There’s no such thing as “objectively better.” It depends on your objectives; currently, the dominant meta for winning the fight seems to be INT or CHA builds.
7 Likes
Yeah I guess that is why I kept failing. I focussed on fighting.
2 Likes
Hmm been quite a while but i can say its posible to win the fight as a fighting build but you got to make certain choices more so then the other stat builds. Just depend on what your main objectives are going in.
1 Like
It does seem somewhat unbalanced that winning the fight is far easier with Cha or Int builds. It is realistic I understand. slave rebels like Touissant Louveture must be charismatic before becoming a general and the most important thing a general must have is people who will follow his orders, but it doesn’t seem like great character design.
Point being, all other checks around shaping your rebellion and nation/empire will rely more on int and cha by definition. Combat shouldn’t be worse at warfare AND worse at leading than the other two.
Hopefully, checks around operational and tactical warfare going forward will rely almost entirely on combat, while delegating to other commanders will give sub-standard results. Logistics and strategy should rely on Int + Com combined and you shouldn’t be able to run an effective war machine relying on Charisma. If you play as Alexander of Macedon in this series (3 com 1 cha 0 int), you should have better warfare results than Philip of Macedon (3 int, 1 cha, 1 com) even though Philip was a much better king than his son and a better strategist.
6 Likes
Where is this “COM is bad” stuff coming from. COM absolutely can do numbers. INT builds are the most fragile, with open Theurge routes struggling hard.
10 Likes
The main benefit of Combat over the others isn’t in military leadership but personal badassery. That’s something that Cha can’t imitate and Int can only imitate to a point* - but you’re right, it is a bit imbalanced.
*ignoring the option ot enhancing your reflexes to turn yourself into a battle-theurge, at which point Int 3 > Com 3 - understandable but yet another imbalance
3 Likes
If we could somehow take an accurate census of the Archonty, would most speak Shayarin as their primary language or Koine?
2 Likes
i would say that com characters does what it should do in village battle. it manages to kill most number of attackers 11 if remember right and most likely leaves village in best possible condition to win that battel. problem with com 2 is that it cant gain trust to not get exiled which is logical. com 2 will always do worst then theurge in small scale battels and he should also be worst then cha 2 in gaining peoples trust. village fight is worst possible situation for him so i think it is logical that he will struggle with getting best results.
also main benefit of Combat without doubt is military leadership.
3 Likes
If it’s personal martial skill, then it’s effectively worthless. That skill is useful only up through the company level at most and the MC is trying to overthrow an empire.
It has to be military leadership as well or else it should be scrapped, lol. Napoleon was a shortish, mediocre soldier who was a terrible shot. He’s also arguably the best battlefield commander of all time. That’s what com score should really be about, with the personal skill being a little bonus on top
1 Like
Cha builds can wipe out the enemy army entirely before the last battle. That shouldn’t be possible.
If you think com builds can do well, fine. They can.
But they literally cannot do better, in terms of military outcome, than Cha builds so far. Since cha builds can achieve the “perfect” outcome in the finale, militarily. This makes com a strictly worse pick in terms of balance so far, since Cha can achieve everything Com can and also do lots more on top.
4 Likes
from what author said high com mc will be one to do combine arms tactics and integrate theurges much more effectively in army.
even in game 1 he is probably best for wining the last battle. hes traps are much more effective and its possible to decimate enemy army before even last battle. he is guaranteed to win every raid and also decreases loses.
one big difference from cha 2 and int 2 characters is that most bonuses com 2 gets are passive you don’t get any new options but any battle you do is much more effective.
com can also lead some raids without any death.
cha 2 can only do 3 things that i know that com 2 cant do. so its not that big of difference.
1 Like
This is simply untrue. A Cha 2 build can also wipe out the enemy army entirely before the last battle. As in 0 soldiers remaining. Since you cannot do better than 0, Com is not better than Cha militarily so far. At best they are equal. A cha 2 can also succeed in every raid by delegating to other commanders. Extra losses don’t matter because cha can recruit so many more troops.
3 Likes
ok i’m interested what can cha do that com 2 cant ?
also com 2 can also delegate recruitment:)
1 Like
Lots of religious stuff, get way more followers, and we know that getting allies and buy in for your political goals in later games will rely heavily on charisma
4 Likes
com 2 also can become angel elect and even them it dose very few things in game.
“and we know that getting allies and buy in for your political goals in later games will rely heavily on charisma”
these is statement what high cha character may be able in future games.
high com may become one of best generals in hegemony’s history and possible will be able to get best outcomes from battle.
you haven’t said one thing that com2 is worse then cha2 in first game which has much of importance.
1 Like
Don’t be dense. There’s half a dozen achievements that rely on charisma 2.
You’re arguing against known facts
2 Likes
i know these achievements but these are necessary for cha 2 to be able to compete with com 2 effectiveness.
there are exactly one thing that cha 2 can do which can have big consequence’s that com 2 can’t do at that is Kenosis. everything else com 2 can also do but with different methods 
4 Likes
For the record, I think a combat character would struggle the most with the woods fight because they would be very aware that it’s a suicidally stupid idea.
Standing and fighting doesn’t really accomplish anything material, it doesn’t destroy a major force, lead to the death of anyone critical, or deny your enemies any advantage. All it does is establish your reputation as a rebel capable of fighting back, which you will have plenty of opportunity to do at a later date.
In exchange, you get hundreds of people killed, and for what? We don’t even know how many of the casualties suffered by the hegemony end up dying, compared to your losses.
Both the other builds handle this problem by either completely wiping out the enemy theurges, a one trick pony that will never work again, or by recruiting many followers, perpetuating the meat shield tactics of the hegemony.
Combat is not always the right choice, and unless you’re trying for a very specific type of burn it all down rebellion, I don’t think it is at all the right choice in the woods, just look at which characters are willing to support it. Even the main character at one point reflects on the impossibility of coming up with combat tactics that will catch the hegemonic soldiers offguard.
TLDR: I don’t think it’s fair to say that the combat focus character sucks at combat based on a battle a tactician would avoid.
11 Likes
I agree with these points. Counterpoint.
Besides, you don’t suffer so many losses, hell if you’re smart about it you can even send most of your rebels to the helot camps to inspire an uprising and still win the fight, just to really destabilize the hegemony.
4 Likes
I think standing amd fighting only makes sense for a secret Theurge that wants to show off with the hopes of getting invited to a bigger rebel movement.
The one two punch of taking out the enemy Theurges and then the supply train is the only thing that evens the odds enough for it to be a risk worth taking.
4 Likes