Heroic victories not sufficently rewarded ingame.

[realm56]

Something that sort of confuses me here, when I win heroic victories, the rewards for winning such victories against greater numbers/superior quality army do not net me any substantual benefits when compared to winning decisive vicotries. I ask why?

[Lusitanio]

Any suggestions on what should the player get?

Be in mind, that great victories already give your Generals more chances of better command traits and also money for capturing the enemy camp.
On my future submod, there will also be a new ancillary that your (Carthaginian) Generals get which will allow them to have a nice event if they are close to the capital.

[Roma_Victrix]

Be in mind, that great victories already give your Generals more chances of better command traits

There's the problem right there. It shouldn't be by chance. It should just automatically award that general an additional command star, at the very least due to his fame in winning a battle against all odds for his people. That sort of thing endears a general to the men. Even Publius Ventidius Bassus couldn't be hidden away by Mark Antony if the latter had been jealous about his victories against Parthia.

[Septentrionalis]

Something that sort of confuses me here, when I win heroic victories, the rewards for winning such victories against greater numbers/superior quality army do not net me any substantual benefits when compared to winning decisive vicotries.

There's the problem right there. It shouldn't be by chance. It should just automatically award that general an additional command star, at the very least due to his fame in winning a battle against all odds for his people.

I agree here with realm56 and Roma_Victrix. There really should be a substantial reward for those victories. Some of those engagements are, well, engaging for the player with a distinct feeling of achievement, and not getting anything out of it is something of an anticlimax. The original Rome: Total War also left a marker on the map, if I remember correctly, and that is a good example of how you can reward the player. That may not be feasible due to engine limitations and all, but extraordinary success should be rewarded in some way that is feasible within the confines of the engine.

[Jurand of Cracow]

The original Rome: Total War also left a marker on the map, if I remember correctly, and that is a good example of how you can reward the player.

Also Med2 engine leaves the markers, but I think the number of those markers is limited (to 5?). Anybody know if this can be modded?

[Domaje]

Also Med2 engine leaves the markers, but I think the number of those markers is limited (to 5?). Anybody know if this can be modded?

I read that there can be a maximum of 10 at the same time, but I know I had a campaign where there was more than that, maybe between 12-15. So if it is true there is a limit, it's more than that.

Else, I agree with Roma_Victrix that there should be a trait for victories. And maybe with different rewards depending on factions, to adress the fact that some factions have a State army while others are tribal.

[Lusitanio]

Also Med2 engine leaves the markers, but I think the number of those markers is limited (to 5?). Anybody know if this can be modded?

On my current campaign, I have at least 10 of those markers.

[moisesjns]

I think so as well, I mean, Heroic victories are not something i get every 5 battles, for me its like 1-15 battles. And really they must not be "heroic" if my general does not even get a command star, or a trait that allows him to recruit units at a cheaper price. I mean, people followed Pyrrhus because of his great victories right? and just because his name. Yet in game for winning something like this you get nothing really.

[Jervaj]

I think the problem is that its very vigor related if I remeber correcctly from checking the files. Like the change to get the traits are often factored a lot by the vigor of the char. So a great victory gives you the trait guaranteed if vigor was high, but chances lowered quickly with lower vigors. Maybe the behaviour should be more like that for normal victories and decisive/heroic victories have much higher floors regarding the chances.

[Roma_Victrix]

Personally I think you guys should create an entirely new trait in the "export_descr_character_traits" file specifically for heroic victories. This hypothetical trait should probably come with three different tiers, with +1 command star and +1 morale points for the first tier, until the third tier where your general is made a national hero with +3 command stars and +3 morale points after scoring three separate heroic victories. Surely that's something easy to script, right? It's not very complex in terms of triggers, since the only trigger for the trait would be heroic victories.

I agree here with realm56 and Roma_Victrix. There really should be a substantial reward for those victories. Some of those engagements are, well, engaging for the player with a distinct feeling of achievement, and not getting anything out of it is something of an anticlimax. The original Rome: Total War also left a marker on the map, if I remember correctly, and that is a good example of how you can reward the player. That may not be feasible due to engine limitations and all, but extraordinary success should be rewarded in some way that is feasible within the confines of the engine.

Agreed, although Medieval II Total War and by extension EBII already have the heroic victory battle site marker, in the form of two crossing swords that display the names of the commanding generals and the year the battle was fought when you hover your mouse cursor over it.

[realm56]

Personally I think you guys should create an entirely new trait in the "export_descr_character_traits" file specifically for heroic victories. This hypothetical trait should probably come with three different tiers, with +1 command star and +1 morale points for the first tier, until the third tier where your general is made a national hero with +3 command stars and +3 morale points after scoring three separate heroic victories. Surely that's something easy to script, right? It's not very complex in terms of triggers, since the only trigger for the trait would be heroic victories.

I quite like this proposal, however, I might also add an additional condition to achieving these tiers if your casualties from such battles are low (You only get these tiers if your casualties is less than 20% for instance, the AI already has a more difficult time generating high command generals in most instances (Nomadic generals are a key exception to this due to some their unique traits such as the Bala) and your suggestion has the very real potential to let the player snowball out of control when it comes to good generals.

[Lusitanio]

Personally I think you guys should create an entirely new trait in the "export_descr_character_traits" file specifically for heroic victories. This hypothetical trait should probably come with three different tiers, with +1 command star and +1 morale points for the first tier, until the third tier where your general is made a national hero with +3 command stars and +3 morale points after scoring three separate heroic victories. Surely that's something easy to script, right? It's not very complex in terms of triggers, since the only trigger for the trait would be heroic victories.

The benefits you suggest are too high and there are also already many traits that are influenced by victories. I could work on something but I would need some more feedback. There are also quite a few traits like the Famous General one that is influenced by heroic victories and other traits.

[Neyak]

I'd be a bit concerned that such a change would be disproportionately advantageous to the player, since pulling off heroic victories isn't that difficult, depending on the particular unit composition, terrain, and so on, but is very unlikely to happen in AI battles. A small immediate bonus at best, I'd say.

I also assume it is implicit in this discussion here that different factions would be affected differently. For example, for nomadic peoples it might well be expected that they win regular heroic victories against their settled neighbours, whereas a Celtic leader winning a heroic victory against those filthy Latin-speakers should make them a legend right there and then.

[Hellenikon]

I don't know where you got the idea that heroic victories are not rewarded, FLs get lot of progress in their authority trait and any general has a very good chance of getting very good command traits. Just win several heroic victories and look at the traits afterwards, there will be some changes there for sure. In the past I've heavily exploited river crossings to achieve heroic victories and got many good traits out of it.

[realm56]

I don't know where you got the idea that heroic victories are not rewarded, FLs get lot of progress in their authority trait and any general has a very good chance of getting very good command traits. Just win several heroic victories and look at the traits afterwards, there will be some changes there for sure. In the past I've heavily exploited river crossings to achieve heroic victories and got many good traits out of it.

This idea came from the numerous battles I have had against small rebel stacks using outnumbered cavalry patrols led by inexperienced FMs with both nomadic and non-nomadic compositions , it just feels that the rate in which I get good command traits are little different to if I won clear victories or maybe I am just getting unlucky with getting good command traits.

[Erken]

Another aspect of the problem is that not all heroic victories should be rewarded. If you are the attacker, leading a very inferior army should be regarded as a reckless risk, and so a serious misconduct, indepedently of the result of the battle.

[QuintusSertorius]

As some have mentioned, this feels too much like it would be a reward for the player that would give them an even bigger advantage over the AI.

[Roma_Victrix]

I quite like this proposal, however, I might also add an additional condition to achieving these tiers if your casualties from such battles are low (You only get these tiers if your casualties is less than 20% for instance, the AI already has a more difficult time generating high command generals in most instances (Nomadic generals are a key exception to this due to some their unique traits such as the Bala) and your suggestion has the very real potential to let the player snowball out of control when it comes to good generals.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise!

The benefits you suggest are too high and there are also already many traits that are influenced by victories. I could work on something but I would need some more feedback. There are also quite a few traits like the Famous General one that is influenced by heroic victories and other traits.

As some have mentioned, this feels too much like it would be a reward for the player that would give them an even bigger advantage over the AI.

Not really. Heroic victories aren't really that common, in my experience. Discounting defensive sieges (which I think should be excluded out of fairness to the AI), this trait if triggered only by field battles would have a marginal affect. It would, however, be great for roleplaying with national heroes much like having your own Hannibal or Scipio and serve as an incentive to the player to act a bit more daringly than he would otherwise (which would definitely fit with historical reality of Roman aristocrats competing for glory).

Besides, a +3 command and +3 morale boost doesn't exactly make your commander into some uber overlord immortal god emperor crushing everything in his path and your generals don't live forever, dying off after age 72. I never amass more than about 20 to 30 field battles as heroic victories in an entire campaign, and I play very long 800-1000 turn campaigns into the late 1st century BC. I think you guys are just exaggerating the affect this would have and overlooking how awesomely cool it would be.

[realm56]

Another aspect of the problem is that not all heroic victories should be rewarded. If you are the attacker, leading a very inferior army should be regarded as a reckless risk, and so a serious misconduct, indepedently of the result of the battle.

That is also a very fair point to make which was part of the rationale I put up for adding the low casualty rate condition for Victrix's original proposal for a heroic victory oriented trait line. Not all of your military gambles may work out as fortunately as you hope they would. Perhaps depending on the faction, there could be trait lines that punish repeat occurrences these sort of reckless decisions whether that may be political repercussions (ie. For Rome, especially if the commander in question lacks imperium) or personality changes (ie. higher risk of acquiring Believes he's Divine for Hellenes if he is militarily inexperienced).

[Jervaj]

I agree that heroic victories could be abused for the player, in the sense that AI is never gonna get those with autoresolve.

Attacking in a position that is gonna make a heroic victory possible though is indeed reckless. Part of been a good commander is picking your battles properly.

I wonder though if it isn't more problematic the fact of how hard is to groom commanders, where it feels more luck than anything. I know there are many factors involved, but you can totally have guys with good "stats" leading your war effort for years and winning many battles/conquering a bunch of regions and they still sit at 2 command, maybe 4 if conditionals apply.

Though arguably outside of autoresolve confidence is much more important/stronger than command I believe. But it feels odd nonethess.