CA propositions thread

[Ashdnazg]

Any chance they reveal how the engine works? - 5
(how attack, defence, morale, dead soldiers and routing units fit together)

[SigniferOne]

I think by far the most important little addition to be had is the ability to generate battle_models.modelDB from XML files. Those XML files don't exist, and there's no tool to generate the modelDB file from them. I suppose hypothetically we could create all our own XML files for our units and attachment sets, and then create our own parser, but if CA released the tool they already created, along with the XML files for vanilla models, it would help immensely. It would be nice if the game itself generated the modeldb file whenever that file wasn't found (same as with .rwm), but if that's out of the question, then a tool generating the file from XMLs would be nice. It's far better than editing the modeldb file by hand. See this thread about how CA themselves generated the modelDB file. I'll go ahead and give this a (9) or even a (10) in desirability...

(5) - It would be nice to know how "e_" commands (in docudemon_commands.txt) work, i.e. "e_select_character" as opposed to "select_character". They've been there since RTW, and I can guess in theory how it could work, but it'd be nice to have some actual examples, to know how it's supposed to be used, what the command was intended for, etc.

(6) - Same goes for the intriguing "ai_gta_" commands (also in docudemon_commands.txt). Do these work on the stratmap level, or on the battlemap level? Do they allow us to affect AI targets and priorities?

[adembroski]

Any chance they reveal how the engine works? - 5
(how attack, defence, morale, dead soldiers and routing units fit together)

Doubtful... that's giving out their 'formula', like giving out the reciple for the secret sauce. It will likely remain internal only.

[Casuir]

I think by far the most important little addition to be had is the ability to generate battle_models.modelDB from XML files. Those XML files don't exist, and there's no tool to generate the modelDB file from them. I suppose hypothetically we could create all our own XML files for our units and attachment sets, and then create our own parser, but if CA released the tool they already created, along with the XML files for vanilla models, it would help immensely. It would be nice if the game itself generated the modeldb file whenever that file wasn't found (same as with .rwm), but if that's out of the question, then a tool generating the file from XMLs would be nice. It's far better than editing the modeldb file by hand. See this thread about how CA themselves generated the modelDB file. I'll go ahead and give this a (9) or even a (10) in desirability...

The xmls look to do a bit more than just generate the modelsdb, they seem to compile the actual models themselves from the base files, I doubt the tool they used would be any good to us.

[Ashdnazg]

Doubtful... that's giving out their 'formula', like giving out the reciple for the secret sauce. It will likely remain internal only.

The real recipe is the code, don't see what reason is there for keeping the formula secret.
They actually revealed it several games back IIRC. (Or was it only guesses?)

[alpaca]

As for the e_ commands: They work, but aren't very useful since you can't select a character on CharacterTurnStart or CharacterTurnEnd for example.
What works is using it with stuff like LeaderOrderedSpyingMission. It selects the leader fine, but it still isn't very useful.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Increase Number of Possible Culture Groups (from 7 to maybe 10 or more)

Since it seems like the number of possible cultures is still seven (same as RTW), is there a way to beg for a couple more at least to be added?

For modders, this really would open up big doors. More difference can be created between the ones that are there, for example if the map is expanded a little more to include some other areas, or if the mod is set in RTW-period. Here is how it would greatly help a mod like EB:

We already use all seven cultures, and we **really** get our money's worth from it. Different GUI's for all seven, different town plans, different building types, different sets of family portraits, different types of building graphics that can be used (each culture has its own set). These are extremely important for us - I can't emphasize it enough. They have allowed us to make an eastern greek set that has palms and a mix of eastern and greek portraits and buildings and its own music also, as well as a very innovative nomadic set that is quite different from playing as all other factions in RTW.

If we have an increase in the number of possible factions, we definitely would like to think about options like a Bosphoran kingdom (and nearby rebel sub factions of the same culture) where you have a mix of greek and nomadic elements resulting in their own culture. We would like to think about making our own Indian culture type as well. And a split of the generic barbarian culture type into one of celts vs. germanic/getic. Different music, portraits, GUI's, buildings, and town sets. We would desperately want at least 3 more culture possibilities. We make all of this ourselves though - we just want the door opened for three more. This is very important to us. Something like an 8 or 9 maybe out of 10. It's not do-or-die for us, but it will really make our work a lot more restricted and we might have to throw out a lot of ideas we have.

That's just how it would affect us. I'm sure other modders can use it too, it's just that we seem to push the limits of what is available. Thanks for any consideration of this.

[paullus]

Indeed, with the faction and model limits raised, we have a lot of new possibilities for modding. However, we can't really make a good use of the increased space in those areas if we can't get things like a few more culture groups (TA said 10, that would be sufficient I think), or even--if it all possible--some more unit and region slots. Now, even those last two, we can get by without those if we have to!

But we simply won't be able to do the increased faction possibilities justice without some more culture slots.

[wilddog]

Sorry but another item from me. Opening up the models-strat so at least the textures can be used via a mymod type set up (which seems to be the same for the launcher) would help a lot.

My main one after that is tied to the Jehad set up to allow that to be more open and/or allow more than one pope (truly) as it can be modded to mean a culture head.

[BozosLiveHere]

Oops, never noticed this thread before. I'll repeat myself from the 1.3 Wishlist thread. Please, pretty please with sugar on top, create a FactionWideTraitExists conditional. This would allow us to:

1)limit the number of generals that get a certain trait in a given faction (allowing us to properly represent titles, offices, etc.)

2)Move traits 'up' the family tree, i.e., make traits spread from generals in the base of the family tree all the way to the faction leader. This would be a massive help, enabling all kinds of cool mechanics using hidden traits.

[edyzmedieval]

CA please extend the limit of map provinces to 250 please. And please, add at least 100 more unit slots, and 15 more hidden resources.

Pretty please, it's not that hard.

Please. Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Pl ease.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.



Please CA, extend those limits.

[nikolai1962]

I'm pretty sure internal water messes up the path-finding as does sea inlets on coasts etc. So what would be good would be a new impassable land type that displayed as water i.e just like the impassable desert tile but watery looking so you could draw lakes on the land. Land units would see it as impassable land and naval units would see it as land.

Might work with coasts too i.e have a rectangular land region with the "water" tile used to make inlets etc, as long as there was some coast that butted onto the actual sea it might work. Regardless of that though it would help with the internal water/lakes.

Then again maybe it has no effect on the path-finding and i am imagining it :)

[wilddog]

So what would be good would be a new impassable land type that displayed as water i.e just like the impassable desert tile but watery looking so you could draw lakes on the land. Land units would see it as impassable land and naval units would see it as land.

Needs to look like water on the battle map or it will look strange if you fight a battle very close to it.

[nikolai1962]

Needs to look like water on the battle map or it will look strange if you fight a battle very close to it.

Hmm, true. That might make it more work to code. Shame, i was thinking it might be really easy.

[FactionHeir]

Any chance post 1 gets updated btw? :)

[alpaca]

Any chance post 1 gets updated btw? :)

Yeah sorry, I'm a lazy butt :P

Edit: Ok, updated

[madalchemist]

-5- Could we ask to raise the number of agents (like units, factions, regions)?

You know I'm the one who wanted to add the Inquisitors to the playable factions

-4- Some traits are almost never used: the Hates_the_(facion) and the Fears_the_(faction); since they was created, it would be nice to see them more often, and use them (same request of who asked a way to remove ancillaries in some conditions).

[nikolai1962]

if i'm wrong about how the pathfinding works then this is ignorable but otherwise it would be good if, when the map.rwn is generated, you could have a config switch for modders that would output the x,y centre point calculated for each region by the game.

Just knowing how it was calculated would help.

Worth a 10 to me but maybe not for anyone else :)

[ming dynasti]

what about smoke in battle field like rtw? or orthodox can have special like jihad or crusade.. sorry if i am make wrong for asking this question.. Sorry to CA too..
why view city not avaible? can music change with more faster like aztec music with more spirit?

[ming dynasti]

but unit size and another in that proposal is good..

[ming dynasti]

ummm how about lan campaign

[Lusted]

Okay this is a long dead thread about small modding requests, not a wishlist thread. The modding request sin this thread have long since been compiled and sent to CA.

[Ashdnazg]

So I guess there is no repsonse yet, because otherwise you were posting it.

[Lusted]

Well this would all be for 1.3/Kingdoms, so we would find out when they were out.

[alpaca]

You never know if the programmer have a little time toward the end of the add-on development (unlikely but could happen) to include a few things, so we'll have to wait, as Lusted said.

[Ashdnazg]

I see, fair enough.

[The Internet]

This one is a bunch of inter-connected idea's so sorry if this drags on.



First i'd like to see weight of numbers take effect, i'm sure i've heard modders talk about it now and again and that it is already a feature but personally i've never really seen actual weight of numbers taking effect. For examples sake i#ll use RTR/RTW/EB as an example but it could be said for MTW2 too, a unit of 160 swordsmen can hold their position against a unit almost twice their size (for example, a barbarian unit of 240) which doesn't seem right. By the looks of it too, only the first couple of lines of a unit will actually *fight* while the rest stay back and wait while in reality, they'll all be close behind the other units pushing them forward to try and break the enemy line. Having this will not only make it seem more of a struggle (as that sort of battle is) and more realistic and will also mean that if your units at the front are out-numbered (for example you are fighting some barbarians with unit sizes of 240 and you have legionnaires with a unit size of 160) then you will have to reinforce your main line (as they had to IRL) to stop your main line from breaking/being pushed out of shape. Obviously with weight of numbers being introduced, this would mean that not only would the attack stats be effected, you'd be able to see the effect of a charge (for example, down hill into an enemy line) because it would push the enemy line back visually and would mean that the player on the defensive would have no choice but to ensure that part of the line is reinforced.


My next idea is that with that feature in place a unit of infantry should have 2 options, them being an offensive and defensive stance. With a defensive stance your units would try to keep the line in good shape, they would be able to take the effects of a charge better because they would be prepared for it and with the power taken out of the enemy charge, a counter charge from a second reserve line could possibably turn the tides on the enemy. An offensive stance would do the opposite obviously, it wouldn't be used to hold a line, it'd be used to break one up. Attacking the flanks would be even more helpful simply because if you applied massive pressure one flank and broke/pushed it out of place, the entire battle line would be in trouble, this would increase the need to reinforce the flanks, as they did IRL.


To add onto the other points i've made so far, if these features were to be added, it'd give more tactical options, for one you'd have to think how you're going to set up your unit depths, a broader facing would give you an increased frontage and lessen the chances of your lines being over run/flanked but you would have to reinforce that line with other units because their pushing power would be reduced but at the same time. A deeper formation would allow a greater pushing power but at the same time would reduce the battleline frontage and increase the risk of being flanked or enveloped.


On an example on how this would help the current game, i'll give an example and once again i'll use RTW/RTR/EB. The Macedonian phalanx was not just meant to sit there and expect the enemy to charge headlong into a head of 21 foot pikes, they marched forward in good order and present the enemy with a choice, stand your ground and get impaled and try and break through OR run away and unfortunately for the enemies of Philip/Alexander, they didn't have much of a choice but to run because no one wants to face that. In the current game mechanics, you can march your phalanx into the enemy line and engage them but i never see any pushing happening, the enemy battle line does not get forced back as it would do IRL. Now i know that you can set them to march behind the enemy formation to go right into them and it will have an effect that is kinda similar but that isn't part of the game mechanics and doesn't feel right to use, it's an exploit, a useful one granted but an exploit none-the-less.


There is more on this and i do understand that it would make things a bit harder to code and programme but the Total War franchise is classes as the best of the best when it comes to this sort of genre and i feel that to stay top of the pile it should try and reinvent itself. I do believe that it has gone as far as it can with this current engine until it starts to repeat itself. I'm not asking for historically accurate units or factions, they can be looked at after or by the fantastic modders in the community but they cannot improve the battle engine that is mostly hardcoded, that is up to you guys at CA. The battles to me are a big part of this game (it is called Total War after all) and although i do enjoy them, i do feel that i could be so much better. I am aware of the time constraints you guys are under but you guys could run the risk of just re-releasing the same games over and over again just with a different name and getting stuck in a rut and i for one would hate to see that.


I believe in this sort of stuff so much that i'd give up my job and fly out there just to help you guys out in any way possible to try and improve the TW franchise. I know it'd never happen but hell, it's the thought more than anything that counts, no? Please ignore any grammar or spelling mistakes please, i've been at this post for the last 45 minutes because of various interruptions and i just need to finish it before i cry.

[Jack Lusted]

This is a modding propositions thread, not games idea thread. It's aim was to get a wishlist from modders to pass on to CA Oz, which was done long ago.

[The Internet]

So much for that then.

[alpaca]

I think I'll close this thread to avoid further confusion.