Heroic victories not sufficently rewarded ingame.

[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.

[Pooploop]

That's what I've been complaining about for years...EB2 has this extreme fetish for having a constant roster of generals stuck at 2-4 command stars. This will be fine if they just sat in settlements and only participated in 1-2 battles their entire lives, but for generals that brought in upwards of 30+ victories - it's completely unreasonable. If one of the devs really would bring in the "historical accuracy" card and say that only a few generals ever got to such a skill level realistically, yeah, because only a few generals ever commanded that many battles! The whole he has to have "innate talent" argument is second priority to RESULTS. If said general won 30+ victories, he's a 5-6 star level general, even without ancillaries! Imagine telling a dude who played in dozens of commercially successful concerts that he'll be forever second rate to some dude who was uhh assessed as a "prodigy" as a kid, but who only played in one showing. The whole 2-4 stars is bunch of cow dung...

[Sint]

Then all of your generals would have 10 stars since it is the player that commands the army and there is nothing hard about getting 30 victories.And it's not like it will make a big difference since a player with a decent army and a 1 star general can beat a 10 star AI general with a full stack .

card and say that only a few generals ever got to such a skill level realistically, yeah, because only a few generals ever commanded that many battles!

Exactly .It is far easier to fight a lot of battles which is why it shouldn't be as easy to get a good general.

[Pooploop]

Then if that's the case, up the requirement of how many battles it would take to get a "star", so to speak. Make it harder for the player compared to the ai - around 60 battles. The victories have to be AT THE LEAST decisive or maybe heroic, and the number of men participating from both sides has to reach a certain quota (so no counting of puny skirmishes). Also, NO INTERVENING defeats. One defeat should increase the cap of victories required. C'mon devs, an unbroken chain of 60 major victories - that has to be done by a general of at least 5-6 stars! For it to be accomplished by a 2-4...utterly ridiculous.

[Jervaj]

Then all of your generals would have 10 stars since it is the player that commands the army and there is nothing hard about getting 30 victories.And it's not like it will make a big difference since a player with a decent army and a 1 star general can beat a 10 star AI general with a full stack .




Exactly .It is far easier to fight a lot of battles which is why it shouldn't be as easy to get a good general.

I dont know if maybe I play the game different. But 30 battles its a ton of battles for me. Specially if you don't count sieges as half the battles tend to be sieges. I would love if it could be more realistic in that sense and winning one or two decisive victories on the field could make for signing peace and getting some settlements without the bothersome sieges.

Either way, the same guy doing that many is unlikely for me, specially earlier on. Later against an ai blob that spams armies may be more feasible.

In my case the main case where I tend to get a lot of fights early is as KH due to the 3 side war they start on, with many of your settlements within striking distance of the enemy (due to the density in greece) and wanting to snipe eastern sicily/magna graecia early before things get complicated with Rome and Carthage which requires a lot of rushing. Not all fights would be lead by the same guy but whoever leads the effort once things have settled a bit tends to rack up a dozen battles, and it feels a bit dissapointing that he is just slightly better than a random governor after all that as usually I dont have such a big campaign in quite a long while in game. There is not that many people afterwards that conquer so many regions and defeat two factions.

[Shlazaor]

I dont know if maybe I play the game different. But 30 battles its a ton of battles for me. Specially if you don't count sieges as half the battles tend to be sieges. I would love if it could be more realistic in that sense and winning one or two decisive victories on the field could make for signing peace and getting some settlements without the bothersome sieges.

Either way, the same guy doing that many is unlikely for me, specially earlier on. Later against an ai blob that spams armies may be more feasible.

In my case the main case where I tend to get a lot of fights early is as KH due to the 3 side war they start on, with many of your settlements within striking distance of the enemy (due to the density in greece) and wanting to snipe eastern sicily/magna graecia early before things get complicated with Rome and Carthage which requires a lot of rushing. Not all fights would be lead by the same guy but whoever leads the effort once things have settled a bit tends to rack up a dozen battles, and it feels a bit dissapointing that he is just slightly better than a random governor after all that as usually I dont have such a big campaign in quite a long while in game. There is not that many people afterwards that conquer so many regions and defeat two factions.

I agree with everything you are saying but I also don't seem to struggle this much getting stars? Even my dull and uncharismatic heir is up to I think 5 stars after something like 10 battles? Admittedly all my battles are clear victories with the exception I think maybe one minor battle that was auto resolved.

[Shoebopp]

If you guys want OP generals, play as the KH, the Sauromatae, or any of the Celtic factions. They all have traitlines that boost your FMs' stats through the roof. The KH have the whole citizenship traitline which offer a hefty boost to Command and Confidence, the Sauromatae have the coming-of-age raid mechanic that soars their Confidence, movement, and Attack to unimaginable heights, and the Celtic factions have the Kingetos and Gargos storyline which turns them into ape attackers (and terrible defenders!).

[Roma_Victrix]

Yes, Koinon Hellenon has great generals, but the only decent commanders you'll get as other Hellenistic factions are their basileus kings and diadokhoi faction heirs.