V1.21 Rebuild-ProblemFixer BETA testing thread [Archive]

Carl

03-08-2007, 02:10

Alright, first up is a quick list of basics, it's not exhaustive or particularly deep, but it does give you some idea of basics:

-- A Minor Reduction In 2-Hander attack so as to reduce the OTT nature of the best 2-handers without overnerfing the lower powered 2-handers to the point of uselessness.

-- Reductions in sacking money, and a general increase in the quality of starting Rebel Armies so as to make early blitzing somewhat harder than previously. Thus, hopefully, increasing the overall difficulty of the game.

-- Papal_states and the Aztecs have received significant buffs to their initial armies making giving the Papal States considerably more bite, and also ensuring that the conquest of the new world is significantly harder.

-- Increases in the power of various walls and tower, both in damage and durability as well as gate durability now ensure that attacking settlements is an expensive business, and that large cities/huge cities/fortresses/citadels are impossibbile to blitz due to the fact that they will almost always inflict significant damage on the attacking army/armies, and once upgraded to cannon/ballistae towers, will now requires significant quantities of siege artillery and/or multiple stacks of infantry to assault. As a result it Will require considerable time and effort to destroy large numbers of such outposts due to the requirements of retraining and replacments after every siege.

-- Significant increases in heat Fatigue effects in an attempt to make the stat more meaningfully have been implemented.

-- Significant morale modifications have also been made in an attempt to increases it's relevance and reduce the disparity in terms of staying power between the best and worst units, as well as reduce fight to the death situations.

-- Significant modifications to buildings in terms of effects, and also major re-arranging of the tech tree's. This has made the AI much better at recruiting good stacks, and has also reduced situations where a faction has access to 2 or 3 nearly identical units at exactly the same time. This has resulted in some units disappearing from some factions and a large number of factions no longer have access to DFK as almost all factions have something that replicates their function available earlier.

-- Non-Mercenary unit's previously available in custom battles only have been added in where doing so does not clash with the above points. Some factions have also seen minor tech-tree adjustments to encourage particular styles of play, add variety in places, and to generally deal with a few balance issues in some tech trees.

-- After the prior two points have been accomplished, I have then edited what is available in custom battle to match what is available in the Campaign. With the exception of mercenary units, no unit not available in Campaign mode is available in custom now. This has occasionally resulted in some units ceasing to exist altogether.

-- Campaign AI tweaked to produce more efficient defenses and reduce the stupid attacks and defenses made with 1 unit that we sometimes see.

-- Guilds accordance and point accumulation altered to encourage some guilds

-- Traits added in and others modified to increase the effects of some guilds and also to make reputation more of a factor.

-- Ancillaries modified to make some easier and some harder.

-- Faction standing data modified to produce a greater number of factors effecting it, and also to increase the effects of existing factors. Some factors (tall poppy and a few others), removed so as to make diplomacy make sense now.

-- Projectiles modified so as to produce more sensible and useful exploding shot, Ribualts, and also to reduce anti-building effects of Ballistae and Serpentines and other similar anti-personnel artillery.

-- A small Money Script has been added to help ensure the AI has enough money in the early part of the game, thus helping to prevent the AI from falling behind the player in development too significantly.

-- Rebel, Pirate, Heretic, Witch, and Inquisitor spawn has been adjusted. Merchants, Assassins, and Inquisitors have had acquisition, Assassinate, Denounce Chances modified to balance these units. Merchant income and Witch/Heretic conversion rates have also been modified to increase the income/increase the issues these units cause.

-- Bribery Chances, (much easier and cheaper, although a half stack of militia is still about 8K with a reliable reputation), and a few other campaign related factors have also been modified to improve the playing experience.

Next I'm going to go into a few new features.

1. Honest Ruler & Dishonest Ruler.

Quite an Important one this one as it could mess up many a carefully laid plan if you aren't careful of it.

Honest Ruler/Dishonest Ruler are the names of 2 new traits I've added, only, Faction Leaders get them and only under very specific circumstances, but their effects are considerable and far reaching, (as you'd expect).

In fact they are more an extension of the existing Reputation information in the Diplomatic scroll and represent the general opinion of the International community of your rulers rule in international terms.

They are in fact directly tied to reputation and it is reputation that is the only trigger for getting these.

You need a reputation of reliable or better for the Honest ruler line, and Dubious or worse for the Dishonest Ruler line.

Their are 5 levels of each, and you need a steadily higher reputation to go up each level, in addition if your reputation drops below, (or goes above in the case of Dishonest ruler), the threshold that got you to the current level then you will lose a level. For example you have to have a reputation level of Immaculate to get the fifth level of Honest Ruler. If it ever drops below Immaculate you will immediately lose a level and drop to the fourth level.

Just so you Know, Honest Ruler Gives Chivalry and Authority and Piety. Dishonest Ruler Gives Dread and Authority, but removes Piety.

The next point is that depending on whether your ruler is honest or dishonest you may not be able to get some traits, and you will lose some existing traits if you have them.

For example an Honest Ruler cannot get any points for:

CaptorDread (got through executing prisoners)
RansomDread (Got through refusing Ransom demands for your own troops)
BattleDread (got by slaughtering entire armies of troops when you massively outnumber them)
StrategyDread (Got through having a blue face happiness population, (except when taxes are low), through the building of spies and assassins in the same settlement, and through the use of assassins if Faction Leader)

I'm thinking of adding Bloodthirsty, Genocide, and Berserker to that but would like opinions.

For Dishonest Ruler the traits are the Chivalric equivalents of the above listed.

In addition to not being able to get the listed traits you also slowly lose any already acquired points of these traits.

The basic Idea is that an Honest ruler will always be Chivalrous and a Dishonest one Dreadful. It is theoretically possible to have Dreadful Honest Rulers, and Chivalrous Dishonest ones, but it takes considerable hard work to do, which is pretty sensible, a ruler who acts in a dishonest faction politically but is personally quite chivalrous will be slightly chivalrous overall, and vice-versa.

This has important implications. For fairly simple reasons, high dread generals tend to make good Field commanders, whilst high chivalry ones make good governors, so if you want a Field king your going to have to be fairly dastardly or accept the lesser abilities of a chivalrous one.

It also means that you have to bear the future reputation of the kingdom in mind when creating your faction heir, it's no good building a really dreadful heir up if he's going to lose it all to the Honest ruler line.

In effect it makes reputation all the more important, it isn't just for diplomacy anymore, it also effects exactly what your leader is good at and makes you do some forward planning in raising your heirs.

2. Reputation Modifiers and Prisoners

I've increased the reputation effects of sacking, exterminating, and occupying, both positive and negative, and have removed the prisoner minimum number condition from both the prisoner reputation effects, and the Captor/ransomChivalry/Dread traits so any amount of prisoners released/executed/ransomed/accept ransom/refuse ransom can effect both your reputation and traits. I personally found I rarely captured enough people to trigger these triggers myself, although thats started to change of late.

Lastly, I've added some reputation triggers that check the chivalry/dread of ALL your generals, (not including Faction Heir and Faction Leader), and depending on the amount they have and type will raise or lower your reputation. It's not a big effect, but over 10 turns or so it can show up in noticeable amounts. A 10 chivalry/dread general creates a bigger change than a 1 chivalry/dread one too.

Chivalry raise rep, Dread lowers it.

Again this is another forward planning bit, if you want the benefits of Honest Ruler you have to work at it. You can have the odd dreadful general for field work, but you'll need a lot of chivalrous generals to counteract them if they are really high dread.

Thus in general someone who expands slowly will probably have good rep and thus need plenty of high chivalry governors. Whilst a fast expander or blitzer will need high-dread Field generals more and will probably have low rep.

Also be aware that if you can keep your rep high enough and your relations at Very good or above then you can get trusted alliances, these are literally unbreakable. This is another advantage to going slow now, if you get a good rep you can guard your borders via strong alliances meaning you need minimal armies and need only fight on those fronts you want to fight on. good rep also makes alliances easier to get too.

A fast expander with lots of dreadful generals and poor rep can't get that kind of alliance and can expect to be back-stabbed and thus needs really strong border armies and will be fighting on all fronts, in addition he might well have to face extremely solid AI alliances against him.

3. Sieges and early on.

Be aware that early o the rebels are a LOT more powerful than before, (I've had them beat back half stacks before, and decimate half stacks that do win too).

Sieges are more destructive too so I'd strongly recommend you auto-resolve against rebel Castles. You can take them on the battle map early on, but your going to need a full stack, a good general and as much siege equipment as you can afford. If you could wait till you got some Pro troops out of your own castles or have a few catapults running round you'd probably do fine. Unfortunately the auto-resolve bug means the AI will find it much easier than you, and thus will probably be able to take them long before you can.

Thus I advise you only fight Castle Sieges against rebels in the first 30 turns or so if you want a REALLY serious challenge, once CA fixes the Auto-Resolve bug of course it will be a different matter.

Regarding siges. You might want to deploy your siege artillery a bit further back against arrow towers now as I've extended them to musket ranges, add in their elevated position and they don't tend to have any issues reaching stuff deployed "on the line" as it where.

Lastly, I'm afraid sieges with the AI as the attacker are going to be a bit dull ATM, until CA fixes various siege AI bugs, (especially the standing around), they're going to keep getting shot to death before they even launch an attack.

Oh yeah, as a rule of thumb, once Ballistae/Cannon towers show up your going to need 2 stacks of semi decent infantry, and a stack of artillery to attack a single wall, add another full stack of infantry and half stack of artillery for every wall after that. Taking cities and Citadels is now VERY costly in troops, more because the towers tend to kill at least half your army before you hit the walls so you need a lot of troops to actually make it to the walls with enough troops to do any good.

I know everything in the last 3 sections sounds depressing, but thats partially why i want you guys to help. I'm not even half way their with siege balance, and I want to check that my changes to reputations, traits, and ancillaries aren't going too far and railroading people TOO much. I'd also say it sounds much worse than it actually is:smash:.

Now all I need is someone willing to let me send them the link and test the installation method for me.

chickenhawk

03-08-2007, 02:27

Fire it at me, may not have time to do much else today but will do that for sure.

PM me, will attempt instal immediatly.

Carl

03-08-2007, 02:28

Thanks, thought you'd gone offluine or would have when I posted the above as i saw your reply as soon as I finishd the above.

vonsch

03-08-2007, 03:09

Carl,

This is more of a true mod than a "fixer." :laugh4:

But it does sound interesting. If you want one more user of 1.13 as a tester, I'm game.

The changes to diplomacy sound interesting, as do the reputation things. The seige changes scare me a bit. I prefer field battles to seiges. That comes with preferring strategy to tactics, I suspect.

I tend to play it slow, and so far haven't gotten beyond turn 60 in the long campaign. I will blitz early to make some breathing room, if I can. Then I tend to slow to 1 region every 5 turns or so, mostly when someone attacks me. I've played a lot of starts. Most of them were England or Portugal though. Also dabbled in Spain, Moors, Russia and Milan. I like seeing the differences in factions.

I also like developing generals, so that aspect of what you're doing appeals to me a lot. I need to find a better way to prune the ol' family tree though. The lost causes need to get lost, not hang around occupying real estate and inciting unrest!

Will your installer do a separate mod folder for it?

Carl

03-08-2007, 03:26

V1.13 is very much a pure fixer. V1.2 attempts to fix the AI and also make it harder to Blitz as a lot of people have complained that it's easy to just Blitz their way to victory in 40 or so turns.

Whilst I agree it's nearly a full mod now, it is still only tweaking things a fair few people have complained at, their personal "Problems" as it where. Which has been the intent all along really, fix what people feel are bugs/core problems with the game mechanics, rather than just stuff that falls under the bug list.

Thanks for volunteering too, Sieges will actually be less common as the money script means the AI builds a decent economy early on and within 30 turns you can expect full stack armies to be popping in for tea, they'll mostly be militia for the first 100 turns or so, but as time goes by they'll ratchet up to the very best available.

I also understand your worry about sieges, frankly I'm happy with Huge Stone Walls in Cities and thats it. The rest still need extensive tweaking before I'll claim to be happy with the balance, Citadels in particular are far harder than I'd like. even with 7-8 stacks the AI struggles ATM, a fix to the AI standing around so much might help here, but theirs only so much you can do to counteract all the firepower that 3 walls can put out. The first walls easy if you rush it hard and fast with multiple armies, it's when you start having to deal with more than 1. the AI's pretty poor at grabbing the unused Ladders and taking them inside to mention nothing of artillery use.

3 Humans with good armies could easily take the first 2 walls of a citadel with cannon towers and give the third a good go. If the Citadel didn't have cannon towers they could probably take all 3 even, and with much lower losses. It's stupid AI, and the capabilities of cannon towers when used right thats the issue right now. Bad programing on CA's part really as I'd prefer Cannon towers to fire a lot less cannon balls, but also fire some arrows. as it is they fire lots of cannon balls to make up for the lack of arrows and not only does it look daft but it makes them rather too effective vs. infantry for my tastes and too weak vs. artillery.

Thats why I want testers really, i need ideas.

vonsch

03-08-2007, 03:51

Sounds like I need to study up on how to maintain reputation. My efforts are mixed, at present. Chivalry is no issue; that's easy.

In my current English campaign despite keeping my end of diplomatic agreements I'm still sitting at mixed. I've seen reliable in the past. Not sure what is different.

I've mostly stopped sacking. At least sacking cities with the same religion. It means my captured cities progress in size a lot faster, and I get more tax income, but I give up the immediate cash infusion and the several turn fear bonus to counter unrest. But it really helps chivalry maintenance.

It's interesting, though. The AI cities are usually bigger than mine when I capture them. Not as developed in buildings, but bigger populations. The AI either gets growth bonuses (this is on Hard) or it taxes enough lower that it gets the 0.5-1.5% extra growth. I suspect it's a combination of cash awards and low to no taxes.

I hope the influx of cash to the Papacy won't mean the PS are aggressive. I like seeing them defend themselves, but hate to see them go on the offensive due to the implications to the Catholic faction player.

From the sound of things, a slower pace WILL result. Real seiges may be in order: force the defenders to sally so you can defeat them in the field. That means significant slowdown wth developed regions. They will hold out more than a few turns.

chickenhawk

03-08-2007, 03:58

3 Humans with good armies could easily take the first 2 walls of a citadel with cannon towers and give the third a good go. If the Citadel didn't have cannon towers they could probably take all 3 even, and with much lower losses. It's stupid AI, and the capabilities of cannon towers when used right thats the issue right now. Bad programing on CA's part really as I'd prefer Cannon towers to fire a lot less cannon balls, but also fire some arrows. as it is they fire lots of cannon balls to make up for the lack of arrows and not only does it look daft but it makes them rather too effective vs. infantry for my tastes and too weak vs. artillery.

Thats why I want testers really, i need ideas.

Idea #1, make mortar towers not canon towers, if possible.

Idea#2, make what is currently ballista towers some type of boiling oil equivalent and ballista towers the top level.

Idea #3 create the ability to build siege ramps roman style, it might take 5 or six turns but it would make the first wall really cheap.

comment #1, Spys that can open gates are going to be much more important.

Carl

03-08-2007, 04:06

From the sound of things, a slower pace WILL result. Real sieges may be in order: force the defenders to sally so you can defeat them in the field. That means significant slowdown with developed regions. They will hold out more than a few turns.

That was the idea. In a real situation troops have been known to defeat sieging forces 2 or 3 times their size in real history. I see no reason why it should be any different.

Likewise wall mounted siege artillery often out-ranged that of the attackers as it didn't have to be portable or easy to build, it could be built decades in advance if needs be.

Sounds like I need to study up on how to maintain reputation. My efforts are mixed, at present. Chivalry is no issue; that's easy.

In my current English campaign despite keeping my end of diplomatic agreements I'm still sitting at mixed. I've seen reliable in the past. Not sure what is different.

I've mostly stopped sacking. At least sacking cities with the same religion. It means my captured cities progress in size a lot faster, and I get more tax income, but I give up the immediate cash infusion and the several turn fear bonus to counter unrest. But it really helps chivalry maintenance.

It's interesting, though. The AI cities are usually bigger than mine when I capture them. Not as developed in buildings, but bigger populations. The AI either gets growth bonuses (this is on Hard) or it taxes enough lower that it gets the 0.5-1.5% extra growth. I suspect it's a combination of cash awards and low to no taxes.

A word of note. Being at war lowers rep, alliances raise it (weather they are unbreakable or not), attacking others first lowers it, as does attacking anyone without a bad rep even if they hit first. Sacking AND exterminating lower it as does executing prisoners, (even through refused ransoms i think), and I think refusing ransoms for your own troops does it. I've generally increased most values so as to make them have bigger effects as before only sack and exterminate actually mattered.

release all prisoners, get all your own back, occupy constantly, and only attack back people who have attacked you and have got their rep well down.

Basically those who take it slow and steady and manipulate rep and unbreakable alliance need never fight a battle they can't win, However it will take a fair old while to pull off.

The growth benefits from all the chivalry will also give you a massive income too.

Blitzers can mostly ignore diplomacy and reputation, but pay for it through being under constant attack and having poor economies that in the long terms the reduced sacking can't make up for, so you need to be as quick as possible. Blitzing is for those that just want battles, but not complex campaign mechanics. Slow and steady for those that want the complex relations.

A few extras I missed.

The Excommunication Public Order Penalty is much larger, expect massive income hits from the lowered taxes.

Most dread giving traits deduct from Piety, so Blitzers have a lot to fear from inquisitors in spite of the lowered chance of a kill, lowered numbers, and lowered spawn rate of said inquisitors. Most Chivalry traits now give Piety However. It's normally +/-1 occasionally 2. Only Honest/Dishonest Ruler hits +/- 3.

Lastly, since I expect even Blitzers to be pushed for time, i've changed it to 1 turn per year and modified the events so they turn up after the same number of turns.

If you want to go back to 2 years per turn, modify it to be so in the Descr_Strat file and delete the Descr_Events file.

comment #1, Spys that can open gates are going to be much more important.

Most defintlly, but heavy Spy usage hits rep, just like heavy assasin usage so it's a balancing act.

Idea #1, make mortar towers not canon towers, if possible.

Idea#2, make what is currently ballista towers some type of boiling oil equivalent and ballista towers the top level.

Idea #3 create the ability to build siege ramps roman style, it might take 5 or six turns but it would make the first wall really cheap.

What do you man by ramps?

An idea to follow on from what you've just said. Make a new type of Ballista Bolt, and then make the flaming versions the Cannon Balls. That way it still makes seige equipment less important and Artillary more so, yet dosen't have the insane killing power vs. infantry.

I'm not sure how easy to do your ideas would be, but they all sound good. i'd love boiling oil back~:).

vonsch

03-08-2007, 04:23

only attack back people who have attacked you and have got their rep well down.

I find that attacking enemies that are on my own soil doesn't SEEM to hurt me. And the Pope never protests when I'm Catholic.

But attacking ships at sea, even those blockading, appears to be bad for rep.

Not sure about the blockading. Does lower my rep with the involved faction, at least.

I didn't know that the enemy's rep mattered. That would explain some things. When I am central, and taking on the usual suspects (Venice, etc), they usually have bad reps. France too. The Iberians often have better reps. Maybe the handy Moors help with that.

Heh, taking out the poor Scots by turn 5 might also put me in the hole a bit when playing England. I don't wait for them to attack me.

Yeah, the changes to time passing make sense. And the adjustment of events to turns instead of years also does. This last game is the first time I really saw any of those. I was at 0.5 for a while, then 1, now back to 2 (with 1.13). I wanted to see SOME of the events, even if I haven't get ever seen gunpowder.

I get bored too fast. :wall:

Carl

03-08-2007, 04:28

I get bored too fast.

Join the club, i've never seen mongols TBH, get bored too quick, might stick my Byzantine campaign out though, it's being good so far.

I'm actually trying to raise rep to the same importantce as individual faction standings and the pope and such like, i've allready had some ideas whilst writing stuff TBH:laugh4:.

Attacking factions isn't too big a hit I don't think, but it adds up (some of the rep hits arn't detailed in the files we have acess to if people are to be belived).

heavy assasin/spy use also cuts your rep badly.

Wiping out a faction is a MASSIVE rep hit too.

Whacker

03-08-2007, 05:22

Hey Carl? A question sir. It would just seem by reading what you've said for v1.14 so far that the items covered appear to be more... balance related? For example the AI recruitment, and your comment about 'slowing the game down'. I thought your Problemfixer was just about fixing bugs, not about balancing the game. Is this not the case or am I just confused?

:bow:

chickenhawk

03-08-2007, 07:59

An extreme example would be the one the Romans built at Masada. Literally a huge pile of dirt that your infantry can just march up, maybe drop a bridge for the last twenty feet. It would need to cost a ton of seige points to be balanced, but would be really cool.

Whacker, I would argue that some of the balance issues are bugs.:yes:

NefariousWolf

03-08-2007, 09:17

Great ideas Carl. I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on this.
A couple questions/comments...

Honest/Dishonest and Rep Changes
So the idea is to create two different strategies, chivalrous or dreadful, that a player can follow, but tied to his ruler so that he can shift back and forth between strategies as rulers come and go. Each strategy should bring its own successes and repercussions and should be balanced with each other.

A Chivalrous strategy tend towards economic growth and diplomatic alliances and only really allow conquest against other religions.

Dreadful strategy tends toward geographic growth with no real diplomatic element and allows conquest against anybody.

Is this the general idea and would you expect a player to stick with one strategy throughout the game or switch back and forth with rulers?

Siege Changes
It sounds like assaulting castles is going to be way way harder for the player. However, since the AI is incompetent, we'd really have to autoresolve sieges for the AI to give it any chance at all, so the AI won't have a harder time assaulting castles. I imagine that'll feel weird... but I'll really have to play it before passing judgement. Just something to keep in mind.

Rebel Strength
You modified castle assaults so that it's harder for the player to advance against other factions. Is it really necessary to increase rebel strength on top of that? Won't the changes to the castle assaults make it hard enough to capture rebel settlements?

_Tristan_

03-08-2007, 10:48

As said in a earlier post on another thread...

Count me in...

Didn't have time to see if you released your 1.2 patch ? Did you ?

If so, i'll install but will have to wait this WE to test...

RJJ101

03-08-2007, 11:17

Hi Carl

Please can I be considered for testing your new Fixer.

I am half way through my second long campaign.
I play on vh/vh patch 1 no other mods at present.
First time I play as England and won very easily.
Currently playing as the Moors. I have supreme power, despicable reputation. I am holding off wining the game as I am waiting for the new world.
Not sure who I will lay as next time.

Having read some of your previous posts I may try to play keeping my reputation high. I take it this will stop me from assassinating everyone?

Can I load the fixer half way through a campaign?

Regards

Richard

Erik Bloodaxe

03-08-2007, 11:42

Carl

03-08-2007, 13:37

I have to say Carl, this is looking very promising! One question though, when we get your FixerMod, this may have been asked before but I'll ask anyway, it is required that we only upgrade this from vanilla M2TW right? A bit noobish I know

Depends really. First, you don't need any other mods so your Okay there. Second, you can run it without the V1.1 officio CA patch but some text may be missing I'm afraid. You'll also miss out on a few V1.1 fixes that aren't in my ProblemFixer.

So yes you can run it on a fresh copy of M2TW with nothing extra added on (not even patch 1.1), and it will work. But it's best to add patch 1.1. Other than that their are no advisable add ons.

Great ideas Carl. I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on this.
A couple questions/comments...

Honest/Dishonest and Rep Changes
So the idea is to create two different strategies, chivalrous or dreadful, that a player can follow, but tied to his ruler so that he can shift back and forth between strategies as rulers come and go. Each strategy should bring its own successes and repercussions and should be balanced with each other.

A Chivalrous strategy tend towards economic growth and diplomatic alliances and only really allow conquest against other religions.

Dreadful strategy tends toward geographic growth with no real diplomatic element and allows conquest against anybody.

Is this the general idea and would you expect a player to stick with one strategy throughout the game or switch back and forth with rulers?

Siege Changes
It sounds like assaulting castles is going to be way way harder for the player. However, since the AI is incompetent, we'd really have to auto-resolve sieges for the AI to give it any chance at all, so the AI won't have a harder time assaulting castles. I imagine that'll feel weird... but I'll really have to play it before passing judgment. Just something to keep in mind.

Rebel Strength
You modified castle assaults so that it's harder for the player to advance against other factions. Is it really necessary to increase rebel strength on top of that? Won't the changes to the castle assaults make it hard enough to capture rebel settlements?

Your summary isn't bad, I would point out though that unprovoked attacks vs. other religions still incur a rep hit, it's just worse if your a catholic and it's a fellow catholic. Islam vs. Islam, or orthodox vs. orthodox just gets the basic penalty.

Good point about castles, bear in mind when I say castles I man the actual "Stone Castle" wall upgrade level, not Wooden or Motte and Bailey Castles.

Which brings me onto your last point. They got buffed mainly because their are a fair number of Motte and Bailey, Villages, and the odd small town/wooden castle that whilst harder to attack because of the changes, are still somewhat easy, the buffing helps keep you from simply walking all over these in the early game without concentrated effort on the part of the player.

An extreme example would be the one the Romans built at Masada. Literally a huge pile of dirt that your infantry can just march up, maybe drop a bridge for the last twenty feet. It would need to cost a ton of siege points to be balanced, but would be really cool.

Ahh, thanks for the explanation, I'm not sure how I could add that TBH as it needs graphical people and some way of actually adding new siege engines to the list of those build-able, something we don't know how to do. If we did I'd add sap points again~;p.

@Whacker:

It's a bit complex, but at heart the purpose of ProblemFixer is to fix any aspects of the game a large number of people are complaining about. So a number of changes have made their way in that are perhaps not bugs worthy of the bug-list, but they are what people want by and large (wish list style stuff basically). I know you your yourself have expressed worries over assassins, and I myself have sometimes found them lacking, so have other. As a result I've buffed assassins slightly;y.

At the same time I always try to prevent the game getting exploitable features added on in the process, and at times (especially with the tech tree changes), I've made changes for other reasons that have also, (IMHO), improve game balance. 99% of the things in V1.2 that I say "improves balance" with where added for other reasons first, the improved balance is just an extra.

Finally I need another volunteer to check the auto-extractor I created. the one I sent to Chikenhawk last night had a couple of bugs, (all Copy and paste gremlins, wrong shortcut, and wrong backup files pasted in a couple of places), Chikenhawk is now offline however so I need another tester, although I'm confident it should work now.

Sorry for the delay guys, and thanks to the extra volunteers.

Many Thanks.

Carl.

Bob the Insane

03-08-2007, 14:40

though that unprovoked attacks vs. other religions still incur a rep hit, it's just worse if your a catholic and it's a fellow catholic. Islam vs. Islam, or orthodox vs. orthodox just gets the basic penalty.

While I am obviously happy to test all as is, I would have thought it would have been useful to maintain the extra penalty for attacking factions of the same religion to encourage religion based power blocks...

I mean the Catholic nations already have to deal with the extra issue of the Pope getting involved when they fight each other...

Additionally do woud it be fair easy to alter your mod to the timescale for 0.5? I know about setting the value, it was the other events stuff I was refereing to?

Finally I need another volunteer to check the auto-extractor I created. the one I sent to Chikenhawk last night had a couple of bugs, (all Copy and paste gremlins, wrong shortcut, and wrong backup files pasted in a couple of places), Chikenhawk is now offline however so I need another tester, although I'm confident it should work now.

I will be home from work in around 4-5 hours and am willing if you don't get anyone before then...

Carl

03-08-2007, 14:46

I would have thought it would have been useful to maintain the extra penalty for attacking factions of the same religion to encourage religion based power blocks...

I agree actually, but CA didn't include triggers for that I I forgot to think to add them. I definitely will though next time I'm tweaking.

Additionally do woud it be fair easy to alter your mod to the timescale for 0.5? I know about setting the value, it was the other events stuff I was refereing to?

I think your asking "can i change the game to 0.5 timescale easily". The answer is yes, just change the value in the Descr_Strat file. The events stuff is so that things like Gunpowder and Mongols don't take too long to show up.

I will be home from work in around 4-5 hours and am willing if you don't get anyone before then...

Right. Just drop a reply in here when your ready.

Thanks.

Carl.

_Tristan_

03-08-2007, 16:56

A note about Heavy spy/heavy assassin use...

Wouldn't it more "realistic" if only the botched attempts had an effect on your rep ?

See it as the modern CIA... They do "bad" things everyday but only when they fail do they get notice and thus give a bad rep to the US Gov't...

So why not in MTW2 ?

It's just a different kind of war which just as much dedication as with gaining a general your battle stars...

What do you think ?

You could be perceived as a chivalrous leader and be a behind-the scene master of assassins...

Carl

03-08-2007, 17:10

True enough, i think it's more a case of their allways being some clues as to who did it. in a way the poor tech of those times would have made it harder to cover up the murder of a King, or to cover up how information was aqquired. Even if they don't know who murdered the person killed or blew up their building, they have a good idea who might.

Character assasination if you like:laugh4:.

On the other hand it's a good set of points, I'd probably still include penalties for just doing it, (so honest rulers don't use too many spies), but i'd cut the pnalty a lot. On the other hand i'd raise the penalty for being caught heavilly.

Reputation is somthing I really want to tweak and play with TBH.

Bob the Insane

03-08-2007, 21:30

Right, on my way home, eta 10-20 minutes...

If you want I will give your 1.2 install a try...

Edit: Home now, ready any time...

chickenhawk

03-08-2007, 22:19

Hello Carl, I have given 1.2 solid go this morning and happily report that everything works very well.

I am playing as the English on VH/VH. The game is running very smoothly, I am having no actual game mechanic issues or CTDs. The AI is playing the best that I have ever seen in a total war game. I beat the Scotts to Inverness, left a small garrison and went to take Dublin. The Scotts promptly marched out and took it back before I could take Dublin and get back. I am very impressed. I have not noticed any problems with the balance of any units in battles.

You said somewhere above that you were changing to one year per turn. The version I have does not seem to have that done, it is showing a 225 turn campaign and I am not going to get done that quickly at this pace.:sweatdrop:

Very well done!

The Teacher

03-08-2007, 22:50

incredabilly silly question - can i access the beta now?

Whacker

03-08-2007, 23:02

@Whacker:

It's a bit complex, but at heart the purpose of ProblemFixer is to fix any aspects of the game a large number of people are complaining about. So a number of changes have made their way in that are perhaps not bugs worthy of the bug-list, but they are what people want by and large (wish list style stuff basically). I know you your yourself have expressed worries over assassins, and I myself have sometimes found them lacking, so have other. As a result I've buffed assassins slightly;y.

At the same time I always try to prevent the game getting exploitable features added on in the process, and at times (especially with the tech tree changes), I've made changes for other reasons that have also, (IMHO), improve game balance. 99% of the things in V1.2 that I say "improves balance" with where added for other reasons first, the improved balance is just an extra.

Ahh, this is somewhat what I expected you to say. Before I make this request I'd like to repeat my thanks for your good hard work, it's obvious the community appreciates it greatly.

That said, I'd like to lobby for a separate version of Problemfixer that only fixes bugs, and doesn't do any rebalancing. Sure I've complained enough about assassins and Inquisitors and stuff, but those arguably are not bugs, for all we know CA intended for it to be this way. Clearly items like the 2-hander and shield deal are bugs, which need to be fixed. I guess I'd like a version of your problemfixer that only fixes what we're dead positive are bugs such as those, and doesn't try to fiddle with the AI or "rebalance" anything? Does this make sense? Please consider.

Respectfully
:bow:

Carl

03-08-2007, 23:11

Right Bob the Insane.

i'll send it now, was on MSN and I can't run the net and MSN together so just seen your post.

I'll reply to everyoe else shortly.

chickenhawk

03-08-2007, 23:20

A few more little things Carl

1. A beset by a plague of pirate ships. I can't keep a ship out of port for anything. this maybe harcoded into a VH campaign but it makes life difficult.

2. Is their anything that can be modded to make throwing a lot of ladders on the walls and charging up them any harder. It seems to me that the first couple of units to do that should get shredded.

3. I am still in shock from watching the AI do something exactly right at Inverness. CA should hire you today!:2thumbsup:

Carl

03-08-2007, 23:28

@Whacker: No offense taken at all. I fully intend to do this anyway. In fact the V1.13 linked to in my Sig is almost exactly that. Their are a few tweak in their to units that needed it post 2-hander/pike/shield fixes as most 2-handed swords and JHI where severely underpowered now. The odd tweak to Pikes/2-hander may still be made, but by and large that is fairly close to the the final bugs only version.

@Chikenhawk. looks like it must be another copy and paste gremlin. Sorry about that, it's definitely 1 turn per year in the one I sent to bob the Insane though.

How are sieges going, they too bloody now, or are they actually Okay?

Also, what you described with Scotland should happen more. in effect if they don't have the forces to beat you they'll try to build up the forces to do so. Combined with changes to how defense is done (all in one place Rather than spread out so much), and you'll have a harder time, I've seen the Italian factions block every single pass in and out of northern Italy with forts full of full stacks even. Enjoy:laugh4:.

p.s. we need a maniacal evil laugh emicon guys.

@ The Teacher: I'm currently sending out test versions of my Quick Installer method for it. if that works then you and every other volunteers will get it ASAP via PM.

1. A beset by a plague of pirate ships. I can't keep a ship out of port for anything. this maybe harcoded into a VH campaign but it makes life difficult.

It sounds like you've got the defualt Descr_Strat File here. Give me a minute and i'll PM you a link for the download I sent Bob the Insane.

I'll look into ladders, but my options are limited i'm afraid, the towers do make walls dangerous places to linger though so...

Glad your still in shock:lagh4:.

@ Chikenhawk. Clear some space in your PM folder, I can't send it because you have too many messages.

chickenhawk

03-08-2007, 23:44

open now

Carl

03-08-2007, 23:45

Thanks.

2 extra point I forgot to list earlier.

1. Pirate ships have taken a slight nerfing interms of overall power. they are still really good, but worse than before, so you don't need 2-1 odds anymore.

2. the upkeep of ALL naval units has been dropped 100 florins, you can now have a decent sized navy without bankrupting yourself.

p.s. What difficullty setting are you playing on Chikenhawk?

Bongaroo

03-09-2007, 00:20

the anticipation is killing me!!! can't wait!

oh, I've made it home so I'm ready to take a crack at this installer.

Bob the Insane

03-09-2007, 00:49

Right, downloaded and installed... All very easy...

I started a game as the HRE (Hard Campaign, Very Hard Battles) as Chikenhawk started as England...

Starting positions are familar and I see the year is showing and progressing 1 year at a time...

Tried to blitz Bern... Lost horribly with Prince Henry cut down in the field... And and Rebels executed 92 prisoners!! They'll get their's!!!

Allied with Venice (with miltary access), Hungry and France (marrying 5 charm French princess to lucky old Prince Leopold)...

Settlements are hugely under developed and I note you get a lot more free spots on lower level city walls.

All so good so far...

Carl

03-09-2007, 00:52

Settlements are hugely under developed and I note you get a lot more free spots on lower level city walls.

Settlement development level hasn't changed, but I doubled the number of free recruit slots, I did this in preparation for adding a smaller number to castle, this way all castle can have some free units, but have significantly less than before. The code isn't implemented yet for castle though. One of a few things still on my to-do list, But I'm more concerned about the diplomacy and sieges, which is why it's out to test. that and now I've sent it out 50 odd ideas have popped up.

I'll get it out to everyone else now ASAP.

p.s. LOL@Bern, how much damage did you do before you went down?

Everyone should have recived their PM's with the link in now. If you haven't get in touch.

If you want to become a tester, add your name, just because i'm sending it out dosen't mean i'll stop accepting testers.

vonsch

03-09-2007, 02:19

Okay, installed it. Had to "fix" a couple installation things. :dizzy2:

My problem, not yours. My "good" .cfg file isn't the default one since I put 1.13 with my tweaks into its own folder, and that uses the good and separate .cfg. You grab the default one which isn't current in my case.

I just played 34 turns of Turks with the old setup, so think I'll try them with 1.2 and see how badly it goes. I had 17 regions and was trying to slow myself down!

Heh! You scum! I can't call an immediate jihad! :P

Okay, time to put the imam to working converting the peasants to up his piety.

Hmm, the Turks' horse archer basis is gutted. I don't agree with making the horse archers stable only for HA-based cultures. It means I am forced to build castles and stables to get what the Turk's army is based on in vanilla. Haven't checked yet, but if this applies to Russians and Iberians, you've decreased the variation, not increased it, in armies. Is this intent or oversight?

Bob the Insane

03-09-2007, 02:27

Battle of Bern...

I had besieged the castle with two generals, one of the Prince Henry... The number where equal but their troops superior.

I had two generals, two peasant archers and four Spear militia, they had two mailed knights, two peasant crossbowmen and four Sergeant Spearmen.

By the end Prince Henry was dead and only a few battered survivors of there of the four spear militia unit along with most of the archers returned to Staufen with one general. The rebels in bern had suffered some minor casualties amoung their Sergeant Spearmen...

It is now, 1094 and I have taken Florance (a fair easy task even with limited HRE forces in Italy) and Hamburg (a 10 year seige!). The Pope has agreed to an Alliance as have the Polish. My reputation is up to Trustworthy...

The Untrustworthy Venetions have betrayed our alliance and besiged and blockaded Bologna.

Most of the other factions have repuatations of either Mixed or Dubious with the sole exception of the Reliable Hungrians.

Using toggle_fow I see that there are still a lot of grey areas out there...

The Engish have taken Wales, the Spainish Bordeaux but that is it... The Danish look in real trouble as they are decimating their armies against Antwerpt but making no progress...

chickenhawk

03-09-2007, 02:42

Playing VH-VH

Confirmed latest version will install and run. have not had a chance to do anything else. Continue to be thrilled with your work.

vonsch

03-09-2007, 02:50

Yes, I have real issues with the missile cav changes. I see the Iberians still get jinettes from bull rings, but the Turks don't get turkomen (or was it sipahis?) from horse tracks. And Kazaks require stables in Russia too. This forces the player to build a lot of castles and avoid cities to play the cultures as they are designed in vanilla. I haven't checked the Egyptians or Poles yet.

I also noticed at the high end stable there are only 2 kazaks available, versus 6 earlier. Seems wrongs. Jinettes are not that way. Once they hit 6 they stay 6. (Okay, in vanilla it's 4/6/6/6/6.)

The signature units were designed in to be ubiquitous. Thus you can build jinettes, Turkomen/Sipahis, Kazaks, etc. from a lot of buildings you wouldn't expect to be able to (especially, but not only, castle walls). That encourages their use since they can be built and replenished in a lot of places. It creates a cheap throwaway, but effective, unit that both the player and AI are thus encouraged to use. Suddenly they are hard to find unless the player wants to reverse the ratio of cities to castles.

I suspect this applies to other units of like nature, but am just reacting to the missile cav changes. Since I was just playing the Turks (and have played the Iberians a lot... and recently tried the Ruskies), I noticed.

It's a show-stopper for me to run it "as is."

I will swap to something infantry-based to test a bit. I suspect Turkey and Russia, at least, will be a LOT harder without those easily available units, especially considering they need to expand to be able to have a chance to survive the hordes.

Broken Lances and Dismounted Broken Lances appear to be completely gone from Milan also, since they were wall-built units. I sure hope the above are unintended.

Yeah, all the wall-built units are gone, which means you can't have cities (nor can the AI) marginally defended based on organic units without significant upteching. While it may make it a bit harder on the player, it also does on the AI. And it loses a lot of the diffferentiation among cultures. Also, removing all the wall units, and not adding back that production capacity, is going to significantly reduce overall output of units for everyone, I'd think that's undesireable.

Same diminishing returns with increased barraks size with Genoese Crossbow Militia. Goes 0/0/6/6/4/2/2 in yours. It's 0/0/4/6/6/6/6 in vanilla. If the idea is to force the AI to build something else, that MAY work, but it also limits the player's choices of continuing to use an effective and efficient unit. And that's ignoring the parallel effect of removing wall units (replacing them with peasants IS removing them, in my book, I won't use peasants, they are meant to farm!), which also would normally be widely available to all factions in some form. The loss of the archer militia to Egypt and Russia, for one example, will dramatically affect their city defenses.

While I like the idea (haven't tested yet) of the diplomacy changes, and perhaps even the tweaks seiges and funds available to the AI, not at all happy with changing the unit mix this much.

Hmm, the tower changes look interesting. With the larger control radius, should be more shooting too. Yeah, that will hurt. Hmm, doing that AND boosting the sturdiness. Ouch. Higher ROF and more time exposed. Assaults on walls will definitely be more costly.

Carl

03-09-2007, 04:22

The Untrustworthy Venetions have betrayed our alliance and besieged and blockaded Bologna.

Most of the other factions have repuatations of either Mixed or Dubious with the sole exception of the Reliable Hungrians.

Using toggle_fow I see that there are still a lot of grey areas out there...

The Engish have taken Wales, the Spainish Bordeaux but that is it... The Danish look in real trouble as they are decimating their armies against Antwerpt but making no progress...

Yeah, I noticed the Venetians seem to be pretty bad, they've just done the same to me. I've checked the files and you need them at Very good or perfect relations with you and they need to have the same relations towards you (it seems based on the AI file that these are totally separate values~:(). However I do tend to find alliances to be very strong in general. Venice breaking one just now is the first time I've seen it happen with either myself or the AI when the rep and relations have been good enough.

Regarding the Rebels, It is a slight worry but it is in large part down to how poorly developed most provinces are at he start. Generally most factions lack much in the way of barracks and as a result it can take them considerable time and effort to get the appropriate barracks built to build semi-decent early units. In other words it's going to take several turns for the AI to put together stacks capable of attacking rebel settlements. On the other hand, once they get going they tend to really take off an take them all in short order.

Regarding the Danes. Thats an annoying and unfixable bug in the army strength calculator. As far as the AI is concerned all those danish stacks where more powerful than the defending stack. However the strength is just (attack+defense)*number of men in the unit.

This means the Flemish Pikes in that settlement are about 10 times more effective when the battle is actually fought than the strength calculator says they are. Their isn't much besides swapping the pikes for spears that I can do about that one I'm afraid. It needs a fix from CA.

Heh! You scum! I can't call an immediate jihad! :P

Okay, time to put the imam to working converting the peasants to up his piety.

Hmm, the Turks' horse archer basis is gutted. I don't agree with making the horse archers stable only for HA-based cultures. It means I am forced to build castles and stables to get what the Turk's army is based on in vanilla. Haven't checked yet, but if this applies to Russians and Iberians, you've decreased the variation, not increased it, in armies. Is this intent or oversight?

Woops, I increased the required Piety for Cardinals to make players put more effort in as I've had small groups of 3-4 priests all turn into cardinals within a couple of turns. By increasing it i hoped to increase the Piety required. To keep things fair i increased the required Jihad Piety but forgot to edit the Imams to have enough when starting. Thanks for spotting that Little bug.

Regarding issues with HA.

Bear in mind that ALL factions have this problem.

If you want ANY unit in this game at all except peasants for any faction you have to invest in the appropriate line of Barracks/Stables/Archery Ranges. A few buildings, (guilds for example), can build other stuff too. But that's it.

The reasons where 3 fold:

1. The AI places a bigger importance on barracks buildings than walls. In vanilla this means it's often well behind you in recruitment stakes in vanilla as you will have gone for walls sooner and got better units sooner. It was actually Lusted that pointed this one out. His solution was to cut everything except aztecs and counquistidors from walls.

2. As Lusted also pointed out. With all but the very best non-gunpowder available from city walls/castle walls their was no point to the barracks and stables lines as as just about every unit actually needed to beat the AI could be recruited from wall. This set of changes throws renew emphasis on the actual troop production buildings, and not just the walls that allow access to those buildings.

3. Their was a tendency because of when things became available for anyone with a Stone walled castle to be able to get the best or second best f their heavy Cav/heavy infantry/HA. Byzantines with Dotti where the worst offenders. They could literally from the very start of the game get access to their very best HA rendering the lower levels Pointless. The same happened with DFK/Mounted Feudal Knights for Catholics however. Likewise the first 3 barrack levels where nearly pointless in cities as walls gave you spear and town militia anyway. Thats something else I've tried to correct by spreading out the different levels. That means you now need fortresses and Citadels for your elite and ultra elite troops, stone castles just give you the basic Pro troops these days.

So yes it takes a lot of time and effort to get your HA up and running as Turks. But with the exception of basic spears and town militia, exactly the same is true of Heavy infantry, Heavy Cav, Light Cav, Foot Archers e.t.c for everyone else as well, so I would hope it would balance out in the long term as no one gets any upsides or downsides really. Add to that that most factions have a castle to begin with or a Motte and Bailey in conquering range that they can upgrade as soon as they capture it. so all told it should be about 5 turns after capturing to your basic HA. Not bad if you ask me. Especially when you consider it would take most factions a lot longer to get access to their best foot infantry.

By veriaty I was partially talking about the way many factions have gained a number of units they only have in custom battles. On the flip side units that where two similar have had one unit cut. Coupled with the way the tech tree is re-arranged so as to make you build up to get your best units you will no longer see armies composed mostly of one or two diffrent units, (i.e. all Vardorti armies), you start having to settle for a mix of your best and your not so best units.

On the other hand I am NOT an Islamic/Iberian faction expert. Thats why I wanted testers and I may well have missed some vital point in my explanation. If I have please feel free to criticize my argument and explain the flaws in it.

The signature units were designed in to be ubiquitous. Thus you can build jinettes, Turkomen/Sipahis, Kazaks, etc. from a lot of buildings you wouldn't expect to be able to (especially, but not only, castle walls). That encourages their use since they can be built and replenished in a lot of places. It creates a cheap throwaway, but effective, unit that both the player and AI are thus encouraged to use.

Thats the point of the changes actually, to STOP you using just he one or two units and actually makes your armies consist of more than 1 unit spam. For me no army should be composed of just a couple of units. I can happily live with pure HA/Heavy Cav running round. but I expect a verity of heavy Cav and HA in those armies, not 10 Byzantine Lancers and 10 Vardariotai.

I also noticed at the high end stable there are only 2 kazaks available, versus 6 earlier. Seems wrongs. Jinettes are not that way. Once they hit 6 they stay 6. (Okay, in vanilla it's 4/6/6/6/6.)

This is because their are replacments of better quality than the Kazaks available..

To use Byzantines as an example. Byzantine Cav are better than Sythikon, so Byzantine Cav should now become the major unit produced, Sythikon are still needed as you need a backup and cheap Garrison. Vardariotai then become available. AT this Point Sythikon are now heavily outclassed and retraining aside aren't needed, Byzantine Cav should be taking over, whilst Vardariotai become the big boys now.

It's also partly to really push the AI into recruiting good stacks too.

Broken Lances and Dismounted Broken Lances appear to be completely gone from Milan also, since they were wall-built units. I sure hope the above are unintended.

I'd have to check but it probably is intended. Their where a number of Italian mounted and dismounted units that where effectively identical to each other in stats, their simply wasn't any point to including any of these units for some of the factions as their was no difference and they thus duplicated the same tech tree position and role. For example when i added Dismounted Chivalric Knights to France, I found them conflicting with DFK and gave DFK the boot, they where duplicating a role without one coming along earlier than the other so their was no point to having both.

Yeah, all the wall-built units are gone, which means you can't have cities (nor can the AI) marginally defended based on organic units without significant upteching. While it may make it a bit harder on the player, it also does on the AI. And it loses a lot of the differentiation among cultures. Also, removing all the wall units, and not adding back that production capacity, is going to significantly reduce overall output of units for everyone, I'd think that's undesirable.

I have added most wall specific units back in BTW. However it's the feeling of both myself and Lusted who I've got ideas off that you should have a good reason to build barracks and work towards Fortresses and Citadels. Right now they aren't much use as everything comes from the walls. If you want defense for your cities your going to have to build up the military infrastructure. You can't have good troops construction abilities and still concentrate everything on your economy anymore. You have to make a decision. Leave the city with just peasants for defense, or build a few barracks levels and work on their ability to defend themselves.

Bear in mind that Gunpowder adds a LOAD of city units, so whilst many units taper off at cities, others appear, and the Italians still have near castle quality Militia available. I tapered off the city missiles because a lot of people where saying that their was no point to Genose Crossbows as the militia variant could do it all far more easily. Now theirs a very good reason. You don't get enough to build Field armies out of it late on.

chickenhawk

03-09-2007, 05:48

I liked it better when the conquered areas kept producing the same units, it was not so faction dependent. I don't know what the new engine will let you do, but if it were possible to have large scale destruction of the military buildings but get back to jinnettes or scottish pikes when rebuilt it would improve the feel in my opinion.

If buildings had to be rebuilt almost from scratch it would slow things down a lot for the player. it would also create some of the real problems of trying to pump out enough soldiers to ensure that things stayed conquered.

Just my two cents on recruitment.

vonsch

03-09-2007, 05:55

The reasons where 3 fold:

1. The AI places a bigger importance on barracks buildings than walls. In vanilla this means it's often well behind you in recruitment stakes in vanilla as you will have gone for walls sooner and got better units sooner. It was actually Lusted that pointed this one out. His solution was to cut everything except aztecs and counquistidors from walls.

2. As Lusted also pointed out. With all but the very best non-gunpowder available from city walls/castle walls their was no point to the barracks and stables lines as as just about every unit actually needed to beat the AI could be recruited from wall. This set of changes throws renew emphasis on the actual troop production buildings, and not just the walls that allow access to those buildings.

3. Their was a tendency because of when things became available for anyone with a Stone walled castle to be able to get the best or second best f their heavy Cav/heavy infantry/HA. Byzantines with Dotti where the worst offenders. They could literally from the very start of the game get access to their very best HA rendering the lower levels Pointless. The same happened with DFK/Mounted Feudal Knights for Catholics however. Likewise the first 3 barrack levels where nearly pointless in cities as walls gave you spear and town militia anyway. Thats something else I've tried to correct by spreading out the different levels. That means you now need fortresses and Citadels for your elite and ultra elite troops, stone castles just give you the basic Pro troops these days.

So yes it takes a lot of time and effort to get your HA up and running as Turks. But with the exception of basic spears and town militia, exactly the same is true of Heavy infantry, Heavy Cav, Light Cav, Foot Archers e.t.c for everyone else as well, so I would hope it would balance out in the long term as no one gets any upsides or downsides really. Add to that that most factions have a castle to begin with or a Motte and Bailey in conquering range that they can upgrade as soon as they capture it. so all told it should be about 5 turns after capturing to your basic HA. Not bad if you ask me. Especially when you consider it would take most factions a lot longer to get access to their best foot infantry.

By veriaty I was partially talking about the way many factions have gained a number of units they only have in custom battles. On the flip side units that where two similar have had one unit cut. Coupled with the way the tech tree is re-arranged so as to make you build up to get your best units you will no longer see armies composed mostly of one or two diffrent units, (i.e. all Vardorti armies), you start having to settle for a mix of your best and your not so best units.

On the other hand I am NOT an Islamic/Iberian faction expert. Thats why I wanted testers and I may well have missed some vital point in my explanation. If I have please feel free to criticize my argument and explain the flaws in it.

I guessed that the object was to delay "top units," but I don't like the result. Not all cultures work like that. Some cultures require "hang in there, just keep alive, until late when you get the uber units" while others are "move fast or you will be mincemeat later!"

My first thought, if there's a prioritizing of buildings versus walls... can that be changed instead so that the AI always builds walls as soon as it can? That will help it defensively a lot more with your stronger walls too. The we could leave the unit production alone. Otherwise...

I think it's going to affect game balance for some factions far more than for others. And more than that, it will affect play style. For example, it won't be a huge deal for England. Their special units, archers, don't come from walls until pretty far up the tree, and the archer militia cannot come close to comparing with the longbow line. The archer milita is okay for behind-the-lines free garrisons.

Won't matter to France a bit. Or probably HRE. Their play style remains the same with those starting units and the later ones, at least until gunpowder takes off. But some cultures will have to act like... British! Or Germans. When they aren't that.

The best cav unit the Iberians get, and their signature unit for style until late era armies, the jinettes, are really crippled. Instead of being a staple, they are a luxury. You can't get enough of them fast to start using them as they are intended to be used, as the cav spine to your forces. (See details below... they aren't TOO bad for Spain, since Toledo is central. Potugal gets hurt more.) There is a reason they can be produced in both cities and castles. They are meant to be everywhere!

The same to the horse archer cultures. The Turkomen cost more than plain horse archers, but they are better. They were available, as were Sipahis, at game start. Now they are quite a long wait away. The Turks don't have the luxury of a lot of time. Mongols, you know? Similar issues for the Russians. Those HA armies aren't good at taking cities fast (at least not cheaply), but they are great at the sort of delaying actions the cultures that have them need to survive. And they move fast on the strategic level. Poor Russia. Infantry just can't handle the distances at the speed needed to cover the steppes defensively. Same in the convoluted passes in Turkey.

I guess that's my complaint, really. I can't be a Turk until I'm a footslogging Brit for a decade or more. If I want to be a Brit, well, I can play the English. Same for other cultures with really unique styles if they have special units "out of the box." Turks start with Turkomen. Portuguese and Spanish start with jinettes. Russians start with kazaks. But can they make them? English don't start with longbows, oddly. It's clearly a balance decision. The English have time on their island. The Mongols are not coming.

I'd suggest (and I know it's a major balancing act, but you started it!) moving up those units removed from walls in their new building by one tier, so instead of turkomen coming in at tier 2 stables, they come in with horse archers at first tier. But limit the quantity to lower. And I'm not crazy about the diminishing returns. You already remove production pool when you subtract those from the walls. The available jinette pool drops a lot! And don't take them from the special buildings, like horse tracks. Those take extra effort and more developed cities to build, there should be a payoff that's appropriate to the culture. Without those units I guarantee I will never build them (unless it's over and over to force a horse breeders guild... tearing them down each time :laugh4:). The Genoese Crossbow Militia, and Italian Militia in general, are the signature units for those cities. You've made it so they can't recruit them in the numbers they could before. Ditto for others. The also can't get the stream of replacements they had before.

I can see the argument for stripping them from the walls, but in isolation that changes the texture of the game too much for me. Those units still need their proper prominence over the long haul. Delaying their arrival a bit is one thing (though I don't like it!); making them far less significant is another whole matter. Italy becomes just another infantry culture, not one with a significant difference in that it's city-based and can ramp a high output of standard basic (and solid) units fast. Ditto for the horse archer cultures.

I don't want all Western European-style wars. I want reall differences in styles of war across cultures. I don't play Turkey because I feel like playing with spears.

Don't downplay the differences that exist. Re-arrange them if needed to adjust balance, but don't negate them. I feel like they have been, more due to the shrinkage in the pool sizes than the delay, though the delay does play a part. And some units, as I mention, are plain gone. I can understand removing the duplication across cultures, like DFK or whatever, that everyone has... but not the unique units like Broken Lances, even if they are pretty much like something else. Let the differentiation exist. If nothing more it makes those units SEEM unique. After all, we have orders of knights that are (unless you use fixes to tweak them slightly) all the same except in name.

Okay, did some checking: Spain CAN build jinettes at Toledo. Limits their output, but they are there, at least. The pool is 6. In vanilla they are widely available. Most cities can build from a pool of 2 also. If they build a bull ring, 2 more. Those limits are limits on replacements more than sheer unit numbers.

Portugal can build them at Pamplona. BUT Portugal has no interior lines, so it changes the game for Portugal. Lisbon is exposed and fighting a holding action without its premier troop-style.

Turkey gets one level 1 stable in Mosul, way out of the main action. And it can't make Turkomen until Mosul grows which will take 6 turns if nothing else is done there, plus another 3-6 to bring them to the "front." In vanilla they can build them in Caesarea too. And Sipahis are available as soon as they capture some large Holy Land cities. Or upgrade Caesarea a notch to full castle. They really need a stable at Caesarea with your system. And their special building should retain their special units, as should everyone's!

When you take away starting production, you need, IMO, to make sure the faction has it somehow, unless you mean to drastically change the balance of that faction with regard to others that retain their primary starting unit production.

As far as the custom battle stuff goes, I know a lot of people multi-play and like that. I could care less as long as I can use the custom battles to experiment with tactics with the same units I have in the strategy game. But that's me.

"Problem fixing" is one thing. You're definitely far into balancing, and balancing is a lot more complicated. Making all units produced in walls harder to get does not affect all factions anywhere near equally. To retain something resembling faction balance, you're gonna have to understand each and adjust it accordingly. There's a reason those units are produced in walls, I expect.

And for the record I tried Lusted's LTC. Didn't like it. Loads of huge stacks and overflowing treasuries, and not much activity. I don't particularly think huge stacks are the answer. I like seeing the right amount and type of force applied to solve a particular problem. Sometimes that is 5 stacks, sometimes it's 2 units, but the right units. And overflowing treasuries (mine too!) kills off the economic balancing act that makes the game what it is at the strategic level.

Oh, I am seeing a lot of errors in the logs. Also, the log directory is set up in the data directory, but the .cfg points to it being at the top level: Problemfixer/logs/system.log.txt. Since the directory doesn't exist, no log is created until you manually create the folder.

There are a lot of missing files reports. I suspect you're not installing all the files the game wants in the mod folders. It may result in problems farther in. Also, script errors involving some of your changes. A lot in the traits file. A few in buildings.

"Infantry_bonus_ capability seems not to exist, by that name.
I think using "=>" <> ">=" but haven't tested that yet. That's in the standing file.
Loads of trigger parsing stuff in traits. Some just don't mix with some trigger conditions.

Okay, I started a campaign as Turks on H/H. It's turn 6. The Bizzies look pretty skinny. (So do I!) I managed to take Adana, barely. There were 6 silver chevron units, 2 archers, 2 spears, 2 heavy cav (eek!). All had weapon upgrades. The foot units had armor upgrades too (padded). It's a piddling motte & bailey with nothing in it. (Playing on normal unit sizes.)

I scraped together 2 leaders from Caesarea and Iconium and all the units I could dredge up in 6 turns time. That made 2 leaders (4 stars) with their cav, 2 Turk archers, 1 militia spears, and the two Turkmen HA I started with. I forced them to sally, so I had no wall towers to deal with (3 turns wait). It was not pretty and IMO it took too long. The morale boost just makes the combat last a LONG time. Units were not routing until they were down to single digits from 60-75. Partly that may be the silver chevron. Still.

I lost half my force in the process, including both leaders. The heavy cav had me outnumbered 2 to 1 and thier chevron made a big difference. And they didn't rout until down to 5 or so. My HA and archers survived, and about half the spear unit that held well strung out in a line 2 deep. The cav never got off a charge on them though. The archers had to pitch in with swords and the somewhat delicate HA had to charge too, before it was over with. I lost about half my HA. Still, I killed twice what I lost. Hurt badly though.

One other oddity. I got no chevrons and normally I would. With all those friendly casualties, the survivors usually do well. Is the exp gain toned down? If so, we have too many "balances" in play at once. With slower exp gain the losses will remain high longer. So don't need the extra morale too. Or vice versa.

I'm not sure that the added exp on top of the other changes is needed. I don't like long draw out battles all the time. A few are okay. For a small unit action, this took too long. Already these battles tend to last longer than RTW ones of similar size. Longer is not a plus. I think it's overcorrection.

From looking at the charts, Denmark is the only other faction to take a territory so far.

Looking at the Antioch garrison now: 2 Turk archers, 4 town militia. But all are 1 silver chevron and weapon and armor upgraded. Where they got them I don't know. Antioch has a stone wall and a town guard building. :thumbsdown: 6024 pop. I am accumulating HA now. These are the basic units, so worthless in melee. But bringing in more militia spears. I will force a sally again. May have to back off out of tower range.

Heh, out of curiosity I went back and reloaded the quicksave and autoresolved. It showed I had a slight advantage (say 11 of 20). First try: Crushing defeat. 177 men lost to 16 killed. Trying again.
Oh, nice, the scumm rebels want to ransom me back my men! :P On the other hand, the AI in autoresolve isn't as ruthless with leaders. Both survived. Neither has scars either! Cowards!

More numbers: 5 star Sultan on my end. 11 of 20 looks about right on the odds bar. They have 333 men to my 336. They have 80 heavy cav, I have about 45-50 in the two bodyguard units. I suspect the AI is sending my guys in, not holding them back, thus the bad ugliness. Second try:
Exactly the same. Suspicious.

Third try, different: Clear defeat. 196 men lost to 83 killed.

Ok. not sure what that shows. Except it proves that I'll have to run my own field battles, at least.

Can we lose either the upgrades or the boosted exp? Or lose whichever makes the fight take so long? I don't mind bloddiness, but not drawn out bloodiness.

chickenhawk

03-09-2007, 07:35

It is explicitly stated that the rebels have been beefed up to slow down a players initial expansion. Even the vanilla game regularly gives rebels units they do not have the buildings to make. The Welsh longbowmen in Carnoevan come immediately to mind(the bleeps keep turning down my bribe too). It is just a trick that Carl is using a little more. While their are a lot of things to quibble over, see quibbles above :laugh4: ,the only way to make the initial part of the game more than busy work is to make it bloody hard. That is why there are twice as many turns. Your going to need them.

If you start asking where rebel troops are coming from I want to know where the endless stacks of flemish pikes come from, so I can invade. Again that is in the vanilla game.

vonsch

03-09-2007, 07:46

If you start asking where rebel troops are coming from I want to know where the endless stacks of flemish pikes come from, so I can invade. Again that is in the vanilla game.

Heh, that was a rhetorical question. Those Welsh longbows always catch my eye.

I understand the object is to make it harder to slow things down. But I'd prefer that to be at the strategic level. I don't need battles lasting more than three times as long. I get plenty of long battles as it is. I as much as it cringe to say it, I'd prefer more opposing units to ones that refuse to rout. Especially starter, non-pro troops. What is it gonna be like against the first string? Will there be ANY prisoners to ransom?

I think we have a morale uptweak, a unit experience upgrade, AND weapons and armor upgrades in play. Those are stacking too high for my taste.

This is just feedback. I may be the minority.

Hmm, my governors are picking up positive governance traits early, I see. And both sitting in cities have architects too. One has learned "Understands Trade," "Good with Taxes" and "Farming Knowledge." (I am building and taxing heavily, needless to say.) The other has the latter two, and he's an adoption, so been around a couple turns less.

Okay, I have alliances with the Eggies and Bizzies. We'll see how that plays out. Neither has taken any territories so far that I can see. It's now turn 8. I have Antioch under seige. It's a 5-6 turn wait for a sally. I'm still bringing in units as I train them. Have one leader (2 stars) with his 20 guards, about 2.6 Turk archer units, fragments of the two Turkpmen (about 1.1 units), 3.3 militia spears, and 4 plain Turk HA. I'm up against 2 Turk archers and 4 town militia (no sweat! normally), but they have the weapons and armor upgrade, 1 silver chevvie, plus the morale boost and maybe some missile fire from the walls too. I'll try to avoid that being a factor.

Meanwhile building econ stuff and upgrading cities. I haven't yet converted any castles to towns. Need the production. I'll convert Mosul as soon as Adana can build HA for me. Then once I get Aleppo, I'll convert Adana. I plan to keep Aleppo as a main production center. Caesarea will also until I take Smyrna to use to supply my move on Constantinople. Assuming I survive that long.

Of course, since I'm playing the diplo angle, which way I go will depend on how my lovely allies act. While waiting I'll pick up all the rebel regions that I can. One at a time.

Wow, merchant income is 10x higher. May be too high. Sure makes merchants pay early. That said, my treasury is running on empty, which is not at all normal for me. hiring a lot more units and expanding a lot more slowly. Not getting the incremental taxes. I don't sack often, so that's no factor of significance.

Okay, it's turn 14. Antioch garrison sallied: Did an autoresolve for test purposes. By this time I'd added one more unit of militia spears and filled up the stack with plain Turk HA. Odds were 2:1. Clear victory: I lost 72 to their 131. I see one of the Turkomen and one Turk Archer did get a chevvie this time. Now to try it myself. Sack would net 1447 and 1703 killed. Occupy 733. Exterminate 289 and 5804 killed.

Interesting. That time it didn't take nearly as long. My losses were slightly higher at 99, but I killed 222. Better ratio but bloodier. The plain HA took a lot of missile hits. In the confusion of setting up to meet the sally (I hate not being allowed to set up first) the Turk archers on their side got set up and did some damage before I could sic my heavy cav on them. The swarming HA really did a number on their morale. Maybe if the battle isn't close the time will work out okay. That went fast. It hurt having the spears holding ladders, etc. By the time they got mostly into line, they were being charged by the enemy militia. And I had no time to micro maneuver the HA, I just charged them in on skirmish and let them do it themselves. It was a swarm, but it worked. All but the archers (their general was an archer leader) broke at once, then my heavy hit their archers and broke the non-general one, chased it towards the gate a bit, then revered and charged the other from the rear. That was it.

Shuffled the bulk of the stack on to Aleppo. 3 turns until they sally. Damascus and Jerusalem look ugly. Acre only had 4 units last I saw so that will be next. It's a fort too, so I can use it to rebuild HA. Caesarea is now a town, as is Mosul. Bizzies have taken 2 territories, I think in the Balkans. Egypt is a flatline. Jerusalem walls are damaged, maybe they tried and failed. They're welcome to try again. Soften it up for me. Oh, Bizzies took Smyrna. I see the border is purple now. Time to watch my back.

Hmm, 3/4 stack of Eggies near Jerusalem. Mostly Cav and archers. They won't take Jerusalem with that, I don't think, unless autoresolve is very weird. Jerusalem is a half stack of mostly infantry, heavy on spears.

My rep is up to reliable. I've been a very nice sultan. :) Just allied with Hungary too. I figure I will get out of the alliances when they start fighting or they backstab me. One war on, Sicily vs HRE. Pretty quiet so far. I see a couple Bizzie ships near my ports, and a small stack (6 units) in the Smyrna region near my border. Trebizon remains rebel as does Rhodes. I'm seiging Tbilisi now, but it's 8 more turns to a sally. Rhodes is 3 units defending, and they are militia and archers, so doable if I can spare about 4 units and a leader. 5 turn seige though.

The spawn of heretics has either been high, or the spawn of imams has been low. The starter one went heretic on me. So no jihad ability yet. Trying to train up a couple now, but slow going from 1 or 2 piety. If I go to the fringes, the heresy number is 20+ and I risk just ending up with more heretics. In Tbilisi the current number is over 40. Unless the heretic pop value has been changed, I suspect it's just the roll of the dice.

Erik Bloodaxe

03-09-2007, 13:48

"We are currently performing a network upgrade from now until 3am PST. During this time, some user files, uploads, and file management will be inaccessible."

Thank you FileFront:wall:
Looks like I have to wait a bit: ~:mad

Bob the Insane

03-09-2007, 14:02

The Pope and the First Cursade...

The Venetians and me (the HRE) have been at war for a while now, mostly manouvring troops around while we build up stacks. Interesting they dropped down a fort in the Venice province with a full stack in it. I was not sure what they where up to, but I managed to sneak a full new army of Sergeant Spearmen, peasant archers and Mounted Sergeants past them to hook up with the Emperor and another general. We besieged the fort and the Venetians immediately sallied out to face us. There was a conventient ridge of hige ground immediately behind my deployed force so I withdrew to that is a simple Spear, then Archers then Cavalry setup... The Venetian force was mainly militia (the better Italian ones), a few crossbows and a general. The plan was to hold the line and flank with my cavalry. It worked perfectly this time with only the enemy general's charge to the center of my line blowing right through the spears and into the archers causing a problem. I counter him with the Emperor... We won mainly through routing the enemy, enemy force was a little over 1000 men (playing on Normal unit size), and while there where 0 left, we only killed ~250... Unfortuately being a siege battle (even for a fort) there is no chance to ransom the prisoners... :thumbsdown: :skull: :laugh4:

Having sorted out the casualties and bolstered my force back to a full stack with Mercs I besieged Venice. At this point I was wondering what the Pope was up to... Well, fate struck and the very next turn I get the leave the Venetians alone or be excomunicated!! @#$%...

In the meantime a crusade had been called to Jerusalim... The force and general that took Hamburg was dispatched and made there way via the land route and Constantanople. By the time of the above they where getting close to their destination and the original force was mostly replace by a full stack of Crusader Spearmen, peasant archers and Crusader Knights. I even picked up a pair of Crusader Dismounted Knights. On approaching the prize I saw the reason for the Pope's sudden support for the Venetians as they had arrived there first, but had not yet besieged the city (bean counting cowards... :laugh4: ). So I swooped my army in there first...

In Frankfurt I have been training Assassins... There was a conventiently small and nearby group of rebels that I left alone to be an assassin training ground. Of the 6 assassin I have trained only 3 have survived, 2 are average but one it now an 8 point agent... I have dispatched him to Venetian lands...:2thumbsup:

My concentration on Italy left Prague and the castle to the North East to Polish expansion. I will have to keep an eye on them...

Lusted

03-09-2007, 14:33

And for the record I tried Lusted's LTC. Didn't like it. Loads of huge stacks and overflowing treasuries, and not much activity.

Yes the lack of activity in LTC is a problem. With the changes being made with patch 1.2 by CA, i might not use any diplomacy/campaign ai mods so that there are more wars, as those tend to reduce your treasury and put those stacks to good use.

Sorry for the off-topic Carl, was just reading the thread and noticed this.

Carl

03-09-2007, 16:00

Sorry for the off-topic Carl, was just reading the thread and noticed this.

Don't worry lustd, I don't mind.

I'm writing a big reply to vonsch now BTW. He's raised many good points and helped me clarify and narrow down the reasons for many of my changes, and also spot a few mistakes on my part.

It's taking a while to write thopugh.

First I'd like to thank vonsch for showing some excellent testing abilities. In spite of disliking some things he's kept at it, has been totally professional about it, and he's given me some very useful info and expanded on his concerns greatly.

I'd also Like to thank everyone else of course, your all doing sterling work and I have to thank your for that. vonsch is just really standing out ATM.

He's explained several issues I wasn't aware of and done exactly what I needed and explained where I've buggered up unique units for some factions, and unique play styles. I'm an infantry guy at heart and even when playing as Byzantine I use Merc mounted units more than Byzantines own. Most of my forces are Byzantine Spearmen and Trapezoidal archers till better comes along. My other Favorite factions are Scotland, Danes, England, and Papal States, With the odd Venice thrown in.

Naturally I'm not a big user of HA and Heavy Cav, (though i like my light and medium Cav just fine), so balancing factions reliant on them on my own just wasn't possible. I need the feedback on them as I need help getting them right.

I'd also like to add that when arranging the new tech trees I used a standard formula for all factions. Namely wall units went into the barracks/stable/archery range level that requires that level of wall. With a few shuffled around so as to make the weaker units come first, and to stop duplication. That has produced some similarities that I will have to work on.

After this post, I'll write another with my conclusions based on what I've got in feedback, so if you want my overall view of thins said, look their. Below is the detailed thoughts as I go along bit.

Many Thanks for this, and now it's time to reply to your points.

Sorry for the number of quotes BTW.

I guessed that the object was to delay "top units," but I don't like the result. Not all cultures work like that. Some cultures require "hang in there, just keep alive, until late when you get the uber units" while others are "move fast or you will be mincemeat later!"

My first thought, if there's a prioritizing of buildings versus walls... can that be changed instead so that the AI always builds walls as soon as it can? That will help it defensively a lot more with your stronger walls too. The we could leave the unit production alone. Otherwise...

Sadly we can't change the priorities at the moment, the upcoming patch is supposed to unlock some more files though, so we may be able to edit things then.

On the flip side, whilst I don't mind adding the odd unit back to walls, (I was very draconian this time around), for faction balancing acts.

On the flip side I'm largely against adding too many back because i don't like the way in vanilla most barracks lines are only useful for the final level or two. Every level should have a place and a purpose. Taking so many units away from walls helps make sure people actually have a reason beyond getting the best level barracks for building the barracks. Peasants are only their for cheap and nasty Garrison troops, thats why they are so easily available and so cheap.

Regarding the Hang in their and Quick or where mincemeat styles. to a degree I'm trying to cut this down, no faction should actually require you to get to the best troops just to be able to actually fight off an opponent. By the same token, no faction should really force you to rush around trying to win before anyone else shows up. I'm wiling to tweak unit stats to achieve that if necessary. A large part of the reason for wanting this is because the various era's in custom are based of the early/mid/late stages of the campaign. If armies are unequal in terms of maximum power at any given level then theirs issues right their.

Won't matter to France a bit. Or probably HRE. Their play style remains the same with those starting units and the later ones, at least until gunpowder takes off. But some cultures will have to act like... British! Or Germans. When they aren't that.

I certainly don't want to mess up play styles, thats why need you and the others though. I use the same infantry/archer mix with nearly every faction I play. So if you see a faction not playing right. Tell me how it's supposed to play style wise and where the issue is.

You've already done this this for Turks and Spain/Portugal by identifying that they struggle to get access to large quantities of their unique units without big investments as they need several building to get enough of them and to get high enough quality troops.

That doesn't mean i won't have some things to point out regarding what you've had to say, (see jienites in a moment), but I am listening because this is precisely the info I need, to keep unique play styles whilst still having a balanced and challenging game.

The best Cav unit the Iberians get, and their signature unit for style until late era armies, the jienites, are really crippled. Instead of being a staple, they are a luxury. You can't get enough of them fast to start using them as they are intended to be used, as the Cav spine to your forces. (See details below... they aren't TOO bad for Spain, since Toledo is central. Portugal gets hurt more.) There is a reason they can be produced in both cities and castles. They are meant to be everywhere!

Jienites got moved simply because they where one of the few units in the game mucking up the Castle/City balance./ Prior to the late period when you start getting pikes and gunpowder and halberds at cities, castles are supposed to be where your recruit your Field armies. Cities are meant to be for the cheap Garrison trash.

Their are exceptions of course. The Italians get near pro quality troops from cities, but they STILL get their best troops from castles.

Thus I removed Jienites from cities because I actually wanted to see the Spanish and Portuguese have to use their castles for their Field armies, it's also part of the reason I cut the numbers of genosse crossbow militia down, I wanted to see people have a reason to use genose crossbowmen, (most people complain they can get by with militia types only), it also helps with encouraging gunpowder use.

I'd like to point out that I've increased the number of recruitment slots in castles to 3 and modified retraining so it doesn't take units out of the pool when you retrain, (I did this to make it easier to retrain mercs). So you can build more of them at once and retrain on mass if needs be. Not perfect I know but worth remembering.

Thus I'm not really wanting to put Jienites back in cities. But before you get mad at me let me reply to the next quote and after that I'm going to have a few ideas to bounce off you.

The same to the horse archer cultures. The Turkomen cost more than plain horse archers, but they are better. They were available, as were Sipahis, at game start. Now they are quite a long wait away. The Turks don't have the luxury of a lot of time. Mongols, you know? Similar issues for the Russians. Those HA armies aren't good at taking cities fast (at least not cheaply), but they are great at the sort of delaying actions the cultures that have them need to survive. And they move fast on the strategic level. Poor Russia. Infantry just can't handle the distances at the speed needed to cover the steppes defensively. Same in the convoluted passes in Turkey.

I guess that's my complaint, really. I can't be a Turk until I'm a foot-slogging Brit for a decade or more. If I want to be a Brit, well, I can play the English. Same for other cultures with really unique styles if they have special units "out of the box." Turks start with Turkomen. Portuguese and Spanish start with jienites. Russians start with kazaks. But can they make them? English don't start with longbows, oddly. It's clearly a balance decision. The English have time on their island. The Mongols are not coming.

Alright, I would point out that I wasn't trying to make the Turks footsloggers early on, and what you've described is unintentional but exactly the kind of bug I needed to know about.

Would I also be correct in saying that the issues with jienites and the HA are down not so much to them being in castles, but more to do with limitations regarding what you have to build to get them, and how quickly you deplete the pool when building them?

If thats the case I could move the stables line down so that the first level shows up at a Wooden castle and the Second Level at a stone Castle. You'd still need a Fortress for Saiph's. But Turkomen would just need castles.

I could also add building to the Descr_Strat file so that each City/Castle starts with the best barracks/stables/archery range available at that level. That should cut down the building up phase and get the AI going sooner.

Also upping max pool size, replenish rate, and I could accept bigger recruitment slot numbers. it's currently 2/3/3/3/4 for the various levels of castle. I could make it 2/3/4/5/6. So you could recruit 4 units of anything at a given level easily if needs be.

What do you think?

I can see the argument for stripping them from the walls, but in isolation that changes the texture of the game too much for me. Those units still need their proper prominence over the long haul. Delaying their arrival a bit is one thing (though I don't like it!); making them far less significant is another whole matter. Italy becomes just another infantry culture, not one with a significant difference in that it's city-based and can ramp a high output of standard basic (and solid) units fast. Ditto for the horse archer cultures.I don't want all Western European-style wars. I want real differences in styles of war across cultures. I don't play Turkey because I feel like playing with spears.

Don't downplay the differences that exist. Re-arrange them if needed to adjust balance, but don't negate them. I feel like they have been, more due to the shrinkage in the pool sizes than the delay, though the delay does play a part.

I certainly wasn't trying to reduce their significance, More ensure that the elite units actually take till the late game to get, rather than cultures getting everything at once.

Regrading the Italians, they should still get an extra recruitment sot over everyone else at cities, and their militia remains the best available. But likewise, as should be they are still militia and proper troops still outperform them and should still be got in preference to them. They're simply able to put together Okay Field armies from cities unlike everyone else. However they HAVE to stick to the same balancing point as everyone else. Namely that cities are big on income but worse at military than castles, whilst castle are low on income but good at military units. Thats one of the most basic mechanics of the game and breaking that breaks the entire game down as it makes castles fairly pointless.

I also wasn't aware pool sizes had shrunk, i thought they where the same. If you could list what units have had their pool size reduced and by how much I'd be happy to add them back on.

And some units, as I mention, are plain gone. I can understand removing the duplication across cultures, like DFK or whatever, that everyone has... but not the unique units like Broken Lances, even if they are pretty much like something else. Let the differentiation exist. If nothing more it makes those units SEEM unique. After all, we have orders of knights that are (unless you use fixes to tweak them slightly) all the same except in name.

I've tried my best not to remove unique units, and it seems i made a mistake with Broken Lancers. the Dismounted version is available to Sicily as before. But it looks like I've taken them from Milan thinking Venice still had them, and taken them from Venice thinking Milan still had them.

Rest assured I'm going to change this ASAP, and get them back on one of those factions rosters. Probably Milan as they are supposed to have good Cav.

Say add them in as free-upkeep high level city Cav to supplement Familiae Ducal?

Okay, did some checking: Spain CAN build jienites at Toledo. Limits their output, but they are there, at least. The pool is 6. In vanilla they are widely available. Most cities can build from a pool of 2 also. If they build a bull ring, 2 more. Those limits are limits on replacements more than sheer unit numbers.

Portugal can build them at Pamplona. BUT Portugal has no interior lines, so it changes the game for Portugal. Lisbon is exposed and fighting a holding action without its premier troop-style.

Thats a worry, I hadn't realized I was limiting them unduly, was merely trying to limit them so as to prevent players and AI alike from having more than about 40% of their army made up of them, the pure jinette armies really shouldn't be a standard thing.

Turkey gets one level 1 stable in Mosul, way out of the main action. And it can't make Turkomen until Mosul grows which will take 6 turns if nothing else is done there, plus another 3-6 to bring them to the "front." In vanilla they can build them in Caesarea too. And Sipahis are available as soon as they capture some large Holy Land cities. Or upgrade Caesarea a notch to full castle. They really need a stable at Caesarea with your system. And their special building should retain their special units, as should everyone's!

When you take away starting production, you need, IMO, to make sure the faction has it somehow, unless you mean to drastically change the balance of that faction with regard to others that retain their primary starting unit production.

Definitely sounds like i need to give factions some starting barracks/stables/archery ranges.

Also, I wasn't trying to cut down the amount they could build of particular units, (so long as a better replacments wasn't available), just move where the production was done so cities weren't producing pro troops early on and so that you had to build the various barracks/stables lines to get them rather than the barracks/stables being an unimportant after thought.

"Problem fixing" is one thing. You're definitely far into balancing, and balancing is a lot more complicated. Making all units produced in walls harder to get does not affect all factions anywhere near equally. To retain something resembling faction balance, you're gonna have to understand each and adjust it accordingly. There's a reason those units are produced in walls, I expect.

I'd say it was done because CA was feeling lazy, (no offense BTW), Right now you need walls for the PO and defense benefits so putting money into them isn't really investing money in your military infrastructure. What i wanted to create was a situation where anyone wanting to build anything had to actually invest i their genuine military infrastructure to get access to their units. the better the unit they want the more they have to invest.

I certainly wasn't trying to mess up the balance too much, some tweaks produced better balance IMHO, but I wasn't making any changes JUST for balance alone.

And for the record I tried Lusted's LTC. Didn't like it. Loads of huge stacks and overflowing treasuries, and not much activity. I don't particularly think huge stacks are the answer. I like seeing the right amount and type of force applied to solve a particular problem. Sometimes that is 5 stacks, sometimes it's 2 units, but the right units. And overflowing treasuries (mine too!) kills off the economic balancing act that makes the game what it is at the strategic level.

I understand this which was why I didn't increase costs and build times on too much stuff. With Lusted's LTC the increased prices mean more income is needed to buy the same old things so you end up basically needing even more money than before. I actually use Lusted's LTC 2.1 money Script in this, it's main purpose is just to get the AI going early on and keep it going when it's struggling.

Oh, I am seeing a lot of errors in the logs. Also, the log directory is set up in the data directory, but the .cfg points to it being at the top level: Problemfixer/logs/system.log.txt. Since the directory doesn't exist, no log is created until you manually create the folder.

There are a lot of missing files reports. I suspect you're not installing all the files the game wants in the mod folders. It may result in problems farther in. Also, script errors involving some of your changes. A lot in the traits file. A few in buildings.

"Infantry_bonus_ capability seems not to exist, by that name.
I think using "=>" <> ">=" but haven't tested that yet. That's in the standing file.
Loads of trigger parsing stuff in traits. Some just don't mix with some trigger conditions.

he traits ones are because of the anti-traits fix. The game thinks anti-traits are working right and is warning me that the triggers are redundant. Don't worry though, they still work as written, the game just thinks their redundant. I know about the building one, was going to try to fix it. The missing files aren't an issue, ALL modded games get them even with every file unpacked. it's because their are some files that are ignored I think when reading from the Packs in vanilla. In a modded game it doesn't ignore them, so don't worry about the errors.

Okay, I started a campaign as Turks on H/H. It's turn 6. The Bizzies look pretty skinny. (So do I!) I managed to take Adana, barely. There were 6 silver chevron units, 2 archers, 2 spears, 2 heavy Cav (eek!). All had weapon upgrades. The foot units had armor upgrades too (padded). It's a piddling Motte & Bailey with nothing in it. (Playing on normal unit sizes.)

I scraped together 2 leaders from Caesarea and Iconium and all the units I could dredge up in 6 turns time. That made 2 leaders (4 stars) with their Cav, 2 Turk archers, 1 militia spears, and the two Turkomen HA I started with. I forced them to sally, so I had no wall towers to deal with (3 turns wait). It was not pretty and IMO it took too long. The morale boost just makes the combat last a LONG time. Units were not routing until they were down to single digits from 60-75. Partly that may be the silver chevron. Still.

Actually I've lowered Morale, Let me check my list, I might have mis wrote something.

However having Silver Chevrons reverses most of that. the Armour is worth about 4 points of defense from all directions against both missile and non-missile attacks, and the weapons seemed to be a 25% buff according to the MP people. the Chevrons are either +4 or +8 morale and +2 attack and defense skill. Morale lowering is as follows:

All peasants except Aztecs and Highland rabble dropped from 3 to 1 (the two left are above average anyway so...). % dropped to 4, 9 dropped to 6 and 11 dropped to 8 except for bodyguards and units with Lock_Morale. However with the morale boosts, those militia might have had as good a morale as JHI in VANILLA, and better than them in ProblemFixer. It makes it easier to get chain routs and makes watching your own morale and getting slightly beaten/tied/shot up more important now.

Oh, and spears/Pikes now inflict a -2 morale penalty on mounted units. Run you damm elephants, run :laugh4:.

I lost half my force in the process, including both leaders. The heavy Cav had me outnumbered 2 to 1 and their chevron made a big difference. And they didn't rout until down to 5 or so. My HA and archers survived, and about half the spear unit that held well strung out in a line 2 deep. The Cav never got off a charge on them though. The archers had to pitch in with swords and the somewhat delicate HA had to charge too, before it was over with. I lost about half my HA. Still, I killed twice what I lost. Hurt badly though.

In some ways that what i wanted, I'd rather leaders didn't die so easy. But I find I now need 3/4 stacks of good castle only troops to overwhelm my opponents now with few losses. Also I wasn't trying to create marathon battles. Damm I wish I could do something about the rebel morale.

One other oddity. I got no chevrons and normally I would. With all those friendly casualties, the survivors usually do well. Is the exp gain toned down? If so, we have too many "balances" in play at once. With slower exp gain the losses will remain high longer. So don't need the extra morale too. Or vice versa.

I haven't touched experience. You can't I'm afraid.

From looking at the charts, Denmark is the only other faction to take a territory so far.

It's because they have no starting military infrastructure, (another good reason for adding it). They need about 10 turns before they can start getting good troops out, and they don't buy mercs like I do. That probably why i missed the Turks issue. Apart from never having played them I've always hired masses of mercs even in vanilla, so if I had to wait to get some units it never really bothered me as mercs got me by until then.

Heh, out of curiosity I went back and reloaded the quicksave and autoresolved. It showed I had a slight advantage (say 11 of 20). First try: Crushing defeat. 177 men lost to 16 killed. Trying again.
Oh, nice, the scumm rebels want to ransom me back my men! :P On the other hand, the AI in autoresolve isn't as ruthless with leaders. Both survived. Neither has scars either! Cowards!

I don't think you can actually lose your leader in auto-resolve, something kicks in that means only a disbanded army will cause that.

That is why there are twice as many turns. Your going to need them.

Very true indeed. Also what else he said.

I understand the object is to make it harder to slow things down. But I'd prefer that to be at the strategic level. I don't need battles lasting more than three times as long. I get plenty of long battles as it is. I as much as it cringe to say it, I'd prefer more opposing units to ones that refuse to rout. Especially starter, non-pro troops. What is it gonna be like against the first string? Will there be ANY prisoners to ransom?

It's the Silver Chevrons, it adds a LOT of morale to the units. I could try more rebels with lower experience though if you like?

This is just feedback. I may be the minority.

I don't care if your a Minority, you seem o have hit a lot of issues I wasn't even aware exited until just now.

Wow, merchant income is 10x higher. May be too high. Sure makes merchants pay early. That said, my treasury is running on empty, which is not at all normal for me. hiring a lot more units and expanding a lot more slowly. Not getting the incremental taxes. I don't sack often, so that's no factor of significance.

8X actually, but you have much reduced acquisition chances and are near some VERY big starting resources that are worth a lot close up even. In western Europe the income is much lower.

Interesting. That time it didn't take nearly as long. My losses were slightly higher at 99, but I killed 222. Better ratio but bloodier. The plain HA took a lot of missile hits. In the confusion of setting up to meet the sally (I hate not being allowed to set up first) the Turk archers on their side got set up and did some damage before I could sic my heavy Cav on them. The swarming HA really did a number on their morale. Maybe if the battle isn't close the time will work out Okay. That went fast. It hurt having the spears holding ladders, etc. By the time they got mostly into line, they were being charged by the enemy militia. And I had no time to micro maneuver the HA, I just charged them in on skirmish and let them do it themselves. It was a swarm, but it worked. All but the archers (their general was an archer leader) broke at once, then my heavy hit their archers and broke the non-general one, chased it towards the gate a bit, then revered and charged the other from the rear. That was it.

Sounds better. Bear in mind that the rebel units are 2-3 times more effective than before so it's much easier to end up with similar power armies than before. As you noted these battles take forever.

Shuffled the bulk of the stack on to Aleppo. 3 turns until they sally. Damascus and Jerusalem look ugly. Acre only had 4 units last I saw so that will be next. It's a fort too, so I can use it to rebuild HA. Caesarea is now a town, as is Mosul. Bizzies have taken 2 territories, I think in the Balkans. Egypt is a flatline. Jerusalem walls are damaged, maybe they tried and failed. They're welcome to try again. Soften it up for me. Oh, Bizzies took Smyrna. I see the border is purple now. Time to watch my back.

Once they do take it Egypt tends to go pretty crazy in my experience, but they do try and fail a lot i find first. And TBH your lucky, I was tempted to buff Jerusalem even more to make it really hard on the first crusade that usually gets sent their.

The spawn of heretics has either been high, or the spawn of imams has been low. The starter one went heretic on me. So no jihad ability yet. Trying to train up a couple now, but slow going from 1 or 2 piety. If I go to the fringes, the heresy number is 20+ and I risk just ending up with more heretics. In Tbilisi the current number is over 40. Unless the heretic pop value has been changed, I suspect it's just the roll of the dice.

I think I ovverdid Heretics, most people complained they where easy to whack so i upped spawn rates and conversion rates, but I think I went too far as HRE tends to be infested with the buggers.

We won mainly through routing the enemy, enemy force was a little over 1000 men (playing on Normal unit size), and while there where 0 left, we only killed ~250...

This sounds more normal. I find in custom battles now that about as many are captured as are killed as units rout much more easily now.

How are people finding the Honest/Dishonest ruler traits then?

Alright, give me a minute and I'll writ up the Conclusions post.

vonsch

03-09-2007, 18:28

Don't worry lustd, I don't mind.

I'm writing a big reply to vonsch now BTW. He's raised many good points and helped me clarify and narrow down the reasons for many of my changes, and also spot a few mistakes on my part.

It's taking a while to write thopugh.

Hehe, you don't have to reply to everything at once! I was writing a post, then using edit to update it as I went along... for hours. I stayed up way too late playing.

Lusted,

Glad to hear you know about the issues with LTC. I really want to see improvements in the role play aspects like diplomacy and generals' development. And, of course, the AI strategically (and tactically, but that's better on the whole). I'm not a fan of the "overwhelm the player" school of "AI." I tend to avoid the levels of difficulty where that difficulty is achieved by giving the AI overwhelming advantages (like diety level in Civ, or even VH here). So seeing huge AI treasuries disturbs me if I have to struggle to balance my budget. I KNOW the computer is cheating. :yes: Ditto for making the AI's force's morale sky high compared to mine on a troop by troop basis. A small boost is okay. In play that's invisible. But as I said way above, I know that's a personal issue. A lot of players don't mind.

Means I have great respect for AI that performs in a reasonable fashion.

Okay, back to testing this to see how the diplomacy stands up. (Only turn 15, so far.) The governor's are picking up positive traits pretty fast. Maybe that's scaled to the short game rather than the 1 year per turn? Feels a little too fast, but I'm basing that comparison on 1.13 with my small tweaks. I scaled farming a little faster. I think it was 1-3-6 and I went 1-2-4 or something. So far leaving the generals parked (which I stopped doing in 1.13) in a city isn't proving a bad idea. The income boost (the economy IS tight) is visible, though not huge, and I'm getting the savings from the architect in filling up the build stack.

My replacement faction leader (an adoptee, since I lost the FL anf FH in that first seige) has pretty much stayed in Iconium, the capital. He's no great general. He's now a Rural Expert (+2 farm), Honest Ruler (+1 chivalry), Thourough Taxman (20% tax bonus, but +1 unrest... oops, should have dropped below VH taxes earlier), and Understands Trade (10% bonus). The architect with the squalor cutter (-1) offsets the trade unrest a little, at least.

Normally I'm more careful with faction leaders. I was pushing things in that first seige very hard. So I'd have a couple more generals by now, and my FL would actually be better than that, I suspect. I tend to use my FL fairly hard early, but not too riskily, unless he's no great shakes. Then he retires to run things, maybe kill a few rebels, etc. If he's poor and the FH is significantly better, I push him hard in combat so he either improves a lot or gets killed. And I watch for a nice jihad or crusade.

Just a quick reply to the first part of your post above, Carl, I reserve the right to decide your changes on the wall to stable (or whatever) shift is okay. I need to play a couple starts to see how much it changes early going with some other factions too. I do think the special buildings should get their special units still. If you feel they should be later, move the building reqs up a tier. The Islams should get their HA troops from race tracks too. Ditto for bull rings and jinettes (and that one is still in, you probably missed it :P).

What's making me reconsider on the wall-to-building shift is the over all slower pace of the startup by the AI. If they are slowed a bit too, and they are in my game so far, that gives the player back some time to get those buildings up and get out a "real" (for that faction) army.

I may seem to "spam" HA, but that's pretty historical too. My ideal is a mobile HA force (I don't use jinettes exactly the same way, those are almost always part of a combined arms team) with a general as a roving attacker/defender. Behind that will toddle a real combined force army with some HA to do the flea-bites and flanking, but the more typical spearwall, foot archers, meleers, for actually busting walls. Some heavy cav will be salted into each when I can make it. With most other cultures I'm much more single army type based. I have been known to use all longbow armies in some situations too, if the terrain is right. And pure Milanese crossbow armies can make good sense too!

Carl

03-09-2007, 18:35

Conclusions:

1. I need to edit the descr_Strat file to give everyone more in the way of barracks/stables/archery range as currently they are having to spend a long time building it up before they can launch real attacks, this is slowing AI and player alike to much early on and producing almost no action in the first 10-15 turns.

2. may need to alter when the Stables line shows up so as to allow those factions that are highly Cav reliant to actually stand a chance early on. Currently they struggle to gain access to many of their vitally necessary units until too late on. Especially true of factions that will have to deal with the Mongols.

3. I also need to watch out for similar situations elsewhere where required units are delayed too long because you need to go too far along the tech tree to get them.

4. Some units have had the total amount available to a faction reduced heavily when they had them taken away from cities, this means that the quantity recruitable from individual castles may need to go up in some cases.

5. Rebels may be better with more units with less experience upgrades as they tend to fight to the death too much due to the morale upgrades this gives.

6. Heretics seem to be too strong.

What does everyone else think of that and have i missed anything?

Lusted

03-09-2007, 18:39

I'm not a fan of the "overwhelm the player" school of "AI."

Neither am i. Im trying to strike a balance in LTC between the ai producing enough full stacks, but not too endless amounts of them. The main problem im 2.1 is the general lack of wars, because if there were more wars the ai would use more troops, and the ai would spend more cash(though it is a little too easy to make cash and im tweaking that as well).

And back on-topic once more.

vonsch

03-09-2007, 19:15

I'd like to point out that I've increased the number of recruitment slots in castles to 3 and modified retraining so it doesn't take units out of the pool when you retrain, (I did this to make it easier to retrain mercs). So you can build more of them at once and retrain on mass if needs be. Not perfect I know but worth remembering.

Not sure this is the right answer. The flow of replacements is what puts a control on how mercilessly you abuse your own troops. I prefer being encouraged to win in a fashion that preserves the maximum in troops on my side. If replacements are bottomless, that's a negative incentive to good behavior. Is there a variable to determine the relative replacement cost, by chance? Something like 50% or 33% might be better. That way you can build fewer new units than you can replenish hardened ones, which encourages better player behavior as CiC.

I think moving the stables down a level for the HA and jinette cultures (and others may pop up that I don't know of) might be all that's needed. Or maybe let the cities build the lowest level of stable too (as they can churches?) That might be a better solution still. If they can build one (maybe two) levels of stable in cities, they still have to build the thing seperately from walls, they do get those troops anywhere they like (but not the end troops in the stable line) as it appears CA intends (and makes sense historically) and they get them a bit earlier in startups since they can build closer to the "front" in a city, rather than way off in some castle that's inconvenient for what's supposed to be their staple troop.

However they HAVE to stick to the same balancing point as everyone else. Namely that cities are big on income but worse at military than castles, whilst castle are low on income but good at military units. Thats one of the most basic mechanics of the game and breaking that breaks the entire game down as it makes castles fairly pointless.

Two points here: (1) The dilemma is good, but Italians are supposed to sort of short-circuit it to a degree. That's their cultural advantage. They do cities well. But I agree that balance there needs close scrutiny. (2) Maybe the balance between cities and castles should come more from other sources than their build capacity? How about making castles even harder to take than cities? They are somewhat harder now, but not THAT much. Maybe the difference should be emphasized more making castles more important as strategic blocks. That would have the side-effect of making it more difficult for the player to strip the AI's production capability of good units. As it stands now, with your mod I can cripple an enemy by just taking their castles. The cities don't produce much good offensively any more. But the cities are needed to fund the castles, so they too need to be protected, but that should come from those armies the castles maintain.

The player will have an advantage here until the strategic AI improves, of course. Ideally the AIs should have target city/castle rations they strive to maintain. The AI should also look to convert appropriately, preserving the best castles for troop production, but converting others to towns.

I'm dreaming. :yes:

As far as rebel chevrons and morale and all go, I think it's a player-adjustment issue. Stick in the readme, plan on overwhelming force more. The higher victory categories will be a lot harder to achieve. When I hit the next two cities with larger forces, the outcomes were more what I expected, units routed. I think the the battle AI is measuring relative strength in the equation on routing, so a matched force has to work a LOT harder to win. That's as it should be. I got caught by not realizing just how much difference those upgrades meant. :help: AND my troops were a lot lower powered than usual.

I avoid mercs a lot. Especially when money is tight. The jihad/crusade ones are the major exception. So assuming the player will use mercs more than very pickily is probably unsound. In my Iberian play I will grab a few purely to let me wipe out the opposing Catholic faction fast. But with this slower pace, it's easier (and cheaper in the long run, I think, since the saved florins goes into development) to go for bulk over quality. One militia in front, a second into the rear, is quicker and cheaper than an expensive but significantly better merc spear unit. (But therein lies my footslogger complaint!) But I think adjusting the building levels for those signature troops will resolve this.

Once they do take it Egypt tends to go pretty crazy in my experience, but they do try and fail a lot i find first. And TBH your lucky, I was tempted to buff Jerusalem even more to make it really hard on the first crusade that usually gets sent their.

Hmm, I sort of think that you should buff up Jerusalem more. Will Egypt pileup there though? Ideally, they would bypass it until later. I think it needs that bulking up against the crusades. :smash: I've never found it an interesting fight. And the crusader can hire more mercs on site, so it's easy to adjust in 1.13 or vanilla. I started crusading with minimal forces to reduce attrition to desertion, since that appears to be proportional to the size. Then I hire up on the final approach when I have better intel. Crusader mercs are cheap. Hasn;t failed me yet. Should be a risky strategy.

chickenhawk

03-09-2007, 19:16

It might be a lot of editing, but it might make sense to have some rebels be much harder than others. Most factions have one to four rebel provinces that they always seize immediately. if the first couple were easier but the last one or two were very strong it would provide some advancement early without speeding things up too much. It would also provide an interesting strategic choice about seizing "your own" hard rebels or someone else's easy ones.

In terms of troop production I feel that a faction should be able to get good faction appropriate troops from their starting provinces quite quickly, it should much longer to get them from newly conquered ones.

Being able to get DEKs from a city on the Dalmatian coast that I seized two turns ago is borderline silly. Having to play as the English for quite a few turns before I can turn out longbows anywhere is frustrating.

vonsch

03-09-2007, 19:35

In terms of troop production I feel that a faction should be able to get good faction appropriate troops from their starting provinces quite quickly, it should much longer to get them from newly conquered ones.

Being able to get DEKs from a city on the Dalmatian coast that I seized two turns ago is borderline silly. Having to play as the English for quite a few turns before I can turn out longbows anywhere is frustrating.

This is a great point. It argues to put the HA and jinettes (and such) into their own, lower-output buildings alongside the stables (where they are too). Thus unless you're fighting a similar culture from a fighting-style perspective (like Turks fighting Russians or Portuguese fighting Spanish) the buildings you need for your unique troops won't be there. The bullring is one possibility, but the reqs are too high for it to work. Ditto for racetracks.

If a such a building could put out 1 over 2-3 turns, and was buildable very early anywhere, that would create a supply, but still at a separate cost from something useful in its own right like walls.

Maybe a version of the bullring with no happiness boost. Add the boost back in later, and maybe bump production capacity by 1, with an upgrade available at the original level. This way there's a quick and easy source of SOME specialty units early, but the main benefit remains at its original level. Same with racetracks. That already has two levels though, so easier to work with. And the non-HA cultures aren't guaranteed stables in all the captured cities. Instead they get a structure that just doesn't do anything for them... (or does it poof?)

One thing that Lusted did in LTC that I don't think you've looked at, Carl, is boost the movement speed of agents. I think that's a good change, though Lusted may have gone a little too far. (I'm open on that.) As it is it just takes too long to move agents around. Princesses end up in convents before they get to their target! I'd like to see them move about twice as fast as infantry, maybe as cavalry. I'm not sure how fast Lusted's are, but they were a lot more useful.

Alternatively, they could have their own Explorer's Guild traits or ancilliaries that added in this boost, killing two birdies with one slingstone. It would make the EG really useful, and also the agents. Have the trait be universal if the EG exists that does a half boost, and the ancilliary require a visit to an EG city for a turn or two (maybe 50% chance per turn in the city with full MPs).

Faster fleets universally also deserves some consideration. Not a huge difference, but one to shorten sea travel times a bit. On the other hand that would depend on how good the AI is at moving forces amphibiously. It does do it, but not as much as a player would, so it might be stacking the odds against the AI too much.

chickenhawk

03-09-2007, 20:20

In terms of tweaking unit production is there someway to tweak things at the beginning so that a faction could get some production of a mid grade signature unit immediately? Maybe some thing attached to the walls only through certain provinces with certain owners? The idea is to get signature armies early without enabling the player to spam the map with them later.

I also strongly agree with Vonsch about agent speeds. The restrictions on armies reflect a lot off issues that do not really affect hour by hour marching speeds, like feeding them. None of this applies to agent, even one with a good sized retinue.

I just had another idea that may or may not be doable. Since you are emphasizing the Chivalry/Dread of your generals it would make sense to give the option for players to select a higher movement speed for their armies at the price of increasing the general's dread. This would reflect the stripping of the countryside for supplies. the peasants certainly dreaded that.:sweatdrop:

If the engine won't let you do that( a forced march option would be nice too) maybe you could tie an armies movement speed to the Chiv/Dread score. it would increase the tension of chosing considerably.:inquisitive:

:wall: The awfulness of my typing is exceeded only by my excuse for editing.

Carl

03-09-2007, 20:29

Not sure this is the right answer. The flow of replacements is what puts a control on how mercilessly you abuse your own troops. I prefer being encouraged to win in a fashion that preserves the maximum in troops on my side. If replacements are bottomless, that's a negative incentive to good behavior. Is there a variable to determine the relative replacement cost, by chance? Something like 50% or 33% might be better. That way you can build fewer new units than you can replenish hardened ones, which encourages better player behavior as CiC.

I altered the recruitment slots more to encourage the use of castle units, and changed retrain to make it possible to use large amounts of mercs if your so inclined. Right now it's nigh on impossibbile to retrain more than a couple of units of mercs at once in vanilla. The effects do carry over to ordinary units but it's my experience that the number of recruitment slots is a much bigger limitation on retraining than anything else. S you still have to be careful with your units. It also still costs you money to retrain a unit, it's not free.

I think moving the stables down a level for the HA and jinette cultures (and others may pop up that I don't know of) might be all that's needed. Or maybe let the cities build the lowest level of stable too (as they can churches?) That might be a better solution still. If they can build one (maybe two) levels of stable in cities, they still have to build the thing separately from walls, they do get those troops anywhere they like (but not the end troops in the stable line) as it appears CA intends (and makes sense historically) and they get them a bit earlier in startups since they can build closer to the "front" in a city, rather than way off in some castle that's inconvenient for what's supposed to be their staple troop.

I'll try moving the stables down but I'd prefer to keep them out of cities if possible at all. On the other hand their are a lot of villages around that I could turn into lowest level castles in Descr_Strat. That should help matters rather a lot as their will be more castles for both AI and player alike to play with.

Two points here: (1) The dilemma is good, but Italians are supposed to sort of short-circuit it to a degree. That's their cultural advantage. They do cities well. But I agree that balance there needs close scrutiny. (2) Maybe the balance between cities and castles should come more from other sources than their build capacity? How about making castles even harder to take than cities? They are somewhat harder now, but not THAT much. Maybe the difference should be emphasized more making castles more important as strategic blocks. That would have the side-effect of making it more difficult for the player to strip the AI's production capability of good units. As it stands now, with your mod I can cripple an enemy by just taking their castles. The cities don't produce much good offensively any more. But the cities are needed to fund the castles, so they too need to be protected, but that should come from those armies the castles maintain.

(1.): I partially agree here, they do mostly short-circuit it by having decent quality city troops that they can actually use in Field battles without being totally outclassed. But they still have better castle level troops, the disparity just isn't as large as other faction. So yes they should have a lower reliance on castles, but they should still need them too and prefer the castle troops over the city ones. Even players agree that most Italian castle infantry and foot archers aren't worth it as the city equivalents do everything they do but rather cheaper and only very fractionally worse.

(2): Possibly, but that would be hard to set up and would have no effect on AI vs. AI fights till the auto-resolve issue is dealt with. On the other hand it IS a good idea IMHO. If I can figure out a way to implement it all the better.

The player will have an advantage here until the strategic AI improves, of course. Ideally the AIs should have target city/castle rations they strive to maintain. The AI should also look to convert appropriately, preserving the best castles for troop production, but converting others to towns.

I'm dreaming.

Yeah, if the AI would actually switch between castles and towns it would be so much better IMHO.

As far as rebel chevrons and morale and all go, I think it's a player-adjustment issue. Stick in the readme, plan on overwhelming force more. The higher victory categories will be a lot harder to achieve. When I hit the next two cities with larger forces, the outcomes were more what I expected, units routed. I think the the battle AI is measuring relative strength in the equation on routing, so a matched force has to work a LOT harder to win. That's as it should be. I got caught by not realizing just how much difference those upgrades meant. AND my troops were a lot lower powered than usual.

Glad to hear it isn't such an issue any more, you had me worried for a while. And outnumbering your opponent overall inflicts a morale penalty I think, add in having unit around behind them and at the sides and thats -2 more, also add on actually fighting outnumbered, and fighting with units in your flank rear and thats another -3 i think. maybe another -1/-2 if losing. Pretty easy to break at that point.

I avoid mercs a lot. Especially when money is tight. The jihad/crusade ones are the major exception. So assuming the player will use mercs more than very pickily is probably unsound. In my Iberian play I will grab a few purely to let me wipe out the opposing Catholic faction fast. But with this slower pace, it's easier (and cheaper in the long run, I think, since the saved florins goes into development) to go for bulk over quality. One militia in front, a second into the rear, is quicker and cheaper than an expensive but significantly better merc spear unit. (But therein lies my footslogger complaint!) But I think adjusting the building levels for those signature troops will resolve this.

I was just pointing out I use them a lot.

Also, remember that Merc spears can typically take a good solid formed charge from almost anything of feudal knight level or below so they have their uses over militia, thats also another reason I reduced the number of militia late on. Many late units are as expensive as you can allow early on, but are too cheap for their cost late on. Yet elites should be expensive so that as the game, (and your income), progress you don't end up with overwhelming numbers of troops running round. In effect the quality of your armies improves, and the amount of income improves, but the total size of your army doesn't.

Hmm, I sort of think that you should buff up Jerusalem more. Will Egypt pileup there though? Ideally, they would bypass it until later. I think it needs that bulking up against the crusades. I've never found it an interesting fight. And the crusader can hire more mercs on site, so it's easy to adjust in 1.13 or vanilla. I started crusading with minimal forces to reduce attrition to desertion, since that appears to be proportional to the size. Then I hire up on the final approach when I have better intel. Crusader mercs are cheap. Hasn;t failed me yet. Should be a risky strategy.

Glad you like it.

It might be a lot of editing, but it might make sense to have some rebels be much harder than others. Most factions have one to four rebel provinces that they always seize immediately. if the first couple were easier but the last one or two were very strong it would provide some advancement early without speeding things up too much. It would also provide an interesting strategic choice about seizing "your own" hard rebels or someone else's easy ones.

In terms of troop production I feel that a faction should be able to get good faction appropriate troops from their starting provinces quite quickly, it should much longer to get them from newly conquered ones.

Being able to get DEKs from a city on the Dalmatian coast that I seized two turns ago is borderline silly. Having to play as the English for quite a few turns before I can turn out longbows anywhere is frustrating.

Theirs only so much i can d about the troops turning up Ellary, their just isn't any files I can edit to get rid of them for a while in some provinces.

On the other hand I agree it's frustrating to wait on longbows in your own provinces so much.

Having Hard and easy rebels would be interesting, but would take some working out. All castles are Hard by default for example.

Any further elaboration on who you think should be hard and who should be easy?

This is a great point. It argues to put the HA and jinettes (and such) into their own, lower-output buildings alongside the stables (where they are too). Thus unless you're fighting a similar culture from a fighting-style perspective (like Turks fighting Russians or Portuguese fighting Spanish) the buildings you need for your unique troops won't be there. The bullring is one possibility, but the reqs are too high for it to work. Ditto for racetracks.

If a such a building could put out 1 over 2-3 turns, and was buildable very early anywhere, that would create a supply, but still at a separate cost from something useful in its own right like walls.

Interesting idea, I'd still like to limit pro troops to castles as much as possible, although adding a small pool to some cities may work.

Maybe a version of the bullring with no happiness boost. Add the boost back in later, and maybe bump production capacity by 1, with an upgrade available at the original level. This way there's a quick and easy source of SOME specialty units early, but the main benefit remains at its original level. Same with racetracks. That already has two levels though, so easier to work with. And the non-HA cultures aren't guaranteed stables in all the captured cities. Instead they get a structure that just doesn't do anything for them... (or does it poof?)

It would stick around, but interesting idea...~:).

In terms of tweaking unit production is there someway to tweak things at the beginning so that a faction could get some production of a mid grade signature unit immediately? Maybe some thing attached to the walls only through certain provinces with certain owners? The idea is to get signature armies early without enabling the player to spam the map with them later.

This might be possible, although I'd have to create a lot of unique resources and I'd still want to keep it low pool size so that you still need the proper buildings at home.

also strongly agree with Vonsch about agent speeds. The restrictions on armies reflect a lot off issues that do not really affect hour by hour marching speeds, like feeding them. None of this applies to agent, even one with a good sized retinue.

I missed that line~:O. Good idea as I find many agents FAR too slow.

I just had another idea that may or may not be doable. Since you are emphasizing the Chivalry/Dread of your generals it would make sense to give the option for players to select a higher movement speed for their armies at the price of increasing the general's dread. This would reflect the stripping of the countryside for supplies. the peasants certainly dreaded that.

If the engine won't let you do that( a forced march option would be nice too) maybe you could tie an armies movement speed to the Chiv/Dread score. it would increase the tension of choosing considerably.

It would be do-able, but in a roundabout way. I LOVE the idea myself as it would really throw up a load of interesting mechanics.

The awfulness of my typing is exceeded only by my excuse for editing.

LOL, join the club:laugh4:.

FileFront is back up guys so you can download it now if you haven't already got it.

chickenhawk

03-09-2007, 21:00

Could you start numbering versions of the BETA so i know when to reload?
:idea2:

Carl

03-09-2007, 21:06

Yeah i will. Where still on V1.20 BETA ATM, but i'm gonna start updating soon. May be a while before I put everything in as traits are the devil to code without errors.

You fix the problem you where having?

chickenhawk

03-09-2007, 21:19

Hasn't recurred in the few turns I have played today, I am going to be very time limited until Monday unless plans change. Don't think that I have disappeared.

Carl

03-09-2007, 21:27

Hasn't recurred in the few turns I have played today, I am going to be very time limited until Monday unless plans change. Don't think that I have disappeared.

You warned me about that so your okay. Anyone else downloaded it yet?

vonsch

03-09-2007, 21:33

I altered the recruitment slots more to encourage the use of castle units, and changed retrain to make it possible to use large amounts of mercs if your so inclined. Right now it's nigh on impossibbile to retrain more than a couple of units of mercs at once in vanilla. The effects do carry over to ordinary units but it's my experience that the number of recruitment slots is a much bigger limitation on retraining than anything else. S you still have to be careful with your units. It also still costs you money to retrain a unit, it's not free.

I don't find this the case. But I micro manage my units. I combine them in such a way to create as many full-strength units as possible without eliminating any units. That way I keep my cadre intact, preserving their experience. Then I use replacements to replenish the severely depleted cadre. This means I need a couple slots per unit type at most. Usually just one will do it, unless I'm severely mauled. (Which may happen more now, true!)

But I agree with the shift of them from cities to castles. And not enough play time to decide if there are too many in castles now. I do FEEL like there are too many free upkeep slots though. Those help the player more than the AI, I suspect. So far (it's early though) I am not seeing any significant jump in garrisons at AI behind-the-lines cities/castles. I AM seeing my garrisons increase in size though. :2thumbsup:

Quote:
I just had another idea that may or may not be doable. Since you are emphasizing the Chivalry/Dread of your generals it would make sense to give the option for players to select a higher movement speed for their armies at the price of increasing the general's dread. This would reflect the stripping of the countryside for supplies. the peasants certainly dreaded that.

If the engine won't let you do that( a forced march option would be nice too) maybe you could tie an armies movement speed to the Chiv/Dread score. it would increase the tension of choosing considerably.

It would be do-able, but in a roundabout way. I LOVE the idea myself as it would really throw up a load of interesting mechanics.

Ancilliaries. Maybe a forced march ancilliary that really boosts movement speed, but also boosts dread. The drillmaster trait sort of fits this idea already. A trait could do it also, and might be a better solution mechanically... depending on the goal. An ancilliary could be transferable, which has benefits and disadvantages (from balance standpoints); a trait is more fixed. Then there's the question of how to acquire either in the first place. I'm against having it appear if you use all movement points like the logistics traits. Efficiency is good. Overextension is another matter. That means it probably needs a building trigger of some sort. Or maybe having a high dread FL would increase the chance that any dreadful general might pick up the trait or ancilliary. If you want to avoid it in your generals, avoid dreadful behavior.

Maybe have the first level not inspire more dread, but +1 at second, and +3 at third (where they are assumed to practice scortched-earth maneuvers!)

You could also have an anti version. If the FL is chivarous above a certain level (5 or so) his generals have a chance at this "be nice to peasants" ancilliary that drops MPs an amount (a lesser amount, but enough to put him at a slight disadvantage strategically) and increases their piety.

Thus the dread version would mean better generals (more maneuvering) and the chivarous version would mean better governors, but slower maneuvering. The former is more expansive, or combative; the latter is more settled.

But as ancialliaries, while you could swap them around, you are stuch with them in the bigger picture until you can manage to "lose" them. Get too many and you are forced into a role. But choices on how to play are probably the best way to determine the role you chose. Dread should breed more dread, and virtue more virtue (we wish!)

At the same time, I suggest the no-going back (if one exists at all) should be high, maybe 3rd tier. Should allow the player to change styles, with effort. New FL, new govermental style... once he cleans out the bureaucracy.

If it were to be building-based, the Explorers Guild would be a good choice too. But I sort of like the idea of ancilliaries. Is it possible to "upgrade" ancilliaries like traits? Could we check the existence of an ancilliary as a precondition to further tests, then, assuming "success," delete the existing one and add a newer, better one?

If not, traits would be the way to go... though a single version of a pro and con ancilliary might also stack (and allow some transferability, without making it a very powerful swap). The interpid explorer is the general type, except it would have balancing side-effects to the movement boost. Leave the explorer as is for an EG benefit though. That guild needs the help.

Okay, I've played one whole turn. Let me stop spouting ideas and criticism and play a bit more. :whip:

Carl

03-09-2007, 22:13

All right a quick ideas list of things to change:

Hopefully done for V1.21 BETA:

1. Move the stables line down a level in terms of settlement size required for each level.

2. Edit Descr_Start so that as many settlements as possible start with some form of barracks/stables/archery range. Not to be applied to rebel owned settlements however.

3. Fix starting Imam Piety.

4. Fix Castle Free upkeep slots being missing.

5. Fix some replenish rate errors in Descr_Buildings.

6. Reduce heretic power slightly.

7. Increase agent movement rates.

8. Move Broken Lancers/Dismounted Broken Lancers back into Milan. Looking at things I did it because the dismounted version is identical to the Dismounted Italian MAA, and the mounted version nearly identical to Mailed Knights. I can swap that around no problems.

9. Buff Jerusalem defenses.

10. Fix merchant acquisition to something where they can acquire anything.

11. Reduce Free Upkeep slots at cities as their are too many ATM.

To be added eventually, time permitting:

1. Hidden Traits to reduce/increase the movement rates of Chivalrous/Dreadful Generals somewhat.

2. Look into making castles tougher targets to take.

3. Look into possibly adding a unique building to the HA reliant factions if the Stables changes prove insufficient.

I don't find this the case. But I micro manage my units. I combine them in such a way to create as many full-strength units as possible without eliminating any units. That way I keep my cadre intact, preserving their experience. Then I use replacements to replenish the severely depleted cadre. This means I need a couple slots per unit type at most. Usually just one will do it, unless I'm severely mauled. (Which may happen more now, true!)

I'm pretty poor at fighting battles and often have to replenish 2 or 3 units at once TBH. Plus it helps the AI rebuild faster after a defeat.

But I agree with the shift of them from cities to castles. And not enough play time to decide if there are too many in castles now. I do FEEL like there are too many free upkeep slots though. Those help the player more than the AI, I suspect. So far (it's early though) I am not seeing any significant jump in garrisons at AI behind-the-lines cities/castles. I AM seeing my garrisons increase in size though.

I'm beginning to agree about the free upkeep slots. Too many IMHO.

The reason for poor behind the lines defenses is because I've set the AI to concentrate it's forces on the borders, this gets the attacking force up high enough for the AI to attack you faster and means that you face significant opposition now. The only way to get it to put troops behind the lines if with the "defend_deep" parameter which was what was being used before and it resulted in the defense being too weak on the border and never strong enough to beat anyone off.

Ancillaries. Maybe a forced march ancillary that really boosts movement speed, but also boosts dread. The drillmaster trait sort of fits this idea already. A trait could do it also, and might be a better solution mechanically... depending on the goal. An ancillary could be transferable, which has benefits and disadvantages (from balance standpoints); a trait is more fixed. Then there's the question of how to acquire either in the first place. I'm against having it appear if you use all movement points like the logistics traits. Efficiency is good. Overextension is another matter. That means it probably needs a building trigger of some sort. Or maybe having a high dread FL would increase the chance that any dreadful general might pick up the trait or ancillary. If you want to avoid it in your generals, avoid dreadful behavior.

Maybe have the first level not inspire more dread, but +1 at second, and +3 at third (where they are assumed to practice scorched-earth maneuvers!)

You could also have an anti version. If the FL is chivalrous above a certain level (5 or so) his generals have a chance at this "be nice to peasants" ancillary that drops MPs an amount (a lesser amount, but enough to put him at a slight disadvantage strategically) and increases their piety.

Thus the dread version would mean better generals (more maneuvering) and the chivalrous version would mean better governors, but slower maneuvering. The former is more expansive, or combative; the latter is more settled.

But as ancillaries, while you could swap them around, you are such with them in the bigger picture until you can manage to "lose" them. Get too many and you are forced into a role. But choices on how to play are probably the best way to determine the role you chose. Dread should breed more dread, and virtue more virtue (we wish!)

At the same time, I suggest the no-going back (if one exists at all) should be high, maybe 3rd tier. Should allow the player to change styles, with effort. New FL, new governmental style... once he cleans out the bureaucracy.

If it were to be building-based, the Explorers Guild would be a good choice too. But I sort of like the idea of ancillaries. Is it possible to "upgrade" ancillaries like traits? Could we check the existence of an ancillary as a precondition to further tests, then, assuming "success," delete the existing one and add a newer, better one?

If not, traits would be the way to go... though a single version of a pro and con ancillary might also stack (and allow some transferability, without making it a very powerful swap). The intrepid explorer is the general type, except it would have balancing side-effects to the movement boost. Leave the explorer as is for an EG benefit though. That guild needs the help.

Hidden trait would be best IMHO. I intend to set it up like Honest/Dishonest ruler except it uses Chivalry/dread instead of reputation.

p.s. Explorers guilds gives trade improvements and a Hidden traits that give +25% movement to everything (ships, agents, generals, the works) at basic level, +50% at Master level and +100% (or crusade movement) at HQ level and it stacks with other bonuses and Crusades:laugh4:.

vonsch

03-09-2007, 22:29

Heh, okay, Battle of Aleppo. This is different (for me). I have 726 men and a 3 star general against no general rebels, 353 of them. The power meter is at a hair more blue, I hesitate to say 11-9, more like 21-19. Gonna be a challenge. They are sallying, so no setup for me.

I have about a 3/4 stack, mostly starter HA (9) and militia spears (3). A couple Turk archers. And general. My aim is to do the job with missiles. Let's see if it works.

It's a mix of arab cav, archers, militia, I think two of each. But upgraded.

Heh, I royally screw up my setup. But pulled it out. I misclicked my spears way out of position and didn't notice until late. Darned swarming HA! The stragglers are hanging in to fight to the death again. It must be the close odds that don't give the extra boost that superiority does. Those tower arrows DO hurt. I paid attention this time. If you're fighting a sally, you want to stay well back from the towers. Slows everything down since it takes those early routers longer to come back that far. But I do have the choice to chase them if I want to accept the losses. Two of my three spear units routed off the map. One HA broke under tower missile fire (behind the enemy, so exposed morale drop too), but rallied behind my lines.

I think the towers' range is too great. They are a meatgrinder, that should apply when in fairly close, not what appears visually to be twice arrow range. Give them arrow + 20% range. Their ROF is plenty high to hurt badly when in close.

Shoot, looks like I'll have to run out the timer. They are down to a couple men and those guys are standing the the square and I can't enter the gate. I think one thing you've achieved is making me use seige engines. :yes: I can use HA to start the seige, then bring in the slowpokes. That way I can destroy the gates even in this situation where a sally will start the battle. Even at 3x time it takes forever to time out.

Okay, it rated a draw (of course, since I played the timer...starved them all!) I lost 310, they lost 347. But I screwed up badly. Most of those are militia spears that routed. A lot more are from wall arrows. Bodyguard got 2 chevvies. I think the lower exp is simply dilution. I'm using a lot more units, and the casualties they inflict are thus more spread out. And the enemy is higher quality, so there are fewer.

Hmm, I'm getting the chance to ransom rebels! Wonder if they'll pay. Nope. never seen those pop up before. Saw one the other direction too. Something has changed. mixed feelings on it. If they accept ransom, that's good. Not sure they sure pay ransom though. They aren't a "faction" in the same sense.

Okay, autoresolve from quicksave for kicks: Crushing defeat. 368 vs 38 dead.
Second try: Same (it's not so random!)
Third try: Same again. Let me try once more doing something else first. May be using a seed for RNG that's producing identical numbers. This would explain skewing of reports on agent mission success too.
Fourth try: (did a spy mission and shuffled some imams a few steps) 357-41, Clear defeat.
Fifth try: (same quicksave as last to test seed hypothesis) Hmm, nope. 350-40. Clear defeat. Odd that streak of three. Unless it's save in the qs... first time I saved then clicked end turn. Maybe I need to do ql first to get the static seed.
Sixth try: Yep! 350-40 again. So it's the load that's forcing the identical result. Let me load-save-load and see... maybe that will set the seed to a new one.
Seventh try: Yep, it's the save process that sets it. Load retrieves the set value. Draw, 366-181 that time. So took city with autoresolve. My first outcome still slightly better. Good.

This big difference in autoresolve must be the walls, partly. And maybe the AI assumes I am still attacking the city rather than waiting outside for the sally.

:egypt: Learned: Loading saves will always produce the same result if you take the same action immediately (hit game end, in this case, which produces the sally). That can skew testing. But it's set with the save. So you can save, load, test, then load, save, load, test, again load, save, load, test, etc.

Now to do it one more time myself, without major screwups (I hope).

Report in a bit.

Better. Still had to wait out the timer. 255-320

Hidden trait would be best IMHO. I intend to set it up like Honest/Dishonest ruler except it uses Chivalry/dread instead of reputation.

p.s. Explorers guilds gives trade improvements and a Hidden traits that give +25% movement to everything (ships, agents, generals, the works) at basic level, +50% at Master level and +100% (or crusade movement) at HQ level and it stacks with other bonuses and Crusades.

Heh, I HATE hidden traits. Why not just show them?

But those EG traits are good. Maybe too good, since they stack with others. Maybe 10-25-50.

Hmm, can the HBG give a movement bonus like that to cav? But more modest yet? Like 5-10-15? In my saved 1.13 I finally got the guild but haven't really tested it yet. But a simple exp upgrade of one chev (and I'm unsure how it stacks) isn't a lot considering how tough it is to get. Not even easy for Turks, though a lot easier than for Western civs. Your changes may actually help with that though. If we start with more castles, and have incentive to keep some as castles a while before swapping them into cities, some will have built a lot of cav and be poised to get a guild once converted.

Okay, it's turn 17 and Iconium is at 85% heretic. It was below 10% at game start. It's one heretic. They are WAY overpowered. He's rated 4 and he was my Imam until at least turn 4. A wandering random spawn has Tbilisi at 49% and Yerevan at 45% (3 rating now on that one). Yerevan has a small masjid too. At this rate jihads will be out of the question this game. That's such a large problem I'm not sure it's worth continuing.

Rebels spawn feels pretty agressive too, and they are harder to deal with since so much more force is required to tackle settlements. At least they have no exp chevvies.

No AI merchants in sight so far. See a couple priests and imams though. Probably more heretics in the making. Nicaea is at 68% too, and the Bizzy priest is there. He's rated 1. Another heretic soon. The Eggy imam is a 4, and at Jerusalem which is only 9% heretic. With luck he'll help keep that area pure. I have 2 1s and a 2 at Edessa, which is 76% Islam and 0% heretic, trying to train them, but no increases so far.

Carl

03-09-2007, 23:33

Heh, I HATE hidden traits. Why not just show them?

Because theirs a limit on the number of visible traits you can have I'm afraid~:(.

Hmm, can the HBG give a movement bonus like that to Cav? But more modest yet? Like 5-10-15? In my saved 1.13 I finally got the guild but haven't really tested it yet. But a simple exp upgrade of one chev (and I'm unsure how it stacks) isn't a lot considering how tough it is to get. Not even easy for Turks, though a lot easier than for Western civs. Your changes may actually help with that though. If we start with more castles, and have incentive to keep some as castles a while before swapping them into cities, some will have built a lot of Cav and be poised to get a guild once converted.

True enough about the guild, i think it's the Master/HQ levels that are the biggies as they give such huge global bonuses.

I can't create a Cav specific movement bonus I'm afraid, the way you give them it's an all or nothing thing and you can only give traits to generals, agents and admirals~:(.

Heh, Okay, Battle of Aleppo. This is different (for me). I have 726 men and a 3 star general against no general rebels, 353 of them. The power meter is at a hair more blue, I hesitate to say 11-9, more like 21-19. Gonna be a challenge. They are sallying, so no setup for me.

I have about a 3/4 stack, mostly starter HA (9) and militia spears (3). A couple Turk archers. And general. My aim is to do the job with missiles. Let's see if it works.

It's a mix of Arab Cav, archers, militia, I think two of each. But upgraded.

Heh, I royally screw up my setup. But pulled it out. I misclicked my spears way out of position and didn't notice until late. Darned swarming HA! The stragglers are hanging in to fight to the death again. It must be the close odds that don't give the extra boost that superiority does. Those tower arrows DO hurt. I paid attention this time. If you're fighting a sally, you want to stay well back from the towers. Slows everything down since it takes those early routers longer to come back that far. But I do have the choice to chase them if I want to accept the losses. Two of my three spear units routed off the map. One HA broke under tower missile fire (behind the enemy, so exposed morale drop too), but rallied behind my lines.

Sounds like you had fun LOL:laugh4:, (was it actually a fun challenge, or just frustrating?). Sounds like you had a lot of work to do too, and found out about the towers the hard way:smash:.

I think the towers' range is too great. They are a meat-grinder, that should apply when in fairly close, not what appears visually to be twice arrow range. Give them arrow + 20% range. Their ROF is plenty high to hurt badly when in close.

that would actually be 192 which is longer than their current range. they currently have 180 which is the same as muskets and 12.5% longer than standard long range archers.

Whats catching you out is that in vanilla they only had 120 range, so they seem a LOT longer than before (well they are), but they aren't that exceptional compared to hand held missile units. Deployment distances are rather lower in sieges than in Field battles too, that will effect your perceptions.

Shoot, looks like I'll have to run out the timer. They are down to a couple men and those guys are standing the the square and I can't enter the gate. I think one thing you've achieved is making me use siege engines. I can use HA to start the siege, then bring in the slowpokes. That way I can destroy the gates even in this situation where a sally will start the battle. Even at 3x time it takes forever to time out.

Okay, it rated a draw (of course, since I played the timer...starved them all!) I lost 310, they lost 347. But I screwed up badly. Most of those are militia spears that routed. A lot more are from wall arrows. Bodyguard got 2 chevvies. I think the lower exp is simply dilution. I'm using a lot more units, and the casualties they inflict are thus more spread out. And the enemy is higher quality, so there are fewer.

Interesting on how you'll be changing your siege style, thats kinda what i hoped for as (especially late on), the Islamic factions actually get some of the best infantry in the game and I'd like to see it used. Before sieges where so easy for HA, (if you knew what you where doing), that their was no need for infantry. I actually wanted to make infantry a near necessity in sieges. You can get by without them but it will cost you more and be a lot more difficult. Especially once cannon towers show up.

Your probably right on the experience too as I don't think it takes into account enemy experience and upgrades either like it should.

Hmm, I'm getting the chance to ransom rebels! Wonder if they'll pay. Nope. never seen those pop up before. Saw one the other direction too. Something has changed. mixed feelings on it. If they accept ransom, that's good. Not sure they sure pay ransom though. They aren't a "faction" in the same sense.

Thats one of the many Little campaign tweaks. Can't see why you shouldn't be allowed to release/execute/ransom them. Also bear in mind that every time a ransom is refused you take a rep hit.

Okay, auto-resolve from quick-save for kicks: Crushing defeat. 368 vs 38 dead.
Second try: Same (it's not so random!)
Third try: Same again. Let me try once more doing something else first. May be using a seed for RNG that's producing identical numbers. This would explain skewing of reports on agent mission success too.
Fourth try: (did a spy mission and shuffled some imams a few steps) 357-41, Clear defeat.
Fifth try: (same quicksave as last to test seed hypothesis) Hmm, nope. 350-40. Clear defeat. Odd that streak of three. Unless it's save in the qs... first time I saved then clicked end turn. Maybe I need to do ql first to get the static seed.
Sixth try: Yep! 350-40 again. So it's the load that's forcing the identical result. Let me load-save-load and see... maybe that will set the seed to a new one.
Seventh try: Yep, it's the save process that sets it. Load retrieves the set value. Draw, 366-181 that time. So took city with autoresolve. My first outcome still slightly better. Good.

This big difference in auto-resolve must be the walls, partly. And maybe the AI assumes I am still attacking the city rather than waiting outside for the sally.

Learned: Loading saves will always produce the same result if you take the same action immediately (hit game end, in this case, which produces the sally). That can skew testing. But it's set with the save. So you can save, load, test, then load, save, load, test, again load, save, load, test, etc.

Actually the auto-resolve seems to treat all towers as inactive, but it is pretty much impossibbile to take the walls and for some reason if you are fighting an auto-resolve the engine assumes you can reach the walls. Fighting on walls even without towers is very bloody, and against such good enemy troops, nearly suicidal.

Now to do it one more time myself, without major screwups (I hope).

Report in a bit.

Better. Still had to wait out the timer. 255-320

Glad to hear it went better.

p.s. be aware that Ballista towers have 240 range and it's 600 for cannons, (just enough for 1 or 2 towers to reach any spot on the map no matter what), so it's only going to get worse :evillaugh4:.

vonsch

03-09-2007, 23:53

Quote:
Heh, I HATE hidden traits. Why not just show them?

Because theirs a limit on the number of visible traits you can have I'm afraid.

Oops, good reason.

What files is it to adjust the heretic rate? I'll restart as Egypt with it tweaked down and see how that looks.

Hmm, maybe the shorter arrow tower range in vanilla is right then. It just feels too long in seiges. The enemy archers standing well outside their gate have a much shorter range. And the ROF of towers is quite high now (not complaining about that, just that when combined with the longer range it's harsh.)

And as far as ballistae and cannons go, well, those ARE artillery and they do have advantages of fixed positions. Archers in towers are still archers, even if they have elevation. They also have limited fields of vision, typically, by the nature of the structure.

Was afraid there wouldn't be a way to boost a class of units' movement, but would have been nice. The base HBG "advantage" isn't one. Not with your changes. Can't build any cav at all in cities except the merchant guild cav. Maybe we should just put the thing in castles? It would make it useful. Or maybe this:

Make it buildable in BOTH cities and castles, but make it only upgradable in cities beyond level 1. That makes it usable, but still keeps the higher level global bonuses more challenging to achieve. Those are the powerful ones. That gives the Islamic cultures a slight bonus with there racetracks still too, since building those helps with getting HBG. They are clearly meant to get that bonus. It also adds a bit more to your drive to encourage more castle-usage.

As far as seiges go, I've always been a wimp. I hate playing them out :P. I usually use maneuver to remove the need. But that won't work with rebels. Now, unless the AI is a lot smarter, I won't be beseiging many faction-owned cities or castles that have more than a defender or two. I typically catch them when they are vulnerable, grab the city/castle, THEN crush the silly army "protecting" it that got suckered out. I took Constantinople this way in 1.13. The AI moved an army next to it, I dashed in with an HA army, engaged the outside army and pulled the garrison. All died. I walked in. (Hey, I read Sun Tsu!) Took Nicaea the same way earlier. Silly Bizzies. I don't see a way around this tactic either. But it does require player patience and good intel work. Or really good baiting. :P

But this is not late game play (what's that?) It's something more doable in the early to mid game. In late game play I'm sure you'll see your wish of lots of blood and infantry deaths. It's much harder to "steal" cities when there are 4-5 armies prowling nearby.

But will rebels ever pay ransom? They usually are rated as pretty wealthy, but I'm 0 for 2. And I was assuming a rep hit was possible. There's no downside in releasing them, as it stands. No rep hit, and they just poof. Now if they became free bandits...

And there should be no rep hit for executing rebels IMO. That is expected. They ARE rebels, no? But allowing them to ransom YOUR soldiers makes sense.

I don't mind the autoresolve results for seiges, however they are arrived at. If I use that in a seige, I DO have overwhelming force normally, and am prepared to absorb whatever losses result.

Carl

03-10-2007, 00:13

Oops, good reason.

:yes:

What files is it to adjust the heretic rate? I'll restart as Egypt with it tweaked down and see how that looks.

Descr_Campaign_db

copy the following in over the top of the existing one. You'll need to use "open with" and open it with notepad, it opens it in IE by default.:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<root>
<recruitment>
<recruitment_slots uint="1"/>
<retraining_slots uint="0"/>
<deplenish_pools_with_caps bool="false"/>
<clear_pools_with_caps bool="false"/>
<add_initial_with_caps bool="true"/>
<add_disband_no_caps bool="true"/>
<force_clamp_to_max bool="false"/>
<deplenish_multiplier float="0.9"/>
<deplenish_offset float="-0.2"/>
<percentage_pool_reduction_lost uint="10"/>
<percentage_pool_reduction_occupy uint="20"/>
<percentage_pool_reduction_sack uint="45"/>
<percentage_pool_reduction_exterminate uint="100"/>
<max_agents_per_turn uint="2"/>
</recruitment>
<religion>
<max_witches_per_region uint="1"/>
<max_witches uint="800"/>
<max_heretics_per_region uint="1"/>
<max_heretics uint="800"/>
<max_heretics_conversion_modifier float="1.0"/>
<max_inquisitors_per_region uint="1"/>
<max_inquisitors uint="5"/>
<heretic_conversion_rate_modifier float="0.05"/>
<heretic_conversion_rate_offset float="0.025"/>
<witch_conversion_rate_modifier float="0.04"/>
<witch_conversion_rate_offset float="0.025"/>
<inquisitor_conversion_rate_modifier float="0.010"/>
<inquisitor_conversion_rate_offset float="0.04"/>
<priest_conversion_rate_modifier float="0.004"/>
<priest_conversion_rate_offset float="0.015"/>
<witch_creation_modifier float="0.0"/>
<heretic_creation_modifier float="0.1"/>
<inquisitor_creation_modifier float="50.0"/>
<min_cardinal_piety uint="5"/>
<convert_to_heretic_base_modifier float="5.0"/>
<convert_to_heretic_unorthodox_modifier float="0.4"/>
</religion>
<bribery>
<bribe_to_family_tree bool="false"/>
<base_character_chance float="8.0"/>
<religion_modifier float="0.66"/>
<combined_attribute_modifier float="0.2"/>
<briber_attribute_divisor float="3.0"/>
<bribee_attribute_divisor float="3.0"/>
<army_size_modifier float="0.035"/>
<base_settlement_chance float="2.0"/>
<settlement_loyalty_modifier float="0.01"/>
<settlement_population_modifier float="0.0001"/>
<faction_standing_divisor float="10.0"/>
<max_bribe_chance float="100.0"/>
<min_bribe_chance float="5.0"/>
<bribe_chance_modifier float="1.0"/>
</bribery>
<family_tree>
<max_age uint="90"/>
<max_age_for_marriage_for_male uint="75"/>
<max_age_for_marriage_for_female uint="40"/>
<max_age_before_death uint="105"/>
<max_age_of_child uint="10"/>
<old_age uint="60"/>
<age_of_manhood uint="16"/>
<daughters_age_of_consent uint="16"/>
<daughters_retirement_age uint="40"/>
<age_difference_min int="-10"/>
<age_difference_max int="30"/>
<parent_to_child_min_age_diff uint="12"/>
<min_adoption_age uint="20"/>
<max_adoption_age uint="30"/>
<max_age_for_conception uint="50"/>
<age_of_manhood_close uint="14"/>
<max_number_of_children uint="4"/>
</family_tree>
<diplomacy>
<max_diplomacy_items uint="8"/>
</diplomacy>
<missions>
<null_mission_score float="25.0"/>
</missions>
<display>
<character_selection_radius float="0.3"/>
<character_selection_height float="1.3"/>
<character_selection_height_crouching float="1.0"/>
<diplomacy_scroll_height uint="768"/>
<recruitment_sort_simple bool="false"/>
<faction_standing_min float="-1.0"/>
<faction_standing_max float="1.0"/>
<use_orig_rebel_faction_models bool="true"/>
<keep_original_heretic_portraits bool=false/>
<alt_sett_order_colours bool=false/>
</display>
<ransom>
<captor_release_chance_base float="50.0"/>
<captor_release_chance_chiv_mod float="12.0"/>
<captor_ransom_chance_base float="60.0"/>
<captor_ransom_chance_chiv_mod float="-5.0"/>
<captor_ransom_chance_tm_mod float="10.0"/>
<captive_ransom_chance_base float="40.0"/>
<captive_ransom_chance_chiv_mod float="6.67"/>
<captive_ransom_chance_tm_mod float="-10.0"/>
<captive_ransom_chance_msm_mod float="10.0"/>
<captive_ransom_for_slave bool="true"/>
</ransom>
<autoresolve>
<min_capture_percent float="35.0"/>
<max_capture_percent float="90.0"/>
<lopsided_thresh float="1.5"/>
<lopsided_hn_mod float="3.0"/>
<separation_missile_add uint="1"/>
<naval_sink_modifier float="1.5"/>
<naval_sink_offset float="15.0"/>
<naval_sink_max float="80.0"/>
</autoresolve>
<settlement>
<sack_money_modifier float="0.1"/>
<exterminate_money_modifier float="0.2"/>
<chiv_spf_modifier float="1.0"/>
<chiv_sof_modifier float="1.0"/>
<dread_sof_modifier float="-1.0"/>
<piety_cor_sif_modifier float="1.0"/>
<piety_admin_sif_modifier float="1.0"/>
<port_to_port_mp_min float="100.0"/>
<heresy_unrest_modifier float="30.0"/>
<religion_unrest_modifier float="20.0"/>
<siege_gear_required_for_city_level string="huge_city"/>
<siege_gear_required_for_castle_level string="moot_and_bailey"/>
<no_towers_only_for_city_level string="huge_city"/>
<no_towers_only_for_castle_level string="moot_and_bailey"/>
<min_turn_keep_rebel_garrison int="999"/>
</settlement>
<revolt>
<end_turn_modifier float="2"/>
<excommunicated_modifier float="60"/>
<new_leader_modifier float="10"/>
<max_effective_loyalty float="7.0"/>
<rebel_region_modifier float="2.0"/>
<shadow_region_modifier float="2.0"/>
<rebel_border_modifier float="1.1"/>
<shadow_border_modifier float="1.1"/>
<num_units_modifier float="1.05"/>
<captain_modifier float="0.4"/>
<min_revolt_chance float="0.0"/>
<max_revolt_chance float="100.0"/>
<ai_revolt_modifier float="0.25"/>
<revolt_additional_armies bool="false"/>
<revolt_crusading_armies bool="false"/>
</revolt>
<characters>
<agents_can_hide bool="false"/>
</characters>
<hordes>
<end_target_faction_bonus int="-300"/>
<start_target_faction_bonus int="-500"/>
<farming_level_bonus int="50"/>
<shared_target_bonus int="-1000"/>
<disbanding_horde_bonus int="-500"/>
<starting_region_bonus int="-700"/>
<horde_target_resource_bonus int="1000"/>
</hordes>
<merchants>
<base_income_modifier float="4.0"/>
<trade_bonus_offset float="10.0"/>
</merchants>
<agents>
<denounce_inquisitor_base_chance float="25.0"/>
<denounce_priest_base_chance float="35.0"/>
<denounce_attack_modifier float="1.0"/>
<denounce_defence_modifier float="1.0"/>
<denounce_chance_min int="5"/>
<denounce_chance_max int="95"/>
<denounce_heretic_attemp_modifier float="1.5"/>
<denounce_character_attemp_modifier float="0.5"/>
<assassinate_base_chance float="18"/>
<assassinate_attack_modifier float="1.0"/>
<assassinate_defence_modifier float="0.0"/>
<assassinate_public_modifier float="1.0"/>
<assassinate_personal_modifier float="1.0"/>
<assassinate_counter_spy_modifier float="1.0"/>
<assassinate_agent_modifier float="2.0"/>
<assassinate_own_region_modifier float="0.7"/>
<assassinate_assassinate_attr_modifier float="0.1"/>
<assassinate_chance_min int="5"/>
<assassinate_chance_max int="95"/>
<acquisition_base_chance float="20.0"/>
<acquisition_level_modifier float="3.0"/>
<acquisition_attack_trade_rights_modifier float="1.3"/>
<acquisition_defence_trade_rights_modifier float="0.7"/>
<acquisition_chance_min int="5"/>
<acquisition_chance_max int="95"/>
<inquisitor_crt_heresy_divisor float="1.0"/>
<inquisitor_crt_pfp_modifier float="0.5"/>
<inquisitor_crt_pfp_modifier_min float="0.0"/>
<inquisitor_crt_pfp_modifier_max float="1.0"/>
<inquisitor_crt_chance_min float="0.0"/>
<inquisitor_crt_chance_max float="0.1"/>
</agents>
<crusades>
<required_jihad_piety int="5"/>
<max_disband_progress float="5.0"/>
<near_target_no_disband_distance float="80.0"/>
<disband_progress_window float="2"/>
<crusade_called_start_turn float="20"/>
<jihad_called_start_turn float="20"/>
<movement_points_modifier float="2.0"/>
</crusades>
</root>

Hmm, maybe the shorter range in vanilla is right then. It just feels too long in seiges. The enemy archers standing well outside their gate have a much shorter range. And the ROF of towers is quite high now (not complaining about that, just that when combined with the longer range it's harsh.)

Well TBH the towers are higher up and that gives a range buff, (that i wasn't aware of when i upped the range), 160+ the natural tower buff should be more than long enough. Plus as noted, the towers out-range most long range archers by a good 20 units to begin with, (thats the width of most units roughly).

Was afraid there wouldn't be a way to boost a class of units' movement, but would have been nice. The base HBG "advantage" isn't one. Not with your changes. Can't build any Cav at all in cities except the merchant guild Cav. Maybe we should just put the thing in castles? It would make it useful. Or maybe this:

Make it build able in BOTH cities and castles, but make it only upgradeable in cities beyond level 1. That makes it usable, but still keeps the higher level global bonuses more challenging to achieve. Those are the powerful ones. That gives the Islamic cultures a slight bonus with there racetracks still too, since building those helps with getting HBG. They are clearly meant to get that bonus. It also adds a bit more to your drive to encourage more castle-usage.

Already available in both cities and castles and both horse breeders and swordsmiths have more contributers. i thought ahead LOL, (actually I did it so Catholics could get it but it works out as it happens).

As far as sieges go, I've always been a wimp. I hate playing them out :P.

Me too, i tend to auto-resolve, I just hate the bad path-finding and prefer to actually attack the walls directly.

usually use maneuver to remove the need. But that won't work with rebels. Now, unless the AI is a lot smarter, I won't be besieging many faction-owned cities or castles that have more than a defender or two. I typically catch them when they are vulnerable, grab the city/castle, THEN crush the silly army "protecting" it that got suckered out. I took Constantinople this way in 1.13. The AI moved an army next to it, I dashed in with an HA army, engaged the outside army and pulled the garrison. All died. I walked in. (Hey, I read Sun Tsu!) Took Nicaea the same way earlier. Silly Bizzies. I don't see a way around this tactic either. But it does require player patience and good intel work. Or really good baiting. :P

Nice trick, I like:smash:.

p.s. to get~;p you need to replace the capital p with a small one and the : with a ; and add ~ before both.

But this is not late game play (what's that?) It's something more doable in the early to mid game. In late game play I'm sure you'll see your wish of lots of blood and infantry deaths. It's much harder to "steal" cities when there are 4-5 armies prowling nearby.

Thats what i really want to do, make it so that any late assaults are real bloodbaths, means you have to heavily re-train after each battle and thus really slows blitzing down.

But will rebels ever pay ransom? They usually are rated as pretty wealthy, but I'm 0 for 2. And I was assuming a rep hit was possible. There's no downside in releasing them, as it stands. No rep hit, and they just poof. Now if they became free bandits...

And there should be no rep hit for executing rebels IMO. That is expected. They ARE rebels, no? But allowing them to ransom YOUR soldiers makes sense.

I always release so i don't know if they'll pay TBH. I haven't got round to coding the no rep hit for rebels, but it does make sense. I'll add it to my to-do list.

I don't mind the auto-resolve results for sieges, however they are arrived at. If I use that in a siege, I DO have overwhelming force normally, and am prepared to absorb whatever losses result.

Same here, which means I always use overwhelming force:laugh4:.

Thanks for a LOT of very useful feedback BTW.

Carl.

vonsch

03-10-2007, 00:42

Ok, put the xml changes in, and upped iman starting piety on my end to 5 also. I just gave the three starters a natural skill of 3.

Gonna give Egypt a whirl for a while. Want to see how well jihad works very early, as that's a prime Muslim strategy. The repeat delay keeps it from being nuts though. If we can find that variable (if it is one), we should probably scale it to the time/turn ratio too. Otherwise with more turns you can net more jihads.

First try of Egypt with M2TW, so my results may... vary.

Imam fix worked, can call jihad.

Hmm, Mustering Hall gets no units for Egypt. That intended? not sure I like the archer militia going away at higher level city barracks either. A bit is always useful in countering seiges, even if just for the morale effects of putting attackers under missile fire. Especially fire arrows. Yeah, they have better archers then, but those aren't free in city garrisons. And peasant archers persist in the range line, even if at lower rates.

Hmm, peasants do have a use in seiges. They can activate towers! Assuming that activation distance isn't plain huge now (making it moot). It was too small in vanilla.

Egyptian army is less pure cav early on, I see. Desert cav is the light jav version, Arab cav is decent med cav. But Saracen militia is pretty good spears and desert archers aren't bad. So more traditional approach, at least until Mamluks.

The plan is bypass Jerusalem, hit Acre for forward building (keeping Gaza as a permanent fort), then build up for Antioch. Leave Damascus too. Aim for Aleppo and make that the early "line" against Turkey, which I will also try to ally with. Then deal with Damascus and Jerusalem, probably in that order.

Carl

03-10-2007, 00:46

Right, i'll watch with intrest, i have to say i've never played egypt eithier so where both into new territory here:smash:.

vonsch

03-10-2007, 01:18

Right, i'll watch with intrest, i have to say i've never played egypt eithier so where both into new territory here:smash:.

Turn 3, Acre under seige. But it's not a force that can invest the walls, just a holding force. More coming up from Cairo and Alexandria. Then I may try to tackle the walls for the heck of it. The garrison is 2 desert archers, 1 town militia, 1 militia spears, but upgraded. Wooden walls. It's an 8 turn wait for a sally, so a long delay either way. (In the former a delay to rebuilt a LOT of units. ~;p)

Dang, turn 4 Sultan drops from old age. Why start us with these old-timers?

Turks near Adana, let's see if they can take it (heh, not a chance with that force). Heretic near Antioch, WITH the changes. Okay, I see a Turkish merchant near Antioch too. That's good. Didn't see any foreign ones in my brief Turk test.

Ok, turn 5. Autoseige attempt as test. 4 star sultan, 5 desert archers, 2 peasant archers, 4 spear militia, 1 desert cav. The could handle a sally, no question. But can they invest it? Long on missiles, short on melee. No good melee units in sight. No merc of use either: Bedoin cav and Turkoman HA.

Attempt 1: Looks like about 5:2 on power meter. Yeah, missile troops overrated in autoresolve here. Clear Victory. 67 to 117 losses. Numerically I had them overwhelmed, 865:252.
Attempt 2: even better, Clear victory, 11:98. Overwhelming numbers definitely helps.
Heh, got a whisker that time too. ~;p

Ok, onward to Antioch. Egyptian Saracen militia is pretty decent, so Cairo pumping them out as often as it can. Gaza building desert cav mostly for future screens. Changed my mind about Acre. Comverting it to a city as soon as the basic structure is up, dirt roads, port, land clearing and small masjid. Low losses taking it made that decision. I'll just use Aleppo farther north.

Turn 7, Antioch under seige. 6 turns to sally, but will try to storm it next turn. My spy couldn't budge the gates. Two Turk merchants there now, they are clearly adding economic infrastructure to get those. Their force iback off into the fog from Adana. Zero chance it could take it.

Turn 8, the gods hate me, plague in Cairo. At least no general there. Imam caught it though. Heh, let's see if I can use this... Jerusalem and Damascus need conversion! A bit of plague may convince them the Wrath of God is looking their way! Maybe I can infect Constantinople if I can keep passing it north.

Failed to purge the soul of the heretic... so far.

Okay, Antioch: 882 to 361 numbers. Sultan (5 stars), 4 desert archers, 2 peasant archers, 5 militia spears, 3 desert cav. Forget what they have (4 town militia, 2 Turkish archers, upgrades). Looks like about 5:3 odds.
Auto 1: Clear Defeat (these are stone walls too). 450 dead to 56. "They fight like a cornered snake! Pull back!"
Auto 2: Clear Defeat. 457:38. Ransom offer of about 4k ~;p. More than my treasury can bear.
Auto 3: (night attack this time for one more star) Hmm, Clear Victory, must have caught them in their beds! 86 lost to 212. Either the one star made a big difference, or I got really lucky. Let me try again. Oh, chance to ransom rebels, but to whom?
Auto 4: (night) Clear defeat, so it was good luck. 419:37. The extra star may help though, that wasn't as bad as the earlier ones.
Auto 5: (night) Clear defeat. 444:50. Slightly lower losses with the extra star and the one anomolous win.
Conclusion, big walls mean a LOT more force is needed, even with autoresolve. Suspect sweet spot is around 2:1 battle odds, maybe 5:2 as at Acre.
Moving on.

Note: I don't usually use save/restore much. Except for testing. But since I am, I am shamelessly picking the best outcome here. ~;) Normally I'd force a sally in this case. I have terrible luck with rams. I can make as many as I like, they all get burnt up. No seigeworks yet.

Exploring to south and west with the extra desert cav I got for reinforcing Alexandria. South to Dongola looks easyish, and the ivory and slaves profitable. Shifting my merchants that way. Tripoli is still neutral but a long way off. Hmm, might cause a diplomatic faux pas if Sicily sneaks in and takes it with my cav out there. Better call it back and explore that by sea. Or send a diplo.

Aleppo next. It's just a motte & bailey. 1 arab cav, 2 turkomen, 2 turk archers, 1 spear militia, 1 town militia, upgraded. Need to pause to bring up more troops so I can garrison Antioch and still have a significant force, which it will take. Can for a sally here though, 3 turn wait. And should be fine with my new Saracen spears leading. The desert cav's javs will deal with their arab cav. The HA will be the problem. But I have lots of foot archers and they have to attack me!

Turn 8. Heretic now toast(ed). Plaguebearer approaching Jerusalem. I'll sacrifice imams to drop that garrison. ~;) Starter ones, at least. Holding my first jihad for there, I think, and will aim for Damascus on the way, depending on how the force mix looks. New son matured, born conqueror. 4 stars. Nice. Plus a movement trait. He needs to jihad and then go capture some of the outlying cities.Treasury scraping bottom. Have to stop some building projects soon, or cut back on campaigning and garrison troops to cut upkeep a bit until I can build up. Need to hold some florins to pay for jihad troops too. And Antioch need pacifying. I can have new son start seige of Aleppo, then swing over support in a couple turns once I have put more militia into Antioch from its own production. Of course, if they sally early it may be... interesting, as the Chinaman would say.

Oops, Imam can't infect a non-friendly city, darn. Spy out of position. So much for that plan.

Carl

03-10-2007, 01:54

Heretic near Antioch, WITH the changes

It was only a very slight Nerf to spawn rate BTW, I was gonna play around and decrease the spawn rate till i was happy, so it may need lowering more, on the other hand I do want every faction to have to deal with a heretic every couple of decades or so (20 turns in other words), just not the crazy 3-4 a turn that seems to happen with the current spawn rates. That and they can turn a province by 10% or more a turn previously. that got a major tone down.

p.s. I've highlighted the changes to heretics in the text I told you to paste in so you can see. The spawn chance and Unorthodox modifiers are inverse Decimals (i.e. 1=100% and they produce lower effects the smaller the value).

p.p.s. did you try fighting out the acre siege on the battle map, or auto-resolve only? as the battle map would be much nastier, (towers and all that).

p.p.p.s I'm pretty sure turks get Saracen militia. The archer reduction is more because (in theory), by the time you get a significant number of really big cities up gunpowder should have rolled round and you can get gunpowder units then that are better. Thats why the reduction, I want the AI to recruit plenty of gunpowder stuff. Also, i know about mustering Halls, they are where peasants used to be built, i don't really want to move the infantry line down a level so I've accepted the situation as is and am hoping it works out overall.

Have checked, Turks can get scaracen militia., and your going to love Jeruselem when i'm done:evillaugh4:.

vonsch

03-10-2007, 03:08

It was only a very slight Nerf to spawn rate BTW, I was gonna play around and decrease the spawn rate till i was happy, so it may need lowering more, on the other hand I do want every faction to have to deal with a heretic every couple of decades or so (20 turns in other words), just not the crazy 3-4 a turn that seems to happen with the current spawn rates. That and they can turn a province by 10% or more a turn previously. that got a major tone down.

p.s. I've highlighted the changes to heretics in the text I told you to paste in so you can see. The spawn chance and Unorthodox modifiers are inverse Decimals (i.e. 1=100% and they produce lower effects the smaller the value).

p.p.s. did you try fighting out the acre siege on the battle map, or auto-resolve only? as the battle map would be much nastier, (towers and all that).

p.p.p.s I'm pretty sure turks get Saracen militia. The archer reduction is more because (in theory), by the time you get a significant number of really big cities up gunpowder should have rolled round and you can get gunpowder units then that are better. Thats why the reduction, I want the AI to recruit plenty of gunpowder stuff. Also, i know about mustering Halls, they are where peasants used to be built, i don't really want to move the infantry line down a level so I've accepted the situation as is and am hoping it works out overall.

Only that one heretic so far though. The high conversion rate was the biggest issue. I don't mind seeing them pop fairly often. Just not convert the province to majority heretic in 10 turns!

No loose rebels so far either.

Did not try Acre on battle screen. And that save is gone. I really don't want to tackle stone walls/castles on the bettle screen without seige gear. Even with it it's apt to be really annoying. Autoresolve is much more... sanitary.

Empty buildings are silly though. Must be a better solution than forcing it to be built with no purpose than as a prefix.

Turn 10, just waiting for sally while I cook myself some dinner. :beam:

Carl

03-10-2007, 03:13

Only that one heretic so far though. The high conversion rate was the biggest issue. I don't mind seeing them pop fairly often. Just not convert the province to majority heretic in 10 turns!

Yeah, was a bit silly, didn't realize how much I'd buffed them TBH.

No loose rebels so far either.

Did not try Acre on battle screen. And that save is gone.

Fair enough, was wondering how you where finding the towers when you actually had to fight right through them:laugh4:.

Empty buildings are silly though. Must be a better solution than forcing it to be built with no purpose than as a prefix.

Agreed, I'm just not sure what to put in their, Town/Spear militia maybe, with them disappearing/reducing when the next level shows up?

Turn 10, just waiting for sally while I cook myself some dinner.

LOL, it's 2 in the morning here so it would be a really late night snack for me:smash:. Enjoy it.

Carl.

vonsch

03-10-2007, 03:25

Agreed, I'm just not sure what to put in their, Town/Spear militia maybe, with them disappearing/reducing when the next level shows up?

I think this would be acceptable. Spear militia. Then replace it next level.

Takes two levels of the city line to get to spears, I think. But that's okay, you want to encourage building castles and barracks! Yeah, it's archer, then spear militias, for Egypt. Could even make it 2 at first level, then 1 at second when the javs come in, since those aren't really stand and hold types. Nubian spears come at 3, then the better stuff at 4.

Need to check vanilla. Since I haven't played Egypt, may be missing something in how they are set up there.

Okay, we do have an issue. Castles produce Arab cav and Maluk archers at level 1. I knew something was missing. Egypt is HA based too. Desert cav are the jav version, Maluks are the HA. Arab is med cav. Need that early cav somehow or the play complexion is warped. I thought I was footslogging too much.

No ideas at the moment, but it's not good as it stands. You have Mamluk archers at level 3 stables. That's a LONG wait for something Egypt should have immediately from the Gaza castle. Move them to stable level 1. Gaza does start with a stable, at least. Don't phase them out, ever. There is no replacement unit, unless it's gunpowder. If there's one, could downplay them then, but it would have to be a mounted unit. Anything less grossly shortchanges Egypt. The starting blurb says it all: "Relies on powerful cavalry, particularly the Mamluks." ie. That is the signature Egyptian unit and it's meant to come in immediately and progress into the heavy cav version at the Royal level.

But having it in the stable line is fine, I think. The way Egypt starts puts that production at a strategic spot. And it will remain castle-based, just a stable upgrade later. Keep in mind you're also nerfing the AI version of Egypt with your existing changes. That's probably part of the reason I saw them performing so poorly (along with the beefy Jerusalem, which may prove to be a problem for AI Egypt).

Carl

03-10-2007, 03:29

I think this would be acceptable. Spear militia. Then replace it next level.

Takes two levels of the city line to get to spears, I think. But that's Okay, you want to encourage building castles and barracks!

Yeah, thats why i didn't like so much stuff on walls in the first place (well partly), many of the barracks building felt redundant due to what walls gave you. they all seemed to be a prefix for the last level, (or levels if city based).

I'll add that to my to-do list BTW.

vonsch

03-10-2007, 04:02

Don't miss my 'plaint about Mamluks.

Going back to the nerfed Eggies to see what the Turks do. I'll grind some infantry for a while and consolidate. Want to see if they get aggressive.

Turn 20. Consolidated the Holy Land from Gaza to Aleppo. Too much money in treasury for this stage considering I do no sacking. 26k at the moment. It was tight around turn 10. Partly it's bringing all the cities online, and partly the big decrease in maint as they start getting free upkeep. And I think merchants produce too much income by at least double. For reference, I have easily two whole stacks above what I need for garrisons. They are mostly sitting in Damascus and Jerusalem at the moment. Well, Jerusalem needs a big garrison, it's big. But I haven't built anything in the last 5 turns except agents.

I'm concerned that the AI seems to struggle a lot more now. Adana remains rebel. Not hearing any at war rumors. I'm number one, at least doubling the next closest. This is on H/H. I'm not THAT good.

I suspect the beefing up the rebel towns is hurting the AI far more than it's slowing the player. Players are more adaptable. I have 8 regions and could grab 2 more as soon as I can reach them easily. Four more for that matter. The closes faction is at 6. HRE started at 6. France starts at 5, is now at 6. Byzzies still at 5. Turks still at 4. Moors still at 4. England took one (probably York). Venice took one. Wow, Sicily flat at 2 still, that's unusual. Milan too. Even Russia flat as the steppes. Denmark managed one.

I think it's time for Plan B. The factions won't power up if they can't expland. I can easily handle any two at the moment. And I'm barely to tier 3 units (and missing all my horse archers!)

The odd thing is I saw a pretty decent Byz stack near Nicaea. It looked to be heading to Trebizon, but... very hard to believe it couldn't take that town with that stack. Something is off. Everyone shows at war with the rebs, but not many are moving on them. Turkey should have plenty to take Adana now.

I can understand them not attacking ME if alliances now make that less desireable, but not why they aren't taking these reb towns. I think I'll try to nicely annoy Sicily into declaring on me, see if that's even possible. I can flub diplomacy badly or something. Need to contact them first... long walk up through Turkey then west. Suppose I could build some ships, but I hate building tier one ships. ~;p

My suggested plan B is stick with the rearrangement of wall units, but debuff those rebs back to vanilla. See if that helps the factions expand so they can tech up better. Still... they SHOULD have cash. Need to get to Italy so I can do more diplo work to check.

Diplo just found a Hungarian army at Bucharest. 5 star general, 4 town militia, 1 chevvie, 2 Bosian archers beat up a bit with 1 chevvie, 3 slav mercs (javs), 1 Balkan archers. Decent half stack. Bucharest has 6 units, can only see 1 of peasant archers. It's a village without walls. Bran, just next door, has a garrison of 2 unIDed units. It's at castle, with 4 buildings I can't ID either. That building count doesn't look bad. The garrison is sorta thin. Turn 21. Hungary is a flat line at 2 regions still.

Oh, I rank 5th in wealth. I have 30k florins. Money is not the problem.

Or maybe it IS Hungary's problem. They are showing as bankrupt, very weak, no allies or enemies except rebels and Egypt (allied now)... okay, they are being passive. Another half stack just outside Bran with 4 Magyar cav, 3 Hungarian Nobles, 2 peasant archers, 1 spear militia. That's not a wimp stack. A bit north is a third with 7 more units. I can see 2 Peasant archers, 2 spear militia and 1 Magyar Cav. (How come they get HA and I don't! still can't build them at turn 21!) There's enough there for at least one decent full stack, especially for this early.

Thinking about it, it doesn't make much sense that the rub buffing is causing this passivity. What else is changed that might be a factor? As many times are I watched Portugal try and fail to take Zaragoza, the AI isn't shy about tackling high odds normally. Something else is involved.

Turn 25: Finally some wars! Sicily vs HRE, Venice vs Byz. Allies: Veice-Milan, HRE-Venice

How long before Venice backstabs both? ~;)

Checking Budapest... 1 general garrison. Saw two more short stacks heading to Bran. I suspect Hungary is spending every florin you give them on units and unit maintenance now. I can see tier 1 buildings in Budapest. 7 total. It's 10k pop with wooden walls. Bad priorities.

I took Adana 2 turns ago per council orders. Dongolo under seige now, also per orders. I missed Jedda because my stack rebelled on me (no general). I'm just picking off the rebs and watching.

Turn 26: Crusade called on Jerusalem! *starts building towers* Something to do!

Is something wrong with imam triggers? Only seeing skill increases sometimes when I burn heretics. Saw a lot more with priests. Haven't seen any ancilliaries either. Priests usually get monks. Do imams have no equivalent? I thought they were just priests by another name. I would have expected at least one monk, and several skill boosts by now. Have about 7 team converting.

Oh, the new one I just trained got a monk. May have to be in a city for those.

Plan to let any crusade that turns up attack Jerusalem. if it doesn't attack anything else, at least. I want to see how the ballista towers do.

I AM getting offers for guilds I didn't see often before, but all in the wrong cities ~;) Masons guild just now. Got swordsman offer where I want HBG. Explorer where I want theologians, etc.

Hmm, Byz shows meagre wealth. Modest power. (I show very strong power, 54k wealth now, but getting into serious building range.) I'm up to trustworthy. Byz is reliable probably due to my alliance. 13 turns of trade rights with them.

Hmm, I seem to be at war with Milan, but I've never met them. Something is wrong. Turn 27. Just happened. Checking my ports ~;) No sign of any Milanese. Do have Moors on my western borders as of a turn or so back, so at least they are being a little aggressive. Milan is allied with Venice, I am with Byz, and Venice is at war with Byz. Oddly, Milan did not go to war with Byz. I'm lost here. Oh, doh! Crusade. They must have joined it. Yep, see a Milanese crusading army outside Venice.

Yes, Moors took 2 regions in last 10 turns. Venice took 2 also. Took them a while, but at least those two seem to be rolling.

Turkey is building a while bunch of seige stuff, not troops. We need to figure out how to stop that behavior. No wonder they aren't doing anything. Maybe it's a leader personality thing?

Venice is very rich and very powerful at turn 28. It seems to be working okay. As do the Moors considering they are just west in Tripoli.

Turn 29: Spain declared on Portugal (oh, goodie!). Moors called jihad on Baghdad. I'll hustle there first. Got my Turkey-watching towers up above Adana. Early crusade warning system too.

Turn 30: Florence is STILL rebel. Byzzies have at least two big stacks near Constantinople. Not doing much with them. One is mostly missile cav. (I'm jealous, STILL can't make Mumlaks)

Turn 31: Oops, bet crusade dies. Milan declared on Byz.

Turn 32: Crusade at Bosphorus. Byz stacks about, no action so far. Emp has 9 stars and all that missile cav.

My imams still aren't getting any skill boosts. Except the starter one who's burning heretics and getting some occasionally for that. They are getting the job done, but it's very slow since they are all skill 1 and 2 (except big guy, who's off burning turkey down).

Turn 33: Yay, 3 stacks of Byzzies taking on crusade. Yay, I think. Was sorta looking forward to watching ballista towers in action against THEM. Darn, my sultan died again. He was nice too. 8 command plus 2 more at night. 10 piety. 5 influence. Nice traits. He boosted growth by 9% in Aleppo. Trying to force grow it for better troops. Oh well, 4 more generals off to Baghdad to improve themselves.

Hmm, no apparent fight with crusade, but several stacks moved next to it. Maybe I will see ballista towers in action.

chickenhawk

03-10-2007, 08:34

Okay, I got some solid turns in the English this afternoon after all. Obsession is either great or terrible. My wife votes for terrible by the way. :laugh4:

Playing as the English on VH/VH. I began a new run at things by attempting to bribe every single rebel province in the British Isles. They were all strangely resistant to the coin of the english king and I was careful to hoard 5000+ florins ffor the purpose. They reaally don't like that hard a%^#$^^ Norman *&*&*%*%$#&* that took the English throne for himself the old fashioned way.

I did successfully use my princess to catch an excellent French general who was living a Angers, he was much happier in Caen.:2thumbsup: It was a 33% chance according to the game screen.

This was a good thing because after I managed to apply auto calcs with overwhelming force to York and Carnoevan Most of the royal family sailed off to Ireland, bloody , bloody Ireland . After garrisoning those two fine properties for the crown I sent virtually every trooper I had, 4 spearmen, four peasant archers, and three units of family calvary to Dublin to ensure that I got there before the Scots. I want them to have the smallest possible number of provinces when it comes time to Irrritate the pope b y eliminating their stain from the British Isles. maybe I can arrange for them to have a successful crusade first so I don't take the rep hit for eliminating the faction.

The Irish managed a through demonstration of their feelings for the English. The upgraded Kerns, Gallowglaiches and town militia went down swinging in the finest tradition of the green isle. They chewed my spearmen to bloody gobbets and after I had committed the all the family calvary to one charge to many left two heirs to the English crown dead on the cold hard ground. King William survived but it took the last bitter dreg of will power to not exterminate the place in vengeance but he occupied it instead for the good of his remaining heirs. Ireland should definely not rebel for a couple of hundred years.:wall:

A turn or two before this The new drillyard was finished in Caen and started turning out better troops than spearman. Specifically one unit Sergeant Spearman and one unit of billmen per year. These were eagerly even greedily received by the aforementioned french general who had found a certain english princess irresistible. At four command loyalty and two dread he was heartily approved of by her father as well.

So having taken command of 2 units of armoured sergeants, 2 billmen, 4 spearmen, and another scion of tthe royal house he marches on Rennes to demonstrate his loyalty to his father in law by adding a province to his realm. All involved hoped it would be the first of many.

Unfortunately he was cut down in the last moments of what would have been a great and heroic victory. His men had battered down the gates, having had the foresight to build three rams to disperse the withering fire from the enemies walls, his brave troops duly smashed down the city gates. The fire from the enemies towers did leave one ram a burning wreck and 30 or forty brave spearman dead.

Then in what would have been the moment of his fist triumph he was cut down by a virtually the last remaining unit of infantry infantry when the crept up behind the main english line and overcame the last of his brave bodyguard, so many of whom had already expended themselves in heroic, and repeated charges to almost completely drive the enemy from the square. His heretofore brave troops broke and routed on his death throwing away the victory they had fought so hard for.

Okay, enough story :book:

VH/VH on this mod is just that, you have to claw for everything and you DO NOT want to take your eyes of of the overview map, even when you think you have the battle won. Furthermore even small mistakes in handling charges in congested village streets are punished severely, with royal funerals.

The arrow fire from wooden walls is heavy but not intolerable, you do not want to have your rams pushed by your best units though.

The length of time it takes to get longbows seems excessive, the sergeant spearmen at the same time as billmen however are more than welcome, the low production rate from this level of drillsquare will mitigate against stupidities like assaulting instead of waiting out Rennes.

There should be some way of re-offering the bribe when the garrison has had couple of years to ponder the choice between starving and charging.

I think that the much heavier fire from even the most basic walls will go a long way to addressing some of the longbows uberness in vanilla. You will not be able to line up and shoot the garrison to pieces for little or no loss. I think that would allow some longbow production out of the lowest level archery ranges without throwing balance out of whack. I only had one heretic and my cardinal and a new priest are still trying to run him down. No major effects on happiness yet.

Overall I like the feel, I have no major suggestions that are not listed in the posts above. I do like the idea of tying even more things into Chivalry/Dread, it makes a lot of decisions harder and more important. I continue to be amazed with your AI modifications on both the battle and strategy maps. The basic engine appears to be there to provide a real challenge and you have tuned it perfectly. I am looking forward to the next version. And since you are great about balance suggestions this should be fantastic in short order.

Carl

03-10-2007, 14:40

Alright, I've been messing with files all morning so I'll write a reply. I'll edit it in in stages.

First up stables:

I tried lowering the tech levels but it went pear shaped, lowering it even one level makes the first level stables available at Motte and Bailey level, and also makes the 3rd level available at castles. Not really what I wanted, the 3rd level stuff is typically pro enough that it really belongs in fortresses, plus not everyone get the 4th level stables but I want everyone to have to go to citadel level for their best stuff.

On the other hand, after adding in basic military infrastructure for everyone I'm seeing a lot more decent armies wondering around and a few more territories being captured really early on.

Regrading Turks:

I'd kind of like to see people have a reason to use their THA as lots of people tend to agree that in vanilla Turkomen largely replaces them almost immediately. Reading your posts your issue with this tends to be more related to the fact that your short on good mounted melee punch, hence your having to use foot-sloggers to compensate. What if I dropped a mercenary light Cav unit, (Alan light Cav for example), into the Turks tech tree at the first level stables to give you your mounted melee punch. I've done similar things in Moors, (Tuareg Camel Spearmen @ Militia Drill Square, and Irish Kern's replacing Peasant archers as Scots for example).

That way you get your mounted punch but also still need to use THA till you get stables up enough. Although starting castles even with default stables positions still can get the second level so you'd still get Turkomen's from the starting castles if they really are necessary (i don't know how vital Turkomen's are, or (more to the point), exactly why they are so much more important than THA).

Of course if that isn't a good idea don't hesitate to say so and explain why.

Regarding Mameluke's:

I agree 3rd level stables is overly harsh as it happens, I didn't notice when putting the tech trees together that I'd put such important units so far up. Also, it was probably down to the fact that i was insisting on no more than 1 unit type added per level of stables, this is fine with western factions that only get melee Cav, but doesn't work so well with the eastern factions that get lots of HA, considering that and the fact that Desert Cav+Arab Cav is the staple of Early Moors I see no reason not to budge Arab Cav and Eastern Cav down to level one, and drop the various Mamelukes down to Level 2. (I don't really want 2 HA showing up at once, most people seem to switch to bow HA other Jav HA except when dealing with Elephants and other HA (the elephants are why they didn't get reductions unless a better Jav Cav sowed up).

Would that work do you think?

Regarding Income:

A couple of points here:

1. the resources Egypt and Turkey have access to close at hand are worth 3-5 times as much to the them than the close resources in Western Europe, most western European resources are only worth 80-150 to the power near them. The Egyptian ivory and Byzantine Silks are especially valuable TBH.

2. Your actually doing well to be struggling in the early game as Egypt with money. According to Egypt fans in the guide for vanilla it's fairly normal for Egypt to be rolling in so much cash that they can never be low on money, it's apparently one of the biggest money spinners in the game after Byzantine, and only the Italian states come close after that.

However, with the large amounts of Chivalry running round I think it might be a good idea to reduce the fertility of all regions to cut the growth rates to something reasonable, I'm often finding cities growing a LOT faster than i can build now. (Like Constantinople hitting 30K pop withing 40 turns). That should cut overall income too.

Regrading Rebels, and AI attacks on them:

Their are a couple of probable reasons for the issues, and 1 possible reason.

1. In the V1.20 nobody starts with much of a military infrastructure, tis means you need to build it up before you can stat building up your armies. The AI is poorer than the player at this and as a result is a good 15-20 turns behind where they where in vanilla, as a result they can't build stacks capable of challenging the rebels for a good number of turns. I'm correcting this deficiency in the next BETA though.

2. My money Script was Broken so the IA wasn't getting it's extra money, with that I would expect the AI to do better as the script covers the initial building costs for the first 50 turns or so, (it gives the AI 5000 florins if their Treasury is below 5K), then roughly a single full stack in upkeep there-after.

3. I'm new to AI editing and I may have messed up the AI for attacking rebels. I'll check although I don't think i have, i think the AI just struggles to get a decent army together for the first 20 turns or so.

Regarding AI Wars:

This is partly down to the old alliances thing as you can get quite extensive alliances going, and even more so, down to the fact that it takes the AI a fair old while to build up forces that are locally Superior to another faction, and it won't start a war till they are. by turn 50 wars tend to be going off every 5 turns or so. theirs less than their used to be (the old alliances again), but still plenty to go around.

What else is changed that might be a factor? As many times are I watched Portugal try and fail to take Zaragoza, the AI isn't shy about tackling high odds normally. Something else is involved.

I edited the attack rebels AI so that the comp actually has to out-power the rebels, before it didn't matter as they where always stronger than 90% of the rebels out their. Now every rebels stronger than most starting armies so it would just result in the AI wasting lots of expensive to replace troops.

Is something wrong with imam triggers? Only seeing skill increases sometimes when I burn heretics. Saw a lot more with priests. Haven't seen any ancillaries either. Priests usually get monks. Do imams have no equivalent? I thought they were just priests by another name. I would have expected at least one monk, and several skill boosts by now. Have about 7 team converting.

Their shouldn't be but I'll check as I've noticed weird behavior too. Monks need you to be in a province with 90% of your own religion for a about 10 turns without moving to get them.

I AM getting offers for guilds I didn't see often before, but all in the wrong cities Masons guild just now. Got swordsman offer where I want HBG. Explorer where I want theologians, etc.

I'm not sure what i can do about that, I've added a lot of local triggers, but not many global triggers for guild points, so you have to be doing something in those settlements to attract particular guilds. If you can give any more details here I'd be happy.

Turkey is building a while bunch of siege stuff, not troops. We need to figure out how to stop that behavior. No wonder they aren't doing anything. Maybe it's a leader personality thing?

It's because of the recruit AI, it recruits the units with the best attack+defense to cost ratios, and with an attack (after damage multipliers) of over 1900 a catapult puts any other unit to shame totally, i could cut pool size and replenish rates though or move them up a level in terms of when you can get them but I'd prefer not to as it hurts the player more than it helps the AI.

Hmm, no apparent fight with crusade, but several stacks moved next to it. Maybe I will see ballista towers in action.

Hope so, i want an opinion on them LOL.

Playing as the English on VH/VH. I began a new run at things by attempting to bribe every single rebel province in the British Isles. They were all strangely resistant to the coin of the English king and I was careful to hoard 5000+ florins for the purpose. They really don't like that hard a%^#$^^ Norman *&*&*%*%$#&* that took the English throne for himself the old fashioned way.

You'll need more than that, York is about 17K, (I'm reducing it for the next version BTW), so imagine how much others must be. ALSO, once you try and fail to bribe once they will always refuse now, that a bug in the hardcode thats being fixed in the 1.2 patch.

This was a good thing because after I managed to apply auto calcs with overwhelming force to York and Carnoevan Most of the royal family sailed off to Ireland, bloody , bloody Ireland . After garrisoning those two fine properties for the crown I sent virtually every trooper I had, 4 spearmen, four peasant archers, and three units of family calvary to Dublin to ensure that I got there before the Scots. I want them to have the smallest possible number of provinces when it comes time to Irritate the pope b y eliminating their stain from the British Isles. maybe I can arrange for them to have a successful crusade first so I don't take the rep hit for eliminating the faction.

The Irish managed a through demonstration of their feelings for the English. The upgraded Kern's, Gallowglaiches and town militia went down swinging in the finest tradition of the green isle. They chewed my spearmen to bloody gobbets and after I had committed the all the family calvary to one charge to many left two heirs to the English crown dead on the cold hard ground. King William survived but it took the last bitter dreg of will power to not exterminate the place in vengeance but he occupied it instead for the good of his remaining heirs. Ireland should definitely not rebel for a couple of hundred years.

Sounds like you underestimated what you needed to get the job done:smash:. For reference, 3 Town Militia without upgrades are nearly as effective in combat as 2 units of Spear Militia, with upgrades you can bet on them seeing off 2 units of spears on their own and Galloglaich are even worse.

Unfortunately he was cut down in the last moments of what would have been a great and heroic victory. His men had battered down the gates, having had the foresight to build three rams to disperse the withering fire from the enemies walls, his brave troops duly smashed down the city gates. The fire from the enemies towers did leave one ram a burning wreck and 30 or forty brave spearman dead.

Then in what would have been the moment of his fist triumph he was cut down by a virtually the last remaining unit of infantry infantry when the crept up behind the main English line and overcame the last of his brave bodyguard, so many of whom had already expended themselves in heroic, and repeated charges to almost completely drive the enemy from the square. His heretofore brave troops broke and routed on his death throwing away the victory they had fought so hard for.

Woops, that WAS bad, be aware that spear militia with the upgrades the have for rebels are actually more powerful than Armored Sergeants, so underestimate at your own peril. Also, if you units had suffered heavy losses and where tiered most would be down to 1-2 morale, the morale hit from generals death will almost always cause a chain rout at that point to say nothing of the sudden drop in total morale due to the general not giving morale bonuses anymore.

VH/VH on this mod is just that, you have to claw for everything and you DO NOT want to take your eyes of of the overview map, even when you think you have the battle won. Furthermore even small mistakes in handling charges in congested village streets are punished severely, with royal funerals.

:laugh4:, take it you liked it though.

The arrow fire from wooden walls is heavy but not intolerable, you do not want to have your rams pushed by your best units though.

Bear in mind that it gets faster the bigger the walls and the gates get tougher to break down now, so you'll need to check every level.

The length of time it takes to get longbows seems excessive, the sergeant spearmen at the same time as billmen however are more than welcome, the low production rate from this level of drillsquare will mitigate against stupidities like assaulting instead of waiting out Rennes.

Thats going to be fixed somewhat in the next version, with Practice ranges in all faction starting castles, your only one level away from longbowmen. It took too long IMHO in vanilla anyway.

Overall I like the feel, I have no major suggestions that are not listed in the posts above. I do like the idea of tying even more things into Chivalry/Dread, it makes a lot of decisions harder and more important. I continue to be amazed with your AI modifications on both the battle and strategy maps. The basic engine appears to be there to provide a real challenge and you have tuned it perfectly.

Thanks, it's nowhere near perfect yet, but it is getting closer.

And since you are great about balance suggestions this should be fantastic in short order.

I tend to consider myself stubborn and unyielding a lot so thanks~:).

Bongaroo

03-10-2007, 17:26

France M/M

I'll try to post some screens I took after some battles in a bit.

I'm actually expanding quite quickly. I think thats due to the AI not being as aggressive against rebel factions early on as in vanilla. I see Carl's already noted and is looking into this, just figured I'd mention that I had noticed this to help confirm it.

A wierd thing happened that I thought might have been bugged but I'll run it by you: a reinforce region mission didn't resolve when I added the requested 4 units (i made 4 units of cheap peasants) but it did resolve when I moved my nearby stack in on the last turn for the mission possible. Thought it wierd as in v1.13 the mission resolved as soon as I simply had 4 or more units in the settlement.

Some nice features I jotted some notes on:

-I really like the multiple agents available, that had bugged me a little bit in vanilla.
-I've been getting plenty of varied guild offers which is nice
-So far the unit shuffles are fine with me. militia peasants! w00t.
-more free slots in the cities for militia is nice

BACK TO THE GAME!!! w00t

Bob the Insane

03-10-2007, 17:45

I donl't know if it was intentional or not but all the positive triat you get from being good seems to have a odd effect on where your faction leader is the govenor...

My Settlements:

Bolonga - Pop 23577
Vienna - Pop 9132
Florance - Pop 8521
Frankfurt - 7097
Nuremburg - Pop 6265
Hamburg - Pop 4376 (castle)
Staufen - Pop 3430 (castle)
Innesbruck - Pop 2294 (castle)

Note a the growth of Bologna commarded to the others, now Bologna is where the emperor has been hanging out. Now compare to Vienna...

Bologna has a base faring output of 4% and Vienna 3%...

Both have only the first level of farm buildings (clearing).

Both have a governor with the Farming Knowledge Virtue and are basically chivalrous (no Dread points).

Yet look at the difference in Population and it us only 1110, the 31st turn...

I belive this disparity is down to the govenor of Bologna, my faction leader. An odd character how has mostly been good and chivalrous. The faction are considered Very Trustworthy, we only been at war with the Venetians (they started it) and Egypt (we started it for a crusade). He has fought and won battles and never executed prisoners (unless capturing a fort counts). Yet letely we have taken to traing Assassins out of Frankfurt and this has had a slight negative effect on his reputation. I will list him below, but back to the point. By being good and getting loads of chivalry points this greatly increases his influence which seems to apply to population growth as well as public order...

Is this effect intentional? Are your changes making super Kings too easy to get?

Emperor Heinrick the Merciless

Stats:

Command: 5
Chivalry: 6 (has dropped recently due to all the Assassin stuff)
Authority: 10
Piety: 8

Ancilleries:

Chivalrous Knight
Master of Assassins
Shield Bearer

Virtues and Vices:

Faction Leader
Proven Commander
Religiuosly Proper
Champion of Honour
Active Builder
Farming Knowledge
Rule Approved by the Church
Dutifully Religous
Good with Taxes
Political Promise
Politically Strong
Master of Assassins
Just
Deceptive
Merciless Leader
Night Fighter

Additionally:

Carl:

3. I'm new to AI editing and I may have messed up the AI for attacking rebels. I'll check although I don't think i have, i think the AI just struggles to get a decent army together for the first 20 turns or so.

I don't think the AI has a problem with deciding to attack rebels, in my 30 turn HRE campign all but one of the provinces that have been taken where rebel (with Poland the current leader with 6 and the Byz in second place). The main issue is with the success the AI has against the Rebels. Denmark is still a single province and the keep throwing themselves against Antwerp and failing...

Yet More:

The seems to be something up with the Russians. Is dipite being surrounded by rebels and having two full tacks stationed outside their capital (of their only provice) they do nothing turn after turn...

vonsch

03-10-2007, 18:07

A wierd thing happened that I thought might have been bugged but I'll run it by you: a reinforce region mission didn't resolve when I added the requested 4 units (i made 4 units of cheap peasants) but it did resolve when I moved my nearby stack in on the last turn for the mission possible. Thought it wierd as in v1.13 the mission resolved as soon as I simply had 4 or more units in the settlement.

This isn't a bug nor specific to Carl's 1.2.

Peasants count has half a unit. I ran into the same thing.

The seems to be something up with the Russians. Is dipite being surrounded by rebels and having two full tacks stationed outside their capital (of their only provice) they do nothing turn after turn...

Saw the same with the Turks. Were the Russians by chance building loads of siege gear? Or maybe it's related to HA cultures? The autoresolve/odds calculator may be undervaluing those units compared to the value its assigning them at decision time on what to build. Might explain the underperformance I saw with Hungary and even the Byzies too. That huge Byz HA stack I saw used properly can take any reb city. But the autoresolver sucks as handling sallies with missiles. It's very hard to get a win that way, but if the player runs the battle it's hard to lose (with reasonable odds). The enemy is forced to come to you and they aren't set up into a sensible battle line (though they will move to something resembling one).

Okay, now to deal with Carl's short reply ~;) Soon as I get some caffeine.

Carl

03-10-2007, 18:32

A weird thing happened that I thought might have been bugged but I'll run it by you: a reinforce region mission didn't resolve when I added the requested 4 units (i made 4 units of cheap peasants) but it did resolve when I moved my nearby stack in on the last turn for the mission possible. Thought it weird as in v1.13 the mission resolved as soon as I simply had 4 or more units in the settlement.

Peasants only count as half a unit fopr the purposes of this mission, it's the same in vanilla too, but with so few peasants available to most people and much better units available so early, most people use non-peasant units.

Some nice features I jotted some notes on:

-I really like the multiple agents available, that had bugged me a little bit in vanilla.
-I've been getting plenty of varied guild offers which is nice
-So far the unit shuffles are fine with me. militia peasants! w00t.
-more free slots in the cities for militia is nice

Glad you like it.

I don't know if it was intentional or not but all the positive trait you get from being good seems to have a odd effect on where your faction leader is the govenor...

My Settlements:

Bolonga - Pop 23577
Vienna - Pop 9132
Florance - Pop 8521
Frankfurt - 7097
Nuremburg - Pop 6265
Hamburg - Pop 4376 (castle)
Staufen - Pop 3430 (castle)
Innesbruck - Pop 2294 (castle)

Note a the growth of Bologna commarded to the others, now Bologna is where the emperor has been hanging out. Now compare to Vienna...

Bologna has a base faring output of 4% and Vienna 3%...

Both have only the first level of farm buildings (clearing).

Both have a governor with the Farming Knowledge Virtue and are basically chivalrous (no Dread points).

Yet look at the difference in Population and it us only 1110, the 31st turn...

I belive this disparity is down to the govenor of Bologna, my faction leader. An odd character how has mostly been good and chivalrous. The faction are considered Very Trustworthy, we only been at war with the Venetians (they started it) and Egypt (we started it for a crusade). He has fought and won battles and never executed prisoners (unless capturing a fort counts). Yet letely we have taken to traing Assassins out of Frankfurt and this has had a slight negative effect on his reputation. I will list him below, but back to the point. By being good and getting loads of chivalry points this greatly increases his influence which seems to apply to population growth as well as public order...

Is this effect intentional? Are your changes making super Kings too easy to get?

I think it's because Authority effects growth too, and (when your pop is below 20K anyway), each point of Chivalry adds about 0.5% to the growth, so your 6-8 chivalry leader is already adding 3% on his own before you add in the 0.5-1.0% rise from having any Governor their, the farm raises, and the Authority raises I suspect are their. I'm reducing region fertility in the next version to try to cut this down and cut the rolling in money issues for some factions.

don't think the AI has a problem with deciding to attack rebels, in my 30 turn HRE campign all but one of the provinces that have been taken where rebel (with Poland the current leader with 6 and the Byz in second place). The main issue is with the success the AI has against the Rebels.

I've, (if i haven't made any mistakes), set up the AI so it should only attack when it outclasses the rebels However, if it keeps any kind of significant Garrison, (more than 1 or 2 units per city/castle), in it's cities the AI can never pull together enough forces to actually have a chance to sauced, that why i think it's a unit recruitment issue. As the difficulty goes up the AI will tend to keep bigger garrisons and thus has more problems getting together a force that can beat the rebels, by 30 turns in it has it easy as it has the military up to scratch. What more worrying vonsch and me is the first 10 turns, a few armies aside no one does much then, (Hungary tends to grab Sofia given the chance).

Denmark is still a single province and the keep throwing themselves against Antwerp and failing...

Thats because Antwerp has Pikes in it and when determining if it's strong enough to beat the Garrison their it thinks the pikes are much weaker than they actually are.

Thinking about it the displayed stats for units with Armour/weapons upgrades are wrong, so that could explain the excessive failures too, the AI's under-calculating the rebel strength overall anyway. Easy to fix though, i'll just increase how much the AI has to overpower the ebels and replace the Pikes with High Quality Spears.

Okay, now to deal with Carl's short reply Soon as I get some caffeine.

ROFL:laugh4:.

vonsch

03-10-2007, 19:10

First up stables:

I tried lowering the tech levels but it went pear shaped, lowering it even one level makes the first level stables available at Motte and Bailey level, and also makes the 3rd level available at castles. Not really what I wanted, the 3rd level stuff is typically pro enough that it really belongs in fortresses, plus not everyone get the 4th level stables but I want everyone to have to go to citadel level for their best stuff.

On the other hand, after adding in basic military infrastructure for everyone I'm seeing a lot more decent armies wondering around and a few more territories being captured really early on.

I agree that armies (in general) are looking better for early. At least some stacks. Still have the problem of AI not burning up old stuff and replacing it with new, but using the new and letting the old hang around. Now sure we can fix that.

I think the answer to the stable issue is my special buildings idea. Where the special units SHOULD be there early, give them their own building at first tier.

Regrading Turks:

I'd kind of like to see people have a reason to use their THA as lots of people tend to agree that in vanilla Turkomen largely replaces them almost immediately. Reading your posts your issue with this tends to be more related to the fact that your short on good mounted melee punch, hence your having to use foot-sloggers to compensate. What if I dropped a mercenary light Cav unit, (Alan light Cav for example), into the Turks tech tree at the first level stables to give you your mounted melee punch. I've done similar things in Moors, (Tuareg Camel Spearmen @ Militia Drill Square, and Irish Kern's replacing Peasant archers as Scots for example).

That way you get your mounted punch but also still need to use THA till you get stables up enough. Although starting castles even with default stables positions still can get the second level so you'd still get Turkomen's from the starting castles if they really are necessary (i don't know how vital Turkomen's are, or (more to the point), exactly why they are so much more important than THA).

Of course if that isn't a good idea don't hesitate to say so and explain why.

I don't mind using basic HA for missile cav. But they are totally worthless for anything involving melee or charges. The can chase routers. They are very fragile. They make peasants look beefy. (well, almost) Part of the issue is the basic ones are terribly vulnerable to return missile fire. Turkomen are better there, and a bit more useful in melee. They are still brittle. Sipahis are the first that can be useful in charges without simply throwing them away. With your upgrading of spears, this is even more of an issue. Mostly they face spears (and archers) early. I don't mind the fragility per se, but in vanilla while it's there, you can pick and choose which to use when. That choice is removed by your changes.

Basic HA are cheaper and like Turkomen have good stamina. This makes them really good as pure missile cav. Sipahi don't have the stamina. Though they have better stats, in battle they aren't so clearly better as missile cav because they tire much faster. In melee/charges they are a LOT better though. Even with the stamina issue.

I like mixing types... unless I'm filthy rich (which is where the too much money becomes a negative factor on unit mix). HA are enough cheaper to justify keeping them around for emergency use. More missiles in the air is better when throwing stacks at incoming stacks to whittle them down. And more survive if you burn off their ammo then withdraw them to fight again next battle (hopefully with even more exp to help). But HA are not tri-purpose. They can chase routers if they can avoid unrouted units. But any melee means they rout and are lost, pretty much. That's not efficient. Need to have the cadre survive to really make them work.

Turkomen survive a lot better, but can still be lost. They can manage light tri-purpose. They chase routers well, can take brief melee (so you can notice and pull them out), and can even manage light rear charge or flak charge work, if microed. Mostly they can force a quick route, otherwise they are in trouble.

Sipahi can't run around as much as the first two, but they can hang in there and fight a while. And they can chase routers pretty safely. And they are up to med cav level, pretty much, for charge work.

Thus, early on only bodyguard cav is available for real getting into hard work situations. And for whatever reason (probably simply tougher rebels) the mortality rate of generals is much higher. That's not all that bad in my opinion, but it is forcing fewer factional-style battles for HA cultures. They need something to charge. But I don't really like the idea of a med cav unit they don't normally get. I'd prefer to see them get BHA from a special building so it's widely available. It's always a bit useful as missiles-in-the-air from the flanks, but it's value does drop as armor goes up. The missile number is low. But Turkomen are no better, just more durable. Sipahi have better missile numbers, but can't dash around. Still, later the tendency will be to migrate to those for the improved hit rate. And to stand up better to return fire.

If BHA are removed from stables and put into a separate building available at motte & bailey, or just into the structure itself, but at a low rate, and the others moved up to stable 1 and 2 respectively, that's reasonable. You can also play with the rates they come rather than leave a gap. Keep the Sipahi rate very low at tier 2, then up it at 3. Make Turkoman low at tier 1, but not very low, then pump it to full at tier 2 so it can start edging out BHA at the player's choice and so the AI will start swapping. A smart player can kill off BHA fast with concentrated missile fire.

Regarding Mameluke's:

I agree 3rd level stables is overly harsh as it happens, I didn't notice when putting the tech trees together that I'd put such important units so far up. Also, it was probably down to the fact that i was insisting on no more than 1 unit type added per level of stables, this is fine with western factions that only get melee Cav, but doesn't work so well with the eastern factions that get lots of HA, considering that and the fact that Desert Cav+Arab Cav is the staple of Early Moors I see no reason not to budge Arab Cav and Eastern Cav down to level one, and drop the various Mamelukes down to Level 2. (I don't really want 2 HA showing up at once, most people seem to switch to bow HA other Jav HA except when dealing with Elephants and other HA (the elephants are why they didn't get reductions unless a better Jav Cav sowed up).

Would that work do you think?

Well, Mamluks are the signature Egyptian unit and CA has them ubiquitous at level 1. So it's a major style forcing change even at level 2. That's 2400 florins IF you have the castle level. That's not a minor investment when the going rate is 1600 or mostly 600 at that stage. At turn 30 I still don't have Mamluks as it stands now. That's a significant chunk of playing, and my armies are configured in a totally unnatural fashion for how Egypt appears meant to be. Not by my choice.

Again, I think it's better to control the flow rather than turn it off. If you think they are too powerful for that early, cut the rate at tier 1. Just allowing them to be built in stables vs walls does that significantly already. It will be impossible to have a full stack HA army by turn 10 even with them appearing in tier 1 stables, I think. Both the Turks and Egyptians can do this in 1.13 if they choose, using captured castles to pump the rate. Even if you capture a castle, you still have to build a stable now (and maybe upgrade the castle too). So the rate will be much lower. You can further thottle it, if needed (which I doubt) by cutting the regen rate at tier 1.

Whether it "will work" or not depends on what you mean by work. If you mean "will Mamluks still retain their role," no. If you mean will Egypt be playable as a faction, it is now. It's just not Egypt. It's a Westernized faction, pretty much like the Iberians, out of the starting gate. Iberian light. Desert cav can't match jinettes. Jinettes are sort of desert cav and Arab cav rolled into one.

I'm arguing for ensuring the factions retain their flavor. Not really arguing the power issue. If you like a faction and play to its strengths, avoid its weaknesses, you will always do significantly better than with one that doesn't meet your style of battling.

Regarding Income:

A couple of points here:

1. the resources Egypt and Turkey have access to close at hand are worth 3-5 times as much to the them than the close resources in Western Europe, most western European resources are only worth 80-150 to the power near them. The Egyptian ivory and Byzantine Silks are especially valuable TBH.

2. Your actually doing well to be struggling in the early game as Egypt with money. According to Egypt fans in the guide for vanilla it's fairly normal for Egypt to be rolling in so much cash that they can never be low on money, it's apparently one of the biggest money spinners in the game after Byzantine, and only the Italian states come close after that.

However, with the large amounts of Chivalry running round I think it might be a good idea to reduce the fertility of all regions to cut the growth rates to something reasonable, I'm often finding cities growing a LOT faster than i can build now. (Like Constantinople hitting 30K pop withing 40 turns). That should cut overall income too.

Okay, point one is valid. And this may be partly to compensate for them taking the bludgeon of the hordes full in the face. I haven't tried the Western factions to see how their money supply works here.

And I agree the growth is very high, at least where there are governors. I'm not seeing my castle grow well, but that MAY also be regional. And it may be relative to cities. I think fertility is not THE issue. I think the chivary bonuses for cities may be too high. Don't cripple the AI by cutting its benefits for growth. It won't "grow" great governors as much, I suspect. Though it does park generals in cities as garrisons a lot, so maybe I'm wrong there.

Seeing some broke AI factions and some very rich at turn 30 does worry me that something is off. Yeah, Venice is often rich. But so are the Byz, and the latter were not. Hungary I can understand as poor. And Turkey if they don't grab the Holy Land.

Regrading Rebels, and AI attacks on them:

Their are a couple of probable reasons for the issues, and 1 possible reason.

1. In the V1.20 nobody starts with much of a military infrastructure, tis means you need to build it up before you can stat building up your armies. The AI is poorer than the player at this and as a result is a good 15-20 turns behind where they where in vanilla, as a result they can't build stacks capable of challenging the rebels for a good number of turns. I'm correcting this deficiency in the next BETA though.

2. My money Script was Broken so the IA wasn't getting it's extra money, with that I would expect the AI to do better as the script covers the initial building costs for the first 50 turns or so, (it gives the AI 5000 florins if their Treasury is below 5K), then roughly a single full stack in upkeep there-after.

3. I'm new to AI editing and I may have messed up the AI for attacking rebels. I'll check although I don't think i have, i think the AI just struggles to get a decent army together for the first 20 turns or so.

(2) If the money script is broke, that would explain the divergence of treasuries early. That should normalize the faction treasuries SOME. If they don't expand fast, they can't spend it all. They should rarely show as bankrupt.

Something is up with the rebel attacks. And I'm not convinced buffing their armies is the answer to the problem. The Ai just needs to be more aggressive towards rebels very early. That will pressure the player, and it will tend to mean earlier wars too, even with the diplo changes. The player will need to pick a fight somewhere to expand. Or the Ai will. I don't particularly like those starting forces being uber, then rebel after that are back to normal levels. Feels wrong, and I reiterate, it hurts the AI a lot more than it slows the player. Flanders is a special case. I've seen that last to past turn 20 in 1.13. Those pikes are just nasty.

I edited the attack rebels AI so that the comp actually has to out-power the rebels, before it didn't matter as they where always stronger than 90% of the rebels out their. Now every rebels stronger than most starting armies so it would just result in the AI wasting lots of expensive to replace troops.

The problem here is those "wasted attacks" are not wasted. They wear down the rebels. The factions can replace those troops and try again. They typically do fail once on a lot of those cities (to wit, Zaragoza, Rennes). The net effect is they do better, far better, than I'm seeing in 1.2. I think the decrease in sacking will be a brake on blitzing, but there's another factor in play: diplomacy. If alliances hold better, there's less incentive to blitz. Those of us who prefer not to (except in the rebel grab phase), can turtle better. And we face less multi-frontal war in later game and more alliance play. We don't know how that will play out, yet, but it will discourage me from blitzing because I prefer that environment to "I must keep taking cities or I die."

Can we try it without the rebel buffs, but with the rest, and see what happens to the AI factions? You're slowing the player about 5 turns, I'd say, because there's more force buildup required. But that's it. Once those turns are past the rebel blitz is as before. But the AI appers to be slowed by at least 10 turns. That's a net loss of 5 turns to the AI.

Their shouldn't be but I'll check as I've noticed weird behavior too. Monks need you to be in a province with 90% of your own religion for a about 10 turns without moving to get them.

I definitely exceeded this and the only monk I saw was on an imam built and forgotten in a city. And still no skill upgrades except for burning. That means if my start imam dies, no more jihads.

It's because of the recruit AI, it recruits the units with the best attack+defense to cost ratios, and with an attack (after damage multipliers) of over 1900 a catapult puts any other unit to shame totally, i could cut pool size and replenish rates though or move them up a level in terms of when you can get them but I'd prefer not to as it hurts the player more than it helps the AI.

Hmm, annoying. CA issue. Seige gear should be ratio limited. No more than x% of an army should be seige gear for AI factions. If they meet or exceed that ratio, they should stop building it. But maybe we can influence it early on by playing with the building availability. If we up the price of the building, will they build it later? Or is price not a factor? Is there a priority list on which building gets built? I keep thinking that's Ai personality related. Maybe we need to remove the guilty personality from the mix. (Who loved artillery? While Nappy did, he SHOULD have a personality that isn't requiring that much.)

Thats going to be fixed somewhat in the next version, with Practice ranges in all faction starting castles, your only one level away from longbowmen. It took too long IMHO in vanilla anyway.

I agree. Longbows at the first level are not that great (only their AP trait is) compared to basic archers, and they are Engliand's special unit, and there are a lot of levels of them. If needed, just throttle the introduction of the better ones again. Start with 1 slot a tier earlier, full-production at existing tier.

By the way, Carl, I think you have a fetish with one-unit-added-per-level. ~;)

Vanilla adds more than one, so the design is intended to allow that. And it makes sense in cases. I still argue that it's better to do that but control the rates. Give the "better" (in your eyes) unit a low rate to pop 1. Thus until a lot of castles are up (assuming the player chooses to keep a lot, which I typically do not) and have the basic building, the stream will be very skinny. Or until the "proper" tier stable is in place. If the unit is being thrown into battle a lot, the flow will be used just to replenish a few units. A lot of units can't exist until the number of stables, or the tier, increases.

This could apply to all the signature units that are arguably more powerful than tier 1, or at least have a very weak sister there.

On the Mamluks, the issue is major to me because HA <> HJ. Desert cav is a very different beast than a horse archer unit. The former is much better at killing armored units, but it's not really all that useful as missile cav per se. Not enough ammo for that role. It's not a good strategic denial unit. Javcav fight, they don't do "death by 1000 needles," withdraw and repeat another day. The two do complement each other in pure cav armies, but neither is much use on even combined in taking cities except if you starve the garrison into sallying.

I think the Mamluk issue is much larger for Egypt than the Turkomen/Sipahi one is for the Turks. The Turks retain their basic style with the BHA. The Egyptians lose theirs with the missing Mamluks. Desert cav supplements Mamluks, not the opposite.

But CA does rate Egypt as an early game power, not a late one. So delaying those HA doesn't HELP Egypt in that regard, it hurts it because it can't expand as well (nor defend as well) against the early game factions and hordes. And don't forget they have to fend off crusades, which tend to get both beefy (for that stage) heavy cav and lots of missile-vulnerable trash that HA are really good at handling.

In effect the Egyptians (and to a degree the Turks) are guaranteed multi-faction wars in the early going. Few other factions are in this position. Egypt cannot prevent crusades from being called. They will happen. They will even break alliances.

(And I have a fetish for horse archers! I do, I do! But longbows are nice too.)

Don't know what happened to my quote tags in last post. I cut & pasted them from your reply. Odd.

Oh, and I should add a point on timing the arrival of these units. If they start coming in at turn 30, they lose 20 turns or so of postential experience gain which makes them better units. So it's no a simple 20-turn delay of the unit, that's at issue, it's the who process that's slowed. Egypt will arrive at turn 100 with less experienced Mamluks when they are starting to really need more punch. With the ability to pump out lots early, and protect their cadre, Egypt's HA "grow" with their role until finally outclassed completely with gunpowder units Egypt just can't match. But they can come closer with more experienced earlier units. They can hold out longer. They remain a win early or not at all faction. That's historical. When the real crusades with lots of advanced Westerners start coming, they are in trouble, especially if the hordes weakened them.

We don't need to change that aspect of playing Egypt, or Turkey. That's the design. Move fast while it's your historical day or be forgotten. Portugal and Spain had theirs later. It was passed to England, France and Germany... and so on. Shoot, the Aztecs had their day! Then one day Hernan rode up. Instant obsolescence. "What is that beast? What went boom? Did I hear a fizzle?" That last was not a fuse, it was the Aztec culture. Some cultures need to fortify, dig in, batten down the hatches, just survive a century of turns before they can really excel. Not to say a player can't get around that, but it isn't completely necessary to. They can do it later.

The model really does handle well the tendency of cultures to become complacent with their uber weapons systems. Because HA cultures, or cav cultures (to wit, Poland later versus Germans) cling to what they know worked well for them, they become obsolete when technology arrives that bypasses their strengths. Thus the HA doomed those cultures in the end. But the Mongols ruled the world for a time with theirs!

I get the feeling your aim it to balance out all the factions so they all are of equal difficulty. That isn't really the original goal. Some are meant to be different/harder/easier. Some do well AI-controlled, others rarely do. There is some randomness due to diplomacy. With the rock/paper/scissors effect of different types of units, one faction that normally "pwns" another can be taken out of play with regards to that first faction so it can expand, tech up, and thus stand up to that threat. Or that threat is simply removed by it's natural antithesis, and the first just happens to fit that role for its savior too. "Thanks for saving me, now die!" Heh.

Okay, think I'll retire Egypt for now. Not sure what I want to do now. I'm in "wait for the next rev mode," I think.

Carl

03-10-2007, 19:39

Give me a bit to reply, but it should be [/quote], you have
.

p.s. what are BHA, or did you mean THA?

[QUOTE]I agree that armies (in general) are looking better for early. At least some stacks. Still have the problem of AI not burning up old stuff and replacing it with new, but using the new and letting the old hang around. Now sure we can fix that.

I think the answer to the stable issue is my special buildings idea. Where the special units SHOULD be there early, give them their own building at first tier.

I find the AI stacks improve over time, as time goes by and they use up their remaining low level troops they tend to lose them from their armies, eventually they do get really good armies, but it takes a good 100 turns to do (another reason i increased the time scale, it takes over half the game in vanilla for the AI to get going, and still takes a bit in mine).

I don't mind using basic HA for missile cav. But they are totally worthless for anything involving melee or charges. The can chase routers. They are very fragile. They make peasants look beefy. (well, almost) Part of the issue is the basic ones are terribly vulnerable to return missile fire. Turkomen are better there, and a bit more useful in melee. They are still brittle. Sipahis are the first that can be useful in charges without simply throwing them away. With your upgrading of spears, this is even more of an issue. Mostly they face spears (and archers) early. I don't mind the fragility per se, but in vanilla while it's there, you can pick and choose which to use when. That choice is removed by your changes.

Basic HA are cheaper and like Turkomen have good stamina. This makes them really good as pure missile Cav. Sipahi don't have the stamina. Though they have better stats, in battle they aren't so clearly better as missile Cav because they tire much faster. In melee/charges they are a LOT better though. Even with the stamina issue.

I like mixing types... unless I'm filthy rich (which is where the too much money becomes a negative factor on unit mix). HA are enough cheaper to justify keeping them around for emergency use. More missiles in the air is better when throwing stacks at incoming stacks to whittle them down. And more survive if you burn off their ammo then withdraw them to fight again next battle (hopefully with even more exp to help). But HA are not tri-purpose. They can chase routers if they can avoid unrouted units. But any melee means they rout and are lost, pretty much. That's not efficient. Need to have the cadre survive to really make them work.

Turkomen survive a lot better, but can still be lost. They can manage light tri-purpose. They chase routers well, can take brief melee (so you can notice and pull them out), and can even manage light rear charge or flak charge work, if microed. Mostly they can force a quick route, otherwise they are in trouble.

Sipahi can't run around as much as the first two, but they can hang in there and fight a while. And they can chase routers pretty safely. And they are up to med Cav level, pretty much, for charge work.

Thus, early on only bodyguard Cav is available for real getting into hard work situations. And for whatever reason (probably simply tougher rebels) the mortality rate of generals is much higher. That's not all that bad in my opinion, but it is forcing fewer factional-style battles for HA cultures. They need something to charge. But I don't really like the idea of a med Cav unit they don't normally get. I'd prefer to see them get BHA from a special building so it's widely available. It's always a bit useful as missiles-in-the-air from the flanks, but it's value does drop as armor goes up. The missile number is low. But Turkomen are no better, just more durable. Sipahi have better missile numbers, but can't dash around. Still, later the tendency will be to migrate to those for the improved hit rate. And to stand up better to return fire.

If BHA are removed from stables and put into a separate building available at motte & Bailey, or just into the structure itself, but at a low rate, and the others moved up to stable 1 and 2 respectively, that's reasonable. You can also play with the rates they come rather than leave a gap. Keep the Sipahi rate very low at tier 2, then up it at 3. Make Turkomen low at tier 1, but not very low, then pump it to full at tier 2 so it can start edging out BHA at the player's choice and so the AI will start swapping. A smart player can kill off BHA fast with concentrated missile fire.

AHHH, you've not only drawn me a lovely picture, but colored it in and added a Numbered Diagram to go with it. First I though ordinary Saiph's where a weaker version of the Siaphi Lancers, i.e. melee only.

Second, your making it quite clear that Turkey was balanced around the idea that Turkomen's where the starting HA, with THA just being supplemental, and Saiph's taking over once a player has enough money to build them in really large numbers.

I thought that THA where meant to cover the early period as HA, and Turkomen's take over in the mid and late periods, with Saiph's as mid level med Cav, Siaphi Lancers as mid-high Heavy Cav, and the last one (can't spell), as really late heavy Cav.

Much the same with Desert Cav and Mamluk Archers. I though Mamluk Archers where the mid to late HA, not the early one. Thats easy to fix. Although I could kill CA for such a bad balancing act~:(.

Actually I should have realized I was wrong thinking about it, (see my bit on your statement "They remain a win early or not at all faction.").

Well, Mamluks are the signature Egyptian unit and CA has them ubiquitous at level 1. So it's a major style forcing change even at level 2. That's 2400 florins IF you have the castle level. That's not a minor investment when the going rate is 1600 or mostly 600 at that stage. At turn 30 I still don't have Mamluks as it stands now. That's a significant chunk of playing, and my armies are configured in a totally unnatural fashion for how Egypt appears meant to be. Not by my choice.

Again, I think it's better to control the flow rather than turn it off. If you think they are too powerful for that early, cut the rate at tier 1. Just allowing them to be built in stables vs walls does that significantly already. It will be impossible to have a full stack HA army by turn 10 even with them appearing in tier 1 stables, I think. Both the Turks and Egyptians can do this in 1.13 if they choose, using captured castles to pump the rate. Even if you capture a castle, you still have to build a stable now (and maybe upgrade the castle too). So the rate will be much lower. You can further thottle it, if needed (which I doubt) by cutting the regen rate at tier 1.

Whether it "will work" or not depends on what you mean by work. If you mean "will Mamluks still retain their role," no. If you mean will Egypt be playable as a faction, it is now. It's just not Egypt. It's a Westernized faction, pretty much like the Iberians, out of the starting gate. Iberian light. Desert cav can't match jinettes. Jinettes are sort of desert cav and Arab cav rolled into one.

I'm arguing for ensuring the factions retain their flavor. Not really arguing the power issue. If you like a faction and play to its strengths, avoid its weaknesses, you will always do significantly better than with one that doesn't meet your style of battling.

I wasn't' trying to remove flavor or westernize Egypt, rather my tech tree layout was altered based on my experiences, (which where mostly western I'm afraid), what worked for western factorings clearly hasn't worked well for Islamic/Iberian Factions, and that has been compounded by my lack of understanding with both how HA work, and of the overall purpose of many HA units on top of that.

I thought, (based on the fact that Moors players in vanilla find Desert Cav and Arab Cav to be sufficient for their needs), that Egypt would be fine the same way and Mamluk's where/could become the mid to late era HA, with Desert Cav covering the early Period.

Whats messed it up is 2 fold.

1. When moving form walls for western factions I've generally moved things into the barracks/stable level that becomes available after building the wall they previously became available from.

2. after doing the above I the looked for situations where i had 2 units of the same type, (like Turkomen's and THA), turning up at the same level, and then moved the Higher levels up. I repeated this to make sure I never had 2 units of the same type, (e.g. HA/Spears/Heavy Cav/Light Cav/Swords/2-Handers/e.t.c.), turn up at the same building.

3. Since stone castles are the staple castle level in the early period I decided the early units should go their, the mid game units at fortresses, and the late game units at Citadels. did a similar thing with Cities as it happens.

Unfortunately the above doesn't work well when you put units in the mid and late periods when they really belong in the early period.

I'll drop all Egyptian and Turkish Cav down a level and go from there.

vonsch

03-10-2007, 20:15

Milan's crusade at Adana so decided to let it come on and see what happens. I'll do some save/loads and try autoresolve and battle screen. But it has no chance, I suspect. Can't see the unit makeup so far, but it's facing a large stone wall with ballistae twoers, 5 saracen infantry as gap stoppers, 5 archer militia, 2 mutatawwi's with a bit of exp (from the jihad that took it), 2 ghazi's (ditto), one desert cav in case there is seige gear it can tackle, and a general (1 star). The Milanese have a 4-star, a standard and 3 religious fanatics that I can see. Archer fodder. The standard is tough, but it's anti-cav and can't get in the city itself.

Should be beseiged in 2 turns, if it bypasses everything else, which it has so far. Antioch is tougher than Jerusalem, but Damascus would be easier. My main field forces are at baghdad or close. It should fall next turn, so they can be back to retake other cities if the crusade decides to try an easier place first. And I can scrabble together a decent fire team from garrisons. Gaza has a half stack of desert and Arab cav. Plenty of Saracen militia in garrison, that's sturdy. And militia archers for support.

Oh, 3 desert archers with padded armor just got to Jerusalem too, real archers, not militia. With 1-2 chevvies too. (7 missile vs 5)

Give me a bit to reply, but it should be , you have
.

p.s. what are BHA, or did you mean THA?

Heh, BHA = basic horse archers to me. THA is ambiguous because it's Turkish versus Turkomen.

Oh, I nixed the slash somehow. Didn't notice. Not enough caffeine at the time.

Ok, crusade one step from Jerusalem. It bypassed everything else.

Lineup: 2 standards, 1 great cross (can we say overkill?), 7 Italian militia, 4 crusader sergeants, 5 religious fanatics, 4 star general (may have traits to boost that).

Against: Large stone wall with ballistae, 5 saracen militia, 5 militia archers, 5 desert archers (with padded and 1-2 chevrons), 1 desert cav, 2 ghazis (1 chevron), 2 mutatawwi'a, 1 star general (no traits that matter).

I say no chance. But we'll see. The standards are morale boosters, but tough infantry especially vs cav, but it's not a cav battle. No seige gear so it's on the spot work. I bet they don't breach the walls or gate on battle screen. With the towers, assuming you're right about their power, plus 8 archer units, should be a lot of rotten meat out there. The milita and sergeants are resistant, but the fanatics are not, and they are the offense. My saracens are as good as their sergeants and better than their militia, and I have the ghazis and mutas to chop down theirs once pinned. The cav won't play in at all, unless I can manage to stick some javs in their general's buttocks.

Autoresolve should be very longs odds of success too. I should have at least parity in force values and I'm defending behind walls.

A forced sally would be a different thing. That might be doable on their end. There those standards would help, but they have no cav to handle archers. And the Ai isn't smart enough to pull back and make me come to them.

They wimped. Sitting just outside, no seige. Cowards! :smash: Fairly nasty place to remove them too. But not as back as it could be.

Time for some rented HA.

It's turn 38. I'm #1 and green in all slots (pulling away). 11 regions with a 12th under seige. Rep Immaculate. Power supreme. Perfect relations with Pope, though he's still calling crusades on me ~;). My two neighbors, the Turks and Moors, score 2/5 what I do on the graphs. Venice, the next best overall score 3.5. Unless this is an Egypt thing (and it may be), I don't rate this harder than 1.13, Just different. The AI just isn't aggressive about taking rebels and that's hurting the other factions. And the walls are gonna after the AI more than me. It doesn't build as aggressively. I am more secure defensively, and I adapt better to what I need to tackle the walls.

Also, while I like the concept of the diplomatic change, I think it needs to be turned down a notch or two. It's too easy to get a great diplo status early. Just don't be bad. Should take longer in the greater scheme. Twice as long, say. There are 450 turns, 50-60 to get to Immaculate would be better than 35. That will help trim the economic effects too. Should also scale based on how many cultures you are in contact with. I've contacted about 2/3 so far. If there's a way to scale the effect to how many are "in play," that might solve the problem. You shouldn't be able to have a great universal rep if you just aren't known except in your corner. But... I can see where that might he hard or impossible with the tools we have.

As far as tech goes, my cities are ahead. But that's expected since they grow faster. And I tend to choose regions for castles that aren't growth oriented. No need to do that with Egypt, I see. When I next play I'll make on of the big growth regions a castle and tech up faster at least in some lines (stables!). The cities are building large stone walls (Cairo is on huge now). Several can build and upkeep free saracens. Those are solid defensive blockers. Gaza is building its fortress. That will allow lvl 3 stable. With your leader changes, might also be a play to sit the sultan in the numero uno castle to speed its growth. I was using him to boost Antioch. Didn't really need that boost. Money is not a problem. Gaza did get plagued at one point, so that hurt it, but still, it's been around since turn 1 and is below 6k. Alexandria, a comparable city, is closing on 14k. Both have been mostly governorless.

So, keep in mind that forcing most good units to castles also delays them (on the whole) due to slower growth of castles. They need less pop per tier, but it comes more slowly usually too. This affects the AI more than the player, again. The player can be wiley. I can switch Antioch to a castle and be at max pop right away, but still need to build the stables. Still, it's faster than growing a castle.

Well, I can't NOW, but I could have earlier to force it to a larger castle faster.

Just got my HBG at Gaza. It was probably stalled waiting on the castle upgrade. Is it castle level or fortress level for basic guild in 1.2?

Cagliari is still rebel at turn 39. Heh, diplomatic front geting more interesting. France and Portugal were allies, then one made the other a vassal, now they are at war with each other. Looks (from the French maps I just got) like no one has taken Rennes (wimpyish), Antwerp or Bruges so far. And Bern and Prague look rebel still too, unless my maps are recently outdated. I bet Valencia is still rebel too ~;).

Okay, finally see some skill increases on my imams, Battler of heresy line. Seems way too slow. Did one of those variables in that xml file change the rate of gain somehow? I have about 10 working as a team now. They allo got that one the same turn, so the trigger must be 100% under a certain condition. Turn 41. No heresy at all in that region, so maybe they cleaned it out and that's the trigger. It's 90% islam, 10% ortho.

Carl

03-10-2007, 21:41

I've edited in a reply you might want to look at. not complete yet, I'll edit the rest of it onto the end of this post.

But the first part is here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1459050&postcount=120)

Okay, point one is valid. And this may be partly to compensate for them taking the bludgeon of the hordes full in the face. I haven't tried the Western factions to see how their money supply works here.

And I agree the growth is very high, at least where there are governors. I'm not seeing my castle grow well, but that MAY also be regional. And it may be relative to cities. I think fertility is not THE issue. I think the chivalry bonuses for cities may be too high. Don't cripple the AI by cutting its benefits for growth. It won't "grow" great governors as much, I suspect. Though it does park generals in cities as garrisons a lot, so maybe I'm wrong there.

Seeing some broke AI factions and some very rich at turn 30 does worry me that something is off. Yeah, Venice is often rich. But so are the Byz, and the latter were not. Hungary I can understand as poor. And Turkey if they don't grab the Holy Land.

Might be a better idea, i THINK I've found the appropriate file but I'm having a touch of trouble understanding it, if I'm right though, each point of Chivalry adds 1% to the overall growth rate, (OUCH), with Governor Kings often having 2-3 from StrategyChivalry and the same from HonestRuler thats a good +5/+6% growth. Castles grow at half the rate though and get half the bonuses Cities do.

(2) If the money script is broke, that would explain the divergence of treasuries early. That should normalize the faction treasuries SOME. If they don't expand fast, they can't spend it all. They should rarely show as bankrupt.

Something is up with the rebel attacks. And I'm not convinced buffing their armies is the answer to the problem. The AI just needs to be more aggressive towards rebels very early. That will pressure the player, and it will tend to mean earlier wars too, even with the diplo changes. The player will need to pick a fight somewhere to expand. Or the AI will. I don't particularly like those starting forces being uber, then rebel after that are back to normal levels. Feels wrong, and I reiterate, it hurts the AI a lot more than it slows the player. Flanders is a special case. I've seen that last to past turn 20 in 1.13. Those pikes are just nasty.

Yeah, the broken script probably explains the divergences in money.

What i meant with army buffing was that the AI attacking the rebels needs bigger stacks to deal with them than it is able to build with default money. So by upping the money the AI gets it should be able to get it's big stacks out and tackle the provinces with less issues.

The problem here is those "wasted attacks" are not wasted. They wear down the rebels. The factions can replace those troops and try again. They typically do fail once on a lot of those cities (to wit, Zaragoza, Rennes). The net effect is they do better, far better, than I'm seeing in 1.2. I think the decrease in sacking will be a brake on blitzing, but there's another factor in play: diplomacy. If alliances hold better, there's less incentive to blitz. Those of us who prefer not to (except in the rebel grab phase), can turtle better. And we face less multi-frontal war in later game and more alliance play. We don't know how that will play out, yet, but it will discourage me from blitzing because I prefer that environment to "I must keep taking cities or I die."

Can we try it without the rebel buffs, but with the rest, and see what happens to the AI factions? You're slowing the player about 5 turns, I'd say, because there's more force buildup required. But that's it. Once those turns are past the rebel blitz is as before. But the AI appears to be slowed by at least 10 turns. That's a net loss of 5 turns to the AI.

I found (before I modified the AI), that the rebel defenders where so good that the AI was literally losing entire half stacks whilst killing less than 10% of the rebels. On the other hand i think it does need to go back in, it's slowing the AI down too much. I'll edit it back to how it was.

I raised rebel power to help deal with a couple of aspects of Blitzing, let me explain the complaints Blitzers often had:

1. Due to low aggressiveness on the AI's part and the weak rebels Garrisons it was possible for them to attack 2-3 rebel provinces a turn from the second turn onwards. The AI rarely got any rebel provinces because of that as all the one near the player where gone by turn 5.

2. Sacking money was so high they could easily develop cities off it and have money to spare.

3. Because they had so much money they could easily retrain losses and move on, the sacking also cut into the PO problems meaning you could leave minimal garrisons.

4. Because you'd taken all the rebel province, and done so so fast the AI was often extremely weak by comparison, this made them simple pushovers at this point, with a couple of major AI power out of the way the income was now enough that even without sacking you could go on a rampage without issue.

Reduced sacking money cuts into points 2 and 4 somewhat. But the better rebels and money script where meant to cut into 1 and 3. Here's how:

1. The better rebels mean you not only have to build up before you can conquer anything, you also can't really try to hit more than one province at once.

2. Now that you suffer higher losses and get less money you can usually afford to retrain losses and thats it.

3. the AI with it's money script will be able to build bigger armies faster early on, and get it's economy going for when the money script drops down. That means it can easily capture provinces at the same rate as the player despite being less aggressive.

4. with less total provinces captured, more captured by the AI and lower total money the typical Blitzer now has to work like the devil to get any further as he's facing stronger AI's, and has less to work with.

I definitely exceeded this and the only monk I saw was on an imam built and forgotten in a city. And still no skill upgrades except for burning. That means if my start imam dies, no more jihads.

I'll look into it as I'm getting issues with orthodox priests too.

Hmm, annoying. CA issue. Siege gear should be ratio limited. No more than x% of an army should be siege gear for AI factions. If they meet or exceed that ratio, they should stop building it. But maybe we can influence it early on by playing with the building availability. If we up the price of the building, will they build it later? Or is price not a factor? Is there a priority list on which building gets built? I keep thinking that's AI personality related. Maybe we need to remove the guilty personality from the mix. (Who loved artillery? While Nappy did, he SHOULD have a personality that isn't requiring that much.)

The problem is the AI auto-manages all settlements, and uses Military build policy, so it always puts a high priority on barracks and siege stuff, unfortunately I doubt we could increase the price too much without handicapping the player more than the AI. If anyone has any ideas I'm game.

By the way, Carl, I think you have a fetish with one-unit-added-per-level.

Vanilla adds more than one, so the design is intended to allow that. And it makes sense in cases. I still argue that it's better to do that but control the rates. Give the "better" (in your eyes) unit a low rate to pop 1. Thus until a lot of castles are up (assuming the player chooses to keep a lot, which I typically do not) and have the basic building, the stream will be very skinny. Or until the "proper" tier stable is in place. If the unit is being thrown into battle a lot, the flow will be used just to replenish a few units. A lot of units can't exist until the number of stables, or the tier, increases.

Yeah, that and I got some units mixed up thinking they where late/mid units when they are actually earlier. had a basic strategy of no more than one unit of a given TYPE being added to the tech tree per level, so that spread the HA out a lot, sadly that was too big a spread~:(. Will fix of course now I understand things better.

On the Mamluks, the issue is major to me because HA <> HJ. Desert cav is a very different beast than a horse archer unit. The former is much better at killing armored units, but it's not really all that useful as missile cav per se. Not enough ammo for that role. It's not a good strategic denial unit. Javcav fight, they don't do "death by 1000 needles," withdraw and repeat another day. The two do complement each other in pure cav armies, but neither is much use on even combined in taking cities except if you starve the garrison into sallying.

Thanks for that, I was just treating Jav Cav as shorter ranged but harder hitting HA's TBH.

But CA does rate Egypt as an early game power, not a late one. So delaying those HA doesn't HELP Egypt in that regard, it hurts it because it can't expand as well (nor defend as well) against the early game factions and hordes. And don't forget they have to fend off crusades, which tend to get both beefy (for that stage) heavy cav and lots of missile-vulnerable trash that HA are really good at handling.

In effect the Egyptians (and to a degree the Turks) are guaranteed multi-faction wars in the early going. Few other factions are in this position. Egypt cannot prevent crusades from being called. They will happen. They will even break alliances.

(And I have a fetish for horse archers! I do, I do! But longbows are nice too.)

Don't know what happened to my quote tags in last post. I cut & pasted them from your reply. Odd.

Oh, and I should add a point on timing the arrival of these units. If they start coming in at turn 30, they lose 20 turns or so of potential experience gain which makes them better units. So it's no a simple 20-turn delay of the unit, that's at issue, it's the who process that's slowed. Egypt will arrive at turn 100 with less experienced Mamluks when they are starting to really need more punch. With the ability to pump out lots early, and protect their cadre, Egypt's HA "grow" with their role until finally outclassed completely with gunpowder units Egypt just can't match. But they can come closer with more experienced earlier units. They can hold out longer. They remain a win early or not at all faction. That's historical. When the real crusades with lots of advanced Westerners start coming, they are in trouble, especially if the hordes weakened them.

Actually I don't think they ARE, (Turks Egypt), a win early or not at all faction. he thing is they switch over from HA to excellent infantry late on. Let me explain.

JHI are the 2nd best 2-Hander, (in the game), Tabardariyya are the joint 6th, (along with Vargarian guard and Highland Nobles), ME_Halberd Militia are the 9th. For Ibireians the DPK are 5th best 2-Hander.

Dismounted Arab Cav, Dismounted Saiph's and Dismounted Heavy Lancer are all Joint 2nd Best Spears in the Game, and Scarecen Militia are Joint 3rd best.

Dismounted Christian Guard are the Best swords in the Game, with Dismounted Conquistadors at 2nd, Sword and Buckler men at 4t, and Urban Militia (because it's in cities), at 5th.

Dismounted Dovor are the best non-Gunpowder Archers, with Janissary Archers at 7th, and Desert Archers/Ottoman Infantry at 8th. Peasant Crossbows are pretty hot too.

Janissary/Cossack Musketeers are the best gunpowder infantry bar non, and Portuguese Arqubusiears/Sudanese Gunners follow in at joint 3rd, followed closely at 4th by Naffutmen.

In reality not only do Islamic/Iberian/Orthodox (bar Russia), have half the top 10 great infantry t themselves, but they also have most of the upper top 10 to themselves, Pikes and good heavy Cav are the only Big equalizer here for western factions.

Unless this is an Egypt thing (and it may be), I don't rate this harder than 1.13

Most people say Egypt is easy in vanilla due to a near endless income, even when outclassed on units you tend to be able to spam so many unit without even slightly effecting your Treasury that it's easy indeed. I've never played hem but both Cairo and Alexandria have the joint highest fertility in the game so thats a massive income boost, (double the fertility of most regions in the game).

Also, while I like the concept of the diplomatic change, I think it needs to be turned down a notch or two. It's too easy to get a great diplo status early. Just don't be bad. Should take longer in the greater scheme. Twice as long, say. There are 450 turns, 50-60 to get to Immaculate would be better than 35. That will help trim the economic effects too. Should also scale based on how many cultures you are in contact with. I've contacted about 2/3 so far. If there's a way to scale the effect to how many are "in play," that might solve the problem. You shouldn't be able to have a great universal rep if you just aren't known except in your corner. But... I can see where that might he hard or impossible with the tools we have.

It's partly to do with the Alliance/War Rep triggers, I made alliances give a lot more back before I added the Chivalry/Dread triggers. Now the alliance needs toning down and the war one up. Plus sacking/externminating/executing/starting wars give very big rep hits by default, you haven't done many so it's hardly surprising your reps going up.

So, keep in mind that forcing most good units to castles also delays them (on the whole) due to slower growth of castles. They need less pop per tier, but it comes more slowly usually too. This affects the AI more than the player, again. The player can be wiley. I can switch Antioch to a castle and be at max pop right away, but still need to build the stables. Still, it's faster than growing a castle.

Good point.

Cagliari is still rebel at turn 39. Heh, diplomatic front geting more interesting. France and Portugal were allies, then one made the other a vassal, now they are at war with each other. Looks (from the French maps I just got) like no one has taken Rennes (wimpyish), Antwerp or Bruges so far. And Bern and Prague look rebel still too, unless my maps are recently outdated. I bet Valencia is still rebel too .

Really need to make the AI more aggressive to rebels.

Okay, finally see some skill increases on my imams, Battler of heresy line. Seems way too slow. Did one of those variables in that xml file change the rate of gain somehow? I have about 10 working as a team now. They allo got that one the same turn, so the trigger must be 100% under a certain condition. Turn 41. No heresy at all in that region, so maybe they cleaned it out and that's the trigger. It's 90% islam, 10% ortho.

Thanks for that.

I haven't been up to check on the Russkis, but that pretty much is the situation I'm seeing with the Turks. But the Byzzies haven't been bees either. They and the Venals are getting into some skirmishes off and on though. Hungary appears paralysed too (another HA culture). It's normally fairly aggressive. I wonder if they are programmed to value HA higher due to the differences in style, and thus they are undervaluing their infantry/archer stacks?

I think it's because the AI is handling Frontline strength differently to how i thought. Instead of going "is my forces in this province more than X times larger than the forces in that province" it's going "are the forces in all my provinces bordering the enemy provinces stronger than those in all the enemy provinces bordering mine overall".

So with the equivalent (strength wise), of 3 stacks of militia surrounding Russia's starting location it considers 2 full stacks of militia too weak to launch an attack.

I'll deal with it by including a simple trigger to make the AI attack any rebels nearby as often as it can with whatever it can scrape together and give it a really high priority.

Those numbers look like what I'm seeing in game. My big sultan (before he died of old age) was a HUGE boost at Antioch. I knew he was affecting happiness, but didn't notice the large growth boost until later. He had like 9-10 in chivalry and piety. Love jihads for piety and chivalry! Then there was the nice guy boost from being a good ruler too.

Let's see... Saladin of Zagazig is 5 chiv, 7 piety: Edessa is 1.5% growth without him, 1024 income, 85% order. With it's 5% growth, 1234 income, 130 order. Big swing. No other major trait factors (aside from those playing into the numbers above for chiv and piety) except active uilder (squalor cut) and architect (ditto, for -3 total). No trade or tax bonuses or cuts aside from those from piety/chiv either.

Aleppo, a fort, CP Shehata is 2 chiv, 4 piety. No applicable traits. With him it's 1081 income, 205 order, 4% growth. Without him it's 987 income, 195 order, 3% growth.

Thanks for those.

Bob the Insane

03-10-2007, 21:45

Carl

03-10-2007, 21:59

Thanks for that Bob. How's the rest of the campaign going?

vonsch

03-10-2007, 22:28

Additional for the issue I see with the Russains not moving... their two full stacks consist almost entirely of Spear Militia and Archer miltia..

Over all, after nearly 50 turns Europe seems to be comming on just fine but the East (Russia, Turks, Eqyptians) are really fairing poorly with practically (or actually) no expansion.... The Turks where getting kicked about by the Byz until the Venetians decided that wanted to revive the Eastern Roman empire. ANd now even with the Byz heavily distacted the Turk do little...

I haven't been up to check on the Russkis, but that pretty much is the situation I'm seeing with the Turks. But the Byzzies haven't been bees either. They and the Venals are getting into some skirmishes off and on though. Hungary appears paralysed too (another HA culture). It's normally fairly aggressive. I wonder if they are programmed to value HA higher due to the differences in style, and thus they are undervaluing their infantry/archer stacks?

Carl, dropping the HA back down to easier access may fix this. Needs testing. They are teching up slowly, it seems. But they Russia, especially, may need a starting stable. Not sure about Hungary, haven't played them. They need to have one though. Egypt and Turkey do have them, but the Turks need one forward at Caesarea. You could even remove the rear one to compensate if you feel the need. Nothing happens back there for a long time, so there's time to tech up a local one.

Might be a better idea, i THINK I've found the appropriate file but I'm having a touch of trouble understanding it, if I'm right though, each point of Chivalry adds 1% to the overall growth rate, (OUCH), with Governor Kings often having 2-3 from StrategyChivalry and the same from HonestRuler thats a good +5/+6% growth. Castles grow at half the rate though and get half the bonuses Cities do.

Those numbers look like what I'm seeing in game. My big sultan (before he died of old age) was a HUGE boost at Antioch. I knew he was affecting happiness, but didn't notice the large growth boost until later. He had like 9-10 in chivalry and piety. Love jihads for piety and chivalry! Then there was the nice guy boost from being a good ruler too.

Let's see... Saladin of Zagazig is 5 chiv, 7 piety: Edessa is 1.5% growth without him, 1024 income, 85% order. With it's 5% growth, 1234 income, 130 order. Big swing. No other major trait factors (aside from those playing into the numbers above for chiv and piety) except active uilder (squalor cut) and architect (ditto, for -3 total). No trade or tax bonuses or cuts aside from those from piety/chiv either.

Aleppo, a fort, CP Shehata is 2 chiv, 4 piety. No applicable traits. With him it's 1081 income, 205 order, 4% growth. Without him it's 987 income, 195 order, 3% growth.

Carl

03-10-2007, 23:19

Finished editing in the reply.

Did you check out the bit I linked to?

Thanks for the help, you've helped identify so many issues.

vonsch

03-10-2007, 23:22

Reduced sacking money cuts into points 2 and 4 somewhat. But the better rebels and money script where meant to cut into 1 and 3. Here's how:

1. The better rebels mean you not only have to build up before you can conquer anything, you also can't really try to hit more than one province at once.

2. Now that you suffer higher losses and get less money you can usually afford to retrain losses and thats it.

3. the AI with it's money script will be able to build bigger armies faster early on, and get it's economy going for when the money script drops down. That means it can easily capture provinces at the same rate as the player despite being less aggressive.

4. with less total provinces captured, more captured by the AI and lower total money the typical Blitzer now has to work like the devil to get any further as he's facing stronger AI's, and has less to work with.

I understand the aim, I'm just arguing some of what you're doing appears to be counterproductive due to the way the AI works. More money for the AI okay, just don't go overboard and rip the guts out of the economic war. I don't think you have or will, based on what I've seen. Bottomless purses remove the economic aspects in the greater picture (things like take the rich regions or exterminate their populations then pull out become meaningless as strategic choices.) Having the AI factions always have a LITTLE money so they can hire replacements even with few regions as base isn't bad. That's what I saw you doing in the current scripts.

But the better rebels aren't THAT significant a block to the player. Now that I know what to expect, and how big a hammer I need to smash them, my losses are minimal again. Just takes me about 5 more turns to get rolling. And I don't sack, so while I'm not a real blitzer test case, I, a non-blitzer, can still blitz the rebs faster than the AI can by a mile. So, that's not the answer. Better to let the AI deal with weaker rebs.

We need another way to force early choices on the player.

Can't cut the starting forces because that just hurts the AI as much or more.

Removing sacking as a major money earner early does help. But maybe the starting cash needs to drop a bunch. Try it at 5k or 4k. That means the player can hire fewer mercs too, and is forced do balance out things more carefully, and develop an economy (I hope). With your diplo changes, good behavior should buy the player time to do that, but the AI will be rolling on those rebs with its extra money. The player can still get some, but not as many, thus things may balance better.

That's my reaction to what I'm experiencing. Blitzing light will always be doable. But stronger rebs will always delay the AI more and longer. But you can give the player less starting cash, and the AI has its nice little pocket adjuster to keep SOME cash flow there. The player does not. But the player can EARN that. Even careful blitzing can work to a degree with the destruction of buildings, though that's a sort of scortched earth policy that can backfire badly. Which is good.

Finished editing in the reply.

Did you check out the bit I linked to?

Thanks for the help, you've helped identify so many issues.

Yes, I replied to some, still checking back and forth.

Just dealt with that Crusade, I think. My lovely HA style. May have taken a star hit on my general (nope!), but it was worth it. He can get that back. Did a hit and run cav strike (even with all that ugly anti-cav support they had), shot all my arrows (merc Turkomen) and tossed all my havs at the general. Didn't kill him, but captured him. I think that will disband the crusade. Don't know yet.

Lost 261 men, they lost 976. I had 700, they had 1311. Hehe, can I call it a Pyrrhic loss? Sorta. I "lost." I accomplished my aim. My cadre survived. It's rated a close defeat. No way I could actually win it as those three carts would carve up my cav badly. And I left a lot of Crusader sergeants too. The milita is pretty creamed though.

But they SHOULD disband since they have no leader, and I "lost" so I should get a ransom offer, I shouldn't have to ransom the general back ~;).

That's the theory. Heh, no theory. Worked. But all the Christian factions now HATE me. Oops. Now you see why the Islam factions get those units?

On the other hand, they declared war on me and were on MY land. My rep remains Immaculate. Perfect. That's as it should be. I am a "noble foe!" as the dialog says.

That was an ugly night battle though. Hard to see what's going on. Mass chaos, but semi-controlled. I pulled the eastern "retreat!" trick on them. Their general charged and put himself in front of his spears where my med cav charged him to pin him and the desert cav went to work. he was all along when they unhorsed him. Meanwhile the 6 torkomen shot up all the infantry they could and pulled out. They took some losses in the chaos pulling out. I was charging in all directions with my cav at that point. Anytime there was a flank or rear of a unit, it got slammed into. Militia were running every which way, but those silly fanatics don't rout (but they don't handle charges well either, they just die). And the Crusader spears were tough. My general picked up two chevvies and mostly can out in one piece. The med cav took a battering, but think all came through as cadre. Nope, lost one.

Wow. Something in that pumped Nasser's chiv to 10 and his piety to 9. Must be defending against crusades?
Oh, hehe, he gets 3 stars for fighting Catholics too. No wonder he had 10 stars in that battle.

That was fun. I think I like defending against Crusades.

Carl

03-10-2007, 23:32

Yes, I replied to some, still checking back and forth.

Fair enough, just wanted to check you'd seen my explanation of why i buggered up HA fir egypt/turks.

Erik Bloodaxe

03-10-2007, 23:40

Hello Carl, I'll start a Cicilly campaign and I'm ready to go:2thumbsup:

vonsch

03-10-2007, 23:41

Fair enough, just wanted to check you'd seen my explanation of why i buggered up HA fir egypt/turks.

Yep, saw that. I didn't think you intentionally had it in for them. :smash:

I figured you were applying the same standard everywhere. I was trying to show you how that is a bad policy in general, because this game isn't meant to be "everyone is even" like, say, Civ. Different but equal. Look at the earlier games in the series, some factions are really easy, some are really hard. While SOME tweaking is okay, too much destroys that. I like the differentiation in "level" of play it creates, not to mention the differences in style of play. I think that's a major strength of the series.

I can play England for a month, then it's a whole new game when I try Turkey. Etc.

Carl

03-10-2007, 23:48

@Eric, Thanks, let me know how it goes as they are in a hell of an intresting postion.

Yep, saw that. I didn't think you intentionally had it in for them.

Just wanted to explain myself was all. Even if i'm wrong in an argument, after acknowlaging that I like to explain why I thought what i did and argued what i did. Just feels wrong if don't.

I figured you were applying the same standard everywhere. I was trying to show you how that is a bad policy in general, because this game isn't meant to be "everyone is even" like, say, Civ. Different but equal. Look at the earlier games in the series, some factions are really easy, some are really hard. While SOME tweaking is okay, too much destroys that. I like the differentiation in "level" of play it creates, not to mention the differences in style of play. I think that's a major strength of the series.

I can play England for a month, then it's a whole new game when I try Turkey. Etc.

I though the diffrances between units, and the fact that no faction gets all unit types would ensure the diffrent play styles, but it was obviouslly a bad assumption, the trouble is the tech tree is very diffrent for the islamics, the western powers have a steadilly graded lineup of the diffrent types of nit avalibile t them. The islamic factions sort of get all types allmost all at once.

vonsch

03-10-2007, 23:49

For giggles I ran an autoresolve on that Crusader battle with the same forces:

Clear Defeat. I lost 394, they lost 88. That IS an anti-cav force. The AI underperforms with HA pretty often. That hurts the HA cultures too. I suspect it does better with them ON the battlefield just like the player does. AI HA can be annoyingly effective on the field. It may be treating them simply as archers for autoresolve purposes.

Got to try it again to see if it's as bad, or if that was the outlier. That's a pretty bad loss considering every one of my guys can outrun theirs. That army has zero cav. Mine is 100%.

Yeah, this time 385 dead, killed 176, a bit less lopsided. But not a lot.

And it's not beating the army or disbanding it that put my diplo rep with each faction at 0, it's simply attacking a crusade. And they release my prisoners. ~;)

I though the diffrances between units, and the fact that no faction gets all unit types would ensure the diffrent play styles, but it was obviouslly a bad assumption, the trouble is the tech tree is very diffrent for the islamics, the western powers have a steadilly graded lineup of the diffrent types of nit avalibile t them. The islamic factions sort of get all types allmost all at once.

Heh, they get the horde all at once! Twice!

Not to mention those silly Crusaders.

It's really funny to see my 5 alliances, including the Papal States, all the Catholic ones hate me, but they are still allies. The others just shrug. England hates me, Denmark hates me, Spain hates me, Portugal hates me. Haven't even met them! But in this case it makes sense. Word of a Crusade army being disbanded (as a crusade, the leftovers are still sitting there) would spread to all Christendom.)

Erik Bloodaxe

03-11-2007, 00:01

"Eric, Thanks, let me know how it goes as they are in a hell of an interesting position."

Indeed they are! The fact that you have REALLY boosted the pope's soldiers makes me feel more safe as Sicily. He's armies are now my shield against HRE, Milan and Venice, so I can expand south to Africa and west into Iberia while I'm killing their priest and spying at their cities:yes:

I can now train two or more diplomates at the same time, the same goes for assassins and priest I guess? Lovely!

Carl

03-11-2007, 00:14

I can now train two or more diplomates at the same time, the same goes for assassins and priest I guess? Lovely!

:yes:.

vonsch

03-11-2007, 00:16

I think it's because the AI is handling Frontline strength differently to how i thought. Instead of going "is my forces in this province more than X times larger than the forces in that province" it's going "are the forces in all my provinces bordering the enemy provinces stronger than those in all the enemy provinces bordering mine overall".

So with the equivalent (strength wise), of 3 stacks of militia surrounding Russia's starting location it considers 2 full stacks of militia too weak to launch an attack.

I'll deal with it by including a simple trigger to make the AI attack any rebels nearby as often as it can with whatever it can scrape together and give it a really high priority.

Makes sense with regards to what we're seeing. Turkey is in two chunks with rebs between also. So their ratio is really skewed. Portugal is in two chunks, but one has no adjacent rebs. And it seems a bit more aggressive from the war reports. Makes me wonder if Turkey's non contiguous provinces result in any reb provinces that touch both being counted more than once... or, for that matter, whether it checks each province for an adjacent border and tallies them all up.

If it's a force ratio thing, Russia's one province borders 5 reb ones. That might cause paralysis. In comparison, Denmark's one borders on two. Poland's two border on 8. Turkey's 4 on 7. Venice's 3 on 2. Milan's 2 on 3. Sicily's 2 on 0. France's 5 on 5. England's 3 on 4. Scotland's 1 on 3. Spain's 2 on 2. Byz's 5 on 5. Egypt's 3 on 4. Hungary is 2 on 5. HRE is 6 on 8.

That might explain some of the relative differences in early game aggressiveness. If the AI waits for a favorable ratio with enemy border regions as a whole, the grossly outnumbered ones will wait and build until a lot of their border provinces are not rebel. I assume neutrals fall into a non-enemy category for the calculation. So it also means that the player's capture of border provinces probably ratchets up the AI's aggressiveness to what's left a bit. That last is a good thing. Just too little too late.

It may explain why Russia often does poorly. AI Russia may NEED Poland to take Vilnius and Riga before it can move out.

It also would explain why Sicily moves so fast into those open islands and north africa. (Or is this map wrong... they may start with Tunis. That would give them 3 to 1, which still means they would meet the condition very early.)

I must say I don't understand the Nubian archers versus the Desert archers. I would never train Nubians as I compare the two. Desert are cheaper, less upkeep, same missile stat, better defense (important in missile duels) and 1 less melee (who cares, they are archers!). Desert also get a desert bonus, AND have very good stamina. Maybe the Nubians can upgrade armor more, that's all I can think. Oh, the Nubes get 1 more charge too. Like I said, they are archers. I don't charge my archers, I charge the enemy archers. ~;)

Yeah i will. Where still on V1.20 BETA ATM, but i'm gonna start updating soon. May be a while before I put everything in as traits are the devil to code without errors.

If you do us a dot rev, get us the agent speed increase as a priority. That will help a lot with testing too.

I'll stare at the triggers later and see if I see anything that might be affecting the skill gain for imams/ortho priests. I THOUGHT they got all the same traits, except the obviously pope-related ones. But maybe there's something I missed.

The guild offerings seem to make sense now. I mean they come fairly often, and do appear to related to the expectations created by activity. Only the explorer's SEEMS a little unexpected. But if it's still triggering on basically the same things as the merchants, it's not really. I finally got my theologians offer in Jerusalem. But my imam training had been pretty scattered before turn 20 or so. Once I focussed it, voila!

I got one upgrade already too. Master swordsmans in Antioch. Came fast after I decided to put the swordsmans there, so the numbers must remain and not be wiped on acceptance. I had trained a lot of militia spears there.

It was offered ini Gaza too, but that was reserved for HBG, now in place.

So those seem to be working.

Did you add any thologians guild ancilliaries? Or merchant guild ones? I have modded a merchant clerk and another into 1.13, one for merchants and the other for governors. They had to end the turn there to have a chance to pick them up. Same for deacon or something for priests. Creates a little more push-pull tension to leaving them in a guild city a bit, or putting them to work converting.

Carl

03-11-2007, 01:27

Did you add any thologians guild ancilliaries? Or merchant guild ones? I have modded a merchant clerk and another into 1.13, one for merchants and the other for governors. They had to end the turn there to have a chance to pick them up. Same for deacon or something for priests. Creates a little more push-pull tension to leaving them in a guild city a bit, or putting them to work converting.

No, TBH most guilds are quite good enough without it, allthough if you want to show me the entries i'd be happy to look a hem and probs include them.

I must say I don't understand the Nubian archers versus the Desert archers.

Sounds like a swap around error on my part, sorry about that.

Makes sense with regards to what we're seeing. Turkey is in two chunks with rebs between also. So their ratio is really skewed. Portugal is in two chunks, but one has no adjacent rebs. And it seems a bit more aggressive from the war reports. Makes me wonder if Turkey's non contiguous provinces result in any reb provinces that touch both being counted more than once... or, for that matter, whether it checks each province for an adjacent border and tallies them all up.

If it's a force ratio thing, Russia's one province borders 5 reb ones. That might cause paralysis. In comparison, Denmark's one borders on two. Poland's two border on 8. Turkey's 4 on 7. Venice's 3 on 2. Milan's 2 on 3. Sicily's 2 on 0. France's 5 on 5. England's 3 on 4. Scotland's 1 on 3. Spain's 2 on 2. Byz's 5 on 5. Egypt's 3 on 4. Hungary is 2 on 5. HRE is 6 on 8.

That might explain some of the relative differences in early game aggressiveness. If the AI waits for a favorable ratio with enemy border regions as a whole, the grossly outnumbered ones will wait and build until a lot of their border provinces are not rebel. I assume neutrals fall into a non-enemy category for the calculation. So it also means that the player's capture of border provinces probably ratchets up the AI's aggressiveness to what's left a bit. That last is a good thing. Just too little too late.

It may explain why Russia often does poorly. AI Russia may NEED Poland to take Vilnius and Riga before it can move out.

It also would explain why Sicily moves so fast into those open islands and north africa. (Or is this map wrong... they may start with Tunis. That would give them 3 to 1, which still means they would meet the condition very early.)

I couldn't find any specific erors but i increased the invade trigger priority for rebels so they put attacks on rebels first.

Erik Bloodaxe

03-11-2007, 01:46

Here are some thoughts after 20 rounds.

First thing I noticed was, like I said, the opportunity to recruit more agents within the same year. I quickly became the Popes ally, along with Milan, HRE and Venice. After 8 turns of alliance with Venice they betrayed me lol.. They blocked the port of Naples;( So I Ctrl + L to make a test , before I ended the turn, I ordered my fleet to guard right outside the port (not "inside") and the result was that they didn't attack. I send a diplomat to offer Map - Map information, they refused, but gave me 1.7k in return to maintain good relasions:dizzy2: My reputation was Very realibie at this point btw.

My first act was to secure Cagliari, Jesus :furious3: Christ their walls was effective you might say. I outnumbered them 2:1 and lost more than half my army hehe, for a second I thought there was archers upon the walls:laugh4: Adds much more challenge than before, excellent.

I'm very pleased that merchants now make more money, for once I have afford to actually use navies on a high scale, thank goodness for beeing able to bribe once more, free upkeep space in cities should as you said be nerfed a little bit. Enjoying your work :bow:

Carl

03-11-2007, 02:36

My first act was to secure Cagliari, Jesus Christ their walls was effective you might say. I outnumbered them 2:1 and lost more than half my army hehe, for a second I thought there was archers upon the walls Adds much more challenge than before, excellent.

Glad you liked it:smash:, defintlly a bit shocking at first expiriance though:laugh4:.

I'm going to play with trusted alliances some more too BTW, lastly, glad you like the navy, merchant, and bribe changes.

Not really much else to say at this point, allthough i await with intrest the results of furthar fighting. Particuarly with a major power with bigger walls:evillaugh4:.

vonsch

03-11-2007, 02:38

I don't think that is a swap error, Carl, with the Nubes and Desert archers. The two are just too similar to be very useful. Bad design choice on CA's part in my opinion. But you're noted other cases of this sort of thing. It's fine as is. Some will prefer one to the other, but I expect most will use desert archers. They were one step up from peasant in earlier games as I recall.

The better Egyptian archers ride horsies.

Here are some thoughts after 20 rounds.

First thing I noticed was, like I said, the opportunity to recruit more agents within the same year. I quickly became the Popes ally, along with Milan, HRE and Venice. After 8 turns of alliance with Venice they betrayed me lol.. They blocked the port of Naples;( So I Ctrl + L to make a test , before I ended the turn, I ordered my fleet to guard right outside the port (not "inside") and the result was that they didn't attack. I send a diplomat to offer Map - Map information, they refused, but gave me 1.7k in return to maintain good relasions:dizzy2: My reputation was Very realibie at this point btw.

My first act was to secure Cagliari, Jesus :furious3: Christ their walls was effective you might say. I outnumbered them 2:1 and lost more than half my army hehe, for a second I thought there was archers upon the walls:laugh4: Adds much more challenge than before, excellent.

I'm very pleased that merchants now make more money, for once I have afford to actually use navies on a high scale, thank goodness for beeing able to bribe once more, free upkeep space in cities should as you said be nerfed a little bit. Enjoying your work :bow:

I think the lower upkeep on navies is enough to make them more affordable. The big problem with them otherwise is KEEPING them, not training them. They add up in regular outlay fast.

You experience with Venice is interesting and encouraging. Both parts. First that Venice is still Venice. Second that there are player actions that can influence whether they attack or not, even in the case of... Venice. It sounds like the AI can't even see ships in port. It certainly doesn't consider them a threat as fleets (though the probably factor into the overall military strength ratio in AI decisions on attack or hold off).

I have yet to be attacked except by Crusade in my tests. But I am not a neighbor of Venice! (They tend to rate well on the power meter early on, so aren't as intimidated as Turkey is.)

I find 2:1 on the power meter, not troop numbers, to be a sweet spot so far. If you can manage that in a seige, the result is usually a victory. Not sure how the walls factor in. And I haven't stormed any walls. I dislike battlescreen seige play on the whole. Someone should test it though. Carl wants to know just how much we hate his new towers!

(I love them! I can't wait to see the Mongols attack them!)

Heh, that may prove a separate balance issue. I'm concerned that they will throw some other things out of whack like the horde threat.

Carl

03-11-2007, 02:54

Heh, that may prove a separate balance issue. I'm concerned that they will throw some other things out of whack like the horde threat.

Thats one reason I want to see a lot of use of them, I want to know if i need to increase horde size to compensate.

I find 2:1 on the power meter, not troop numbers, to be a sweet spot so far. If you can manage that in a siege, the result is usually a victory. Not sure how the walls factor in. And I haven't stormed any walls. I dislike battlescreen siege play on the whole. Someone should test it though. Carl wants to know just how much we hate his new towers!

ohhh, yes, I want you to utterly hate them:laugh4:!!!

I think the lower upkeep on navies is enough to make them more affordable. The big problem with them otherwise is KEEPING them, not training them. They add up in regular outlay fast.

I agree, thats why they got lowered, so that you can actually afford to keep some ships around, I'm hoping it will encourage more AI navies, that hopefully means more blockades and more trade drops and overall makes navies actually mean something.

p.s. bear in mind that in vanilla (and my modified AI), the AI is set to attack nothing but rebels for the first 20 turns, it has a trigger forcing it to not start any wars, so it can only attack rebels bar Crusades/Jihads.

Erik Bloodaxe

03-11-2007, 02:58

I was hoping you would to that, it would really be a huge increase and make the game much more realistic and better. Anyway, I'll give it couple of days, while taking notes, to see how things work out and come back with a longer post. Also, just ask if there is anything specific.

p.s. bear in mind that in vanilla (and my modified AI), the AI is set to attack nothing but rebels for the first 20 turns, it has a trigger forcing it to not start any wars, so it can only attack rebels bar Crusades/Jihads.

Why did they attack me then?

Carl

03-11-2007, 03:15

Why did they attack me then?

The rules only affect land forces I think, Navies are diffrent i'm afraid~:(.

Also, just ask if there is anything specific.

Could you try to keep me updated on what your making of walls and their power.

chickenhawk

03-11-2007, 04:28

Quick Idea on the AI siege problem.

The game has the ability to limit some agents to a certain # per building as I understand it. Could you apply that to the siege engines so that the AI is limited outright? Might irritate players a little but most players just build enough to have a couple of decent siege trains and quit anyway. Using it on the battle field is an exploit at this tech level anyway.

vonsch

03-11-2007, 07:07

Very odd, about 6 imams all got monks the same turn standing in the Adana region. The region passed 90% islam, so maybe the trigger is tied to that. Just seems odd they all got one. Must be a 100% trigger.

Aha! Checked the trigger:

4 turns in a region
70% own religion
shift less than 7%
100% chance

Okay, need to let my imams stand around a bit longer for that one.
There's another that wants you to be in a region less than 3 turns with a large shift. That's a trait though. So I often do the border hop with a lot at once to get that one.
I think it needs a shift of at least 8%. Looks like they are designed to mutually exclude unless you work at them.

Bob the Insane

03-11-2007, 15:08

Horror at Cordoba...

From a desire to stir things up a little I decide to use my new pet Pope to call a crusade. I have made friends with the Egyptians and there is still a full stack of Venetian troops hanging around the middle east to setting the target there could be a problem. I settle for Cordoba, the Moors have some full stacks sitting around and our Spainish and Portugease brothers could use the help. So the crusade is called, lots of nations respond (but neither of the Iberian factions do?). I find my self with a spare stack of troops after the conquests of Bern and Metz, a decent General merc Spearmen and Crossbows, so cavalry and a couple of catapult units, so I decide to join in and send them on their way bolstered by further Crusader Spearmen.

Now I have been learning the new ways of siege assaults (mostly through failing dismally). Love way all the towers keep firing, but it would be nice if they stopped when captured. As it stands they only way to stop them firing is to destroy them or push the enemy troop really far back from the walls.

Now my Crusade is the first to reach Moorish lands and north of Cordoba in a narrow pass between mountains and a river the Moors have a fort with a full stack of garrison troops. We attack immediately and make good use of the catapults to first knock down the gate and then expend their ammunition as flaming missiles into the fort and the clustered together defenders. This is followed by a full assault and a and the slaughter of the garrison. My surviving troops and grouped into full units and the remaining partial units are dismissed to by replaced by further Crusader Kinights and Spearmen. This is a great boost to morale, a full stack of enemy troops in a fort so easily dispatched.

We then approach Cordoba itself and lay siege. The city is defened by archers and spearmen and a single catapult unit. In addition a second army ws camped outside the wall consisting of further archers, spearmen, cavalry and 5 more catapuly units. With hindsight we should have attacked the exterior unit to draw out the cities garrision. Well we had the catapults so I elected to attack immediately. I had learned from a previuos assault that placing the catacpult s too close would result in them being destoryed almost instantly by the cities towers so set the at the maximum range. It started well and the gates fell in short order. I then targeted the first of the towers over the gates with th intenion of destroying both be assaulting through the gates and straight to the main square where we could force the defender ininto melee combat and steal away their advantage in missile troops A bold plan, but one that should succeed if the men kept their nerve under the intention missile fire.

While this was taking place my general and 4 units of Crusader Knights moved around the city at a safe distance to intercept the reinforcements. The archers and spears moved too quickly but we caught the catapultes in the ones and slaugtered them to a man.

The first setback came with the new toughness of the defenses. Only one of the two towers fell (and to the last volley from the catapults too). One tower intact plus the archers on the walls made approaching the city hazardous (wonder if the Shield bug fix will make this slightly less hazardous for units with shields to walk towards the walls) but the army made it there mostly intact and chaged into the gate that was being held by Moorish spearmen and cavalry. My men whre killing them, pushing them back, bit not quickly enogh and the archer and tower fire was causing heavy casualties. Then the gate defenders boken and my force charged into the city. Ahead lay the square, the defenders where now mostly archers and the routed rementants of the spears and cavalry that had tried to hold the gates. We only needed to reach the square and we stood a chance. then halfway up the street leading to the square and thudd and and a raoring noise, growing closer. The sole catapult unit left was setup in the square and was firing flaming missiles driectly down the street at my men! The first shoot landed cleanly on my general, the leader of the crusade!! This combined with the constant rain of arrows was too much for the men and panic set in, strading as it always does from the front to the rear and soon all where running back for the gate. The gate now defended by the arcers that had come down from the walls. The very few men who escaled through this force where ten cut down by arrows from the gate tower. All that was left was to withdraw the catacpults units that had loked on helplessly from there original firing position. I paid the ransoms for those that still lived and the merge force withdrew to my nearest ally, Portugal where I disbanded the survivors, a merge 400 of the oringinal 1200 men, rather than forcing them into the long journey home.

Lessons learned used in Dejon:

Attacking the city of Dejon a few years later showed the lessons that had been learned from Cordoba. The attacking force consisyed of two stacks, a primary stack of the general and some dismounted imperial knight, a few crossbowmenand most importanly 8 catapult units plus two units of those new fangled Trebuchets and a small secondary stack with my cavalry (Imperial Knights). First the towers where destroyed along a long section of wall with the gates in the middle. Then the gates where reduced and finally the remaining ammuntion was used to "encourage" the defending crossbowmen to abandon the walls. The Crossbowmen where withdraw (as they where mains used to screen the siege engines and the cavalry brough on. The small but professional force of 4 units of Dismounted Imperial Knights and the general entered the city and in short order fought there way ot the main square and kill the defender to a man...

Carl

03-11-2007, 15:33

I understand the aim, I'm just arguing some of what you're doing appears to be counterproductive due to the way the AI works. More money for the AI Okay, just don't go overboard and rip the guts out of the economic war. I don't think you have or will, based on what I've seen. Bottomless purses remove the economic aspects in the greater picture (things like take the rich regions or exterminate their populations then pull out become meaningless as strategic choices.) Having the AI factions always have a LITTLE money so they can hire replacements even with few regions as base isn't bad. That's what I saw you doing in the current scripts.

But the better rebels aren't THAT significant a block to the player. Now that I know what to expect, and how big a hammer I need to smash them, my losses are minimal again. Just takes me about 5 more turns to get rolling. And I don't sack, so while I'm not a real blitzer test case, I, a non-blitzer, can still blitz the rebels faster than the AI can by a mile. So, that's not the answer. Better to let the AI deal with weaker rebels.

We need another way to force early choices on the player.

Can't cut the starting forces because that just hurts the AI as much or more.

Removing sacking as a major money earner early does help. But maybe the starting cash needs to drop a bunch. Try it at 5k or 4k. That means the player can hire fewer mercs too, and is forced do balance out things more carefully, and develop an economy (I hope). With your diplo changes, good behavior should buy the player time to do that, but the AI will be rolling on those rebs with its extra money. The player can still get some, but not as many, thus things may balance better.

That's my reaction to what I'm experiencing. Blitzing light will always be doable. But stronger rebs will always delay the AI more and longer. But you can give the player less starting cash, and the AI has its nice little pocket adjuster to keep SOME cash flow there. The player does not. But the player can EARN that. Even careful blitzing can work to a degree with the destruction of buildings, though that's a sort of scortched earth policy that can backfire badly. Which is good.

I figured I'd leave this till I was more awake, so sorry for taking so log to get back.

First, How are the AI changes going?

The good news is that the AI is being a lot more aggressive against the rebels, and is attacking with larger stacks, I've seen plenty of territory conquered by the AI, unfortunately their are several factions that haven't got going and only a few got going before turn 10, most where up and running by 20 and all the non-frozen where running by 30.

The issue is that being so high quality is now causing the rebels to suffer low losses themselves whilst inflicting big losses on the enemy, that makes them pick up experience fast, I've seen more than one unit of 20 woodsmen at 1 gold chevron, and saw one 10 strong with 3 gold chevrons.

The AI is also not withdrawing from sallies by the rebels that perhaps it should be withdrawing from, (and would if it was attacking a player controlled force of lower upgrade but more numbers (i.e. same power)). Strength calculator errors again i think.

On to the quoted text:

First, I'm most defiantly not trying to kill the economic war, but you knew that already. The main ideas are to allow the AI to recruit more troops early on to make up for the player preserving his troops better, and also to make up for the fact that the AI puts economy second to military buildings, as a result it takes many more turns before the AI has a similar economy to the player, and they've typically wasted money on military stuff first. I'm hoping the money script will deal with that issue.

I'm also hoping it will help kill the AI going bankrupt, and freezing up, although I have seen this happen the Rus and Egypt.

Whilst I understand (and agree based on what i saw late last night) that buffed rebels are currently hurting the AI more than a canny player, dropping them down to their old levels probably won't work. Most Blitzers don't build many/any building early on, everything goes into troops, they also empty their garrisons, so as a result this gives most factions 2 or 3 armies, each capable of taking a rebel province, and enough money to buy enough mercs to take a few more after that. A good blitzer can easily grab every rebel province in a matter of turns, the only limitation is the time it takes to build siege equipment and travel times, a good blitzer can better a province a turn.

Now base money reductions and sack reductions do slow this down somewhat, since fewer troops can be recruited and the blitzer has to start building up his economy sooner. However it doesn't change the fact that most factions start with enough troops to take 2 or 3 rebel provinces simultaneously on the 3rd or 4th turn at the latest, and can still probably pull together enough troops out of the leftovers to grab another couple of provinces before they run out of steam for their conquest. Thats still enough to deprive the surrounding AI factions of most of their rebel provinces. Add to that the player now being so big and theirs a good chance the player beating the AI factions is just a matter of time.

Now I WILL put together a Descr_Strat file with default rebels for people to try separately, but I'd like to try and find some way of making the original idea work.

You say it only slows you down by about 5 turns, in some ways I'd prefer more, but at the same time, 5 turns is enough IF i can get the AI working. The basic idea was to buff the rebels to prevent the players starting armies capturing more than a couple early on whilst the AI got buffs that would mean it was no slower than before.

Now both your's and my own tests have shown it does slow the AI down, so i could do with ideas to get round this without debuffing rebels too much. I have a few of my own that I'll go into in a moment, but we really need the AI to be better at grabbing rebels that the player. The player is always going to be able to concentrate force better than the AI and make better use of what it's got, (that was why I hoped the money script would help, i hoped the extra forces would counterbalance the worse concentration and usage).

2 Obvious ideas present themselves to me.

First up would be to reduce the rebel power to below default levels in what i term the safe provinces. Namely those that at the start of the game have only one faction within easy striking range, so the chances are neither the player nor the AI is ever likely to take them before the faction they are "safe" for.

Examples include Inverness for Scotland, Oslo and Stockholm for Denmark, Heleski, Moscow, and 2 others directly east of Moscow for Russia, Tbilisi, Trebizond, and Baghdad for Turks, Jedda and Dongola for Egypt, and Timbuktu, and Arguin for Moors. Their might be a few others I've missed too. These could help get some of the AI factions off the ground, it doesn't help Spain, Portugal, France, HRE, England, Poland, Hungary, Venice, Milan, Sicily, or Byzantine, but it's not a bad starting point if you ask me.

2. Remove the Upgrades from rebels and replace them with larger numbers in the provinces that ARE buffed, these should be easier to wear down as they won't be Superior to the AI one on one, as a result they'll gain experience slower and lose more when they win, it should hopefully speed the AI up rather handily.

In spite of that i think the AI is still going to struggle and I could do with ideas.

The next version is coming along nicely ATM, late tonight/sometime tomorrow depending on ideas for the above looks most likely.

Horror at Cordoba...

From a desire to stir things up a little I decide to use my new pet Pope to call a crusade. I have made friends with the Egyptians and there is still a full stack of Venetian troops hanging around the middle east to setting the target there could be a problem. I settle for Cordoba, the Moors have some full stacks sitting around and our Spainish and Portugease brothers could use the help. So the crusade is called, lots of nations respond (but neither of the Iberian factions do?). I find my self with a spare stack of troops after the conquests of Bern and Metz, a decent General merc Spearmen and Crossbows, so cavalry and a couple of catapult units, so I decide to join in and send them on their way bolstered by further Crusader Spearmen.

Now I have been learning the new ways of siege assaults (mostly through failing dismally). Love way all the towers keep firing, but it would be nice if they stopped when captured. As it stands they only way to stop them firing is to destroy them or push the enemy troop really far back from the walls.

Now my Crusade is the first to reach Moorish lands and north of Cordoba in a narrow pass between mountains and a river the Moors have a fort with a full stack of garrison troops. We attack immediately and make good use of the catapults to first knock down the gate and then expend their ammunition as flaming missiles into the fort and the clustered together defenders. This is followed by a full assault and a and the slaughter of the garrison. My surviving troops and grouped into full units and the remaining partial units are dismissed to by replaced by further Crusader Kinights and Spearmen. This is a great boost to morale, a full stack of enemy troops in a fort so easily dispatched.

We then approach Cordoba itself and lay siege. The city is defened by archers and spearmen and a single catapult unit. In addition a second army ws camped outside the wall consisting of further archers, spearmen, cavalry and 5 more catapuly units. With hindsight we should have attacked the exterior unit to draw out the cities garrision. Well we had the catapults so I elected to attack immediately. I had learned from a previuos assault that placing the catacpult s too close would result in them being destoryed almost instantly by the cities towers so set the at the maximum range. It started well and the gates fell in short order. I then targeted the first of the towers over the gates with th intenion of destroying both be assaulting through the gates and straight to the main square where we could force the defender ininto melee combat and steal away their advantage in missile troops A bold plan, but one that should succeed if the men kept their nerve under the intention missile fire.

While this was taking place my general and 4 units of Crusader Knights moved around the city at a safe distance to intercept the reinforcements. The archers and spears moved too quickly but we caught the catapultes in the ones and slaugtered them to a man.

The first setback came with the new toughness of the defenses. Only one of the two towers fell (and to the last volley from the catapults too). One tower intact plus the archers on the walls made approaching the city hazardous (wonder if the Shield bug fix will make this slightly less hazardous for units with shields to walk towards the walls) but the army made it there mostly intact and chaged into the gate that was being held by Moorish spearmen and cavalry. My men whre killing them, pushing them back, bit not quickly enogh and the archer and tower fire was causing heavy casualties. Then the gate defenders boken and my force charged into the city. Ahead lay the square, the defenders where now mostly archers and the routed rementants of the spears and cavalry that had tried to hold the gates. We only needed to reach the square and we stood a chance. then halfway up the street leading to the square and thudd and and a raoring noise, growing closer. The sole catapult unit left was setup in the square and was firing flaming missiles driectly down the street at my men! The first shoot landed cleanly on my general, the leader of the crusade!! This combined with the constant rain of arrows was too much for the men and panic set in, strading as it always does from the front to the rear and soon all where running back for the gate. The gate now defended by the arcers that had come down from the walls. The very few men who escaled through this force where ten cut down by arrows from the gate tower. All that was left was to withdraw the catacpults units that had loked on helplessly from there original firing position. I paid the ransoms for those that still lived and the merge force withdrew to my nearest ally, Portugal where I disbanded the survivors, a merge 400 of the oringinal 1200 men, rather than forcing them into the long journey home.

Lessons learned used in Dejon:

Attacking the city of Dejon a few years later showed the lessons that had been learned from Cordoba. The attacking force consisyed of two stacks, a primary stack of the general and some dismounted imperial knight, a few crossbowmenand most importanly 8 catapult units plus two units of those new fangled Trebuchets and a small secondary stack with my cavalry (Imperial Knights). First the towers where destroyed along a long section of wall with the gates in the middle. Then the gates where reduced and finally the remaining ammuntion was used to "encourage" the defending crossbowmen to abandon the walls. The Crossbowmen where withdraw (as they where mains used to screen the siege engines and the cavalry brough on. The small but professional force of 4 units of Dismounted Imperial Knights and the general entered the city and in short order fought there way ot the main square and kill the defender to a man...

Thanks for that, sounds like you got a big shock at Cordoba. he lowered Morale and heavy tower fire does tend to make high experience and a good general more important, if you lose him it also tends to hit the army so hard that if it's already beaten up and badly damaged it will turn and run, if it's still fresh and doing well and the general dying is pure bad luck then your probably going to be fine, but if things are close it will probably tip things into a chain rout till Dismounted units become common.

Would you say seiges are still okay though, or are they too difficult now?

Erik Bloodaxe

03-11-2007, 16:12

After playing as Venice for 55 turns now, I think I have noticed a few interesting events. First of all, assassins seem to be a little bugged. Several times when I have tried to kill someone and the mission have failed, the assassin have still gained Trait Increase, This assassin have improved his suberfuge skills thanks to a successful murder, + 4 to agent’s skill, Example.
Merchants, IMO they seem ATM too overpowered, I noticed that one of my merchants who I had placed on the silk right outside Constantinople, earned 2230 florins each year, and he was level 4. When he is at level 10, he will be able to finance 1-2 full stacks all by him self. If you played 15 more merchants around the world I fear this will simply produce too much money, one of the main issues you are trying to fix is that you want the AI to produce more advanced armies right? It’s just that this will make it too easy for the player as well I think at this moment.

On my Byzantine campaign, (patch 1.1) I had a merchant there myself who was level 7-8, and he earned 120 each year, didn’t kept him there long though, sent him to Africa. The thing about merchants is that they earn more money when they are in distant lands right? If so then I understand why.
Okay, walls. The pope was so kind to call a crusade to Tunis, I was like Yes, and this will be fun. But when I arrived, the only garrison inside the city was the Moorish Sultan, so I besieged the city quite disappointing.. thinking this would be a piece of cake too. At this time Tunis was a normal Castle btw. Okay, so their Sultan stood at the city plaza, which wasn’t in the middle of the city, not a single tower was “equipped” (no flags) therefore I rolled forward every siege equipment I had, ladders, ram and towers. Everything arrived without taking any looses (still had that nubish rebel camp surprise in the back of my head). I placed my poorest infantry right behind the gate and ordered my crossbow men to run up to the walls (I always to this) The Sultan began moving, when he was just about EXACTLY in the middle of the castle, POFF, POFF, POFF, flags everywhere!!! NOOO, so many Italian lives were lost and shot down ;( I’ll tell you, the King back home in Sicily became so furious that he ordered to kill the man who had commanded his armies there in the first place, that’s right, the pope is in heavn’.

It’s clearly obvious that units now a much, much, much bigger radius to equip towers. However, as a defender, towers are now my best friends. The bastards Venice, who just simply don’t like PEACE, have attacked me 1000 times already; of course, such scum like these couldn’t be surprised when they got excommunicated by MY pope, HAH! So they besieged Durazzo with 750 men (9 groups of Armoured Sergeants, 3 catapult united, and 1 Venetian heavy infantry unit) All I had was some crappy Italian militia, + some Italian spear militia, and 4 unites of Balkan archers. I lost 42 men, while their losses were 705. Only 10 Venetian soldiers ended their life BEHIND my walls. Yes this makes it much harder to capture cities and castles, but it sure as hell makes it much easier to defend.

The way I see it, is that the AI isn’t simply good enough to win a siege even with low defences (4 archers) + WALLS of course=) This might be a one time coincidence.
Perhaps only increasing walls and gates durability to withstand more beating might be a good idea, and NOT the HP of towers but still keep their new kill rate?

*Sicily!!! not Venice:wall:

Bob the Insane

03-11-2007, 16:49

Siege assaults too Hard?

No, you just have to be properly equiped and attack in a measured manner. No more rushing the walls with a ram and a couple of ladders...

Siege assaults too hard for the AI?

Maybe, at least it uses the catapults and such appropriately in destroying the gate towers and such first... But of course the new toughness of the towers and walls means it is unlike to have sufficient artillery to do the job... In this instance the bug where the attack AI ignores the gates being unlocked by a spy is a boon, because even with the gates unlocked the active towers would still cut an attacking force to bits especially if it is held up in the gate house by defencders... It will be interesting to see what the Official 1.2 Patch does in this regard...

I really approve of the larger radius for troops activating towers though, an excellent idea especially as the AI tended to underdefend.

Looking at the Wall and Tower HPs abstractly, for the player the newer toughness is only reguires an additional investment in siege rquipment to deal will and once you have knocked down 4 towers and smashed open the gate the result is the same whether you did it with 4 catapults or 10... In many ways this penalizes the AI more as it is unlikely to bring 10 siege units. It may be worth while to fire up a few test single battles defending cities and castle and see how the AI does... I mean we have already seen the AI having difficulty taking settlements from other AI factions on the map... It may be worth droping the HP of towers and maybe even walls to give the AI a chance again. If you retain the high fire output from the towers it still forces the player to destroy the towers and such first (the AI tried to do this anyway if it has the equipment), you are not removing the requirement for siege equipment, you just altering how much siege equipment you require the attacker to bring. Perhaps adjusting the cost of siege equipment upward to compensate?

One point I noted above was that the defending towers kept fiing for the defenders even whent the "captured" message was received. Did it not previuosly start firing for the attackers how captured it? Or was that only in RTW?? If it did it indicates you modded it and if you did it would be good if the towers feel quiet when captured by the attackers.

vonsch

03-11-2007, 18:39

2. Remove the Upgrades from rebels and replace them with larger numbers in the provinces that ARE buffed, these should be easier to wear down as they won't be Superior to the AI one on one, as a result they'll gain experience slower and lose more when they win, it should hopefully speed the AI up rather handily.

Based on the way the Ai seems to work, I think this is better. It may help it calculate the odds better too, not just help with the experience issue.

In my Egypt game Brussels and Flanders are silly. Tackling those pikemen is probably beyond the AI for another 50 turns. It's about turn 55 now.

I just sent off a ship to take Sardinia and Corsica too. The locals are probably sending too few troops in their ships. I sent almost a full stack of old garrison troops, missile heavy. I'm looking for more steppes holdouts now too. It's actually easier for me net than vanilla in the sense that I can keep expanding into those pockets without having a war with factions that is more challenging than cherry-picking rebs. I'm sort of sticking with this game to see if I can hold out for the Mongols.

As far as your aim, there are two sorts of blitzes, one that I thought was at issue, and the more normal war-start blitz that I think should not be attempted to be disallowed. The former is the game blitz, where sacking and mercs fuel one long blitz to a win before the AI can really do much. That should be prevented, I think. Or at least made very hard to achieve.

The second is more modeled on typical war starting suprise attacks. The attacker plans and execute a fast series of attacks at limited objectives. A recent example is the taking of Kuwait by Iraq. They moved fast enough that although relative to those who would eventually respond, they overwhelmed the local defenses easily. That's not a perfect idea, but it provides some perspective, I think. And earlier one would be WWII. Both Japan and Germany made extensive gains, but could not support them. They were rolled back and crushed.

That second model is what I think is more what we want possible. Let the player blitz a few regions close. Don't worry so much about those. The aim IS for the player to win, but to have to work for the win. And for it not to be a foregone conclusion. That's where stopping the player cold isn't good. Let the player make some gains, but have the overall resistance stiffen and become more challenging. I think that diplomact might be able to do this. To win the player needs a lot of land, but that land will become locked up in alliances. If a region is attack, that faction's allies should also jump in. And that act of aggression should make losing allies likely (unless they can be convinced to attack too). There can be a balancing act in alliances such that the player has the support to act, but has to weigh it carefully to avoid all out world war that might impede him from getting the land needed in time.

I think the time scale may be better at the original, based on what I've seen... but, again, maybe Egypt is overpowered due to that economy. It's okay if it is. I don't have to play Egypt. And it makes Egypt a possible powerhouse opponent.

But it feels to me like I'm too developed for this stage. When gunpowder arrives, I won't be building anything but accessory production. I'll be done in my main cities. They are at max size now and I'm building the last tier production in some early cities. The way to slow this is slow pop growth (you're working on that) and slow the money supply (growth will affect that also, so maybe just growth needs cutting). I am not forced to choose between unit production and building upgrades. The looming money sink for Egypt is the hordes... and Crusades.

I'm concerned that the new walls are overpowered in the last two respects. You adjusted a lot of factors there. Range, area of activation range, power, wall and gate strength, rate of fire. ROF is the one I think is appropriate. Maybe bump the range of activation up to double what it was, or 150%. But having more free upkeep slots should also do that job. If nothing else peasants can be trained for that role.If they are too large, as the report above suggests, there can be no real capturing of sections of the city, as should happen from a realism (we do want some FEEL of realism) angle. If I clear the front wall, those front wall towers should stop firing on my troops, at least. If the activation range is large, I suspect the AI is retaining them, not acknowledging that they are captured. I'm guessing the activator needs to be routed and/or out of range for ownership transfer. If the city square is in range that may never happen.

Making cities too bloody isn't fun. You'll just get my behavior: I just autoresolve. Giving the player some breathing space once through the wall and into its interior shadow is a good thing, not a bad one. The way the Ai plays it, there's likely to be more stiff resistance at the city square. And seige gear firing down main street.

But more than the player, I am concerned the AI won't be able to handle seiges. A few player defenders, well played, will crush much larger invaders, which means the players needs far less defensively. Already the Ai is weak on rear attacks, making them harder to pull off removes a worry for the player.

And emasculates the hordes. Giving the hordes more stacks isn't a good answer. Already I get the impression there are so many it tends to tedium. Fighting through 5 stacks is wearing (on the player!), making that 15 means... I'll just play a Western faction and avoid the horde. Not an optimal result.

I think slightly stronger walls and gates is fine. Range as vanilla. Activation range maybe a LITTLE larger (150% of current), but let the additional defender slots mostly cover this. Puts more pressure on the player to garrison defensively too, though it's relatively cheap. But need to encourage the AI to garrison better too. Ideally it should use all free slots. Not sure we can make it do that. Rate of Fire needs watching. I think power should be as vanilla.

The tower weapons' power should be watched. I suspect vanilla is fine. But rate of fire should be higher, I agree. Just not sure we're at the sweet spot, and we can't tell with everything else ramped so high.

I'm concerned that the upgrading of wall defenses may not factor into the AI calc on autoresolve too. That makes autoresolving "cheaper" in casualties. While that can help the Ai on the offense, it has to also skew its calculations on what's needed to take a player region if the player plays it out on the battlefield. That makes seiges way too easy. Already a decent player will cream the AI on the battle screen with forces the AI thinks are euqal.

(I told you this balancing business is non-trivial!)

I suspect this sort of micro-tweak isn't all that useful for balance. It's more useful for developing the "realism" feel. Seiges aren't as bloody as they were historically. Addressing that is okay. But I don't think it's useful for balancing the AI against the player.

Oops, I digressed some.

Back to the original point. Maybe boosting merc cost, along with the sacking decrease and the slight money pump early (and the slight keepalive to those knocked down to near nothing) to AI factions, is all that's needed. Let the player grab the handy rebs. They are limited in number. But don't slow the AI in grabbing the ones that it can. In my Milan games, Sicily and Corsica get nabbed fast. As does Edinburgh, Stockholm, Rennes, Zaragoza, the Sahara, etc. The Byzzies are pretty agressive too. The sheer distances are a greater impediment to the player comparatively than are buffed defenders that slow the AI more than the player.

So, the player grabs 4-5 rebs and has a decent base, Ideally the rest are gone by then and coalitions are forming diplomatically (a la Civ). Now it should be riskier to attack a faction that has allies. Doing so should bring a diplo hit worldwide for aggression (though not a huge one, unless the invaded was an ally!), plus should make it likely the allies of the invaded also declare on the player. And they should be aggressive about at least defending that ally. If relations get really low among them, they should attack the player's "home." That's the ideal to me.

But not sure how much we can influence that part of the behavior.

Also, it would be ideal if some AI factions are aggressive and tackle weaker neighbors to enlarge their empires. So that they become matching powers to the player, thus real threats. That's how vanilla works, to some degree. But not seeing nearly as much of that in 1.2. It's just too hard for them to expand. That may be the effect of walls, or some brake on their aggressiveness.

Heh, just got Danish maps. Norway and Sweden are still rebel. Turn is 54.

Okay, eough pounding on this issue.

Bob the Insane

03-11-2007, 22:02

Actually I think the boost to the rate of fire on tower and such is good because the AI's siege strategy is to take out the four nearest towers and put holes in the wall either side of the gate as long as the the ammo holds out... that way the improvements to the towers does not hit the AI too much as long as it actually brings siege engines.

Along with the large activation radius for the towers I hink this has more of an effect on players as the attacker and stop them from doing as I was doing in the vanilla game and just use decent troops and ladders to overwhelm the sparse defenders on the walls (while pretty much ignorig towers.. Of course if the AI forgets to bring catapults and such and just builds one ladder, one tower and one ram a it often does then it is going to suffer, but fair is fair...

As long as the towers are weak enough for the AI to handle them with the sort of force it puts together then I think it wil be fine...

Carl

03-11-2007, 22:16

First I'll deal with sieges:

First up their are two bugs effecting sieges ATM, one is a hardcoded one from Vanilla, the second is 1.2 specific and is a result of my own mistakes in understanding the wall file.

1. The Hardcode bug is that towers don't fire at all in auto-resolve battles, this makes auto-resolving easier than fighting it out right now.

2. after reading Eric's and Bob's comments I checked the wall files and after much staring realized I'd misunderstood some lines. I thought the lines related to tower size and scaled fire rate with that. they don't they relate to unit size, this means that at any unit size above small they are firing faster than they should. They (currently) fire 2 times as fast at normal, 3 times at large, and 4 times at huge. SO typically every level above small has the tower firing twice as fast as they should.

Onto the rest of the points.

First I did most of my tests with gunpowder weapons as they where what where bothering me, they could knock even the largest wall/tower down so fast that they rendered any kind of wall defense utterly useless. Thats why the HP buff. Now a Battery of 5 Culverins can still level 5-6 towers and a wall segment with maybe some oddments of damage elsewhere, but they can no longer wipe out every tower on one side and blow 5 holes in the wall at once.

Clearly Catapults are sufficiently less powerful than cannons to make it IMBA with catapult, although i have to be honest i never intended it to be nearly mandatory to need siege artillery for anything below Huge_Stone_Walls, (probably Large_Stone_Walls too if the AI is the attacker). I also only expected multiple stacks to be near mandatory when using Ballista/Cannon Towers, (although not in the case of Ballista Towers after Gunpowder shows up).

Hmmm, just checked. Trebs have 3 times the damage of catapults, and the best gunpowder, (ignoring Monster Bombards), have 10 times a catapults damage, Culverins are 8 times.

The area of activation is defiantly too large, i was beginning to suspect as much before I sent it out for BETA. The problem is the AI Will ALWAYS deploy it's forces round the main gate even if you attack with 2 stacks and on is coming from the rear. That means you can easily have half the in range towers dark and walk half the way towards the settlement with spare stacks before they get into range. Being able to do it from the plaza wasn't the intention though.

What messed up my attempts is that units on walls seem to have an inbuilt limit on how many towers they can activate, units on the ground don't, and I was always putting units on the walls during testing having failed to spot this point.

The Hordes are awkward, and when i said more stacks, i meant adding on Armour and more Valor to the existing stacks and adding one or two extra stacks, but swapping some of the existing units in stacks for more Monster Bombards, they can still knock things down in only 4 or 5 shots. Cannon Elephants and some Rocket Elephants should see the Tirmurds through no issues if they have enough valor to avoid panicking when just one dies to a flaming cannonball, the sheer number of shots should get them by after that.

I could also help them by indirect means, (adding High Level Spies and Assassins to the Hordes, that should slow the player down when Generals and Towers are being sabotaged out of commission), or disasters too, a good earthquake over the entire holy lands the turn before they arrive followed by a series of "aftershocks" for the next 5 or 6 years to really deplete forces, would also put a stop to people building up massive Garrison in preparation and deal with them as and when, which adds to the challenge significantly.

Tower's can't be captured, it's an annoying thing they took away from RTW. So long as a unit is in range to activate them they shoot, except that the enemy can never activate them, they can just remove all the enemy units activating them.

Overall I I'd say it's a case of the early levels of walls have perhaps a few too many HP's and a bit too fast a fire rate ATM. The later walls feel fine to me, (what about you though), you need Trebs or Gunpowder to get through, and once Ballista/Cannon towers show up you need multiple stacks too. However the lower levels whilst meant to be bloody, (an attempt to slow down blitzing somewhat by forcing the player to retrain-refresh his pool of troops more), they where meant to be possible with full stacks of semi decent troops and enough towers, ladder, and rams.

I'll edit in the rest of the reply as i go along, so be patient please.

Alright, the issue with blitzing is simple. I'm pretty sure money reductions and sacking reductions could force a player to spend a few turns after taking the nearby provinces building up before moving on. I'm also pretty sure that losses in the nastier sieges will prevent continuous blitzing. The blitzer Will now have to do so in stages, Blitzing a dozen provinces, then building up again for a bit then moving on again, that way the best blitzer should struggle to blitz his way through the game in less than 120-150 turns with any luck.

The reason I'm trying to limit initial expansion is partly to slow down that process as it gets quite quick once it gets going, but also, because once the player gets more provinces than the nearby AI factions he's quite able to win the game with one hand tied behind his back at that point.

A player can make more money per province, (although the money script helps even this out now), can make more troops because he has more provinces, can concentrate his forces better, and because he is so much better than th AI can win battles with lower losses than the AI in a given situation.

For the AI to actually have a chance they've got to have more provinces, so that (in combination with the money script) they still out econ the player, so that they can, (thanks to more provinces), build bigger armies. Because they have bigger armies their worse concentration and actual fighting ability will matter less. The player (if he works hard enough and is good enough), will still win but he will, (as chikenhawk put it), have to claw for every last thing. By the time the player has finally got a big enough number of provinces to finish the local factions, another faction should have established itself as a major power that will then have to be defeated giving the player another hard challenge. Unfortunately

The problem is that even with my changes the income and production of troops is so high that, (in combination with better use of them than the AI), the player has few problems defeating an AI power thats of similar size, only larger ones tend to challenge, thats why i tend to give up after 70-80 turns or so in vanilla, by that point , even as a slow expander, winning is mearly a formality.

What I'm trying to achieve is to make it so that the AI almost always gets the lions share of rebel provinces, at which point it may well be powerful enough to actually really give the player issues.

Alliances can help out, but the player can use them too to hold off one or two of the starting factions anyway himself, then let his rep go bad after that. By that time he will have eliminated one faction and have the power to take on any other, he'll be lucky to take more than a hundred turns if he does staged blitzing. Worse still, attacks from allied factions are often uncoordinated with each other and can be defeated in detail, you can't do that with single bigger attacks.

It's not even mercs that are the issue once you increase losses in sieges as retraining gobbles money, it's just that once the player gets big enough on free rebels the income and production capabilities are so high he can steamroller the AI in stages if he wants and the AI doesn't have the production ability or management skills to stop him.

In effect I'm trying to make the starting AI rather stronger than the player, but do it in such a way that it isn't obviously the AI getting advantages, the best way to do it is by making the AI bigger in province terms than the player.

If you have any other ideas though I'd be glad to hear them, i just need to make the early stage actually challenging instead of a boringly easy land grab that sets you up to win the rest of the game without massive difficulty.

Ohhh, I also tried out the changes i suggested earlier. A partial success. When the AI attacks now it tends t succeed and I saw a lot of factions that where stuck before expanding now. on the other hand some factions also went passive, although that might be just random chance. us, Milan, Egypt and Turks all got off better, but Byzantine was rather worse, as was Hungary. Poland was about the usual and Scotland seemed stuck too. aw plenty of attacks on the weaker provinces except Scotland and Denmark.

Overall I'd say their some hidden trigger thats causing the AI to figure out how strong it needs to be to beat the rebels and it's building armies to match now. the rebels aren't really any weaker, but the AI is estimating them right now so it's sending stronger stacks. Unfortunately it seems that Bankrupting it easier. I think the Money script needs a few more entries to keep them from going Bankrupt in the first 20 Turns or so, because when they don't they grab plenty of land now.

Regarding Income and getting to stuff early, (RE Gunpowder comments), well things turn up earlier because of growth I guess, I've perhaps made Strat Chiv a bit easy to get, but all the events, (such as gunpowder being discovered), happen exactly the same number of turns after the start as they do at 2 turns per year, so it's not timescale related at all.

I am beginning to agree on merchants, the problem is western Europe has some pretty poor ones, it's rare for them to exceed a couple of hundred in the hands of a good merchant, resources don't really become usable till about 100 florins. Yes you should have to send your merchants far away, but the resources in the holy land are still worth more to them than most western Europe recourses, thats how poor they are. And it's still a bad idea to make almost all the western Europe resources useless as it defeats the pint of having them. I'll try lowering them to 2.5 times vanilla and see how it goes.

I like the sacking idea, it should actually be about 4K in 1.2 as it's been reduced to a quarter. I'd do it as a separate hidden trait that has 12, (each requiring 3 or 4 sackings), levels, each giving +25% for a total of 3X, also add Dread and maybe Piety hits at the highest levels. With any luck only a really hardcore Sacker could get any big numbers of people up high on the sack numbers.

So they besieged Durazzo with 750 men (9 groups of Armoured Sergeants, 3 catapult united, and 1 Venetian heavy infantry unit) All I had was some crappy Italian militia, + some Italian spear militia, and 4 unites of Balkan archers. I lost 42 men, while their losses were 705. Only 10 Venetian soldiers ended their life BEHIND my walls. Yes this makes it much harder to capture cities and castles, but it sure as hell makes it much easier to defend.

I need some way of making the AI deploy it's siege artillery further back. Plus the walls will kill any siege stuff like rams and towers whilst it waits out the catapults, i need them to go hell for leather while the catapults attack at the same time, then use any breaches that do appear. Right now it stands their and gets 60%+ of it's men cut down waiting for the catapults to run out of ammo. Fortunately this is something the next patch is supposed to fix so...

vonsch

03-11-2007, 22:36

For reference, I started a H/H Egypt game with 1.13 this morning.

Turn 8 I am at #1 position in all but territory, i think. Am 4 in whatever the first category is. I have 28k in treasury. I have 4 Mamluks. The rate I can hire is the limiter. They aren't cheap, but cash is no issue with the old sacking. That's my cash source. Jerusalem was worth about 27k (I think it was worth about 2k in yours, and I didn't bother sacking).

So, I think the sacking change is huge. I think merchants are a bit too good in your version too. Maybe divide by two. That's still a lot better than 1.13 or vanilla, and how many you can have is limited by economic development and number of territories you hold, so it scales pretty reasonably.

I used a jihad on Jerusalem, so can't use one again for a while (assuming my imam doesn't croak, be a while to train up new ones). I couldn't hire many jihadi units at that early stage, so that's not terribly unbalancing. I'm conquering with footsloggers still, but am building a mobile strike army on wandering rebels.

My losses are lowish in seiges since my force rations are better, but there's not a large difference apparent in my velocity of conquest so far. Simply getting forces to the points of attack is the real limit for Egypt at this stage.

I think doubling merc hiting prices along with the sacking change is the killer of the gamelong blitz. But dropping initial player cash to half would really slow that very early phase too, I suspect. I run tight around turn 4-5 with 1.13, and later with your changes. That tightness adds turns to force buildup or the amount of time attacks can be sustained due to choices between spending on troops or economies. Conquests now only get you a quick larger tax base, not ready cash. There typically are not enough buildings at the early stage to cannibalize, and that scortched earth strategy doesn't have legs without good sacking income. Or that's my guess based on my experience.

Oh, Mamluks may be available turn 1, but you can hire... ONE on turn two, I think. And another 2 turns later. And they cost 900 each. They are not cheap in maintenance either, 210.The only reason to hire them this early is to start training them for later. They are not cost effective for pure seigework. But they can be good for bandit control and that's good practice. I suspect it will take me until turn 15-20 to have a decent HA stack, and it will be mixed cav. Of course, captured forts help as they increase the hiring pool a bit each. But I tend to ruthlessly convert those to cities for the income. That means I get one more Mamluk from a captured fort before it converts. I hired none until turn 5 or 6 due to budget tightness. Now hiring all I can.

I'm curious at how the Turks do, so gonna play on a bit to see if they grab Adana.

I could also help them by indirect means, (adding High Level Spies and Assassins to the Hordes, that should slow the player down when Generals and Towers are being sabotaged out of commission), or disasters too, a good earthquake over the entire holy lands the turn before they arrive followed by a series of "aftershocks" for the next 5 or 6 years to really deplete forces, would also put a stop to people building up massive Garrison in preparation and deal with them as and when, which adds to the challenge significantly.

Heh, nasty! I like the idea of adding high level spies to their stacks, though not sure they will leave them there. thgat would prevent leader assassinations.
Might help a little though. If the silly AI knew how to use opened gates, they could be doubly interesting. The player would be forced to counter with spies in all the threatened cities (a good idea anyway, but I bet a lot don't do it.)

Assassins are good too. Not sure how well the AI uses them on things like towers, but they probably won't hurt.

I don't like the acts of god though. At least if they weren't part of the history of the event. Earthquakes can't be countered by the player's actions at all, and they have a sort of "I win" button character on the AI side.

What I'd prefer to see with hordes is a bit more randomness in what arrives. That will put the player more in the position of not knowing what to build up. It might be a light horde, or a heavy one. They might have a lot of agents, or more bombards, etc. Not sure how much of that can be done. Or how much additional code can be dropped in with alternate configurations without choking the parser or engine.

Randomness in what comes with the hordes enhances replayability. But not sure how it works now. I know the exact spot they arrive varies some, and the year may slightly. Don't know how much force composition varies.

Oh, just had a thought on sacking. I like your lowered rate but mostly because I can see it will stop the game blitz some. But sacking is pretty well made useless. That may be going too far. It still should be a strategic choice.

So... rather than up the amount directly again, how about boosting the looting traits (and ancilliaries, if there are any, think there's at least one) significantly so they double or triple the amount? That still would not be a huge cash infusion, but it would make it a choice (assuming you develop the generals to do it). It would "encourage" some a bit more to be dreadful, rather than pious.

In my Jerusalem example, if my recalled 2kish is right, doubling would be 4k, tripling 6k. While those are more, they are no where near the 27k I got with 1.13. They are, I think, enough to make sacking more of a reasonable choice.

Carl

03-12-2007, 00:38

Edited everything into my last post before this one. If i've missed somones point let me know.

vonsch

03-12-2007, 00:51

If you have any other ideas though I'd be glad to hear them, i just need to make the early stage actually challenging instead of a boringly easy land grab that sets you up to win the rest of the game without massive difficulty.

Do away with rebel provinces. Divvy them up.

I like the sacking idea, it should actually be about 4K in 1.2 as it's been reduced to a quarter. I'd do it as a separate hidden trait that has 12, (each requiring 3 or 4 sackings), levels, each giving +25% for a total of 3X, also add Dread and maybe Piety hits at the highest levels. With any luck only a really hardcore Sacker could get any big numbers of people up high on the sack numbers.

These traits should already exist. Just need to pump their value as mods, I think. And at least one ancilliary does too, the mercenary captain guy. He gives 10%. He's sorta easy to get though, so probably shouldn't be buffed a lot.

Maybe just the trait. Despoiler and Genocide.

How about:

;------------------------------------------
Trait Despoiler
Characters family

Level Looter
Description Looter_desc
EffectsDescription Looter_effects_desc
Threshold 3

Effect Looting 25

Level Pillager
Description Pillager_desc
EffectsDescription Pillager_effects_desc
Threshold 6

Effect Chivalry -1
Effect Looting 50

Level Sacker_of_Cities
Description Sacker_of_Cities_desc
EffectsDescription Sacker_of_Cities_effects_desc
Threshold 9

Effect Chivalry -2
Effect Looting 75

;------------------------------------------
Trait Genocide
Characters family

Level Brutal_Conqueror
Description Brutal_Conqueror_desc
EffectsDescription Brutal_Conqueror_effects_desc
Threshold 3

Effect Chivalry -1
Effect Looting 25

Level Exterminator
Description Exterminator_desc
EffectsDescription Exterminator_effects_desc
Threshold 6

Effect Chivalry -2
Effect Looting 50

Level Butcher
Description Butcher_desc
EffectsDescription Butcher_effects_desc
Epithet Butcher_epithet_desc
Threshold 9

Effect Chivalry -3
Effect Looting 75

With both these maxed they get 150% from looting of your 1/4 vanilla. That would be about 63% of vanilla, I think. But the negative chivalry would be high, not to mention your good ruler issues. Or maybe 15-30-50, so both lines double the base, with 10% more from the merc captain. That first level is easy.

Oh, another side effect of your changes to priests... takes longer to train up to jihad calling level. If that first one dies to natural causes (as I've had happen very early), it can mean a LONG wait to another with level 5. Level 4 is a bit easier since you can see a level 3 "out of the box" without advanced buildings or a guild. And you can get a monk in 4 turns sitting in a converted region.

Not sure if that's a big problem or another useful brake though. Jihads are darned powerful.

And on that topic... they can also go heretic, which mine just did.

chickenhawk

03-12-2007, 01:08

I second Vonsch on getting rid of rebel provinces. It makes things too slow at the beginning and too easy later. If you are playing this mod you probably know how to move your troops and agents around. If it it possible be sure the player gets less of them than A.I. Though that may difficult or impossible.

While we are talking about getting rid of things I have another Idea.

Get rid of merchants. they are an unnecessary layer of micromanagement. Instead give the income that came from merchants if the player has a fort on the resource in question. Maybe make it scale by the size of the garrison or the length of time the fort has been there or something. Then in proper total war fashion you could go take their resources with an army. It would give us something else to fight over while you are trying to get enough troops together to assault the buffed up sets of walls. You could launch fast raids chew up their forts and so on.

vonsch

03-12-2007, 01:21

Get rid of merchants. they are an unnecessary layer of micromanagement. Instead give the income that came from merchants if the player has a fort on the resource in question. Maybe make it scale by the size of the garrison or the length of time the fort has been there or something. Then in proper total war fashion you could go take their resources with an army. It would give us something else to fight over while you are trying to get enough troops together to assault the buffed up sets of walls. You could launch fast raids chew up their forts and so on.

I doubt we can make forts produce income. Or check that they are on a resource.

The AI uses merchants fairly well. And, yeah, they take micromanagement, but you don't HAVE to use them. They just boost income. In vanilla, without using the fort exploit, they are not a huge supplement. They are a modest one. Expecially if you factor in the time, the ROI isn't all that great. But it's addon income, so worth pursuing if the budget is tight.

But I am against making them as lucrative as they are in Carl 1.2. At least for eastern factions.

Bongaroo

03-12-2007, 05:43

Not much to add here, you guys have mentioned and discussed everything I've noticed.

My campaign is really starting to warm up. While I do have a fairly large empire, I'm getting a little streched for money. I've gone crusading and after having anticoch go rebel I decided to take the penalty and exterminate when I hit Jerusalem, didn't hurt my standings much at all, but it the only time I haven't just occupied something.

I have a lot of interesting family lines developing. The fixed princesses are definetly working. My first grabbed Jahao from portugal with 7 or 8 charm built up. Their children have been intelligent and good looking as we'd expect. One is a military genious but hates the sight of blood and dosen't mind hugging other dudes, the other is a man's man and women find him irresistable. I'm seeing a lot of fun and interesting traits and ancilliarys.

A lot of factions are finally breaking into wars with their normal enemies. A little late to develop compared to vanilla, but they are struggling with some tough rebels and 1 year a turn.

Lots of fun. Heretics are a little too buffed imho.

Erik Bloodaxe

03-12-2007, 11:34

Edited everything into my last post before this one. If i've missed somones point let me know.

First of all, assassins seem to be a little bugged. Several times when I have tried to kill someone and the mission have failed, the assassin have still gained Trait Increase, This assassin have improved his suberfuge skills thanks to a successful murder, + 4 to agent’s skill, Example.

I know you got a lot to do right now hehe, just was wondering if you saw this Carl? Pherhaps not that important but I think something is wrong. Have anyone else have noticed this?

Bongaroo

03-12-2007, 13:38

I think that is part of the fix so that you don't lose all of your skill levels if you fail, just one. But I could be mistaken.

Bob the Insane

03-12-2007, 14:19

I think that is part of the fix so that you don't lose all of your skill levels if you fail, just one. But I could be mistaken.

Yeah, I am pretty sure when you fail your trait gets "increased" from +2 to +1 for example...

vonsch

03-12-2007, 18:40

I know you got a lot to do right now hehe, just was wondering if you saw this Carl? Pherhaps not that important but I think something is wrong. Have anyone else have noticed this?

Spies get increases on failure sometimes too, as do priests with burnings. I have no issue with this, but it may be a change from vanilla.

Yeah, I am pretty sure when you fail your trait gets "increased" from +2 to +1 for example...

Sometimes that may happen, but pretty sure I am seeing actual increases at times too. Not always.

Bongaroo

03-12-2007, 20:40

I'd be fine with increases in skills with unsuccessful attempts. Just not over the top like 50%; 10% chance to learn from failures would be fine. Such as getting better even though you failed. Maybe if you fail multiple times you start loosing skills. Any chance age of the agent could be used? For instance a young assassin could learn from his mistake and since he wasn't killed in the botched attempt he would know a little more about killing. He's young and adapting. Now a 45 year old assassin is experienced and a real killer, but when he messes up it reminds him he isn't so young anymore to be crawling up castle walls and sneaking poison into food. We could even apply the idea to most of the other agents. Would be cool.

Looking forward to the update to continue testing. This mod is really helping the game along I think.

I had a couple thoughts about how this mod is doing more than fixing bugs now. As it has been brought up a couple times maybe we could address it fairly easily. Have Problemfixer v1.13 stay as is and this v1.2 be named something similar, but different. I'm not too creative and I'm sure some better ideas will surface but for instance how about ProblemFixer Plus or even something more dramatic like Carls "make the game fun again" mod.

-bongaroo

Carl

03-12-2007, 21:44

Hey, guys, sorry for not replying much today, I've been giving you chance to say anything else, + testing out some rebel related changes.

The good news is i'm getting somwhere, the bad news is i'm not sure how useful the Information is.

I'll sum it up in a moment, but first I'll make a few replies.

Yeah, I am pretty sure when you fail your trait gets "increased" from +2 to +1 for example...

Got it in one,. also, sometimes you can lose points from a given trait and it will pop up a message saying you've got a level, and it's the same as it was before you lost the point, it's down to how where having to work around the bugged anti-traits code, the notification system is programmed to give a notification every time you gain/lose points in a trait, except when gaining them doesn't result in a level being gained. As a result every time you lose a point you'll get a notification even if your level hasn't actually changed.

Get rid of merchants. they are an unnecessary layer of micromanagement. Instead give the income that came from merchants if the player has a fort on the resource in question. Maybe make it scale by the size of the garrison or the length of time the fort has been there or something. Then in proper total war fashion you could go take their resources with an army. It would give us something else to fight over while you are trying to get enough troops together to assault the buffed up sets of walls. You could launch fast raids chew up their forts and so on.

The first idea isn't possible i'm afraid , that kind of thing is hardcoded, but, (even reduced), with the better income of merchants and the higher movement the micromanagement has gone out of merchants now, it's much easier to get them somwhere for me now and being harder to acquire should keep the worst of the AI of your back. just be quick because if the AI gets their first you probably won't be able to shift him either.

Anyway, I do appreciate the point, they are annoying to micromanage and don't add too much to the game, but a lot of people seem to like them so I'd prefer to keep them to help make it appeal to everyone.

Do away with rebel provinces. Divvy them up.

AND

I second Vonsch on getting rid of rebel provinces. It makes things too slow at the beginning and too easy later. If you are playing this mod you probably know how to move your troops and agents around. If it it possible be sure the player gets less of them than A.I. Though that may difficult or impossible.

Thats a possibility, but has a few worrying points for me.

First, as Chikenhawk noted, their's nothing you can do to make the AI better than the player, and often it will be very difficult with some of the bigger starting factions to prevent the player being bigger than at least some of it's neighbors.

Second, many factions rely on the rebels as a buffer giving them a few turns to run up to speed, in particular many of the smaller factions are viable for the AI because they can get around being smaller by being better at concentration of force than the larger factions. France and HRE for example can take quite a while to get up to speed even in vanilla as they are so big. smaller nations can make some headway in this time period where the big guys are getting ready to strike. on the other hand the big guys hit like a hammer when they do and still tend to get a few vital extra provinces when it's AI vs. AI. If you where to start them with rebels in their hands, everyone would be slowed down by being big, and the small guys wouldn't get their captured provinces that much more well developed than the big guys would their captured provinces. We could re-balance all that but it would be extremely difficult.

Third, whilst serious players like myself and yourselves probably wouldn't notice the loss of the rebels their are doubtless those who would who would be interested in this mod.

HOWEVER, it is an option i'm saving for if/when i run out of other ideas. SO thanks for it, it's so radical I never even considered it TBH.

I did notice however that no one tried disputing my points about rebels making it easy on the player. I hope this isn't because you think I won't listen, I know i'm stubborn, i just need a lot of convincing.

These traits should already exist. Just need to pump their value as mods, I think.

They do exist but the triggers are tied to exterminating as far as I remember, not sacking. And TBH the names of the traits are more appropriate for smithing related to that anyway.

My campaign is really starting to warm up. While I do have a fairly large empire, I'm getting a little stretched for money. I've gone crusading and after having Antioch go rebel I decided to take the penalty and exterminate when I hit Jerusalem, didn't hurt my standings much at all, but it the only time I haven't just occupied something.

Lots of alliances will also help negate the penalty normally, i'm upping it for the next release. I'm also removing the rep boost from having an alliances as the easy to get/keep alliances in the game ATM make good reps very easy to get.

Right, onto what I've discovered about rebels.

First I tried changing the way the rebels where set up so that their whet some weak provinces in area where not more than one faction could grab it. I also changed rebels so that instead of a small number of heavily upgraded troops they had 3 times as many slightly upgraded, (1 bronze Chevron), troops.

The Result:To a degree it worked, in those provinces that where "safe" or that had 4-5 starting units only, (thats 12-15 after trebeling), it worked like a charm. The AI was perhaps a bit slow in attacking, but it did in fact do so, and tended to win far more often than it lost.

However those cultures surrounded by rebels with full stacks, and especially the HA cultures really seemed to struggle, often just sitting their and never attacking at all.

Second, I decided to try giving the AI near infinate money, just to see if money was the issue, (Infinite money isn't something I want the AI to have BTW, it was just my way of checking to see if it was the cause of the issue),

The Result:It definitely helped somewhat, especially Egypt, Russia, and HRE. France, Sicily, England, Scotland, and Byzantium still remained frozen more often than not though

3. As I was messing i decided to lower the reputation at he start of the rebels with the Papal States.

The Result:Started a new campaign and on the very 1st turn the Papal States laid siege to Florance, taking it on the Second. it had never done that. it looks like the AI factions have to get really bad relations with the rebels before they will get really aggressive. I haven't tried it with the rest of the AI's, (but i am going to), but I have hopes of this change.

Fourth, I decided to remove the single Bronze Chevron from all rebels.

The Result: he AI went crazy, the British Isles, and Sicily are still pretty passive, but everyone else was conquering away like crazy for the most part. it still took 40 turns and too much money for the AI to get them for my liking, but it actually went and conquered the better rebels.

Overall I'm making [progress, it's become clear their is some hardcoded limitation that prevents the AI attacking the rebels with an army that it thinks is weaker than it's opponent, but a the same time it's also clear that if it can produce enough Troops and the rebels are weak enough for it to beat with a single stack it can and will attack hem gladly. I just need to cut the time it takes and the money.

What are your thoughts on all that though.

p.p.s V1.21 is probably going to be delayed. I've got everything bar the rebels, Broken Lances, and the dread/Chiv movement traits sorted though.

I had a couple thoughts about how this mod is doing more than fixing bugs now. As it has been brought up a couple times maybe we could address it fairly easily. Have Problemfixer v1.13 stay as is and this v1.2 be named something similar, but different. I'm not too creative and I'm sure some better ideas will surface but for instance how about ProblemFixer Plus or even something more dramatic like Carls "make the game fun again" mod.

I was havin similar anti-confusion thoughts. I was going to rename V1.13:

ProblemFixer Pure V1.0

And this Rewrite Problem ixer V"whatever".

chickenhawk

03-12-2007, 23:16

A few further observations.

The wall improvement is going to force me to build a seige train far sooner than I otherwise would. My theory of build a bucnh of ladders and "over the wall we go lads" does not work with the current state of towers/walls. So I have definitely been slowed down there. I refought the battle of Rennes discussed above about 6 times this morning and could not take the place by storm. Either all of my rams burned or the towers just killed too many troops. I easily defeated the Garrison however when it sallied. I consider this an endorsement of the changes you have made since it implies that the advantages of fortification are now substantial, as they should be.

Secondly when playing the English I have normally built enormous numbers of hobilars straight from the walls as it were and used them for a great many things. A second stack that consists of 5-10 or so hobis and one family member may not win you many battles but it sure means that you collect a lot of prisoners from the ones you do win. Having to build stables to do that definitely slows me Vs vanilla. Again this is the goal you are trying to achieve. I am looking forward to getting longbows quicker in the next version however, that still irritates me as is.

Heresy is nuts, fix is already decided as I understand it.

In regards to campaign AI scripting, would it be possible to randomly assign a single AI faction a lot more money than the others for a set number of turns? This would ensure that it grew fast enough to provide a real challenge. In an ideal situation it would always be a faction that starts a considerable distance from the player but that may be a lot to ask.

You mentioned being able to speed the conquest of rebels by lowering their reputation. Could this also be manipulated to speed up AI consolidation?

Keep at it. I think you are on the right track.:smash:

vonsch

03-12-2007, 23:31

I agree that differentiation between the pure fixer and the mod is a good idea. Assuming you want to support two.

But both need to see what patch 1.2 does. I'd hold off on making that sort of decision until the patch is out.

What we're doing now is learning more about what CAN be done. And your findings on the rebel issue are interesting.

I poked around in the files more last night too. I wasn't aware that the starting florins are set individually for each faction. That's a twist. You could try boosting that number for Russia, for one. I mean for the player too. Based on my 1.13 play on Hungary last night, it could use the extra cash too. Some areas are just harder to make productive than others. Not sure if this is affecting the AI or not.

But if it is, I'd think your money script would handle it. Odd.

Russia's problem is probably that it can't actually train many units per turn, so it just takes longer to accumulate that stack. It's not as smart about combining and hiring mercs to flesh things out. Scotland at least has a pretty good stack (powerful!) and short distances. Russia has a decent number of units, but they can scatter very fast and the distances are relatively... HUGE. Egypt's problem can't be money though. Sheesh. Maybe distance is an issue there too. Maybe that's the common factor the HA cultures are facing, things are far apart so mistakes in force requirement estimations take a long time to correct.

By the way, my "divvy them up" was meant purely as an idea on the table. I'd prefer to see the starting rebel provinces, or some of them, stay around too. But I was trying to go at the problem sideways, and it occurs to me that I missed the complement to that: turn some more "owned" provinces to rebel. I suspect CA did some playing around with that. Aragon as Portuguese is a bit weird, unless it's a pure game-balance call. Even so, they would have been better, IMO, in making the NW corner of the penninsula or the SW corner a separate province and giving that instead. The exterior lines are a bear.

But maybe HRE or France start with too many provinces for balance. Or maybe a reshuffling of WHICH is rebel would help. Flanders and Brussels are rich, and it makes sense to defend them and let them become wild cards in a sense: the power that gets them gets a good boost. Making them so hard to take (I mean in vanilla, where they are already hard, but it's a thought to keep them a bit harder than the rest) makes it likely one faction might soften them up and another "steal" them when it fails. That leads to variety. That's good.

Ireland might fit that category too. It's no pushover. And Jerusalem (and Damacus and Edessa to lesser degrees). Valencia too. There may be more, but those spring to mind.

I think in general the Med island should not be beefed too much. Sicily usually grabs Sardinia and Corsica, but not always. It takes fleets to reach them, so they tend to go a bit slower. Upping the Reb power there really hurts those attempts due to the shipping issue.

A few further observations.

The wall improvement is going to force me to build a seige train far sooner than I otherwise would. My theory of build a bucnh of ladders and "over the wall we go lads" does not work with the current state of towers/walls. So I have definitely been slowed down there. I refought the battle of Rennes discussed above about 6 times this morning and could not take the place by storm. Either all of my rams burned or the towers just killed too many troops. I easily defeated the Garrison however when it sallied. I consider this an endorsement of the changes you have made since it implies that the advantages of fortification are now substantial, as they should be.

The problem here is (for those of us who aren't big seige fans with all the pathing issues), autoresolve is a LOT more friendly to the attacker.

But I guess that is player choice. If you want it really hard, you play out the battle.

Carl

03-13-2007, 00:27

The problem here is (for those of us who aren't big siege fans with all the pathing issues), autoresolve is a LOT more friendly to the attacker.

But I guess that is player choice. If you want it really hard, you play out the battle.

True enough Vonsch, i'm hoping CA will fix the Auto-resolve bug in the next patch, and it just hasn't made it's way onto the fix list. I'm pretty sure it's because of how they've changed the tower code between M2TW and RTW.

What we're doing now is learning more about what CAN be done. And your findings on the rebel issue are interesting.

I poked around in the files more last night too. I wasn't aware that the starting florins are set individually for each faction. That's a twist. You could try boosting that number for Russia, for one. I mean for the player too. Based on my 1.13 play on Hungary last night, it could use the extra cash too. Some areas are just harder to make productive than others. Not sure if this is affecting the AI or not.

But if it is, I'd think your money script would handle it. Odd.

Using the Hotseat campaign to look at things, (also using it for tests as if the player is present and doesn't go aggressive i tend to find the AI is less aggressive too, but it's a chore working a campaign when you just want to observe whats going on), Hungary about the time it takes it's first province has an upkeep of over 5.5K. An other bigger but poorer areas (France and HRE are the big offenders), are spending rather more per turn.

Russia I think suffers from not getting access to castle units. Once it gets them it tends to go a Little crazy after the castle develops. Maybe give them Helsinki at the start too as I think thats slowing them down too much, same with Scotland and Inverness, and probs Oslo+Stockholm for Denmark as only they ever take it and they wait so long to do so it's daft.

Russia's problem is probably that it can't actually train many units per turn, so it just takes longer to accumulate that stack. It's not as smart about combining and hiring mercs to flesh things out. Scotland at least has a pretty good stack (powerful!) and short distances. Russia has a decent number of units, but they can scatter very fast and the distances are relatively... HUGE. Egypt's problem can't be money though. Sheesh. Maybe distance is an issue there too. Maybe that's the common factor the HA cultures are facing, things are far apart so mistakes in force requirement estimations take a long time to correct.

Possibly, but i think part of it is that HA are so underestimated by the force strength calculator, (although not so much auto-resolve or actual battles), that even a full stack of troops in some cases is too weak to take heavily buffed rebels. Taking away that extra 1 Bronze Chevron got them moving again. Although distance doesn't help, I've added Dirt roads to all provinces for that reason in fact. but whilst it does slow the AI down, in some cases they where remaining stuck for over 50 turns.

By the way, my "divvy them up" was meant purely as an idea on the table. I'd prefer to see the starting rebel provinces, or some of them, stay around too. But I was trying to go at the problem sideways,

Thats what i hoped, It was a sideways way of looking at it too, took me by surprise TBH.

and it occurs to me that I missed the complement to that: turn some more "owned" provinces to rebel. I suspect CA did some playing around with that. Aragon as Portuguese is a bit weird, unless it's a pure game-balance call. Even so, they would have been better, IMO, in making the NW corner of the peninsula or the SW corner a separate province and giving that instead. The exterior lines are a bear.

But maybe HRE or France start with too many provinces for balance. Or maybe a reshuffling of WHICH is rebel would help. Flanders and Brussels are rich, and it makes sense to defend them and let them become wild cards in a sense: the power that gets them gets a good boost. Making them so hard to take (I mean in vanilla, where they are already hard, but it's a thought to keep them a bit harder than the rest) makes it likely one faction might soften them up and another "steal" them when it fails. That leads to variety. That's good.

Ireland might fit that category too. It's no pushover. And Jerusalem (and Damascus and Edessa to lesser degrees). Valencia too. There may be more, but those spring to mind.

Good idea, TBH i think France and HRE are just too big for their own good with buffed rebels. Their so large they quickly end up with as many troops as they can afford and not enough at any one place to launch an attack. cutting the numbers would probably be a godsend to them.

I think in general the Med island should not be beefed too much. Sicily usually grabs Sardinia and Corsica, but not always. It takes fleets to reach them, so they tend to go a bit slower. Upping the Reb power there really hurts those attempts due to the shipping issue.

Good point, I'd still keep them a Little buffed to slow a player down, but less than everywhere else is a good idea i think as otherwise Sicily seems to struggle like hell. Milan tends to get the med provinces and Tunis and Tripoli ATM.

I'm pretty sure it's stack power issues in Sicily and Byzantium's cases as I once saw Byzantium with a 130K Treasury and it wasn't moving, when I tried to attack the rebels, the stuff it had was forcing me to use more than one stack to get through. Thats another good reason not to over-buff the rebels.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you chikenhawk. here's some replies.

Secondly when playing the English I have normally built enormous numbers of hobilars straight from the walls as it were and used them for a great many things. A second stack that consists of 5-10 or so hobis and one family member may not win you many battles but it sure means that you collect a lot of prisoners from the ones you do win. Having to build stables to do that definitely slows me Vs vanilla. Again this is the goal you are trying to achieve. I am looking forward to getting longbows quicker in the next version however, that still irritates me as is.

Glad to hear it's doing it's job:smash:.

Heresy is nuts, fix is already decided as I understand it.

:yes:

In regards to campaign AI scripting, would it be possible to randomly assign a single AI faction a lot more money than the others for a set number of turns? This would ensure that it grew fast enough to provide a real challenge. In an ideal situation it would always be a faction that starts a considerable distance from the player but that may be a lot to ask.

It's possible in theory, (i think), but only in the form of giving each faction a random chance of getting a big lump sum at the end of turn 1. Their would be no way i currently know of to restrict it to one faction. But even 2 wouldn't be so bad, it would be rare for 3 to get it and I'd have to exclude Milan, Venice, and Byzantium I think as they are money spinners anyway.

You mentioned being able to speed the conquest of rebels by lowering their reputation. Could this also be manipulated to speed up AI consolidation?

What do you mean by that, sorry i'm not quite getting what you mean by consolidation in this case~:(. Sounds interesting even if I don't know what your going on about.

Keep at it. I think you are on the right track.

Thanks.

I've got some results from the latest test, I'll edit them in in a few minutes.

Alright, In addition to hitting rebel standing, i also gave the AI another look over and fiddled a few things to discourage the AI factions attacking each other early on.

The AI went really crazy this time, with Denmark, Scotland, and Byzantium going on an immediate land grab, with Milan, and Egypt and Russian following by turn 15, HRE also joined in somewhat half heartedly. Eventually England grabbed Rennes and then the nearby French starting Castle at which point the French AI came alive and grabbed 3 provinces in short order whilst holding the English off. Scotland after grabbing all British rebels bar Dublin went dead, and Egypt went dead with Turks, Sicily, Portugal, Spain, and Hungary never moving.

Moors, and Poland got going around turn 25, although Poland did grab a rebel early on. Russia then stalled at this point and the Egyptians and Byzantines Froze. Around 35 Hungary carved some chunks out of Byzantium, and Russia unfroze again. Milan continued to go crazy whilst France was nearly finished off by a combined English/Milan push (no alliance though as the Poles, Hungarians, and English got dragged in when they went after Rome and Florance, bot papal States holdings).

overall they where fast and brutal, but seamed to run out of steam when they got above a particular size. I'm sure in this case it was money issues as all where more or less at 0 after turn 20 or so. Only the rich buggers of Milan, Venice, and strangely HRE got anywhere in a hurry, although everyone else bar a few did do something.

it's worth pointing out I'd put the money script back to normal for this test. i think with a money script tweak and a few other things it might work, but their going t need a good 7-9K every turn for the entire game to pull it of TBH.

Ohh, last of all i gave some starting navies a buff and buffed Byzantine Spearmen t Armored Sergent levels. I think thats why they didn't stall at the start, they had a unit from the second level castle barracks that was really good in the power calculator. On te other hand the higher purchase price probably killed them later.

vonsch

03-13-2007, 02:41

I think the autocalc undervalues HA. That's my finding based on a bit of comparison of those to my own command of the battle. I beat reasonable odds against me with HA steadily. Not even close, really. If there are enough HA they win without taking many losses, which means they can go right back into battle again, unlike infantry. If there aren't enough HA, I can hurt them badly and retreat and give up the "win." Next turn they die. But the disincentive there is the general doesn't like it, and his traits can suffer. Generals don't like "losing."

That's before how it deals with HA in seiges, which doesn't seem consistent. They are less good in seiges. Tight spaces work against them as maneuverability is their key attribute... dealing damage WHILE maneuvering. But they seem to be valued higher than they are actually worth in those situations. Go figure.

Byz is an HA faction too, but not as heavily as most. So it's calc may be affecting it too. Be interesting to know what's in those stacks it's not using. Seige gear seems to be the other culprit.

Hmm, could we move seige gear up a tier? I know that will affect seiges too, but players can adapt. I suspect we mostly only have one city producing it anyway. Need to discourage the AI from making it everywhere.

I'm loving Hungary as an HA faction, except, man are they poor! Probably the upkeep on my Magyars and Nobles doing me in though ~;). Starting to get past the curve now, as Venice, Sophia and Zagreb are putting out some decent trade. Budapest is okay, but Bran and the other ex-reb cities are rotten on trade. ROTTEN. If they weren't so inconvenient to Italy and where I expect the core fighting to happen, I'd make them castles and put my production all there. But it's 4 turns or so to Venice for cav, and infantry and seige gear is worse. And the ship route isn't much better, and more dangerous.

I'm used to being able to steadily upgrade most cities I own while still fielding a decent army. With Hungary I'm lucky to start 2 buildings a turn even at tier 1. And the merchant environment is deadly.

Oh, that's one side-effect to the agent movement change. Your merchants are chow to enemies you never see until they do a takeover. They come out of the fog, or cities and hit you in one turn. But if their speed is normal, it takes them decades to get anywhere. Hard to balance this one. A bit less of an issue if the payback is faster, but with 1.13 they don't pay anywhere near enemy cities.

There's always the fort system, but trying to avoid that.

Back to Russia and all, I think judicious allocation of some territories might help. Helsinki is one. Since it's a "corner" region (only land access is from Novgorad), it's going to fall to Russia sooner or later anyway. Same for Inverness and Scotland, yes. Might be interesting to swap an eastern Turk province for a connecting one. I'd say give them Adana and take away Mosul. Oh, and double Antioch's defenders. Those are just too low for THAT city.

Hmm, maybe swap Dijon for Marseille for France? And swap Pamplona and Leon (we aren't being historical anyway! Besides, that corner practically speaks Portuguese!) Portugal will have to take to the sea to find rebels, but it's a seafaring culture like England and Spain, so no real big issue. I just don't like that split start. I think it's unfair to Portugal. But Leon is not a castle and Pamplona is. That would need reversing.

I haven't played HRE. Vienna seems off to one side though. And Bologna is isolated, but it's a good city.

Nicosia may be a problem for Byz. I don't understand its problem. Should be more aggressive. usually have plenty of forces around Constantinople. Does seem to go for Smyrna. Seems to be intimidated by Sophia to some degree. That is one of those decent garrisons, but it's no Brussels. More like Dublin.

Carl

03-13-2007, 03:43

vonsch

03-13-2007, 03:55

Lots of intresting stuff their that i'll comment on in the morning.

But to get an anwser before then on somthing, Which Version of Problem Fixer are you playing as hungay, and wha turn are you on? And difficulty too if possibile.

Just so i've got some refrance material for them.

Oh, that's 1.13 with some additional small tweaking I've done (agent speed, a few extra guild perqs (none in play so far this game)). I wanted some perspective so decided to try a new HA culture with something closer to vanilla.

I'm on turn 23 now, that was about turn 20. H/H. 9 alliances so far ~;). But I haven't allied with any muslims, and I am still at war with Venice, just waiting for the Pope's edict to run out to take them off the continent. Then I may try to goad Milan into attacking me and getting excommed. If I can take them out, I am pretty solid and my economy will do much better. Moving west makes sense for Hungary. HA vs HA is bloody. HA vs infantry is nice. Or even versus plain cavalry, though that takes more work.

Should be a crusade soon too. Maybe I should call once to control where it goes. Jerusalem is inconvenient. Maybe Tunis or Tripoli.

chickenhawk

03-13-2007, 06:37

Quote:
You mentioned being able to speed the conquest of rebels by lowering their reputation. Could this also be manipulated to speed up AI consolidation?

What do you mean by that, sorry i'm not quite getting what you mean by consolidation in this case. Sounds interesting even if I don't know what your going on about. Quote

I was trying to ask if you could use that to raise the probability of certain AI wars. So the Moors would go all at to grab Spain early or vice versa for example. The idea is to encourage the creation of large empires that can really give the player a fight. Same thing with the random chunk of money.

Completely different issue. You mentioned that you tweaked the Ai to guard its border cities heavily and leave its interior thin so that it would at least be strong somewhere instead of being ineffective everywhere.:book:

Would it be possible to apply some kind of movement or morale penalty to stacks that are more than one province deep into enemy territory? This would restrict the players ability to take advantage, or at least make it riskier and or slower.:juggle2:

Carl

03-13-2007, 14:19

First, @Econ21: if your reading this I'll get back to you in a bit about your PM as your quite right about this becoming more of mod and all that.

If it's agreeable with the high lords of the board I'll probably follow someones suggestion from ages ago and request my own sub-forum in modding for it.

I was trying to ask if you could use that to raise the probability of certain AI wars. So the Moors would go all at to grab Spain early or vice versa for example. The idea is to encourage the creation of large empires that can really give the player a fight. Same thing with the random chunk of money.

well they have below average relations with each other to start with, the trouble is the way the AI is set up they'll concentrate on the rebels for the first 30 turns and not start wars with each other, by which time diplomatic offerings will probably have got the standing up. hell, the first thing the Moors do with the new agent speeds is to get an alliance with Spain. It usually lasts too.

Oh, that's 1.13 with some additional small tweaking I've done (agent speed, a few extra guild perqs (none in play so far this game)). I wanted some perspective so decided to try a new HA culture with something closer to vanilla.

I'm on turn 23 now, that was about turn 20. H/H. 9 alliances so far . But I haven't allied with any muslims, and I am still at war with Venice, just waiting for the Pope's edict to run out to take them off the continent. Then I may try to goad Milan into attacking me and getting excommed. If I can take them out, I am pretty solid and my economy will do much better. Moving west makes sense for Hungary. HA vs HA is bloody. HA vs infantry is nice. Or even versus plain cavalry, though that takes more work.

Should be a crusade soon too. Maybe I should call once to control where it goes. Jerusalem is inconvenient. Maybe Tunis or Tripoli.

Thanks, it still gives me useful reference material.

think the autocalc undervalues HA. That's my finding based on a bit of comparison of those to my own command of the battle.

Auto-calc does under value them, but the army strength calculator does it more. Auto-calc is actually a simulated battle in a reduced complexity engine fought out by the AI, (i.e. it controls both sides). The Strength calculator is just:

(Attack+Defense)*Number of Men in The Unit

With HA having such low numbers and fairly low attack values for both melee and ranged, plus rarely excellent defense it's hardly surprising that armies of mostly HA so rarely attack anything. Blame CA :madashell:

Byz is an HA faction too, but not as heavily as most. So it's calc may be affecting it too. Be interesting to know what's in those stacks it's not using. Seige gear seems to be the other culprit.

Hmm, could we move seige gear up a tier? I know that will affect seiges too, but players can adapt. I suspect we mostly only have one city producing it anyway. Need to discourage the AI from making it everywhere.

I was thinking the same thing myself, plus take it away from cities entirely, that should cut the amount we see.

Siege gear is definitely part of the issue, but I think a lot of it is down to the fact that their are very few units (especially early on), that have High Attack, and Defense, and Decent Numbers. By buffing the Spearmen, (Byzantium was in desperate need of a good spear unit anyway, Charge 8 Knights could still roll over every infantry unit they had, rendering them largely useless), I've given them something close to that as they have acceptable defense, a bit low attack, but plenty of men in the unit.

I'm loving Hungary as an HA faction, except, man are they poor! Probably the upkeep on my Magyars and Nobles doing me in though . Starting to get past the curve now, as Venice, Sophia and Zagreb are putting out some decent trade. Budapest is Okay, but Bran and the other ex-reb cities are rotten on trade. ROTTEN. If they weren't so inconvenient to Italy and where I expect the core fighting to happen, I'd make them castles and put my production all there. But it's 4 turns or so to Venice for cav, and infantry and siege gear is worse. And the ship route isn't much better, and more dangerous.

I'm used to being able to steadily upgrade most cities I own while still fielding a decent army. With Hungary I'm lucky to start 2 buildings a turn even at tier 1. And the merchant environment is deadly.

Thanks for the info now i know what Hungary tends to be like in vanilla. it probably explains why Russia, Poland, and Hungary suffer from stalling. hey tend to run out of income awful fast.

Oh, that's one side-effect to the agent movement change. Your merchants are chow to enemies you never see until they do a takeover. They come out of the fog, or cities and hit you in one turn. But if their speed is normal, it takes them decades to get anywhere. Hard to balance this one. A bit less of an issue if the payback is faster, but with 1.13 they don't pay anywhere near enemy cities.

Acquisition chances are higher in V1.13/Vanilla than they are in this version of ProblemFixer. the AI will tend to fail more now.

Back to Russia and all, I think judicious allocation of some territories might help. Helsinki is one. Since it's a "corner" region (only land access is from Novgorad), it's going to fall to Russia sooner or later anyway. Same for Inverness and Scotland, yes. Might be interesting to swap an eastern Turk province for a connecting one. I'd say give them Adana and take away Mosul. Oh, and double Antioch's defenders. Those are just too low for THAT city.

Good ideas, I agree totally.

Hmm, maybe swap Dijon for Marseille for France? And swap Pamplona and Leon (we aren't being historical anyway! Besides, that corner practically speaks Portuguese!) Portugal will have to take to the sea to find rebels, but it's a seafaring culture like England and Spain, so no real big issue. I just don't like that split start. I think it's unfair to Portugal. But Leon is not a castle and Pamplona is. That would need reversing.

I was thinking initially of just dumping Marseilles and the Nearby castl;e, but a better bet would be to dump the starting town north east of Paris, and the castle near Marseilles as Marseilles is a big Italian trading port and France could do with the money. Does leave France a bit split though.

Portugal is awkward, it isn't really the split start thats the issue, it's the way that the Moors, Spain, and Portugal occupy the area and their are only 2 rebel provinces. With it's armies split up like they are it really struggles in it's fights. but if we moved them around they'd never go anywhere. the trouble is if they go naval they insist on getting Dublin first, but never seem to get a stack together thats able to deal with it. the Iberian peninsula has too few provinces for 3 factions IMHO. They need another one between Toledo and Leon, and another either north or south of Lisbon.

I'd say give the Moors Timbuktu, and Aruin from the off as well, they're the only ones likely to grab it and it cuts out the moors going down that way and losing half their armies to going rebel.

I haven't played HRE. Vienna seems off to one side though. And Bologna is isolated, but it's a good city.

I'd cut Vienna, Bologna, and probably Frankfurt off, that gives them a core series of territories and a lot of income alongside their large armies.

Nicosia may be a problem for Byz. I don't understand its problem. Should be more aggressive. usually have plenty of forces around Constantinople. Does seem to go for Smyrna. Seems to be intimidated by Sophia to some degree. That is one of those decent garrisons, but it's no Brussels. More like Dublin.

I've noticed similar things, but TBH in my last game where everything went fine till people ran out of money they got Sofia, Smyrna, Burchest, and Durrazo, and also Trebizond, and Tbilisi, and gabbed iconicom before going passive. The Turks went they don't stall tend to get Trebizond, and Tbilisi though, but since they sat stalled the Byzantines grabbed them.

Would it be possible to apply some kind of movement or morale penalty to stacks that are more than one province deep into enemy territory? This would restrict the players ability to take advantage, or at least make it riskier and or slower.

It would be nice wouldn't it. but theirs no trigger condition anywhere that can measure just how far into enemy territory you are or how far away from friendly territory you are.~:(.

vonsch

03-13-2007, 19:03

Auto-calc does under value them, but the army strength calculator does it more. Auto-calc is actually a simulated battle in a reduced complexity engine fought out by the AI, (i.e. it controls both sides). The Strength calculator is just:

(Attack+Defense)*Number of Men in The Unit

With HA having such low numbers and fairly low attack values for both melee and ranged, plus rarely excellent defense it's hardly surprising that armies of mostly HA so rarely attack anything. Blame CA :madashell:

Okay, now this explains a lot. The Hungarian and Egyptian HA do a lot better, and this is why. They have better starting HA. The attack and defense are higher than, for example, the Turkish basic HA which have low numbers. Mamluk Archers are nasty there. Hungarian Nobles are the same, and Magyars are better than Turkomen slightly (I think), and definitely better than THA. So Hungary does better in that regard.

But as horse archers controlled by the player (at least THIS one) there is less difference except in force preservation. I need fewer replacements as Hungary and Egypt than as Turkey. But the former cost a lot more to maintain too (and hire!) As far as missiles in the air go, the difference is less. When purely shooting up infantry, as the Hungarians do more in the west, any sort of mobile archer rules. Attack and defense values don't matter much, just the missile number and speed (and stamina, to a lesser degree).

Toss in some fast cav and those melee numbers suddenly matter.

This is also why archers can be undervalued. I suspect the early longbows are quite heavily undervalued also, based on autoresolves and odds calcs when playing England. Longbows, even without a lot of support, crush an even force, even cav, before it can reach melee range often. Fast cav may be the exception there because it is so fast. But terrain is probably the greater variable. High ground = longbow win. Flat makes it dicey. Their speed of fire and range is the battle turner. AP plays in too, of course, but only if the opposing force is armored.

The later longbows, like retinue, have big melee stats so they are factors closer to their real performance, but it's still probably off due to their attrition of the attacker before it can even reach melee range.

This would explain oddities with using seige gear too. They mostly have low values for melee, but they can (if the situation allows) totally dominate.

Thoughts on regions:

Ireland... maybe break the landbridge? Then drop the garrison in Dublin so Portugal has a chance there? The Spanish and Portuguese did historically tackle islands often, and the Spanish sure looked to the British Isles.

Historically Portugal didn't come into its own until it went to sea. It IS trapped there. But a connected fort and city is more viable. (I am prejudiced to Portugal due to my personal history... lived in Brazil) They were the great explorers (along with Genoa and Venice... and Spain) and it would be cool to see more of that in play. Maybe give them more navy, though upkeep can be an issue there. Hmm, but increasing the navy movement range (which I don't think I've succeeded in doing) might help those with larger navies too. They can spot those rebel islands and coastal provinces sooner and get to them with forces faster.

It's too bad the Atlantic won't allow them to go south past the Moors. North to Scandinavia is a long way and they'd have to pass a lot of potential hostiles.

As far as the sub-Sahara goes... I worry about the large potential income boost to the Moors. But if they "own" those with small garrisons and NO buildings, just basic towns, that might be okay. Are they infertile? Don't want them growing fast and allowing them to become economic powerbases too soon. The Moors seem to do okay in the games I've played (as far as I've played them). They get in trouble if Sicily and Spain/Portugal pile on. Which makes sense. And I've seen them at the Pyranees with Spain and Portugal gone or down to a single region.

The idea to limit seige gear to castles... that might be the way to go. That's not a big problem for players, and it will at least have the AI making some city units insteead of seige gear in those. And the AI would direct those florins away from seige factories and into some more useful buildings, we hope. Militia infantry is probably better in force calculations than seige engines are. And it's cheaper.

Carl

03-13-2007, 19:25

I suspect the early longbows are quite heavily undervalued also, based on autoresolves and odds calcs when playing England. Longbows, even without a lot of support, crush an even force, even cav, before it can reach melee range often.

That and I suspect it's the same Auto-Resolve engine as in RTW, their i'm led to believe the angle at which the arrow hits the target didn't matter, if thats true then the engine is probably making crossbows more powerful than they normally would be as even a slight change in angle effects their firepower enormously.

Lastly, the AI tends to leave it's archers in skirmish mode and never deploys stakes so they are not only very vulnerable to Cav, but anything fast enough to catch them will ride them down as they try to stay out of melee.

Okay, now this explains a lot. The Hungarian and Egyptian HA do a lot better, and this is why. They have better starting HA. The attack and defense are higher than, for example, the Turkish basic HA which have low numbers. Mamluk Archers are nasty there. Hungarian Nobles are the same, and Magyars are better than Turkomen slightly (I think), and definitely better than THA. So Hungary does better in that regard.

But as horse archers controlled by the player (at least THIS one) there is less difference except in force preservation. I need fewer replacements as Hungary and Egypt than as Turkey. But the former cost a lot more to maintain too (and hire!) As far as missiles in the air go, the difference is less. When purely shooting up infantry, as the Hungarians do more in the west, any sort of mobile archer rules. Attack and defense values don't matter much, just the missile number and speed (and stamina, to a lesser degree).

Toss in some fast Cav and those melee numbers suddenly matter.

First, i'm petty sure attack for missile units is Missile Attack + Melee Attack, not just one of them. The other issue is that the AI very rarely sends it's HA round the sides and rear of the opposition and to a degree HA are balanced around the idea that they will get all the bonuses flank and rear fire brings, thats why they have such a low missile attack, flank and rear attacks make up for it by quite a margin TBH, and the rest is made up for by melee and lower loss rates to enemy Cav that HA get.

I also suspect the use of what i believe is the old RTW auto-resolve engine (note I can't prove any of this), means auto-resolve does not have the formed charge mechanics, so Cav are even more undervalued their, that TBH was one of the biggest clues as to the shield bug and CA does a lot of balance testing via the auto-resolve engine.

vonsch

03-13-2007, 19:35

Carl

03-13-2007, 22:07

If there's a variation between the battle odds estimator and the autoresolve, that has nasty implications for strategic balancing though. It simply won't balance.

That's totally aside from the issue of player performance on the battle map.

I don't think it's quite as bad as that, it mainly seems t effect siege gear (overestimated), and Cav, (Underestimated, but more pure missile HA than melee Cav). Almost everything else whilst perhaps out on some details works Okay, high attacks and AP in combination can mess things up too if the unit in question is a missile unit but that has a lot to do with the fact that AP has such a big effect.

Ireland... maybe break the landbridge? Then drop the garrison in Dublin so Portugal has a chance there? The Spanish and Portuguese did historically tackle islands often, and the Spanish sure looked to the British Isles.

Historically Portugal didn't come into its own until it went to sea. It IS trapped there. But a connected fort and city is more viable. (I am prejudiced to Portugal due to my personal history... lived in Brazil) They were the great explorers (along with Genoa and Venice... and Spain) and it would be cool to see more of that in play. Maybe give them more navy, though upkeep can be an issue there. Hmm, but increasing the navy movement range (which I don't think I've succeeded in doing) might help those with larger navies too. They can spot those rebel islands and coastal provinces sooner and get to them with forces faster.

It's too bad the Atlantic won't allow them to go south past the Moors. North to Scandinavia is a long way and they'd have to pass a lot of potential hostiles.

Good points, but honestly, having a third faction, (Portugal), involved in British isles conquest is far from ideal as Iberia shows what happens when too many people concentrate in one area.

My favorite idea is to cut the moors to just Granada on the peninsula itself and Give Zaragoza to the Portuguese whilst removing the prefers navel invasions trait as they've got most of the land south of France to rab, (thats one of their biggest issues, the AI ALWAYS sends underpowered stacks when it goes by sea, and Portugal even tries attacking Bordeaux by sea when it could walk). Spain would now have Valencia and the new rebel to go at as well as the med islands and the moors with any luck.

The Moors with Timbuktu/Arguin wouldn't be much richer TBH as they aren't rich or fast growing, and the moors waste ages sending stacks their and having them go rebel, so it slows them down a lot actually, same with Denmark and Oslo/Stockholm. Add to that the moors losing a city and I think they'll be just fine myself.

The idea to limit siege gear to castles... that might be the way to go. That's not a big problem for players, and it will at least have the AI making some city units instead of siege gear in those. And the AI would direct those florins away from siege factories and into some more useful buildings, we hope. Militia infantry is probably better in force calculations than siege engines are. And it's cheaper.

It seems to have worked TBH. You can't limit it to any l;aer than castle level TBH as Fortresses and Citadels take too long, as well as it being impossibbile to limit them to fortresses only anyway.

Anyway, as you can tell i played another test campaign about an hour ago.

Overall the results where good. First Denmark went crazy grabbing Hamburg, Oldenburg, Steinn, the province east of stein and the one south of that. HRE eventually got going and grabbed every rebel as far south as Bern and as far west as Antwerp. France never really got going, and Portugal lost Lisbon to the moors but finally grabbed Bordeaux just after. Sicily sat idle whilst Milan went crazy grabbing Aleppo, Tunis, and Tripoli, (moors got calgari), before they went after the moors grabbing the starting moors province bordering Tunis, and Calgari. Spain eventually got Valencia, but Milan got Zaragoza (but bypassed Burn and Dijon).

Byzantine grabbed Durrazo, but Hungary got Sofia then stalled, (at turn 30 they became Byzantines vassal and never moved again). Byzantine continued on to grab Trebizond, but Tbilisi belonged to the Turks, who eventually grabbed Edessa too. Egypt got Jerusalem eventually, but not before grabbing Jedda, Baghdad, and Dongola.

Byzantine eventually attacked the turks and reduced them to Tbilisi, Mosul, and their starting province below Tbilisi.

Russia went well grabbing Moscow and Helenski in short order, followed rapidly by the castles east of Moscow, and south of their starting point, Riga would be grabbed by the poles though, same with Burchest and the province immediately north of Poland's starting point. they also grabbed on to the west I believe.

France eventually got cean too BTW.

Overall the big worries where Venice never moving, Sicily never moving, Hungary and Poland and France being very slow off the block.

Scotland, (bar Inverness), and England never moved either.

Portugal was nearly dead too and the Turks where both a bit slow and really didn't resist Byzantium well.

Overall I've picked up some more clues as to AI behavior. First their seems to be some kind of set limit on how many troops a faction can have per province, (i'm sure it's upkeep related), I think this is part of why Portugal and Scotland and England and Sicily and Venice are stalling. They don't get many starting provinces and not a very good starting army either so it's really slowing them down in the initial stages of conquest, and if they don't watch out they hit their limit without their armies ever getting strong enough to have a crack at the rebels. i can deal with the British isles by slightly debuffing the rebels. But the rest are an issue.

I'm sure it's not money as at turn 30 the Portuguese had 20K in the bank and weren't spending any of it on unit.

Byzantium defiantly dominated due to the buffed spearmen, I'll buff base price and upkeep to keep them numbers down plus switch them and Dismounted Lancers i think.

vonsch

03-13-2007, 22:24

Well, Vanilla and 1.13 behavior has seemed to be that either Spain or Portugal moves, the other sits. And what they do affects the Moors, but the Moors do have other options. England seems to prefer moving on the continent to on the isles. That probably explains some of why Scotland can eventually take most of the reb regions there. But Scotland doesn't move fast.

I think the HA changes are hurting the Turks a lot. They can't get Sipahi into the force calculation that early, and those "look" a lot stronger than THA and Turkomen. The Russian behavior is encouraging. I think the Danes are another either/or faction though. They do perfectly fine if they go active. But if they turtle... They do have room if they want it. As does Egypt.

Milan seems to always be aggressive. Venice is a bit less predictable. It's vulnerable to having Venice itself grabbed, which tends to cripple it. Silly AI doesn't garrison those important regions well. It likes putting an ambush army in those woods just NW. But that leaves room to sneak a force onto the bridge and assault Venice.

Removing Cordoba from the Moors will hurt it. Removing Granada wouldn't much. Cordoba is BIG income. Not enough provinces in game for the number of factions on the penninsula. Really should ignore the Portuguese (wince) at this scale. They don't do much until late historically.

chickenhawk

03-13-2007, 22:30

Carl it sounds like enough progress to kick out a version, at least to beta.:whip:

Carl

03-13-2007, 22:42

Carl it sounds like enough progress to kick out a version, at least to beta.

Just need to make the Broken Lancers Changes to Milan. But yeah, I guess if I do that i'm ready for another release.

Well, Vanilla and 1.13 behavior has seemed to be that either Spain or Portugal moves, the other sits. And what they do affects the Moors, but the Moors do have other options. England seems to prefer moving on the continent to on the isles. That probably explains some of why Scotland can eventually take most of the reb regions there. But Scotland doesn't move fast.

All true, I'm just finding that England/Scotland spend too much time just siting their TBH.

I think the HA changes are hurting the Turks a lot. They can't get Sipahi into the force calculation that early, and those "look" a lot stronger than THA and Turkomen. The Russian behavior is encouraging. I think the Danes are another either/or faction though. They do perfectly fine if they go active. But if they turtle... They do have room if they want it. As does Egypt.

Actually i find with enough money that the Danes always go mental. I've fixed the THA/Turkomen's/Siaphi/Mamluk HA issues with regards to when they become available though. So thats not influencing things, although other things naturally could be.

Milan seems to always be aggressive. Venice is a bit less predictable. It's vulnerable to having Venice itself grabbed, which tends to cripple it. Silly AI doesn't garrison those important regions well. It likes putting an ambush army in those woods just NW. But that leaves room to sneak a force onto the bridge and assault Venice.

True enough, it's worrying though.

Removing Cordoba from the Moors will hurt it. Removing Granada wouldn't much. Cordoba is BIG income. Not enough provinces in game for the number of factions on the peninsula. Really should ignore the Portuguese (wince) at this scale. They don't do much until late historically.

Well I don't really wasn't to take Grenada as it's their big castle, a victory condition for Spain/Portugal, and would split the Moorish Iberian Territories.

And your right about too few provinces, TBH they really should have included more on the peninsula to balance things out IMHO.

I'll go fix the Broken Lances and then send out Links.

vonsch

03-13-2007, 22:46

Well I don't really wasn't to take Grenada as it's their big castle, a victory condition for Spain/Portugal, and would split the Moorish Iberian Territories.

You have it exactly backwards on the split. ~;)

The landbridge is from Cordoba to Marrakesh. If you make Cordoba neutral, you split Granada off.

But it is a knotty problem.

Carl

03-13-2007, 23:13

Woops, I don't know Iberia well so sue me:smash:. Actually in that case I could swap the victory condition from Grenada to Cordoba.

Just finished the changes and ran a 40 turn campaign to test them. Everything seems okay and france actually expanded in that one so nice.

I'm gonna start pack it up and then start uploading now.

it does not include any reassigned provinces yet, i'm stil trying to get it as good as I can without that first. Also, I want to have good discussion on it before I make any changes.

But it is a knotty problem.

You said it, not me:laugh4:.

Carl

03-14-2007, 02:35

ALL FURTHER INFO AFTER THIS POST IS WITH REGARDS TO THE v1.21 BETA.

Just letting everyone know.

I'll continue to use this thread till i get a yay or nay on a separate forum in modding for this mod, or the mods decide to lock it for some reason LOL.

Bob the Insane

03-14-2007, 02:37

v1.21...

Restart as the saem fation or try something else... what would be most helpful?

Carl

03-14-2007, 02:49

Whichever you like, I just need info.

I'd kinda like Vonsch to tell me what he makes of turks/Egyptians.

Other factions I could do with data on are Hungary, Byzantium, Poland, Russia, and the Moors ATM. But if you prefer someone else then go for them as I need some info for all factions anyway. I'm just short on info for those factions as I've never played them much, or anyone similar to them.

vonsch

03-14-2007, 03:51

Hmm, why is Egypt starting with halberd militia instead of Saracen militia (which it can make?)

Hmm, went a bit overboard on rebel garrisons, didn't you?

Carl

03-14-2007, 03:54

vonsch

03-14-2007, 03:59

I just trebled the garrisons up and i gave them the Halberd Militia to try to get them going a bit faster, as the Halberd Militia are good in the strength calculator and even stronger against the actual units they tend to face (mostly spears and archers). Jerusalem is exceptional BTW. the rest have no experience.

In theory I think those trebled garrisons should be about as effective in actual combat as the old high experience ones. if you find them better than that let me know and I can debuff all rebels a bit which should really help everybody massively.

Well, those large garrisons will mean a little more buildup for me, but a lot more for the AI. Let's see how it looks about turn 25 or 30. I think the agent movement may be more than is needed too. I did about a 50% increase and though that was about right. Looks like you at least doubled it. Maybe you just gave them all the same number. I didn't. Some were faster than others.

Btw, what did you change that makes it look like 2 agents are available to be trained when only one really is? That was in last version too. Forgot to mention it. It's annoying. When I put one in the queue, the other still shows but it's greyed out.

Carl

03-14-2007, 04:03

I just trebled it, but it is a bit high for spies and assassins at least, maybe a bit too much for others too.

Yeah, I'll probably have to wait 8 or so hours to see our report as i'm off to bed now, but I look forward to how your ding in a 25-30 turns. Also looking forward to your suggested attempted england blitz campaign.

Btw, what did you change that makes it look like 2 agents are available to be trained when only one really is? That was in last version too. Forgot to mention it. It's annoying. When I put one in the queue, the other still shows but it's grayed out.

it's because the game was never meant to allow you to train more than one, so it displays two available, even when building 1 will make you hit your agent limit.

vonsch

03-14-2007, 06:32

I don't like the Theologian's Guild HQ in Jerusalem either. Too deterministic. Make it a plain guild. Let the player decide where the master/GM goes (if he can). Players only get one.

And, IMO, Jerusalem is a bit silly as far as the garrison goes. The AI won't take it for 100 turns, crusades and jihads nowithstanding (if then).

Acre fell to me turn 8. Would have been 2 turns sooner, but the Sultan croaked on me and he was to lead the attack. (Why, oh why does Egypt have to start with a 54 year old Sultan? And his son is no spring chicken! I suppose it's an intentional handicap to make up for the economic machine.)

I see a Turk army near Adana, but they don't have half the force needed to take it. Rotten intel on the AI's part. Heh, they turned around and went home.

Antioch is next, maybe turn 15. Definitely slower pace for me, but haven't seen AI manage anything so far. Allied with Turks and Hungary. Expect trouble from Turks anyway, but we'll see. Don't want to ally with Byz since I need their capital. If they and the Turks get into it, I can probably up my rep with Turks by pitching in (and stealing Cons first chance I get!)

Diplo closing on Italy to make more alliances to try to fend off crusades... though one about now MIGHT help if it actually attacked Jerusalem, which is unlikely.

Think I feel a jihad coming on soon. Money is tight. Even for Egypt. Lots of troops in the field. But am upgrading econ stuff as it makes sense (not port lines in Cairo, those are a total waste it appears).

Venice has a 3/4 stack sitting just east of there. Have to see if it tackles Zagreb. Gonna take a bit more than that, I suspect. Full stack might be enough if those rebs aren't buffed.

Heh, council wants me to take Adana. I'll think about it. Later. I have one dhow shuttling troops from Alexandria to Antioch, mainly for the Saracen militia, but some militia archers too. I have about a half stack of cav, just Arab and Desert so far. Worrying more about economy than high tech troops at the moment. But have those horsies getting some exp in the seiges. As soon as I get another general or two I'll split off a field army of the cav to hunt rebels for experience. No sign of other threats to date. Turn 14. Antioch will sally next turn and I think I'm ready for it. Might be able to storm it this turn, but why bother? They will come out next turn or STARVE!

I haven't chosen next target yet. Adana would probably put me into conflict with Turks early. No sense in that. Probably Aleppo or Damascus. Have to see what the spy reports. Acre is about to become a large village (instead of a castle). Hmm, Adana WOULD be a great forward castle though. Aleppo has all that nice spice to trade.

Did you boost fleet speed at all? Doesn't seem like it. Might have to do it by giving admirals a trait to up speed at birth. I haven't found any other number that actually seems to work, though I have found other numbers.

About to catch up to Byzzies in population. 4th overall. 6th military, 10th financial (but that's balance, not income... stupid).

Ok, turn 16 coming up and Antioch coming out. Mostly infantry and archers on both sides, but I have 7 cav and second general coming as reinforcements. They should swing things immediately.

Rep seems to not go up as fast, which is good. Allied with Venice, Turks and Hungarians now.

Sheesh, first city I see not-reb is Florence, and PS took that.

Turn 16: Oh, power meter says I have better than 2:1. More like 3:1 from the bar, but the swords say 2:1. Gonna be lazy. Autoresolve. Lost 188 to 389. Eek, draw! But they lose on a draw. Lots of prisoners, but I released them. Sacking would have gotten me 1500, which I could use... but the chivalry will pay it back in growth.

Ok, Pope thinks I walk on water. But he's probably confusing me with a prophet. I created the fund for the financing of gluttony and sloth at Rome.

Battles won 3. Battles lost 0. Turn 16. Kinda slow.

Heh, Turk army, tiny one, beseiged Adana. Got sent packing. But at least it wasn't all seige gear! No sign of that in Turk stacks so far.

The heresy situation seems ok. Spotted one heretic near Mosul.

Not sure what the trigger for seige engineer is, but they seem a bit common.

Sheesh, silly AI. Genoa has a 1 general garrison. Milan has... ZERO.

Ok, it's turn 19. I've taken 2 regions, a 3rd will sally next turn (Adana). I think I can beat them, but not a sure thing. PS got Florence. Of the rest:

zero regions taken: France, HRE, Venice, Sicily, England, Portugal, Hungary
one region: Spain, PS, Milan, Moors, Poland
two regions: Scotland! Russia, Egypt (me), Turks (must be to east, Tblisi and Treb, maybe), Danes
three regions: Byz

You may have overcompensated with Byz. Yeah, one Turks got is Tblisi. Other might be Treb or Smyrna, my maps are outdated. No, Smyrna is Byz. They may have grabbed Rhodes and Durazzo too. Looks like Turkey got Treb, unless they grabbed Baghdad after my spy left the area. From HRE maps, looks like Danes went north, but maps may be out of date too. Lowlands showing rebel (surprise!).

Byz ranks 1, Egypt 2, Turkey 3 (go East!), HRE 3 or 4 (looks close), Moors 5

Augurs well for trouble for me. Odd that the Italians are so anemic.

Turn 21: Adana fell, thanks to my Turkish allies ~;) They had a part stack there too. But I had almost two stacks. Still 2nd behind Byz. My economy is cranking now. 13.5k income, half that in expenses, but building getting expensive with Cairo and Alexandria built up, and Gaza moving too. Just doing walls and econ, mostly, in the two core cities. Rest econ. Adana needs to grow a lot, but I'll make it a big fort, I think. If the Turks let me keep it.

Been using Saracen Militia to beef up my seige armies. Suspect Kurd javs might be more efficient. And they are closer to the front since Gaza can make them. Once Antioch can make the bigger militia, that will be best though.

Spain got Bordeaux. Zaragoza still rebel. 8 alliances now, France most recent. Up to 10 turns of 100 per turn tribute while still making the offer generous. But my power is "supreme" and I do have loads of allies including the PS. At first I only got 100 for 5 turns. Gotta finance my Pope-bribery somehow. I'm just brokering indulgences for him. Oh, it was Baghdad the Turks took.

Gotta get some replacements to the front. Adana cost me almost 400 men. And I think I'll jihad the next one, Aleppo. The Turks have a 2/3 stack at Edessa, but that won't do it. Doubt they can tackle it for a while. I'll go there after Aleppo and dare them to try Damascus. Converting Adana to a town to grow it faster. My heir is up to 5 chivary, so he'll be sitting there as soon as I get reorganized.

I do sort of like the diplomat speed. But the spies are a bit overpowered with theirs, since they can "see" without using an action. Diplomats can to a far lesser degree, and they usually have business they need to be sure they can get to. Merchants are overpowered too. It's a bit TOO nice. It's also gonna be deadly in the closer in areas. You won't have ANY warning before you are challenged with takeover attempts. Egypt has a preserve in Dongola, at least as far as I've seen so far. Holy Land, Byz and Italy are crowded. England has a preserve too, but it's not lucrative. Scandinavia is good if you can blockade the straits (and you aren't too local to it). Sub-Sahara is still a haul, but lucrative.

Just saw that 2/3 Turk stack beseige Edessa. The rebs immediately sallied and ran them off. But another part stack close. The Turks may get it before I do. Of course, a lot of the rebs now have one chevron.

Carl

03-14-2007, 14:47

I don't like the Theologian's Guild HQ in Jerusalem either. Too deterministic. Make it a plain guild. Let the player decide where the master/GM goes (if he can). Players only get one.

It was just a random thought, i don't mind shifting it TBH, just thought it would give people a good reason to grab the place.

And, IMO, Jerusalem is a bit silly as far as the garrison goes. The AI won't take it for 100 turns, crusades and jihads nowithstanding (if then).

It's usually taken between turns 40 and 60 by the AI in my tests, typically a Crusade/Jihad hits it and weakens it then either a follow up normal army or more commonly a Crusade/Jihad will take it (typically they are called at about the same time so if a Jihad gets their first then the Crusades get it, if the Crusades get it the Jihad gets it). I designed the Garrison with Human Crusaders in mind in truth as it should really slow them down no end.
Although it was meant to be worse, but rebels can't have JHI, Qupoxloa, or Janissary Musketeers :evillaugh4: .

Any chance of getting you to try and fight that one on the battle map? It's got Ballista Towers so it should be a nice way of finding out how good/bad they are.

Acre fell to me turn 8. Would have been 2 turns sooner, but the Sultan croaked on me and he was to lead the attack. (Why, oh why does Egypt have to start with a 54 year old Sultan? And his son is no spring chicken! I suppose it's an intentional handicap to make up for the economic machine.)

Possibly, and it is a bit silly if you ask me.

I see a Turk army near Adana, but they don't have half the force needed to take it. Rotten intel on the AI's part. Heh, they turned around and went home.

This does seem, to happen a bit TBH.

Antioch is next, maybe turn 15. Definitely slower pace for me, but haven't seen AI manage anything so far. Allied with Turks and Hungary. Expect trouble from Turks anyway, but we'll see. Don't want to ally with Byz since I need their capital. If they and the Turks get into it, I can probably up my rep with Turks by pitching in (and stealing Cons first chance I get!)

So it's slower than before, interesting. Is it because of the better Garrison power wise, or are they about as powerful, but harder to deal with with limited forces? Are your units getting more experience now too BTW?

Also, the AI's been reprogrammed so it won't start wars with you or each other for the first 30 turns so you've got a bit of a wait in store before the Turks and Byzantium go at it.

Think I feel a jihad coming on soon. Money is tight. Even for Egypt. Lots of troops in the field. But am upgrading econ stuff as it makes sense (not port lines in Cairo, those are a total waste it appears).

The ports add trade bonuses to cities, these effect both land and sea trade, same with markets, if you have a port the markets upgrade income from your sea trade.

Did you boost fleet speed at all? Doesn't seem like it. Might have to do it by giving admirals a trait to up speed at birth. I haven't found any other number that actually seems to work, though I have found other numbers.

I've noticed that too, I think it's a combination job of 2 or 3 numbers that need altering TBH as level 2 shops are faster than level 1 ships so theirs a control somwhere. I did try buffing them though.

About to catch up to Byzzies in population. 4th overall. 6th military, 10th financial (but that's balance, not income... stupid).

Ok, turn 16 coming up and Antioch coming out. Mostly infantry and archers on both sides, but I have 7 cav and second general coming as reinforcements. They should swing things immediately.

Rep seems to not go up as fast, which is good. Allied with Venice, Turks and Hungarians now.

Sheesh, first city I see not-reb is Florence, and PS took that.

Glad to find your not top dog early on. getting an alliance boosts your rep, but maintaining one doesn't any more, so that cuts your rep gain a lot.

Papal States ALWAYS grabs Florance on the 2nd/3rd turn, it's the first reb province to fall normally, with Inverness falling a turn after typically.

Turn 16: Oh, power meter says I have better than 2:1. More like 3:1 from the bar, but the swords say 2:1. Gonna be lazy. Auto-resolve. Lost 188 to 389. Eek, draw! But they lose on a draw. Lots of prisoners, but I released them. Sacking would have gotten me 1500, which I could use... but the chivalry will pay it back in growth.

What did you have and what did they have, (i.e. was the Garrison damaged)? Chiv is now worth 0.4% growth per point BTW.

Heh, council wants me to take Adana. I'll think about it. Later. I have one dhow shuttling troops from Alexandria to Antioch, mainly for the Saracen militia, but some militia archers too. I have about a half stack of Cav, just Arab and Desert so far. Worrying more about economy than high tech troops at the moment. But have those horsies getting some exp in the sieges. As soon as I get another general or two I'll split off a field army of the Cav to hunt rebels for experience. No sign of other threats to date. Turn 14. Antioch will sally next turn and I think I'm ready for it. Might be able to storm it this turn, but why bother? They will come out next turn or STARVE!

Are you finding yourself too foot reliant then? If so is their any reason at all? IS it a case of insufficient HA, or do you just need more infantry for the sieges?

OK, Pope thinks I walk on water. But he's probably confusing me with a prophet. I created the fund for the financing of gluttony and sloth at Rome.

Battles won 3. Battles lost 0. Turn 16. Kinda slow.

Heh, Turk army, tiny one, besieged Adana. Got sent packing. But at least it wasn't all siege gear! No sign of that in Turk stacks so far.

The heresy situation seems OK. Spotted one heretic near Mosul.

Not sure what the trigger for siege engineer is, but they seem a bit common.

Thanks for the info, I'll look at siege engineer and architect. I didn't write the triggers for those so i'm not 100% sure of the cause ATM, but I find both too common.

Sheesh, silly AI. Genoa has a 1 general garrison. Milan has... ZERO.

They've probably got their entire army out after Burn and Dhjon. Expect one of them to fall in the next few turns.

OK, it's turn 19. I've taken 2 regions, a 3rd will sally next turn (Adana). I think I can beat them, but not a sure thing. PS got Florence. Of the rest:

zero regions taken: France, HRE, Venice, Sicily, England, Portugal, Hungary
one region: Spain, PS, Milan, Moors, Poland
two regions: Scotland! Russia, Egypt (me), Turks (must be to east, Tbilisi and Treb, maybe), Danes
three regions: Byz

VERY slowed down I think, but have you got Dongola and Jedda yet? They both have 4 unit weak garrisons, as did Baghdad. That could shift things in an awful big hurry.

Scotland tend to get Inverness early now, but it then either get York on the third attempt or stalls.

HRE and Hungary being Frozen are not so common, but the rest regularly stall. England sometimes gets going after turn 30 though.

You may have overcompensated with Byz. Yeah, one Turks got is Tbilisi. Other might be Treb or Smyrna, my maps are outdated. No, Smyrna is Byz. They may have grabbed Rhodes and Durazzo too. Looks like Turkey got Treb, unless they grabbed Baghdad after my spy left the area. From HRE maps, looks like Danes went north, but maps may be out of date too. Lowlands showing rebel (surprise!).

The trouble is that if Venice doesn't grab Rhodes or Durhazzo the Byzantines tend to get both and Smyrna. Sometimes Trebizond if the Turks are too slow,one of the reasons I want to give the Turks it, it secures one side against the Byzantines). The buff does help but part of the issue is that Byzantium doesn't often have any serious competitors, so it can grab stuff fast, it also starts with more places that can have ports so whilst Egypt may be a bigger money powerhouse in the long haul, in the first 30 turns or so it's the richest faction going and can support quite big armies if it's so inclined.
On the their hand I rarely see Dismounted Lancers so i might try swapping the Sears and Lancers over as it should encourage more of the Lancers early on.

Byz ranks 1, Egypt 2, Turkey 3 (go East!), HRE 3 or 4 (looks close), Moors 5

Augurs well for trouble for me. Odd that the Italians are so anemic.

Nice to see your not number 1 this early on.

The Italians are so weak because i still haven't debuffed the Mediterranean isles/Tunis for Sicily's benefit and I've mad Milan prefer land attacks and it needs a few turns to grab Bern/Djon, although it's still going slow.

I've also noticed the AI tend to go better if it's near the player, it's like it plays better when it's the players neighbor.

Turn 21: Adana fell, thanks to my Turkish allies They had a part stack there too. But I had almost two stacks. Still 2nd behind Byz. My economy is cranking now. 13.5k income, half that in expenses, but building getting expensive with Cairo and Alexandria built up, and Gaza moving too. Just doing walls and econ, mostly, in the two core cities. Rest econ. Adana needs to grow a lot, but I'll make it a big fort, I think. If the Turks let me keep it.

Been using Saracen Militia to beef up my siege armies. Suspect Kurd javs might be more efficient. And they are closer to the front since Gaza can make them. Once Antioch can make the bigger militia, that will be best though.

Sounds OK to me, I notice your saying you need a lot of Saracen Militia for Sieges? Is it just for Sieges, or are you needing them for Field armies a lot too? Nice to see allies pitching in to help out too.

Spain got Bordeaux. Zaragoza still rebel. 8 alliances now, France most recent. Up to 10 turns of 100 per turn tribute while still making the offer generous. But my power is "supreme" and I do have loads of allies including the PS. At first I only got 100 for 5 turns. Gotta finance my Pope-bribery somehow. I'm just brokering indulgences for him. Oh, it was Baghdad the Turks took.

Spain's moving fast. Zaragoza always seems to take forever to fall TBH. Nice to see you with lots of allies too.

I do sort of like the diplomat speed. But the spies are a bit overpowered with theirs, since they can "see" without using an action. Diplomats can to a far lesser degree, and they usually have business they need to be sure they can get to. Merchants are overpowered too. It's a bit TOO nice. It's also gonna be deadly in the closer in areas. You won't have ANY warning before you are challenged with takeover attempts. Egypt has a preserve in Dongola, at least as far as I've seen so far. Holy Land, Byz and Italy are crowded. England has a preserve too, but it's not lucrative. Scandinavia is good if you can blockade the straits (and you aren't too local to it). Sub-Sahara is still a haul, but lucrative.

I was thinking the same about Spies TBH. The Diplomat speed is a godsend as it lets you build them up and move them places in a hurry.

I had hoped Merchants would be less prone to being taken over. i'm trying to make Acquisition a fairly minor thing for merchants ATM, a useful extra, especially for shifting merchants of resources you want, but the majority of income comes from trading.

Just saw that 2/3 Turk stack besiege Edessa. The rebs immediately sallied and ran them off. But another part stack close. The Turks may get it before I do. Of course, a lot of the rebs now have one chevron.

I've seen them take it, but not this early normally.

vonsch

03-14-2007, 18:48

So it's slower than before, interesting. Is it because of the better Garrison power wise, or are they about as powerful, but harder to deal with with limited forces? Are your units getting more experience now too BTW?

Not, units are getting far less experience. Bigger battles, more units, fewer battles. The experience is spread around. When I quit for the night (well, morning) I think I had a couple with 2 chevrons. And the new garrisons are a disincentive to horse archers (which you may like), at least for the Egyptians. They will come into their own later. But that means there's no rush to upgrade that stable at Gaza. Have to try the Turks later. They are more dependent on horse archers in the early going. And they get cheaper ones.

The ports add trade bonuses to cities, these effect both land and sea trade, same with markets, if you have a port the markets upgrade income from your sea trade.

I think the Red Sea port are either very poor, or flat broken. Dongola is on the other side of the Nile, and not sure it has a connection to its port. The Cairo port never had any sea trade going in my last game (and I got to where I had Jedda and Dongola with ports too). Not saying the port has zero effect, but that it doesn't have its normal ROI. It's not worth paying for if money is tight.

Acre garrison was virgin. No idea what I had now. Probably mostly starting units and all of them. With a turn or two of cav builds from Gaza thrown in. Had one general. Other one was on governor duty.

The reason I am going so heavy on footsloggers is cost. Cav is not as efficient. Mobility means little in seiges and it costs relatively a lot. And replacements are more expensive too. And with the high unit count for defenders, it takes a lot of units. Which means paying maintenance on them longer. So I really look at the maint versus "firepower" ratio. The up front cost is a small part of the total when multi-turns are ensured.

Looking at the rosters, the only reason to use cav in a seige is to get it done fast, not cheaply. They get there faster, and if the defenses are light, they can get the job done. But they take far more losses in the tight spaces of a city than in the field. They aren't suited to the task. Though with very thin defenses they do well because they force the city square defense (instead of gate or walls) and there they have SOME room to at least attack flanks (sort of). But I autoresolve most seiges. I hate that pathing stuff. It's annoying. Very hard to even reform a unit into a different formation in a city.

But as things progress I expect to use more cav as the mobile (and destructive) arm. For things like crusade attrition and depleting defenders in the field, it's superior. And for strategic defense, denying easy access to my cities. Being able to throw cav at walls is a bit unrealistic anyway. So don't see the current thing as bad. The player does have the choice. It just makes sense, due to other factors, to choose infantry for this stage. For Egypt.

The numbers may work differently for the Turks, in which case I would force sallies and defent them in the field HA style. With infantry storming is viable. With pure cav you flat can't (though you can hire a few infantry merc units on the spot, cav is still not cost effective in the streets on the whole, at least if there are more than a couple defending units).

Thanks for the info, I'll look at siege engineer and architect. I didn't write the triggers for those so i'm not 100% sure of the cause ATM, but I find both too common.

Architect is not too common. You get it for building. If your "general" is sitting in a city playing governor, you deserve to get that one. It's the seige engineer that I don't know about. That one should come from building the seige line, I'd think. Or beseiging cities. Not sitting in cities.

VERY slowed down I think, but have you got Dongola and Jedda yet? They both have 4 unit weak garrisons, as did Baghdad.

No. Both are strategic dead ends. If I leave the Holy Land open, I will not get it, the Turks will. Those two are "safe" for Egypt for a while. And neither is important (though Dongola is nice for the trade). Both are poorly positioned for building units or other purposes of that nature, but both are economy boosters. I go for them once my forward borders are settled. I'd go earlier except Egypt doesn't have the generals to spare. I keep one on governor duty, and push the other (now two) forward to fight and get the trait boosts from that. And I use the 4th to put up towers everywhere (and it's a lot of towers!) So those two don't need large garrisons. They have a built in delay in that wasting resources on taking them early will hurt the player on the real front. Forces sent there are out of play for 10 turns each. And they are both far enough away that rebellions in general-less armies are very likely. I saw that happen with a half-stack I sent to Jedda in the last game. Made me more conservative where long trips are involved. Total waste of time and forces to have them rebel 5-6 turns move away.

Hmm, actually, Jedda almost justifies a port at Cairo. Just for the saved time getting there and back. The 800 for the port is probably recouped in just unit upkeep for the saved 4 turns or so. Don't think that would apply to Dongola though. It's a long way from the Red Sea.

Nice to see your not number 1 this early on.

It's actually bad strategy to be tall poppy early. I'm pushing it. The only thing keeping me out that early is I'm spending all my money. As soon as the economy is cranking, I will have trouble with getting alliances, I suspect. Need to move fast. The bigger buildup in army mass is also a factor. I usually build more economy and less army this early. But those garrisons are forcing me to build up a lot faster. I do have the choice of taking those conquests slower if I want to get into a war with the Turks later (well, sooner, in a sense). I'm less apt to be able to force them to attack me, and more apt to put muself where I have to take the rep hit by attacking them, if I delay my expansion.

I actually took Adana first for the council 2500. Could have taken Aleppo instead. I know Adana will mean earlier war with the Turks. But Edessa might also prove that trigger. Assuming I get it before the Turks. They are trying. They have backed away from Adana (for now) since I took it.

The question will be whether the Byz attack them to keep them off me or not. Suspect they will go for Treb and get into it with the Turks.

Sounds OK to me, I notice your saying you need a lot of Saracen Militia for Sieges? Is it just for Sieges, or are you needing them for Field armies a lot too? Nice to see allies pitching in to help out too.

Heh, what's a field army? All I have so far is armies aimed at cities. Antioch is crammed full, and there's a fort just outside Aleppo that's almost full. Both will hit Aleppo shortly. Using almost two full stacks to overpower the garrisons, which keeps my losses down.

The "ally helping: bit was tongue in cheek. They were after the city, I just beat them. Since they were adjacent to it, they got pulled in as an ally force. They took zero losses, but then so did my second stack. The main stack did all the work in the autoresolve, it appears.

I don't really know about the merchant takeover chances yet. I don't have any in the heavy competition areas. My comments there were based on past experience. Someone needs to play Milan or Venice to test that. Lots of merchants fast and in the really hot zone.

especially for shifting merchants of resources you want, but the majority of income comes from trading.

Heh, shifting them off resources is no problem. A little force works (a military unit will shove them aside).

Okay, caffeine then I'll play on a bit more with that one.

chickenhawk

03-14-2007, 18:57

Carl I think I have found a definite bug.

Playing as the English on Vh/VH I waited out Carnoevan and Dublin. In both cases the garrison sallied. The game did not give me the pre battle screen where I get to pick whether to fight or auto resolve. It just went ahead and auto resolved. Is this a leftover from testing maybe? It was definitely not happening in 1.20

The number of missile troops in those motte and baileys makes assault almost prohibitive by the way. The M & B also slows me down considerably because I don't need castles in these locations, I need cities. I can't afford the troops I could make from Caen and Nottingham, so having to convert them is a definite brake.

I like the agent speeds, but it lets them get more done, opinions may vary.

Ship speeds are unchanged. This may matter less since agents can get where they are going. I am not sure the AI could deal with long range amphibious assaults from the player.

Will give a more complete report in a little while on the rest of the campaign.

vonsch

03-14-2007, 19:19

Playing as the English on Vh/VH I waited out Carnoevan and Dublin. In both cases the garrison sallied. The game did not give me the pre battle screen where I get to pick whether to fight or auto resolve. It just went ahead and auto resolved. Is this a leftover from testing maybe? It was definitely not happening in 1.20

The number of missile troops in those motte and baileys makes assault almost prohibitive by the way. The M & B also slows me down considerably because I don't need castles in these locations, I need cities. I can't afford the troops I could make from Caen and Nottingham, so having to convert them is a definite brake.

I haven't seen that and I force sallies a lot. Odd. I'll keep an eye out for it. Is there a configuration switch somewhere in the .cfg file to never autoresolve?

Caernoven is a castle-type in vanilla. So that's no change. Dublin is a town. A town without a stockade, as I recall. Just give it a wall, Carl. It's always had a pretty decent garrison.

And Chicken, I flip Caen over to a city immediately. But then that's because I hate getting into it with the French early. I basically ally with them and pull out, just leave Caen as a money pump with little improvement for the eventual day when France decides to backstab me. When I need a castle on the continent, I pick my own and take it! ~;) The Ai has usually nicely outfitted it for me by then. With trade agreements, Caen is better at producing money early than those small towns. But I flip them to towns too, they grow a lot faster, then back to castles later if I want castles. I just don't build stone walls so I keep that option. England can get away with a small and elite military early if they don't get pushy in France.

chickenhawk

03-14-2007, 19:37

vonsch

03-14-2007, 19:40

Especially with the tech tree changes Carl has made I can get good units out of Can very early, but I had not considered the economic benefits of flipping it. I was kind of hoping the French would shatter a stack or two on it about the time it went to a fortress. You, and that Machiavelli guy are right about money,money, and more money though.

I do always take out Scotland first. I like one front wars. With the merchant changes in my current campaign I might try to take Sweden an Norway. Some of those resources are worth real money now.

Yeah, Scandinavia isn't bad for merchants. But it's gonna put you into conflict with the Danes, who consider that their backyard. Plan for that. If you can get there early and blockade the strait, it's better. I always seem to get there when the Danes already have a force in Sweden. And I'm usually trying to avoid continental wars with Catholic factions! (Not that I've ever managed, so far.)

But I have hopes! (if Carl lets me play England again... ~;) )

Carl

03-14-2007, 20:24

chickenhawk

03-14-2007, 20:40

How do I disable it?

Carl

03-14-2007, 20:59

Not, units are getting far less experience. Bigger battles, more units, fewer battles. The experience is spread around. When I quit for the night (well, morning) I think I had a couple with 2 chevrons. And the new garrisons are a disincentive to horse archers (which you may like), at least for the Egyptians. They will come into their own later. But that means there's no rush to upgrade that stable at Gaza. Have to try the Turks later. They are more dependent on horse archers in the early going. And they get cheaper ones.

Hmm, fair enough about the experience, not what I'd prefer but unavoidable. The HA situation is a bit sad, (they are Egypt's unique unit after all), but a bit unavoidable, it's worth noting however this may be getting thrown a bit as I disabled rebel and pirate spawning in my testing to see if it speeded up the AI (it didn't really), and have forgotten to re-enable it. S their won't be many rebel Field armies ATM. Sorry about that, i only realized when I came to try and edit some starting provinces around just before I went out.

I think the Red Sea port are either very poor, or flat broken. Dongola is on the other side of the Nile, and not sure it has a connection to its port. The Cairo port never had any sea trade going in my last game (and I got to where I had Jedda and Dongola with ports too). Not saying the port has zero effect, but that it doesn't have its normal ROI. It's not worth paying for if money is tight.

Of course, I was just saying that if you have spare income it is worth it as it does give a bonus to your land trade, just as markets boost your sea trade.

Acre garrison was virgin. No idea what I had now. Probably mostly starting units and all of them. With a turn or two of cav builds from Gaza thrown in. Had one general. Other one was on governor duty.

So it was a tough Garrison on it's own, but not utterly silly as i feared, (I was worried it was a major force of extremely high quality stuff that got beat up badly).

The reason I am going so heavy on footsloggers is cost. Cav is not as efficient. Mobility means little in seiges and it costs relatively a lot. And replacements are more expensive too. And with the high unit count for defenders, it takes a lot of units. Which means paying maintenance on them longer. So I really look at the maint versus "firepower" ratio. The up front cost is a small part of the total when multi-turns are ensured.

Looking at the rosters, the only reason to use cav in a seige is to get it done fast, not cheaply. They get there faster, and if the defenses are light, they can get the job done. But they take far more losses in the tight spaces of a city than in the field. They aren't suited to the task. Though with very thin defenses they do well because they force the city square defense (instead of gate or walls) and there they have SOME room to at least attack flanks (sort of). But I autoresolve most seiges. I hate that pathing stuff. It's annoying. Very hard to even reform a unit into a different formation in a city.

But as things progress I expect to use more cav as the mobile (and destructive) arm. For things like crusade attrition and depleting defenders in the field, it's superior. And for strategic defense, denying easy access to my cities. Being able to throw cav at walls is a bit unrealistic anyway. So don't see the current thing as bad. The player does have the choice. It just makes sense, due to other factors, to choose infantry for this stage. For Egypt.

The numbers may work differently for the Turks, in which case I would force sallies and defent them in the field HA style. With infantry storming is viable. With pure cav you flat can't (though you can hire a few infantry merc units on the spot, cav is still not cost effective in the streets on the whole, at least if there are more than a couple defending units).

Thanks for that explanation, and I agree about pathing. It is improved and I've had uphill formed charges in castles before, but it takes a lot of careful rearranging of unit widths to get things just right.

I tend to auto-resolve because of the pathing too TBH.

Architect is not too common. You get it for building. If your "general" is sitting in a city playing governor, you deserve to get that one. It's the seige engineer that I don't know about. That one should come from building the seige line, I'd think. Or beseiging cities. Not sitting in cities.

True, I just see Goveners pick it, (Architect), up every single time within a few turns, i've even had feild generals who've stoopped for 5 turns to secure PO get it. hats a pretty bad state of affairs.

No. Both are strategic dead ends. If I leave the Holy Land open, I will not get it, the Turks will. Those two are "safe" for Egypt for a while. And neither is important (though Dongola is nice for the trade). Both are poorly positioned for building units or other purposes of that nature, but both are economy boosters. I go for them once my forward borders are settled. I'd go earlier except Egypt doesn't have the generals to spare. I keep one on governor duty, and push the other (now two) forward to fight and get the trait boosts from that. And I use the 4th to put up towers everywhere (and it's a lot of towers!) So those two don't need large garrisons. They have a built in delay in that wasting resources on taking them early will hurt the player on the real front. Forces sent there are out of play for 10 turns each. And they are both far enough away that rebellions in general-less armies are very likely. I saw that happen with a half-stack I sent to Jedda in the last game. Made me more conservative where long trips are involved. Total waste of time and forces to have them rebel 5-6 turns move away.

Hmm, actually, Jedda almost justifies a port at Cairo. Just for the saved time getting there and back. The 800 for the port is probably recouped in just unit upkeep for the saved 4 turns or so. Don't think that would apply to Dongola though. It's a long way from the Red Sea.

I was thinking f them more as Cav production centerers as the Cav can eat the distance fast, and also in the case of Dongola, it could feed all sorts of troops to Alexandria to by shipped to the holy lands, the Turks tends to concentrate on Tbilisi and Trebizond first, and then spends a fair few turns weakening garrisons up so you'd probably have had chance to do that and if you struck quickly at the territory near the turks cut them off from the holy land and have the whole lot.

But i'm not an Egypt player so you'd probably have a better idea than me.

It's actually bad strategy to be tall poppy early. I'm pushing it. The only thing keeping me out that early is I'm spending all my money. As soon as the economy is cranking, I will have trouble with getting alliances, I suspect.

It was harder before because their where triggers that automatically lowed your rep and faction standing with everyone if you where in the top 5 or so. Since the player is almost always going to be at least 5th no mater what I do I decided to just remove those triggers, so being 1st shouldn't make it any harder to get alliances.

Need to move fast. The bigger buildup in army mass is also a factor. I usually build more economy and less army this early. But those garrisons are forcing me to build up a lot faster. I do have the choice of taking those conquests slower if I want to get into a war with the Turks later (well, sooner, in a sense). I'm less apt to be able to force them to attack me, and more apt to put muself where I have to take the rep hit by attacking them, if I delay my expansion.

I actually took Adana first for the council 2500. Could have taken Aleppo instead. I know Adana will mean earlier war with the Turks. But Edessa might also prove that trigger. Assuming I get it before the Turks. They are trying. They have backed away from Adana (for now) since I took it.

The question will be whether the Byz attack them to keep them off me or not. Suspect they will go for Treb and get into it with the Turks.

The Byzantines tend to go for turkey pretty fast so probably. And thanks for the extra info, it sounds inane to most people but it paints a really clear picture which lets me plot opening moves in my head and figure out how well your doing.

Heh, what's a field army? All I have so far is armies aimed at cities. Antioch is crammed full, and there's a fort just outside Aleppo that's almost full. Both will hit Aleppo shortly. Using almost two full stacks to overpower the garrisons, which keeps my losses down.

The "ally helping: bit was tongue in cheek. They were after the city, I just beat them. Since they were adjacent to it, they got pulled in as an ally force. They took zero losses, but then so did my second stack. The main stack did all the work in the autoresolve, it appears.

LOL, I hoped it might be something like this, but I DO want to see Egypt's HA used early on as thats when they excel, and I wanted to check it wasn't a case of them being too weak.

I got the irony with the Allies comment, I've just never sen tis happen before so...

I don't really know about the merchant takeover chances yet. I don't have any in the heavy competition areas. My comments there were based on past experience. Someone needs to play Milan or Venice to test that. Lots of merchants fast and in the really hot zone.

Or Byzantium. Will have to ask somebody to do that as I want your English blitz at some point too.

Heh, shifting them off resources is no problem. A little force works (a military unit will shove them aside).

LOL, that only works near home, not so useful when the nearest army is half the world away, which was more what i meant:smash:.

The number of missile troops in those motte and baileys makes assault almost prohibitive by the way. The M & B also slows me down considerably because I don't need castles in these locations, I need cities. I can't afford the troops I could make from Caen and Nottingham, so having to convert them is a definite brake.

I did it more for the AI's benefit as they are normally desprally short of castles, but i've begun to suspect that both York and Dublin should be pallissade walls, same in a few other areas. But in most areas the AI is often in desperate need of castles.

I like the agent speeds, but it lets them get more done, opinions may vary.

Ship speeds are unchanged. This may matter less since agents can get where they are going. I am not sure the AI could deal with long range amphibious assaults from the player.

Will give a more complete report in a little while on the rest of the campaign.

Thanks for that, I was actually trying to encourage naval attacks and defenses by the AI TBH, one issue right now is that the AI often has it's fleets badly out of position if the player tries navel invasions and can never get them into position to defend.

Caernoven is a castle-type in vanilla. So that's no change. Dublin is a town. A town without a stockade, as I recall. Just give it a wall, Carl. It's always had a pretty decent garrison.

I was thinking the same, when I added things in a I just changed every settlement without a wall to a Motte and Bailey castle TBH without thinking about it as in most places thats what the AI needs the most.

How do I disable it?

Go into your Medevil 2 prefrance.cfg file and look for the following entries and delete them:

[multiplayer]
playable = 1
hotseat_turns = 1
hotseat_scroll = 0
hotseat_update_ai_camera = 0
hotseat_disable_papal_elections = 0
hotseat_autoresolve_battles = 0
hotseat_save_prefs = 1
hotseat_disable_console = 0
hotseat_validate_diplomacy = 1

Does that Help?

Any idea how it got enabled as my mod shouldn't enable it...

But I have hopes! (if Carl lets me play England again... )

I just want a quick check that Egypt/Turks are Okay power wise now, thats all. After that if you still feel up to it I'd love an attempted English blitz to find out how you do, thats going to be EXTREMELY valuable info, I just ant to check the old versions faults have been put to rest.

vonsch

03-14-2007, 21:18

I see Anno Domini is increasing ship speeds via an invisible admiral trait, which was my plan A (until I saw all those movement numbers in files relating to ships).

Just give it to all admirals at birth and tinker with the number there. I think he uses 20. Not sure how that translates, probably 5% per point.

And on the Egyptian HA, yeah, lack of compelling reason to build them yet is part of it. I noticed the missing bandits too, and meant to ask. The ARE a major source of general training. Too many can be annoyingly dusruptive, but not enough isn't a good thing either.

Bring back the bandits! (Can you tell me what the setting should be, and where it is? Campaign file?)

Been going through the AD traits to see if there's anythign interesting. He did a fair bit of reorganizing, and stripped out some things. But still WAY too much emphasis on princesses there, considering how uncommon they are in game. Half those princess traits (both the good and bad sides) can just be cut. If you want to release some resources (script execution time and bulk of text in the file).

A lot of the random general traits that the player can't influence at all could go too. Some are okay, we shouldn't have TOO much control (can we ever?), but some are pretty silly. And annoying. If they are triggered by player choices, that's different. Like those firing off sitting passively in settlements, or sitting in the countryside... or burning all movement points, etc. AD stripped out a bunch, it appears. But not all by any means (and not much of the princess garbage that we never even see).

I just want a quick check that Egypt/Turks are Okay power wise now, thats all. After that if you still feel up to it I'd love an attempted English blitz to find out how you do, thats going to be EXTREMELY valuable info, I just ant to check the old versions faults have been put to rest.

The blitz I mean of England is just of England itself. After that I'd settle in a bit, then try a swing far south to Moorland. I figure to tie up the ivory and such, then use that as a springboard east along Africa and the islands (where I can without tackling Catholics unless they start a war). I'd aim to take over the Holy Land and play with the hordes. The would mean wiping out Moors, Egypt, and maybe Turkey for the dear ol' Papa.

Of course, I'd never do all that testing!

I think Egypt is ok. Changed a bit, but everyone will be with the major uptick in rebel settlement garrisons.

I could try a bit of early Turk to see what the implications are with HA there.

Hmm, my 5 star merch vs a 3 star, 32% chance. But the AI seems to have a hidden boost. I say SEEMS. No hard data. It seems to beat my guys a LOT more often than I do its, with the same odds showing. That said, that one was taken over first try. ~;)

Dongola is 4 turns from Cairo over mostly paved roads, btw. Jedda is farther from Gaza. I think that's farther than it is from Nottingham to Dublin. And there's the navy shortcut to make that 3 turns at worst, maybe 2. So don't expect Dongola or Jedda to be early captures for anyone, even with the small garrisons. Failure means another 10 turn wait.

Turn 24, Tunis is still rebel. My diplo can't see if the garrison looks like it's been fighting. Turks are beseiging Edessa again. They hava a chance, this time, but doesn't look great.

Carl

03-14-2007, 21:59

I see Anno Domini is increasing ship speeds via an invisible admiral trait, which was my plan A (until I saw all those movement numbers in files relating to ships).

Just give it to all admirals at birth and tinker with the number there. I think he uses 20. Not sure how that translates, probably 5% per point.

:yes:, 5% per point, I just didn't know the other numbers didn't work till it was too late.

And on the Egyptian HA, yeah, lack of compelling reason to build them yet is part of it. I noticed the missing bandits too, and meant to ask. The ARE a major source of general training. Too many can be annoyingly dusruptive, but not enough isn't a good thing either.

Bring back the bandits! (Can you tell me what the setting should be, and where it is? Campaign file?)

If you go into Descr_Strat you'll find the following lines:

marian_reforms_disabled
;rebelling_characters_active
gladiator_uprising_disabled
night_battles_enabled
brigand_spawn_value 100
pirate_spawn_value 100

Change them to

marian_reforms_disabled
rebelling_characters_active
gladiator_uprising_disabled
night_battles_enabled
brigand_spawn_value 50
pirate_spawn_value 50

Been going through the AD traits to see if there's anythign interesting. He did a fair bit of reorganizing, and stripped out some things. But still WAY too much emphasis on princesses there, considering how uncommon they are in game. Half those princess traits (both the good and bad sides) can just be cut. If you want to release some resources (script execution time and bulk of text in the file).

A lot of the random general traits that the player can't influence at all could go too. Some are Okay, we shouldn't have TOO much control (can we ever?), but some are pretty silly. And annoying. If they are triggered by player choices, that's different. Like those firing off sitting passively in settlements, or sitting in the countryside... or burning all movement points, etc. AD stripped out a bunch, it appears. But not all by any means (and not much of the princess garbage that we never even see).

I'm using a set of traits that someone else did before, then modified myself, so they are far from default.

their are more traits given randomly. But inheritance has been modified apparently as well as a number of bugs fixed.

The reason half the princess traits are never seen is because theirs no triggers to give hem. these have been fixed and they can now actually effect the sons and daughters of said princess so watch out their. I plan to expand the Inheritance stuff further eventually so most traits can be got in 4 or 5 different ways. Makes picking generals with care a bit more important. It also makes princesses a LOT more important. I also plan extra ancillaries and even a few Little easter eggs eventually~;p.

The blitz I mean of England is just of England itself. After that I'd settle in a bit, then try a swing far south to Moorland. I figure to tie up the ivory and such, then use that as a springboard east along Africa and the islands (where I can without tackling Catholics unless they start a war). I'd aim to take over the Holy Land and play with the hordes. The would mean wiping out Moors, Egypt, and maybe Turkey for the dear ol' Papa.

Thats fine, even a starting blitz would be interesting to see in action TBH, just to know how hard it is.

Of course, I'd never do all that testing!

I think Egypt is ok. Changed a bit, but everyone will be with the major uptick in rebel settlement garrisons.

I could try a bit of early Turk to see what the implications are with HA there.

Hmm, my 5 star merch vs a 3 star, 32% chance. But the AI seems to have a hidden boost. I say SEEMS. No hard data. It seems to beat my guys a LOT more often than I do its, with the same odds showing. That said, that one was taken over first try.

Would be nice to see about the Turks, and I've noticed the AI merchant success too, it's so annoying as I can't figure out why...

Dongola is 4 turns from Cairo over mostly paved roads, btw. Jedda is farther from Gaza. I think that's farther than it is from Nottingham to Dublin. And there's the navy shortcut to make that 3 turns at worst, maybe 2. So don't expect Dongola or Jedda to be early captures for anyone, even with the small garrisons. Failure means another 10 turn wait.

Right, good explanation, didn't realize it was so far away.

Turn 24, Tunis is still rebel. My diplo can't see if the garrison looks like it's been fighting. Turks are beseiging Edessa again. They hava a chance, this time, but doesn't look great.

Tunis is probably untouched, i think i'm going to have to give it to Sicily as not even weakened Tunis and Island rebels will make them move. Don't have a clue why TBH.

Gingivitis

03-14-2007, 22:29

Having some frustrations with guilds but not sure whether it's because of the Problemfixer or if it's the way the game works, but either way it's a problem I'm hoping for a fix for :wall:

I'm in a campaign as Sicily and one of things I wanted as a priority was a theologians guild in Tunis. I have the town size pre-reqs for the guild and have produced 10 priests there and lo and behold I get the offer for the guild in Florence, where I have produced no priests and have only the whatever church that takes 2 turns to build is. I don't want the guild in Florence of course so I say no. Looking at the table in the guides section (at work so I don't have my computer with your guild file in it so I'm not sure how different it is) it's possible I may not have enough points in Tunis 10 priests x 10 points, +25 for churches built, +30 for getting a pope, 2 heretics -10 points=145 points. I'm not sure if it's 100 or 150 points, but I don't get why Florence would be offered it when by the same chart it would only have 55 points and Tunis wouldn't. Having a similar problem with my thieves guild too. I'm happy about the Mason's guild change though, before I'd only get them on converted castles so it's nice to have. The bonus of getting to recruit extra first level militia is pretty useless however. Actually saw the AI have a Mason's guild in Rome too, cool.

Carl

03-14-2007, 22:39

The New forum's up for this mod, so with any luck this thread should be getting moved soon.

p.s. thanks for that Gingivitis.

More comments in a moment.

I'm in a campaign as Sicily and one of things I wanted as a priority was a theologians guild in Tunis. I have the town size pre-reqs for the guild and have produced 10 priests there and lo and behold I get the offer for the guild in Florence, where I have produced no priests and have only the whatever church that takes 2 turns to build is. I don't want the guild in Florence of course so I say no. Looking at the table in the guides section (at work so I don't have my computer with your guild file in it so I'm not sure how different it is) it's possible I may not have enough points in Tunis 10 priests x 10 points, +25 for churches built, +30 for getting a pope, 2 heretics -10 points=145 points. I'm not sure if it's 100 or 150 points, but I don't get why Florence would be offered it when by the same chart it would only have 55 points and Tunis wouldn't. Having a similar problem with my thieves guild too.

Thats strange, you should have enough points if you've done it often enough (you lose 1 point a turn after turn 25), and you lose points every time a church is destroyed too i think. Being Excommed doesn't help either I think. Still it's 100pt's for the first level, you should have been offered it...

I'm happy about the Mason's guild change though, before I'd only get them on converted castles so it's nice to have. The bonus of getting to recruit extra first level militia is pretty useless however. Actually saw the AI have a Mason's guild in Rome too, cool.

True about the militia i'm afraid, I wonder if you can get it to HQ level?

Gingivitis

03-14-2007, 22:48

I'm only at around turn 45ish and it may have something to do with (think I read it here somewhere) that if you turn a guild down you won't be offered the same one for 10 turns. But as I said, I could see maybe not getting offered one at all, but to get one offered in Florence where I've done nothing, as opposed to Tunis, where I'm actively trying to get it, is weird.

Carl

03-14-2007, 23:16

Agreed on the weird, i'll see if I can't figure out why for you.

vonsch

03-14-2007, 23:53

No, no, no... the reason we don't see the princess traits is that princesses are so rare. Only a few female kids can ever end up princesses. So that work is largely wasted. I say don't lavish effort on them.

But heredity, per se, is fine. Just not princess-specific stuff. Let princesses carry genes from dad too. That would be cool. Especially if kids got them from both parents (if a mom was a princess). THEN there would be reason to seek out princesses, maybe. Still not enough of them though. (My Sultan in one game had 4 girls... what a waste.) Doubt there's a way to check mom's traits at coming of age for her kid though. But the dad could get them from the mom at marriage in a hidden (and not efective for him) form, and pass them along that way. (Not suggesting this deserves immediate effort, just an idea for a cool addition.)

Fixed the bandit/pirate thing, thanks. I thought that was the file, but didn't know how those numbers worked... backwards!

Gonna try England a while The Egypt game is saved if anything in particular needs testing there. Not having the bandits in it sort of destroys it for actual playing on.

I want to see how Portugal fares with a player's sideways thinking now too. I think your changes may help the player ~;). Anything to slow down the Spanish helps.

It occurs to me the old "take out the AI faction first" strategy is still the best. Ignore the rebels settlements. Let them act as decoys. Let the AI waste resources beating down the garrisons. It won't garrison them as well. Hit the chief competition capital and main castle(s) when their garrisons are low. The walls work in your favor once you have them.

This applies to England only as far as dealing with the Scots goes. But applies to most other factions, with some exceptions. Be hard to manage as Russia, I suspect.

England: I see you upped their fleets. Makes my plan even more viable. (I assume that's done for the AI's sake.) The big risk before was that one bit of bad luck with pirates would wipe me out. Last time I did it I caught the Scot army aboard their fleet just outside Edinburg. That was nice. Booted them into the North Sea while I took the capital. They went bandit with that, then I caught them at the port as pirates and killed off their army (as bandits) at no cost but a couple of sailors. ~;)

Ok, first turn, Cecelia to Angers to seal an alliance with the Frogs. Then she'll look for that cute French princess for her brother. Her charm is 5 after the frog-kissing, so she'll watch for good offers of marriage too. I usually shoot for 5 charm, then pick up an extra general with her. In the meanwhile she plays diplomat more. I put the merchant to work on wool in England where he's safer. Work up some skill. He's also positioned to work with the first merchant I build in London to learn the monopolist line. Diplomat beelines for Pope, with stops where it makes sense to get alliances. Pope is priority due to war with Scotland.

All but one peasant ships from France. And Caen converts and builds tier 1 trade stuff after destroying the other castle stuff for the florins to pay for the trade stuff. Except for the baracks, which converts to a militia equivalent for garrison troops. I queue up a small church and land clearance. First church gives a nice nudge to pope bribing. Farm boosts growth and income. But I go for short payback, since France may still pick a fight. Then I can either give it to an ally, or use it to make peace with France, after destroying most of the infrastructure that I can.

Combined fleets head to North Sea and up the coast. They'll grab more troops along the way. Spy heads up, carefully bypassing the mob at York. He'kk peek into Edinburg every turn to try to boost his chance at opening the gates. King takes all but peasants from London and heads north along coast. Prince parks on coast too. London queues up militia, Nottingham watever it can (no knights anymore). Nottingham troops shift to prince too. (With 1.13, Prince goes to Caernavon and takes that with the Nottingham troops after grabbing York. Don't need as many troops to get things done there.) King builds a tower on North Sea coast too. Pirate watch. Prince can't in this version, since he can't grab York. Don't need a second tower so close to the one the King built.

London starts port then land clearance. Port can trade with Caen, and it's emergency hideout in case of trouble with pirates. Same for Nottingham, though I consider starting armories because that will cut casualties and costs. But econ and pop growth are bigger issues. Have to sustain larger armies. Holding off on more churches, hoping Pope will give me missions to build them. That way they nearly pay for themselves. ~;)

Not many mercs available, but I rarely use them except for crusades. Upkeep is already 4000 of 6000 income. Council will probably want me to take York. Or worse, Rennes.

Turn 2. Scot diplo gets trade agreement. I hold him up for a measly 70 florins for my map. He wouldn't pay for the trade rights. Darned cheap Scots! Yep, Council says take York. Later. Two royals in Edinburg atm. My fleet passing Nottingham. Captain Kirk appears to be heading to Inverness. Easier for me if the Scots head to Dublin. Gonna have to split off a ship to help carry all these troops next turn. No sign of the French princess. She'll probably turn up in Italy, but she may have screwed up her charm by then. Bishop heading south the musselman lands too.

Turn 3. Hmm, 4 chivalry, 3 star, 9 loyalty husband prospect for my princess. 37 though. Davy Dangerfyeld. She won't respect him, but he's solid. Hmm, gonna risk passing, prefer to use her to get Iberian alliances first. Scots beseiging Inverness. My fleet(s) off Edinburg's fishing village. Still a half stack of Scots near Edinburg, that's inconvenient. I have 3 generals and 21 units, mostly militia and peasant archers. They have mostly militia too, at least. 2 border horse and 1 highlanders, and the two generals holed up.

Cecilia signed Spain (princess was at Pamplona, but only 3 charm). Her charm is up to 6. Might go back and steal a Frog general if it keeps rising. Diplomat found a PS counterpart at Bologna, so that's taken care of. Set up a 10 turn slush fund while he deals with the other 'mats. Perfect relations and alliance with the Pope. Now to whip the poor kilties.

Turn 4. Will the Scots make it easy? No. May lose this one. Their fleet arrived though, maybe I should wait a turn and see if this stack (which grew) boards it. Inverness fell to the claymores. No one turn knockout now. Darn. Let me try something, drop the prince on the border, see if they react at all.

Well, decided to go for it. Spy got the gates open, 5:4 odds (darned reinforcement stack!). Clear victory, lost 317 to 475. Both royals dead, it appears. Ouch, Scot sailors dealt me an embarassing setback there. But they have no port, they are doomed. Scot survivors to Battle of Edinburg holed up in Inverness. Heading there next. Darned Scots are up in arms in Edinburg, need to drop taxes to low and keep some garrison to keep them in line. Prince Rufus is babysitting too. Cost me two crosses with the Pope. Have to keep an eye on that. May need to bring him a parrot from Africa.

Turn 5. King William is 51. Best use his (now) 5 stars and dread before he passes on. Leave the kindler gentler stuff to Rufus. Scot spy committed suicide at Edinburgh. Good riddance! Scots calming down after that execution. Can spare more garrison to tackle Inverness. My spy still only skill 3. About a half stack there. Won't be pretty. They are not militia. More than half are highland sorts, more archers though. Seige begun. 6 turns, but I think I'll storm once Edinburg ships them a couple of turns of reinforcements. On the other hand... I do have them nicely bottled up. Income 7650, upkeep costs 4350. Putting merchant 2 into training to work on wool with the starter.

Hmm, my rep is dubious, why? I made no alliance with Scotland. Just trade rights. My attack on them? And continuing the war with the seige? (darned bad luck!) HRE won't make an alliance with a generous offer. Oh well, not a large problem for me. Have Spain, Portugal, Milan, PS and France. Cardinal is in Cordoba converting heathens.

Turn 6. 4th overall. Ugh, storm at Edinburg. Damaged buildings. Stormed Inverness. Stripped Edinburg garrison and dropped taxes to compensate. 9:5 odds. Clear victory, lost 40, killed 354. I kilt them! Heh, got ransom offer, wonder if they will pay... Yes! That's just dumb. They had no where to go. Guess they allo headed to France. Scotland is no more.

Normally I manage this a turn or two earlier. But it was poor luck in that Scots took Inverness first try. They usually don't. But I got a bit lucky on the seiges too, in compensationl. That first one was iffy.

I expect another 15 turns to clean out the rebs though.

Having some frustrations with guilds but not sure whether it's because of the Problemfixer or if it's the way the game works, but either way it's a problem I'm hoping for a fix for :wall:

I'm in a campaign as Sicily and one of things I wanted as a priority was a theologians guild in Tunis. I have the town size pre-reqs for the guild and have produced 10 priests there and lo and behold I get the offer for the guild in Florence, where I have produced no priests and have only the whatever church that takes 2 turns to build is. I don't want the guild in Florence of course so I say no. Looking at the table in the guides section (at work so I don't have my computer with your guild file in it so I'm not sure how different it is) it's possible I may not have enough points in Tunis 10 priests x 10 points, +25 for churches built, +30 for getting a pope, 2 heretics -10 points=145 points. I'm not sure if it's 100 or 150 points, but I don't get why Florence would be offered it when by the same chart it would only have 55 points and Tunis wouldn't. Having a similar problem with my thieves guild too. I'm happy about the Mason's guild change though, before I'd only get them on converted castles so it's nice to have. The bonus of getting to recruit extra first level militia is pretty useless however. Actually saw the AI have a Mason's guild in Rome too, cool.

You can only be offered one guild per turn, and it's not always at the city that you want. And some points are "universal," so you can get offered the wrong guild in the right city too. I see that a lot with merchant guilds and explorer guilds (all my economic buildup puts points everywhere!) I don't see anything unusual here. Frustrating, yes. Just keep building church stuff and priests there, and be GOOD. Some negative activities may hurt you (haven't looked at this file for 1.21, but I saw something like that in AD, but may be an addition there.) The points are not wiped clean when you accept a guild, so having "too many" just means an offer of a master guild sooner (just don't take Jerusalem! Carl dumped the HQ there! If you take that no more master guild for you! No idea what happens if you take the HQ after you have the master too, but seems you can't make a master if you have an HQ.)

The bonus troops are nice if you're threatened and just need to pump lots of units out. Otherwise, I don't bother with many guild troops. They are bulk, not quality.

Bug!! Inverness is a castle, yet it has a mustering hall. Noticed when it let me retrain my town militia. Should be the castle version of the barracks building, garrison quarters.

I'll keep an eye out for those.

Carl

03-15-2007, 00:12

Bug!! Inverness is a castle, yet it has a mustering hall. Noticed when it let me retrain my town militia. Should be the castle version of the barracks building, garrison quarters.

I'll keep an eye out for those.

nope, Town watch is the first city level one. remember we said it might be an idea to move some cheap militia into it as it had nothing built their in V1.20, it was just a pre-requisite for Garrison Quarters,

Give me a few minutes to reply to the rest.

vonsch

03-15-2007, 00:23

nope, Town watch is the first city level one. remember we said it might be an idea to move some cheap militia into it as it had nothing built their in V1.20, it was just a pre-requisite for Garrison Quarters,

Give me a few minutes to reply to the rest.

Hmm, did we? (scratches head, yawns...) Must be sleep deprivation. Ah, yes, I do remember something about that. It was right after the wall unit changes.

Sorry, my confusion.

Darn, thought I had a real bug. :oops:

And how did I get here anyway? I thought I was in Citadel! ~;)

Darned Capt Kirk must have teleported me.

Can't find that silly French princess. Maybe I'll build a brothel in Caen. She'll turn up. I mean... a spy will turn her up! Unless she shacked up with some silly Hamlet or other.

Carl

03-15-2007, 00:25

No, no, no... the reason we don't see the princess traits is that princesses are so rare. Only a few female kids can ever end up princesses. So that work is largely wasted. I say don't lavish effort on them.

But heredity, per se, is fine. Just not princess-specific stuff. Let princesses carry genes from dad too. That would be cool. Especially if kids got them from both parents (if a mom was a princess). THEN there would be reason to seek out princesses, maybe. Still not enough of them though. (My Sultan in one game had 4 girls... what a waste.) Doubt there's a way to check mom's traits at coming of age for her kid though. But the dad could get them from the mom at marriage in a hidden (and not efective for him) form, and pass them along that way. (Not suggesting this deserves immediate effort, just an idea for a cool addition.)

Thats exactly what I was talking about. That and the various "Wife is Fair", "Wife is Noble", "Wife is Charming", e.t.c. all affect the Sons/Daughter now apparently anyway. (at least thats what the readme for the trait file i'm working from said). I was simply planning on expanding on this theme. Of course other stuff does have to come first, but the guy behind the base file fixed most of the bugs.

Fixed the bandit/pirate thing, thanks. I thought that was the file, but didn't know how those numbers worked... backwards!

Gonna try England a while The Egypt game is saved if anything in particular needs testing there. Not having the bandits in it sort of destroys it for actual playing on.

I want to see how Portugal fares with a player's sideways thinking now too. I think your changes may help the player . Anything to slow down the Spanish helps.

It occurs to me the old "take out the AI faction first" strategy is still the best. Ignore the rebels settlements. Let them act as decoys. Let the AI waste resources beating down the garrisons. It won't garrison them as well. Hit the chief competition capital and main castle(s) when their garrisons are low. The walls work in your favor once you have them.

This applies to England only as far as dealing with the Scots goes. But applies to most other factions, with some exceptions. Be hard to manage as Russia, I suspect.

hmm, good points, not much i can do their i'm afraid except hope that the improve defense slow down non-auto resolvers and that CA fixes the auto-resolve issues.

England: I see you upped their fleets. Makes my plan even more viable. (I assume that's done for the AI's sake.) The big risk before was that one bit of bad luck with pirates would wipe me out. Last time I did it I caught the Scot army aboard their fleet just outside Edinburgh. That was nice. Booted them into the North Sea while I took the capital. They went bandit with that, then I caught them at the port as pirates and killed off their army (as bandits) at no cost but a couple of sailors.

Yeah, it was for the AI's benefit, to try and get the AI to attack the mainland more.

Ok, first turn, Cecelia to Angers to seal an alliance with the Frogs. Then she'll look for that cute French princess for her brother. Her charm is 5 after the frog-kissing, so she'll watch for good offers of marriage too. I usually shoot for 5 charm, then pick up an extra general with her. In the meanwhile she plays diplomat more. I put the merchant to work on wool in England where he's safer. Work up some skill. He's also positioned to work with the first merchant I build in London to learn the monopolist line. Diplomat beelines for Pope, with stops where it makes sense to get alliances. Pope is priority due to war with Scotland.

All but one peasant ships from France. And Caen converts and builds tier 1 trade stuff after destroying the other castle stuff for the florins to pay for the trade stuff. Except for the baracks, which converts to a militia equivalent for garrison troops. I queue up a small church and land clearance. First church gives a nice nudge to pope bribing. Farm boosts growth and income. But I go for short payback, since France may still pick a fight. Then I can either give it to an ally, or use it to make peace with France, after destroying most of the infrastructure that I can.

Combined fleets head to North Sea and up the coast. They'll grab more troops along the way. Spy heads up, carefully bypassing the mob at York. He'kk peek into Edinburg every turn to try to boost his chance at opening the gates. King takes all but peasants from London and heads north along coast. Prince parks on coast too. London queues up militia, Nottingham watever it can (no knights anymore). Nottingham troops shift to prince too. (With 1.13, Prince goes to Caernavon and takes that with the Nottingham troops after grabbing York. Don't need as many troops to get things done there.) King builds a tower on North Sea coast too. Pirate watch. Prince can't in this version, since he can't grab York. Don't need a second tower so close to the one the King built.

London starts port then land clearance. Port can trade with Caen, and it's emergency hideout in case of trouble with pirates. Same for Nottingham, though I consider starting armories because that will cut casualties and costs. But econ and pop growth are bigger issues. Have to sustain larger armies. Holding off on more churches, hoping Pope will give me missions to build them. That way they nearly pay for themselves.

Not many mercs available, but I rarely use them except for crusades. Upkeep is already 4000 of 6000 income. Council will probably want me to take York. Or worse, Rennes.

Turn 2. Scot diplo gets trade agreement. I hold him up for a measly 70 florins for my map. He wouldn't pay for the trade rights. Darned cheap Scots! Yep, Council says take York. Later. Two royals in Edinburg atm. My fleet passing Nottingham. Captain Kirk appears to be heading to Inverness. Easier for me if the Scots head to Dublin. Gonna have to split off a ship to help carry all these troops next turn. No sign of the French princess. She'll probably turn up in Italy, but she may have screwed up her charm by then. Bishop heading south the musselman lands too.

Turn 3. Hmm, 4 chivalry, 3 star, 9 loyalty husband prospect for my princess. 37 though. Davy Dangerfyeld. She won't respect him, but he's solid. Hmm, gonna risk passing, prefer to use her to get Iberian alliances first. Scots beseiging Inverness. My fleet(s) off Edinburg's fishing village. Still a half stack of Scots near Edinburg, that's inconvenient. I have 3 generals and 21 units, mostly militia and peasant archers. They have mostly militia too, at least. 2 border horse and 1 highlanders, and the two generals holed up.

Cecilia signed Spain (princess was at Pamplona, but only 3 charm). Her charm is up to 6. Might go back and steal a Frog general if it keeps rising. Diplomat found a PS counterpart at Bologna, so that's taken care of. Set up a 10 turn slush fund while he deals with the other 'mats. Perfect relations and alliance with the Pope. Now to whip the poor kilties.

Turn 4. Will the Scots make it easy? No. May lose this one. Their fleet arrived though, maybe I should wait a turn and see if this stack (which grew) boards it. Inverness fell to the claymores. No one turn knockout now. Darn. Let me try something, drop the prince on the border, see if they react at all.

Well, decided to go for it. Spy got the gates open, 5:4 odds (darned reinforcement stack!). Clear victory, lost 317 to 475. Both royals dead, it appears. Ouch, Scot sailors dealt me an embarassing setback there. But they have no port, they are doomed. Scot survivors to Battle of Edinburg holed up in Inverness. Heading there next. Darned Scots are up in arms in Edinburg, need to drop taxes to low and keep some garrison to keep them in line. Prince Rufus is babysitting too. Cost me two crosses with the Pope. Have to keep an eye on that. May need to bring him a parrot from Africa.

Turn 5. King William is 51. Best use his (now) 5 stars and dread before he passes on. Leave the kindler gentler stuff to Rufus. Scot spy committed suicide at Edinburgh. Good riddance! Scots calming down after that execution. Can spare more garrison to tackle Inverness. My spy still only skill 3. About a half stack there. Won't be pretty. They are not militia. More than half are highland sorts, more archers though. Seige begun. 6 turns, but I think I'll storm once Edinburg ships them a couple of turns of reinforcements. On the other hand... I do have them nicely bottled up. Income 7650, upkeep costs 4350. Putting merchant 2 into training to work on wool with the starter.

Hmm, my rep is dubious, why? I made no alliance with Scotland. Just trade rights. My attack on them? And continuing the war with the seige? (darned bad luck!) HRE won't make an alliance with a generous offer. Oh well, not a large problem for me. Have Spain, Portugal, Milan, PS and France. Cardinal is in Cordoba converting heathens.

Turn 6. 4th overall. Ugh, storm at Edinburg. Damaged buildings. Stormed Inverness. Stripped Edinburg garrison and dropped taxes to compensate. 9:5 odds. Clear victory, lost 40, killed 354. I kilt them! Heh, got ransom offer, wonder if they will pay... Yes! That's just dumb. They had no where to go. Guess they allo headed to France. Scotland is no more.

Normally I manage this a turn or two earlier. But it was poor luck in that Scots took Inverness first try. They usually don't. But I got a bit lucky on the seiges too, in compensationl. That first one was iffy.

Interesting report, be aware that Inverness has a much weaker Garrison now than in vanilla so it's common for the Scots to grab it first try these days however.

Quick Idea. To make such player vs. AI rushes harder with catholics i could make the Papal standing hits much bigger in the first 30 turns, (the Time period where the A won't try to attack you). Talking of which, could you try getting Excommed at some point, I'd like to know what you think of the new penalty.

The reputation hits from being at war are pretty high, so prolonged wars can easily see you end up with despicable reps.

Normally I manage this a turn or two earlier. But it was poor luck in that Scots took Inverness first try. They usually don't. But I got a bit lucky on the seiges too, in compensationl. That first one was iffy.

I expect another 15 turns to clean out the rebs though.

As always, let me know how you find the rebs.

Hmm, did we? (scratches head, yawns...) Must be sleep deprivation. Ah, yes, I do remember something about that. It was right after the wall unit changes.

Sorry, my confusion.

Darn, thought I had a real bug.

And how did I get here anyway? I thought I was in Citadel!

Darned Capt Kirk must have teleported me.

New forum just for us now~;p.

And I suspect it is sleep deprivation, same here to a degree:laugh4:. Don't worry about a mistake like that though, we all make em.

vonsch

03-15-2007, 00:36

Quick Idea. To make such player vs. AI rushes harder with catholics i could make the Papal standing hits much bigger in the first 30 turns, (the Time period where the A won't try to attack you). Talking of which, could you try getting Excommed at some point, I'd like to know what you think of the new penalty.

The reputation hits from being at war are pretty high, so prolonged wars can easily see you end up with despicable reps.

The penalty seemed steeper already, which is why I noticed. But the player can counter it more easily (at a price) with the faster diplomat. So a bit steeper would be okay too. I don't like too much penalty for being in a state of war, that's not always in my control (those blockade fleets can be from half the world away!) But actively taking offensive actions is another thing. Against co-religionists. Shouldn't apply for the islam-Catholic wars. At least not with those on your "side." Orthodox are somewhere between. Sort of.

And I wouldn't think they need to be bigger in the first 30 turns. The low treasury handles that. You want to be aggressive, you pay the Pope more or risk excom. But I do think a bit steeper, maybe 25-50% more, would be good at any date. Ship attacks should be dropped though. How would the Pope even know? Not saying nothing, but they should be a lot less damaging in effect. Ditto blockades. Economic war was more acceptable. Still is. And the immediate impact in lives is lower. Ships battles rarely see 100 casualties. Land wars often see numbers totalling 1000.

This would help the AI, I would think, as it end up excommed often due to ship battles it initiates, and blockades.

Did you add a heat penalty for armor, or just one in general in the desert? Curious about how I should outfit my expeditionary force.

Moving on to York. Think I have the momentum to deal with it and Caernoven with the mass I have. May need more for Dublin. York fell to King William on turn 8. Very favorable odds. But it used to just surrender after 2 turns. No need to even fight.

Carl

03-15-2007, 01:00

Heat penalty is a stat for units that effects fatigue for all units. I simply trebled it for all units. Archers and Hobladiers are the lowest, but DEK are only 50% worse on the stat, and i'm pretty sure they will do nearly as well as the heat fatigue stat just determines how much extra fatigue they suffer in hot environments. So 50% extra doesn't always mean they tire 50% sooner. Just take whatever you normally would, you don't have any hardcore melee that doesn't have high heat fatigue so your the same no matter what you do.

The penalty seemed steeper already, which is why I noticed. But the player can counter it more easily (at a price) with the faster diplomat. So a bit steeper would be Okay too. I don't like too much penalty for being in a state of war, that's not always in my control (those blockade fleets can be from half the world away!) But actively taking offensive actions is another thing. Against co-religionists. Shouldn't apply for the Islam-Catholic wars. At least not with those on your "side." Orthodox are somewhere between. Sort of.

And I wouldn't think they need to be bigger in the first 30 turns. The low treasury handles that. You want to be aggressive, you pay the Pope more or risk excom. But I do think a bit steeper, maybe 25-50% more, would be good at any date. Ship attacks should be dropped though. How would the Pope even know? Not saying nothing, but they should be a lot less damaging in effect. Ditto blockades. Economic war was more acceptable. Still is. And the immediate impact in lives is lower. Ships battles rarely see 100 casualties. Land wars often see numbers totaling 1000.

This would help the AI, I would think, as it end up excommed often due to ship battles it initiates, and blockades.

What I meant is actually getting Excommed hurts more now, (the AI suffers less though now), and i'm wondering what you make of that penalty.

I was also suggesting making it easier for aggressive acts vs. other catholics to get you excommed. With the stronger penalties for excom early on now it cold make it unwise for a catholic to attack another catholic, and most Orthodox/Muslim factions are pretty big/strong early on so it would be hard to beat them into submission without grabbing a few rebs which will slow you down. Doesn't help with the orthodox/Muslim vs. orthodox/Muslim situation although Russia is probs safe.

Of couse these penalies would go back to base leels after a while but it would prevent the player immidietlly attacking felow catholics early on.

vonsch

03-15-2007, 01:11

Well, I've been excommed as Spain or Portugal early and it wasn't pretty. Not sure why that made a difference to them so much. Hard time keeping cities from revolting. Maybe it's due to their higher islamic sectors until you can convert them. Excommed as England early is no big deal (gee, historical!). Low exposure if you aren't too expanded on the continent. Been excommed as Milan too. Not a big problem for them. They just took the chance to grab a few more regions until the Pope died.

But early excom does have built in penalties in that you can't crusade. As with jihads, managing to call an early one somewhere close really helps. Nothing like boosting your generals effectiveness and loading up on cheap units.

I do think CA should change it so that the generals and units getting the bonuses have to be in the target province to get them.

I can try a save and get excommed exercise in a bit.

Hmm, upkeep 0 fleets seems a bit low.

King William is up to 8 authority om turmn 8. Is that all the alliances? Seems like fast gain. He's fought 3 battles. He does have conquering hero, though. Think that's for faction elimination and it's +3. And Political Promise and Politically Wise for +1 each. Started with 3.

Odd, for some reason my small chapel in Caen stayed a small chapel when I converted to a town. Now it will let me build a chapel, not a church. Suspect it's a CA bug. I queued up the chapel before the conversion.

Caernarvon fell turn 10.

chickenhawk

03-15-2007, 03:09

Quick update

Applied fix as instructed and autoresolve problem went away

English VH/VH
I started new and went full blitz York, Carnoevan, Dublin. I mean full blitz, I was 1500 florins a turn negative with how much my army had outrun my economy by Dublin. The very short version is that I got York and Wales easily but I hit dublin and bounced. Even with almost two full stacks. Bounced once on auto resolve and twice actually playing. I still think I could win it if i carefully redistributed forces between stacks so that I had more control of certain units but the Dublin Garrison is hardcore, If you ever got the money to bribe them they would be unstoppable with longbow support. There does seem to be an effect where the larger rebel garrisons shorten the time that they can withstand a siege.

I certainly could have beaten the garrison if I waited for a sally but I would have been even farther in debt.

This was just a test of a straight up blitz test , I was not even moving agents around.

I don't think it pays in the long run though, the losses in economic development are just to large.

vonsch

03-15-2007, 04:37

Ok, turn 17 before Dublin fell. That garrison is a bit nuts too.

But I've slipped to untrustworthy for no reason I can fathom. I'm not at war with anyone but rebels and haven't been since Scotland fell. No transgressions. Pope loves me. Nine alliances total. Maybe it's William's dread? He's at 3 again. I've been releasing prisoners, so it's just random traits. He picked up Dishonest Ruler somehow. He starts with Cruel and Cunning. Maybe it's his dread doing it to rep.

I am ranked #2 though. The AI is wimpy, IMO. Not doing much conquering. I have 8 regions. The beefy garrisons are hurting the AI's performance more than mine. Normally I conquer the Isles on turn 12 or so.

I'm not happy with the large garrisons. They just hurt the AI. The real game starts when the rebels are eaten up. All we're doing is postponing that. AND they make the exercise of taking the rebel settlements one of large blunt objects. It was more fun when I was running 4 units against their 5 and out generalling them, as opposed to outproducing them. There's enough large battle activity later, but at least the unit mix livens up some, and maneuver plays a significant role. It plays little against the rebs.

I think the seige and wall unit changes on their own may make a difference. Not sure how much more can be done through adjusting force locations without simply increasing the divide between an intelligent faction (the player's) and the rest.

The way the AI picks targets, and how it works with allies, is where the potential exists, and I don't know that we can mod that.

Let's check the graphs at turn 19:

Conquests:
-1: Scotland ~;) (they did take 1 first!)
0: France, HRE, Spain, Venice, Sicily, Moors, Turkey, Portugal, Hungary
1: Milan. Poland, PS
2: Russia, Egypt, Denmark
3: Byz
4:
5: England (me)
6:

Rankings overall: Byz, England, Egypt, HRE, Moors

If you beef up the starting position, you just make that faction easier for the player... more so than for the AI. The starting positions are entirely adequate for the player in vanilla.

The money script probably helps the AI a bit, in some situations, but look at Venice again. It's not poor. Nor is Milan. Yet they underperform. Egypt, btw, must have taken Dongola and Jedda. The Holy Land is untouched. I suspect the AI heads for the near cities with a fixed size force, gets there and discovers it isn't enough (against the new garrisons), then tries again with more in another 10 turns or so.

Hmm, I'm the only one making alliances too, according to the Diplomacy screen. No one is allied with anyone but me. Is that normal? No wars yet, but that's expected.

Bob the Insane

03-15-2007, 14:08

I thought I would report in finally... v1.21 I started as the Byz...

We are up to 1140 so 60 turns in. First the Byz.

To be honest I have not done to much fighting yet, just some long seiges against Rebels. I have had a couple of large battles against the Venetians (they really are the bad boy movers in this mod)...

The ability to hire HA and Byz cavalry (tougher HA), the profession archers and the byz spearmen makes a real early difference. I am finding my expansion limited by not by my troops but by money (to hire the troops) and the ability to controls my cities (they are growing very fast, 60 turns and 3 are Huge)...

I did not notice anything wierd in the generals or building...

I found the horse archers effective (especially as the Venetian forces mostly lack cavalry)...

In the rest of the news...

toggle_fow and I see that all the factions are active now, besieging, taking settlements and so on from the Rebels. The only inter-faction conflict is myself and the Venetians and the HRE v the Sicilians and the Pope v the Scilians, basically Itally is a mess...

In particular I noted Scotland had taken Inverness, Demark had Hamburg, the Russians had Moscow, the Egyptians Jedda and Bagdad, The Pope and Florence... the list goes on, but those where the particularly static faction in 1.2. And even those factions that had not taken land were busy do stuff. It seems that the AI is much more willing to attack the rebels but they get thrown back quite alot (though as above the must succeed too).

Interesting was Zagreb, everyong wants it but no one can take it. The Venetians tried a bunch of time, the Hungarians tried and the HRE and attacked it loads of times... I sent a spy in and I don't know if you started the units in there off with experience, but most have a single silver cheveron now!

I am not really experincing the diplomacy this time, as we are a little isolated. With have lots of trade aggreements and an alliance with Hungry. We had an alliance with Venice but they betrayed us and attacked. My faction is Untrustworthy but I guess that is what happens when you try to assasinate the Pope!! :oops: :2thumbsup:

Addition - I notice that a failed assassination does not end up in war any more, is that on purpose?

I have a small rebel unit in my northern territory that I usse for an assassin training ground until the assassins die or the get 7 or 8 points... The Assassins Guild really helps...

I have just become settled enough to send my first army in the direct of the Turks how have in turn been busy building up...

The middle east settlements are still all rebel, I think all those full stack cities are intimidating the Turks and Egyptains but I would like to let the campaign run longer before deciding they are too strong (only 390 turns to go)...

Carl

03-15-2007, 14:34

English VH/VH
I started new and went full blitz York, Carnoevan, Dublin. I mean full blitz, I was 1500 florins a turn negative with how much my army had outrun my economy by Dublin. The very short version is that I got York and Wales easily but I hit Dublin and bounced. Even with almost two full stacks. Bounced once on auto resolve and twice actually playing. I still think I could win it if i carefully redistributed forces between stacks so that I had more control of certain units but the Dublin Garrison is hardcore, If you ever got the money to bribe them they would be unstoppable with longbow support. There does seem to be an effect where the larger rebel garrisons shorten the time that they can withstand a siege.

I certainly could have beaten the garrison if I waited for a sally but I would have been even farther in debt.

This was just a test of a straight up blitz test , I was not even moving agents around.

I don't think it pays in the long run though, the losses in economic development are just to large.

Thanks for that, and I've merged your posts for you.

How long did that take you to do, and yes i'm beginning to think Dublin is OTT.

OK, turn 17 before Dublin fell. That garrison is a bit nuts too.

:yes: needs fixing.

And your going a damm sight faster than I do with england, (I've never played Egypt/turks/Hungary so I wasn't sure just how quick you where going relative to me), in fact you've managed to go over 3 times faster than I do in vanilla, but then I do wait out Longbows/Billmen before moving on Scotland/Dublin, and that slows me down a good bit.

But I've slipped to untrustworthy for no reason I can fathom. I'm not at war with anyone but rebels and haven't been since Scotland fell. No transgressions. Pope loves me. Nine alliances total. Maybe it's William's dread? He's at 3 again. I've been releasing prisoners, so it's just random traits. He picked up Dishonest Ruler somehow. He starts with Cruel and Cunning. Maybe it's his dread doing it to rep.

Faction on Leaders and Faction Heirs don't effect rep with their Chiv/Dread. I've noticed this too, it's a bug somwhere but i'm not sure where, give me a bit to track it down.

I'll edit the rest in, in about 15mins.

Thanks for that bob, give me a few minutes to reply.

I'm not happy with the large garrisons. They just hurt the AI. The real game starts when the rebels are eaten up. All we're doing is postponing that.

Thats one of the things i'm trying to change here with the stronger Garrison.

People in general had 2 "problems" with the rebels in vanilla:

1. as already mentioned earlier the weak rebels where easy meat and where just a quick way for the player to make himself unstoppable by getting more territory than the computer.

2. They where too easy to beat, the game didn't actually get going till you started fighting the AI factions proper.

It was in the hopes of combating number 2 that I increased the Garrison size, but I hoped to kill 1 too as thats the more important one. Clearly, based on your comments it's still not a challenge and it's slowing the AI too much still.

I'm not happy with the large garrisons. They just hurt the AI. The real game starts when the rebels are eaten up. All we're doing is postponing that. AND they make the exercise of taking the rebel settlements one of large blunt objects. It was more fun when I was running 4 units against their 5 and out generalling them, as opposed to outproducing them. There's enough large battle activity later, but at least the unit mix livens up some, and maneuver plays a significant role. It plays little against the rebs.

I think the siege and wall unit changes on their own may make a difference. Not sure how much more can be done through adjusting force locations without simply increasing the divide between an intelligent faction (the player's) and the rest.

The way the AI picks targets, and how it works with allies, is where the potential exists, and I don't know that we can mod that.

Let's check the graphs at turn 19:

Conquests:
-1: Scotland (they did take 1 first!)
0: France, HRE, Spain, Venice, Sicily, Moors, Turkey, Portugal, Hungary
1: Milan. Poland, PS
2: Russia, Egypt, Denmark
3: Byz
4:
5: England (me)
6:

Rankings overall: Byz, England, Egypt, HRE, Moors

If you beef up the starting position, you just make that faction easier for the player... more so than for the AI. The starting positions are entirely adequate for the player in vanilla.

The money script probably helps the AI a bit, in some situations, but look at Venice again. It's not poor. Nor is Milan. Yet they under-perform. Egypt, BTW, must have taken Dongola and Jedda. The Holy Land is untouched. I suspect the AI heads for the near cities with a fixed size force, gets there and discovers it isn't enough (against the new garrisons), then tries again with more in another 10 turns or so.

I've quoted the full above for completeness although I only want to respond to parts of it.

First, I'd say Egypt has taken Jedda and Dongola too, after that they normally send an army to Baghdad, so they should be taking it any time (they've normally don it by now actually). The Turk progress leads me to believe the Byzantines have got Trebizond, Turks always stall if that falls to someone other than them. That why I'd like to let them start with is.

Milan probably has Dijon or Bern, I've made it prefer land attacks so it rarely grabs Ajjaco/Calgari/Tunis early on anymore. That seems to prevent it going crazy as it used to.

It's also becoming clear from my own campaigns, what you appear to be used to, and what Bob appears to be used to that the AI aggressiveness is tied to the player aggressiveness.

Below is the AI after 30 turns in a vanilla test campaign using the MP campaign mode to let the AI control all factions.

https://img224.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vanillia30turnszr1.jpg

Vonsch however is clearly used to an AI that is much more aggressive and takes far more provinces after this many turns, (actually the AI normally dos better than that former in vanilla to but still not significantly faster than it does in v1.21, (about 5 turns oddly enough:smash:)).

So I have to ask, how well is the AI normally doing after 20 turns in vanilla for you vonsch?

Another point that is becoming clear is the player is STILL going too fast.

Did you have to produce any units to grab Canveron/York vonsch, or did you do it with the default forces?

Do you think cutting the rebels a bit, (still stronger than vanilla though), and cutting everyones starting forces down to just Garrison and generals would slow the player more? They'd still need to build decent forces to beat the better than average rebels, but the AI with more money could build a lot faster.

Hmm, I'm the only one making alliances too, according to the Diplomacy screen. No one is allied with anyone but me. Is that normal? No wars yet, but that's expected.

Thats the Rep bug thats crept in, i'm gonna identify it ASAP and send out a corrected V1.22 when I have, keep going for now though if you could. Basically once a faction hits Dubious or worse it never asks for an alliance.

I thought I would report in finally... v1.21 I started as the Byz...

We are up to 1140 so 60 turns in. First the Byz.

To be honest I have not done to much fighting yet, just some long sieges against Rebels. I have had a couple of large battles against the Venetians (they really are the bad boy movers in this mod)...

The ability to hire HA and Byz cavalry (tougher HA), the profession archers and the byz spearmen makes a real early difference. I am finding my expansion limited by not by my troops but by money (to hire the troops) and the ability to controls my cities (they are growing very fast, 60 turns and 3 are Huge)...

I did not notice anything weird in the generals or building...

I found the horse archers effective (especially as the Venetian forces mostly lack cavalry)...

Thanks for that, What Cities are at huge anyway, it still seems a bit quick TBH.

Also, how are you finding the buffed Byzantine Spearmen, are they too good in a players hands?

toggle_fow and I see that all the factions are active now, besieging, taking settlements and so on from the Rebels. The only inter-faction conflict is myself and the Venetians and the HRE v the Sicilians and the Pope v the Sicilians, basically Italy is a mess...

In particular I noted Scotland had taken Inverness, Denmark had Hamburg, the Russians had Moscow, the Egyptians Jedda and Baghdad, The Pope and Florence... the list goes on, but those where the particularly static faction in 1.2. And even those factions that had not taken land were busy do stuff.

That matches what I've seen in my hot-seat test campaigns.

It seems that the AI is much more willing to attack the rebels but they get thrown back quite a lot (though as above the must succeed too).

Interesting was Zagreb, everyone wants it but no one can take it. The Venetians tried a bunch of time, the Hungarians tried and the HRE and attacked it loads of times... I sent a spy in and I don't know if you started the units in there off with experience, but most have a single silver chevron now!

AND

The middle east settlements are still all rebel, I think all those full stack cities are intimidating the Turks and Egyptians but I would like to let the campaign run longer before deciding they are too strong (only 390 turns to go)...

Yeah, i'm beginning to suspect the Holy Lands, British Isles, and the Eastern provinces around Poland/Hungary are too strong. The AI in those areas stalls far too often or goes far too slowly IMHO. They don't start with experience in Zagreb, but it's nice to know the AI is trying hard, it probably explains why Venice stalls till about turn 60+, they spend all their time bouncing off Zagreb.

am not really experiencing the diplomacy this time, as we are a little isolated. With have lots of trade agreements and an alliance with Hungry. We had an alliance with Venice but they betrayed us and attacked. My faction is Untrustworthy but I guess that is what happens when you try to assassinate the Pope!!

Addition - I notice that a failed assassination does not end up in war any more, is that on purpose?

I haven't touched assassins, so i don't know whats causing that, but it's only if you get caught it starts a war, not a simple failure but got away.

Diplomacy is bugged in V1.21, I've messed up the Rep somehow and I don't know exactly how yet...

For what it's worth i agree the AI is too slow, if you can grab 8 provinces in 19 turns we have an issue. I just don't want to go back to the vanilla situation where the rebels are pushovers, and I'd like the rebels to be fun to deal with. So don't think i'm not listening vonsch, I just don't like the rebels being so easy, (in terms of beating them and also in terms of the advantages over the AI the player can get), on the player in vanilla.

vonsch

03-15-2007, 16:57

So I have to ask, how well is the AI normally doing after 20 turns in vanilla for you vonsch?

I move this fast early (and I'd say 20 turns is about the limit of my "blitz") because otherwise I get boxed in. I like at least one safe border and a critical mass of regions (something over 5, usually 7 or so), and I like to try to take out the main threat immediately because it gets a lot harder to do if I wait. With Catholic factions, that means the Catholic that I know is coming for me (for England, that's France, but I "take it out" diplomatically, then neuter it by giving it no real target in this case). With Spain or Portugal that means taking out the counterpart. Egypt is weird in that it doesn't really have a "close" enemy. The Moors love Egypt easily. The Turks are a threat, but they have Byz and distance. Anyway, that leaves Scotland as the REAL threat for England in my eyes, in this case. It eats into that critical mass of regions and sits as a sword hanging over English ambition. It ties up too many garrison forces. So it goes down. But at least it's acting reasonably now.

How does that answer the question... Well, in 1.13 and vanilla I found that I had to scramble to take "my share" of the rebels. If I dilly dallied, I had to deal with more Pope trouble (which I do now know how to manage better) if Catholic. Or I had to face more resistance to getting my starting configuration in place. I map out what production and guilds I want where and aim for that immedaitely. (At turn 20 my theo guild is up in Edinburg and merchants should pop any turn in London, then woodsmen in Nottingham... meanwhile growing Caernoven for a second castle, it's a village until it grows enough for fortress).

So, yes, I found the AI aggressive in vanilla. And I miss that. There isn't enough management challenge to satisfy my with just tweaking my economy until I am attacked or otherwise forced to go to war (crusade, need for expansion, etc.). If there were alternate victory conditions, I would probably play differently, but the timer is the prod for me. A fast start means the rest can be more measured. Start slow and you will have to just expand, expand, expand to win because each region will take more (be better defended) and your base will be less developed (lack of resources means you won't be as teched up).

Typically, when learning the game, I quit about turn 20 because I felt I'd blown it, was boxed, or was in a 3 front war. I'm not even IN a war by turn 20 or 30 now. And I did often start one war myself (as I do now), but the rest were the AI declaring on me. I don't need a war with them right off, but I do need to feel like they are pressuring me, are threats. I don't now. I admit I didn't like feeling like everyone just jumped on me for no real reason though. That's why I like the idea of diplomatic tweaking. But maybe there is a reason, and I just didn't (and may not yet) understand what was triggering it.

Hope this helps explain my reaction.

Did you have to produce any units to grab Canveron/York vonsch, or did you do it with the default forces?

All production is Nottingham and London. Nothing else built any units (except Edinburg did a few town militia for garrisons). Caern and York (and Inverness and Dublin) are converted directly to towns, and their garrisons are imported from London/Edinburg. I just concentrate my forces into one stack. If the AI were aggressive, that would be riskier. I strip (and I mean strip) Caen. Leave one peasant and let Caen build its own garrison after it converts. I just keep the maximum free town militia there. France sometimes sends a tiny stack in to sit beside it, but it's an ally and doesn't backstab me that early. I'm prepared to give up Caen anyway, at this stage. If it gets beseiges, PS will probably get it as a gift. ~;) Mostly I build hobilars and spear militia. I just bulk up to take the isles. And I use most of (or all of in some cases) my generals. I wait on building better stuff until I can tech up Nottingham so I don't waste florins on upgrades to units I plan to use longer term (more advanced longbows, especially, yeoman or retinue level). Can do this with England due to its buffer. It's a luxury.

The extreme city growth is the chivalry bonus. Cut fertility by 50% across the board and trim that bonus by about half too. That's just a knee jerk reaction. Growth is something in the player's control. Can build farms and happiness buildings, park a decent general, tweak tax rates, etc. But the question is, how well can the AI manage that? It does like parking generals in cities, so maybe it can.

And, yes, I've been pushing cutting starting florins a lot because it WILL slow the player more than the AI (for the first few turns) since the AI has that script to feed it florins early. I will still be able to conquer most of England though. Might slow me a few turns. But that shouldn't slow the AI, unlike the beefier garrisons. Where the garrisons are skinny, the AI does just fine.

And put back maintenance on fleets. Just make it half normal. That hits the player more than the AI. (The AI has the money script.) AD uses 10% of build cost for maintenance on ships and beefs the movement WAY up. But it totally rewrites victory conditions too. You can actually use ships to move diplomats and other agents around efficiently. With the inherent risks of priates nabbing them. And somehow he has maintenance based on distance from the capital and whether or not the unit is in a settlement. Interesting twists. You can maintain decent garrisons, but move out to do battle or beseige and your maint skyrockets! Makes for careful war planning and saving up. Very different play. Not sure how the AI handles it yet, but interesting to see the rebels (minor factions) moving stacks around and building up their garrisons.

As far as what the factions are attempting, yes, they are active. They just fail way too often to actually become threats to the agressive player, I think. I think that seige gear building "fix" makes a significant difference. Haven't seen any early, and do see everyone TRYING to take rebel settlements... or at least checking them out with stacks.

Yes, the Zagreb garrison probably explains the Venice issue. They beeline for Zagreb. Makes sense too, it's a rich trade province. When I play Hungary, I do grab that one ASAP. It's about the only worthwhile province in the early going (and it hurts Venice, which is my first big target.)

As far as the reb settlement issue goes, it's a balance we want, not the AI grabbing them all, nor the player. You can make the AI perform better, or make the player perform worse. You tried beefing the garrisons to lower the player's performance, but that lowered the AI's more. You tried upping the Ai's performance with the money script. That's better, but the bottleneck isn't JUST money. It's production capacity and concentration of force. The AI doesn't combine and target as well. So it needs more force to work with, comparatively. But starting setups are starting setups, so you can't adjust those without overpowering the player again.

Except... you CAN decrease the starting cash. Then have the AI factions handed a lump sum first turn. That way the player starts with less. Say half now for a start. Maybe it should be zero. That way the player can concentrate units, maybe grab a rebel settlement or two, but will have to manage carefully to afford even replacements. (with the sacking lowered, that won't cover replacements). Drop the garrisons back down to something closer to vanilla, but leave some key cities higher than vanilla (Jerusalem, Antioch). Boost York (from vanilla, 2 turn seige to surrender with just prince's troops and the Nottingham garrison is silly), but take Dublin down to reasonable. Put Inverness back to vanilla. It should not be a guaranteed win for Scotland first try. They rarely fail twice though. Remember, the player can be Scotland too... don't make it too easy!

Plus leave in your first 20 turn money script. Start the AI with the same money as now, or just a flat 10k.

That's my thought.

And find that rep bug! ~;)

On the grabbing thing, I think I manage that with most factions I have played. Did it with Egypt, the Moors, even Russia, I think (and those distances were huge). Hungary has been the toughest in that regard, but I was close. And I could have if that was my aim. Going straight at Venice slowed sheer region grabbing (and the regions east are poor!) Did it with Turkey too, I think. Spain is easy. Portugal trickier, but I've done it. I just have the Isles down to a science.

Oh, just occurred to me that you could script in some first-turn reinforcements for the AI too. Nothing huge, maybe a short stack of 5 units or so of their best starting infantry. That might give them the boost to tackle the rebs faster. But don't overdo it as it will be a clear cheat (which can be annoying). The money one is less visible to the player. I think we want the player to have a chance to grab some or all rebs that are close, but we want to force the player to make choices and really stretch... maybe overextend if we can get this startup over faster and have the closest AI faction that wanted those territories jump on them even though they player now owns them.

chickenhawk

03-15-2007, 17:06

I go back to the idea of just eliminating them(rebels). The idea is to have an interesting long campaign, we are getting a little too involved in the first few turns. I realize the avalanche effect requires this.

I would propose two things

First, if possible distribute all the rebel provinces to AI factions at the beginning. This ensures that the player is starting out behind, all of the manipulation of rebels is pointed at this goal so just start there instead.

Second, and this has been mentioned before in this thread somewhere, reduce the players starting money. 10000 florins is a pretty good treasury to get your kingdom rolling. Less would give the AI far more time to get it together.

Carl

03-15-2007, 17:16

vonsch

03-15-2007, 17:51

I'll reply in a bit more detail in a moment, but could you clarify exactly which regions you consider "your fair share" of rebels for me. My personal definition would be any 3 out of the following 5: York, Canveron, Rennes, Antwerp, Florance.

And i'm 100% convinced that giving the Scots Inverness would help them as it would give them a much better shot at York early on and it could quickly start churning out Highlanders and in short order Highland Nobles and Noble Swordsmen. both would slow you down no end in trying to knock them off the map early (something else I'd like to make really difficult without overly helping the player).

The only danger I can see is that Scotland as the player might become a bit easy...

Yep, the last sentence is the issue. Scotland is already considered easy by players who have played it a bit. Not sure this can be balanced. That first Scot stack can tackle Inverness if they throw the whole thing at it. They just tend to split forces unwisely. One large stack stands near Edinburgh while the smaller one hits Inverness. Go figure. If the larger one stayed IN Edinburg, that would be smart. ~;)

Defeat in detail, here I come!

Heh, as to "fair share," why all of them I can reach in 20 turns! I tend to think of thinks in geographic blocks based on who I'm playing. So for Spain it's everything on the penninsula, plus maybe Bordeaux. Not without a fight or a race. Have to swipe Zaragoza from under Portugal's attempts. And the Moors are usually after Valencia. And France tries for Zaragoza too.

With England it's everything on the isles, though Inverness almost always goes to Scotland if I don't take Scotland out first. I now ignore France, so Rennes is off my list. Just provokes an early continental war. As do Flanders/Bruges. With Denmark it would be Sweden/Norway, Hamburg. Beyond that it would depend on who I wanted war with. I'd go into the Lowland to provoke France, or along the Baltic to provoke Poland. HRE would be a threat in any case. But if I were going to provoke someone, I'd now prefer to do it at their capital.

With Egypt or Turkey I'd shoot for the whole Holy Land. With Russia, everything north of Poland (and Poland!) With Poland, everything north (and Russia!).

Anyway, ideally I would be pushed to take half to 2/3 of each set, if I was after them and not the chief opponent. If you make it so I could only get one, the difficulty would be getting terribly steep. Probably too much so for fun.

But my first neighbor is dead anyway. Or I lose. Doesn't mean it's a geographical neighbor, I could neuter that one via diplomacy, but they first faction I take on. The important thing is that the others power up considerably so the second is much harder, and so on. And so that if I screw up diplomacy and get 2-3 on me at once I am in serious pain... and probably lose. Unless I too have good allies that actually help.

Hope this answers the question.

Another side thought: The problem with too much lump sum of cash at once (and I like your "just enough, just in time" money script) is that it's a pool the player can tap via diplomacy. If the AI factions are relatively rich, I believe they are freer with their lump sum payments and tribute. It may be tied to income, but nothing else seems to be. Everything appears to key off treasury balance (which is somewhat silly... ideally it would factor in both the treasury balance and the net cash flow). So my Papal bribes need to increase as I get richer (or the Pope does, but I think the former), for example. I suspect the Pope respects tithing. He compares your gift to your total balance. But it may be a turn number function too, early may just require smaller amounts.

But, in any case, the AI can't pay what it doesn't have. Really poor factions often abort negotiations because they can't meet the demand of even a very generous offer.

chickenhawk

03-15-2007, 18:02

For the english it would be York And only York. The conquest of wales was not completed until 1280 or so historically anyway. Thus the Scotts, with Edinburgh and Inverness, start with a a truly fair chance at Ireland. The idea is not to be fair, it is to provide a truly difficult challenge. The player has so many advantages that they must have a truly difficult starting position.
Give the rest of them to France.

I realize this would require different strat. maps for each faction's starting position, but would it be any harder than what we are attempting now? Which is trying to improve an AI whose basic engine we can't tweak.

vonsch

03-15-2007, 18:07

Well, the other balance angle is victory conditions. The basic ones are all the same except for one or two specific named regions. Another angle would be to go back to short game, but tweak victory conditions to be really challenging.

But I'm all for making the early going tougher. I don't really like sustained blitzing. (But blitzing in smaller local situations is another matter.)

Heh, for example: "You have 10 turns to consolidate the British Isles."

Carl

03-15-2007, 18:38

Just been on MSN so sorry for not editing my reply immediately, (I can't run MSN and IE at once), I'll drop the reply into this one instead.

Yep, the last sentence is the issue. Scotland is already considered easy by players who have played it a bit. Not sure this can be balanced. That first Scot stack can tackle Inverness if they throw the whole thing at it. They just tend to split forces unwisely. One large stack stands near Edinburgh while the smaller one hits Inverness. Go figure. If the larger one stayed IN Edinburgh, that would be smart.

Defeat in detail, here I come!

Yeah, thats what I was afraid of.

I think we want the player to have a chance to grab some or all rebs that are close, but we want to force the player to make choices and really stretch... maybe overextend if we can get this startup over faster and have the closest AI faction that wanted those territories jump on them even though they player now owns them.

Not a bad description of what i'm trying to achieve. Roughly speaking I'd say an average player should be able to get just under half the local rebels. A really good player (the type that does 30 turn wins in vanilla), should be able to get just over half. But i would prefer the player to never come too close to getting the lot.

I move this fast early (and I'd say 20 turns is about the limit of my "blitz") because otherwise I get boxed in. I like at least one safe border and a critical mass of regions (something over 5, usually 7 or so), and I like to try to take out the main threat immediately because it gets a lot harder to do if I wait. With Catholic factions, that means the Catholic that I know is coming for me (for England, that's France, but I "take it out" diplomatically, then neuter it by giving it no real target in this case). With Spain or Portugal that means taking out the counterpart. Egypt is weird in that it doesn't really have a "close" enemy. The Moors love Egypt easily. The Turks are a threat, but they have Byz and distance. Anyway, that leaves Scotland as the REAL threat for England in my eyes, in this case. It eats into that critical mass of regions and sits as a sword hanging over English ambition. It ties up too many garrison forces. So it goes down. But at least it's acting reasonably now.

The Boxed in bit you talk about is what i'm actually trying to make happen nearly all the time. In effect I'd like a player to have one of two options. He can either try to blitz his way through local factions. r he can try to ally with them to keep them off him, and either by sea or military access rights then go elsewhere to go conquering.

How does that answer the question... Well, in 1.13 and vanilla I found that I had to scramble to take "my share" of the rebels. If I dilly dallied, I had to deal with more Pope trouble (which I do now know how to manage better) if Catholic. Or I had to face more resistance to getting my starting configuration in place. I map out what production and guilds I want where and aim for that immediately. (At turn 20 my theo guild is up in Edinburgh and merchants should pop any turn in London, then woodsmen in Nottingham... meanwhile growing Caernoven for a second castle, it's a village until it grows enough for fortress).

So, yes, I found the AI aggressive in vanilla. And I miss that. There isn't enough management challenge to satisfy my with just tweaking my economy until I am attacked or otherwise forced to go to war (crusade, need for expansion, etc.). If there were alternate victory conditions, I would probably play differently, but the timer is the prod for me. A fast start means the rest can be more measured. Start slow and you will have to just expand, expand, expand to win because each region will take more (be better defended) and your base will be less developed (lack of resources means you won't be as teched up).

Typically, when learning the game, I quit about turn 20 because I felt I'd blown it, was boxed, or was in a 3 front war. I'm not even IN a war by turn 20 or 30 now. And I did often start one war myself (as I do now), but the rest were the AI declaring on me. I don't need a war with them right off, but I do need to feel like they are pressuring me, are threats. I don't now. I admit I didn't like feeling like everyone just jumped on me for no real reason though. That's why I like the idea of diplomatic tweaking. But maybe there is a reason, and I just didn't (and may not yet) understand what was triggering it.

Hope this helps explain my reaction.

If I understand you right you in effect find waiting for a war or beating the rebels (buffed or not), quite boring, so you like to go on the attack against the AI factions rather than wait around. but you wouldn't be adverse to not doing so if you had something else to occupy your attention.

All production is Nottingham and London. Nothing else built any units (except Edinburgh did a few town militia for garrisons). Caern and York (and Inverness and Dublin) are converted directly to towns, and their garrisons are imported from London/Edinburgh. I just concentrate my forces into one stack. If the AI were aggressive, that would be riskier. I strip (and I mean strip) Caen. Leave one peasant and let Caen build its own garrison after it converts. I just keep the maximum free town militia there. France sometimes sends a tiny stack in to sit beside it, but it's an ally and doesn't backstab me that early. I'm prepared to give up Caen anyway, at this stage. If it gets besieges, PS will probably get it as a gift. Mostly I build hobilars and spear militia. I just bulk up to take the isles. And I use most of (or all of in some cases) my generals. I wait on building better stuff until I can tech up Nottingham so I don't waste florins on upgrades to units I plan to use longer term (more advanced longbows, especially, yeoman or retinue level). Can do this with England due to its buffer. It's a luxury.

So you mostly did it with fairly basic troops then?

The extreme city growth is the chivalry bonus. Cut fertility by 50% across the board and trim that bonus by about half too. That's just a knee jerk reaction. Growth is something in the player's control. Can build farms and happiness buildings, park a decent general, tweak tax rates, etc. But the question is, how well can the AI manage that? It does like parking generals in cities, so maybe it can.

I've already dropped Chiv to 40% but it does need another drop.

And, yes, I've been pushing cutting starting florins a lot because it WILL slow the player more than the AI (for the first few turns) since the AI has that script to feed it florins early. I will still be able to conquer most of England though. Might slow me a few turns. But that shouldn't slow the AI, unlike the beefier garrisons. Where the garrisons are skinny, the AI does just fine.

I agree it will slow the player a lot without hurting the AI, As noted a lot of the stronger garrisons was to try and kill two birds with one stone as people where complaining how weak the rebels where and I knew buffing the rebels would help that. I just hoped I could use it to slow the player down more than the AI too. Obviously more changes are required.

And put back maintenance on fleets. Just make it half normal. That hits the player more than the AI. (The AI has the money script.) AD uses 10% of build cost for maintenance on ships and beefs the movement WAY up. But it totally rewrites victory conditions too. You can actually use ships to move diplomats and other agents around efficiently. With the inherent risks of pirates nabbing them. And somehow he has maintenance based on distance from the capital and whether or not the unit is in a settlement. Interesting twists. You can maintain decent garrisons, but move out to do battle or besiege and your maint skyrockets! Makes for careful war planning and saving up. Very different play. Not sure how the AI handles it yet, but interesting to see the rebels (minor factions) moving stacks around and building up their garrisons.

I dropped it when I first increased starting navel strength, I hadn't buffed the money script and 500-1000 florins was a lot. With the extra buffing the money script has I'll put them back to V1.20 levels.

Interesting list of changes for that other mod. The Fleet is obvious and it's what i'm intending to do anyway. but I'd love to know how they are doing the rest with upkeep as it's only possible through and extremely long (like 50+ A4 pages), campaign script.

As far as what the factions are attempting, yes, they are active. They just fail way too often to actually become threats to the aggressive player, I think. I think that siege gear building "fix" makes a significant difference. Haven't seen any early, and do see everyone TRYING to take rebel settlements... or at least checking them out with stacks.

Yes, the Zagreb garrison probably explains the Venice issue. They beeline for Zagreb. Makes sense too, it's a rich trade province. When I play Hungary, I do grab that one ASAP. It's about the only worthwhile province in the early going (and it hurts Venice, which is my first big target.)

AT least they are trying, before half the factions where just sitting not even trying half the time. And even in vanilla they fail twice for every time they succeed

Zagreb happened because their are a lot of high quality rebel archers and some excellent 2-hander in their, like wit Dublin. the trebled Garrison is significantly stronger than almost any other.

As far as the reb settlement issue goes, it's a balance we want, not the AI grabbing them all, nor the player. You can make the AI perform better, or make the player perform worse. You tried beefing the garrisons to lower the player's performance, but that lowered the AI's more. You tried upping the Ai's performance with the money script. That's better, but the bottleneck isn't JUST money. It's production capacity and concentration of force. The AI doesn't combine and target as well. So it needs more force to work with, comparatively. But starting setups are starting setups, so you can't adjust those without overpowering the player again.

A VERY good summary, and good point about production limits. That really what I was trying to deal; with with the money script initially, as at first the production limit was money, now until the AI captures a few provinces it's more slots related.

Except... you CAN decrease the starting cash. Then have the AI factions handed a lump sum first turn. That way the player starts with less. Say half now for a start. Maybe it should be zero. That way the player can concentrate units, maybe grab a rebel settlement or two, but will have to manage carefully to afford even replacements. (with the sacking lowered, that won't cover replacements). Drop the garrisons back down to something closer to vanilla, but leave some key cities higher than vanilla (Jerusalem, Antioch). Boost York (from vanilla, 2 turn siege to surrender with just prince's troops and the Nottingham garrison is silly), but take Dublin down to reasonable.

I'm beginning to think that may be the way to go. Although we can't let the garrisons get too low, most factions start with decent armies so too much lowering and we'll just end up with vanilla situations where a player can be attacking 2 settlements at once with only his starting forces if he wants. Thats something i REALLY want to cut out of the game.

Put Inverness back to vanilla. It should not be a guaranteed win for Scotland first try. They rarely fail twice though. Remember, the player can be Scotland too... don't make it too easy!

I don't see the point myself, if I concentrate forces I can take Inverness turn 3/4 with less than 100 dead. it doesn't slow the player down in the slightest.

On the other hand it slows the AI down too much, (a lot like some of the over-buffed garrisons do now). Whats worse. The player losing 50 less guys taking it, or the AI not losing 300+ in the first attack followed by another 100+ in the second. To me it's a win/win situation as the player barely feels it and the IA is speeded up to say nothing of preventing the player bypassing York and grabbing the weakened Inverness from under the Scots noses.

On the grabbing thing, I think I manage that with most factions I have played. Did it with Egypt, the Moors, even Russia, I think (and those distances were huge). Hungary has been the toughest in that regard, but I was close. And I could have if that was my aim. Going straight at Venice slowed sheer region grabbing (and the regions east are poor!) Did it with Turkey too, I think. Spain is easy. Portugal trickier, but I've done it. I just have the Isles down to a science.

OK.

Oh, just occurred to me that you could script in some first-turn reinforcements for the AI too. Nothing huge, maybe a short stack of 5 units or so of their best starting infantry. That might give them the boost to tackle the rebs faster. But don't overdo it as it will be a clear cheat (which can be annoying). The money one is less visible to the player. I think we want the player to have a chance to grab some or all rebs that are close, but we want to force the player to make choices and really stretch... maybe overextend if we can get this startup over faster and have the closest AI faction that wanted those territories jump on them even though they player now owns them.

Interesting idea, I have a few other Wild cards I could use if absolutely necessary. they'd work perfectly and as long as they get disabled after 20 or so turns the player should never figure out whats going on. But they are easier to notice than the money script and a few actions (albeit rare), could cause them to stick out like a sore thumb.

First, if possible distribute all the rebel provinces to AI factions at the beginning. This ensures that the player is starting out behind, all of the manipulation of rebels is pointed at this goal so just start there instead.

AND

I realize this would require different strat. maps for each faction's starting position, but would it be any harder than what we are attempting now? Which is trying to improve an AI whose basic engine we can't tweak.

Can't be done, all factions have to use the same Descr_Strat file. ice idea though.

Heh, as to "fair share," why all of them I can reach in 20 turns! I tend to think of thinks in geographic blocks based on who I'm playing. So for Spain it's everything on the peninsula, plus maybe Bordeaux. Not without a fight or a race. Have to swipe Zaragoza from under Portugal's attempts. And the Moors are usually after Valencia. And France tries for Zaragoza too.

With England it's everything on the isles, though Inverness almost always goes to Scotland if I don't take Scotland out first. I now ignore France, so Rennes is off my list. Just provokes an early continental war. As do Flanders/Bruges. With Denmark it would be Sweden/Norway, Hamburg. Beyond that it would depend on who I wanted war with. I'd go into the Lowland to provoke France, or along the Baltic to provoke Poland. HRE would be a threat in any case. But if I were going to provoke someone, I'd now prefer to do it at their capital.

With Egypt or Turkey I'd shoot for the whole Holy Land. With Russia, everything north of Poland (and Poland!) With Poland, everything north (and Russia!).

Anyway, ideally I would be pushed to take half to 2/3 of each set, if I was after them and not the chief opponent. If you make it so I could only get one, the difficulty would be getting terribly steep. Probably too much so for fun.

The issue is in vanilla I could EASILY get the ENTIRE set without the AI being able to stop me if i really went at it. I know the best Blitzers certainly can, and they can do it in less than 5-6 turns. in fact an average Blitzer manages better than 2 provinces a turn at the fastest point. I don't necessarily want to limit you to just one province, i just want the A to get slightly better than half against the average player and make it take much longer to do. You in the England game managed an average of 2 turns per province, I'd rather see 3, preferably 4 turns per province as the AI even in vanilla just sits their for about 5 turns before doing anything.

But my first neighbor is dead anyway. Or I lose. Doesn't mean it's a geographical neighbor, I could neuter that one via diplomacy, but they first faction I take on. The important thing is that the others power up considerably so the second is much harder, and so on. And so that if I screw up diplomacy and get 2-3 on me at once I am in serious pain... and probably lose. Unless I too have good allies that actually help.

Hope this answers the question.

Another side thought: The problem with too much lump sum of cash at once (and I like your "just enough, just in time" money script) is that it's a pool the player can tap via diplomacy. If the AI factions are relatively rich, I believe they are freer with their lump sum payments and tribute. It may be tied to income, but nothing else seems to be. Everything appears to key off treasury balance (which is somewhat silly... ideally it would factor in both the treasury balance and the net cash flow). So my Papal bribes need to increase as I get richer (or the Pope does, but I think the former), for example. I suspect the Pope respects tithing. He compares your gift to your total balance. But it may be a turn number function too, early may just require smaller amounts.

But, in any case, the AI can't pay what it doesn't have. Really poor factions often abort negotiations because they can't meet the demand of even a very generous offer.

I'd prefer to see you struggle to take ANY faction out of the game in the first 50 turns TBH, but maybe thats going too far. Good point about the Diplomacy too.

vonsch

03-15-2007, 19:46

Well, if they get "the lot" at the immediate cost of their starting region(s), that would be okay. ~;)

The Boxed in bit you talk about is what i'm actually trying to make happen nearly all the time. In effect I'd like a player to have one of two options. He can either try to blitz his way through local factions. r he can try to ally with them to keep them off him, and either by sea or military access rights then go elsewhere to go conquering.

If alliances hold reasonably well, the turtling early becomes viable. I don't find it much so in vanilla because of the programmed antipathy between certain factions. The player can't live peacefully, even with alliamces. I am for making that possible. Then the box isn't so claustrophobic.

If I understand you right you in effect find waiting for a war or beating the rebels (buffed or not), quite boring, so you like to go on the attack against the AI factions rather than wait around. but you wouldn't be adverse to not doing so if you had something else to occupy your attention.

IF that's viable. I don't mind a lot of fast turns of economic/techonological buildup, exploration, diplomacy, etc. I don't like trying that and then being invaded right through an alliance I thought was reasonably solid. A small chance of that is okay. A certainty means I don't buildup, I take that threat out first. It's only sane ~;)

So you mostly did it with fairly basic troops then?

If you call my starting peasant archers, my starting mailed knight, my generals, my starting spear levy, and all the spear milita and hobilars I could build in time "fairly basic." I'd call that "primitive." I don't bother with replacements for troops I won't build by choice, like peasant archers and spear levy. I'd rather use spear militia for my spear wall than have to use my one castle for building spear levy. And peasant archers are junk compared to longbows once I get a breather to build a couple tiers of ranges. I usually aim for the second tier ones before I build any, if not pressured. Then I build a bunch to pop out the woodmens guild. I can get to second tier ranges pretty fast in captured castles once I start a real campaign. I love having better ones, but they are harder to get replacements for near the front.

I didn't tech up one notch in anything military. Pure econ buildings to that point. But at the end my economy is solid for that point. I can afford to build in all cities at the same time, plus some to spare to build garrisons and start working on a real army.

Interesting list of changes for that other mod. The Fleet is obvious and it's what i'm intending to do anyway. but I'd love to know how they are doing the rest with upkeep as it's only possible through and extremely long (like 50+ A4 pages), campaign script.

I suspect the maintenance costs script is long and complicated. Something is. Turn updates take a LONG time. It's very different play. Much more calculated. Not that I've gotten beyond 10 turns so far. Still in the phase of learning how it plays.

Too many randomly assigned traits, and generals have a slightly different role (or so it feels). I already griped about that. I don't like traits popping up for no apparent reason and beyond my control, except in very limited fashion. And with the high turns per year, it feels like they happen way too often.

But every time I park my army outside a settlement at the end of the turn my treasury goes into the red. Not that I have much of a treasury.

Build times are scaled to the turn ration too. Building anything takes at least 8 turns, it appears. And more as your go up the tree. So it's slow. Very. Lots more regions. Titles for owning certain ones, or combinations. The titles are ancilliaries as in MTW. With significant boosts to the titleholder's stats.

Regular events with accept/don't accept choice to the player that affect loyalty and rep (and cost significant florins). Some, like relics, result in ancilliaries too. Can buy a religious relic as part of one random event. Piety +1 and something else, as I recall.

Net effect of the maintenance system is you can build up a large army, but if you USE it you pay a lot very fast. If you take the target settlement, the maint drops again. The cost is for being "in the field" and "far away." Even in the field just outside a settlement is a lot more expensive. It has a significant impact on play.

But it's very ambitious historically too, so be a while before it's "complete" in any sense, if ever.

AT least they are trying, before half the factions where just sitting not even trying half the time. And even in vanilla they fail twice for every time they succeed

I agree that there's a difference. It would be interesting to pin down what is making it. The money? The seige gear fix? The unit tweaks? Something else? Some combination? I don't think it's the beefy garrisons though ~;)

I think the failures are intended. The estimation of required force is probably programmed to be fuzzy, or to put the attacker in the center of the odds so success is about as likely as failure. Can't have the AI KNOWING exactly how much force it will need to always succeed. That would overpower the player too much. It would be like playing against a really good chess program. Unless you're (1) a grandmaster or (2) a serious student, it's just not much fun to always get whipped. Fun is a defining attribute of games.

The issue, as we've identified it, is the net effect on player fun. The results of the AI moves has to be challenging, but not overwhelming. So give the AI time for 1.5 tries, so sometimes it really piles up the reb captures, and sometimes it just does okay. That would be about optimum, I think. Especially since in some cases the AI is competing with the AI also. If one really whups the other at grabbing the locals this time, the other the next, and sometimes they each just do okay, we see variety in outcomes, and different powerhouse opponents. That's less immediate an issue that the startup, because the player doesn't feel the effect right away, but it's as important.

The startup is a gate though. If it feels way too easy, or way too hard, the player just stops. (Most do, not all, admittedly.)

That's why I'm worried less about later. That's for now. Once the startup feels okay, then the next stage becomes an issue. Have to balance that growth stage after the startup feels right. Otherwise tweaking the startup will disrupt attempts to balance growth.

Carl

03-15-2007, 20:42

Well, if they get "the lot" at the immediate cost of their starting region(s), that would be okay.

Well of course, but if they get the lot (or most) inside the first 30 turns they'll never lose their starting regions due to the AI being unable to attack them.

If alliances hold reasonably well, the turtling early becomes viable. I don't find it much so in vanilla because of the programmed antipathy between certain factions. The player can't live peacefully, even with alliances. I am for making that possible. Then the box isn't so claustrophobic.

AND

IF that's viable. I don't mind a lot of fast turns of economic/technological buildup, exploration, diplomacy, etc. I don't like trying that and then being invaded right through an alliance I thought was reasonably solid. A small chance of that is Okay. A certainty means I don't buildup, I take that threat out first. It's only sane

I hate useless alliances too. and thanks for clarify those two further for me.

If you call my starting peasant archers, my starting mailed knight, my generals, my starting spear levy, and all the spear militia and hobilars I could build in time "fairly basic." I'd call that "primitive." I don't bother with replacements for troops I won't build by choice, like peasant archers and spear levy. I'd rather use spear militia for my spear wall than have to use my one castle for building spear levy. And peasant archers are junk compared to longbows once I get a breather to build a couple tiers of ranges. I usually aim for the second tier ones before I build any, if not pressured. Then I build a bunch to pop out the woodmens guild. I can get to second tier ranges pretty fast in captured castles once I start a real campaign. I love having better ones, but they are harder to get replacements for near the front.

I didn't tech up one notch in anything military. Pure econ buildings to that point. But at the end my economy is solid for that point. I can afford to build in all cities at the same time, plus some to spare to build garrisons and start working on a real army.

I consider what you can build from the first 2 levels of City/Castle Barracks/Archery Ranges/Stables the basic, the stuff from Citadel/Huge City Barracks/Archery Ranges/Stables the High tech stuff and everything else falls into the mid group.

But thanks for the confirmation.

I suspect the maintenance costs script is long and complicated. Something is. Turn updates take a LONG time. It's very different play. Much more calculated. Not that I've gotten beyond 10 turns so far. Still in the phase of learning how it plays.

Too many randomly assigned traits, and generals have a slightly different role (or so it feels). I already griped about that. I don't like traits popping up for no apparent reason and beyond my control, except in very limited fashion. And with the high turns per year, it feels like they happen way too often.

Definitely sounds like a script, it isn't upping upkeep directly, it's just deducting from your Treasury every turn. and I'm trying to avoid randomness too much too. Hows it in V1.21 ATM in that regard.

And more as your go up the tree. So it's slow. Very. Lots more regions. Titles for owning certain ones, or combinations. The titles are ancillaries as in MTW. With significant boosts to the titleholder's stats.

Regular events with accept/don't accept choice to the player that affect loyalty and rep (and cost significant florins). Some, like relics, result in ancillaries too. Can buy a religious relic as part of one random event. Piety +1 and something else, as I recall.

Interesting, i didn't even know that kind of thing was possible TBH.

I agree that there's a difference. It would be interesting to pin down what is making it. The money? The siege gear fix? The unit tweaks? Something else? Some combination? I don't think it's the beefy garrisons though

LOL, me too. I think it's all in the money. Unit tweaks bar the Byzantine Spearmen don't come into effect that early, the tech tree is probably a touch worse that early on, and whilst Siege gear helps I don't think it's the big thing. Certainly when they had less money they tended to sit around more and fail more.

I'm currently experimenting with weaker garrisons BTW.

I think the failures are intended. The estimation of required force is probably programmed to be fuzzy, or to put the attacker in the center of the odds so success is about as likely as failure. Can't have the AI KNOWING exactly how much force it will need to always succeed. That would overpower the player too much. It would be like playing against a really good chess program. Unless you're (1) a grandmaster or (2) a serious student, it's just not much fun to always get whipped. Fun is a defining attribute of games.

Well of course, part of the issue though is it values Spar Militia as Highly as Town Militia, but the Tow Militia is actually twice as effective against enemy spear units as the spear militia as their spears don't inflict a combat penalty vs other infantry, but are less effective against Cav than the proper spears used by the spear militia.

Also, with the poor force concentration and lack of forward planning, even if the AI was able to always throw enough troops at the enemy it would still be fairly beatable as you could concentrate force faster and better and do better forward planning.

The issue, as we've identified it, is the net effect on player fun. The results of the AI moves has to be challenging, but not overwhelming. So give the AI time for 1.5 tries, so sometimes it really piles up the reb captures, and sometimes it just does okay. That would be about optimum, I think. Especially since in some cases the AI is competing with the AI also. If one really whups the other at grabbing the locals this time, the other the next, and sometimes they each just do Okay, we see variety in outcomes, and different powerhouse opponents. That's less immediate an issue that the startup, because the player doesn't feel the effect right away, but it's as important.

The startup is a gate though. If it feels way too easy, or way too hard, the player just stops. (Most do, not all, admittedly.)

Agreed, the game mustn't become un-fun as it where. Thats the hardest bit of all to get right.

That's why I'm worried less about later. That's for now. Once the startup feels Okay, then the next stage becomes an issue. Have to balance that growth stage after the startup feels right. Otherwise tweaking the startup will disrupt attempts to balance growth.

All good points.

Bob the Insane

03-15-2007, 21:45

I am not sure why there is a big rush to get rid of all the Rebel Settlements in the first 20-30 turns of a 450 turn game (assuming Carl is still balancing for a 1 turn per year game)?

What does it matter if a few rebel settlements are very strong and provide a stop point of the AI (unless it gets lucky) and real challenge for the player?

I for one do not want of have the game sewn up in the first 20 turns... :inquisitive:

Does this make sense or am I misunderstanding??

I mean Zagreb being strong is kind of fun, it provides a focal point on the map that the factions have to fight for and maybe over, rather than it simply being a race for the first faction there. In this case the first faction there might suffer the worst. At least with these garrison the rebel sally out and have a go...

Two many would be a problem as it would hem in the factions, but making some of the choicer rebel settlements strongholds of independance is not a bad thing.

I guess the issue is whether or not these stronger garrisons is making things any more challenging for the player? It is like the strong towers in the sieges, great idea for challenging the player but if it hamstrings the AI then there is no point...

I am going to force on my campaign as a turtle and see how long the larger rebel settlements actually hold out against the AI factions...

Carl

03-15-2007, 21:51

@Bob, What i'm actually trying to do is just get the AI to be better at grabbing rebels.

The problem is that means holding the player up while the AI grabs the first few before letting the player lose. 30 turns would be the max I could hold the player for and thats would be struggling. Once the layer gets lose any remaining settlements will fall like domino's to them and put local factions a a disadvantage if they don't have them. Venice for example won't grab anything else till it has Zagreb.

The reason you have 450 turns really is that I expect it to take a LONG time to eliminate the AI factions.

It would be nice if the rebel grabbing phase lasted a nice challenging 50 turns for player and AI alike, but it's nearly impossibbile to drag it out like that.

Part of the reason is that the AI will NEVER attack anything with More than one stack as far as I can see so any more powerful for the rebels and you've got issues.

p.s. what are you makeing of Byzantine Spearmen?

vonsch

03-15-2007, 22:04

and I'm trying to avoid randomness too much too. Hows it in V1.21 ATM in that regard.

If I note anything out of the ordinary, I'll squeal. Seems pretty okay so far as far as traits go. The seige engineer is the one ancilliary I noted. I think the architect may be a little too easy, but it's not bad.

Part of the reason is that the AI will NEVER attack anything with More than one stack as far as I can see so any more powerful for the rebels and you've got issues.

I saw Turkey tackle Edessa with two stacks (though neither was a full stack). So it does combine stacks into one attack on rebel settlements. Between the two it was more than a full stack.

Carl

03-15-2007, 22:07

If I note anything out of the ordinary, I'll squeal. Seems pretty okay so far as far as traits go. The seige engineer is the one ancilliary I noted. I think the architect may be a little too easy, but it's not bad.

Thanks for that.

I saw Turkey tackle Edessa with two stacks (though neither was a full stack). So it does combine stacks into one attack on rebel settlements. Between the two it was more than a full stack.

Thats not behaviour i've seen before...

vonsch

03-15-2007, 22:23

Thats not behaviour i've seen before...

I've not observed that combining of stacks to be common behavior. At least not against rebel settlements.

Carl

03-15-2007, 22:47

I've not observed that combining of stacks to be common behavior. At least not against rebel settlements.

fair enough.

Let me know how you get on with the moors kiling as england anyway.

I found the source of the rep bug, and a couple of other bugs besides. Give me until sometime tomorrow and I'll have the next version of the BETA out.

It will include slightly debuffed rebels and reduced starting money for the player too, and maybe one or two other tricks.

The bug was that I'd accidentally removed the agent limits for Spy's/Assassins, the player probably never noticed the lack of limits, and until it got enough movement, presumably, the A wasn't able to do enough assassination/spying to really hit rep.

vonsch

03-16-2007, 00:05

I found the source of the rep bug, and a couple of other bugs besides. Give me until sometime tomorrow and I'll have the next version of the BETA out.

It will include slightly debuffed rebels and reduced starting money for the player too, and maybe one or two other tricks.

The bug was that I'd accidentally removed the agent limits for Spy's/Assassins, the player probably never noticed the lack of limits, and until it got enough movement, presumably, the A wasn't able to do enough assassination/spying to really hit rep.

Any idea if they will take effect without restarting?

Carl

03-16-2007, 00:21

Probably not i'm afraid, sorry about this, I still can't figure out the alliances issue either. It's STILL happening, it seems to be linked to when the AI switches from passive to active vs. the player but I can't figure out why...

I'll try asking other modders if they know what does it.

As an aside, their was an EDU bug too, (the morale changes had undone themselves somehow, unsure how exactly ATM, probs an old backup got pasted over the top or something).

WAIT, the assassins/spy change will as it's an EDB entry change, the changes to factions standings, Rebels, Starting Money, and a few other things won't though.

Bob the Insane

03-16-2007, 02:27

Byz spearmen are good... Not spectacular but can be relied upon to hold the line against other spearmen and cavalry... Turkish Halberders tore them a new one though!!

I was a litle inaccurate with my date above (the problem of working from memory)... The state of the world above was in 1136...

I have got to 1148 now and I really do not think you have ot worry about hte AI capturing provinces too much...

The toggle_fow:

https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/Bob_the_Insane/0007.jpg

Only the a couple of Middle Eastern provinces remain... I took Zagreb, but it was week enough to surrender ot my full stack so the AI would have goten it eventually...

Note the Pope has wiped out the Sicilians and taken their lands!!

Only England and Milan have missed out on the eaxpansions...

vonsch

03-16-2007, 07:05

For some reason Nottingham isn't seeing hobilars as eligible for garrison duty. I have a stable and have been making and upgrading them there, so that's not the issue. It keeps using my peasant archers instead. Move those out, still won't take the hobilars as garrison. Did something change in how that works from 1.13?

Or am I confusing my mods again. ~;)

Heh, faction heir, soon to be kind (William is 61) just picked up Martin Luther in Edinburg.

I'm preparing the Timbuktu expedition now. Sails this turn. Mostly hobilars. I'll hire mercs for seige work if I need them. A bit concerned that I'm still not seeing any pirates or bandits, despite running with the changed numbers for those.

Oops, are they turn-number triggered? Pirate fleet just appeared off Dover.

First heretic popped in England on turn 28. Not due to hereticism locally. Died same turn. My one priest left there (rest on the boats!) was a 2 skill compared to his 1. Got lucky.

It's a 10 turn trip to Marrakesh from Ireland. Too long. Captured Marrakesh on turn 30. Will see some incoming attacks though. It was garrisoned with the Sultan. That was it. He was killed in the fighting. Rep at Very Untrustworthy, but it was there before my sneak attack. If I'd had a diplomat in range I would have tried using him to declare war. Only had trade rights with the Moors. Need to wait for the unrest to calm down anyway, and for my God squad to do its job.

Carl

03-16-2007, 15:08

Or am I confusing my mods again.

Confused LOL, i never made Hobladiers free upkeep.

Oops, are they turn-number triggered? Pirate fleet just appeared off Dover.

No, but the Pirates won't come near you if you don't have any ships. They home in on other ships.

It's a 10 turn trip to Marrakesh from Ireland. Too long. Captured Marrakesh on turn 30. Will see some incoming attacks though. It was garrisoned with the Sultan. That was it. He was killed in the fighting. Rep at Very Untrustworthy, but it was there before my sneak attack. If I'd had a diplomat in range I would have tried using him to declare war. Only had trade rights with the Moors. Need to wait for the unrest to calm down anyway, and for my God squad to do its job.

Thanks for that.

Byz spearmen are good... Not spectacular but can be relied upon to hold the line against other spearmen and cavalry... Turkish Halberders tore them a new one though!!

About what i hoped for, the Byz AI just tends to go a Little crazy early on, and it didn't before I gave them a buff.

I have got to 1148 now and I really do not think you have to worry about the AI capturing provinces too much...

The AI always looks a Little like that by 1150+ It's what it looks like at 1100 or before that got vonsch and me worried. A blitz can easily secure 6+ provinces for the player in that time whilst most AI's have at best 3 provinces. We rreally need to slow the player down.

Still tracking down one currentlly existing bug.

vonsch

03-16-2007, 17:44

Still have pagan magician disease. Just picked up two in Marrakesh. 1% pagan. I always comment that one out, at least until we can find the right syntax to tie it to the percentage of the pagans, rather than a less than high percentage of own religion. That -2 piety hurts, and its arrival is less than logical.

Now if it were a Jewish scholar...

I'm starting to think that we do have a culture penalty. Of some sort. Shows up in generic unrest. But haven't tracked it carefully yet.

Oh, a note on my invasion. I unloaded from the ships, hit crusade and wasn't given the option of Marrakesh, though it was there before. I think maybe you can't have troops (or a general) in the target when declaring a crusade. But may just be coincidence and a higher priority target pushed it out. Coroba is still on the list, as is Tunis.

Also, there were no mercs to hire. Glad I brought a few foot troops, but my spies opened the gates in any case. The Moors are running around a lot of stacks with mercs in them. ~;)

Heh, almost 50% corruption. Time to build some law buildings.

Carl

03-16-2007, 18:09

I'm starting to think that we do have a culture penalty. Of some sort. Shows up in generic unrest. But haven't tracked it carefully yet.

Yeah, it still their, tells you in the Descr_Regions file found in M2TW/DATA/World/Maps/Base/

Still have pagan magician disease. Just picked up two in Marrakesh. 1% pagan. I always comment that one out, at least until we can find the right syntax to tie it to the percentage of the pagans, rather than a less than high percentage of own religion. That -2 piety hurts, and its arrival is less than logical.

I'll take a look as it's bothering me too.

Also, there were no mercs to hire. Glad I brought a few foot troops, but my spies opened the gates in any case. The Moors are running around a lot of stacks with mercs in them.

Achhh, theirs a big chunk of Africa with no mercs to hire in it at all actually. I'll have to fix that, been meaning to but forgot...

I think, (till need to run a last test), I know why alliances aren't going of right.

First the factions aren't getting into wars on turn 3 anymore so they don't go looking for alliances their.

Second, I think when the AI is planning an attack it counts as at war for the purposes of some of the triggers in the AI file, but not in terms of diplomacy.

Third, I've buffed the Factions a fair bit with the money script.

I think what was happening was that the AI before was so much weaker than the slaves it was getting alliances to gang up on it. Now the AI is stronger in comparison to the slaves than it used to be, (even though the slaves have gone up), it's no longer trying so much. I can cure it though i think so...

vonsch

03-16-2007, 18:21

Good, you have a potential lead on the war/diplomacy dearth.

Hmm, I hadn't noticed no mercs before. But then I don't use them much, so I probably would just assume they were all hired up by the "competition." Can that happen? Or does the player have a separate pool?

I had a thought while trying to sleep last night. There's a trigger for waking up the bandits, isn't there? I believe I saw mention of it somewhere. Some earlier random bandits would not be a bad thing. It would create more randomness to AI conquests (have to get past those stacks in strategic spots, I've seen them block Pyranees passes, for example), and give the player a bit more to deal with. Not saying we need a LOT of bandits, just that they start appearing sooner. I've seen very few this test. Need more, need them earlier. I set mine to what you gave me earlier.

It both helps and hurts the player (and gives the player turtling something to do!). It affects movement in blitz attempts (and attrits forces, to some degree), but it also gives the player something to train units and generals on. Same with pirates. My trip to Marrakesh found zero pirates in 10 turns. I don't think they should be swarming, but an England to Marrakesh sail should turn up at least one pirate fleet, I'd say. Maybe 2-3. There needs to be risk in that sort of strategic maneuver. Especially since the AI is so rotten at them.

Too many will impede the AI which probably won't prioritize transport over combat. But it's plain too easy to do a Hail Mary move now.

This is, of course, aside from the game-play issue of it taking a long time. The density of pirate fleets is unrelated to how long in moves it takes to go somewhere. And the pirates get the same movement boost, so have to consider how they "find" player/AI fleets in the balancing. Could every pirate in the Med converge in the center onto the player's fleet in one move? Or do pirate have to obey FOW rules, and can only "see" what's in that range, thus have to randomly stumble over the player?

Only way to know is to test. Don't seem to be many (or any) pirates in AD, so my dabbling there hasn't contributed any data on how the long ship moves affect piracy.

Oh, I haven't had a leader parked in Edinburg, but am cycling one through to manage the build queue. It turn 30 it passed 12000 population. I occupied it, didn't sack. It has been mostly on low taxes to pump growth. But it's only level 2 farms. I do push for fast growth in the early cities as more population means more taxes (until you get into squalor problems, but early is key). Can deal with those problems when you have a larger base of cities (and huge walls!)

London is just hitting 11k on turn 31. Not sure if Edinburg has better base growth or if the AI leaves taxes low and pumps it faster that way. Seems odd it would have better growth than London. Scotland isn't the picture of fertility.

Looks like the Moors are breaking against Valencia still. Diplomat just spotted it neutral with Moor stacks in the area. I wondered where all their troops are. Haven't seen many in Africa.

Darn, Pope called a crusade on Jerusalem before I could get one off to forestall him. Let's see who joins it. I can't amass the force to take it with THAT garrison from what I can hire on the way and have in hand. (Not complaining... it's an observation ~;) ) Err, correction, AM complaining about that silly Pope. I wanted a crusade on something handier.

Siccing a diplo on rebs in sub-Sahara to try to raise some troops there. Moors own Timbuktu and heir is there, so can't bribe it directly, I expect. Need at least a garrison anyway.

Okay, around turn 35 seeing alliances forming. Still lots of rebel-owned cities around though.

King Rufus is now a Very Dishonest Ruler, despite doing nothing dishonest. Rep is Deceitful. Allied with 12 Christian factions, lack Sicily. A thought: is using spies contributing? If so, that's bad. I'm spying actively with 3-4 per turn, mostly to train them. So not using THAT many. I have about 6. No assassins at all. Spies should only hit rep if they are caught.

Wow, that's unusual. HRE has a perfect relationship with the Pope. On the other hand, Milan is first excommed. That's not ususual.

Carl

03-16-2007, 20:17

Spying drops your rep by 0.06 per time, so 3 to 4 at a time is 0.24 per turn and it only goes from +1 to -1 so that all out evil in just 5 turns.

I'm going to cut the penalty for that BTW.

Bob the Insane

03-16-2007, 20:30

Spying drops your rep by 0.06 per time, so 3 to 4 at a time is 0.24 per turn and it only goes from +1 to -1 so that all out evil in just 5 turns.

I'm going to cut the penalty for that BTW.

You only get the drop if your spy fails and dies right??

vonsch

03-16-2007, 20:32

I don't think that there should be a penalty for using spies. Spies are, well, a given. Incompetent spies, those that cause diplomatic incidents, on the other hand, are not.

Assassins are another matter entirely. That's an act of war. As is sabotage. But even so, getting caught should be the larger issue. Being known to hire lots of them should also acrue a significant penalty.

Both of these will hit the AI harder than the player though, since the AI tends to spam both. And it's not too smart about using them.

Carl

03-16-2007, 20:53

You only get the drop if your spy fails and dies right??

AND

I don't think that there should be a penalty for using spies. Spies are, well, a given. Incompetent spies, those that cause diplomatic incidents, on the other hand, are not.

It doesn't specify whether it means successfully or not, but my guess is any time a spy is used.

The reasoning for why is simple.

The Kings of the various factions will doubtless be entertaining foreign guests all the time and wealthy individuals. Some of these will probably be spies or be informal permanent ambassadors of other courts, (a messenger to carry messages between the two if you will). Even if the ruler in question receives his spy reports in private it is almost certain that the other side will be able to deduce that he knows things he shouldn't. He may even outright state he has knowledge of something.

If you will the spy might not get caught, (so they don't know HOW he gets the info), but his actions will make clear that he actually has the information.

On the Flip side his knowledge wouldn't ALWAYS be obvious as it wouldn't always be useful. The penalty is fine for knowledge that is valuable and is difficult to keep concealed, but too high for the stuff that can be kept quite on or the stuff that isn't useful. Add to that the way it hurts the AI and it's at least 3 times as high as it needs to be. 0.01 would be best though IMHO.

Assassins have 2 penalties, one for major assassination attempts, (probs anything but the Faction Heir/Leader), and one for minor attempts, (everything else).

I've also cut the AI assassin/spy spam now so it's not as bad as it could be.

The Diplomatic death has been found too.

It boils down to the fact that before the AI was starting wars or planning wars from day one so it was always trying to get alliances from the start. With the AI changes it doesn't start this for 30 turns. I can't make it get alliances before that against the slaves because otherwise everyone ends up allied to each other with pretty bad consequences as no AI faction will start a war, (I just saw this in a test BTW).

vonsch

03-16-2007, 21:23

Is there a trigger for failed spying at all? You could add back some penalty for failures if there is. If the ongoing penalty is very low, we can work with that. Might have to tinker with normalization of rep.

If the player is slowed down 10 turns, turn 20 would be to my taste for the more active diplomacy. Turn 30 seems late. But we need the AI factions moving faster on rebels first. (Juggling acts!)

I'm sort of expecting some declarations any turn now with my terrible rep. France, Spain, HRE are the likely prospects due to Caen. Rennes and the lowlands are still rebel though, but seeing more short stack traffic around Caen. Decided to beef it up a bit to see if that stalls them. Can afford it. Starting to bring Timbuktu merchants online. My expeditionary force is 2 turns from Timbuktu town, and it's under seige with a hijacked rebel stack and general. Have just enough to keep the garrison from sallying. Waiting on the reinforcements to force the issue. A largish Moor stack bypassed Marrakesh and is heading south now too. But dropping a fort in the narrow desert path to stall that to give me time to greet it better.

Not sure how much more I'll play this though. The eroding rep bugs me. Also, while seeing a few bandits and pirates, they are really sparse. Was hoping that Moor stack would beseige Marrakesh. My defenses aren't that good (well, weren't, better with two more turns of building) and I was looking forward to playing it out to see how the stone walls did.

Most of the bribed bandits have poofed, and the Moor ones too. But got that one general and he found 6 sudanese units as mercs in sub-Sahara. The void must be in Marrakesh.

Carl

03-16-2007, 21:35

Is there a trigger for failed spying at all? You could add back some penalty for failures if there is. If the ongoing penalty is very low, we can work with that. Might have to tinker with normalization of rep.

I can set one up.

p.s. my explanation was just a piece of justification for why i think CA did it, that and it discourage overuse of spies by high rep players.

If the player is slowed down 10 turns, turn 20 would be to my taste for the more active diplomacy. Turn 30 seems late. But we need the AI factions moving faster on rebels first. (Juggling acts!)

Tell me about it, i'm including a few triggers that should get the AI going faster once they can attack each other, and the AI Will still form alliances against the player pre turn 30 if the player attacks them.

Be aware that breaking even trade rights incurs a penalty i think, (theirs a penalty for breaking treaty conditions, I think it must be for breaking trade agreements as alliances are dealt with separately).

On the other hand signing trade rights gives a boost too so...

Not sure how much more I'll play this though. The eroding rep bugs me. Also, while seeing a few bandits and pirates, they are really sparse. Was hoping that Moor stack would beseige Marrakesh. My defenses aren't that good (well, weren't, better with two more turns of building) and I was looking forward to playing it out to see how the stone walls did.

Thats fine, i'm nearly o top of eveything now, just a few changes to make and try out then I can get V1.22 out.

holycow

03-16-2007, 21:59

do you still need volunteers to test 1.21? if so i've got some time this weekend. thanks.

vonsch

03-16-2007, 22:03

I've confirmed that the Moors (I assume AI factions in general too) can hire mercs in Marrakesh while I cannot. Darned army sitting in the mountains getting bigger when there's no way they are walking in! (Have towers and spies around)

Heh, running expeditionary forces on the cheap (hiring on the spot versus bringing along troops) is a bit risky, admittedly, but...

Meanwhile Timbuktu isn't happy with its new rulers. Even with full garrison and low taxes, best I can do is 50% public order ~;). 75% unrest. Some will fade if I can escape riots. First time I've every invaded sub-Sahara, so new to me. Distance penalty is a large issue, as is religious unrest too. All three combined are plain trouble. Next time I move the God Squad in earlier and convert them to 80+% first. (Glad it's got more challenge than sheer distance! Considering how rich it is.)

Okay, I'll wait on the next dot rev. Looking forward to another of your tries at livening up the opening. And more sensible diplomacy and reputation.

Is it known if there's a benefit to breaking off agreements with a diplomat versus just shattering them with a "transgression?" In other words, are declarations of war via diplomatic message a little less of a rep hit? Be interesting if they are. Would increase the importance of diplomats in this environment.

Carl

03-16-2007, 22:12

Is it known if there's a benefit to breaking off agreements with a diplomat versus just shattering them with a "transgression?" In other words, are declarations of war via diplomatic message a little less of a rep hit? Be interesting if they are. Would increase the importance of diplomats in this environment.

It's better to break an alliance BEFORE attacking, but theirs no actual option to declare war via diplomacy before you attack, the only way to go from neutral to war status is by attacking, blockading or some other similar action.

do you still need volunteers to test 1.21? if so i've got some time this weekend. thanks.

Could do with them, it will be V1.22 though as V1.21 introduced a rep bug.

I've confirmed that the Moors (I assume AI factions in general too) can hire mercs in Marrakesh while I cannot. Darned army sitting in the mountains getting bigger when there's no way they are walking in! (Have towers and spies around)

Weird, i'll see if i can't figure that one out.

Okay, I'll wait on the next dot rev. Looking forward to another of your tries at livening up the opening. And more sensible diplomacy and reputation.

It should definetly be intrestin to watch.

holycow

03-16-2007, 23:11

ok, where/how do i get the v1.22?

question though, i've got big map mod, will that be compatible?

Carl

03-16-2007, 23:29

question though, I've got big map mod, will that be compatible?

No, their are changes to the Descr_Strat file so it wouldn't work with it, but it uses it's own mod folder so having big mp installed won't prevent you using this if you don't try to add big map mod onto this one.

OK, where/how do i get the v1.22?

It's not quite complete yet, tweaking AI aggressiveness (it takes too long to start wars after the time limit is up ATM), and adding a couple of traits. When it's ready I'll PM the link to everyone.

p.s. thank again everyone for the help.

here's an idea of how much the Jerusalem Garrison slows a player down now:smash:

I attacked with 2 stacks composed between them of:

11 Religious Fanatics

4 Crusader Knights

2 Mercenary Frankish Knights

2 Papal Guard

2 Italian Militia

2 Italian Spear Militia

8 Crusader Sergeants

2 Unhorsed Knights

2 Pilgrims

1 Gen with 4 Command (including siege/Islamic specific bonuses), and 2 dread.

Auto-resolved and lost:

Pics Below, first is the result, second is what was left:

https://img263.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jeruselemseigehp9.jpg

https://img409.imageshack.us/my.php?image=remaindersip0.jpg

Was an untouched Garrison, but the Ballista towers would have made fighting it at least twice as hard so...

vonsch

03-16-2007, 23:58

What were your actual odds for the autoresolve?

And do you think maybe that one is a LITTLE over-garrisoned now? ~;)

Carl

03-17-2007, 00:20

roughly 1:1 odds.

If I hired a third army of an addittinal 4 pilgrams I won 400:550 in losses. Numbers count somtimes LOL:laugh4:.

Should have the BETA soon, need to sompress and upload though.

Carl

03-17-2007, 01:40

The V1.22 BETA has just been sent out. Therefore any further posts after this relate to V1.22 unless specifically stated otherwise in the relevant post.

vonsch

03-17-2007, 02:07

Okay, what should I play as faction this time?

chickenhawk

03-17-2007, 02:15

Carl I will have something for you Monday. Real life and all of that, you know.:juggle2:

Carl

03-17-2007, 02:16

How about trying turks or Byzantium?

I'd like your opinion on the Byzantine spears, and they are in a good position to blitz.

On the other hand the Turks are likely to be effected more by the starting money drop and we don't know if all the issues present in V1.20 where fixed yet.

Eventually I'd like someone to try France/HRE but I think they can wait till i'm happy with the eastern/British/Iberian factions.

Carl I will have something for you Monday. Real life and all of that, you know.

Thats fine, i'm gonna be the same on Sunday barring some kind of outrageous good luck.

vonsch

03-17-2007, 03:10

Okay, H/H as Turks. Never played Byz. May try them later.

Conservative isn't in your vocabulary is it? 0 starting florins? Well, that means get aggressive.

Heh, Byzzies hate me, but they give me gold. Love it. Alliance, maps and trade rights. Small amounts, but, hey, I started with nothing! My aim is to make them break a treaty to attack me (which they will do, they always do) and hopefully bring in some support for me as a result. Now, to get Hungary and Venice in my pockets too.

Trying a long shot. Probably won't work and I'll restart the same way except for that long shot. Tackling Tbilisi and Baghdad with my starting forces and what little I can build and get there in 2 turns. Hmm, 2:1 odds at Baghdad after 1 turn, it's doable. Baghdad needs a couple more defending units, maybe. But remember the AI has to have a decent shot at it.

Okay, now for a more serious start.

Bob the Insane

03-17-2007, 03:10

v1.22, started as Scotland with the intention of staying out of the way for 20 turns to see what the AI does on it's own...

Scotland had zreo starting funds! Nothing, zip, completely broke...

Intentional??

Carl

03-17-2007, 03:13

Scotland had zero starting funds! Nothing, zip, completely broke...

Intentional??

:yes: everyones the same. zero may be a bit extreme, but i can work up from their, it's to slow the player down a bit early on though you'll find Inverness easy to take as Scotland.

Okay, H/H as Turks. Never played Byz. May try them later.

Thats fine.

Conservative isn't in your vocabulary is it? 0 starting florins?

:laugh4:, Conservative? I thought that was a political party, not a gaming term:smash:.

I figured it would be easiest to start at 0 and work from their, doesn't seem to slow the AI much though, which is good. I suspect 0 will prove to be too much eventually, but I figured I'd start as low as I can and work it out from their. No chance of it being too high this way.

Trying a long shot. Probably won't work and I'll restart the same way except for that long shot. Tackling Tbilisi and Baghdad with my starting forces and what little I can build and get there in 2 turns.

I'd hope you manage it as they are relatively weak, same with Trebizond. they're meant to be quick grabs for the AI as the Holy land is a seriously tough challenge and i haven't even buffed the Antioch Garrison yet. Ohh, I forgot to shift the Theologians HQ from Jerusalem, I've just remembered it. Sorry~:(.

vonsch

03-17-2007, 03:56

I'd hope you manage it as they are relatively weak, same with Trebizond. they're meant to be quick grabs for the AI as the Holy land is a seriously tough challenge and i haven't even buffed the Antioch Garrison yet. Ohh, I forgot to shift the Theologians HQ from Jerusalem, I've just remembered it. Sorry~:(.

It's doable, especially if I concentrate first north, then south, on the east side. Don't even need the western troops. And unless someone is REALLY poor (maybe Russia, Poland, Hungary), I think 0 starting cash is okay. Just a shocker.

The guild not a big deal since I probably won't pass 30 turns in testing.

(Eyes Constantinople...) I wonder if I could...

Treb falls turn 5. Main problem is just getting there. Will catch Tbilisi on the way back to Yerevan. Baghdad beseiged, will let that one sally. Big walls and all that.

Byzzies failed first try at Smyrna. They keep that up and I'll steal Constantinople! ~;) Second attmpt failed too. Byz has plenty of units, just attacking with way too few. Third time was the charm, but they started with too few units again. Reinforcements must have gotten there in time, but I missed it.

Bet you didn't tweak down seige engineer and architect.

Heh, the problem with Baghdad is it locks up troops as garrison for a while. It's close to minor city size. Fell turn 8. Tbilisi turn 10. Now to the serious work. First bandit spotted, turn 11.

Council wants me to take Adana. Adana is worth a lot less than its neighbor, so... (turn 15) jihad on Antioch. Same turn beseige it with 8 HA and general and bunch of jihadis. Dare them to come out. No luck. Next turn two more generals join jihad in other regions (not too far off) and hire up all the jihadis. As soon as they arrive we crush it! Then we swing over to Adana for the 2500 florins. This is where the AI can't compete. It just can't make these sorts of little plans. (I'll probably have plenty of leftovers to hit a 3rd city too. Upkeep on ghazis and muutas is nothing, once you hire them. The main drag will be garrisons!

Oh, it's clear that Turkey is fine with 0 starting purse. Could put it in the hole 5000 and it would just slow me down 3 turns. But that IS a potential balancing tool. Since the AI gets lump sums each turn for a while, could slow the AI a bit in some cases too.

Bongaroo

03-17-2007, 05:33

I was testing 1.2 on France. I'll give the byz's a try now with this new version. Anything in particular besides the spear's to check out? Just want me to try and rush?

vonsch

03-17-2007, 05:49

I'd say so. See how fast you can grab the rebel settlements, or take out a local faction.

And watch how well the local factions do at the same time.

Carl,

Okay, my rep is going up nicely, but not doing any active spying. Did you tweak that? I'll kick off a bit of spying and see what happens as soon as I can hire some. Waiting for them to pop on the hire list in Yerevan. I assume just hiring them is no issue. Or using them passively, as scouts. May need more population in Yerevan. Been 3+ turns since I finished the shisha bar and still no spy to hire.

Ok, first impressions of Turkey. Too easy. But not sure how to fix that without hurting AI more. And it will get harder when the hordes turn up, so maybe it's okay. Byz and Egypt are apt to declare on me too, as soon as the startup ends. It's turn 19. If I get until 30 I'll own the Holy Land. Except Jerusalem... maybe. Depends on if I can get another jihad off. ~;)

Byz, Turkey and Egypt do sort of balance each other out if they are all easy starts. And they are programmed to hate each other.

Okay, Yerevan shows 2 spies in the pool, but they are grayed out. Any idea what's up?

Seeing more bandits this game. Numbers seem about right to me so far.

Did you diminish the impact of tax rates on growth? I'm pretty sure it was 0.5% per tax level, but now it's only 0.5% to go from high to very high. Everything else is flat. The chivalry effect is definitely lessened. It looks like it's about 0.5 per 5 chivalry. If the tax adjustment did change, I think I prefer the hit for higher taxes each step. It still boosts the order penalty, but that isn't usually a big issue early. Growth is a compound effect, so having a penalty that's inversely proporational to the growth rate makes immediate cash flow versus long term cash flow a real choice. It's also a choice to slow down teching up for immediate cash flow.

Turn 25, first crusade heading in for Jerusalem. Good, Maybe they can take it. Be easier for me to take it away. But they'll probably just evaporate in the sun. Allied with all but Scotland, England (stuck up Normans!) and Poland of the Catholic factions, so probably won't see any action.

Waiting for Byz to backstab me. Just took Edessa. Next is Damascus and Acre. That leaves Jerusalem.

Carl

03-17-2007, 13:21

I was testing 1.2 on France. I'll give the byz's a try now with this new version. Anything in particular besides the spear's to check out? Just want me to try and rush?

I want to try and find out how hard you can make life for the local factions and how well they do with you there. The more someone can check the spears the better. We know they are fairly solid, but does it throw the Byzantine balance out of whack.

Been 3+ turns since I finished the shisha bar and still no spy to hire.

AND

Okay, Yerevan shows 2 spies in the pool, but they are grayed out. Any idea what's up?

Okay, first the recruitment system will display 2 spies even if you are at your limit, it's a UI bug I can't fix.

Secondly, to kill the AI spy/assassin spam that was always killing it's rep i put a limit of 1 spy/assassin per settlement with the appropriate buildings. If you already have 1 spy you'll be at your limit.

Okay, my rep is going up nicely, but not doing any active spying. Did you tweak that? I'll kick off a bit of spying and see what happens as soon as I can hire some. Waiting for them to pop on the hire list in Yerevan. I assume just hiring them is no issue. Or using them passively, as scouts. May need more population in Yerevan.

I put back the bonus to rep from alliances but heavily toned it down. Even with 8 alliances it will take 50 turns to reach perfect rep if you do nothing else to counteract it, however it takes 5 alliances to negate the rep hit for being at war so watch out.

I also added a small bonus to the AI's rep as it never seemed able to keep it high.

Building and passively scouting/defending with spies has no rep effects, same with assassins. It may give your Governor Dread Traits however/deduct from existing Chivalry traits.

OK, first impressions of Turkey. Too easy. But not sure how to fix that without hurting AI more. And it will get harder when the hordes turn up, so maybe it's Okay. Byz and Egypt are apt to declare on me too, as soon as the startup ends. It's turn 19. If I get until 30 I'll own the Holy Land. Except Jerusalem... maybe. Depends on if I can get another jihad off.

Could you identify any key factors which made it easy/easier for you to get enough money together to Field enough troops to so easily grab the holy lands?

Considering that in AI Vs. AI battles the Egyptians get Baghdad More often than the Turks do, buffing Baghdad's defender back up would probably not hurt the Turks, would that help do you think?

We discussed swapping Mosul and Trebizond around and giving Mosul a decent Garrison, would that have effected you? The Turkish AI always stalls if it fails to grab Trebizond. On the other hand it sometimes insists on grabbing Tbilisi first, hence the weak Tbilisi Garrison, since their are no other serious competitors I could easily buff the Tbilisi Garrison if Trebizond was secure from Byzantine strikes.

Byz, Turkey and Egypt do sort of balance each other out if they are all easy starts. And they are programmed to hate each other.

They're not so much easy starts as their are a few regions each has that they either require to get going, or that, (since no one else will get them), are made easier to get. A bit like Inverness for the Scots.

Did you diminish the impact of tax rates on growth? I'm pretty sure it was 0.5% per tax level, but now it's only 0.5% to go from high to very high. Everything else is flat. The chivalry effect is definitely lessened. It looks like it's about 0.5 per 5 chivalry. If the tax adjustment did change, I think I prefer the hit for higher taxes each step. It still boosts the order penalty, but that isn't usually a big issue early. Growth is a compound effect, so having a penalty that's inversely proportional to the growth rate makes immediate cash flow versus long term cash flow a real choice. It's also a choice to slow down teching up for immediate cash flow.

I just cut all Growth factors by half, but good point with the taxes.

Turn 25, first crusade heading in for Jerusalem. Good, Maybe they can take it. Be easier for me to take it away. But they'll probably just evaporate in the sun. Allied with all but Scotland, England (stuck up Normans!) and Poland of the Catholic factions, so probably won't see any action.

How are the AI factions doing then at this point? Especially the local ones.

Lastly, how may turns (approx), has the lowered money slowed you down by compared to before?

Bob the Insane

03-17-2007, 14:58

Twenty turns as Scotland...

Startng funds was a shock and even wit immediately abandoning my ships was still in the hole for ~250fl a turn. Concentrated on economic buidings while the cash held out. Took Innverness easily enough with the starting force and the moved on to Dublin. I besiged and dure there large force they had only 3 turns. Well they sallied and I with dreew my troops to some higher ground behind my starting position. I had the starting troops plus 4 units of Militia Spears (a gift for taking Innverness). The English where all over York like a rash and Walse soon followed so that was that, but at least now with some economic buildings, a couple of Merchants and a 3000fl gift from my nobles I am making forward progress. Now the pope has call a crusade and the Scotish King has taken a group of Highlanders to go and teach the heretics a lesson... :2thumbsup:

The rest of the world:

https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/Bob_the_Insane/0008.jpg

Spain has taken Zaragoza
Venice has taken Zagreb, Durazzo and Tunis
Milan has taken Dijon
England has taken York and Cearnarvon
Byz has taken Smyrna
Russia has taken Moscow
The Turks have taken Trebizond and Tbilis
Egypt has taken Jedda
Denmark has taken Hamburg
The Pope has taken Florence
Hungary has taken Sofia

The Danes are Besiging Stetten
The Russians are besieging Ryazan
The Hungarians are besieging Bucharest

Skip forward 12 years to 1112 and past the magic 30 turn mark..

Scotland Is still just three provinces but but taking the religious and chivalrous path we are now pretty rich (not have to fight much helps).

Our Crusading army is almost at Jerusilam after marching across most of Europe. The Ventians have been outside the gate for around 8 years but ahve been to intimidated to aly siege...

State of the world:

https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/Bob_the_Insane/0010.jpg

Only France, Portugal and Sicily have failed to take any land...

The HRE and Milan are fighting over Bologna.

The Turks and Byz and beginning to skirmish at sea...

I guess the money cript must be working because all the factions show constant zero (or near enough) cash and yet they are constructing building and troops.

France is the only one looking a little odd aas there are still rebel settlements around them and they have two full stacks not doing much..

Winner of the lad grab are Venice going from 3 to 7 and secind place Turks with 4 to 7... The HRE are 7 too but started with 6...

Additoinal: sent a spy to check on the French and there large stacks are decent troops (noting silly like lots of Siege engines). They do move troops around a bit and I think there is a full stack heading for Bordeaux, but still can't explain their apparantly lack of activeity compare to the other factions.

Ran the next turn with Toggle_fow off and it looks like everyone is doing something... The HRE agreed to become vassels of Milan after 3 truns of fighting ant not lossing any land? The HRE are bigger in land and equal in military force? Milan are Very Reliable and the HRE and Dispicable.

Vencie is now at war with the Byz and Milan (not bad for one turn). Not sure what started Venice and Milan but the Byz blockaged a Venetian port...

Finally Sicily and Milan are allied...

Carl

03-17-2007, 15:29

Thanks Bob. Lots of useful info their, at least the AI seems to be doing OK. France and Sicily are pretty normal, i'm not sure why though in the case of france. Sicily just seems to get intimidated by the Tunis Garrission and never moves.

p.s. Has russia got Helneski?

Bob the Insane

03-17-2007, 15:57

Yust started to attach Jerusilam with my Crusader army, I am allied with Venice now so their Crusader army three has joined the battle...

https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/Bob_the_Insane/0012.jpg

I am curious why with two full stack crusader armies my chances are still just evens...

https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/Bob_the_Insane/0011.jpg

Now I see, and I understand why the Venetian Crusader army was too intimidated to attack... Yikes...

Additoinally: Russia, no... bu they have taken Riga and Moscow and are still besieging Ryazan...

vonsch

03-17-2007, 17:00

Secondly, to kill the AI spy/assassin spam that was always killing it's rep i put a limit of 1 spy/assassin per settlement with the appropriate buildings. If you already have 1 spy you'll be at your limit.

This should be per level of building, I'd say, but that explains it. The problem with this level is that line of buildings is a major trigger for negative governor traits, so the smart player avoids building many. This one will hurt the player more because the player by definition cares about governor traits. (AI can't care... so far.) If it's 1 spy per level, it's still a serious limit, but it's more workable. And the player can always go after the AI's buildings to limit the production.

I put back the bonus to rep from alliances but heavily toned it down. Even with 8 alliances it will take 50 turns to reach perfect rep if you do nothing else to counteract it, however it takes 5 alliances to negate the rep hit for being at war so watch out.

I also added a small bonus to the AI's rep as it never seemed able to keep it high.

On rep, I have 13 alliances, am Imaculate. Spying with my one starter spy isn't dropping it so far. But normally I have several going, so one I can build them we'll see. The factions I made alliances with early are also pretty solid on rep so far. But Venice is Untrustworthy (hah!) and France is Dubious (duh!) PS is Mixed, despite being an early alliance. Must be doing transgressions around Italy. I saw it got Florence again, but war with rebs cant count or I wouldn't be imaculate. Byz is very prejudiced against Turkey. I've been giving them maps and small bits of cash (200 a turn) and it's not moving. Egypt moves when I do thay, though I only have it to So-so. A lot of the others are Amiable to me (especially the Moors.) But it's interesting that some wouldn't ally: England & Russia, so far. I was tall poppy when I got to them. That may be the variable. I suspect there's some randomness in their reaction to proposals, but once they say no to an alliance, haven't gotten them to change their mind that same session. The second time I ask they stop talking.

Could you identify any key factors which made it easy/easier for you to get enough money together to Field enough troops to so easily grab the holy lands?

Considering that in AI Vs. AI battles the Egyptians get Baghdad More often than the Turks do, buffing Baghdad's defender back up would probably not hurt the Turks, would that help do you think?

We discussed swapping Mosul and Trebizond around and giving Mosul a decent Garrison, would that have effected you? The Turkish AI always stalls if it fails to grab Trebizond. On the other hand it sometimes insists on grabbing Tbilisi first, hence the weak Tbilisi Garrison, since their are no other serious competitors I could easily buff the Tbilisi Garrison if Trebizond was secure from Byzantine strikes.

I'm not sure the ease for Turkey is bad (yet) because of the hordes. Do we want an AI Turkey to flat die when the horde hits, or do we want it to have a chance? I think it's okay if Turkey ends up rated as easy for players... horde aside.

But swapping Treb and Mosul might help. Takes Byz longer to get to Treb than Turkey. If Turkey has a chance at it first try, rather than a sure thing (as AI) it will sometimes go to Byz, which is good for variety. I think garrison size there is fine. It's a 4 turns walk for player.

And bump Mosul garrison to maybe half the Adana one. The problem with Islamic factions is smart use of jihad. The AI just isn't up to player smartness standards. But Islamic factions WILL be hated as play develops by all the Catholics. Especially the Turks/Egyptians because of the Holy Land and crusades. So they need something to help them, and jihad is it. They can't manipulate the Pope to do part of their conquering.

In any case, my units are jihadis. They are cheap and have a high power to cost ratio. I hired up all I could in that first jihad, used the saving of making it a 3 turn (or maybe it was 4) jihad, when 2 would have done, to finance carrying the extra cost, then am cleaning up the close together Holy Land cities as fast as sensible (meaning, as fast as I can garrison them adequately), which is about 3 turns per city. Going to have all but Jerusalem at turn 30. That will take a second jihad. But there's a crusade (that at least Poland joined) incoming, so I will probably wait. The jihad units are good garrison troops too, until the appropriate town watch line buildings can be put up to get me into free garrison territory. They are great wall and gap attackers (with a few spears to block).

Because the Holy Land is dense, it's possible to do it fast. Those units are footsloggers, so not good for maneuver. Another aspect of blitzing is that the fast accumulation of cities means lots of adoptions fast. Generals are proportionately a large part of an early game force balance. Moving fast keeps that proportion high. It's also a dense part of the force. The power per unit is very high at this stage for generals. So stacks with a lot of them are very powerful compared to the early militia stacks. Compounding in action.

The best way to breakwater this is to give the AI the headstart that we are, I think. But some factions (like Egypt, Byz, Turkey, Poland, Russia, but especially the first three) have access to a large pool of reb cities to tackle, and the player is always going to be better at that.

Lastly, how may turns (approx), has the lowered money slowed you down by compared to before?

I think the I'm running at least 5 more turns slower. But hard to say because I now know how to play Turkey with your changes better. A few more bandits would not be bad. Seen 5-6 pop in the first 27 turns total. Seen no pirates off my coasts, but heard the Byz blow up something. I'm not yet building ships, the Byz beat me to Rhodes usually, or Venice does, because I focus on the HL and making Turkey contiguous.

But my knee jerk to the Turkey money-for-player issue is start us 5k in the red. ~;) Seen no sign of Egyptian armies, but they do have Jedda, at least. Let me check the graph.

How are the AI factions doing then at this point? Especially the local ones.

Turn 27:
0 regions: France (I suspect it needs help along the lines we discussed), Venice, Sicily, England, Portugal
1 region: HRE, Spain, Milan, Poland, Hungary, PS
2 regions: Scotland, Byz, Russia, Moors, Egypt
3 regions: Denmark,
8 regions: Turkey (me)

Looks like we still have an Iberian (lump France into that, since it heads for Zaragoza earlu) deadlock. Moors go south, I suspect. All the Ai factions rate pretty poor when I talk to them, so they are spending their money. Might bump up the turn dole a notch (say 2000 per turn more) and if you haven't put in a first turn 10k, do.

Also, see how they are doing in the other starts. It's certainly possible that something I do affects them. Diplomacy maybe? Italy will always be a bit of a mix, I suspect. Only so much local turf. But Sicily looks broken to me. Used to be really aggressive. And Zagreb is a bit of a breakwater for Venice. Is the Durazzo garrison beefy too? Zagreb is showing beat up, so someone is trying. Probably Venice. Sofia fell to someone, can't see who. Bucharest still reb. That garrison needs halving or more. It's a poor region, or at least very slow developing. Zagreb is the local prize. Not sure if Hungary got that or Iasi. I know one of Byz's is Smyrna. Looks like Hungary may have Sofia. Durazzo is probably Byz. I think Rennes garrison is too beefy too. Saw France and Spain break on it 3+ times last game. Spain did grab Zaragoza, so that's probably ok. Valencia is still reb, so Moors did go south and east. Tunis is held by someone other than rebs. They probably got Timbuktu, but not the other. Egypt is Jedda and probably Dongola. Small chance they went west. Rhodes is still reb too.

Spain has taken Zaragoza
Venice has taken Zagreb, Durazzo and Tunis
Milan has taken Dijon
England has taken York and Cearnarvon
Byz has taken Smyrna
Russia has taken Moscow
The Turks have taken Trebizond and Tbilis
Egypt has taken Jedda
Denmark has taken Hamburg
The Pope has taken Florence
Hungary has taken Sofia

The Danes are Besiging Stetten
The Russians are besieging Ryazan
The Hungarians are besieging Bucharest

Based on two data points with this version, and what we saw in the last:

Portugal and Sicily have troubles. Oh, and France too.

Turkey goes north because, I think, the council always gives them a mission for one of those two first. Adana is later.

Additoinal: sent a spy to check on the French and there large stacks are decent troops (noting silly like lots of Siege engines). They do move troops around a bit and I think there is a full stack heading for Bordeaux, but still can't explain their apparantly lack of activeity compare to the other factions.

I think the lowlands is to blame. I bet it's throwing the threat meter out of whack for France (and maybe England some too). And the Rennes garrison isn't helping. Haven't looked at the regions NE. France may be paralysed because moving the stacks it makes in enough force to Rennes, or Bordeaux, is leaving them too exposed on their NW flank to the lowlands. And maybe the NE flank. And vice versa. That same logic may be hurting England due to Caen.

Portugal just has only Zaragoza and Bordeaux as "threats" and it probably fails at Zaragoza early (as it almost always did) and can't concentrate force due to the split. One suggestion there that may help. Move the prince to Pamplona with Joao. Give them 2 generals to aim east and north. Lisbon is a deathtrap anyway.

No idea what's up with Sicily.

Might give Scotland a little more cash to start than 0. They have a lot of starting units compared to their income. But Inverness should have them in the black, and they only have one border to worry about.

Now I see, and I understand why the Venetian Crusader army was too intimidated to attack... Yikes...

Heh.

And now you know why it's last on my Holy Land conquest list. ~;) It has its own jihad scheduled, once I can pop that button again.

Bob the Insane

03-17-2007, 17:34

I succeed in the battle for Jerusilam but by the skin of my teeth... The end result did not look as close as it really was.. It stted I had ~500 left, but most of those had routed. At the end of the battle I had Two general's Body Guards and one Crusader Knights units left on the field (with one dead general) and then had suffered significant casualties. The Venetian assistance arrived at the end of the battle and while small, was pivitol... The remaining rebel spearmen where way to much for my depeleted cavalry to fight and the Ventians dealt the killing blow to them leaving the victory to me...

I took a screeny but it came out complete black??

Since I chose to "Occupy", only had 500 men left and had not prepared the ground with Priests I only keep Jerusilam for 3 turns before it revolted, but at least this full stack of defenders had no experience or upgrades... :2thumbsup:

Additionally Carl asked me to comment on the towers at Jerusilam.. Unfortunately I can't really as I have gained a healthy respect for the power of towers in this modso I avoid them when the flags are on... I withdrew my main line to be well out of range and when they are engaged by the defenders I used cavalry to flank and attack the archers. Once I actualy got some to route (not so easy against 3 gold chevron units) I follow them into the city with my cavalry grabing the maain gate and taking the square. This encourages the defender main line to peel away and retreat to the sqaure where my main line can take them in the rear. Again the high experince of the defenders made this less than effective and the enemy spearment successfulllly returned ot the city leaving my main line in disarray. That is when I lost my general and thus the large route started. I uesed my remaineing cavalry to cut down the dending archers outside the walls (much easier now the defending spearmen were inside the walls. The only time I saw the walls firing was when the ventins finially arrived and where fighting the last of the defending speamen just outside the agtes, but I was not paying to much attention in that as I was concentrating on keepng my cavalry inside the walls and out of trouble (capturing gates to let the Venetians in).

However I have finally captured Jersuilam a second time (field battle this time) and so if I am attacked I will let you know...

Carl

03-17-2007, 17:35

All right a lot of information to digest, give me an hour on it.

For reference i'm running a Moors campaign right now and I've already bounced of Valencia once, Moors are definitely MUCH slower as the player, I never played beyond about 3 turns as moors before. Now i'm over 15 turns in, loving it and haven't been able to scrape enough money together to get the troops to get more than one province so far.

Also, those mercs you saw the AI moors hiring in your V1.21 English campaign appear to be specific to Moors as I can hire them as the player.

This should be per level of building, I'd say, but that explains it. The problem with this level is that line of buildings is a major trigger for negative governor traits, so the smart player avoids building many. This one will hurt the player more because the player by definition cares about governor traits. (AI can't care... so far.) If it's 1 spy per level, it's still a serious limit, but it's more workable. And the player can always go after the AI's buildings to limit the production.

Good point really, the trouble is if I don't watch out the AI over-recruits and kills it's reputation. When it does that the AI won't respect any alliances with others. So I need factions to try to keep slightly above average reputation if i'm to get them to form power blocks against the player.

However I agree, it does need to get more available per level. I realized that almost as soon as you identified the issue.

On rep, I have 13 alliances, am Immaculate. Spying with my one starter spy isn't dropping it so far. But normally I have several going, so one I can build them we'll see. The factions I made alliances with early are also pretty solid on rep so far. But Venice is Untrustworthy (hah!) and France is Dubious (duh!) PS is Mixed, despite being an early alliance. Must be doing transgressions around Italy. I saw it got Florence again, but war with rebs cant count or I wouldn't be immaculate.

A bit of Bogola protrudes though the mountains near Rome and it likes to sit a stack their which hits it's rep constantly, i meat to exclude the Papal_Stats from that rep hit trigger for that reason actually.

Byz is very prejudiced against Turkey. I've been giving them maps and small bits of cash (200 a turn) and it's not moving. Egypt moves when I do that, though I only have it to So-so. A lot of the others are Amiable to me (especially the Moors.) But it's interesting that some wouldn't ally: England & Russia, so far. I was tall poppy when I got to them. That may be the variable. I suspect there's some randomness in their reaction to proposals, but once they say no to an alliance, haven't gotten them to change their mind that same session. The second time I ask they stop talking.

Generally if they refuse an offer the first time he only subsequent things they will accept are gifts.

I'm not sure the ease for Turkey is bad (yet) because of the hordes. Do we want an AI Turkey to flat die when the horde hits, or do we want it to have a chance? I think it's Okay if Turkey ends up rated as easy for players... horde aside.

True about the horde. I'm just worried at your speed.

But swapping Treb and Mosul might help. Takes Byz longer to get to Treb than Turkey. If Turkey has a chance at it first try, rather than a sure thing (as AI) it will sometimes go to Byz, which is good for variety. I think garrison size there is fine. It's a 4 turns walk for player.

The problem with Byzantium getting it is that when that happens the turks AI freezes and it never moves, after turn 30 the Byzantines just wipe them off the map in short order whilst Egypt has free reign to grab the whole holy land.

And bump Mosul garrison to maybe half the Adana one. The problem with Islamic factions is smart use of jihad. The AI just isn't up to player smartness standards. But Islamic factions WILL be hated as play develops by all the Catholics. Especially the Turks/Egyptians because of the Holy Land and crusades. So they need something to help them, and jihad is it. They can't manipulate the Pope to do part of their conquering.

A bit confused here,. are you saying don't make Mosul too strong so that it doesn't slow the AI too much? or something else?

In any case, my units are jihads. They are cheap and have a high power to cost ratio. I hired up all I could in that first jihad, used the saving of making it a 3 turn (or maybe it was 4) jihad, when 2 would have done, to finance carrying the extra cost, then am cleaning up the close together Holy Land cities as fast as sensible (meaning, as fast as I can garrison them adequately), which is about 3 turns per city. Going to have all but Jerusalem at turn 30. That will take a second jihad. But there's a crusade (that at least Poland joined) incoming, so I will probably wait. The jihad units are good garrison troops too, until the appropriate town watch line buildings can be put up to get me into free garrison territory. They are great wall and gap attackers (with a few spears to block).

Because the Holy Land is dense, it's possible to do it fast. Those units are foot-sloggers, so not good for maneuver. Another aspect of blitzing is that the fast accumulation of cities means lots of adoptions fast. Generals are proportionately a large part of an early game force balance. Moving fast keeps that proportion high. It's also a dense part of the force. The power per unit is very high at this stage for generals. So stacks with a lot of them are very powerful compared to the early militia stacks. Compounding in action.

OK, thanks for that explanation, so it's a combination of cheap Garrison troops, and the dense packing thats making this possible, not necessarily any particular single source of income.

What do you make of the availability of Turkomens/SIaphis/e.t.c for Turks?

The best way to breakwater this is to give the AI the head-start that we are, I think. But some factions (like Egypt, Byz, Turkey, Poland, Russia, but especially the first three) have access to a large pool of reb cities to tackle, and the player is always going to be better at that.

Russia and Poland don't really worry me as they have big distances to cover to do it, so that slows them down in of itself.

Egypt is a bit so-so, Turks worries me but Venice seems to be limiting Byzantium now.

I think the I'm running at least 5 more turns slower. But hard to say because I now know how to play Turkey with your changes better. A few more bandits would not be bad. Seen 5-6 pop in the first 27 turns total. Seen no pirates off my coasts, but heard the Byz blow up something. I'm not yet building ships, the Byz beat me to Rhodes usually, or Venice does, because I focus on the HL and making Turkey contiguous.

Thanks for that.

But my knee jerk to the Turkey money-for-player issue is start us 5k in the red. Seen no sign of Egyptian armies, but they do have Jedda, at least. Let me check the graph.

They probs have Dongola too and if you hadn't grabbed the HL so fast they'd probably have Damascus within another 10 turns.

Turn 27:
0 regions: France (I suspect it needs help along the lines we discussed), Venice, Sicily, England, Portugal
1 region: HRE, Spain, Milan, Poland, Hungary, PS
2 regions: Scotland, Byz, Russia, Moors, Egypt
3 regions: Denmark,
8 regions: Turkey (me)

Looks like we still have an Iberian (lump France into that, since it heads for Zaragoza Early) deadlock. Moors go south, I suspect. All the AI factions rate pretty poor when I talk to them, so they are spending their money. Might bump up the turn dole a notch (say 2000 per turn more) and if you haven't put in a first turn 10k, do.

It's already 10K per turn~:O. But giving them a lump sum at the beginning would be nice I agree.

Also, see how they are doing in the other starts. It's certainly possible that something I do affects them. Diplomacy maybe? Italy will always be a bit of a mix, I suspect. Only so much local turf. But Sicily looks broken to me. Used to be really aggressive.

It's the Tunis Garrison thats doing it, that and with only 2 regions they never build a decent force up to take it. if you play a hot-seat a them grab Tunis for them and then relinquish control to the AI they do fine, (go crazy actually grabbing all of Africa barring the Egyptian starting provinces and cut chunks out of Iberia too.), in spite of the fact that you starting as them prevents them getting anything from the money script, even when you relinquish control.

And Zagreb is a bit of a breakwater for Venice. Is the Durazzo garrison beefy too? Zagreb is showing beat up, so someone is trying. Probably Venice. Sofia fell to someone, can't see who. Bucharest still reb.

Generally Hungary gets Bucharest by then. Zagreb will have had Venice, Hungary AND HRE trying, it's totally random who gets it. Durazzo tends to fall early to Venice.

Bear in mind that most Garrison bar Valencia and the HL have got weaker since last time. Even the HL have to a degree but it shows less as the troops are pretty high quality.

Zagreb is the local prize. Not sure if Hungary got that or Iasi. I know one of Byz's is Smyrna. Looks like Hungary may have Sofia. Durazzo is probably Byz. I think Rennes garrison is too beefy too. Saw France and Spain break on it 3+ times last game. Spain did grab Zaragoza, so that's probably OK. Valencia is still reb, so Moors did go south and east. Tunis is held by someone other than rebs. They probably got Timbuktu, but not the other. Egypt is Jedda and probably Dongola. Small chance they went west. Rhodes is still reb too.

Yeah, Hungary tends to get Sofia Early now. Possibly right about rennes, just don't want to make it too easy on the English. Zargosa is probs too weak actually as Spain is usually the first attacker and gets it every time, it never gives Portugal a chance. Tunis and Tripoli will be Venice or Moors, Probs Venice IMHO. Moors tend to get Timbuktu first but it really slows them due to so many armies going rebel on them. They lose an army every few turns after that trying to take Arguin too. That one of the reasons I'd like to start them with those two regions. Not sure about how that will throw balance though, they aren't rich regions without merchants really, but still...

Denmark has similar issues with Oslo and Stockholm, it losses loads of armies just getting their.

Based on two data points with this version, and what we saw in the last:

Portugal and Sicily have troubles. Oh, and France too.

Turkey goes north because, I think, the council always gives them a mission for one of those two first. Adana is later.

I'd agree, you can add england to that too.

I think the lowlands is to blame. I bet it's throwing the threat meter out of whack for France (and maybe England some too). And the Rennes garrison isn't helping. Haven't looked at the regions NE. France may be paralyzed because moving the stacks it makes in enough force to Rennes, or Bordeaux, is leaving them too exposed on their NW flank to the lowlands. And maybe the NE flank. And vice versa. That same logic may be hurting England due to Caen.

Good point, I'll look into it.

Portugal just has only Zaragoza and Bordeaux as "threats" and it probably fails at Zaragoza early (as it almost always did) and can't concentrate force due to the split. One suggestion there that may help. Move the prince to Pamplona with Joao. Give them 2 generals to aim east and north. Lisbon is a deathtrap anyway.

Agreed. Might try a few other tricks too.

Might give Scotland a little more cash to start than 0. They have a lot of starting units compared to their income. But Inverness should have them in the black, and they only have one border to worry about.

About the same thoughts as myself their.

Now I see, and I understand why the Venetian Crusader army was too intimidated to attack... Yikes...

:laugh4:

Heh.

And now you know why it's last on my Holy Land conquest list. It has its own jihad scheduled, once I can pop that button again.

:smash:, wonder how hard you'll find it...