View Full Version : XL The Big Cheese!
PershsNhpios
02-13-2009, 11:47
Whenever I play an early XL campaign, it is most common that these powers will rise to highest prominence, and never lose their place on the european stage, except to one another;
France; Spain; Byzantium; Novgorod; Fatimid Egypt; Hungaria.
In High, which I have only now begun to play in a marvellous campaign as the Papacy;
France; Ottomans; Spain; Venice/Hungaria; ... Mongolian Ferals..;
I have no experience with Late campaigns.
I have never seen a wild card thrown up amidst the AI kingdoms.. Never have the Scots taken a chance.. Not once have I seen the Portuguese as masters of Iberia.
Indeed, I undertake always to ensure the dominance of the little people in their sector of Europe, with myself as their leader.
I recently saw Europe divided in 1229 between the Spanish, Byzantine, Novgorod, and my own Scottish Empires.
Then I took advantage of the Mongol invasion to send 6,000 men into Estonia and Finland, and the Byzantines allied with me to join in the sale of territory.
Shortly followed a great world war with the Gael-Byzantine Alliance against the filthy nomads in the north, and the successful crusaders in the south. Again to the topic;
Has anyone seen mutations from the boredom of these predictable rising AI empires?
Please share any experiences of a Norwegian monolith, or a Volga-Bulgarian empire created by the AI.
Certainly, even one from Vanilla MTW!
France; Spain; Byzantium; Novgorod; Fatimid Egypt; Hungaria.
I don't play XL, though with the exception of Novgorod, those factions almost always dominate the vanilla game also. This is quite simply down to poor economic balance. Simply reducing trade income and increasing farm income alone won't help this. It's a balancing act.
1) France, surrounded by weaker enemies, with good starting infrastructure and income, they tend to be quite aggressive. The English moving into Flanders can be the trigger, but they usually go all out against the HRE anyway..
2) Spain, too large an income in a strong position with weaker neighbours. If they take Iberia, the citadels and fortresses start going up in no time. It's only a matter of time before they storm across north africa before bursting through the pyrenees into Aquitaine or Toulouse.
3) Byzantine faction, overpowered in terms of territory, trade income, infrastructure, units and very high quality of royal line and generals. The Byzantine Emperor also gets a +2 influence and +1 command bonus.
4) Novgorod, not sure. Were a stagnant faction in vanilla, though perhaps they've been imbalanced in XL?
5) Egypt, in a good defensive corner of the map, with only the Turks as an immediate problem. Income wise they have the best trade on the map. Lots of cheap camel and nubian spam and they can take on most of the neighbours in autocalced AI vs AI battles with their huge stacks.
6) Hungary, in a centralised position with a decent income and surrounded by easy rebel targets and the German and Polish provinces. Once they take on the Byzantine and start winning they tend to go into overdrive.
:bow:
Trapped in Samsara
02-13-2009, 16:24
Hi
I have played several XL campaigns (+ Tyberius these days) and can vouch for the consistent strength of the Danes - cheap and plentiful Vikings and longboats are a lethal strategic combination - which you don't mention.
I guess what I'm saying is that I haven't found XL to be too 'predictable'. But let's face facts here: some factions do (and did) have superior strategic positions for any of a number of reasons/factors. That's just history.
I too, by the way, play as methodical builder and enjoy trying to undermine the dominant AI power(s) whether through alliances, military might, espionage, assassination, proselytisation, or whatever. This enhances the game for me.
I really do wish you could give funds/troops/mercs directly to allies, though. I wonder how difficlut this would be to engineer within the game, given that the Pope can show largesse.
Regards
Victor
I haven't played XL, but in vanilla most small factions generally stagnate. I think some of this has to do with the upkeep expense of the many bodyguard units they tend to accumulate. If they take action early on and expand some, they will do better, but if they are hemmed in by larger factions and can't expand, the continuous generation of heirs seems to drain them. Every campaign I'll come across a small faction, sitting in 1 or 2 provinces, with very few buildings and 10-15 bodyguard units. I wonder what would happen if you modded bodyguards to be unbuildable but with lower upkeep, so the royalty wouldn't be such a drain. :inquisitive:
I wonder what would happen if you modded bodyguards to be unbuildable but with lower upkeep, so the royalty wouldn't be such a drain. :inquisitive:
The mod I am working on addresses this. I have tried several approaches. The only one that works is non trainable, and hence non retrainable, full size bodyguard units with no, or very little, upkeep cost.
The mod I am working on addresses this. I have tried several approaches. The only one that works is non trainable, and hence non retrainable, full size bodyguard units with no, or very little, upkeep cost.
Full size, eh? Interesting. I would imagine for the 20 man units the AI merges and steals men from royal uncle units into the heirs' units, leaving lots of singletons as the game progresses. I can see how this would still happen with full size, but it would be less of a factor. How does the AI handle the era changes?
He handles them just fine - to be honest much better than in vanilla or any other mod. The pocket mod is not exactly a mainstream mod - if anything it takes an eastern approach in its conception - it is direct and simple yet profound - a black and white zen brush painting of a few strokes rather than an oil painting of vivid colours and many layers. In this regard it takes out much more than it puts in. And surprisingly for some perhaps, the result is deeper and more satisfying.
One thing Caravel could consider doing is making the kanighits units and the BG units one and the same, since they are now non trainable - then its much more probable for heirs units to merge and avoid being taken out easily in battle due to depletion.
EDIT
Just realised that this is simply not feasible since the kanighits are trainable unless there is a way to duplicate the unit in a way that its mergeable. This is at best uncertain though. I ll keep thinking for the perfect solution to this *significant* (almost existential) id say problem of MTW modding as well as the many others of similar (to be or not to be) nature :beam:
!it burnsus!
He handles them just fine - to be honest much better than in vanilla or any other mod. The pocket mod is not exactly a mainstream mod - if anything it takes an eastern approach in its conception - it is direct and simple yet profound - a black and white zen brush painting of a few strokes rather than an oil painting of vivid colours and many layers. In this regard it takes out much more than it puts in. And surprisingly for some perhaps, the result is deeper and more satisfying.
Could not have said it better myself. I have been following the Pocket Mod development and it seems that it might be even better and purer than MedMod which I'm currently into...
Regarding BG units, in XL they have too small a unitsize anyway, having them bigger would at least make them a useful force for those poor AI factions who are trapped. With lower upkeep, of course.
And TS, back when I played XL it was fairly unpredictable with the addition of the Tyberius patch, although the Danes really could get up and running when they got an extra province to start with, Scania. This is good, but requires a serious overhaul of their unitroster even more than in vanilla. Vikings from 2 start provinces = Murder Death Kill.
No unfortunately one unit is specified as a bodyguard unit in the unit prod file. A faction can have one bodyguard unit per era. This is achieved simply by specifying three units as a faction's bodyguard units and then restricting those three units to early, high and late respectively.
The larger units are necessary, because as mentioned above you find yourself facing one man units of royal bodyguards. Also the lower support costs helps prevent factions such as Aragon or Denmark going into the red once a few heirs have matured. If you make the units trainable, then the AI still seems to spam them no matter what and if you up their recruitment cost substantially, then ransom becomes ridiculously high which will also send AI factions quickly into the red.
Sounds like an ideal solution then. It would also prevent the somewhat cheap tactic of getting demi-Knights with a low-tech province, so two for the price of one.
:bow:
chris34au
02-13-2009, 23:40
i've seen the Armenians dominate their region in one campaign but i hadn't been playing XL long enough at the time to really appreciate what i was seeing. the Danes seemed like they were almost always a major player before i installed the Tyberius patch but i haven't seen them expanding all over the map, since i installed the patch.
I don't really play XL but in Vanilla from time to time you see some interesting changes.
My current campaign (playing as the English) Hungary for instance are dominating, they have wiped out the Byzzies and the Turks and are well into the Egyptians and the Papacy has destroyed the Italians. So randomness is possible it just doesn't happen all the time.
I actually like that it is a suprise when an unusual faction rises to prominance.
The most unusual I have seen in Vanilla is the HRE losing switzerland to rebels and then this rebel faction going ballistic, taking out the French and English and pushing into Spanish lands, spawning swiss pikeman at scary rates out of Switzerland.
I play XL, and theres quite a variety of factions that come to prominance, although the Spanish and Almo's often do quite well, I guess because of thier very useful position on the map,
I tend to play as a Northern European faction, so Germany and France rarely do well, because even if i fail to expand into them, I almost always end up fighting with them in the early era.
To be honest i wouldn't mind an imabalance, as in real-life some factions would have huge advantages over others, and it also means some factions are more challenging to play (or you can take a big faction, and play really defensively for the whole game etc.)
:2thumbsup:
I agree, I don't mind an imbalance.
Some factions naturally have better starting provinces, more capital and better tactical positions.
It is more thn acceptable that these factions thrive.
I like the challenge of playing as another faction (a weaker less traditionally dominant one) and stamping my will on the map.
Imbalance as far as better starting positions and more territory is fine, though imbalance as in uber units and hugely bloated trade is not IMHO, and this makes the game very dull and predictable. Historically no faction made it big due to their fielding of supermen they did great and often horrible, things through great leadership. In game terms this is the player of course - it's you that makes your faction great not the units. Or that's how it should be anyway.
Later TW games became more and more imbalanced. This started with the MI and VI expansions. Instead of using strategy and tactics these give the player uber units (Mongols/Viking or Saxon Huscarles) with which to take on the enemy. The developer seems to take an approach that if they won historically then they need to win in the game. This is not the case at all. Later TW titles seem to continue with the same approach. In RTW the Roman units are very overpowered also. And in BI the Western and Eastern Romans are coded to break up and be weaker unit wise than their RTW predecessors. As for M2TW, I never got much further than seeing how horrible it is. Battles have been ruined beyond belief in that game.
The game is better if it is balanced correctly and allows the player to win through his own wits, tactics and management of the limited resources available. Having a massive treasury, fleets in every sea region and bum-rushing the AI with Viking spam is not a worthy victory - or the basis for an interesting campaign. If I feel that I'm winning a campaign too easily I tend to lose interest fast and give up the campaign. In the same way, if I feel that I am being defeated by uber units or having to use ridiculous and ahistorical "cheat" tactics to win against such units (i.e. massed crossbows or javelin spam vs vikings) then I am similarly disheartened.
PershsNhpios
02-15-2009, 04:17
Interesting replies!
XL 3.0 was eventually boring for the reason that in an estimate of 30 Early games; in 1 France was the sole superpower; in 29 was Danemark.
And no Danes are that headstrong!
Before Tyberius 2.0 I found myself attempting to form a league of nations which could stand against the inevitable Danish onslaught. To no avail.
Tyberius Mod has given some variety, but there are still always a top 5.
I understand that there must naturally be an imbalance to begin with - but that is an imbalance of arms, territory, wealth and population - not necessarily of willpower and opportunity!
It is the latter which keeps the little AI from becoming larger.
In Vanilla I found either England, France or Spain to crusade successfully, and thereafter rule the world with armies built on Palestinian income.
In XL, 'twas Danemark.. Tyberius I have explained.
In Pike & Musket, unfortunately the three superpowers who began with strength in the campaign only became stronger.
The Ottomans, Spanish, and Russians simply divided Europe between them and no middle-class power ever had a chance.
That ruined the mod for me, because not only did these three factions rule the world with huge armies, but civil wars never occurred as in Vanilla and XL, and rebellions never allowed re-emergences to spark.
It was dull in this way.
And in NTW.. Well, I have not played very much of any campaign - but that is about to change!
Surely it is a case of each to thier own here.
In one way or another every TW game or mod has some imbalances with unit strengths and AI abilities.
I would imagine most of us that have continued to love and enjoy these games naturally impose our own restrictions apon it.
I know most of us refuse to use inquisitors, we use very few mercs, don't spam crusades or Jihads etc, all in the name of keeping balance in the game.
I totally agree the game is better balanced if a player wins through the strength of his own wits and tactics and management of resources.
IMO most of us that still play the game do so with a sense of balance and fairness and will self limit by not building up uber trade or stacking armies with nothing but arbalesters and gothic knights.
In saying I liked an imbalance I was referring solely to starting position and treasury not gameplay.
In gameplay I like a balanced 'fair' campaign as much as the next.
Trapped in Samsara
02-16-2009, 14:59
Hi
[QUOTE=Asai Nagamasa;2138027]"Imbalance as far as better starting positions and more territory is fine, though imbalance as in uber units and hugely bloated trade is not IMHO, and this makes the game very dull and predictable. Historically no faction made it big due to their fielding of supermen they did great and often horrible, things through great leadership. In game terms this is the player of course - it's you that makes your faction great not the units. Or that's how it should be anyway."
It depends what you mean by "uber units" and "supermen". Ottoman Janissaries, English & Welsh Longbowmen, Knights Templar, Mongol Horsemen, etc., most certainly were thought of as supermen by their contemporaries - at least those on the receiving end of their combat effectiveness.
Similarly, some nations had access to fabulous riches from wealth-generating trade routes, products and centres.
These are matters of historical fact.
Obviously, there has to be some in-game balancing, but I would hate to see an artificially levelled playing field for the sake of guaranteeing different outcomes. The (vaguely) historical simulation aspect of M:TW is what keeps bringing me back to it; plus great mods.
Regards
Victor
Hi
It depends what you mean by "uber units" and "supermen". Ottoman Janissaries, English & Welsh Longbowmen, Knights Templar, Mongol Horsemen, etc., most certainly were thought of as supermen by their contemporaries - at least those on the receiving end of their combat effectiveness.
A good example of uber units would be Viking or Saxon Huscarles, Nizari, Kataphraktoi (not that uber but become so due to the general's stats). There are also many other units that the player can exploit that the AI cannot. Javelins are a good example.
Janissary units are very good, especially the JHI, and should be good, but are also restricted and difficult to tech up to (Grand Mosque, Military Academy plus high era).
Longbows I don't see as overpowered or super, they're just "very good", though some of the eastern units would benefit from a similar bow to represent the various eastern composite bows of the time. Again though, longbows are quite well restricted.
Knights Templar are much the same as CK. They're not overpowered, at least not in my opinion anyway. They have their strengths and weaknesses (slow speed being their main weakness). I think KT actually have an error in their stats for no apparent reason. They may have less charge than they should - I'll have to check that.
The Mongols in MTW/VI are not so powerful. When I referred to "Mongols" I was referring to those in STW/MI and not the Golden Horde. IMHO the Golden Horde in MTW are simply not strong enough. They should not be overpowered like those in MI but they should be a little stronger than they are. The "longbow style" bows would make a difference as well. They could also do with one other medium cavalry unit to make up the backbone of their forces and the Mongol Warriors should be removed.
Similarly, some nations had access to fabulous riches from wealth-generating trade routes, products and centres.
These are matters of historical fact.
Obviously, there has to be some in-game balancing, but I would hate to see an artificially levelled playing field for the sake of guaranteeing different outcomes. The (vaguely) historical simulation aspect of M:TW is what keeps bringing me back to it; plus great mods.
Regards
Victor
Of course, though the game does not handle trade at all well. The AI is practically unable to exploit trade and cannot maintain it's shipping lanes, whereas the player can rake in hundreds of thousands and achieve naval supremacy in the blink of an eye. This is why the shipping/trading system in MTW doesn't work and is why it was scrapped in RTW and later titles.
Of course there will be imbalances, this is part of the game, though those will be represented in small technological and geographical advantages. Letting one faction field armoured supermen and the other field pseudo peasants just because historically the one faction won, is silly.
One of the biggest factors in unbalancing the game is weapons and armour upgrades. They are so wrong from so many perspectives. Historically better weapons could only do so much. MTW places the equipment above the men. Instead of having barracks, musters or levies, it has only the smiths' workshops needed to produce the weapons they used. According to MTW, better quality armour was not lighter, stronger and more well ventilated, but was in fact heavier and hotter to use in the desert. Also in terms of weapons upgrades, they are upgrades to the attack stat and not the weapon itself. Attack is a skill that is learnt through experience, it is not forged in the smithy. During the period most arms and armour were pillaged or handed down from father to son. Only nobility would be able to afford to get gear of war made specifically, so the whole concept of "upgrading" weapons and armour belongs in the realms of fantasy. In battles the upgrades create huge imbalances and while the player strategically upgrades his fmaa and feudal knights in one province - the AI will be creating gold armoured peasants in another...
:bow:
Knights Templar are much the same as CK. They're not overpowered, at least not in my opinion anyway. They have their strengths and weaknesses (slow speed being their main weakness). I think KT actually have an error in their stats for no apparent reason. They may have less charge than they should - I'll have to check that.
Templar Knights are armed with swords, not lances or spears, so they get the Charge value of 4, instead of 8 or 6. I'm pretty sure this is intentional.
:bow:
Apart from the 4 points of charge, I seem to remember that they are identical to Chivalric Knights/Hospitallers/Santiagos? Gothic Knights are similarly nerfed. Do Templars actually appear in battle, charging without a lance?
-Edit: Yes I remember them now. I'm sure I've fixed those in the mod I'm working on, but only the charge. I can add the lance back in also.
If they were going to be more melee than charge, then their melee and/or defence stats should have been adjusted accordingly.
I can't remember if they are different graphically. They have identical attack/defense/armour/speed/morale stats though, so they are weaker overall when charging. And their recruitment costs reflect this (600 vs 675 for Santiago/Hospitaller). I'm not really sure why they were different, maybe to nerf English Crusades?
Gothics are different, they are mace armed, so they also only get a Charge of 4, but they are armour piercing.
Yes I can visualise them with swords. It's been a while since I've played the game in any depth. Having a pc that can't run it doesn't help. IMHO they're a pointless unit. The should have lances and should be better than CFK. I don't have a problem with the order Knights all being carbon copies with different names to add some local flavour, but they should be something akin to lancers. They only appear in crusades after all.
PershsNhpios
02-18-2009, 05:09
I have the deed to the thread here, if someone would like to repaint the title!
Well, I hope this idea is developed.
Jumping back to the question of "Which AI faction always winds up being the Big Cheese", I have seen the Papacy go mad (admittedly only once), storming north across Europe. I have also seen Sicily become absolutely huge on a few occasions.
In my Burgundian campaign, the two major AI players wound up being Portugal and Novgorod. The Portugese, much to my surprise, held all of Iberia, North Africa, and much of the Levant before making the grave miscalculation of attempting to strike north into Burgundian territory.
In summary, I suppose it is fair to say that the dice will be loaded in favour of certain factions due to economic/location reasons as discussed. Every so often though, a set of circumstances will combine to result in a surprise. All part of the reason why I enjoy MTW so much I suppose. :2thumbsup:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.