View Full Version : Medieval Mod IV v1.5
The newest version of the mod may now be downloaded from my webpage below. Press here for the Readme (http://wes.apolyton.net/Readme.doc) that accompanies the mod.
Press here to download version 1.5. (http://wes.apolyton.net/Medmod_IV_1.5.zip)
Now the mod will finally install correctly, though you need to unzip it into the Total War folder, not the Medeival - Total War folder as before.
For an explanation of what happened, you may view my last post in the 1.4 thread, but mostly it has just been one of those weeks where all news is bad news. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
In addition, I have placed the Readme and Stats sheet in a new, Charts and Readmes folder, which will be created in the Medieval - Total War folder along with the Originals folder that has always been in the mod. This will keep from cluttering up your game folder, and is related to a change I made on my setup which should help avoid confusion for me in the future. (Btw, the instructions for uninstalling the mod are still correct, though you have to paste the contents of the Originals folder into the Medieval - Total War folder, rather than having a zip file.
I have also posted the maps from Euratlas.com that I referenced when deciding upon provincial ownership and faction availability for the three eras. Press here for the maps. (http://wes.apolyton.net/Medieval_Maps.zip) (850 KB)
I did not include them in the mod since they would have doubled its size, and are not necessary to play with the mod, though I personally like background stuff like this.
This new version was posted so shortly after the previous patches partly to clear up all the bugs once and for all (those that currently existed), and also to reverse some of the changes from Paladin's mod that were included in the 1.4 versions, and that most everyone seemed to have a problem with, myself included.
I have also made all factions in the game available for play by the human, except the Papacy and factions which appear in the middle of eras such as the Swiss. (the Mongols are available in the late era.)
As to the provincial changes, for example, in the Early era,(and this was all done back on Sunday and Monday), I gave Trebizond, Nicaea and maybe Georgia back to the Byzants, but Anatolia stays with the Turks like always, and I decided from squinting at the map I used that Lesser Armenia was a vassel state of the Byzants as of 1100, so they get it, just like the original game setup.
Btw, I also used a set of map portraying the growth of Islam to try and corroborate ownership, but oftentimes the maps did not agree.
Portugal also goes back to being Rebel-held, and Burgundy and Provence go back to the Germans.
I gave the Danes control of Norway and Sweden for all three eras, to help them become a stronger faction.
I effectively replaced the People of Novgorod with the Kievans, whom I consider to have a greater historical significance and a closer relationship to the Russians.
I also made some changes in Asia Minor and Spain for the late age, as well as adding some buildings in the Mongol provinces.
I have also made some of the special attack and diplomatic units available to the Mongols, and upped some of the stats for the Horde's HorseArcher (higher charge) and Warrior (better defense). The Warrior now uses the same projectile stats as the Horde's HorseArcher, meaning that they can reload on the move, have the accuracy of infantry Archers, and have armour-piercing arrows ala the Longbowman. (I did not simply let them use the Longbowman's arrows because I did not want to give them the range advantage.)
The biggest change in the late era was removing the Almohads from the game, and bringing back the Sicilians to replace them. The Almohad Empire had vanished by 1300, while the Sicilians held on to Naples and Provence in 1300.
To familiarize yourself with all the changes, I would suggest observing them from the game's era selection screen.
el_slapper
01-29-2003, 14:32
mmmh, grenada only fell in 1492 But sure, the moors were only the shadows of what they were some centuries ago.....
Actually, I think you had the Byzantines closer to right the first time:
1) Nicea was controlled by the Turks - it was not retaken until the Turks were weakened by the First Crusade. This crusade took Nicea, the Seljuk capital, and was returned to the Byzantines. The Byzants then took advantage of the weakened Seljuks to retake most of western Anatolia.
2) The same could be said for Lesser Armenia. Alexius followed in the wake of the Crusade and reestablished his authority - to some extent - there. His son John later strengthened the Byzant hold there.
3) I agree with Trebizond being Byzantine. The city was the key - and it was always held by the Byzants.
The map you have is correct - but it is 10+ years AFTER the game begins, and reflects Byzantine advances after the First Crusade. I think your first map was closer since it reflected circumstances before the First Crusade.
Grifman
Please note that the above is not a complaint, just my opinion. I appreciate your mod and you are free to set it up however you wish. I liked the older map (with the exception of Trebizond) because I did think it was more accurate and it also made the Byzant starting position harder - and more fun. I wonder if the new map will make then easier - do they also still have Serbia and the Crimea, along with most of the original provinces? If so, then an easy faction just got easier, perhaps?
Grifman
MiniKiller
02-01-2003, 04:47
Will this mod change all the main campgains? Or just add them on?
Quote[/b] (MiniKiller @ Jan. 31 2003,20:47)]Will this mod change all the main campgains? Or just add them on?
Yes, this mod changes all the campaigns, but it is meant to correct errors in the original files, better balance the units, and make other changes to enhance gameplay based upon mine and others' experiences.
It is not meant to turn the game into something different ala the Patrician mod, but rather to polish and enhance the great game that CA released.
Grifman, I will include your ownership suggestions in the next release. Btw, I let the Byzants keep Crimea for much the same reason as Trebizond (controlling the coastal cities), but I set Serbia to Rebel.
I did not know that there were major changes in the map between 1087 and 1100. About all the maps I have found are set at the turn of centuries, and I have not had time yet to find a good historical book online which covers the medieval era.
Just to reply to el_slapper, if you look at the 1300 map, Granada and northern Africa were still under Muslim control, but each province was part of a separate kingdom.
If these provinces were allied against the Spanish, than I could see re-instating the Almohads.
Btw, have the designers stated why 1205 and 1321 were chosen as the starting dates for the other two eras?
Hey, WesW, I'm playing the Byzants with the 1.4 version and it's lots of fun. Lot more challenging for them. However, it seemed to me that that Varangian Guard are messed up. They aren't available until the High and Later periods in looking at the crusader_unit file - and in playing - I looked back at the file when I couldn't build them. Looks like you got things reversed - I think you meant to exclude them from the Late Period. Take another look at the file and see if I am right. Looking forward to 1.5x with a new map.
Very nice job, gets thinks going quicker with the more upgraded provinces earlier on. And the other factions do use ships better - the Danes took over most of northern Europe in my game.
Grifman
kataphraktoi
02-01-2003, 14:43
WesW
Always a pleasure to look at what you've done for these mods, I learnt almost but not everything bout modding campaigns from your mods.
By the way how do you remove factions?
Tried to do that once and the game wouldn't load up
Is it to with active factions?
Or is it to do with eliminating all traces of the faction in the startpos files?
Can;'t wait to here from ya
WesW, sorry, another problem I've found - as the Byzants I can't build wargalleys or firegalleys - it's killing me since my navy is just a bunch of wimpy galleys. Please take a look at this also. Thanks.
Grifman
MiniKiller
02-01-2003, 17:37
Ohh so your saying you made it more realistic? sweet Is 1.5 your final? Also have you added anynew factions?
ToranagaSama
02-03-2003, 00:50
Hello WESW
Yours is the first mod to intrigue me enough to give it a go. The fact that you took a "comprehensive" approach is impressive, reminds me a little of the BSR Total Annihilation mods.
Just want to say THANK YOU for "fixing" Ships
-----------
A few of the changes are a bit curious, but there's still have a ways to go in the campaign, so I reserve judgment.
Though, right off the bat, a couple of things "appear" broken??
Emissaries: When attempting to make an offer of marriage, (dropping the Emissary onto a particular princess) no longer seeks the other faction's King, but rather seeks and follows the princess (or perhaps its a different princess, not sure didn't pay close enough attention to which princess). Is this an intended change?
Dockyards: Don't these give you Baroques (sp?)? If so, then since most provinces are moded to be capable of building these, should Dockyards be available to build? Or, do I have this all wrong; or looking at it wrong?
Is this deliberate, in order to maintain the "difficulty" in reaching the next level of ships? Just sticks out for me, as I put the Dockyard into the build que, naively, expecting to reach the next level.
Simply, perhaps a note needs to be made in the Readme.
Assassinations: Ahhhhh....I don't remember what date I stopped player, but as of 1129, the AI has not attempted a single Assination. Is this deliberate???
Lastly, in general, was the Valour pumped up for Ships and Princes?
Well, that's it for now, MUCH THANKS. Once I finish this campaign, I intend to try the mod using .nuttermode. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
MiniKiller
02-03-2003, 01:02
I like the idea of less assinastion attempts, right now i get 5 a turn on me.
ToranagaSama
02-03-2003, 03:22
I'm a bit confused. Do you mean with the mod, or the "normal" un-modded version of MTW?
In my experience SO FAR (1140), with the mod, its not a matter of fewer, but none.
In any event, why do you want fewer anyway?
Guys, I *think* you should be able to install 1.5 over earlier versions without messing anything up. I have not been able to tested this due to the way I implement my changes as I make them, but if it does cause problems I do feel sure that you could re-install the version you were using and everything would be fine to continue your game.
The only thing I can think of off-hand that may cause a problem would be the fact that I switched the Pagan peasants from Christian to Muslim for the 1.5 version.
Quote[/b] ]Hello WESW
Yours is the first mod to intrigue me enough to give it a go. The fact that you took a "comprehensive" approach is impressive, reminds me a little of the BSR Total Annihilation mods.
WesW: When I first came here, one of the guys said my work compared with a Brian, I believe, from Total Annihilation. Are you referring to the same guy? I almost got that game a few years ago, but didn't, so I am not familiar with it. I have made a name for myself over at the Apolyton Civilization site, but only for the people who came there to see if anyone had tried to fix the Call-to-Power games, when most people just stuck them on a shelf and moved on to another game. (I almost did that, too.)
Quote[/b] ]Just want to say THANK YOU for "fixing" Ships
WesW: Yeah, I am really happy with that part. This is something that happened time and again in the Ctp games- the game is capable of doing a job, but the settings have to be just right, and unfortunately it was shipped out before the play-testers figured out what was needed. (Or else they did not have time to get to it before Activision told them to ship. I would hope this explains why the settings were not adjusted for the patch, since it was only a matter of inceasing their priority.)
Btw, I finally remembered to reduce the cost of ships by about 25%, and this will be in the next release.
The Danes seem to be the helped the most by this. Since I increased the priority, the Danes have become about as powerful as any other faction, even before I gave them Norway and Sweden, which says that the increased effort and money spent on the ships is more than repaid in extra income and land power. And giving all the factions an equal shot is one of my primary aims.
-----------
Quote[/b] ]A few of the changes are a bit curious, but there's still have a ways to go in the campaign, so I reserve judgment.
Though, right off the bat, a couple of things "appear" broken??
Emissaries: When attempting to make an offer of marriage, (dropping the Emissary onto a particular princess) no longer seeks the other faction's King, but rather seeks and follows the princess (or perhaps its a different princess, not sure didn't pay close enough attention to which princess). Is this an intended change?
WesW: None of the text files I altered dealt with the way marriages are arranged, or with assassination attempts as you asked about below.
I have never known of one of my generals to be assassinated, much less the king. Occasionally a diplomat or bishop will get offed, but that is it. Am I missing something? I wonder if you are thinking about Shogun when it comes to the special attack units?
Quote[/b] ]Dockyards: Don't these give you Baroques (sp?)? If so, then since most provinces are moded to be capable of building these, should Dockyards be available to build? Or, do I have this all wrong; or looking at it wrong?
WesW: Most provinces start out with Ports, not Shipyards, which are what you need to build Barques.
Quote[/b] ]Is this deliberate, in order to maintain the "difficulty" in reaching the next level of ships? Just sticks out for me, as I put the Dockyard into the build que, naively, expecting to reach the next level.
WesW: Please see my reply to Grifman's questions below about restrictions.
I wish you could restrict buildings to eras like you can units, but there is no place set aside for this that I am aware of. Besides, sometimes I think the player would like to have the buildings all set so you could begin producing new units as soon as the era changes, so maybe this would not be popular.
Quote[/b] ]Simply, perhaps a note needs to be made in the Readme.
Assassinations: Ahhhhh....I don't remember what date I stopped player, but as of 1129, the AI has not attempted a single Assination. Is this deliberate???
Lastly, in general, was the Valour pumped up for Ships and Princes?
WesW: No.
Quote[/b] ]Well, that's it for now, MUCH THANKS. Once I finish this campaign, I intend to try the mod using .nuttermode. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
WesW: What does nuttermode do? I have been trying to find a list of cheats, to no avail. They are very useful when debugging.
Quote[/b] ]Ohh so your saying you made it more realistic? sweet Is 1.5 your final? Also have you added anynew factions?
Minikiller, as you can see from my other comments, 1.5 is not the final version, but there is absolutely no reason not to start getting the mod versions as they come out and enjoying them.
I have not added any new factions, but I set the game to allow the human to play as almost any of the major or minor factions present.
Also, I think it would be fairly easy to adapt the Medmod to enable new factions like the Scots, provided that you already have all the files necessary to enable them in the un-modded game.
I have recently devoted some time to making the game reflect political reality better, but most all of my changes have been aimed at making the game even more fun and challenging, and if I *must* choose between historical accuracy and gameplay, my principal has always been to choose gameplay.
Grifman, the Varangian Guard and ship changes you noted are not errors. I have to think that the VG's were supposed to be available in the high and late periods, and that the original settings were an error. I can't understand why such a powerful unit would be available early and not late- it flys in the face of the pattern for all other units.
Baggalas should not be available until the high age- that was the bug, not the restrictions on the War and Gun Galleys.
For ships, those requiring facilities more advanced than a level one shipyard are not allowed in the early period. (It follows that those requiring facilities more advanced than a level two shipyard are not allowed until the late period.)
Land units are roughly the same- those requiring more than a Keep to build are not allowed in the early period, while those requiring more than a Castle are restricted to the late period.
This is not my idea, btw, but how the game was shipped out. There was a bug, corrected in the patch, which did not allow the units to be restricted to their assigned periods. I may have standardized the land units and added the ships to the restrictions, but this is how the designers meant for it to be, and I agree with them.
Kat, to remove a faction, I believe that all you need do is out-comment its line in the active factions block, and re-assign its controlled provinces to other, active factions. (Watch out for cultural conflicts with starting units.)
Well, I am happy to see that the mod is finally attracting some attention. For me, one of the most rewarding aspects of making them is the conversations with those who use it. I want to make the game as enjoyable as possible, both for myself and for the community, so I always welcome and value the suggestions and insights of those who love playing the game as much as I do.
Lord Krazy
02-03-2003, 12:10
Kat,
do you want to remove a faction completly
or downgrade one to a minor or rebel faction?
removing the swiss the mongols and the pope
have lead to problems due to hardcoding.
WesW,
sounds great wish I had the time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Hey, WesW:
You continue to do a great job - I think this is the best mod out there by far. That said, after buttering you up appropriately, there are a few things I think could still use some improvement http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
1) Regarding the Varangian Guard, there is a reason why they are available Early and High, but not late. See the following links:
http://www2.mildura.net.au/users/leigh/vguard.htm
http://users.bigpond.net.au/quarfwa/miklagard/period/guard.htm
http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/goudenhoorn/61timothy.html
The point of all of these is that the Guard only existed in the Early and High Periods. They originally were Viking or Rus warriors who made their way via various means to Constantinople. Later, after 1066 and the conquest of Saxon England by the Normans, many Saxon warriors left England and served the Emperor. The Guard was destroyed with much of Alexius' army against the Normans at Dyrrachium, but apparently later reconstituted. However, as time went on, there were no more Vikings or Saxons to replace losses and the Guard eventually passed away into the annals of history. That's why you shouldn't be able to build them in the Late Period.
2) As to Firegalleys, they should be available to the Byzantines in the early period. See this link:
http://www.greece.org/projects/Romiosini/greek_fire.html
This was the great secret weapon of the Byzantines, and they even saved their capital twice from massive Arab fleets that were destroyed by their secret weapon. Thus, they should have at least fire galleys in the Early Period.
Just a note, you asked why the game chose 1204 and 1321 were chosen as era beginnings. I can't speak for 1321 but 1204 is the year that Constantinople was captured by the so-called 4th Crusade that effectively sealed the doom of the Byzantine Empire - it never recovered from that event. Can anyone figure out 1321? I looked at a couple of Medieval timelines but saw no significant events in 1321.
Hope this is helpful.
Grifman
Wes,
Your mod sounds interesting and I appreciate all your efforts but for some more conservative players, the changes you make to the game are so sweeping. I wonder if you would consider also producing a small mod that only changes the priority the AI gives to trade? Or indicate how we could mod that ourselves by editing a txt file? I like the game well enough as it is except that the AI just fails to compete in building up trade, which ultimately breaks the game.
Just a thought - it probably wouldn't take you long and I think you would have a lot of users who might be reluctant to make a bigger leap. Of course, I undertstand if you prefer to put your scarce time instead on just your more comprehensive mod.
PS: I had the same reaction to the modding work on CTP2 - I just wanted a small mod that gave a less passive AI, not lots of changes to unit stats, build requirements etc. that were hard to absorb. Did anyone ever produce that? I remember JackyOs blue frenzy or some such but then the modding seemed to move off into much more ambitious territory.
Thanks again for your work,
Simon
Simon, I'm not clear on your hestitation. I've played the mod and I do think it gives a much better overall game. The AI builds ships, engages in more naval invasions, and has more hightech units. Why not download the mod and give it a try? You can always delete it and reinstall MTW as normal.
Grifman
Hiya Grifman - I know I'm playing a good game when I see you discussing it. My hesitation is just that I know the game as is inside out. I know the unit stats, the relative strengths of the factions, what is required to build what, when you get what units etc. Some of what this mod does sounds great - eg giving Scandinavia to the Danes. Others I am less keen on - eg removing the Almohads. But generally there are so many changes that I have not learnt and may or may not like. It's a bit like trying to find a decent computer opponent for chess and someone says, "Hey, I've got this killer AI programme but pawns move diagonally, rooks become queens if they get to the other side etc".
You are right, I will try the mod and I may well like it better than the official one. It's just right now I'd prefer a more minimalist mod that fixes the trade issue only. It looks like other modders are struggling here and WesW has cracked it.
Hosakawa Tito
02-04-2003, 21:02
Hi guys,
Tito here with a question from a new member that he posted in the EH forum,Old Templar asks:
Thank you, for your prompt reply.
As you well know, WesW has published an outstanding Mod (1.5) that adds to CA's program; except he gave Norway to the Danes in Early, hence made them extremely strong. They evolve almost every time now as a strong European force which is historically incorrect and makes the game more difficult to play. My question to Wes is - how can I convert back the changes he made for the Danes?
Thanks for help in getting an answer.
------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for any help you can provide. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Simon, fyi, he only took the Almohads out of the Late Era game. If play nothing but campaigns beginning Early - which I do - then you'll still see the Almohads. And I don't think he fiddled too much with the unit stats. I think the biggest changes I've seen are some of the areas controlled by the different factions, the naval aspect, and some of starting buildings in the provinces for each faction.
Grifman
WesW,
Downloaded the 1.5 version and started it up. Got to say I was surprised at how much you had changed the Byzant map - you've now given them Trebizond, Nicaea, Lesser Armenia and Georgia, and taken away Serbia (all changes from your 1.42 version). Have to say that other than Trebizond and Serbia, I disagree with the changes. Georgia was lost to the empire right after Manzikert. Nicaea was lost several years afterwards until the Second Crusade recovered it for the Byzants in the mid 1090's. Lesser Armenia was rebel (as you had it in the previous version) and not retaken by the Byzants until the 1100's - I would just make the rebels stronger - and even then they weren't conquered by anyone else until the mid 1300's. With the exception of Trebizond, I preferred the old map. I don't understand exactly why you changed it so much.
Grifman
Quote[/b] (WesW @ Jan. 31 2003,23:01)]Grifman, I will include your ownership suggestions in the next release. Btw, I let the Byzants keep Crimea for much the same reason as Trebizond (controlling the coastal cities), but I set Serbia to Rebel.
I did not know that there were major changes in the map between 1087 and 1100. About all the maps I have found are set at the turn of centuries, and I have not had time yet to find a good historical book online which covers the medieval era.
Grifman, the next release I referred to will be the 1.6 version. This means that Nicaea will go back to the Turks, and Le Armenia will go Rebel. I could not tell about Georgia from the map I used, so I just gave them back to the Byzants because that is what the original game had. Should Georgia be under the Turks or Rebel?
In response to Templar, reversing this change is very easy- just out-comment the lines for Norway and Sweden in the SetRegionOwner section of the 3 startpos files.
On a side note, I was going through the Early text a few days ago, and the Danes were still grouped with the Minor factions in one of the sections, and were simply tacked on to the end of the list of Major factions in the SetFaction section (everyone else was listed alphabetically). I had thought that the Poles were probably the last major faction selected, but obviously it was the Danes.
A question for Old Templar and others to consider: What is the primary reason you play the game? I think most all of us would say that it is to enjoy a challenging game set in a historical context. But which is more important, if those two features come into conflict, the challenge or the history? I hope you would choose the challenge if forced to decide.
In my games with the un-modded files, the Danes never did anything, and were generally easy to conquer, especially in the early period. This was pretty accurate historically, but was it a challenge? And having only one province to start out with made them boring for me when I tried to play as them.
The more strong, competitive factions you have, the more varied the games become, increasing both the challenge and the re-play value.
I'm not trying to attack anyone, but I play these games to escape from reality for a while, so while I love history, if historical accuracy starts hurting gameplay, I will vote for taking liberties with history. The reason I say all this is not to confront, but to try and get you to look at things from a little different perspective, and give the mod a chance to change your thinking.
Simon, I am glad you are trying the mod first before deciding that too much has been changed. The changes can seem like a lot when you see them enumerated, but there are so many factors in the game that all the changes made so far are only a small percentage overall.
I think you will see basically the same game, except for more AI ships, but hopefully you will notice that many of the irritating factors that you had just learned to live with are gone, or else made more reasonable. And I hope you see an AI that performs better strategically.
I always take the attitude that you only change what you feel is broken, or add what is clearly missing, at least in my opinion. And I try and stay within the framework of what the designers intended the game to be. (Those of you who remember the complete overhaul of the Ctp games may have trouble believing that last part, but those games *really, really* needed a lot of work, plus you had a lot of void you could feel in a game that spanned over 6,000 yrs.)
Really, I would think that players like Simon who already know the un-modded game inside and out would be the ones most ready to try a version with a few new wrinkles thrown in.
Wes and Grifman - thanks for your comments and encouragement to try this mod, which I will surely do as I am getting frustrated by the trade issue with the standard game. (Can't try it just yet, as I'm waiting to be crowned King of England in a fun exercise going on in the Entry Hall). Re-reading the readme, there do seem to be very many changes but I agree most don't seem to be that major. It is obviously a labour of love (eg correcting the graphics) and most of the changes sound sensible.
It's good to see the dialogue between you in terms of trying to match the game to what we can figure out of the history.
I'll post some reactions when I play the mod.
Wizard of Evil
02-05-2003, 18:30
Hello,
IMHO this is a great modification for the game. There were many points in the unmodded version that irritated me, many of which is now removed.
I have been playing with the Turkish faction (unmodded) for a time, so as soon as i installed the mod, i started with Turkish again. But before, i made some modifications myself. I removed peasants from the game (many people didnt like my idea of removing them in my previous post about the peasant http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ), and limited the urban militia to early only. The AI armies are now very very challenging. In the unmodded game, as i have a lot of experience now with the Turkish, the Egyptians and Byz didnt give me any trouble. But now their armies are a lot more challenging. Usually it was taking me a few years to beat the Egyptians before, but now they counter me with many good units and it took me a lot of time to finish them. I was lucky enough, Byzs didnt attack me, but nearly got half of the map It took me more than 15 years to finish Egypt, then i turned on Byzs. Now i am dealing with Byzs, but they are really very very challenging. Without peasants, i see quality units in their armies, they really give a good fight, i already lost 2 battles out of 3 to them.
To sum it up, this mod is very very good. Excellent job Wes, thanks for giving us a even more challenging version of this great game I am looking forward to your next version
WesW,
Ok, I misunderstood what changes were going into which version http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif That said, let me summarize the map:
Nicaea Turks
Trebizond Byzant
Anatolia Turks
Lesser Armenia Rebel
Crimea Byzant
Serbia Rebel
Georgia Rebel
Armenia Turks
As I noted above, in response to your question, Georgia should be rebel. I looked into their history, and though at times they were vassals to the Seljuks, for the most part they maitained their independence, and even expanded their domains against the Seljuks. Given their and Lesser Armenia's history of strong independence, I think both should have fairly strong rebel armies - probably of 4 to 6 units - say one heav cav, one light cav/horsearchers, two spearmen, two swordsmen. That way they won't be pushovers. The Serbs were less independent and usually were under the control of Byzantium unless they were distracted, so I'd keep the Serb rebel forces the current size and mix.
Also, did you catch my explanation about the Varangian Guards and the periods they should be active in?
FYI, did you catch Wizard of Evil's suggestion above regarding peasants? I agree with you that fun takes precedence over historical. I've read some others suggesting taking peasants out of the AI mix - but WoE takes it a step further by banning urban militia from the High and Late periods. Might be worth considering to help the AI armies which still tend to be underteched. If you try it, I'm willing to play the mod to test and see how it works. I think this might be a very good and viable suggestion.
Grifman
Just to third the suggestion about peasants. The human never builds them so it won't hurt to deprive the AI of them. I have inherited an umodded game in England in 1229 (I normally don't play that far into the game) and have a massive, high tech army covering most of Europe. My neighbours, the Byzantines in Poland are facing the Mongols with guess what? Largely peasant armies. It is just silly and makes the later game less of a challenge. Partly, they are in this mess because the Egyptians took their starting provinces, but nonetheless I would hope they could do better if they did not waste their cash on peasants.
Gregoshi
02-06-2003, 17:16
New patron Elmo posted the following in the Entrance Hall:
-----
WesW asked: "A question for Old Templar and others to consider: What is the primary reason you play the game? I think most all of us would say that it is to enjoy a challenging game set in a historical context. But which is more important, if those two features come into conflict, the challenge or the history? I hope you would choose the challenge if forced to decide."
My answer is that I bought and played this game mainly to get a sense of history for the time period. Strict play balance and/or making every faction equally playable is secondary to me. If the Danes were historically a weak faction at the start of the Early period then so be it, they should be weak in the game in that time period. If some other faction is very strong in that time period then I wouldn't want them watered down just to make them more of a challenge to play. FWIW that is my take on the subject.
-----
Jacque Schtrapp
02-06-2003, 21:50
Quote[/b] (WesW @ Feb. 03 2003,01:41)]
Quote[/b] ]Well, that's it for now, MUCH THANKS. Once I finish this campaign, I intend to try the mod using .nuttermode. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
WesW: What does nuttermode do? I have been trying to find a list of cheats, to no avail. They are very useful when debugging.
Here's a link to a list of cheats on gamespot.com:
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/hints/0,10872,2878942,00.html
and here is another link to a post by one of the devs revealing a few more cheats:
http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....termode (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=4377;hl=nuttermode)
Mithrandir
02-06-2003, 23:02
Old Templar, a Junior Patron has posted in the entrence hall :
Quote[/b] ]Since I am still unable to post the the question myself, can you forward the following to DUNGEON/ Medieval Mod IV v1.5:
WesW - I basically agree with your philosophy on what should have priority when modding the game(historical correctness or game challenge). In the end it is a game.
Having said that, here are my comments to MTW game playing cluding your Mod:
The AI gives the Danes very early several strong Knight units (princes), now with your changes the Danes are even stronger and manage to conquer the northern part of Europe and reducing the Germans to a side show. In general, the Mod reduced the Germans even more (I heve never seen the AI develop the Germans into a major power after the initial early strong phase).
In the East - Kiev came out relatively weak (certainly a game challenge). Kiev, Lithuvania, Livonia and Russia have a tremendous weakness, they can only build the initial, early units (only Boyars for Kings and princes) although all the necessary later buildings for more advanced units are present. They are an easy prey for the oriental factions. They should be able to build at least Boyars, the the princes come with them. Can this be corrected?
.
Wesw, thanks for this excellent mod man I loved playing the Aragonese lastnight. I own all of Spain now, then moving down to the Almos. Think I'll go with the Sicilians next http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Again, great mod, thoroughly enjoying it.
Bye http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
ToranagaSama
02-07-2003, 20:34
Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Feb. 06 2003,06:06)]Just to third the suggestion about peasants. The human never builds them so it won't hurt to deprive the AI of them. I have inherited an umodded game in England in 1229 (I normally don't play that far into the game) and have a massive, high tech army covering most of Europe. My neighbours, the Byzantines in Poland are facing the Mongols with guess what? Largely peasant armies. It is just silly and makes the later game less of a challenge. Partly, they are in this mess because the Egyptians took their starting provinces, but nonetheless I would hope they could do better if they did not waste their cash on peasants.
Gotta agree, as a "human" I NEVER build them. As the Danes I do build Vikings though. So, I think I'd like to see Peasants removed, BUT the question then would be how to balance this removal?
Will the AI have enough money to pay the extra costs and upkeep of greater numbers of higher level troops? Does the AI need a little cash/trade boost to compensate?
Just gotta say again, WesW, GREAT mod. I'm about a third of the way through my Campaign as the Danes, or at least I think I am.
I think the mods have effected gameplay in many positive ways, some I think not probably not foreseen:
Assassins: At first I thought maybe this was broken, but its not The AI's use of Assassins mimicks a human MUCH better. In the beginning stages, with the original MTW (OMTW), the AI would immediately start building Assassins, wasting its starting resources along that Tech Tree line. For some reason, now, the AI waits WELL paste the beginning stages to start building Assassins.
The result is that, the human must go down that Tech Tree line Early, otherwise the AI will have the advantage. Which is VERY GOOD Also, I'm finding that "preserving" your Assassins is MORE difficult, as there are few safe havens once an Assassins is assigned a target. With OMTW, a 3 star Assassin had an excellent chance of surviving landing in Watchtower protected provinces, but NOT any longer.
Wondering why this is so?
I've had to take quite a deliberate action just to get a 3 star Assassin. My usual tactic is to preserve my 3 star Assasins, and ONLY use them to take out Inquisitors. Now, I'm not sure how this will play out, as its now so difficult to attain and maintain a 3 star Assassin.
Also, so far (I don't remember exactly), but (I must be near 1200) NO AI Inquisitors as yet. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Marriages: Strange, but rather positive. Drop your Emissary (my usual way of arrangement) onto another faction's Princess and the Emissary will NOT locate that faction's King to seek permission for the marriage. In OMTW, the Emissary would seek the faction's King. Usually, this would take quite some time, with the MOD this is a much shorter, timewise,process; which is good.
Anyone else experiencing this?
Battles: So far, in my experience, battles seem to be more challenging. Of course, this might be the obvious result from the AI having better troops with the MOD changes; BUT, I, also, think that the Battle AI is engaging in better tactics as a result of the better troop quality.
Last night, for the first time, the AI engaged in a "stand-off" Archer "opening" to the battle, ala Braveheart cept we both had archers. The AI and myself were fairly evenly matched in terms of troop quality and ARMOUR. The AI was almo, I dane. It was great The AI targeted the proper unit, a MAA, and did so from behind a hill. Cool
We BOTH exhausted our arrows, before attacking with troops, and withdrew the spent archers to the rear. Also, the AI taunted me with Turkoman, moving close to another unit of MAA and pummeling it with arrows, and did so on LOOSE formation. Cool again
This was my most fun MTW battle as yet I not really familiar with Muslim troops, as in my campaigns, I ALWAYS play a Christian faction, and until now, dealing with Muslims has been a "mop up" situation (boring, time to start a new campaign). As a result, when I encouter Muslim factions that are still strong, my battles are desparate and I barely hang on for a win OR I lose. Its unusual for me to lose vs. a Christian faction.
In this battle, I thought I would lose, but I was on the defense, picked the better ground and executed my tactical strategy almost perfectly. Any serious mistake and I probably would have lost. Turned into a lopsided victory, the first against any Muslim faction and contrarily it was the most challenging MTW battle ever (cause of the MOD).
I've got more serious comments and observations, but I want to wait until I complete my campaign, hope to finish by the end of the weekend, time allowing.
Thanks again WesW
Hope CA is checking out The Medieval Mod, cause frankly its raising the bar for Viking (and Rome). Gotta do better CA with the Add-Ons The Add-On needs to more than simply new units, factions, or maps. Less "Candy" more Strategy and CHALLENGE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
P.S., Humans don't build Peasants
P.S.S., anybody play Medieval Mod on .nuttermode. yet?
Quote[/b] ]anybody play Medieval Mod on .nuttermode. yet?
I don't even want to try it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif . With this mod, the AI is definately better. I've been playing the Aragonese, and I've been having some great naval battles with the Almohads. And ofcourse on land with them. 3 Epic battles in one turn. Also, I attacked rebel held Toulouse, and the English decided that they would help out, since it would be a tough battle. It's great to see the AI playing much better than before, and again, I thank Wesw for this great mod.
Jacque Schtrapp
02-08-2003, 05:59
Bug Report:
In the High era the starting position for the English king is the province of Brittany which you have since changed ownership of to the French. This results in a rather odd situation where the English king ends up becoming a French unit after the first turn. He is even represented by a blue icon. I lost Normandy to my own king on the second turn of the game I must have LMAO for a good five minutes I would suggest moving his starting locale to Wessex for ver 1.6 unless one of our resident historians has reason to declare that he belongs elsewhere.
I just downloaded the medieval mod and the English were my first attempt. I think I am going to go give the Turks a try. I am very impressed by the buzz this mod has generated in the forums and by the read me included with the file. Congrats on all the hard work and thank you.
I have been away from the internet for a couple of days, so let's see if I can address everything. You kind of get a snowball effect with the posts as the mod becomes more popular, so sometimes it's hard to cover it all.
Don't hesitate to restate a question if I don't address it in the next post. Sometimes I am debating it, as with Grif's VG request, and sometimes I just forget to come back to it by the time I am finished with everyone else. (It's common for it to take 2+ hours to make one of these long posts.)
Re: The Varangian Guard- This is such a powerful unit, it just makes better game sense to place it in the high and late eras, as with other powerful units. While this is not historically accurate, the game's purpose is for the human to take over all of Europe and the Middle East, and how realistic is that? Note: Please do not start a sub-topic here on how realistic it is. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif We can just say that whatever historical events that sent the supply of Norsemen south kept sending them for another century or two, or that the unit became hereditary, stocked by the Norsemen and their Byzantine wives.
I will implement your suggestions for Le Armenia and Georgia.
Re: Peasants- http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Am the only one here who uses peasants for garrisoning back-line provinces and boosting the loyalty of rebellious ones? I find them quite useful, and they are now dirt cheap. Btw, I started a High game a few nights ago as the Sicilians, and am just about through conquering the Egyptians, and I have seen few Egyptian peasants, except in their more secure areas. I had two knock-down, drag-out fights with them, and out of about 40 Egyptian units I faced, only three or four units of reserves were peasants. I think that the AI will get better units if it can afford them, and with the new trading income it should be able to do that. FWIW, in my game I am now bordering the Turks, and they seem to have few peasants and many advanced units in their forces as well.
New patron Elmo posted the following in the Entrance Hall:
-----
WesW asked: "A question for Old Templar and others to consider: What is the primary reason you play the game? I think most all of us would say that it is to enjoy a challenging game set in a historical context. But which is more important, if those two features come into conflict, the challenge or the history? I hope you would choose the challenge if forced to decide."
My answer is that I bought and played this game mainly to get a sense of history for the time period. Strict play balance and/or making every faction equally playable is secondary to me. If the Danes were historically a weak faction at the start of the Early period then so be it, they should be weak in the game in that time period. If some other faction is very strong in that time period then I wouldn't want them watered down just to make them more of a challenge to play. FWIW that is my take on the subject.
Hmmm...., so Elmo is not tickled by my attitude? Well, I don't necessarily have anything against a weak faction, which could give a challenge to those who win too easily otherwise, but playing the Danes was boring, too, which is the cardinal sin for a game, imo. (And if it's boring to a Civilization enthusiast, (me) it's boring by just about anyone's standards.)
Thanks for the cheats lists. I liked the Viagra one. Matteosartori I knew about, and has helped a couple of times, but what would be really nice is a version that also lets you see the buildings present in all the provinces. Another one is a mode to allow you to see what was currently in the AIs build queues. That was one thing you could do in Call to Power, and was a huge help to see how the AIs were faring, and thus what changes to priorities needed to be made. Seeing the AIs finances was also big.
To reply to Old Templar's points- Boyars *can* be built in all the periods, provided you get the stiff building req.s.
I went through all the units after my last post, and found that there were many whose era designation was not what I wanted and/or thought it to be, so all of that will be fixed in the next version. This might help out the Russians.
I also went into the spreadsheet and highlighted those units with era restrictions, so that this would be easier to keep track of. It gets confusing for me, too.
As to the Danes, if others agree that they are too powerful, I could take away Sweden, and/or reduce the number of heirs they begin with. I guess we don't want to get *too* far away from history with them.
Thanks, Xicote.
TS, I have had several generals assassinated in my current game. I have not been building any spies, and I normally put one in all my frontline provinces at least, so it seems that the AIs will come after targets of opportunity. I have also suffered several inquisitions of generals, found guilty about half the time.
Also, one of the things that motivated me to start modding the game was that the AI Muslims would never stand and fight. One time I played as the Byzants, and the Egyptians had conquered the Turks and had a huge army. Well, after one stiff battle in Anatolia, they would not engage, even though they still had thousands of troops. In one turn, I invaded Palestine, Antioch and Tripoli, and the Egyptians would not engage in either Antioch or Tripoli, where they vastly outnumbered my invasion troops. I captured over 2000 prisoners without loosening an arrow. Since I started fooling around with the game, that no longer happens.
LOL, Jacque, I will definitely fix this.
WesW, this sounds like a great mod. I'm planning to use it in my next M:TW campain I play, but could you give me an idea of when the next version will be releaced? So I can judge whether it is worth starting a new game with v1.5 or to wait for v1.6, thanks.
Hosakawa Tito
02-08-2003, 20:27
Elmo from the EH would like to say:
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a mod please cross post this in WesW's thread in The Dungeon?
WesW wrote: "Hmmm...., so Elmo is not tickled by my attitude? Well, I don't necessarily have anything against a weak faction, which could give a challenge to those who win too easily otherwise, but playing the Danes was boring, too, which is the cardinal sin for a game, imo. (And if it's boring to a Civilization enthusiast, (me) it's boring by just about anyone's standards.)"
WesW
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I certainly don't have anything against your attitude or your mod. I've downloaded it, studied the charts and text, and intend to start playing it this weekend.
IMO play balance is an illusion. What would be balanced for a noob like me would be a cake walk for the veterans here. You'll never please everyone with balance. Then again it is your mod so the only one you really need to please is you
As I said, I play for the sense of history. There are plenty of fantasy strategy games and those should always strive for balance since they have no need to model history. However a historical game should set me up with the same problems the Danes or any other faction actually faced within the limits of the design. If your take is that the Danes in MTW are too weak compared to their real life counterparts then by all means put your interpretation of history on them in your mod. I only hope that you err on the side of history in your decisions so you don't turn it into a fantasy game.
Elmo
--------------
King Elmo I
ToranagaSama
02-09-2003, 04:03
Quote[/b] (Hosakawa Tito @ Feb. 08 2003,14:27)]As I said, I play for the sense of history. There are plenty of fantasy strategy games and those should always strive for balance since they have no need to model history. If your take is that the Danes in MTW are too weak compared to their real life counterparts then by all means put your interpretation of history on them in your mod. I only hope that you err on the side of history in your decisions so you don't turn it into a fantasy game.
Elmo
--------------
King Elmo I
Quote[/b] ]IMO play balance is an illusion. What would be balanced for a noob like me would be a cake walk for the veterans here. You'll never please everyone with balance. Then again it is your mod so the only one you really need to please is you
I think your comments are a bit contrary, in that a "noob" really wouldn't have a clue as to "balance". It takes an experienced player to make determinations as to "balance".
Is there such a thing as a "balanced" historical simulation? I think NOT History is not a matter of balance, but a competitive game is all about "balance".
I can see how one might be a bit mislead, but Total War is NOT a "hitorical simulation"; nor do I believe that such is the purpose of the Medieval Mod (WesW correct me if I'm wrong).
Total War is a "game" set in a historically based setting, and as such gameplay must take precedence over "hyper" historical accuracy. Though, historical accuracy should get the nod, in any situation that does not "negatively" effect gameplay.
Achieving greater gameplay, that's the goal.
Quote[/b] ]However a historical game should set me up with the same problems the Danes or any other faction actually faced within the limits of the design.
Definition of a "simulation", not a game.
Gregoshi
02-09-2003, 06:53
Old Templar from the Entrance Hall writes:
-----
WesW: Thank you for responding to my various comments on your Mod. First of all, I must congratulate you on an excellent improvement of MTW. I played at least 5 campaigns (Kiev, Sicily, Aragon and Spain) with your Mod over the last few days. Here are my observations:
1. GAME BALANCE: In all my campaigns - the Danes became a major European power eliminating the English, French and Spanish factions. They were so dominant that the fight between the factions stopped and was only between Danes and the three factions. It was just the Danes against anybody else. There was no random selection for invasions by the AI, only perhaps at the beginning. I think, that if others have the same experience; it needs to be addressed if you want a balanced game.
Germany was always a relative weak faction, except for the initial period. CA did not balance this well and, if you want, that is historically incorrect. The German faction is sooner or later eliminated; never did I see that the AI let Germany become a major power, like the Spanish, English, Italian or French factions.
2. KIEV/RUSSIA: You are correct one can build Boyars (very late so). The problems with the Russians is that they have only units available that appear in the early period while the other factions have higher quality troops. Low income in the Russian territories with only early units make this faction extremely challenging. Perhaps, Russia did not have any strong units throughout the Early and Middle Medieval times - I will try to research this question? Perhaps someone else has some information?
That's it for now, everything works like a charm. I like it and thanks again.
-----
Wes,
I tried your mod last night as England in early. I had some trouble installing the game - I winzipped into the folder with MTW (in my case, c:\games\medieval and it created a c:\games\medieval\Medieval Total War - I just dragged the new subdirectories/files on top of my old ones with the same name. I think I have it working - definitely the units are different, although I didn't spot changes to the map - from something I'd read, I thought you'd given the Danes Scandinavia? - or an option to play minor factions.
So far it has been fun. I may not have got far enough in to identify many concrete changes, but the Danes have taken Sweden (hurrah!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and have started up a fleet. Things are looking good.
I just wanted to come back on the the peasants point. All my neighbours (France, Aragon, HRE) have armies stuffed with peasants (this is early in the game, so they don't have much trade income). This is very different from your strategy to use them as garrison troops. The point is that with the 16 unit limit and maintenance costs, this may hurt the AI a lot - I'd be a lot more scared of vanilla spearmen, but the AI seems to underinvest in them in the original early game and maybe in this mod. I don't see much point to building peasants now that you have made urban militia so cheap (IMHO urban militia contribute usefully in early fights with spears and archers; they are good flankers and especially against cav).
One other observation - I may be imagining it, but you seem to have weakened the rebels in Scotland and Ireland on early. If so, I am not sure this is a good thing: from history, conquering Scotland and Ireland should be fairly major projects for the English.
I'll keep playing and post further reactions.
Thanks for your work,
Simon
Toranaga Sama
Thanks for your comments. I don't want to hijack WesW's thread for a generic "game vs simulation" debate although I would be happy to have that discussion in another thread. I think WesW has made changes which make MTW a better simulation and a better game. The two are not mutually exclusive IMO.
Simon
I'm playing as the Turks. We're at war with the Egyptians and have fought a few battles. I believe the Egyptians are making more than just peasants although it is hard to seperate what they are building from what they start with. I didn't keep strict track of it but I have been fighting a good mix of troops in my battles so far. FWIW I think peasants have a place in the game, especially now that WesW has made them lower maintenance.
Elmo
Elmo,
I don't want to turn this thread into a pro and anti peasants debate, especially if as someone said it has been debated elsewhere. I will just say I have got a little further with my early English campaign (1143ad now) and can "peek" at 3 strong factions. In the strongest, Byzantines, I could count 39 units of peasants in a few provinces; France had 35; Almohads had 17. I had the 5 I started with. The peasants seem to be at the expense of spears - in 16+ stacks, there were often only 1-3 spears. I believe I could defeat each of those strong factions in part because of their army composition. Yes, they do have a variety of units but the Biz and French are particularly thin. This was true in the unmodded game, so it is nothing Wes has done but I will try to work out how to prevent peasants, as it does seem to loosen the challenge.
More generally: the game is playing out rather differently than I am used to. The Spanish fell to the Almohads; post-patch I tended to observe the reverse. The Eyptians died off early, which I do not recall seeing before. The Byzantines and the Turks are fighting it out for the Middle East with the Byzantines definitely winning - usually the Byzantines in my unmodded game lose Constantinople and go into exile in the Steppes. If the mod makes the Byzantine stick around, that's definitely an improvement, although I can't see from the changes what might encourage that.
I also started a campaign as Byzantines which is fun. One wierd thing was the Scilian siege of Naples. I had only 9 guys in the fort and every year was told I had lost 9, but they never died. The fort held out forever and I was eventually able to relieve it.
Simon
Simon
I'll search for the peasant discussions. I wonder if the AI just trains peasants with the florins rather than making the buildings needed to train better units? If the problem is within the code then it may not be correctable in a mod.
Perhaps when WesW has his mod where he wants it he would permit you or someone else to take it as a starting point to build a peasant free mod. It would be interesting to compare the two.
Meanwhile I'm enjoying this mod a lot. Thanks WesW.
Elmo
Nice discussions, guys. Isn't it nice to be debating the changes being made to the game, rather than just making those "gripes and wishes" threads that we all have done in the past? I mean, in my experiences with official patches, they usually address the most obvious and frequently griped about things, but 90% of their efforts go into stuff designed to lure new buyers, ala new features or abilities, rather than perfecting the basic product. For the serious players, you are generally left with the old adage of "if you want it done right, you have to do it yourself."
In MTW's case, I think we are talking about turning an A game into an A+ one, but the basic fact is that those waiting on CA to fix all of the balancing issues beyond what they did in the first patch are most likely going to be waiting indefinitely. Well, that said, let's get to the latest posts...
Ok, I have went in and lowered the priority for building peasants even further. As low as they were before, I don't know if this will affect things much, but we can see. In my current High game, the AIs either don't build many peasants period, or they switch to better units at the first opportunity. I will try and start an Early game before I release the next version, and see what the AI does with the present settings.
To reply to Simon's posts...
Simon, did you get the mod from my website or from the downloads section here? I think the latest version they have here is 1.3.
Has anyone else seen the weird thing Simon reported with Naples? I had kept Paladin's change of giving Naples to the Sicilians, so there should not have been any Byz troops left in the fort, especially not an odd number like 9.
If you are wondering why the Byzt's held out better, it is probably because I made the cost of their units a lot less. I also significantly reduced the land value of Constan'ple, so they should have to rely on sea trade more, as in real life.
I have noticed that the Byzt's are bad about not placing a ship in the Sea of Marmara, which would kill their income, so I might have to rethink this, or make a new ship with zero movement to place there in the startpos files.
The Almohads also took out the Spanish rather early in my game, and have about taken out the Aragonese, which kinda surprizes me, since I gave the Spanish discounts on about all the Feudal troops. Perhaps my re-organization of the Muslim troops has helped the Almos even more?
I have not fooled with the rebels in Scotland or Ireland. If anything, Ireland should be harder, with Kerns now having 100 men in a unit. I have weakened the Rebels some in Lithuania and Khazar, though I have since restored most of them. The units in Khazar were so strong in the Early text that they seemed a legitamite threat to conquer the factions' surrounding lands. (The strength of the Rebels at the start of the game may be why the AIs rush out so many Peasants, btw.)
Re: Old Templar's comments...
I just checked out my current game, and I now agree with out regarding the Danes. I am 45 turns into the High game, and the Danes have taken almost all of the HRE provinces. The last long game I had, they did about what you observed to the French, Brits and Spanish, but I could not say after one game whether this was a fluke or not.
Anyway, I have taken Sweden away from them in all three eras, and made the Rebels in Sweden stronger. The Danes should have a strong incentive to conquer Sweden in order to unite their kingdom, so it should be a good setup. I guess since Sweden can be such a goldmine if you have a good trade network, that this was probably what was strengthening the Danes so much.
Re: the HRE, it should be significantly stronger economically now, with the addition of trade goods and an increase in land value to most of the northern provinces.
Btw, in my game, the Russians went through the Mongols, whose units should be beefed up with the new archery bonuses, like a hot knife through butter, and now control all of eastern Europe as far west as Carpathia. They have not taken anything away from the other factions yet, but there are no rebel provinces anymore except Finland.
Elmo, I meant to put a smilie face after my tickle remark, so just know that I was trying to be funny, and nothing else. I don't have anything against simulating history, and actually spent a good percentage of my time with the other mods on improving the tech charts of the Ctp games. (The tech tree for Ctp 2 is probably my proudest single addition to that game. I and two other guys spent probably 250 hours combined working it out, and making the descriptions and icons for it all.) That said, TS is also right in that this is not a sim, except maybe for the tactical battles, which are incredibly deep and realistic to me.
I spent a few hours Saturday night reading up on the battle of Manzikert and its aftermath, and it became clear that historically palace intrigue, diplomacy and troop loyalty were just as important as taxes and troop morale, and these elements are only modeled in the barest way in MTW. I mean, if you want to immerse yourself in the real feel of the age, you would do much better with books and re-enactments than Total War. (And I think the movie "Elizabeth", with Cate Blanchett, was really good.)
And now to shift gears, and maybe contridict myself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, are there any changes that need to be made to the names used in the games? It seems that the ones CA picked were aimed so that the most casual observer would recognize them (e.g. Egyptians rather than Fatimids). It bothers me that the names used mix up adjectives and nouns (e.g. Egyptians is a noun, while Turkish is an adjective), so while I am nitpicking those, are there any others that need changing?
And the big question of the day...
It seems that I have about made all the changes that I can see a need for, with the current game setup. I plan to release version 1.6 in time for the weekend, and it will be mostly tidying things up, plus the balancing issues with the Danes, etc., so I figure that 1.6 will be the last edition of the first version of the mod, except maybe for the odd tweak that always seems to come up.
So, I have had in the back of my mind for months of fundamentally changing the availability of units. In the Ctp 2 mod, I conceived and Wouter coded, the concept of Elite troops, which were things like Vikings and Hoplites and Panzers- unit types that spawned great, or infamous, empires. Civ III later came out with a similar concept, but they designated these units to their historical civilizations, while I tied their development to the land types on which the civilization developed. (In a normal game, a random map of the earth is generated, and civs are placed randomly upon it.) This goes by the theory that unique units developed because of their unique environments, and not because God commanded that the Welsh develop a huge bow that could penetrate armor at long distances simply to suit His tastes.
Well, this attitude could probably translate to MTW in two ways.
1) Units would be restricted to certain provinces, but available to any faction that controlled one of those provinces (think Turcolopes), or
2) Units would be restricted to certain provinces, but would only be available to their current factions. Thus, you wouldn't have the Turks building Turcoman Foot in the forests of Germany.
I would vote for the second version, both for historical accuracy and to help prevent the snowballing effect of power that occurs when a Christian faction conquers the Middle East, for example. This might be hard on the Byzantines if they get pushed out of Asia Minor, but then again this is what led to their eventual downfall historically.
This would be a labor-intensive modification, so I might need to take on a partner or two, but if it worked it could be the modification that finally set the game off into something that we could play for years and not tire of.
So, what do you guys think?
Interesting post, Wes. I think I must have messed up my install of your mod. My early map is unaltered from the original, eg the Byzantines had Naples on early. I got the mod from the Apolyton site, but when I extracted it to c:\games\medieval, it created a new subdirectory c:\games\medieval\Medieval Total War and installed into that rather than one level higher as I intended. I copied the new files and duplicate subdirectories over the old ones but it seems to have only worked partially. I'll probably do a full re-install of the game and the patch, but maybe wait for the new version in weekend. But anyway, I think the wierd siege thing I encountered was a problem with the game, not the mod.
On your query about unique units, I think the answer may vary with the units. Take longbowmen - I don't see why they should be province specific as the defining feature is the weapon which could be crafted and adopted elsewhere. The English copied the idea from the Welsh and trained lots of English longbowmen. The Welsh may have been better, but the +1 valour for building in the province captures that well. Keeping the unit unique to the English however is good for creating variety between the factions plus AFAIK the other factions didn't copy the longbowmen idea.
With some other units, the defining thing is more tied up to the culture and ethnicity - eg Vikings (or Highlanders, Gallowglass etc). Keeping them specific to particular provinces seems sensible. I would probably confine the Vikings to Danes as in the game, to give the Danes a unique flavour. With some other ethnically specific units, eg Swiss pikemen, I'd probably not restrict the faction too much as the Swiss did seem to hire out their services.
I'm not that familiar with the Byzantines and the Middle Eastern troops. Some things, eg Byzantine infantry and kataphractoi seem like the longbowmen case, defined in terms of equipment. Trebizond archers are ambiguous: they are treated like longbowmen (ie defined in terms of equipment) but the name makes them seem like the Vikings (specific to an area). I'd have to do some reading to try to clarify that.
I've been thinking about modding the unit stats to make them more "realistic" or at least systematic, inspired by your work. Nothing too major, as I agree with your "A to A+" assessment of what's at stake, but comparable to what Ray Schroeder did with his ultimate equipment files for the Panzer General games (tweaks to enhance historicism, consistency and variety, but keeping the gameplay essentially the same). So if you need a partner to work on revising the units maybe we could join forces? I'm not a whizz at programming & computing etc but can do the basics and have an interest in research (academic economist with over 25 years experience as a wargamer). My e-mail address is: simon.appleton@nottingham.ac.uk
WesW
No problem with any minor misunderstanding from earlier. It's always tough to read betweent the lines in any written media.
-hops up on soapbox -
Don't get me started on CA and patches http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif As I understand it, there will be no more for MTW. I have no problem buying Vikings for the upgrades, but I shouldn't have to pay for MTW bug fixes. There are plenty of companies providing free fixes for their games and CA should do the same.
- hops off soapbox -
I'm playing 1.5 as the Early Turks and haven't visited Naples yet so I can't comment on Simon's issue. To avoid confusion in the future is there a way for you to add your mod version number to an MTW screen so people can tell if they got the install right? I'm confident it worked for me but a warm fuzzy would be nice too.
I am reading Medieval Warfare, edited by Maurice Keen right now to get my simulation fix. Any other recommendations would be appreciated. I also liked Elizabeth.
I don't have enough experience yet with the game and haven't read enough Medieval history to have an informed opinion on your fundamental changes to unit availability. Not that it will stop me though... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Option 2 "feels" more realistic to me although Simon makes a good point about units that are unique based on hardware as opposed to culture/ethnicity. I'd love to see and play what you guys might come up with.
If I can help in some small way, let me know. My time is limited (wife, 3 year old, dog, work, ...) but I can do some grunt work if it will help.
Elmo
Old Templar
02-10-2003, 21:01
WesW - I hope, I did not "jump the gun" and ask for changing the Danes while the problem may be somewhere else.
Last night, I played the Danes/Early to see whether they are really to strong.
Here is what I observed:
The Danes are definetely improved by the changes you made.
The advanced castle and the quicker shipbuilding improved the cash flow and eliviated the need to build up higher buildings without the funds. By 1125, I had always more than F10,000 in the bank. I could take over Sweden right away, no problems ( I HOPE YOU DID NOT MAKE THIS TO DIFFICULT NOW). Even the Germans were stronger; had more ships and gained from the income. The AI used this very effectively(definetely an advantage); they became a major power but fell apart later when the Spanish faction moved up. If you will up to 1150 everything conformed more with the historical events and still provided a significantly improved game (I hope, CA will notice this).
Let's wait and see whether the Danes are more balanced when the AI plays them again.
You are right, the Russians gained; they took over Poland(that never happened with the origional MTW) and treatened the western European factions. I wonder, how they did it; they had only very early troops, virtually no cavalry (some Boyars). Perhaps it is possible to let the Kiev and other Russian faction have Boyars earlier ( they were an aristocratic elite unit and must have been available earlier - what do you think?).
I guess, it all depends on who is playing what faction. The AI concentrates more on the human player than the other factions. Even humans play the game differently - there are those (like me)who play it slowly and enjoy the strategic/historic site (Princes, Alliances, Spies and assassins etc.)and an occassional battle and than there are those who seek the action of the battle and finish the entire campaign by 1200. Your Mod helps players like me and I think the more active "fighters" will be happy to.
Since I have all the time in the world (early retirement), let me play somemore factions and I shall provide you with detailed observations on the pros and cons.
Now, on Russia - I do not know why the developer left the Russians without Mining. There was mining in Russia (very primitive so) but nevertheless mining. The Russians would have benefited from some better income from mining. Let me play that faction somemore times and lets see whether it is now better balanced, before doing anything with it.
That's it for now. I am not a programmer, but I can help you with any historical research or gameplay assessment, if you like.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
"If you are wondering why the Byzt's held out better, it is probably because I made the cost of their units a lot less. I also significantly reduced the land value of Constantinople, so they should have to rely on sea trade more, as in real life.
I have noticed that the Byzt's are bad about not placing a ship in the Sea of Marmara, which would kill their income, so I might have to rethink this, or make a new ship with zero movement to place there in the startpos files."
Dammit Wes, if you're going to keep coming up with great ideas like this you're going to have to tell us more about HOW you did it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I've been trying to figure out how to balance and improve the AI trade for > 2 months now , without notably great success. Putting a ship in the Marmarra (and Adriatic for the Italians) with ZERO movement is something I never thought of, but it's a great idea Static fleets to obviate the AI trade problem Obviously, you can't just place a regular ship there or reduce the movement factor of any ship in the crusader_unit_prod file to zero, without making ALL ships of that type immovable.
Also, if you reduce the land income, will the AI seek more sea trade? I would assume it would just sit there. I've examined your AI build_prod values for shipyard and merchant, which are very similar to ones I had previously adopted, (mine were marginally higher) but I found through playtesting that the AI would still clump it's (now more numerous) ships and ignore trade lanes (thus the value of your idea about static ships). In addition, more ships has meant more AI factions getting into naval wars. Kraellin and DOC modded similar values and found much the same thing. Just some thoughts. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif What would happen if the AI joined that ship to a fleet though? Would that fleet be immobilized? (That might not be an entirely bad thing). If that ship were sunk however, the AI would not be likely to replace it so this is not a permanent solution.
How did you plan to do this? I immediately thought of adding a new ship named "Byzship" or something to the unit_prod file, with no AI build probabilities, no buildings to produce it, and zero movement (that would use the galley name identifier from column 2, say) and just insert them into the early.txt make_unit -- put 1 in the Marmara, another (Italian) in the Adriatic (the Italians don't keep a ship there, no matter how many they have, which kills trade income from Venice -- although the Sicilians seem to for some reason), another (Danish) in the Denmark Straits and Baltic. Those seem to be the major problem areas. The Italians seem to spread out all right otherwise, despite their ridiculous tendency to clump their ships in the Straits of Sicily. The Sicilians are highly aggressive and spread out o.k. The English spread out o.k. into the north sea and the Spanish and French coasts in time, just as they should historically. For some reason though, they tend to send a lone ship to Gibraltar (isolated from everything else), don't know what that does for them. The Almohads now build more ships since I gave them a port & shipyard in Morocco and the Egyptians are now a major seapower in every campaign. So it works
Also, you said that you made crusader knights available for building after a successful crusade. I looked at your unit_prod11 file from v.1.5 and I still don't know exactly how you did it. Please enlighten us. I made them all buildable (same build requirements as chivalric knights, plus the chapter_house), because these orders did much more historically than just go on crusades. At least some would have been available to each of the major catholic factions represented here. I also think making footknights buildable is necessary for similar historical reasons. Not all knights had enough income to be able to afford suitable warhorses, much the most expensive item of their equipment. There were many "poor" knights serving the greater lords/kings and some of them fought on foot. Others were mounted by their "employers" sometimes for a single campaign. War horses were so valuable, that Kings sometimes compensated their retainers for those lost on their campaigns. I could go on, but see Philippe Contamine'sWar in the Middle Ages for much more detail on the composition and expense of medieval armies. Footknights are useful because of their lower maintenance costs. (One ought, perhaps to consider increasing the size (and corresponding expense) of their units to 60, however to bring them in line with the standard infantry unit). If you know how to increase the number of crusader knights appearing in AI crusades (not the probability of a unit appearing, but the # of units appearing), I would welcome that information as well, since I want to strengthen AI crusades from their current wimpy status (as you know, they generally just peter out from attrition before reaching their objective). Having a crusade launched against you should be a fearful experience, not a slight annoyance. They should be fewer, but far more powerful. Is there also any way of increasing the expense of launching them? The AI build probability ought also to be lowered a bit as the AI tends to send crusades when they only get it into trouble.
Well I have read the posts three times and the readme three times as well and I decided to take the plunge. After I hit reply I am going to start a new game Early, Expert, Spanish, and see how your this mod runs.
I do have a few questions/suppestions/comments.
1. I do use peasants as garrisons. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif All that seems to matter for the loyalty stat is the number of troops, so the only thing to think about in non-borderlands is the support cost of the garrison per man. The AI uses them far too much as part of armies.
2. Why did you reduce the time for fort-fortress? Too help the AI climb the tech tree?
3. Why did you get rid of the Valor bonus for the one province units? I always considered this bonus to be an integral part of the unit itself.
4. I usually like to play the novgorod Faction and I like that you made them Kiev in the early. They had 2 weakness. One was lack of higher level spear troops. Is it correct that Pikemen will be avail in the High and not just the Late era? If so that fixes that problem. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
The other was the Boyars. Old Templar touched on this issue. The thing is that if you asked all the factions to build the unit that are noble units then the boyars would be a VERY distant last place. The other factions need only build a keep and a royal court. Byz and kata need a high tech level but they start with a big jump with a citadel. Often times as the Novgorod I would not have Boyars until halfway into the High era. (I always start in early.) I would consider lowering them to at most Horse2 Armor2.
Also you lowered the support on Royal Knights and I think the same should be done to Boyars for the same reason. The Novgorod often can be immobilized by the high cost of having many heirs. Also Horse archers can reload on the move now so can Boyars?
Agravatingly I do not have excel and my wife forbids me to buy it just so that I could look at Units for "that stupid game that you ignore me for" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif I usually just go by the words in the description anyway rather then look up the actual stats. This does prvent me from seeing any changes that you made other then what is stated in the readme. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Well off to try it out now.
Thanks for all the hard work and effort
Tyrac - minor point - I think there is a free Excel viewer that can be downloaded; if not here, then try a google search for it. You won't be able to edit, but should be able to read excel files. It's not a pirated thing.
Simon
ok simon looking now thx.
Tyrac - Don't waste time with Excel. You can't save any changes you make to the file and expect it to work with MTW. Just download the Gnome Editor from the .org. It makes viewing and comparing and editing the unit_prod and build_prod files a breeze. Most valuable tool and I give a plug to Gnome for making it every chance I get http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Ok Cugel. I will give the gnome thing a try. I just tend to be wary of things that I do not really understand.:) I did DL the excel view though and it allowed me to read Wes's notes etc. Which is what I wanted.
Well for some reason I cannot unzip anything I DL from the org. Found a post in the apothecary that was an exact quote of my problem so we will see if there is an answer to that. Can anyone tell me how I can get Gnomes editor from another site? ( I have no trouble unzipping other places stuff just from the here.)
On another note I have been going over the unit stats of this mod....and re reading this topic and the readme again.
Here is a post by Simon that really sums up my thoughts.
Quote[/b] ]Your mod sounds interesting and I appreciate all your efforts but for some more conservative players, the changes you make to the game are so sweeping. I wonder if you would consider also producing a small mod that only changes the priority the AI gives to trade? Or indicate how we could mod that ourselves by editing a txt file? I like the game well enough as it is except that the AI just fails to compete in building up trade, which ultimately breaks the game.
Just a thought - it probably wouldn't take you long and I think you would have a lot of users who might be reluctant to make a bigger leap. Of course, I undertstand if you prefer to put your scarce time instead on just your more comprehensive mod.
PS: I had the same reaction to the modding work on CTP2 - I just wanted a small mod that gave a less passive AI, not lots of changes to unit stats, build requirements etc. that were hard to absorb. Did anyone ever produce that? I remember JackyOs blue frenzy or some such but then the modding seemed to move off into much more ambitious territory.
Thanks again for your work,
What you, Wes, have done with the AI on naval and trade is so far fantastic. I feel that you have made great strides in correcting the greatest fault of the SP game. Also your on-going work to improve the quality of the AI's armies has my enthusiastic support Great Work These are the 2 main reasons I have DownLoaded your mod and am playing it right now. There are several other small corrections that I also like but they are not so significant as the "Big Two".
That being said, now that I have had a chance to start to dig into the thing a bit deeper I find that there is just too much really. Too many unit, provence, and building modifications for me. I realize that you have worked on this here and there making improvments as you see them in play and in the forums, so it does not seem drastic or sweeping to you however, I went from the regular MTW to your version 1.5 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif and I qualify the changes as sweeping. Just too much for me. Call me conservative. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Is it possible you could give the details of how you did Trade and naval? As well as some of the specific changes that have made the AI that I am facing now such a step up from the pathetic AI I was getting so used to grinding under my iron booted heel.
After saying that I feel it is important that I also say that I do not think I can go back to old MTW and that I am hooked on your mod. I would just like to "unmod" it a bit. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Hmmm....actually is there a way I can just put all the old units back in and leave all the rest of For God and Country the way it is? I am a pathetic noob when it comes to this modding stuff. The most I have dared to do was make Nov playable and give them Titles for buildings. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
And again Wes THANK YOU If I knew you in Real Life I would give you a big hug. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
ToranagaSama
02-11-2003, 05:58
How To Determine If You've Done The Install Correctly:
I think the best way is to check the "Modified" date of the files.
In the Originals folder:
crusader_build_prod13.txt file is dated 9/26/02; crusaders_unit_prod11.txt dated 12/5/02; and ProjectileStats.txt dated 9/27/02.
In the Medieval Total War folder its as follows:
crusader_build_prod13.txt dated 1/25/03
crusaders_unit_prod11.txt dated 1/27/03
ProjectileStats.txt dated 1/20/03
Well, I hope this helps.
ToranagaSama
02-11-2003, 07:05
Quote[/b] (Tyrac @ Feb. 10 2003,23:24)]That being said, now that I have had a chance to start to dig into the thing a bit deeper I find that there is just too much really. Too many unit, provence, and building modifications for me. I realize that you have worked on this here and there making improvments as you see them in play and in the forums, so it does not seem drastic or sweeping to you however, I went from the regular MTW to your version 1.5 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif and I qualify the changes as sweeping. Just too much for me. Call me conservative. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Just out of curiosity, do you find Med Mod 1.5 to give you a more challenging game than Original MTW (OMTW)?
How long have you been playing Total War?
Do you still find OMTW challenging?
Do you find Med Mod to be overly challenging?
Same questions to Simon.
Very interested in why and/or what it is that makes the mod seem too overwhelming? Remember, OMTW was overwhelming when first encountered.
Just doing a little "product research" guys. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Just another thought, if you all agree, I'm thinking that perhaps we should adopt a rule that everyone try to reserve their comments and questions until they have actually tried the mod. Otherwise WesW might be swamped trying to respond to everyone. Just a thought, that's all.
Say, wait until 1150, before query with questions and thoughts upon the changes. Maybe even til 1200. I think you need to let the mod play out a bit before the benefits of some of the curious changes show themselves.
WesW reduced the build time for castles. My first reaction was like whaaa, but it turns out that this was a great move. I play the early period, and have gotten further along on the tech tree than I ever have. Previously, with OMTW, I managed to build a Citadel only once and doing so wasn't really a factor.
With Med Mod 1.5 (MM1.5) I have 2 Citadels and am certain to build a third and may hopefully reach the Fortress level. I have build a Admiralty and a Chancelory (I believe those are correct) and will soon begin Constanble. Previously, I had never done, and more to the point the benefits of these buildings are a factor within the game. Gosh, can't tell ya how much I needed those 2 stars that come with the Admiralty
Well, just my 2 cents.
----
Old_Templer:
Quote[/b] ]I could take over Sweden right away, no problems ( I HOPE YOU DID NOT MAKE THIS TO DIFFICULT NOW).
BTW, regarding the Danes, somebody correct me, but in 1.5 don't the Danes start with possession of both Sweden and Norway?
Old_Templer are you sure you have the mod installed correctly or are you using a different version; or am I completely off the wall?
Just checked my install of 1.5 and the Danes have Norway and Sweden using an Early start.
Quote[/b] ]Dammit Wes, if you're going to keep coming up with great ideas like this you're going to have to tell us more about HOW you did it
I've been trying to figure out how to balance and improve the AI trade for > 2 months now , without notably great success. Putting a ship in the Marmarra (and Adriatic for the Italians) with ZERO movement is something I never thought of, but it's a great idea Static fleets to obviate the AI trade problem Obviously, you can't just place a regular ship there or reduce the movement factor of any ship in the crusader_unit_prod file to zero, without making ALL ships of that type immovable.
Well, it is no secret as to where the "great ideas" spawn from- my 3+ years of modding these types of games, compared to your 2+ months. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif And the games I worked on before needed far more help, and more involved help, than MTW needs. Much of our efforts in the Ctp games went into finding ways to "force" or "trick" the AI into handling odd circumstances, and zero-movement troops was just one of the solutions we developed.
If you are serious about learning how to mod games, you ought to download the text portions of the Medmods I and II, which contain all the readmes. You can get a good idea of what we did by going over those, and they may spark a few ideas that you will want to incorporate into MTW. You can find links to other great mods like the Cradle of Civ if you visit the mods forum for Ctp II at Apolyton.
Quote[/b] ]Also, if you reduce the land income, will the AI seek more sea trade? I would assume it would just sit there.
Yeah, the AI's priority for trade is independent of land income, I would assume. I made sure that the AIs were making more ships and better trade routes before I reduced the land values.
Quote[/b] ]I've examined your AI build_prod values for shipyard and merchant, which are very similar to ones I had previously adopted, (mine were marginally higher) but I found through playtesting that the AI would still clump it's (now more numerous) ships and ignore trade lanes (thus the value of your idea about static ships). In addition, more ships has meant more AI factions getting into naval wars. Kraellin and DOC modded similar values and found much the same thing.
Yes, I too have noticed the Italians and Byzants clumping their ships around Sicily, and the Byzants form trade routes more by accident than design.
I have just changed the Byzants from Orthodox_Stagnant to Catholic_Trader, and in a short test game they seemed to do a much better job of spreading their fleet out, even moving a ship into the Sea of Marmara and keeping it there.
Quote[/b] ] Just some thoughts. What would happen if the AI joined that ship to a fleet though? Would that fleet be immobilized? (That might not be an entirely bad thing). If that ship were sunk however, the AI would not be likely to replace it so this is not a permanent solution.
How did you plan to do this? I immediately thought of adding a new ship named "Byzship" or something to the unit_prod file, with no AI build probabilities, no buildings to produce it, and zero movement (that would use the galley name identifier from column 2, say) and just insert them into the early.txt make_unit -- put 1 in the Marmara, another (Italian) in the Adriatic (the Italians don't keep a ship there, no matter how many they have, which kills trade income from Venice -- although the Sicilians seem to for some reason), another (Danish) in the Denmark Straits and Baltic. Those seem to be the major problem areas. The Italians seem to spread out all right otherwise, despite their ridiculous tendency to clump their ships in the Straits of Sicily. The Sicilians are highly aggressive and spread out o.k. The English spread out o.k. into the north sea and the Spanish and French coasts in time, just as they should historically. For some reason though, they tend to send a lone ship to Gibraltar (isolated from everything else), don't know what that does for them. The Almohads now build more ships since I gave them a port & shipyard in Morocco and the Egyptians are now a major seapower in every campaign. So it works
The AI seems to move ships independently in and out of fleets, so I don't think an immobile ship would cause any unintended side-effects. I was going to give these ships excellent defence and poor offense to try and assure their survival.
As far as a name, it would be nice if someone knew of a type of small ship used for harbor defence or short trade runs that we could use for a name. I would probably use the Dromon icons, since that ship doesn't have a sail.
Quote[/b] ]Also, you said that you made crusader knights available for building after a successful crusade. I looked at your unit_prod11 file from v.1.5 and I still don't know exactly how you did it. Please enlighten us. I made them all buildable (same build requirements as chivalric knights, plus the chapter_house), because these orders did much more historically than just go on crusades. At least some would have been available to each of the major catholic factions represented here.
I don't believe I said that I had made the crusader knights available as regular units. I made Teutonic Sgts and Chivalric and Gothic Foot Kn. available as regular units.
I have thought about making the crusader knights buildable in Palestine, but this would make them unavailable for crusades started elsewhere, unless the provinces are entered separately in the units text. If we decide to restrict units to provinces as in the proposal made last time, then I would do this for the crusader knights.
Quote[/b] ]I also think making footknights buildable is necessary for similar historical reasons. Not all knights had enough income to be able to afford suitable warhorses, much the most expensive item of their equipment. There were many "poor" knights serving the greater lords/kings and some of them fought on foot. Others were mounted by their "employers" sometimes for a single campaign. War horses were so valuable, that Kings sometimes compensated their retainers for those lost on their campaigns. I could go on, but see Philippe Contamine's War in the Middle Ages for much more detail on the composition and expense of medieval armies. Footknights are useful because of their lower maintenance costs. (One ought, perhaps to consider increasing the size (and corresponding expense) of their units to 60, however to bring them in line with the standard infantry unit).
I have already done this. When you get the spreadsheet viewer you will see it.
Quote[/b] ] If you know how to increase the number of crusader knights appearing in AI crusades (not the probability of a unit appearing, but the # of units appearing), I would welcome that information as well, since I want to strengthen AI crusades from their current wimpy status (as you know, they generally just peter out from attrition before reaching their objective). Having a crusade launched against you should be a fearful experience, not a slight annoyance. They should be fewer, but far more powerful. Is there also any way of increasing the expense of launching them? The AI build probability ought also to be lowered a bit as the AI tends to send crusades only when they get into trouble.
I agree with all that, but I really haven't played around with crusades much, so I don't know if it is possible to increase the number of units that appear in them. Certainly increasing their cost and adjusting their priority can be done, as crusades are simply another unit in the units text (last entries).
I started making this post yesterday afternoon, so I am going to leave off this one since I finished with cugel's post.
Let me see...
I forgot about Simon's questions re: Ctp II. Yes, Simon, some of the guys at Apolyton put together an Apolyton Pack II, which does just what you want out of a mod. Be sure and get it if you are still interested in Ctp II.
Also, one reason you are having trouble installing this mod is because you are still unzipping it into the Medieval - Total War folder. It never did install correctly with when zipped into this folder, so I changed the setup with 1.5. Now you unzip it one level higher, into the Total War folder. See the first post in this thread for details.
As far as restricting units to provinces, I am just trying to see if there is support for this right now. If there is, and the more I dig into things the more I like the idea, then I will start another thread where we can go into detail about which units to restrict and where, and which units not to restrict. I agree with you, for example, that Longbowmen should not be restricted geographically, as they were developed to answer the heavy knights of England's adversaries.
I usually find widespread agreement among the veteran players as far as the specifics of new proposals like this, given that there is support for the concept itself. I usually throw ideas out there, to get the conversation started, and once guys been given the topic, the best approach usually presents itself rather quickly. Once we got the thread going, and I hope we can pull in people like LK who are busy with their own stuff, then I expect we can the whole thing largely settled in a couple of weeks. Then it won't take long for two or three of us to alter parts of the units text and cobble them together into a first edition.
As a unofficial Guide to Playing the Medieval Mod IV, I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with the readme and spreadsheet as much as possible, then pick a faction that you are very or most familiar with to play as.
Go back over the charts and readmes for this one faction to pick up all you can, then just take things as they come. Printing out the units page of the spreadsheet is really essential for this. If you run into something you don't understand, you should almost always be able to find the answer somewhere in those documents- the comments in the spreadsheet can be very informative regarding odd details. Hit either the Windows or Escape keys to minimize the game if you need to look up something without having to stop the game.
Then, you can read up on other factions as you encounter them in battle. There are really only a half dozen or so units who have had their stats altered to the point that their role in the game has changed, and most all of these are non-Catholic units.
Yes, you will be learning the game anew to some extent, but why is that a *bad* thing, especially if most all the new stuff should turn out to be pleasant changes. For me, one of the attractions of games is getting to learn new things and new ways of doing things. I used to play chess a good bit when I was young, but now I have no interest in something so slow, and that relies simply on logic and mathematics and a relatively small number of rules. (And yes, I know chess can be beautiful if you are able to experience it at the highest level, but I would think you are still painting essentially the same portrait each time.)
Well, I got a little off-topic, but I think you get what I am aiming at. Ok, on to other things...
As TS pointed out, some of the changes might not seem needed at first, but once you observe the flow of a game with them, their value becomes apparent. As for the buildings, I decreased their build time for just the reasons that he stated, and also to enable both the human and especially the AI to re-build conquered or liberated provinces faster. I feel that one factor contributing to the weak AI forces you encounter is that the AIs never take the time to build up their provinces, and almost never seem to re-build them after a ransacking.
Therefore I increased their priority for some factions, though not a whole lot, and reduced their build time so that provinces can recover quicker.
This also brings up why I can't really recommend trying to take the mod apart and just use pieces of it. Everything is related, and works together to give you the final results. If I were to list the things I did to increase AI trading income, it would take a couple of long paragraphs, and you would see that some of the individual pieces are fairly complicated, much less the whole list.
The good news for new players is that most of the changes work beneath the surface and subtley, so you don't have to think about them.
I have looked for the file that displays the game's version number in the main menu, but I haven't been able to find it. Does anyone else know?
For the Ctp mods, we had a mod-swapper that displayed the mods' names and versions, and I even disabled the intro movie and replaced it with a short Medpack one, to let you know the mod was running and so that we didn't have to set there and click our way through the damned intro every time.
(I think Blizzard games take you right to the main menu, with an option to view the intro if you choose. I cannot understand why other game companies don't do this. I mean, don't they know those things become a pain after you have seen them a couple of times? Note that I am not talking about the company logo, which I can understand, but the intro movies.)
Ok, I will get off the soapbox now, and let you guys ring in. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Well I took a sick day today to get very "hardcore" into the mod. (Yes my name is Tyrac and I am an MTW aholic)Spanish/early/expert.
Rather then state any pros and cons I have... I would rather give my saved games. I have several that if you look at them might add to your studies. I do not know how to send them, so tell me and they are yours.
Trousermonkey
02-12-2003, 22:54
Excellent mod, I intend on installing it as soon as I finish my current campaign.
While I don't know of any text file that changes the version shown in the game, it should be pretty easy to modify the main menu to indicate that your mod is installed and the version number. Just use RSW's bifreader to modify
Medieval -Total War\frontend_files\Main_Menu\parch322x536.bif or the \parch322x536_no_border.bif.
Then just swap this file out like you do with the other text files.
Also, FYI, you can disable all the intro movies and have the game boot directly to the main menu by putting an empty text file titled 'skipcredits.txt' in your 'Medieval - TotalWar' directory (the same directory where your main executable resides). I think barocca mentioned this in another post -for which I'm eternally grateful.
Tm
WesW
You wrote: "As far as a name, it would be nice if someone knew of a type of small ship used for harbor defence or short trade runs that we could use for a name."
The best name I can come up with so far is tarides which were flat bottomed oared ships used mainly for transporting warhorses. They were capable of carrying 20 to 40 mounts.
Elmo
Thanks for the heads-up on the bif reader, but I guess someone is going to have to email it to me wesw@hiwaay.net . The 3D download site seems totally screwed up. Has anyone been able to get anything off it? I got put in some stupid-ass queue, then re-directed to an ad. After that, I couldn't even put in a queue.
Lord Of Storms
02-14-2003, 02:22
Hi WesW yes the 3d download sight appears screwed up but if you wait you will see your place # in the queue move up until you get to 1 then you will be able to download the wait time sucks but just ignore the ads and watch the queue window and it will tell you when to begin . PS. I am currently playing the Patrician mod but I am looking forward to yours also with great interest it sounds great as with Patrician I think the sweeping changes are what make the mods so good I give you guys alot of credit and hope to learn some modding tips from all of you thanks.
Quote[/b] (The Sword Of Storms @ Feb. 13 2003,18:22)]Hi WesW yes the 3d download sight appears screwed up but if you wait you will see your place # in the queue move up until you get to 1 then you will be able to download the wait time sucks but just ignore the ads and watch the queue window and it will tell you when to begin.
No, when it should begin the download is when I get re-directed. If someone here has the file, please send it to me. As far as I can tell, the only thing you can get from 3D is the download of the day, maybe.
WesW
I downloaded it just now and sent it to you.
Elmo
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.