View Full Version : Creative Assembly The Medieval Mod IV v 1.6
Ok, this is the big one, where it all comes together... I hope. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Get it from my websitehere. (http://wes.apolyton.net/Medmod_IV_1.6.zip)
Let me emphasize that you now unzip the mod into the Total War folder, not the Medieval - Total War folder as you did prior to version 1.5.
I have added a small logo to the Main Menu screen, MM v1.6, so that you can easily know if you have the mod installed correctly and also what version you are currently using.
Below I have posted segments of the readme which pertain to this latest version below, and the full version of the Readme is also available here. (http://wes.apolyton.net/Readme.doc)
Also, if you are new to the mod, or have been hesitant about trying it before, check out the short new Newby's Guide (http://wes.apolyton.net/Newby_Guide.doc) to using the mod. Several people who were formerly hesitant about trying the mod, for various reasons, have recently taken the plunge, and are glad they did.
Before I get to the readme segments, there are several things that are not specifically covered there.
I have made several changes to the region bonuses, and since I also decided to get rid of the yellow background highlights for this section, to "clean up" the spreadsheet some, I will try and cover them, all that I can remember off-hand, here.
Mongols- I have given the three Golden Horde units a special region, since the human may now play as the Horde in the late age. The regions are Khazar, Chernigov and Ryazan.
Byzants- The region for Byzant Cavalry is now Crimea, which the Byzants now own in most eras.
Russians- I took PEREYASLAVL from the Steppe Cavalry, and gave it to the Boyars. Steppe Cav now have Volga-Bulgaria.
Turks- I removed Bulgaria from the Janissary Heavy Inf., and gave it to the Bulgarian Brigands. I also took Antioch from the Sipahi of the Porte and gave it to the Ghulam Cavalry. I gave Tripoli to the Saracen Infantry.
The Heavy Inf and Porte do not now have a special region.
Papists- I took the cost reduction for Urban Militia from the Swiss, and gave it to the Papists. The Papal States now have a bonus for Swiss Pikemen, while Rome gets Swiss Halberdiers.
Swiss- Switzerland now has Swiss Armoured Pikemen, which I thought they had before (sorry).
People have lamented several times that I took the region bonuses away from units that are only available in one province. Let me say that I have usually increased the morale and/or honor value of these units to match what they gained from the valor bonus. Removing the region bonus made it easier to compare the units with all the others when balancing the mod, and the original bonus was only given to add some variety to the map, imo.
Teutonic Sgts now need a Sword Guild instead of a Spear Guild.
Feudal Sgts are now available to the Russians, and both Feudal Sgts and Feudal Militia are now available to the Byzants. This should help address holes in both these factions' unit trees, while keeping their distinctiveness.
I reduced the defense and armour of Sipahi of the Porte and Boyars, which allowed me to reduce their building requirements so that you only need a Castle to produce them.
I went through the units' text, and found that over a dozen units needed adjustments as to their era availability, so now the factions should be more balanced than before.
Btw, I have highlighted units in the spreadsheet that are restricted to the high and/or late eras. This should help all of us, me included, in deciding how to plan the development of our provinces and armies.
I have also changed the name of the Turks in the faction screen from Turkish to Turks. Plus I changed the name of a few of the castles, and the noun form of a couple of units. These changes will not have any effect on gameplay, and I mention them here just to avoid any confusion if you happen to notice them.
I have adjusted provincial ownership some in Asia Minor, and I took Sweden away from the Danes, who were too powerful with it, though in my current game the Danes still took Sweden very early in the era. Some Rebel provinces now have stronger garrisons as well.
I also changed the Byzantines from a stagnant to a trading nation, ala the Italians, so hopefully they will form better trade routes, as trade is especially crucial to Byzantine income from Constantinople.
I tried to add a special immobile ship type that would be placed in protected areas like the Sea of Marmara that the Byzants normally don't garrison, since this has the effect of cutting off Constantinople's trade routes, but I found that you could not create such a unit.
And now for the day's biggest surprise:
The Poles, Hungarians and Sicilians can now launch Crusades Since many players will want to play as one of the smaller factions, I thought we might as well give them some flavor. (The Aragonese could already crusade.) The Poles and Huns use the HRE units, while the Sicilians use the Italian units.
Btw, I did some experiments, and was not able to increase the number of units that appeared in a Crusade. I did not try everything, like increasing their price, but I think that the number of units is hardcoded somewhere in the exe. Perhaps if we can get the attention of CA, they will change this in the expansion pack, or better, maybe they will make the files that have these types of settings available in a text file like they did with the projectile stats. All of this type of stuff was available in the Call-to-Power games, and was a major boon to modmakers.
Ships:
I have increased the priority of ships, in order to get the AI to trade more, as well as reducing their costs by about 25% and reducing the time to build first and second-level ships from 3 to 2 turns.
Well, that's all for today. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Enjoy.
Wes
Thanx wes..... just wanted to say keep up the good work. I have been using your mod for a couple months now and it makes the game a hell of alot better.
Beautiful, and me with a glorious 3 day weekend. Yet now I am torn as too what faction to be.
Got it. Thanks Wes. It's the Turks ( don't call me Turkish) for me.
Harbor Patrol. New Ship. Intentional? Not mentioned in stats or read me although I remember some casual mention on the forums.
"I tried to add a special immobile ship type that would be placed in protected areas like the Sea of Marmara that the Byzants normally don't garrison, since this has the effect of cutting off Constantinople's trade routes, but I found that you could not create such a unit."
Hi Wes I cannot for the life of me figure out why this is impossible. After I read your post, I thought I'd give it a try myself. I added a ship named "Byzship" to the unit_prod11 file, (basically a renamed a galley with defense 4 and speed 0). After I fixed a few errors, it loaded and ran o.k. But when I added MakeUnit:: ID_CONSTANTINOPLE Byzship 1 to early.txt the ship didn't appear in the campaign. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
I can't figure out why either. The campaign still seems to run o.k, but no ship.
Is this what you found? Or, did you get the ship to appear, but it still had a speed of more than zero? If we can add land units as LK and others have done, why can't we add ships to the game? Ships don't even have bif files or animations to screw up, so it should be easy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif
"Btw, I did some experiments, and was not able to increase the number of units that appeared in a Crusade. I did not try everything, like increasing their price, but I think that the number of units is hardcoded somewhere in the exe. Perhaps if we can get the attention of CA, they will change this in the expansion pack, or better, maybe they will make the files that have these types of settings available in a text file like they did with the projectile stats. All of this type of stuff was available in the Call-to-Power games, and was a major boon to modmakers."
I haven't been able to figure this out either, it would be interesting to know what you tried. Of course, there would be no point in raising their price if we couldn't strengthen them at the same time (at least for the AI, they're strong enough for the player).
BTW, you must have noticed that although player generated crusades only appear with 2 or 3 units, when an AI crusade appears it seems to appear with a large number of units. I can't tell whether these are automatically generated when the crusade appears or whether the AI immediately moves other already existing units into the crusade stack (perhaps based on that province's zeal).
You can see the importance of this question. If the crusade creates these units, then, although we can't control how many units appear, we can increase the strength of AI crusades by simply editing the rebelling troop mixes of column 11 to change what units appear in crusades. I did this, but only playtested it as the player faction (since I obviously could not make the AI launch a crusade on demand so that I could see the troop types it had). Adding crusade build prod values to column11 did change the units appearing in the crusade for the player, but I couldn't tell whether 2 or 3 good units and a pile of crap units still appear for AI crusades. What do you think?
If we could fix this it would make a huge impact on the game. After all, crusades should be very tough as they were historically, but they should also be rare, also as they were historically. If a crusade is launched against you, it should be a matter of real fear for the player, not a mere annoyance (ex: "not ANOTHER damn crusade, that'll make 5 I've wiped out in the last 2 years")
Edited Note: Maybe the ship didn't appear because I didn't edit the names.txt in the Loc folder to include the new unit. I'll have to try that and report success or failure.
Edited Note: No luck. Perhaps there's some other text file I need to edit. I get confused when looking at the text files. Some of the text in them obviously was not included in the final game, but CA left it in. It makes it hard to know what's vital and what's completely irrelevant.
In my current game using 1.6 I just got a message saying the French were sending a Crusade to Rum. When they arrive I'll report the size. Not sure how long they will take but we have a nice reception planned for them.
P.S. - The Crusade arrived with 700+ men. They left with a lot less. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
ICantSpellDawg
02-16-2003, 06:35
as the mongols - the game crashes as soon as an emmisary or ;rincess is clicked on - cux there are no icons or descriptions for them
Wes,
Thanks for the update - I confess I'm still having trouble installing it. I check the main menu screen and it is still v1.1 not MM 1.6. I think the problem is that when I installed MTW originally, I put it in a subdirectory of my choice not the Medieval TotalWar one that the mods zip file expects. I've tried just copying the files over and I think it should work but it does not. The units etc are fine, but the map is the old one and no new factions are enabled. Maybe next version, you could somehow avoiding assuming which directory MTW will be in (or allowing the default to be changed)?
By the way, I've been digging into the historical accuracy original MTW unit stats a little more since last week and there are a few things that you have changed that you might want to rethink, notably:
#1 Varangian guard should be available early - in the twelfth century, they were called the English Guard because so many Saxon Huscarles moved there after the Norman invasion.
#2 Longbowmen should have AP weapons - axes and mallets were their weapon of choice in tackling fallen knights at Agincourt and elsewhere. They should also be available in inns; they were popular mercs (as were knights and other high end units).
#3 Gothic knights and lancers etc should not have shields - they were discarded as they added nothing to plate; the shield modifier x0 reflects this.
I wonder if on these points you've assumed CA made errors when in fact they were putting some historical flavour into the game?
A big change you might want to consider on historical grounds is moving crossbows to early and arbalests to late. Crossbows were around a lot in Europe in the twelfth century (King Rufus of England died from one in 1100); I read one comment that mounted crossbows were amongst the most feared troops in that century. Arbalests (heavy metal crossbows) were developed in the late 14th century with the development of steel manufacturing, just in time to puncture plate.
I'd also advocate raising the ammo limit on bows (all types) to 72 (3x24 sheafs). This will get closer to estimates of the quantity fired at Crecy and Agincourt, allowing for the likelihood of some resupply in battle (I also found a reference to the Mongols getting resupplied in battle, one reason they were so effective against slower European armies that could not close with them). I also think it will help raise the effectiveness of missile units, which are arguably a little underpowered in the official game.
A minor point many of us mod for is to give the Templars their lances (Charge bonus goes to 8, cost to 650). These were taken away by CA on artistic, not historical grounds.
I notice that in your readme, you give your objectives as being correcting errors, imbalances and increasing enjoyment rather than enhancing historical accuracy per se, so you can take or leave the above comments. But you have gone a long way towards this unstated objective in your research on the map, so maybe you'd consider them. The big attraction of MTW to me is that the tactical battles are arguably the best medieval wargame around (and here I'd include minature based game - a surprising finding I've made is how much more nuanced MTW is than De Bellus Multidinus, the leading ruleset for medieval minatures).
Thanks for the new version of the mod - I'm going to reinstall MTW to the default directory to try again with the mod installation.
Simon
PS: A radical suggestion: why not change iron into an income generating trade good and do away with metalsmiths? I can rationalise the armories as providing more armour but the sharper weapons upgrade seems daft and probably works against the AI.
The Danes are the most powerful AI faction in my current game. I was confused as too why. The trade has obviously helped them keep going, the changes in giving them Norway, and that they take Sweden fast helped, however, that would still not really account for them taking all of England and most of North Europe.
I am now coming into contact with large Dane army stacks and one thing is clear.
The Danes build almost no Peasants.
Instead they build vast numbers of Vikings as their lowest units. This makes those four stack armies far more effective. Something to think about in terms of making AI more effective perhaps.
Cugel:
The problem with the immobile ship is that the setting for mobility, the first one, is also apparently used to describe what sea types the vessel can move across. When I set this to zero, the campaign would not load, so this rules out that option. (Setting speed to zero doesn't effect mobility- I tried that too.)
Crusades:
Well, you can see which units are eligible for creation in crusades by simply searching for "CRUSADE(" in the file. I added Feudal and Chivalric Foot Knights to the list, to give the possibility of getting superior swordsmen to go with the knights and spearmen (Order Foot).
AFAIK, eligible units from that list only are selected and created. Therefore, it is easy to see which ones were created and which joined in as the Crusade made its way towards its destination.
From my limited experience with my own Crusades, the units in them deteriorate at too fast a rate. Those starting units really need to hang around longer (are you listening CA?). This is one reason Crusades rarely become potent forces- the crusaders dissipate about as fast as they join after a turn or two, including your generals. This brings up another point- at least one of those starting units needs to contain a good general, since general's stars largely determine outcomes of battles regardless of the troops.
This is one area CA really needs to address in the expansion. Crusades should be harder to build, more expensive, but much more powerful in terms of troop creation and leadership, and with far less troop desertion (and possibly lower percent joining the Crusade as well).
If any of the players here has CA's ear, or think you do http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, I hope you pass this along.
Danes/Vikings:
Ok, I checked out the Vikings, and I think I know how the Danes are doing it. Tyrac, you were right about them. I had not paid too much attention to the units in that section of the spreadsheet, and that was a mistake. The Vikings were too cheap given their stats (I don't think I paid attention to their large shield.), and given that you only needed a fort to build them, the Danes are probably just rushing the other factions, especially in the early era.
So, and this might not be popular, I kept the price the same, but lowered their attack from 3 to 1, which is what Woodmen have. I also required them, along with Woodmen, to have a Swordsmith before they can be built. This conforms to the rule regarding axe infantry that I applied to the other units, and should prevent them from being used to rush with.
I also restricted Gallowglasses to the high and late eras. They are about too powerful for the early era, and this will make them more historically accurate, according to a post I read somewhere here a few days ago. You still get Kerns in the early age, so Ireland remains a special region in that regard.
Regarding Simon's points:
Metalsmiths should work about as well for the AIs as for the human. If the AIs aren't making any then let me know and I will raise their priority.
I have already discussed the Varangian Guard at length with Grifman in the 1.5 thread. He pointed out that they were available in the early age historically, but in the game they are too powerful for that age, imo. And a bigger factor for me was that they need to be available in the late age, when the Byzants are at their weakest, when they were not available historically. This is one case where the gameplay benefits clearly outweigh the historical aspects, imo.
Btw, I am surprised Grif hasn't posted yet. Maybe I have nailed down most of the obvious flaws? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
No problem with the Longbowmen. (And you were right about me thinking it was a text error. I thought that maybe they gave them an axe to be safe when they gave them armour-piercing arrows.) I also took the shields away from the Goths and Lancers. I noticed in a test battle that the Goth's shield didn't look too good anyway.
In my games, my missile troops are always among my most effective even with their current supply of missiles, so I don't think they need to be messed with. The current era availability also gives a nice progression in step with the armoured units, so I don't want to mess with it either.
I will try and give the Templars a lance.
Btw, if someone out there has purchased Paint Shop Pro 7.05, the try & buy that comes with new Dell's, and would like to email me their key code, I would really appreciate it. All I use the program for is my modding stuff, and I don't have anything else that can view tgas.
Regarding the MM moniker:
It is located right above the "M" in Medieval. The v 1.1 in the corner is still there- I couldn't find where it comes from; probably the exe.
Now, the mod does not include a new campaign map. What it does is change provincial ownership, which you can tell in the color-coded era and faction selection screen, and of course you can see these changes "on" the campaign map.
I would recommend that you unzip the mod into a temporary folder, and study its layout there compared with your setup in your directory system. At some level the two will match up, and at that point is where you need to paste the contents of the mod's files and folders onto their counterparts in your system.
Mongol agents:
Sorry about the hangups. I just didn't think to test something like that before releasing the mod.
When the game hangs, simply push the Enter key, and the game will continue.
I will include a permanent fix in the next update, though all of the pagan agents and princesses will be "clones". http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I will wait a couple more days for additional postings, to see if more bugs and/or suggestions come up, then I will post a 1.61 update. I will probably announce the update in this thread, rather than start a new one, so put this in your favorites and check in frequently. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
ToranagaSama
02-17-2003, 09:44
Quote[/b] ]And now for the day's biggest surprise:
Not sure I like surprises. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]The Poles, Hungarians and Sicilians can now launch Crusades Since many players will want to play as one of the smaller factions, I thought we might as well give them some flavor. (The Aragonese could already crusade.) The Poles and Huns use the HRE units, while the Sicilians use the Italian units.
This seems to sound good on the surface, but I can't help but think this will lead to ever more Crusades. Won't this mean the frequency and propensity of Crusades will be greatly increased?
Giving addtional factions the capability to crusade seems worthy, yet in terms of "Gameplay" might this turn MTW into MTW: Crusades??
There is enough crusading, imo, within the game. In fact, I wouldn't http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif if this aspect of the game were removed.
Re Crusades I don't, yet, know how things will work out with this new Med Mod version, but this is how things work out for me in both OMTW and Med Mod 1.5:
First, I DO NOT LIKE Crusades, at all. I do not believe that they add anything other than "historical" perspective to Gameplay.
Other than my first Campaign or two (quite some time ago), I NEVER launch Crusades. Crusades are NEVER launched against me. It is rare that I am ex-communicated, and in situations where I am, my Influence is so great, that no faction ever launches a Crusade against me.
I've never found a "strategic/tactical" situation that REQUIRED me to resist a Crusades passing. Consequently, I simply let them pass, there's little to be gained by resisting. [note: my zeal level is usually low to moderate. I don't believe I've ever had zeal greater than 62%, which is, for me, ridiculously high. 20 or 30% is more my norm.]
In my beginning experiences with MTW, I engaged in the somewhat Chessy Tactic of "Dodge The Crusade". That is, simply, I would move my troops just before The Crusade entered a particular province, and then move it back once the Crusade moved on. [Just a matter of "timing".]
In an attempt to increase the challenge, I no longer engage in the "Dodge The Crusade" tactic.
Also, tt is my view that the Launching of Crusades by the human player is a Cheesy Tactic. The reason is that the AI does not have the "Strategic" planning capability to utilize Crusades against the human player effectively.
Summing up the above, frankly, an advanced player simply has no fear, nor need have caution with regard to Crusades. IMO, an advanced player and/or a player seeking the greatest Gameplay challenge should not Launch Crusades.
Crusades are simply a TOTAL annoyance; and imo s/b removed, though this is not what I'm advocating in this thread. Just that I find it extremely questionable, increasing the AI's capability to Crusade. The more factions that have this capability, the more Crusades that "may" be launched. As the AI's trade/economic abilities increase so "might" its propensity for launching Crusades.
NOTE: my comments have nothing to do with the "quality" of the crusading troops.
OH I think I forgot to mention, Crusades are annoying because AI factions have a propensity to launch them against Muslim factions; even when its not wise economically.
Example, in my present campaign the French have been reduced to a fractured powerless faction, with just 3 or 4 separated and isolated provinces. Pomerania is their only significant province, and I keep the French around simply because, at the moment, I am in need of the trade income from Pomerania.
So, what do the French do with their meager funds? You guessed it, they launch a Crusade against the Egytians holding Constantinople. Stupid
In addition, the English also launch a Crusade, I forget at whom, though the English Crusade is a bit more useful to the English. The French weren't at war with the Egytians, but the English are at war with their target.
The point is that "me", the human player, has to suffer through the pointless French Crusade, and the better conceived English Crusade, allowing them to "pass" through my provinces. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
This is a waste and has Zero "fun" factor. Additionally, Crusades have negative Gameplay. Again, using the example above, the French Crusades has no hope, and will only serve to weaken the Egytians position in Constantinople and in general their Campaign. Ultimately, making things easier for the human player, in contrast to the goal of increasing the challenge for the human player.
On second thought, thinking the above scenario through a bit more. It would seem that, perhaps, the French Campaign is not so pointless. It could be looked at as last ditch effort by the French to take a province with the potential to provide some MUCH needed income. Hmmmm...yet, there is a lucrative coastal province with tradeable goods just to the north of Lithuania (name?) that's rebel held.
(I think this scenario is worthy of greater thought as to how the AI functions. The rebel province has about 3 stacks of relatively weak troops and is un-developed; while the Constantinople is heavily garrisoned with good Egytian troops, but is WELL developed. I wonder if the AI is making the correct choice choosing Const. as its target since it has few funds available for province development? Perhaps another situation where the AI is much better than it appears, but may be "hampered" by other (unintended negatively effecting) factors in the coding.)
Crugel quote:
Quote[/b] ]If we could fix this it would make a huge impact on the game. After all, crusades should be very tough as they were historically, but they should also be rare, also as they were historically. If a crusade is launched against you, it should be a matter of real fear for the player, not a mere annoyance (ex: "not ANOTHER damn crusade, that'll make 5 I've wiped out in the last 2 years")
I agree wholeheartedly, with the "rare" comment above. As the game is Crusades are hardly "rare" events. In contrast, they are quite common and are, indeed, an annoyance. Won't additional crusading factions simply make matters worse.
A possible balance might be, to in "some way" (priority?)make them truly rare events and MUCH more COSTLY as a balance.
Anyway, that's my tyrade against more Crusading and Crusades in general.
---------
Quote[/b] ]Ships:
I have increased the priority of ships, in order to get the AI to trade more, as well as reducing their costs by about 25% and reducing the time to build first and second-level ships from 3 to 2 turns.
Looking forward to the "priority" change, not so sure about the cost and time reduction. Will wait and see, ahhhh, still have to finish my 1.5 campaign.
I think all the other changes will be quite enjoyable.
Thanks, again, WesW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
ToranagaSama
02-17-2003, 10:07
Quote[/b] ]I'd also advocate raising the ammo limit on bows (all types) to 72 (3x24 sheafs). This will get closer to estimates of the quantity fired at Crecy and Agincourt, allowing for the likelihood of some resupply in battle (I also found a reference to the Mongols getting resupplied in battle, one reason they were so effective against slower European armies that could not close with them). I also think it will help raise the effectiveness of missile units, which are arguably a little underpowered in the official game.
While this might be historical, it is NOT a good idea for Gameplay.
A higher ammo limit for archers will lead to an imbalance with these units; and turn them very close to super units in the hands of a good player vs. the AI.
If this is in anyway a possible change, then let it be put to discussion.
In any possibility, a "counter-balance" to raising the ammo limit would need to be conceived in order to maintain game balance.
Simon, I understand that you are very much into the historical, but please don't forget MTW is a "game". A competitive game requires "balance".
Archers are not underpowered, but must be used "tactically" proper for them to be effective; and this is QUITE historical.
--------
Quote[/b] ]Thanks for the update - I confess I'm still having trouble installing it. I check the main menu screen and it is still v1.1 not MM 1.6. I think the problem is that when I installed MTW originally, I put it in a subdirectory of my choice not the Medieval TotalWar one that the mods zip file expects.
BTW, just wondering how much experience you have with WinZip? The reason I ask is that WinZip allows you to unzip/extract the files to any directory, so the fact that you put the files in a subdirectory of your choice is of no consequence.
If you "point" winzip to the proper directory containing your MTW files, it should unzip/extract the mod's stat files into the main MTW folder, but first it will create a new directory in the main MTW folder entitled "originals" and move the original MTW stat files int the originals folder. You just need to point winzip to your subdirectory and check the box "Extract into "this" directory"; or something similar it will say.
I'd give you a step by step, but I changed from using winzip to winace, and my memory isn't exact enough.
In the alternative, you may find this simpler:
Try re-naming the "subdirectory" to the name the zip file expects; install; then re-name the "subdirectory" back to the name you choose.
If all this fails, email me outlining your directory tree containing MTW and I'll give you a point by point howto manually copy the files once extracted.
ToranagaSama - thank you so much Renaming my subdirectory did the trick and the mod is up and running. Just looking at the early, high and late maps, I am really impressed. Yes, I really like the "history" aspect and appreciate the effort that has gone into it. I'll be interested to see how giving factions more advanced buildings changes the gameplay.
On the arrows - ok, leave it as it is. It is very easy for the player to adjust to match their preferences.
On the crusades - as a counter-point I love crusades in the original game, I guess because I tend to play Catholic factions on GA and crusades are the most fun thing an early English player can do. Handling the Pope and crusades is also one of the few diplomatic aspects to the game. But I agree if they could be less frequent but more powerful, it would be good. As it stands, the game has no way to recreate the First Crusade, which was pretty effective and happened very early in the game. I don't know how crusades turn out in this mod, but will keep an eye on it.
"Cugel: The problem with the immobile ship is that the setting for mobility, the first one, is also apparently used to describe what sea types the vessel can move across. When I set this to zero, the campaign would not load, so this rules out that option. (Setting speed to zero doesn't effect mobility- I tried that too.)
"
Well, at least you got the ship to appear http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif How in the hell can a ship move if it has speed zero, I wonder? I guess that factor is only used to guage whether the ship can elude or catch up with another vessel?
I tried to reduce the speed to zero rather than adjusting the range, because I assumed that the mobility setting "Range" only coded for whether the ship could enter the deep water zones, like the central mediterranean. BTW, just as an item of curiosity, which text files do you have to edit to get the ship to appear (aside from unit11.txt)? I couldn't imagine, since there are no bif files or animations for ships that it would be too difficult. I wonder if fractional speed or range settings would work (say .5) or if the program requires whole integers?
A short game and a merry one. Just got my Sultan (Turk) killed in a fight with the rebels in Georgia and had no heirs yet. Time to start over. Thanks Wes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
"Crusades:
Well, you can see which units are eligible for creation in crusades by simply searching for "CRUSADE(" in the file. I added Feudal and Chivalric Foot Knights to the list, to give the possibility of getting superior swordsmen to go with the knights and spearmen (Order Foot).
AFAIK, eligible units from that list only are selected and created. Therefore, it is easy to see which ones were created and which joined in as the Crusade made its way towards its destination.
From my limited experience with my own Crusades, the units in them deteriorate at too fast a rate. Those starting units really need to hang around longer (are you listening CA?). This is one reason Crusades rarely become potent forces- the crusaders dissipate about as fast as they join after a turn or two, including your generals. "
Thanks for the response, Wes, I appreciate it. But it doesn't directly answer my concerns.
I added a number of units provided by LK to the crusade by adding "crusade(x)" to column 11. The highest rated units appeared in player generated crusades. Obviously, they will appear in AI crusades as well. However, only 2 or 3 units appear in the player-generated crusade. AI crusades seem to be generated with many more units, but I could never tell whether they were created by the crusade or joined it. Obviously, if a unit doesn't have a column 11 build probability it won't appear in crusades. But, most AI crusades I've seen have a few crusader units (3 or so) plus some royal knights, and the rest is trash like spearmen, fanatics (presumably generated by the crusade), peasants and the like, which I presumed JOINED the crusade in its initial province rather than having been generated WITH it.(I'm looking at it with .matteosartori. on, but unless I have an agent in that province when it appears I can't tell exactly what appears in the crusade).
If many units are generated with AI crusades, then modifying column11 to include ONLY good units will make the crusade AI properly strong, without giving the player any unnecessary advantage. If we can only generate 2 or 3 units, we're screwed trying to fix this problem, no matter which 3 we select.
Yes, the crusade will still degenerate quickly, but if it starts out with 1000 chivalric knights, crusader knights and foot knights, lancers, teutonic knights, order foot, chiv. sergeants, halbrediers, pavise arbelesters and longbowmen, then even at half strength it will still be strong. (I added all those units to crusades and some of the others provided by LK's modpack). You should at least give maximum values to the crusade AI build probabilities of the ones I've listed here and eliminate (or at least substantially reduce) spearmen, peasants and militia sergeants (since the AI will pick up these semi-useless types along the way it doesn't need to generate them). (you'll notice that the Pope respawns in Rome with large numbers of all these unit types - if he gets them why shouldn't the AI crusades)?
Is there no way to affect the AI general generated with the crusade by giving him more stars? I can't think of a way to do this at the moment.
If one can't solve the crusade problem, then the other posssible solution is simply to eliminate crusades (at least for the AI) and make the crusader knights buildable for the catholic factions. Yes, the player will build them, but the AI can be given high build probabilities as well. (Admitedly, I haven't seen the AI build any but order foot, after I modded the game, but perhaps I gave the AI too low a build probability for them), or perhaps it didn't build them from $ shortages or the lack of proper buildings).
One other point: Because lack of high end buildings hurts the AI's performance, Turbo's suggestion that the AI be encouraged to build high end units via the build_prod file's column11 AI build combos, has great utility. I think that this is an avenue that could really improve the AI's performance if implemented properly. By simply linking all the required buildings to make crusader knights, for example, and giving the AI a +500 probability to build them, the AI would likely build them. The same thing would work with other units, if the AI had more income. One could then see a lot more high tech units, if the AI had the proper buildings, and if it re-built them when destroyed. This would go a long way toward restoring play balance against the human and making the game as challenging and fun as it promises to be at first glance.
eat cold steel
02-18-2003, 19:10
For a freshy created crusade, the game picks a number of troops from the crusade troop mix depending on the piety of your king, and pick a number of units from the CATHOLIC_PEASANTS troop mix depending on the faith and zeal of the region. The number after each troop mix is how likely a unit will be selected for a "short list", a -ve number mean it will always appear in the short list. The game will then select units from this short list until a require number is met. If you want more starting troop to appear, lower the cost of the units - the game will pick more units in order to meet the requirment. If you don't want to affect the rest of the game then you can make relabelled copies of a troop type, and make one avaliable for training, and the other just for crusades.
Old Templar
02-18-2003, 19:17
WesW - I am enjoying your mode and the changes which you made to the game. I installed the mode because you stated that these changes will not alter the game to much; just improve where CA fell short. I like that Now, I am reading here comments, such as "eliminate the Crusades" etc. I hope, you stick with your first inclination and resist such major changes. Other modes on this forum eliminate Spies, assassins or created complete new units - theses are mods made for that one individual and should not even be offered here without a explicit "Readme" outlining the alteration.
Now to Mod IV v 1.6:
I played probably 8 campaigns with this Mod. The game is dramatically improved (more active, more flexible than the origional), primarily through your changes to the shipping/income part - the AI and the player of smaller faction, like the Danes, profit the most. Russia gained, although it has only early units, it is expanding into a major faction in the east in all my games. Building Boyars in early (historically correct) improves gameplay as well. In the later period they should be able to generate more sophisticated units (and I think they do). The Danes were in my games o.K. now - I hope by reducing the power of the Vikings (which is historically incorrect) the faction will not become to weak. Vikings, so are Gots and other tribes from todays Scandinavia, were extremely powerfull and expanded down to the Eastern Roman Empire before AD1000. Actually, the Varangian guards were mostly recruited form Vikings. They are comparable to other sword units of the time but should be stronger than suggested here.
Crusades - they are to weak; most can not get through and sit in the boarder provinces and die a slow death. No general (I agree with the comments here). I noticed that the crusade is not taking troops from all the stacks in a province that the crusade is going through; it's selective (why?). I like it but it's odd.
That's it for today - keep up the good work.
Wes
Sounds like eat cold steel has given you the means to put some teeth into Crusades. So rather than eliminating them, which I would hate to see, I hope you'll make them even stronger
Elmo
Wes. I do not feel that the Vikings should be reduced. They are supposed to be a very strong unit. The fact that the Danes build too many Vikings is not the problem at all. Rather it is the fact that the AI builds and uses too many of its first build units. The units that are lowest on its tech tree.
The reasons the Danes do so well is easy to see when you look at the following example.
Take 2 AI armies of the same size and same exact units. Now replace all the peasants in one army with Vikings and who is going to win? That is all that the Dane AI is doing.
The answer is not to make the Danes weaker but rather to take their example and use that knowledge of how the AI builds its lowest tech units to make all the other AI stronger.
In the save I am looking at now when I look at full stacks of different AI they are basically the same mix of troops. Where most AI armies are about 5-10% peasants the Danes have 5-10% Vikings. This is true for all factions.
In the campaign I just completed only the Dane armies made some what nervous. The AI just is not building enough high tech units.
Is there a way to get the AI to use peasants and urban militia only as garrisons? Well this is not one of those turn off peasants posts...although is it possible to make them priority 0 or something? I use them as bulk garrison so I do not want them eliminated. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif But I get off topic. Sorry.
If you must change Vikings then I suggest just the addition of a sword building. This keeps very much in line with your pattern of the Armor Piercing style so far. Also this moves the Viking up the tech ladder, which if your theory of the Danes "rushing" the nearest other factions is correct, solves this. If that is still not enough then just make them cost more. The Vikings are the Danes. It ruins the Danes as a faction to play to make them obsolete as the changes essentially do.
Replace peasants with a good unit in all AI armies and the Danes will not do so well vs. them. Don't just make Vikings more like a peasant unit.
Old Templar
02-19-2003, 07:06
WesW - I just finished a game playing as the Kiev/Early. The game starts extremely slowly because of the lack of funding. Only early troops and the Vikings are available at the beginning and they remain the only decent units for this faction for a long time. If you weaken the Vikings you will definetely impact strongly on this faction. Only when one has the advanced castles other units can be added, such as Halberdiers, Feudal Spermen, and Boyars . I was mistaken in my previous note here; it takes very long before one can build Boyars. There is no decent cavalry ( one Light Steppe Cavalry and Horse Archer) before 1200. So in short, reducing the strenght of the Viking (from the viewpoint of the Kiev faction)is in my opinion a mistake.
The faction in Normal is more difficult to play than most of the European factions. There is a time period at the beginning when nothing can be done (just clicking "Next Year") because of the lack of funds. Although there was very little mining in early Russia or Nowgorod - I wish the developer had given the Russians some mining and increased the income somewhat.
I am trying to find what troops they used at this early time - remember, Alexander Nevsky defeated the Teutonic Knights at the Neva river. He could not have done this with only Boyars and peasants.
It is beyond my understanding how the AI is playing that faction; they are always very strong. Perhaps I am to conservativ
I thought, I let you know my observations.
Is this turning into a great thread, or what? This is what it was like in the heyday of the Call-to-Power mod-making threads. You had experienced players and programmers all chiming in with suggestions and comments, and often debating points right in the middle of everything else. This stuff is what fires me up about making the mods about as much as the actual game benefits. Now if some of the other veteran posters would chime in occasionally we would have the whole package going.
And I am glad to see some of you starting to use terms like "our" and "we" when describing the mod, rather than "your", as in this is mine alone. To me, mods are fine to make and use alone, but they are much better when you can share them, and are really great when the whole board starts to come together to help improve the process and kinda form a community, with this as the standard mod that most other efforts will be built around.
Now, I have found out the hard way that a "mod by committee" doesn't work as far as final decisions go, but I have also found that when everyone knows that their opinions will be listened to and taken seriously, even if they are fairly new to the game, that most everyone will leave happy at the end of the day, and that is why we all spent our time here, right?
Ok, now that everyone is feeling all warm and fuzzy, on to the game...
Cugel, a good way to see what files are necessary to add a unit is to run a Search for a similar existing unit, and write down all the files that come up. I think I used the Dromon, since I was going to use its pics and stuff.
As far as the building priority links, I don't think this would work very well. I considered this when I was first tackling the AI quality problem, and it didn't seem possible to make links that would always be beneficial to "every" faction. And, if you just decided to raise the values for all of them, that just puts you back at square one, since the basic priorities for buildings increase as you go higher up the tech chart anyway.
I won't say for certain that you can't find a way with enough study, but
1) This is a tricky way to solve the problem, and in the "little advice from a veteran" category, the over-riding theme for fixes to a program needs to be what Industrial Engineers call KISS- keep it short and simple. I developed this attitude before I ran across the term in my studies, but it confirms the basic principle.
2) It doesn't address the basic problem, which is AI poverty, and
3) The effect of the changes would be very hard to quantify, since we are unable to see the AI build queue and financial situation. Combine this with point one, and you have a high risk of becoming a victim of the Law of Un-intended Consequences, which here would be the AIs spending too much on buildings, and not enough on troops.
One of the things which told me to go ahead and increase building priorities to match those of the highest faction was that priorities for troops were usually higher than that of buildings, for the same era. For example, trader types, who should have the most income, had the lowest troop and building priorities, which didn't make sense.
Note: Also, and this should be of interest to everyone, I originally found that the messages I received in reply to requests for alliances were almost always those of a poverty-stricken faction. For 1.6, I changed those messages to make it pretty obvious that the faction was short on cash, and now they should be a good way of telling how factions are doing financially. No faction starts out poverty-stricken, and each behavioral type has its own reply list, so if you predominantly receive the ones which belong to the poverty type, then you need to report it so I will know to key on that faction.
I am happy to say that I seem to get far less of those replies with the last few versions than I did with the original game, though I am having trouble developing long games because I like to start new ones with each significant mod.
TS, I looked in the units text, and confirmed your report about Crusades and poor factions. The priority for Crusades was several times higher for poverty-stricken factions than for "healthy" ones. This can't be coincidence on the part of the designers, and was probably done for just the reasons you surmised, but I think we can all agree that it hasn't worked out like they intended. Therefore, I have lowered it to about half that for healthy factions.
Note: Btw, I have decided to release a 1.7 version of the mod, rather than a small update, which will include all the small changes covered here, plus a total revamping of Crusades, based upon the info Cold Steel supplied. And thank you, ECS.
Btw, did he post because he keeps up with the thread, or because someone wrote him and requested it? I was wondering, since this topic isn't in the thread title or anything. If I knew he was an active reader, it could make a big difference in what I post about here.
Back on topic, I think I have come up with a really good fix to the Crusade problem, but it is going to take a day or two to get everything put together.
Old Templar, I want to thank you for posting that you don't think Crusades need to be eliminated. Not so much for the topic, but that posts against changes are needed just as much as posts for them. The cliche about the squeaky wheel is indeed true, so it's always good to hear from the contented voices as well. And I am glad to have TS post against changing the arrow supply, even though I had already chimed in against it. What this does is reassure me, and it also helps the proposer see that he is in the minority, rather than feeling maybe I just want my way with everything. I am not suggesting that is the case here, but I think we can all see where irritations can develop if you make a point that seems very reasonable, and the "man" just dismisses it due to personal opinion.
I guess the point of all this is to say that the more input we get here, the better it is for everyone. The best suggestions get affirmed and probably included in the mod, and for the others the reasons against can also be affirmed. I don't think any of us mind if our suggestions are not implemented, as long as good arguments are given as to why not, and the more people who chime in, the better we feel about it being rejected. (And there have been plenty of suggestions by me for my own mods that have proven to be unpopular, and I am always glad I didn't implement them or leave them in, because the majority of players most always know the right call to make.)
Ok, after considering Tyrac's and OT's points, I have decided not to weaken the Vikings, but rather to increase their price and add the Swordsmith requirement. As is, they are better offensively but worse defensively compared to Feudal MAA, for the same price, so I think they are now a good special unit.
I thought about going the other way, and lowering the building requirements for other units so that they are built by the AIs instead of peasants, but this is just "dumbing down" the requirements as it were. I usually start in the high era for my games, and I am just not seeing many peasants, so I think the problem is the state of the provinces in the early era, and the settings that tell the AI the level of defense it needs. I can't do much about the latter, but I think I will add even more buildings to the startpos files so that the AIs have more choices that way.
Ok, see you in 1.7
Jacque Schtrapp
02-19-2003, 19:21
Quote[/b] (WesW @ Feb. 17 2003,01:42)]Btw, if someone out there has purchased Paint Shop Pro 7.05, the try & buy that comes with new Dell's, and would like to email me their key code, I would really appreciate it. All I use the program for is my modding stuff, and I don't have anything else that can view tgas.
Wes: Here is a link to a free TGA viewer provided on one of CA's webpages.
http://download.activision.com/activis....iew.zip (http://download.activision.com/activision/totalwar/downloads/TGAview.zip)
I definately agree with adding more buildings in the start pos to high and late era's. After all when I start a Campaign in high or late era it is because I want to get to the higher end style of units quickly.
On a side note to Old Templar. When I play the Novs/Kiev faction the way I TRY to get past the early fund problem is to attack the nearby rebels constantly but not try to hold the territory. The money I get from the raiding and captured rebels allows me to speed up things somewhat...and keeps from being to boring just clicking. I use the Leader/King/Prince Boyar unit to take the brunt of the casualties because it regenerates men for free at 5 per turn. Also it gives the royal line a nice start on stars and good combat virtues to pass on to the heirs.
After all, constant raids and such are keeping very much in the "role" of the Kievian Viking/steppe Raider heritage.
Vikings remained my mainstay non-spear infantry all the way through the game really. With a steady stream from norway getting upgraded in Sweden they are able to keep up with other types. and now in this mod they should be able to be retrained with a Master swordsmith for the Valor bonus they were unable to get before.
Quote[/b] (Tyrac @ Feb. 16 2003,18:22)]The Danes are the most powerful AI faction in my current game. I was confused as too why. The trade has obviously helped them keep going, the changes in giving them Norway, and that they take Sweden fast helped, however, that would still not really account for them taking all of England and most of North Europe.
I am now coming into contact with large Dane army stacks and one thing is clear.
The Danes build almost no Peasants.
Instead they build vast numbers of Vikings as their lowest units. This makes those four stack armies far more effective. Something to think about in terms of making AI more effective perhaps.
Aye I was in for a surprise when my English were attacked by huge Dane armies full of vikings. By 1220 the Danes had wiped out the HRE. I've been hard pressed to keep them out of Flanders. If it weren't for my many Hobliars, I'd be doomed.
Meanwhile the French navy has controlled the English Channel up through 1135. I've had to request ceasefires twice, even though I was killing them on land, because their navy is choking off my finances. I had to take the ship-building provs to make them stop.
I enjoy this immensely. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I just started an English campaign. On that note I was looking at kerns vs regular spearmen with the new Kern stats. There is no reason to ever build a Kern instead of a normal spear. Spears have same support, same buildings and are better or the same in almost every stat. Not too mentions sheilds, a Cav def bonus, and the ability to attack from 2 ranks deep. They only cost 25 more to buy. Support cost is usually the bigger factor in SP games anyway. All the Kerns have vs. spearmen is javelins which I think the ammo is only 4 shots?
When you made Kerns more in the line of the "peasant" style of unit you did not really give them a more peasant style support cost for the stats they now have. They cost 5 times as much as peasant to buy and twice as much to support yet they are only a bit stronger then a peasant now.
The Kerns are just one example of some changes to single province units that are probably too severe.
Region specific units need to be better then the normal unit in terms of cost effectivness. The disadvantage of units like Kerns or Gallowglasses is that they can only be built in one place and therefore they are very limited in numbers as they can only have one being built at a time. For these units to be over strength is the way they were made. The "balancing" factor for them is the single region penalty they have.
The bottom line is that if you have a single region troop type that you can build, it should be good enough that you make it your number one priority when you have limited funds to build units with. (Depending on era of course)
ToranagaSama
02-20-2003, 10:23
Quote[/b] (Tyrac @ Feb. 19 2003,13:23)]
Quote[/b] ]On a side note to Old Templar. When I play the Novs/Kiev faction the way I TRY to get past the early fund problem is to attack the nearby rebels constantly but not try to hold the territory. The money I get from the raiding and captured rebels allows me to speed up things somewhat...and keeps from being to boring just clicking. I use the Leader/King/Prince Boyar unit to take the brunt of the casualties because it regenerates men for free at 5 per turn. Also it gives the royal line a nice start on stars and good combat virtues to pass on to the heirs.
Sorry, Dude, just gotta say it, CHEESE, total CHEESE, Limburger and it smells http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]After all, constant raids and such are keeping very much in the "role" of the Kievian Viking/steppe Raider heritage.
Maybe...maybe, nice rationalization, what is it they say? One man's rationalization is another man's.....(anyone remember the rest of this quote?).
Thanks guys, I was wondering what faction I'd try next with the Med Mod, now I know. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Kiev is on the Black Sea, correct? I would think getting a Merchant, a Port and Ships in the water to be the key.
A question for Wes and a question for Wes and everyone else:
Wes - Can the effect of General's stars be modded?
Everyone - If yes, should the effect be lowered a bit?
Background - Playing as the Turks last night with 1.6. I had an Army of ~300 spearmen and peasants along with ~80 horse archers and a 0 star General. The Byzants had ~120 Byzant Infantry and a 4 star General. Even though I hit them from the front, sides, and rear they cleaned my clock I have to assume the main difference was the 4 stars. I realize one battle does not a problem make but I have seen similar results in other battles, so does anyone think stars are a bit overrated? Thanks.
P.S. - I did a search on this in the forums but came up empty. If this has been discussed already I'd apprecitate a link to the relevant thread.
TS. Bro it is not cheese if you play with the trade limitations I set for my self. Well I guess it is still cheese (chuckle) but it is elminating one cheese and replacing it with lesser one? Also the Rebel forces around the Novs at the start are pretty stong and there is not too much plunder to be had compared to a similar use of tactics in say west europe. (More rationalzation I guess.)
While the AI in this mod is stronger because they build hordes of ships it is still not difficult to clear the seas and dominate the game that way. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Remember some of the changes for ships made it far easier for the Player to pump out a navy also. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Have fun playing the Novs man. The Boyars are FUN. Heavy Cavs with bows. Just a good time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif If you want to get really crazy pretend that you do not know the horde is coming when you get near that time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif I think i will play them again after I finish the "experiment" I am doing as the English.
I have only the English island and Ireland and am doing massive trade with no land expansion until late era. (started game in early) I turned on the matteosartori thingy and am just watching the AI factions duke it out. Man the Pope is mean to those AI Catholics when they get big. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
ToranagaSama
02-20-2003, 16:47
Warning: READ AT YOUR OWN RISK (its a bit of a jumble).
Quote[/b] ]Ok, after considering Tyrac's and OT's points, I have decided not to weaken the Vikings, but rather to increase their price and add the Swordsmith requirement. As is, they are better offensively but worse defensively compared to Feudal MAA, for the same price, so I think they are now a good special unit.
Before you get going on, I think this is worthy of further discussion (yes, I wish more experienced players would become involved with the Med Mod too, its still new.).
First, the Danes are my favorite faction to date, and the faction I'm playing in my Med Mod 1.5 campaign.
Let's look things over,
Observations: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that those who view the Vikings as being too strong or rather the Danes too easily becoming a "power" in the campaign, are NOT playing the Danes as their faction. Correct?
Well, I agree, to a certain extent, that giving Norway and Sweden to the Danes, along with strenthening the Vikings (you did mod them didn't you, Wes?) has CERTAINALY made things easier. So should the Vikings be made weaker?
I think WesW is on the right track in comparing them directly to MAA rather than Peasants, though all three unit types must be considered.
Now, in this light, I'll tell you what rubs me funny re the Vikings. First, I never use Peasants, except when money is tight and I need to check Loyalty in a particular province(s). If I see Loyalty dropping below 150 approaching 135, and my "regular" troops are busy at the moment, I'll pop out a unit or two just to get Loyalty at or near 150. As soon as my "regular" troops are available and/or income is restored, I'll disband the peasants. I go into all this just to backdrop my perspective, Offensively Peasants minimally effective and Defensively aren't worth a d*man as they won't "Stand" unlike Vikings. JMO.
So, I immediately go for Spears and determinedly move up to MAA (hurray for the Patch!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. Once done, Spears are regulated to Archer protectors (anti-cav) and MAA are the force of my army with Vikings as occaisonal "ground" flankers, and Knights as flankers and chasers.
Halfway throught my OMTW experience I began to notice (I'm a trial and error player not a Statitician http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )that Vikings will "Stand" against just about any type of troops and began to utilize them more as I've outlined above.
With the Med Mod, I've really noted that Vikings are a serious unit and this leads to what rubs me funny. In reviewing my battles, I've begun to consistently note my Vikings to outperfom my MAA again and again.
Roughly speaking, my Viking kill ratio is usually quite high, 1 to 1.5 while my MAA ratio is usually disappointingly near 1 to 1. Consequently, my victories are mostly due to the performance of my Vikings.
So, as you may see, I'm rather ambivalent about weakening the Vikings, but I don't believe they s/b outperforming MAA so readily. Comments?
Also, Sargents, with OMTW, along with peasants I disdained sargents as well. Though, with Med Mod, I'm slowly discovering some usefulness with them. Now, I replace Spears with Feudal Sargents (the ones with spears) asap; and them with Chivalric Sargents, again, asap (this is new for me).
I guess, what I'm getting at in a roundabout way, is that there's needs to be a proper fit considering, Sargents, Vikings, MAA and those d*mn peasants.
I think the relationship between Vikings and MAA needs to be tweaked. Also, probably, Sargents need to be taken into consideration. I can't see definitively regarding Sargents as I don't have enough experience with their use.
I think WesW is on the right track that Vikings s/b more costly, though I'm less sure that a Swordsmith s/b a requirement.
With a nod to Simon, The Historical, http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif , Vikings were about profit, pay, booty, lands, whatever you want to name it, so it would be fitting that their "Support Cost" s/b rather HIGH. It w/b a costly affair for any Monarch to employ them, so should it be in MTW. So, that s/b the first start, perhaps their Support Cost s/b equal to Knights. This would preclude Armies composed of primarily Vikings. No?
Additionlly, raising the Build Cost, as Wes suggested, might be employed. Possibly, the equal to MAA, these two "cost" changes may do the trick, while maintaining the stat differencials, AND without delaying "access" to them (by adding the Swordsmith to their Build Requirement).
At a time when Peasants (Spears and Sargents) should comprise the bulk of an army, didn't Vikings reign supreme? Checked mostly by the superior numbers of their foes?
Now, back to that feeling that rubs me funny? Should Vikings be outperforming MAA on the battlefield? Is some stat tweaking in order?
--
Took a look at the unit stats and came away with these thoughts:
Most prominently, at this point, I am against add a Swordsmith to the Build Requirements. Doing so would negate the MAIN positive factor with the Vikings. That is EARLY access to a “relatively” useful (or powerful) unit to compensate for the Danes’ weak starting position.
So, with Med Mod 1.5, the Dane’s starting position (adding Norway and Sweden) has been improved while the Vikings “stats remained the same (?) (or did you improve upon them WesW?) (I’m still absorbing all your changes) or possibly got better. Obviously, the Danes would have greater success in the Campaign. So, the question is how to mitigate this situation?
In 1.6 (or will it be 1.7) the Danes’ starting position will revert back to the original sans Norway and Sweden (correct?); AND the proposal is to weaken the Vikings as well (does this mean they’ll be back to their original strength?). Sounds like these changes may just well have the reverse effect from the above. I don’t think this is what anyone wants.
QUESTION: with OMTW, the HRE are quite reluctant to attack the Danes; and will VERY easily accept an alliance. I’ve posted about this a couple time recently in the Main Hall. I don’t believe this is realistic Gameplay wise. At the Start, the Danes are a walkover for the HRE (aren’t they?). The HRE should walk right in and take over potentially prosperous Denmark, and then swim right over to potentially Lucrative Sweden. Wouldn’t a human player make this a priority, rather than at the outset agreeing to an alliance and NEVER attacking such valuable provinces?
This is one of maybe 2 unnatural gameplay situations within OMTW (I forget the other).
So, with Med Mod, has anyone notice the same sort of behaviour regarding the HRE and the Danes? If the Med Mod hasn't corrected this, then perhaps this is an avenue to look upon. Without the HRE applying pressure, the Danes are left to develop without interference, until they decide to become aggressive and attack someone.
If this situation hasn’t been mitigated it should be. The HRE s/b a bit more hostile toward Danes.
Lastly re tweaking the Vikings in light of my comments way above, consider the collective effect of:
1) Raising Build Cost: by 25 or even 50 equaling the cost of FMAA might serve to balance the Vikings with regard to their capabilities in the Early Period.
2) Support Cost: Raising Support Cost considerably might be the MAJOR balancing factor. To a level much above FMAA. Possibly doubling from 38 to 72. (see comments way above)
3) Charge Bonus: Possibly reduce to 2. This is 1 less than FMAA and CHMAA.
4) Att. Melee Bonus: Leave same at 3.
5) Leave Defense Bonus at 0.
6) Armour Level: Possibly reduce to 1. Equal to Feudal Sergeants, which is probably more real? Giving FMAA 2 point edge, which better reflects their "real" amour advantage. No?
7) Shield Modifier : Possibly reduce one "notch" (if possible).
8) Omit
9) Unit Strength: What is this Stat?
Possibly reduce? It is equal to FMAA, CHMAA and Feudal Sarg. at 80. Militia Sarg. And Peasants is 60.
10) Support Cost: What is this Column?
Similar column at the beginning of sheet, Support Costs
Anyway, probably thinking about this too much. The above are relatively slight changes, that may mitigate the Vikings in relation to the FMAA, as well as to the Dane’s starting position in 1.5, which includes Norway and Sweden.
Thoughts??
Hope all that wasn't too hard to comprehend, I sorta slapped it together without proofing, hoping to beat Wes' "Rape of the Vikings"
Wes
Just noticed in your med mod stats file that the Turks have an extra column that no other faction has. It's called Honour Step Value, column E on their page. All other factions use column E for the Charge bonus. Also noticed that the main Unit Data page has no column E.
Elmo.
Old Templar
02-20-2003, 19:18
After now playing several times as the Kiev faction, I observed that this faction while expanding early in the game will become extremely difficult to play at the later time period(after 1250).
WesW - the availability of early troops, which I previously thought may be to weak for the Kiev faction, seems o.k. Vikings, Archer, Feudal Sargents and Halberdiers are comparable to the western factions and can be build relatively soon. Only Boyars should be made available earlier - historically they go back to the late AD900 (Ivan I) and there is no equivalent to the western Knights until relatively late.
The major problem with the Kiev faction is the lack of income in the late phase:
With most of the income from trade/shipping this orthodox faction has difficulties expanding beyond it's territories. Catholic factions break alliances with Russia when one of them is attacked; even start attacking ships without reason (no pope penalty). Hence, disrupting the cash flow and making building versatile troops almost impossible. I fought and won against 20000 Mongols with only 3000 Archers and Halberdiers at the bridges of Kiev but was unable to deal with the cash-loaded Egyptians. Disrupted cash flow from the Middle East shipping and at the same time ship attacks in Europe generated virtually no income. I had to end this game because of lack of funding (minus F50,000).
Is there any way or is it even desirable to increase farm or mining income for the Russian region? There is enough evidence about a thriving trade at that time in the literatur.
Perhaps someone else has a similar experience - or is it just me?
By the way - What is the purpose of the Harbor Patrol? They cost the same as larger ships and yet they are weaker. Why build them?
ToranagaSama - I would see considerable difficulties with the dramatic changes you suggest for the Vikings (increasing costs and/or lowering power) It may work for the catholic faction but may have further negative implication for the Russian Vikings.
How about making the Vikings region specific to scandinavia (as well as faction specific)? That should limit their numbers considerably.
Old Templar
02-21-2003, 18:40
WesW - I just saw posted thread by MikeB from CA on the update of the Russian units (heavy steppe cavalry and all sorts of sperman units) in "MTW Viking". Perhaps it is advisable to wait for that extention before doing anything to the Russians - what do you think?
Someone told me not to post before I had played the mod a fair way through, but I'm going to chance it.
I'm playing England in early on hard with large units (Saturnus recommended it to minimise reinforcements in battle and so far I like it). I just want to say "Wow". The mod really seems to up the challenge. I am having a pre-WW1 style naval arms race with the French - they have 12 ships in the Channel and I keep trying to exceed them AND extend a trade route. Strangely, the Germans and Danes are less concerned with pumping out ships, although the Spanish have started doing likewise. So far, it seems promising in terms of removing the game-breaking "winning through trade" strategy in the original game. It might still be a winning strategy, but it is very costly and at least the AI is competing.
The other observation is that France is so far the richest faction. I never saw this before in the official game. Maybe it is because they have Anjou? Not only does this give them Anjou's nice agricultural income but it also means they can connect with their provinces in Brittainy and Toulouse, and so maybe able to benefit more from specialised production. I suspect this change switches early France from being "hard" to being "easy" but am relaxed about it. France can be made easy in the official campaign by an early rush and it seems England is the most popular faction for players, so giving them a worthy opponent is a good thing.
BTW the Danes are not yet taking over the world - they still have not taken Sweden, despite it currently having only one Spearman as a garrison. I'm going to try and bribe the garrison tonight. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I'll post more impressions later, but so far I like this mod a lot and can't see myself switching back to the official game.
Simon
Simon wrote:
"BTW the Danes are not yet taking over the world - they still have not taken Sweden, despite it currently having only one Spearman as a garrison."
One lousy Spearman in Sweden? I'm playing as the Turks and the two neutral provinces near me (Georgia and the other I can't remember right now at work) have ~500 men in their armies. No fair http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Also OT brought up a good point about Vikings. Wes, can you tell us your plans, if any, for Vikings? I won't buy it for reasons I have expressed several times on these forums. Are you going to continue to mod original MTW or move to Vikings once it's out?
Thanks for the tga link, Jacque. Between this and the bif reader maybe I can make it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I have not been able to read the thread here since signing off Tuesday, so it was fun to read Tyrac's post about the Kerns. I came to the same conclusion myself, not just about the Kerns but about the other javeline units, too.
As far as the other stuff, I think we need to play with the 1.7 version and see what you experience.
I am going to let this thread drop now that 1.7 is up, since I am sure there will be huge amounts of discussion regarding it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.