My own opinion about 'Stainless Steel' + 'Byg's Grim Reality' + 'Real Recruitment' for people who want to check Stainless Steel 6.4 out.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Since this is a thread with opinions on the BGR to provide relevant information for potential players, I post here my thoughts already posted in a submod thread. I've long been a fan of the BGR, and I'm still in awe of Byg's modding perspective, but now I think that simpler solutions might be better.

-----------

I've recently played the Titanium with BGR_IVE and I've got some thoughts concerning the BGR:

Army Field Morale: I think it's not really needed as the player rarely gets on very long expeditions. It’s rather cumbersome as you need to check traits very often just to learn if each general has not crossed the limit of being in the field (eg. traveling between settlements).

Supply System – it requires the player to check traits very often and make tricks. I think a supply system that simply takes out some money (scaling with the size of the forces, perhaps exponentially) is much better: the player just know that sending an army is costly (I've made an argument for this in this entry). So the system in one tmodelsk options for SSHIP is better.

Limitation on the foreign expedition as the faction grows (WarCouncillor system) – it kills the role-playing with the other generals. In big faction you simply disregards any other general than FL/FH.

Additional costs:

• Recruitment: it's better to have simply higher units’ costs than the whole intricate system.
• General’s wealth system – too cumbersome, you need to check traits and count everytime if there's a risk of default, you need to make tricks to avoid bankruptcy etc.
• On-time outlays at Coming of Age (on wealth), marriages, supply purchase – these are good for they bolster up the worth of any general. As killing any general incurs costs you don’t kill someone just because his is not the best in the world. If you do, you'd get another general (MoH event or a new birth) but then you have to pay for all those outlays. Besides, having those costs is simple and transparent: you know what’s going on and you don’t need to scan through the traits every time. Having then not included in the summary screen is not a problem, imo.
• Scutage / taxing the nobles – no needed for such a fancy mechanics. You give money with one hand and takes it away with the other. The sum is usually 0. Why to bother?
• Crusade / jihad costs – they’re simple and make a decision to go on a voyage costly. Having them make the decision of whether to go on the crusade or not more difficult. The much thinkg hard if the benefits (traits, units, relations with the other factions) outweight the costs (money). So it's good for the gameplay.
• Inflation related to the faction size – it’s ok it limits the snow-ball effect. However, it's better to do through exponential costs of garrisons to keep the far-away cities under control or through a normal M2TW mechanism of corruption in such cities.

Recrutiment limitations:

• WarCouncil / Professional Training Staff system – very cumbersome: you need to check which general has it, transfer it from one to another etc. Furthermore, there're two ancillaries but fulfiling similar functions. And WarCouncillor may even be only a trait (for the FL, the junior one), not an ancillary. You need to check and get your bearings all the time. Very complicated while it should be intuitive and simple.
• Only 3/4 places to recruit in a big faction (as there’re 3/4 PTS) – too much of an artificial limitation. In the game it should be natural. In the other submods this is achieved simply through the availability of the castles or good cities. It also forces the player to use most of the time crappy units what kills the game experience. It's better done in the SSHIP - through elite troops low pools' regeneration and very (high) prices for the best units.
• Religion requirements – good for the gameplay as the player needs to take care of the situation in his provinces. I think it should be done for the "factional" units.

Smaller issues:

• Cohesive Fighting Unit – it negates the role of a good if not successful fight. While it may be impact well on the AI performance, it's not good for the player experience. At the least, should be much lower than 70%.
• Over Confidence Trait – the incentive for the player to actually fight the battles should be positive, not negative. I mean: the player should chose to fight manually because he want a good trait for his general, not fearing a bad one.
• Crime&Punishment – I’ve failed to see their meaning for the gameplay and they're also not very excting as a flavour.

[Charles the Man]

Great discussion here all around. I've also started playing with BGRV and similar settings and quite enjoy it for roleplay. 12 TPY is great for keeping your characters around long enough to get some interesting combinations of traits. I also find the feudal -> centralized command system interesting. It feels immersive to assign roles of recruitment and support to generals (supply, governing, settlement protection), and change roles when the war council general is exhausted by campaigning or in need of provisions. It felt like a good approximation of the planning and bureaucracy involved in controlling a sprawling empire. That said, the recruiting limitations for governors without the command ancillaries is too harsh. They're still feudal lords, so they should be able to raise feudal armies of knights and levies to protect their lands. Professional armies were the domain of the central authority (faction leader, heir, and their appointed war council), while feudal armies were the domain of all landed elite with titles. I'll be modifying recruitment so all generals can train knights and levies where they have deeds to the settlement, for classic feudal enforcer and fodder armies on home soil

I'm not a fan of how Byg removed general's traits with every turn (100% chance, with conditions to bring traits to neutral). I get that it increases difficulty, but you lose out on so much character development. I modified the triggers for their removal so they only happen with a 8% chance, representing the atrophy of skills and/or a decline in a reputation or inclination over time. So on average about a year (12 turns) without successfully practising a trait will cause it to decline. On the flip side, I've given AI generals self-perpetuating triggers for GoodCommander, GoodBuilder, GoodAdministrator, BattleDread/Chivalry, etc., so the AI generals that gain those traits develop them further. This balances the fact that the player knows how to improve those traits but the AI doesn't. I have also reintroduced the triggers for spy advancement, but given the player an 8% chance of 1 BadSpy each turn, and the AI an 8% chance of 1 GoodSpy; again because the AI sucks at developing their characters. I also applied the same kinds of penalty/bonus to assassins, diplomats and princesses (AI priests seem to develop ok already because they don't necessarily have to perform missions to do so). All the relevant trigger chances and thresholds will have to be balanced with playtesting. I am also thinking of adding perpetuating old age traits to agents so that there is a limit to how long the most experienced ones remain all-powerful.

All in all I enjoy BGRV, but it's taken a lot of modding to take it from a immersively difficult campaign to an equally immersive roleplay experience. Characters need traits, not just for the stat bonuses/penalties, but for character development. The AI should be brought up to speed with the player, not the other way round. I think my fixes work well enough in addressing that.. will just have to see how the numbers play out.