Trait generation bug for faction leaders?

[Kerenos]

Hello,

In my current multiplayer campaigns as Rome, I am only getting bad faction leaders. I just ran a quick test in single player on balanced. I created 20 Roman and Carthagian leaders.

Rome: 15 out of 20 at least one negative trait. 14 positive and 23 negative traits.
Carthage: 11 out of 20 at least one negative trait. 23 positive and 17 negative traits.

I don't recall it being like this in the past. Is there some bug causing certain factions to have predominately bad leaders, and others with mostly good leaders?

Thanks

[Kerenos]

I could rerun the test with screen shots and/or file saves if you wish, but I figured it would be just as easy for you to run the test and see if you get the same results.

Thanks

[Kerenos]

Hello,
Unless I'm misinterpretating the leaders file, my emperor Scaevola (id 127) should have no traits, but he has frugal, poor administrator, and poor military in my game. My patrician party (id 1) should have good administrator, yet they are poor administrator. I've attached the screenprints.

Thanks

Rome Patrician id 1.png (955.33 KiB) Viewed 969 times

The attachment Rome Patrician id 1.png is no longer available

[Kerenos]

Not sure why only one screenprint showed up. Here's the other.

Rome Scaevola id 127.png (884.32 KiB) Viewed 965 times

[Kerenos]

I checked the other players' leaders. Ptolemeos and Cassander are as per the leader's file. Herodotes (id 322) shows good diplomatic instead of good administrator. Treverix (id 462) shows bad diplomat instead of bad administrator. It looks like the leaders that are preset at the beginning are correct, but the randomized leaders have the incorrect traits.

[Pocus]

All is randomized for random leaders, in fact I take a ID reference of one, traits of another and mix both.

[Kerenos]

I believe there is some modifier somewhere, maybe in the groups file that determines whether you will predominately get good or bad rulers. I wonder if this has somehow been modifed, as I'm mostly getting bad rulers as the Romans. Are the chances of getting good or bad rulers the same for all factions?

[Kerenos]

Thanks for the quick response. Please take the comments below as observation and suggestion, not as criticism, as I find this a great game, and know that you are very responsive and working hard at resolving issues.

What are your thoughts on having more preset initial rulers for factions. Most preset rulers have positive traits. Initially having a ruler with positive traits might increase survivability and game balance in MP. For example, we started a 5 player campaign with Macedonia, Ptolemaic Egypt, Rome, Britonae, and the Arverni. The 1st two have positive preset rulers, while the final three have randomized negative rulers. By turn 15, the 1st two are doing well, while the Arverni are eliminated, the Britonae are very close to elimination, while Rome is not doing as well as they should be. In my other 2 player game, the Ptolemaic Egypt player has had mostly positive rulers, while I as Rome have had negative rulers for 78 of the 81 turns. My current emperor, which I've had for 40+ years has 3 negative traits. I know that the chance of getting rid of bad rulers is greater if you become old or decadent, but my play style is to remain in the top 3rd of the CDR. You can still win with bad rulers, as I'm currently slightly ahead in Legacy points, and in a golden age. My point is that you shouldn't be forced to play badly and become old or decadent to replace a bad ruler, or choose a faction with a good preset ruler to be on equal footing with the other players as far as rulers are concerned.

Thanks