterranean territory of the former Western Roman Empire. His genius showed when, with few resources, he managed to conquer the Vandal Kingdom of North Africa in only 8 months and took most of Italy from the Ostrogothic Kingdom.

Some Generals learned and became talented, others showed their talent by successfully dealing with adverse circumstances and that's why the EBII system for Generals is good, while not perfect due to engine limitations, your generals need to win battles to gain experience and will gain more in battles where they are facing worse odds. Have you noticed that the most famous Generals were the ones that managed to deal with the most adverse situations?

[QuintusSertorius]

Just on a point of order, whatever someone has done on the mod doesn't give them any more right to an opinion than anyone else.

[Lusitanio]

Just on a point of order, whatever someone has done on the mod doesn't give them any more right to an opinion than anyone else.

You're right Quintus. I wasn't trying to mean that! Anyway, I changed that part

[Beckitz]

Oh men, this is so wrong that I had to reply, and you should respect more other members from this forum, be they members like Quintus who have put a huge amount of time to make this game what it is or new members.

Anyway, let's start. You don't believe there's a general who became talented by dealing with adverse circumstances? Let me tell you about Pompey and the Sertorian War. While the Romans waged their first great civil war, the one between Sulla and Marius, Pompey became famous for aligning with Sulla and forming an entire army to help Sulla in Italy without even having the legal age requirements to do so. Later, he was sent to Hispania to wage war against Quintus Sertorius. This is where Pompey got his war lessons from the prodigy general that Quintus was, with superior numbers, Pompey was being defeated in battle after battle by Quintus, to the point that Pompey had to request urgent reinforcements from Italy in order to win the war. Eventually, Pompey and Metellus won the war by attrition, conquering city after city, diclining Quintus authority which led to him being betrayed and assassinated by Perpenna. Following Quintus death, the rest of the rebels were soon defeated.

Now lets talk about your examples. Firstly, Caesar hadn't infinite manpower, he just managed to do a lot more with fewer resources and succeding with luck and his tactical genius. Lets not forget about the siege of Alesia where despite greatly outnumbered by the Gauls, he managed to win, and even more important, Caesar last battle against Pompey, the battle of Pharsalus, where Caesar forces, facing another roman army, were once again greatly outnumbered and isolated, but managed to achieve a decisive victory.

About Alexander, well, in my opinion he wasn't that great general, he was good but it was his father that had done the hard work, transforming the Makedonian army in the unstoppable war machine that Alexander commanded. Despite that, he didn't fought only small Persian tribes, he fought the Persian empire and soundly defeated it.

Now, Hannibal, lets talk about him... He achieved many victories in Iberia even before the Second Punic War, demonstrating his tactical genius, to the point that even after 120 years, the Lusitanian still remembered him, calling Quintus Sertorius the "New Hannibal". He marched to Italy with limited resources, in harsh and unknown lands, won two major battles against Roman armies and later won the battle of Cannae, where he was greatly outnumbered by the Roman army and not only won but managed to wipe out the larger Roman army. He later endured in Italy for years without reinforcements until being called back to Africa to fight Scipio, a general that also managed to achieve many victories in Hispania, also against superior armies and without reinforcements.

I can write a lot more to tell you that manpower and organization helped the Roman Republic but that didn't stop the "corrupt and unprepared military commanders" from being defeated against german, gaulish, carthaginian, parthian and many more armies. Even capable generals like Anthony were defeated by the parthians. The manpower and organization helped, but only really good generals and leaders of men achieved the great victories that the Romans would later be proud of.

There is also a General I really like, Belisarius, a General of the Eastern Roman Empire, which was instrumental in the reconquest of most of the Mediterranean territory of the former Western Roman Empire. His genius showed when, with few resources, he managed to conquer the Vandal Kingdom of North Africa in only 8 months and took most of Italy from the Ostrogothic Kingdom.

Some Generals learned and became talented, others showed their talent by successfully dealing with adverse circumstances and that's why the EBII system for Generals is good, while not perfect due to engine limitations, your generals need to win battles to gain experience and will gain more in battles where they are facing worse odds. Have you noticed that the most famous Generals were the ones that managed to deal with the most adverse situations?

I think the in-game system is fine, yes I've seen that any kind of victory is a contributor to skill increase, but ironically I haven't noticed an especial rate of growth from fighting against the odds. As to the epistemology, I wouldn't contest your point about the battles; of course underdog wins are the most impressive, but if the modus cogitandi of the team is that longshot wins are a conduit to greatness, I only want to introduce a companion point: amassing huge resources and using them effectively is also a path to greatness, and I'm not convinced it would make sense for the former to endow a special bonus to an aspiring commander whereas he gets no special experience from having put together and deployed a giant army?

[QuintusSertorius]

I think the in-game system is fine, yes I've seen that any kind of victory is a contributor to skill increase, but ironically I haven't noticed an especial rate of growth from fighting against the odds. As to the epistemology, I wouldn't contest your point about the battles; of course underdog wins are the most impressive, but if the modus cogitandi of the team is that longshot wins are a conduit to greatness, I only want to introduce a companion point: amassing huge resources and using them effectively is also a path to greatness, and I'm not convinced it would make sense for the former to endow a special bonus to an aspiring commander whereas he gets no special experience from having put together and deployed a giant army?

That sounds like a benefit only the human player will enjoy, for the most part. The AI isn't great at massing appropriately large armies before haring off on it's merry way, and a human player who knows there are beneficial traits from forming big armies will make sure they do so. Never mind that having large armies is already of great benefit tactically.

In any case, that might give bonuses to LogisticsSkill and management-related traits, not direct benefits to Command. Forming armies and commanding them are two different things, as Pompey found to his chagrin when he finally came up against a general who was better than him.