Recording victories of your commanders

[ray243]

One thing missing from CK2, but one thing that was present in the original Rome Total War game, is the game records the military success of commanders in battles. The more battles that a general won in a battle, the higher his military reputation will be.

While there is a system in CK2 that records your main character's military success and failures, it does not record the military success of the generals that you've appointed to command your armies. A general who has won many victories for the king or emperor ought to feel he should be better rewarded. In this way, it makes the game more meaningful in terms of relationships between your commanders and your character.

You cannot simply place the general with the best stats in command of your army, and dismiss them once the war is over. Their success or failures in campaigns ought to have an impact in terms of relationship with the ruler and their peers. If the general with good stats is in the unfortunate circumstances of losing a number of battles, it might affect his military reputation amongst his peers and his rulers.

Having some sort of system that records the performances of your commanders will really help with some factions, like the Byzantines, the Islamic empires and maybe even China ( tensions between the court and successful generals is a constant theme there).

 

[junassa]

I really like this idea.
Also there's a CK 2 mod that keeps track of wins (and gives bonuses based on victories) so I'd imagine it shouldn't be too difficult.

 

[J.B.]

People like to compare historical commanders' victories and defeats. I agree that this is an excellent idea. I would also like to see the numbers of defeats, as well as the victories achieved.

 

[Chlodio]

I'd wish martial would be tied to victories in battle. I find it odd that there are women with high martial (+10) who have never led armies, meanwhile, you have generals who have won several battles but still martial of 5. IMO more sensible system would gap martial gained from traits and education to 4, after that only way to increase it would be to win battles.

 

[Heiliges Thüringens Reich]

I can't agree more with that!
I think even the Knights should have their tallies too

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

Knights having a record of victories and defeats, preferably sang by a bard, are the next best thing.

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

I'd wish martial would be tied to victories in battle. I find it odd that there are women with high martial (+10) who have never led armies, meanwhile, you have generals who have won several battles but still martial of 5. IMO more sensible system would gap martial gained from traits and education to 4, after that only way to increase it would be to win battles.

The traits represent aptitude, not experience. It would be nonsensical to make martial the only trait that represents experience instead of aptitude.

Keeping track of battles won/lost and using that ratio as some sort of modifier to the trait in order to represent the impact of their experience on their natural aptitude would be cool though

 

[Chlodio]

The traits represent aptitude, not experience. It would be nonsensical to make martial the only trait that represents experience instead of aptitude.

How would that be non-sensical? What is nonsensical is sixteen-year-old girl having a higher martial than thirty-year-old who is veteran of thousand battles.

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

How would that be non-sensical? What is nonsensical is sixteen-year-old girl having a higher martial than thirty-year-old who is veteran of thousand battles.

The traits represent aptitude, not experience.

Anyway, tell it to Joan of Arc........

 

[ray243]

Anyway, tell it to Joan of Arc........

Technically she didn't really lead armies on her own. There is some difference between being good at morale boosting and deploying troops and etc.

 

[Chlodio]

Anyway, tell it to Joan of Arc........

What @ray243 said. Wait, you seriously thought that a teenage peasant girl with no training was a legit commander and not just a mascot?

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

Technically she didn't really lead armies on her own. There is some difference between being good at morale boosting and deploying troops and etc.

Well, it was a frivolous response to a blatant strawman, although I will circle back to it.

My real point was that it wouldn't make sense for the martial trait to represent battlefield experience when every other trait represents a character's ability in that area, not their experience.

I did suggest that their experience could be used to produce a modifier to this ability, which I still think would make a good compromise - without requiring that the entire core concept of traits be discarded and reworked from the ground up.

You're absolutely right, there is some difference between being good at morale-boosting and deploying troops etc. But morale is often regarded as one of the most significant factors that can swing a battle/war (I mean, it kinda boils down to which side is more willing to die for the victory). So this 16-year-old straw girl could have a very high command ability that may well be based more on her ability to inspire fervently high moral in her troops, than in her knowledge and experience of battlefield tactics. And our straw veteran of 1000 straw battles (really? must be an old dog..) will undoubtedly have a much higher personal combat score than her, but maybe he's just not a very good commander. Maybe he's failed to learn advanced strategies and tactics, maybe he's dull, slow-witted and uncharismatic, unable to inspire troops on the battlefield or come up with adaptive tactics to counter unfolding dynamic situations as they evolve.

IMO more sensible system would gap martial gained from traits and education to 4, after that only way to increase it would be to win battles.

In this system Alexander the Great has an atrociously bad Martial score before, well I suppose until AFTER he's completed his campaigns. Let's ignore the fact that some of his most famous battles and examples of his military genius were relatively early into his campaigns.

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

What @ray243 said. Wait, you seriously thought that a teenage peasant girl with no training was a legit commander and not just a mascot?

Ah yes, when the strawman doesn't work just go for the ad hominem.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

How would that be non-sensical? What is nonsensical is sixteen-year-old girl having a higher martial than thirty-year-old who is veteran of thousand battles.

IIRC there is such a thing as battle experience modifiers in CK2.

 

[Chlodio]

In this system Alexander the Great has an atrociously bad Martial score before, well I suppose until AFTER he's completed his campaigns. Let's ignore the fact that some of his most famous battles and examples of his military genius were relatively early into his campaigns.

I don't think so. Alexander had an impressive military career even before Philip died.

>During Philip's absence, the Thracian Maedi revolted against Macedonia. Alexander responded quickly, driving them from their territory.

>Upon Philip's return, he dispatched Alexander with a small force to subdue revolts in southern Thrace. Campaigning against the Greek city of Perinthus, Alexander is reported to have saved his father's life.

>During this turmoil, the Illyrians invaded Macedonia, only to be repelled by Alexander.

>During the ensuing Battle of Chaeronea, Philip commanded the right wing and Alexander the left, accompanied by a group of Philip's trusted generals.

So if every battle increased martial by one and Alexander's education+personality would give him 4, his martial would at least be 8 by the death of Philip. Furthermore, he won three battles in the Balkans after, so his martial would be at least 11 during the Granicus. This might not be much in a world where experience is not factored, but which would be fairly a lot in a world where average martial is 3.

 

[Chlodio]

IIRC there is such a thing as battle experience modifiers in CK2.

Screenshots revealed it will auto-tick and is apparently used to unlock rewards, so it's sword mana from EU4.

 

[Chlodio]

Ah yes, when the strawman doesn't work just go for the ad hominem.

If you wish to take it as ad hominem, you can, but from my part it was sincerely intended as a serious question.

Edit:

Well, it was a frivolous response to a blatant strawman, although I will circle back to it.

Also, how did I straw man you? How did I misrepresent your argument? Which was "that is nonsensical", to which I replied with a common example from the game that is the reason why I proposed the solution in the first place.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

Screenshots revealed it will auto-tick and is apparently used to unlock rewards, so it's sword mana from EU4.

I thought the in-game explanation was you were practicing and reading up on ancient military manuals, so you were progressing? I think this is enough to discount it as "mana".
Seriously though. A war of the wizards would require vast amounts of mana.

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

Also, how did I straw man you? How did I misrepresent your argument?

By ignoring the actual point I was making and instead fabricating this contrived example with the extreme contrast of a

sixteen-year-old girl having a higher martial than thirty-year-old who is veteran of thousand battles

When the point I was making was this:

It would be nonsensical to make martial the only trait that represents experience instead of aptitude.

I even repeated and clarified the point, but you decided to pursue the straw further with Alexander, my mistake for engaging at all on that front.

My real point was that it wouldn't make sense for the martial trait to represent battlefield experience when every other trait represents a character's ability in that area, not their experience.

Maybe "nonsensical" was an overly harsh term to use, but I did not mean to offend.

I was never even opposed to experience contributing something to the trait:

Keeping track of battles won/lost and using that ratio as some sort of modifier to the trait in order to represent the impact of their experience on their natural aptitude would be cool though

But I am very much opposed to it being pretty much the sole determiner of the trait. Especially when that is not how any of the other traits work.

That is what I am saying does not make sense.

I am NOT saying that experience cannot contribute to a character's ability.

I AM saying that the game's mechanics must be internally consistent.

So, if we can continue the original discussion civilly, where does that leave Diplomacy, Stewardship, Intrigue and Learning? Are they all to be capped at a measly 4 from the contribution of chance, genetics, traits, nurturing and education? What exactly will be the actions that contribute experience in these fields to raise their corresponding trait?

Intrigue is an easy one I suppose, successful plots could raise experience/ trait level.

Learning? Reading books? Well without items in-game at launch that would be difficult.

Diplomacy? Each alliance you negotiate? Each marriage?

Stewardship?

I think a hybridisation of your suggestion and the existing system could be quite interesting (especially if there were satisfactory ways to extend similar effects to the other traits)

Maybe it could be tied to increasing a character's martial education level, this used to be attached to the choice of a military lifestyle giving a fairly random chance to increase the education level, but with the way that lifestyles are changing maybe this would be better being directly tied to battlefield experience.

IIRC there is such a thing as battle experience modifiers in CK2.

There is, but IIRC it affects Personal Combat Score, which is distinct from Martial ability, although I might be conflating it with the battlefield duel experience.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

By ignoring the actual point I was making and instead fabricating this contrived example with the extreme contrast of a

There is, but IIRC it affects Personal Combat Score, which is distinct from Martial ability, although I might be conflating it with the battlefield duel experience.

I am of the opinion that battlefield experience should not only raise your dueling ability but your martial too, but IIRC vanilla only supports the former.