There is no logic for this

[tbitw1322]

Playing as Ethiopia, i've secured the rest of the coptic regions, begun colonizing into central Africa, and am have successfully reached Kilwa. At this point I am 2 techs ahead of them in military tech, my 5 shock king is my general. Needless to say, it was a blood bath, but how does it make sense for them to gain more Military Tradition for losing thousands upon thousands of units battle after battle.

Before the war was over they recruited their own 5 shock general of their own, after obtaining loads of military tradition sending suicide stacks up against my Ethiopian Armies, it makes no sense for a player to have to decide do I want to stay somewhat ahead/on pace with Military Tech and have 1/2/1 generals or do I want to stay behind and recruit God generals because apparently the greatest leaders in the world, outside of Europe, only join the armies with the highest casualty counts!

Losing battle after battle shouldn't garner you 5 army tradition while i'm barely getting over 1.

 

[Illianor123]

Losing battles has always given the loser more military tradition.

I just assume it easier to learn from their mistakes and observing your actions and so they get military tradition. But you as the victor are winning and think that you can maintain the status quo and still win.

Just some brief thoughts

 

[Squirrelloid]

I believe military tradition gain is based on relative tradition of each force. So if you have a god general and they're stuck with 1/1s, chances are you have a lot more tradition than they do - they learn a lot more watching you than you do watching them.

(If you've got a vassal with markedly less tradition than you, let the vassal provoke the combat and then join - Mil Trad gain is set by the first country on a side that joins a combat, but is given to everyone who participates - you can gain vastly more tradition by joining combats than starting them.)

 

[zodium]

It's casualties relative to force limit. If you lose 100% of your force limit, you get the max possible tradition for a battle. Mercenary losses don't count at all.

 

[EvilFuzzyDoom]

It's casualties relative to force limit. If you lose 100% of your force limit, you get the max possible tradition for a battle. Mercenary losses don't count at all.

That is really useful information.

 

[Iche_Bins]

Actually it is pretty logical.
After you lose the war you try to find ways to change improve your military, much more so than the winner.

Best example was the prussian Stein-Hardenberg Reforms after the defeat against France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_reforms

 

[Denkt]

It's casualties relative to force limit. If you lose 100% of your force limit, you get the max possible tradition for a battle. Mercenary losses don't count at all.

But mercs may not give WE from battle either, but they do give WE for attrition.
You also get 1 tradition point for every province you occupy.
In battle allies in battle get same tradition (and WE) so a weak ally can really help with your tradition.

 

[zodium]

But mercs may not give WE from battle either, but they do give WE for attrition.
You also get 1 tradition point for every province you occupy.
In battle allies in battle get same tradition (and WE) so a weak ally can really help with your tradition.

You actually get X tradition per siege won by you or your subjects, where X = province fort level/2 (min 1).

 

[anomalacaris]

Yeah before long it's all sieges that matter for tradition...

 

[zodium]

Siege or stagnate!

 

[beckermt]

Also, speaking culturally, it's more common for fantastical defeats to be memorialized, thus increasing the culture tradition of the military in a state. See: Custer's Last Stand, the Alamo, Charge of the Light Brigade, (and other examples that aren't coming to mind).

 

[IIWW]

Also, speaking culturally, it's more common for fantastical defeats to be memorialized, thus increasing the culture tradition of the military in a state. See: Custer's Last Stand, the Alamo, Charge of the Light Brigade, (and other examples that aren't coming to mind).

They are not more remembered that battle of Trafalgar, battle of Saratoga, or battle of Stalingrad. But we could make thousands of examples of great victories and great defeats, it would lead to nothing. There is no way to prove either point.
The argument pro making winning a battle giving more AT is that You gain more veterans, a bit more similar to exp in HoI 3.