Gaining traits

[the_legion]

Few mins ago I played MTW2. Even if the games are not comparable there is a funny
fact that that gaining traits is completely different in both games.

In MTW2 you do something (e.g. building stuff) and you get the "builder"-trait,
or you slaughter people after conquest and get the "bad boy"-trait (or similar ).
>>> "Active" trait-gaining.

In CK1 something happens (event) and you react which eventually results in gaining a trait.
>>> "Passive" trait-gaining.

------------------------------------
So it's easier to "form" characters in the way you like with an active system. Like if your character has low piety- no Problem,
you do not need to wait for an event that fits but you can build churches, give land to Bishops, ask the pope for a crusade/ participate in one....
To make things short, I pray for more active and less passive trait-gain.

(That I used MTW as example makes me gaining the noob-trait which makes forum-peasantry revolting against me ...)

 

[unmerged(31881)]

i daresay you are not correct in your characterization of CK1; there were options that altered/added traits depending upon your choice.

If you felt so inclined... there was a whole string of them when raising an possible heir.

And yes... i do support the immediate, automatic, irrevocable banhammer for n00bz who raise analogies with whatever that thing was you mentioned.

(Tskb18 has gained the traits Arbitrary and Cruel.)

 

[Wilsonrtf]

i daresay you are not correct in your characterization of CK1; there were options that altered/added traits depending upon your choice.

If you felt so inclined... there was a whole string of them when raising an possible heir.

And yes... i do support the immediate, automatic, irrevocable banhammer for n00bz who raise analogies with whatever that thing was you mentioned.

(Tskb18 has gained the traits Arbitrary and Cruel.)

No way. Tskb18 has gained the traits wise and just.

 

[Duke of Bavaria]

Mr. Wise Guy maybe...

 

[DanubianCossak]

I could tell you what we do with wise guys here, but it might be a violation of forum rules, so i wont xD

On a side note, when i think about it, i guess thats why we will join EU by 2146. as they say.

On topic, i think we first need to see and experience the exact impact/feeling of traits in CK2 before we can actually debate about how those traits are gained.

 

[RedRooster81]

No way. Tskb18 has gained the traits wise and just.

It's a matter of perception, isn't it? Letting a poacher off for killing a deer in the middle of winter after a really bad harvest would be "arbitrary" to your chief legal advisors (you are going against a long tradition of helping crows survive the winter thanks to poachers like him) or "just" to the poor guy (especially if you let him keep the deer) and his ilk.

On the OP, I say that there should be ideally nicknames to follow your given name: e.g., Otto the Campaigner, who spent his 25 years on the throne at war; Johann the Builder, who connected the Duchy of Bavaria to every neighbor with roads and bridges and established a university, three monasteries, and a summer palace; and Roderic the Idle who never did anything and died but childless but very well rested at the age of 113.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

It's a matter of perception, isn't it? Letting a poacher off for killing a deer in the middle of winter after a really bad harvest would be "arbitrary" to your chief legal advisors (you are going against a long tradition of helping crows survive the winter thanks to poachers like him) or "just" to the poor guy (especially if you let him keep the deer) and his ilk.

On the OP, I say that there should be ideally nicknames to follow your given name: e.g., Otto the Campaigner, who spent his 25 years on the throne at war; Johann the Builder, who connected the Duchy of Bavaria to every neighbor with roads and bridges and established a university, three monasteries, and a summer palace; and Roderic the Idle who never did anything and died but childless but very well rested at the age of 113.

True enough. I just couldn't let the joke go ...

 

[unmerged(155641)]

Why all this off-topic?

 

[RedRooster81]

Why all this off-topic?

So is your question. But I figure most things are relevant here. To redirect:

It seems like there will be fewer traits (no more octogenarians with thirty traits), but another important question is the effects (besides as we saw in the last DD, physical effects in some cases). Some traits will give modifiers to relations with vassals or maybe other lieges in general. Others will allow or disallow certain choices in events or I assume allow or disallow certain laws or decisions (e.g., a very traditional lord would be less likely to change succession laws). But here I ask, what else should traits do?

EU Rome introduced the idea of military education traits allowing particular maneuvers in battle, instead of simply boosting the military and other attributes. So a "knowledged tactician" had a chance of rallying troops suffering from low morale, while a "brilliant strategist" was able to rout the enemy, even when facing superior numbers. So I imagine that traits will affect how generals behave, but will reckless, coward, lazy also have an effect?

It would also be nice if council members' and the liege's traits also modified certain other things, like tax revenue, the speed of technology spread, construction time--also referring back to Rome.

Any other suggestions? If not for the vanilla release, maybe this would also be an interesting ground for modders.

 

[Zsrai]

EU Rome introduced the idea of military education traits allowing particular maneuvers in battle, instead of simply boosting the military and other attributes. So a "knowledged tactician" had a chance of rallying troops suffering from low morale, while a "brilliant strategist" was able to rout the enemy, even when facing superior numbers. So I imagine that traits will affect how generals behave, but will reckless, coward, lazy also have an effect?

It would also be nice if council members' and the liege's traits also modified certain other things, like tax revenue, the speed of technology spread, construction time--also referring back to Rome.

While not quite the same as the traits, another thing that Rome did was have other stats influence the "main event" stat. Finesse (intrigue) could affect the chances of a battlefield event taking place. Most of the court positions gave bonuses based on more than one stat, so you had to balance out who you gave the office to. Hopefully having a more well-rounded Marshal would be beneficial than some 18-1-1-1 putz.

 

[RedRooster81]

While not quite the same as the traits, another thing that Rome did was have other stats influence the "main event" stat. Finesse (intrigue) could affect the chances of a battlefield event taking place. Most of the court positions gave bonuses based on more than one stat, so you had to balance out who you gave the office to. Hopefully having a more well-rounded Marshal would be beneficial than some 18-1-1-1 putz.

Maybe we'll have more balanced traits, too. Across all cultures. How much better an 18-martial general was than a 16-martial one was never clear to me, but bigger was better.

 

[Zsrai]

It would be great if that martial 18 shy coward was worse as a marshal than your 12 martial wise valorous marshal, that's for sure.

 

[ZhugeKongming]

One problem I have with traits and stats is that they're almost completely unrelated. A king with 20-20-20-20 stats is clearly some kind of superhuman genius, but his traits could just as easily be reckless/foolish/arbitrary/etc. as wise/prodigy/just/cunning/etc.

While we're on the subject, I don't like how all traits were 'balanced' in CK1. Every trait had bonuses and penalties, and generally these were assigned so that opposite traits had opposite bonuses and penalties. So wise, for example, gave +1 martial, +1 diplomacy, and -1 intrigue, while reckless gave -1 martial, +1 intrigue, and +1 prestige. This doesn't make any intuitive sense; why would a wise king be bad at intrigue? Surely his wisdom helps him make good decisions in that regard, just as it does with war and diplomacy? And why doesn't he get a stewardship bonus? Likewise, there's no reason for a reckless king to get an intrigue bonus; if anything, it should be a penalty. And why not a diplomacy penalty, too? Also, I have no idea why reckless has a prestige bonus.

The only way you could justify this conception of traits is game balance, but I find that a poor reason. It's an unsatisfying and unintuitive implementation of personality differences. It also sort of elides away the reality that some kings were objectively better than others. I can't think of a single thing that a truly wise king would be worse at than a reckless king, but the way CK1 conceives of them, they're just sort of equal, with different strengths and weaknesses. If you want to balance traits, the 'balance' should come in through events. Getting 'wise' as a trait should be harder and rarer than 'reckless.'

 

[unmerged(186212)]

History is littered with the corpses of reckless, selfish geniuses.

 

[ZhugeKongming]

It's also littered with the corpses of wise, generous geniuses. Humans, you may be surprised to learn, are mortal.

 

[RedRooster81]

It would be great if that martial 18 shy coward was worse as a marshal than your 12 martial wise valorous marshal, that's for sure.

Good point. Someone with a brilliant mind for battle plans could have no stomach for actual fighting, and the opposite could be true, too. He could cook up the most brilliant strategies, but fear actually engaging his army in battle with the enemy or flee once his plans start falling apart. A valorous "misguided warrior" should get a morale bonus for the men under his command, but some problems managing big battles.

 

[Spurius]

Similarly, shy cowards should have a penalty to troop morale but one with 18 martial should still win substantially more than he loses. His obvious military skill would make him good at organising sieges and good at drilling and using infantry but his personality would make him less effective as a cavalry commander and he would be more likely to retreat or fail to press an attack than a more flamboyant commander.

As RedRooster says, it makes sense for a valorous commander to give a morale bonus but should not really know any tactics more sophisticated than "Charge!!!" - essentially a medieval General Custer.

I hope that Paradox include HOI-style battle events, in which case personality should have as much influence as martial skill. Negative events would make it more interesting as well. For example, a Glorious Charge event would make your heavy cavalry inflict more casualties and much more morale damage. However, there could also be a Reckless Charge event, in which your cavalry decide to attack without proper support or orders. They should inflict a bit more damage but take considerably higher losses both to troops and morale. A high martial general would be more likely to get the former and less likely to get the latter. A Valourous commander would be more likely to get both. A Cowardly commander would be less likely to get either.

 

[Zsrai]

True. That shy coward would (should!) be much better than the valorous character in the command tent, but arguably worse while leading from the front. Even with the much higher martial score. If that happens through events, so much the better. I fear for what a reckless commander would do!

 

[RedRooster81]

True. That shy coward would (should!) be much better than the valorous character in the command tent, but arguably worse while leading from the front. Even with the much higher martial score. If that happens through events, so much the better. I fear for what a reckless commander would do!

Cesare Borgia, the famous bastard son of Pope Alexander VI and a valorous and cunning commander, is supposed to have died leading an assault against a rebel fortress in Navarra, when none of the men under his command followed him. So he ran into the breach all alone. Yikes! (at least that's how he dies in Mario Puzzo's The Family, about the Borgias)

 

[Spurius]

CK1 had the occasional siege event, but it would be good if there were more in CK2. For example:

• Attacker mining under the walls
• Garrison launches a sally from the castle
• Attacker tries to bribe his way in
• Defender agrees to surrender after a certain number of days if not relieved

I presume that there will be an assault option like in EU3 and EU:Rome.