Suggestion Box

[alexader]

the final darth mod has awesome AI(just my opinion)but the vanilia is trully bad

[Jubal_Barca]

I think the game should become less rewrding ov overly aggressiv behaviour, depnding oon the faction. Dwarfs should not have an objective of world domintion becuase the Dwwarfs don't WANT to dominate the world, thay'd like thie rold holds and wealth back but that's about it. Dwarfs should realy have a monetary traget, coupled with getting thier old holds back, as the objective.

Land's fine for Chaos, Empire, Rats, or Brets, Orcs should require an agressive but no necessarily landgrab style of play, and so on.

[MangyElf]

I think the game should become less rewrding ov overly aggressiv behaviour, depnding oon the faction. Dwarfs should not have an objective of world domintion becuase the Dwwarfs don't WANT to dominate the world, thay'd like thie rold holds and wealth back but that's about it. Dwarfs should realy have a monetary traget, coupled with getting thier old holds back, as the objective.

Land's fine for Chaos, Empire, Rats, or Brets, Orcs should require an agressive but no necessarily landgrab style of play, and so on.

So the suggestion would be to limit, for example, the Dwarven ability to build happiness inducing buildings? The further away a province from the capital, the more effect the penalty will have on it if it can't create as many or as powerful mood enhancing buildings.

Or are you suggesting something else? If it's done only via the AI then it certainly won't limit players of that faction and as an AI faction it will create the associated problems A Norseman mentioned above. Perhaps the answer to aggressive expansionism is to limit such buildings but I'm no font of wisdom on such things. As a substitute or even a supplement to the AI in this regard it's reasonable to assume more testing needs to be done, to decide whether to increase build times, increase costs, reduce effectiveness, ban them altogether or some combination. I imagine that if distance to capital penalties can be changed then it is universal so is not a solution, or is it impossible to tune individual factions this way?

[fireblade]

Is it possible to give every faction something special? some ideas here.

-High elfs have extra free militia troops in their core provinces

-Dark elfs have a cheap navy

-Orcs have low upkeep.

-Dwarfs have mining advantages

-Vampire counts have a higher casualty recovery rate.

-Skaven can get sometimes free stacks, such as the spanish in Kingdoms, representing small sewerempires joining your cause.

Can't think of anything for dwarfs, empire, brettonnia, chaos, lizardmen and tomb kings right now.

fireblade

[Revan-Shan]

[QUOTE=fireblade]Is it possible to give every faction something special? some ideas here.

-High elfs have extra free militia troops in their core provinces

-Dark elfs have a cheap navy

-Orcs have low upkeep.

-Dwarfs have mining advantages

-Vampire counts have a higher casualty recovery rate.

-Skaven can get sometimes free stacks, such as the spanish in Kingdoms, representing small sewerempires joining your cause.

Can't think of anything for dwarves, empire, brettonnia, chaos, lizardmen and tomb kings right now.


I can...

Well, the list again:

-Empire has extra free militia troops in its core provinces.

-High Elves, cheap mages (they are suposed to have some of the best mages and built the magic schools in the Empire).

-Dark Elves have a cheap navy (I agree)

-Orks have low upkeep (I agree, they live for fighting)

-Dwarves have mining advantages (ok, but it seems little advantage)

-Vampire Counts have a higher casuality recovery rate (yeah)

-Khemri (Nehekhara funerary kingdoms, tomb kings): The same as the VCs

-Brettonnia's knights are given experience when recluted.

-Chaos, enemy watch towers cannot see chaos land.

-Lizardmen can move quicker through jungle terrain.

[Jubee]

I agree with Revan-Shan, But as told many times before by Bwian, mages can't be done properly to the mod.

1) Because you can't have single characters.

2) It would look weird.

[Revan-Shan]

I agree with Revan-Shan, But as told many times before by Bwian, mages can't be done properly to the mod.

1) Because you can't have single characters.

2) It would look weird.

No sigle characters? I doubt that's impossible and if I'm not mistaken that has already been done.

Look weird? No if they have quicker movements than the rest.


And if not high lelves could have a cheap navy too



One comment: I will hung myself if i don't see sigmarit monks crushing badies. It doesn't matter if they are single units or form part of a squad. Sigmarit monks rule!



And another suggestion: Griffons and dragons could be added, the thing is, single units or with generals riding them?

[Jubee]

No sigle characters? I doubt that's impossible.

Look weird? No if they have quicker movements than the rest.


And if not high lelves could have a cheap nay too

Off course there is heroes, but they have to have retinue, single characters will crash the game.

Looking weird I meant that spells will be hard to look "realistic" and to work properly. Bwian could explain better. I don't remember whole thing.

Even that High Elves have the best navy in the old world, it is small. I suggest that they have normal/expensive navy, but it is the best navy in the game.

[fireblade]

Maybe for high elfs, at the start of the campaign, they can see the location of all settlements, i mean, they sailed around the globe before men even existed.

I know a mining advantage looks like a small advantage for dwarfs, but there real strenght lies in their well equiped armies, and every form of money helps in fielding a larger army, so...
I think dwarfs should be able to defeat every army when facing them in equal numbers, but they are attacked from all sides and will most likely be outnumbered, so...

Fireblade

[A Norseman]

I agree that factions should have advantages over each other, as is the nature of Warhammer. I don’t think however, that the advantages should limit to one each, the factions would have lots of differences and would probably be hard to put all of them on a list. For example: Orcs, as you say: have low upkeep. I agree, the low tier orcs should come almost free. But orcs should have lots more to them than that. For example, Orcs, there are lots of them, but they easily begin to fight among themselves. To illustrate this, Orcs should have a ridiculously low loyalty both on the campaign and battle map to counterbalance the amount of orcs you get, also, the orc settlements should have horrible happiness almost all the time. The Orc leader will have to have a high authority to prevent his whole force outside his own personal army to rebel.

The things I have explained above is only some of the characteristics that would have to be put into the mod to create a satisfactory image for the Orc faction, and at the same time, the Orc AI must not be crippled by drawbacks there to restrain human players.

The same issue with the Elf’s really. The elf factions are the opposite of the orcs. They should be overly expensive to represent the dwindling population of the elven realms, but the units and cities will hardly ever rebel. The big splits in elven history have already happen, and it’s extremely unlikely that a province of Ulthuan or Naggaroth should even consider to rebel against their great lords. Furthermore, I think both the High Elfs and the Dark Elfs should start with negative income, to force the player to conquer foreign lands to bring income and (for the Dark Elfs) slaves to their lands. Then again, this would have to be balanced with the AI.

[Jubee]

I think dwarfs should be able to defeat every army when facing them in equal numbers, but they are attacked from all sides and will most likely be outnumbered, so...

Hmm.. the elite units from the dwarfs should be able to defeat or hold them againts all but the strongest enemies. In my mind I'll put an Elven warrior and a dwarf warrior to same line. They have their own advances but they are still pretty balanced each other. Also chaos warriors are in the same line than elves and dwarfs.

Dwarfs are not especially good at striking but slaying a dwarf is really hard thing to do. So logically dwarfs won't have extremely good attack but the best armour and one of the best defending abilities.

Is there code to make elite dwarf units less vulnerable in flank/rear charges?

[fireblade]

I agree with a norsemen, orcs (chaos and skaven as well) should be more prone to rebellion, while elfs and dwarfs would almost never revolt. But I don't think high elfs should start with a negative income. For the last milennia in the warhammer world, the high elf realm has remained unchanged and the high elfs never needed to expand their realm. Maybe a large portion of their income should be generated by lothern and it's port, due to the human merchants that are allowed to trade there.

The dark elfs do indeed need to pillage in order to survive, but we should find a way the AI doesn't suffer to much and get's sandwiched between chaos and lizardmen.

Fireblade

Edit: The elite warriors of elves, dwarfs and chaos should be each others match, but an ordinary dwarf vs. an elf militia or a marauder should end up in favor of the dwarf (but the elfs can outrun them and chaos outnumber)

[Jubal_Barca]

I'm suggesting something more radical than that; a redesign of the Campaign Objectives!

[overkill1991]

I'm not sure if this is possible but I was thinking of the following for Dark Elves.

When a Dark Elf navy attacks a port they should get multiple options like an army attacks a town.

They should be blockade port, or raid port. And maybe some other options if anyone knows any.

This would make sure the Dark Elves make use of their excellent navy much more and a cool way for them to get income.


Oh and another thing, when a Dark Elf army kills off all the defending troops in a town perhaps they could get an extra option, now we have exterminate settlement etc.. perhaps they should get an option that says destroy settlement and take slaves (lot's of money)

IMO it would be awesome if you get a new option to actually destroy a town instead of being forced to take it. And I really do mean destroy, maybe have some rubble on the place where the town was and have a little bit of text with it like epic battles have, maybe something like ''destroyed by xxx in the year xxxx''

[Silly Knicket]

Each faction can have an AI "personality"; mao, napoleon, ceasar, smith, stalin etc, which seems to influence how they expand and wage war quite a lot. The "napoleon" AI style, as an example is very aggressive and expands a lot, whereas "smith" is more of a defensive/hoarding style AI.
I haven´t done much reading about this descr_strat.txt code, but I've seen the effects from playing another mod (TLR) multiple times.

[Jubee]

Each faction can have an AI "personality"; mao, napoleon, ceasar, smith, stalin etc, which seems to influence how they expand and wage war quite a lot. The "napoleon" AI style, as an example is very aggressive and expands a lot, whereas "smith" is more of a defensive/hoarding style AI.
I haven´t done much reading about this descr_strat.txt code, but I've seen the effects from playing another mod (TLR) multiple times.

Can you tell me the difference between Napoleon, Cesar and Stalin? And how many types of personality there is?

[Silly Knicket]

Can you tell me the difference between Napoleon, Cesar and Stalin? And how many types of personality there is?

No, I can´t do that actually

The difference between "napoleon" and "smith" is very obvious, but I can´t really tell the difference between the others...
My guess is that the AI personality influences diplomacy, building priorities, agressiveness etc... but I can´t say much more from just playing.

I suppose I should browse around some forums, and see if I can find some more information about it.

[MangyElf]

No, I can´t do that actually

The difference between "napoleon" and "smith" is very obvious, but I can´t really tell the difference between the others...
My guess is that the AI personality influences diplomacy, building priorities, agressiveness etc... but I can´t say much more from just playing.

I suppose I should browse around some forums, and see if I can find some more information about it.

I found this link to a post by Spino about RTW AI settings. Shouldn;t be too different, maybe it;s exactly the same. According to that post, the differences between "Smith" and "Napoleon", while definately there, are not really that obvious because Smith isn't a trade, it's a person like Napoleon was *shrug*

[DrZoidberg]

I think Orcs should be cheap abundant troops with high up-keep. That way an Orc player has an incentive to be a lot more aggressive.

I think we should focus on how we want the factions to be played rather than what is the most logical in the world.

[messenger]

Zoidberg raises a valid point, the way factions work financially can make all the difference in giving them some character and a good representation of the world.

[DrZoidberg]

Zoidberg raises a valid point, the way factions work financially can make all the difference in giving them some character and a good representation of the world.

plus that I also think Orcs being high up-keep is logical. Orcs fight a lot and break stuff, so having them around will be expensive. Just not in salaries.

[MangyElf]

Asking for development around how you want a faction to play is not a consistent starting point, not least because everyone has different ideas but due to the fact that some will be playing with and others against a particular faction. Invariably preference will enter the equation, someone's preference at any rate, but as a starting point it provides a vision only, not a means to make that vision work. It's too vague, though you could pin it down some more.

That in mind, I can't help trying to look at both sides of the coin, even if it turns out to be nothing so at a glance there are potentially two 'bad' possibilities for cheap to produce, expensive to keep orcs as far as the AI is concerned:

1. the AI makes lots based on cost and either goes bankrupt or otherwise can't build effectively due to the upkeep; or

2. the AI makes fewer units, based on upkeep, resulting in a pretty small orc horde.

For a player of the orc faction it could be interesting but the AI would need to handle it too. I presume that AI tactics can be ammended to account for something like this (if not then moot subject I guess) but it's still worth considering the possible downsides because if any exist they need to be negated or the 'technique' used, at best, more sparingly on selected units only. I'm doubtful that sparing use would have a noticeable effect along the lines of the suggestion because in theory there is a big difference between one or two high maintenance units in a faction and a whole faction comprising of disproportionately high maintenance units with cheap production costs. Has anyone seen a mod that does this, to help answer these concerns?

I'm also very doubtful that that this can be balanced effectively. I presume no one would want orcs to become more powerful, just to account for their high upkeep. Similarly, I presume no one would want orcs to get an upkeep penalty compensated for by nothing other than low cost to create because that's not a compensation - why create something that'll cost you too much to keep? It wouldn't matter if a unit cost 1 to create, not if it cost 1000 in upkeep because the 1000 would be what counts. Far better to stick to a pricing scheme based on a more discernable theme, like how good the unit is and how common you want it to be. Besides, dividing this and multiplying with no frame of reference is, I imagine, quite difficult to achieve with any degree of reliability or consitency.

plus that I also think Orcs being high up-keep is logical. Orcs fight a lot and break stuff, so having them around will be expensive. Just not in salaries.

You could just as confidently say that because orcs are not known for comeraderie and solidarity they cost more to create, in this instance the price representing the difficulty in banding a unit to together under your banner. Point being that rationalisation doesn't really matter, not at this stage and perhaps never, depending on whether it's desirable to contextualise what decisions will be made.

[fireblade]

I have an idea for using the dwarf tunnel networks connecting their holds. What about roads that go between 2 dwarf holds, flanked by mountains so that they are inaccessible for other troops. Using this, you will have to capture one dwarf hold to gain acces to their road system, thus making them more vulnerable.
^^^^/^^^^
^^^^/^^^^
hold////^^^^^^
^^^^/^^^^
hold ///^^^^^^
^^^^/^^^^^
^^^^/^^^^
Hold//// hold
^^^^^^^

something like this: / represents roads, ^represents mountains

What do you guys think.

Fireblade

[Revan-Shan]

I have an idea for using the dwarf tunnel networks connecting their holds. What about roads that go between 2 dwarf holds, flanked by mountains so that they are inaccessible for other troops. Using this, you will have to capture one dwarf hold to gain acces to their road system, thus making them more vulnerable.
Fireblade

Well, perhaps not for dwarf tunnel networks exactly, but this roads between dwarf holds located between mountains do exist (so they could be added) in the warhammen world and are defended by both Imperials and Dwarves.

Maybe, a thing that could be done to represent the tunnel networks (for dwarves, lizardmen, skaven and perhaps the VCs) is to make BLACK roads, why black? Because tunnels are not terrain and usually they are dark, so: dark/black roads.

And this is a very good thing, as it could be used to include the underground maps, if there's a battle in this roads the map for the battle would be a simple cave/tunel, catcomb, dwarf palace mine or sthg skaven or lizardmen (settlement and so).

[Love Muscle]

just got an interesting idea for mages...

I know its been suggested before but if you made the war machine model a mage but sorta make him like a hunched over old man and have the men on eitehr side of him suporting him... Magic is supposed to be physically draining or something right? Then as the guys die more blokes run up to support him. A firebolt such as the ones shown in another post somewhere by a dwarf warmachine shud look quite good as a spell. Of course for lizardmen they could have the big toad thingy being carried by guys on a platform. might be a bit uncanonny(?) but you could have most mages sitting on platforms being carried around.

[Silly Knicket]

Pushing fireball throwing mages, and big toad thingies (Slann) around on carts should be easily doable (Great cross, Italian standards etc), but having them walking around should be harder, because of some hardcoded (=not at all easily moddable) things when it comes to the original MTW2 artillery files.
Dot know though, Bwian has obviously created chariots from basically nothing, so perhaps it is doable.
I don´t think it is a must-have in a first release though, and I would rather see other things being finished first.

[Revan-Shan]

It would be wonederful to have heros (as units, not the typical noble with bodyguard), it would bring the warhammer feeling.
I heard some of you saying that it would look a little bit weird but I don't think so. The hero should walk and fight as any other unit. The only thing is that he should be quicker, have more hitpoints and attack, and have a special power.
I don't see any problem.

[fireblade]

The problem is the possibility of spawning armies filled with heroes, even if the player agrees to himself to only make realistic armies, there is the problem of the AI creating heroes in thousands.

Also, why would a group of 80 commanders ever assemble for a battle? They will spread amongst the line, not band together on one flank.

Also, about the artillery/mage, i think the problem is that the crew abandons the artillery piece once attacked in close combat, and I think we don't want to see our mage standing idle without his retinue, unable to fire at the same moment.

Fireblade

[Love Muscle]

Ahh very true. Squashed that idea then

[Revan-Shan]

The problem is the possibility of spawning armies filled with heroes, even if the player agrees to himself to only make realistic armies, there is the problem of the AI creating heroes in thousands.

Also, why would a group of 80 commanders ever assemble for a battle? They will spread amongst the line, not band together on one flank.

Yeah but that's your option, in Warhammer you can choose between making an entire army of catapults, cavalry, swordmen, archers or heroes.

And about the AI... The enemy has no need to make armies of heroes, he would make basic armies.

And believe me, in Warhammer players use a lot of heroes. In the Empire for example, you have sargents in every regiment and it's very common to add a Sigmar priest to it or put it near. And of course you have THE Commander (if you only want one). And you add an ingeneer and a mage to your army.
In total you end up with about 3/4 minor heroes and one commander, without counting the sargents.