CA propositions thread

[Whacker]

Again my apologies. I wasn't aware that you were actually a CA dev and know exactly how long/much effort it would take into doing these things. I could see dismounting as a bit of a stretch, but not the wall mechanics at all. At least not giving us back the ability to make walls behave like in RTW, unless they happened to completely lose their old code.

[Lusted]

I've been modding the TW series for over 2 years now, and i've been in a fair bit of contact with the devs. A dismounting feature ain't sometihng they're going to add in a patch. Me and alpaca need people to suggest reasonable things to open up to modders. Like for instance help in making walls moddable not make it possible to change the entire way walls work. They probably still have the old code, but WE don't have access to the hardcode, so what use would it be to us?

[madalchemist]

Asking for CA to remove hardcode wasn't supposed to be a bashing, but if you think it's a request with poor chances of success the fact it won't be brought to CA won't be considered a personal offence for me :)

Edit: Anyway, to speak frankly, which monetary damage would be for CA to add moddable features? Maybe I don't know what I'm speaking of, but i.e. the export_ancillaries made the modders able to add/change/fix the ancillaries of the game; before, it was not possible, right?

The money CA made with MTWII were made within the first two monthes -give or take 2 weeks- of its release. If they'd give the whole world the ability to send the factions cap at 123 instead of 31, in which way would they lose customers? Mods increase the playability of a game, as you know better than me.

Of course, this would not prevent them to keep the expansion hardcoded to sell it when it goes gold.

And regarding to the difficult of reading and programming in C++, I know at least two people in my neighbourhood able to do it, dozens of modders could do it.

I sincerely do not see reasons to keep hardcoded feature, files, etc. as long as it does not help the bug fixing or gives money to CA; please explain me where I'm wrong

[Re Berengario I]

I sincerely do not see reasons to keep hardcoded feature, files, etc. as long as it does not help the bug fixing or gives money to CA; please explain me where I'm wrong

I'll try to keep it simple, for deeper explaination you can ask your neighbourhood C++ experts.

Some hardcoded limits are intrinsic to the engine because fixing limits helps immensely in creating code. It's like knowing if you're building a two storied house or a skycraper.

So while some limits could be simple to remove others would require a complete rewritring of the game.

And don't think a SDK would remove all the limits, this is a wishful thinking for an imaginary world. Take the HL2 SDK and you'll see it can give you a lot of freedom but within the very strict limits of the HL2 engine, you can't make with it a completely different game with seamless zones or 1000 person multiplaying.

[Whacker]

@ Re Berengario I - Some of this is for your review as well sir.

I'll try to keep it simple, for deeper explaination you can ask your neighbourhood C++ experts.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, but I've done more than my fair share of coding.

Some hardcoded limits are intrinsic to the engine because fixing limits helps immensely in creating code. It's like knowing if you're building a two storied house or a skycraper.

Partially true. Well written code is going to have logic and boundary checks on input, without them you end up with the usual bugs, buffer overflows, etc. Error/input checking in conjunction with good commenting and documentation renders this point moot for the most part.

So while some limits could be simple to remove others would require a complete rewritring of the game.

That's... a bit overboard. One can replace certain variable declarations with a reference to a setting in a file. Depending on how they wrote the code, it might not be a small task, but unless they write horrid crappy spaghetti code that's got almost no commenting, it's not going to be that much work (is my estimation at least).

And don't think a SDK would remove all the limits, this is a wishful thinking for an imaginary world. Take the HL2 SDK and you'll see it can give you a lot of freedom but within the very strict limits of the HL2 engine, you can't make with it a completely different game with seamless zones or 1000 person multiplaying.

I'd offer that's not the right way to look at it. The point and concept I'm suggesting (very strongly so, and you've touched on a bit) to CA is to move to an open client/server type model, much like ID/Valve/Epic have done. The game is logically split into two parts. First, you have the front end client side that you distribute all the source code to along with an SDK. This is the core logic and mechanics of the game, this would be where we could mess around with charging mechanics, combat mechanics, wall mechanics, campaign map/agent mechanics, you name it. The backend piece, the server side, is basically all the behind the scenes machinery that handles rendering, audio, networking, etc, and provides an API with which the client side interacts with. Your statements about "strict" limits are very misleading and not true, everything you said can be done with the Source engine. If you don't believe me, look at some of the thousands of mods on Moddb for evidence. The ID and Epic engines are fully capable of this as well. This is also one of the reasons that I've suggested a few times that it may be worth CA's while to review these platforms and potentially adapt their game logic and assets to one of these. Theoretically it could accomplish all of the above and save them a ton of time and money, and make all of us happy.

Sorry for the long winded post, but I've said this a dozen times and will keep saying it. CA has been hyping this game as "modders heaven" and promising features to this effect, when reality one only need look at what all is NOT accessible in this game vs what is. In fact if you look at the size of the modding community and the hoops we have to jump through to do what little we can with this game, compared to what others are experiencing with say for example Quake4, Half-life2, Unreal Tournament 2004, Battlefield 2/2142, etc etc, it's no wonder there's so few of us. Look at what happened with the Lordz and a number of talented modders who've left due to lack of support and real features and capabilities. I also firmly believe this has directly translated into the rather stagnant multiplayer community. The last thing I want to see is the TW series die a slow choking death, or fade into obscurity because of bad decisions on where to take the series or how to handle certain "big ticket" items like multiplayer or modding. I have literally been with CA and the TW games since day one (ok, week 2 maybe), but I just cannot in good concious say I am enjoying the current offering, nor do I like where I foresee the series going. M2TW is unfortunately the last TW title I will buy at launch, possibly ever, because of these things.

The point of this thread as I understand it is propositions for future patches for M2TW. My previous suggestions stand firm, whether or not anyone feels they are "realistic". I will keep saying these things until CA makes good on their promises and hype with the current game. If they don't with this game or the next, then I will shut up and get off my soapbox, because that'll be the end of the story for me.

Respectfully

[LorDBulA]

The ability to configure walls to behave like in RTW, aka capturable towers, and towers that fire automatically without unit proximity.

Lol. I give 10 priority to NOT SENT this change request to CA.
Automatically firing towers was afoul and cause of a lot of griff in RTW fans.
Now CA got it right and wa ask to change it back to the way we didnt like it?
That just insane. Please dont send this request to CA.

[adembroski]

One tool... a "Campaign Editor"... I'm not asking for a map drawing utility here, rather, the ability to load up a map and rename provinces and cities, generals, place armies, assign buildings to cities, etc.... basically set the starting conditions of the campaign without having to edit 50 million individual files... this program would generate a desc_strat, desc_regions, names.txt, all that wonderful stuff... ability to change the names
Priority- 8


Outside of that...

* I'd like to be able to adjust growth rates within a specific campaign without heavily effecting everything else from economy to unrest (Priority- 5)

*Ability to use up to 4 turns per year with the appropriate number of winters showing up (Priority- 6)

* It should snow on sub-arctic climates (Priority 10... blah!)

* Artic (permanent snow) climate (Priority 1)

* Seconding the disband unit scripting capability with an addition--- destroy building as well (ie ruler reaches too high "dread", a highly chivalric order may deny him use of their forces)... last part might already be in, I'm just starting to get into scripting... Priority 10 Twice!!!!!

[Re Berengario I]

The point of this thread as I understand it is propositions for future patches for M2TW. My previous suggestions stand firm, whether or not anyone feels they are "realistic".

The point is exactly this: propositions for upcoming patches.

90% of your propositions would require a completely new game. This is the reason because they're irrealistic, not because you're right or wrong.

[alpaca]

About the SDK/hardcode issue: Guys, some of this might be interesting for CA for their next game (although only if they already implemented it, because they're probably quite far into the development process), not for a patch or an add-on.
The main problem here is probably that their management doesn't or didn't see supporting modders as a large priority - I guess because of the small fraction of people they constitute.
I know that this view is wrong, but some people in the industry still seem to have it. I hope that SEGA will change their opinion about that seeing the long shelf live of a game like Civ4 which is moddable to a far larger extent than Medieval 2.

What we need are suggestions like "raise this limit", "make this small code change" that seriously won't take more than a few minutes developer time.
I can also say that they are often simply not aware what we as modders need, which is due to the somewhat strange politics of an almost complete lack of cooperation with the modding community.
Again, I hope this will change in the future.


As for the kill_unit command: How do you imagine should a unit be chosen to kill? Units don't have qualified names, they only have an index number that we can't find out.
I can propose it but I'm pretty sure it won't go.

[dietre]

why do ppl want the ability to dismount a unit. Just make it as a NEW unit with gom converter. it takes 10 mins.

ok changes.

10. After watching the movie 300 im all for the Shield-wall. lol u can actualy use it now but its not the same as the r2tw barbians invation and the icons arnt there.

9. well the 1 thing i liked better about r2tw was that ur trebutch and catapolts could fire OVER your walls. in m2tw have a seige engine garrisoned is kinda useless. they come in handy but it would be cool to fire over the walls.

other than that im pretty happy !!

[madalchemist]

About the SDK/hardcode issue: Guys, some of this might be interesting for CA for their next game (although only if they already implemented it, because they're probably quite far into the development process), not for a patch or an add-on.
The main problem here is probably that their management doesn't or didn't see supporting modders as a large priority - I guess because of the small fraction of people they constitute.
I know that this view is wrong, but some people in the industry still seem to have it. I hope that SEGA will change their opinion about that seeing the long shelf live of a game like Civ4 which is moddable to a far larger extent than Medieval 2.

What we need are suggestions like "raise this limit", "make this small code change" that seriously won't take more than a few minutes developer time.
I can also say that they are often simply not aware what we as modders need, which is due to the somewhat strange politics of an almost complete lack of cooperation with the modding community.
Again, I hope this will change in the future.

Thanks to Re Berengario and Whacker for the explanation about C++; now I know more about it.

Alpaca: Alas, it's true CA doesn't see modders as the potential resource they are. You made the point pretty clear.

Given this fact, to "raise the limit" seems the only option, therefore I agree to send suggestions who require a very limited developer time (that, unfortunately, I cannot distinguish from those who require huge dev time, but you can).

So we'll openly post any suggestions we have, and it's up to you to tell which can be accepted due to short time required, and to tell devs the "final message".

Let's hope constructive request will make CA value more the modders.

[Herkus]

why do ppl want the ability to dismount a unit.

It adds more tactical possibilities. Cavalry is quite useless in sieges on both sides, especially for the defenders.

[FactionHeir]

It adds more tactical possibilities. Cavalry is quite useless in sieges on both side, especially for the defenders.

It may be historically accurate, logically correct and open tactical possibilites, but let's face it, we would only see cavalry only armies that way. And when facing spears, dismount.

[Whacker]

Lol. I give 10 priority to NOT SENT this change request to CA.
Automatically firing towers was afoul and cause of a lot of griff in RTW fans.
Now CA got it right and wa ask to change it back to the way we didnt like it?
That just insane. Please dont send this request to CA.

Just because you don't want it doesn't mean that there's a good deal of us who don't. Having the ability to do this won't hurt anything and wouldn't mean that one couldn't keep the current tower mechanics. Spare us that snide attitude in the future.

@ Alpaca - I understand what you are saying. It ceases to annoy me though that some of the items I've outlined above you guys keep saying are "major code rewrites" or "needs a whole new engine". That's bull, if CA knows anything about writing good modular code half of those are not, repeat not major undertakings. So please stop saying they aren't realistic because they certainly should be. If you want a list of "piddly" stuff, then so be it:

1. List of max/min ranges of values. Like for export_descr_units, descr_character, etc.

2. In-depth details on savegame structure for single player. A savegame editor is probably too much to ask for, but it'd be nice.

3. The ability to destroy already created watchtowers in game, both normally by generals and through console commands.

4. Process_rq working. I realize this is somewhat redundant with create_unit but it'd still be nice to have this available.

5. (may be irrelevant) A fix for the obnoxious bugged province/can't build watchtower/reduced movement deal that happens after a disaster. I do not know if this has been fixed, my understanding is that as of M2TW v1.1 it has not.

6. Ability to make *every* building in a settlement destructable, including walls. If not through normal game means then at least through console commands.

Those are in order that I would like to see them from most priority to least.

Thank you.

Edit - added item 6.

[Whacker]

It may be historically accurate, logically correct and open tactical possibilites, but let's face it, we would only see cavalry only armies that way. And when facing spears, dismount.

That's pretty much how western european armies behaved around the high middle ages. Most soldiers, including archers, had at least one horse that they used to travel while on the march, while knights and men-at-arms would remain mounted or dismounted depending on their gear and the situation.

[Lusted]

That's bull, if CA knows anything about writing good modular code half of those are not, repeat not major undertakings. So please stop saying they aren't realistic because they certainly should be.

Im sure they do, but this is for modding changes for PATCHES, something only a few devs work on, not for the next game. For the next game i'd love to have an sdk and stuff, but most of CA ozs resources are now on the expansion.

[Casuir]

Can you ask them to remove any hardcoded issues with castles, i.e. the tax rate, having two different types of settlements opens up some nice possibilities

[alpaca]

Can you ask them to remove any hardcoded issues with castles, i.e. the tax rate, having two different types of settlements opens up some nice possibilities

The tax rate is set in campaign_db, isn't it?

[Casuir]

You sure? I dont see anything in there, refering to the inability to change the tax rate from normal to high/low etc

[alpaca]

Ah you mean that setting. Hmm...
Well you're probably right, that seems to be hardcoded.

[dietre]

isnt auto firing towers like MORE realistic, i mean if a castle built defensive towers they would have soldiers assigned to them. you would have a unit marching to the wall and some go fire arrows. No there would be soldiers manning the towers. (my opinion) so I like to get in on that possibility. however in the walls.txt you can change the # of soldiers in the towers. i increased this and towers without a flag are firing arrows. also i would like to beable to destroy enimy watchtowers on the campaign map, as well as destroy ur own. those would be about a 7 for importance

[Whacker]

7. Ability to set how many actions agents can perform per turn. Aka diplomacy more than once per turn, assassination more than once per turn, etc.

8. Ability to set min/max range 'cooldown' required between crusades/jihads.

9. Ability to configure what constitutes a valid target for crusade/jihad. Aka, "min 10 heresy", at war with { x }, etc. Something like that.

10. Ability to set line-of-sight distances for watchtowers and cities. Possibly for traits as well. Never mind, Factionhair is right.

11. I'm to understand that movement rates and weapon swing/attack speeds are governed by the animations, which we don't have access to. Whatever the case may be, I'd like to see the addition of a working float "multiplier" variable for both of these that can be used to speed up or slow down these animations. Before you guys jump me alpaca and lusted, I don't think this would honestly be a big deal at all as it would simply speed up or slow down the rate at which the game renders the animation, hence performs the action.

Thank you.

[FactionHeir]

You can already set line of sight distances for traits.

[rorarii]

I dont know how many times I've said these in the past but here we go again ..

(1) FIX strategic AI, in that;

(a) Don't allow armies to leave cities undefended, virutally undefended. OR if a city is under siege, 4-6 units of citizen infantry is automatically creaed to defend, once the siege is over, they disperse. I know this can do done in scripting but large scripts slows down the game.

(b) Don't allow AI generals to wonder in enemy territory, lest they be KILLED EASILY.

(2) Allow users to create their own UNIT formations, like Horde in RTW.

(3) increase no of units per player from 20 to 24, i know it's only an extra 4 but 24 is a better number to create equal, multiple battle lines.

.aaahh, who gives a ...

Actually I'm getting very bored with TW series, it's getting too old, too hard to get anything done (modding) etc. New games like World of Warcraft, C&C3 are the future ...


Rorarii (retired)

[Lusted]

Once again, please keep this thread to modding requests, not ai improvement
requests.

[Lusted]

extra cultures

faction/culture specific descr_campaign_db.xml settings

We can already do this, for instance the UAI mod added in new profiles for all cultures, so you could add in new ones for each faction.

[wilddog]

OK the votes from Wilddog. I haven't done that much on scripting yet so some of these may be able to be handled anyway

10) Be able to have turn based event trigger (not just date).
9) Be able to remove ancillaries
8) Be able to amend ages or increment ages based on true years.
7) Be able to have additional Jihad (or culture)* type missions - for other faction groups.
6) Be able to create an event with a yes or no decision.
5) Use of OR and not just AND.
4) An ability to vary the seasons in multiple turns per year games - ie to have maybe consecutive winters or possibly an Autumn/Spring season (I know there were longwinded scripts to change the season per turn but a simplification of that would be better and I can't recall if the end of winter triggered other things).


ie at the moment Jihad is restricted to Muslims (at least in v 1.1 as far as I could tell) but it would be interesting if a similar trigger could be used by orthodox or by different groupings of culture and ideally the call to war could be triggered by the Faction leader.
Same thing applies to the Pope & crusades (ie having multiple Popes connected via culture).

[Re Berengario I]

10) Be able to have turn based event trigger (not just date).
9) Be able to remove ancillaries

You could set events with <date> <season>, the example in docudemon contains that parametr and it worked in my tests.

remove_ancillary should work as console command but I agree to have something which works within triggers (or at least for character inside settlements where all the console commands fail).

[wilddog]

You could set events with <date> <season>, the example in docudemon contains that parametr and it worked in my tests.

remove_ancillary should work as console command but I agree to have something which works within triggers (or at least for character inside settlements where all the console commands fail).

Thanks for the reply. I'll try it but I'm not sure how that would work if say you had 8 turns per year as you are already into long winded scripting to set seasons? Given that they have the set up for date which doesn't really work on date (just a year from start) to me this aught to be relatively simple and would improve scripting no end. (ie you can then have the randomness that the date events have).

[Russ Mitchell]

Gents, I have two things:

1. First, to please convey actual THANKS for putting up with all of this. Customers or not, a CA guy would need the patience of Job to run through these fora.

2. In terms of modding, I do not have time to go into deep scripting. But I used to (and could again) modifiy the strategic map when I'm not working on research articles, etc.... and there I have only a short laundry list. I could probably figure out how to give the Venetians an increased number of merchants and spies, etcetera, but fairly weak militaries. And I can always mess with unit lists...

But I can't do anything about:

Increase the number of hardcoded limits. Specifically number of regions, and a drastic upward revision in the number of minor (unplayable) factions, in order to actually create the historical circumstances that keep dynastic rulers on their toes. "Rebels" aren't good enough: they're too inert.

For me it's a "10," because, as a history instructor and medievalist, I will never have time to learn any hardcore modding skills... but strategic map files I can handle, and I'm pretty sure I could engineer a Baron's Revolts, Hungarian Interregnum, and Taborite Revolutions (especially if they can be "horded" ala RTW:BI) to make the toughest gamers cry.