View Full Version : Any suggested house rules to make the game more challenging? (VI expansion)
So I have been playing MTW off and on since its release in 2001 and have recently picked it up again for the first time in 5 or 6 years. I tried the English on Hard at first this time around and rushed through the entire map. Next was the Danes, who were even easier to win with due to Longboats (trading is broken for the player), Vikings and especially the easily obtained yet insanely OP Viking Huscarls. Next came the Hungarians on Expert, I decided to pick them and go for a style I wasn't used to - the Szeleky and other cavalry to make a 'mongol-style' army, this time I didn't even bother reaching the 60% point as it was already an obvious win before most enemy provinces were able to produce even half-decent units.
So I thought it couldn't get much harder than Expert Russia in the High period (all previous had been Early starts), especially with there being only 26 years before the horde arrives. But both Muscovoy and Novograd have fortresses and can already produce Halberdiers, only 6 years away from Arbalesters, whilst conquering Livonia and Lithuania nets you a province that can train Halberdiers and Arbalesters straight off the bat respectively, so building elite armies quickly is an easy task (especially with the already in place 80% farming in your rich provinces and easily conquerable steppes). It wasn't long before the horde was wiped out (and half the battles weren't even river crossings - forests will do just as well), I'd conquered Poland for attacking me, broken Germany in half, humiliated the Hungarians and started to push into Turkish territories. Now to be honest this is the most fun game so far and I'm taking it more slowly than usual, but it's still too easy, especially now I've realised that Arbalesters are so insanely good with 2 valour or more.
After each campaign I put in a new house rule;
After England - No mercenaries
After Denmark - No mercenaries, No Trade
After Hungary - No mercenaries, No Trade, No awful units like Peasants, Urban Militia etc for garrison duty
After High Russia - what do you suggest?
I was thinking of going into the script and preventing Peasants and Urban Militia from being able to be built by anyone as I've seen an easy to understand guide online on how to do this, and this will prevent the opponent bankrupting themselves with crap units. Another Idea I had was to stop myself from picking a faction which has very good fort units from the get go, eg: Almohad Urban Militia, Szeleky, Vikings, Highlanders, Gallowglasses, Byzantine Infantry (yes - a keep for the last one I know, but you get the idea), etc. But not using Urban Militia/Slavs/Javelinmen/Peasants etc. But what faction could that be?
So what other house rules to people use, without using an entirely different mod, to try and give the AI a decent chance?
dimitrios the samian
12-13-2018, 10:21
Hi mate ,
I sugest you get Axalons Redux mod or perhaps Macsens Game of Thrones Mod
cheers
You should definitely mod out peasants and ballista units so no one can build them, this will improve the AI rosters, especially in Early. Urban militia actually have some uses on the battlefield, I would leave them in. Modify your game shortcut to add the -loyalty:120 (or 130) switch, and also the -green_generals switch. The loyalty switch will tell the AI what province level happiness to target, they will garrison appropriately and they will get fewer rebellions in their provinces (and also be harder to conquer). The green_generals switch will replace unit commanders with newbies on death, so you don't end up with a glut of high command leaders over the course of the game.
Other house rules:
Only give titles to nobles. No more high-acumen spearmen commanders for governor!
Don't retrain or disband units (the AI cannot do this)
If you want a faction challenge, try Swiss/Late, it's a race against the clock! You will need to mod it in, but it's not difficult to do.
Thank you for the replies.
Dimitrios, I do intend to eventually download a Mod and Redux is mentioned in a very favourable light online, however, before I do, I would like to get as much mileage out of the original (+VI) as I can. Thank you for your suggestion.
Drone, thank you for the detailed advice, I already don't retrain units as when I have in the past, the moving multiple units back to other provinces then back to the front always seemed like a chore, I do like the idea of refraining from disbanding units and only giving titles to nobles... especially since nobles usually have awful acumen. I suppose I will have to make sure I have enough emissaries to strip titles for when the rare decently educated noble comes through.
I am not sure where you are talking about when you mention the green generals or AI province loyalty, I assume in the script and not in game, but I will have to research how to do this before I accidentally corrupt the game. They do seem like excellent ideas though.
From your own experience, without Peasants, do you find the AI will not just overload on Urban Militia instead?
I have been researching into how to make Novrogod (Early) and Switzerland (Late) playable so I may just do that to have a good challenge.
I am not sure where you are talking about when you mention the green generals or AI province loyalty, I assume in the script and not in game, but I will have to research how to do this before I accidentally corrupt the game. They do seem like excellent ideas though.You don't need to worry about corrupting the game with these, they need to be set when the executable is called. Right-click the desktop shortcut for MTW:VI, and select Properties. In the "Target:" line, add the switches you want to use at the end, space delimited. Should say something like:
"d:/games/Medieval_TW.exe" -loyalty:120 -green_generals.
If you are running the Steam version you need to alter the startup in Steam itself.
From your own experience, without Peasants, do you find the AI will not just overload on Urban Militia instead?It may be that you get more UMs when peasants are removed, but that is a significant improvement regardless. Peasants are worse than useless, if they just died it wouldn't be so bad but they tend to trigger full-scale routs.
Gilrandir
12-14-2018, 14:52
Clifton, you may try French in High. At the outset you will have the two-piece empire (Europe and Outremer) and the King with the good runner vice.
If you want to "level the field" there are a few more things you can do (in addition to the good advice above), but it's probably wise to familiarise yourself with what the AI controlled factions can't do. For example:
The AI cannot manage agents well, it tends to direct agents against its own general/agents - even the good ones.
It also tends to use some agent functions very rarely (orchestrate treason plot) and others with violent abandon (assassinate, try heretic).
The AI is also a poor deployer of agents. Often just leaving them in a certain province or moving them around seemingly randomly.
It has no ability to keep it's spies/assassins out of border fort provinces. However if you don't allow the AI to build border forts, it will be largely defenseless.
My solution to this was to make the inquisitors and grand inquisitors a papacy only agent type. For the assassins and spies I tried a few different approaches, such as removing the brothel and tavern upgrades and also the opposite in making the upgrades more easily available to assist the AI in producing the higher valour agents sooner. In hindsight the former approach was better, plus the rule of the player not building border forts.
Then you get to the AI usage of shipping. While a player can construct and maintain solid trade routes quite easily once established and gain a large income, the AI struggles and while the player can "micromanage" split and group fleets to be effective and pick select targets, the AI most certainly does not manage this well. It tends to pick bad fights, in that it breaks truces, or even alliances, by attacking lone vessels when there is no sound tactical reason for doing so. It tends to move fleets around a lot, lets gaps open up and not allow them to sit and create trade routes.
The AI will also launch reckless seaborn invasions, i.e. invading a province such as ireland or one of Mediterranean islands, often with it's king, and in cases where the province is won, the port is usually destroyed and the king cut off (resulting in the usual drastic loyalty drop in all other provinces). This is because two provinces linked by ships are logically just two adjacent provinces for the AI and it does not have "concept" of that link breaking.
There is no real solution to this, short of modding out all shipping (and creating land bridges), except for the player not to take advantage of the situation. You could also decrease trade incomes and increase the imports tax, to allow the AI factions to profit more from your trade. Regardless of what you do with shipping, creating landbridges to ensure that islands are not cut off, is a sound strategy.
Crusades are often another massive own goal for the AI. In most cases an AI lead crusade will be a failure if directed against a competent human player. If it collapses, the faction launching the crusade could end up facing a civil war. The player can easily exploit and "game" rival crusades, use them for valouring up troops, etc. And as a result you will often watch them waste away on your borders through attrition. The fellow catholic player can also move their quality units out, to prevent them being vacuumed up and move some low calibre units in (to get shut of them and to help ensure that your rival has a low quality army).
Conversely, Jihads are a big exploit for the player. You only need to have held a province at some point to have a claim and can then launch multiple jihads and when they succeed, get a massive influence bonus and probably large numbers of some specialist units (such as Nizari, etc).
The human player (especially with established maritime trade fleets) can also more easily target and take out a chapter house or ribat - through a direct invasion, or perhaps by stirring up an insurrection with spy activity.
In terms of titles and taxes, you can set these to auto-managed, which will put that on a level with the AI factions. While it's undesirable for most, the "tidy up" units option could also be left checked - as that's how the AI units are merged.
Finally, if you observe the AI's building construction queues, you will note that they will attempt to tech up to the provincial bonus unit right from the start - even in cases where that unit isn't available until the high/late era and even in cases where that faction will never be able to train that unit anyway (due to opposing religion/culture, faction specific designation,etc). There is no known solution to this, except to remove the provincial bonuses or change them to something more generic to the religion or region, or one which all factions can build (as it was with STW).
Actually in battle there is little you can do. I would refrain from the "kill prisoners" button as AI has no access to that and also turn the timer off. Edge/corner camping is another cheesy exploit, the AI simply can't handle it.
You could also give some of the "compound" bow units of the Turks, Mamluks, Russians/Novgorod and of course the Mongols, the longbow instead of the shortbow (or "mounted longbow" - less accurate shortbow as I recall). This will provide more challenge when facing those. As it stands, in "vanilla" MTW most archery units are very underpowered.
Also refer to page 1 of this old thread, which has some very good info in the first post: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/110893-MTW-DEADLY-SINS
(page 2, 3 and 4 are rather unfortunate and don't really add anything of value).
Most of page two is fine. It just depends on your individual point of view. Just because it disagrees with your personal views doesn't make it any less valid.
DEB8, Merry Christmas to you. The thread was certainly about personal views on so called "iron man rules" and while I accept that some players don't like playing by such self imposed rules, posting in and resurrecting a 10 year old thread just to pooh - pooh them, may not make that much sense either.
[ Page one included some "off topic" comments that you personally "commented" on ( as moderator ), so that's not all purient reading either... ]
That would make sense, but I wasn't moderator back then. I was an "assistant moderator", which is a defunct role. I have no idea what went on, as I wasn't involved any more than in requesting some members get back on topic..
I linked to the thread only as I believed it was pertinent to this one.
:bow:
Hello Caravel, hello folks - merry Xmas to all
:bow:
ps its been (quite) a while, yet certain things dont change at all.. amazing, and its almost 2019..!
ps its been (quite) a while, yet certain things dont change at all.. amazing, and its almost 2019..!
Welcome back! ~:wave:
If you want access to your old account, send email to admins@totalwar.org and therother will sort you out. :bow:
Cyprian2
12-30-2018, 03:06
Nice to see some familiar faces: Caravel and "gollem" ("golden age" members and talented modders both). Great to read from you guys!
For some reason, around this time of year, I always get a hankering to return to this place of wonder and good cheer. I also get to playing a bit of MTW... I'm planning to start a campaign as the Byzantines with some house-rules of my own:
1) My armies will *only* be comprised of mercenaries hired from taverns that I build on turn 1.
2) Starting units will be disbanded.
3) No alliances allowed.
4) I will marry my princesses only to family members -- getting those marvelous "chinless wonder" traits for all my generals, and parking them in castles for the
duration of the campaign.
This may all sound a bit loopy, but it's something I've been wanting to try for a while. I call it the "Evil Empire" playthrough.
Would such a campaign be win-able? Let's find out!
PS. I'm still deciding which mod to use. It's between Caravel, Tyb's XL 2.3, and Axalon's Redux. Suggestions are welcome!
.
Welcome back!
Thank you drone - nice to be here again, and happy new year to all :bow:
If you want access to your old account, send email to and therother will sort you out.
i'm (as you can see) actually having trouble accessing my new account too.. :laugh4:
which will probably send caravel on a stroll down suspicious lane "is it really him? etc" (if it hasn't already hence why he hasn't talked back)..~;)
However, it is me who started that thread 10[! - god how time flies..] years ago.. at the time - besides playing a very interesting crusading campaign as the french on the - then - newer edition of the pocket mod, i was reading quite a lot of christian theology - snt thomas aquinas, origen, meister eckhart and other saints, mystics and scholars of both the orthodox and the catholic churches.. most of them lived in the medieval period,so i thought the concept of the 'deadly sins' quite appropriate as well as a bit funnily self-parodying for a MTW thread on iron man rules..
seeing now how things developed [in pages 2, 3 and 4] in that thread is a bit sad - apparently some people detest iron man rules and the gameplay facets that they try to bring out - hence they agressively deconstructed them - some times more rationally and others more straight out emotionally..
While it may not be a bad thing to get both sides of the argument in one thread - however it seems that certain people had very specific reasons for doing so - it all comes down to certain patrons and their political agenda in the forums etc etc and this conflict has been played to death in the MTW forum since those days, again i have to say that it surprises me that it still lingers on..
While divergent styles and being zealously supportive of the one you prefer is part and parcel of the forums debate, past a certain point things get a little too dogmatically dismissive, too aggressively deconstructive, too personal..
which leaves me with very little else to do ,since a 10 years lapse has not been enough to cure the animosities and hatreds, than having to take all said animosity and hatred as a compliment..~:)
Again, a happy new year to you all
:bow:
ReluctantSamurai
01-02-2019, 00:32
ps its been (quite) a while
Aye, it has:medievalcheers: Some nice discussions on the RTW forum...
Welcome home:lost:
ps. It always amazes me how folks can get into such heated debates over a game...you know...entertainment/fun. If you have fun playing a game a certain way, then who's to criticize??
which will probably send caravel on a stroll down suspicious lane "is it really him? etc" (if it hasn't already hence why he hasn't talked back)..~;)
I tend not to worry too much about the "who's who" of the WWW.
Truth be told I haven't had the time to reply and this thread is in danger of evolving into something else entirely... so certainly, welcome back - but I am not here much myself these days.
apparently some people detest iron man rules and the gameplay facets that they try to bring out - hence they agressively deconstructed them - some times more rationally and others more straight out emotionally..
It's what some would perhaps refer to as pissing on someone's bonfire.
however it seems that certain people had very specific reasons for doing so - it all comes down to certain patrons and their political agenda in the forums etc etc and this conflict has been played to death in the MTW forum since those days, again i have to say that it surprises me that it still lingers on..
Why I used the phrase "unfortunate"... it was not my intention to reopen that "debate", but just to direct the OP to the (still) relevant first page.
which leaves me with very little else to do ,since a 10 years lapse has not been enough to cure the animosities and hatreds, than having to take all said animosity and hatred as a compliment..~:)
[t-10y Org Mod]
Trolling and alt-accounts. :no: Time for teh ban! :smash:
[/t-10y Org Mod]
I had a search for the STW and MTW historical "iron man rules", which players came up with shortly after the first game was released. Unfortunately I couldn't find much, just references, vagaries, etc. Perhaps someone else will have better luck?
I did find this "archived" content (very thoughtfully salvaged by Maeda Toshiie):
https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/124/the-medieval-total-war-and-viking-invasion-faq
A post by Obake in that thread details some rather complex, strict but well thought out self imposed rules for the GA campaigns (sadly nothing has come up for regular campaigns).
Unfortunately, much of what was posted at the .commie is just gone for good - unlike the .org which has, so far as I know, a complete posting history since day one.
The archived numerology thread is also still worth a look:
https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/116/medieval-totalwar-numerology
[t-10y Org Mod]
Trolling and alt-accounts. :no: Time for teh ban! :smash:
[/t-10y Org Mod]
the rules are the rules..
:laugh4:
I tend not to worry too much about the "who's who" of the web
This doesn't sound like caravel at all, consider seriously banning him too drone :laugh4:
...and this thread is in danger of evolving into something else entirely...
it won't be your fault or mine for one more time, so let it "evolve" if it must..
Since 2006 that i've been in these boards [with a different username before 2008, from 2008 on as gollum] you and i as well as many other patrons before and after us have promoted a fair, open-for-all, friendly, helpful atmosphere and climate and made these boards the place to be for MTW discussion, information, fan fiction etc.
We have nothing to apologise for..
I don't know who originally wrote/posted these but here are a set of iron man rules.
I pasted them into a Word document a long time ago.
GENERAL RULES THAT APPLY THROUGHOUT THE GAME:
A) You must accept all offers to ceasefire.
B) You must accept all alliances unless it will violate an existing one. However, see C.
C) You must show deference to your religion in all matters regarding alliance. Ex: You are Byz. Novgorod goes to war with Poland. You are allied to both. You must stay allied with fellow Orthys, rejecting catholic fool Poles. Ex: You are Spain allied to Eggy. Crusading French are at war with Eggy and ask to ally with you. You must do so and cancel your alliance with Eggy.
D) You may not voluntarily break alliances unless it has to do with acheiving a GA goal.
E) If you are Catholic you must be a good one. You must under all circumstances not get excommunicated. If you do, GAME OVER.
F) You must try to acheive all GA goals even if it will possibly be detrimental or leave you weak somewhere else. Have some integrity about this.
G) You may not inbreed (Strangely, I've found this is a rather painless solution to the fact that factions refuse to marry you in mid to late game....the inbred vices are random).
H) You must build up provinces equally, meaning militarily. IOW, no specializing provinces. You cannot build a certain level troop building until ALL (other than gun stuff not available at first) lower levels are built. Ex: No Bowyer's workshop until Spearmaker, Swordsmith, Horse Farmer, 1st level militia (I forget what it's called), and Siege engineer are built in that particular province. Armorers and Metalsmiths are different and do not apply.
I) You may not employ scorched earth against the AI, nor raid, slash, and burn.
J) Crusades may only be employed against GA goal provinces or against any faction the Pope calls for one against. You may only keep the target province and of course may not slash and burn a passed through one, nor stop to besiege the fortification. EXCEPTION: When crusading against an excommunicated leader, the idea is to kill or remove him. The target must be the one he is in. If not there when you take it, you must then pursue him with the "Crusaders" (now a regular army) until he is killed, captured or dies. You keep the LAST province, not the necessarily the target province. If you kill or remove him before you capture the target, you may still continue to and keep only the target province. Oh yeah, almost forgot....if catholic, you must always allow a crusade to pass, even an enemy's.
EARLY ERA RULES:
K) You may only attack provinces that are in your GA goals to own or take (Crusades). Period. If you lose one you had at first and it is not in your GA goals after you've lost it. You may NOT retake it...though you can try to relieve a seige still underway.
HIGH ERA RULES:
L) You may now attack rebels if they are adjacent with your empire...by water does NOT count. Ex: Egypt cannot take Norway unless they already own Sweden.
M) You may now "retaliate" against aggressors, capturing provinces he invades you from if you repell an attack. However, you cannot practice defensive aggression. If you take their province, you do not have the right to counterattack when he attempts to liberate his lost province until either (a) you hold it 50 years, (b) it's one of you GA goals to own either province, or (c) you return to a state of peace with that factions. If any of these apply, then you can now "counterattack" if that province is attacked.
N) You may still attempt to fulfill any GA without regard to these limitations.
O) You may no longer crusade UNLESS it is one called for by the Pope.
LATE ERA RULES:
P) Gloves are off. None apply accept the ones listed as applying throughout the game.
I think that's it. If I find I've left out something, I'll edit it. It's really interesting, but almost impossible for landlocked factions or factions with no trade goods in starting provinces. Try playing Poland, Turkey, or Aragon like this and your hair will turn gray.
Interesting, those are "fairly recent" only being around 13 years old or so...
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/58205-Promised-Iron-Man-Rules
I remember always having a hard time with the Turks starting in the High period.
There may be a trick to it, but I don't think the Turks have the provinces/infrastructure to deal with the Mongols.
And the Mongols have a tendency to make a beeline for the Turks.
Perhaps it's best to get this thread back on track for the OP and other who are so inclined? Also to perhaps promote healthy discussion of "sins"/iron man rules, so that some of the members who may have misunderstood or entirely missed the point of said rules in that old thread, perhaps due to it being derailed, or just because of how certain statements were versed, may come to a better understanding of said rules - while not necessarily changing their opinion as to wanting to employ them.
As I've said before, iron man rules were used since the early days of STW. A few important points:
1) It's not about dictating to or telling someone how to play the game or how the game should be played. By the same logic, one could say that any mod for MTW or any TW is an attempt by the author to force the prospective end user to play the game according the author's whims/tastes. This is of course a ludicrous idea and the same goes for any self imposed rules to make the game more difficult.
2) It's not and never was about sneering at other players because they choose to play the game without said rules.
3) It is not about those observing such rules, claiming to be better players than anyone else, or putting anyone down.
Without further ado, I will briefly cover the main set of rules from the old thread and one or two more and endeavour to explain why they would be regarded as "exploits" / an unfair advantage / diminishing the challenge within the sphere of iron man rules. I will try to steer away from rhetoric, "historical" precedence or any kind of moral or ideological basis. But as they are "rules", they will be presented as "do nots" and "should nots". Just as if you installed a mod, you would have the restrictions of the mod's creator imposed upon you. If that is not desirable, the solution is to not install the mod of course - and in the case of iron man rules, similar applies - except there is nothing to download nor install.
1. Manual Pillaging:
a) It would be a legitimate tactic if the AI could use it against the player - it cannot, so if you want to level the field with the AI, you must not do it a campaign. For both player controlled and AI controlled factions, "auto razing" will still occur regardless. The player can also build the castle upgrades, instead of just advancing to the next main castle level. This means that auto razing just knocks off the upgrade rather then, e.g. busting down our keep to a fort.
b) As a secondary factor, it obviously decreases the challenge by destroying the AI's income and training resources.
2. Systematic Prisoner Execution:
a) This one was broken by design from day one. The AI cannot use it, but in some cases for the player it could be argued that it can act as a "disbanding" tool for use by the player against the AI stacks in question.
b) In short you can use it to get rid of one of the AI's utterly hopeless armies, not to mention a hopeless general or faction leader. But in equal measure you could also practically wipe out a faction, by executing them on the field (especially the stack comprised of the faction leader and heirs), etc.
c) In every case, you will get the option - to take back your captured men or refuse the ransom. In STW this option wasn't present, so the issue never arose. This was because there was no "capturing" to start with.
d) It's a difficult one, but the only way to keep it "level" is to not use it. There is nothing wrong with it's use per se, the whole problem is that the AI can't use it. This way you're doing the AI no favours, nor gaining use of a function which it does not have access to - and thus an unfair advantage.
3. Mercenaries:
a) AI has no access to this, so this feature should not be used. It's an easy one and achievable without modding - as an exception during the first year, raze any inns and build no more.
b) The modding approach is to disable the inn in the build prod file and remove from era start positions.
4. Disbanding:
a) Another one which the AI cannot access, so the player should also abstain. As with pillaging/razing this was introduced as a novelty feature in STW/MI.
b) As it stands it is simply a feature to make units vanish, wiping out the support costs - and freeing up florins to allow the player to train better, more modern units, get out of financial difficulty or build infrastructure.
5. Dismounts:
a) Another nice novelty feature introduced in MTW, which sadly the AI cannot use, so the player should not dismount their units.
b) Modding dismounts out of the game altogether is possible via changes to the unit prod file.
c) If more explanation is needed - the player can see the initial composition of the AI army and then choose to dismount or not based on this. The AI can't dismount it's units at all, let alone make this kind of tactical decision. It give a big advantage to the player as they can match their army to the AI's or to the terrain and in the specific case of Chivalric Knights, to give one example, gain some very potent (anti cav) polearms units.
6. Jihad spamming:
a) Easily exploitable for producing big armies very quickly, to the point where the created army is the main goal and not the target province.
b) Massive influence bonuses for the ruler, as a result of the multiple successful jihads.
c) Despite the limitations on only being allowed to retake your own former provinces, far more exploitable and rewarding than crusades, due to the player being allowed to create any number of markers, launch them all simultaneously and have them all succeed.
7. The Inquisition:
a) The AI will not tend to produce large numbers of the Inquisitors and Grand Inquisitors and use them in a coordinated fashion selecting prime targets such as the best generals, heirs and even faction leaders, as would the player.
b) The AI will in fact rarely target any wothwhile or sensible targets - in fact it will often start inquisitions on it's own (decent) generals for no obvious reason. Any player can independently verify this with some time spent in ian mode, switching factions and observing AI agent movements/missions.
c) Without modding the game and keeping them in, as with the Geisha in STW, they should be limited to a single GI and two Inquisitors at a time.
d) Through modding they can be removed altogether or at the least the GI removed and the Inquisitor assigned to the papacy only and set as a "stealth" unit (functioning as with assassins/spies). This allows border forts / counterspies to control them quite effectively but keeps them in the game as a more random and largely unseen force.
8. The PAUSE button:
a) This one is not a simple do or a don't. If you pause the game to actually get up and take a break, then that is of course a legitimate use of the pause button. That should surely need no explanation, but was brought up in the other thread. But under iron man rules, the pause button should not be used to stop the game, direct/reform/adjust/deploy lots of units and then resume again, in a very stop-start fashion, throughout the course of the battle. While the AI may seem like it can make instant decisions vs the player, it is still weaker at putting together solid formations and deploying units sensibly, so this type of constant pausing should be avoided.
b) For new players it is more permissible and understandable - but iron man rules are generally targeted at more experienced players - should they wish to experiment with them.
9. Unrestricted camera:
a) This is a "cheat" and as such I feel that it doesn't need any further explanation.
10. Pre battle reinforcements shuffling screen.
a) Should not be used, as the AI cannot use. This was a feature added in the VI expansion and as with many features added by the CA since the release of STW/MI, they are "player only" features and not accessible to the AI opponents and as such leave those opponents at a disadvantage.
11. Auto-Saving between battles and pre-battle save.
a) Both of these should be turned off for obvious reasons. Part of iron man rules play is in accepting the outcome, whatever outcome and moving on from that point. Turning around bad situations, rather than being able to wind them back and retry, adds to the challenge significantly.
Comments/additions/corrections welcome.
I remember always having a hard time with the Turks starting in the High period.
There may be a trick to it, but I don't think the Turks have the provinces/infrastructure to deal with the Mongols.
And the Mongols have a tendency to make a beeline for the Turks.
This was mainly because the start of the high era is much closer to the Golden Horde arrival event, giving less time to prepare. As I recall, you're also in not quite as strong a position with regards to the Byzantines and Egyptians. In early it was possible to blitz either one from very early on and seize the advantage and strengthen your position. Going south quite relentlessly against the Egyptians was a favoured tactic for many.
Also in early the Byzantine would often leave you alone, if you left them alone - the Egyptians however would usually invade Syria once they were strong enough. It was a little predictable and gave the player the opportunity to build up, get trade routes going, etc.
In the high era, the only sound strategy I found was to leave the Byzantine until well after the Mongols arrive and use them as a buffer to soak up the initial invasion. Wiping out the Egyptians and Almohads and heading into Maghreb is the safer route to start with. Once the Horde super stacks start breaking up and heading out into Russian and Byzantine lands and rebel held provinces such as Khazar, they can be more easily isolated and the threat reduced. It beats trying to hold onto the Turkic "heartlands" such as Armenia or Edessa against impossible odds anyway...
Brandy Blue
01-04-2019, 04:14
I haven't played in ages but wasn't there a way to turn over to the AI control over which buildings your faction builds and which units it trains? I never tried it, but I imagine that would raise the difficulty level a notch.
Perhaps it's best to get this thread back on track for the OP and other who are so inclined? Also to perhaps promote healthy discussion of "sins"/iron man rules, so that some of the members who may have misunderstood or entirely missed the point of said rules in that old thread, perhaps due to it being derailed, or just because of how certain statements were versed, may come to a better understanding of said rules - while not necessarily changing their opinion as to wanting to employ them.
As I've said before, iron man rules were used since the early days of STW. A few important points:
<snip>
Comments/additions/corrections welcome.
Nice list.
I would add something about using/abusing uber-assassins from Syria (I think that's the right region).
They are so much fun, though. So many popes were tragically assassinated when I played.
This thread brings back fun memories of MTW.
Gilrandir
01-04-2019, 05:28
11. Auto-Saving between battles and pre-battle save.
a) Both of these should be turned off for obvious reasons. Part of iron man rules play is in accepting the outcome, whatever outcome and moving on from that point. Turning around bad situations, rather than being able to wind them back and retry, adds to the challenge significantly.
Comments/additions/corrections welcome.
I use quick save because my game crashes from time to time so I may have to replay 2-5 turns which is annoying.
In the high era, the only sound strategy I found was to leave the Byzantine until well after the Mongols arrive and use them as a buffer to soak up the initial invasion. Wiping out the Egyptians and Almohads and heading into Maghreb is the safer route to start with. Once the Horde super stacks start breaking up and heading out into Russian and Byzantine lands and rebel held provinces such as Khazar, they can be more easily isolated and the threat reduced. It beats trying to hold onto the Turkic "heartlands" such as Armenia or Edessa against impossible odds anyway...
Right now I'm playing this one (and did it before). I captured Big C and Trebizond, the Byz are history and it is 1223. I will probably capture rebel-held Georgia as well to have only one possible province to be attacked by the Horde instead of two (Trebizond and Armenia) and with a nice hilly terrain for a defensive battle too.
Hello everyone! Long time no see! I wish you all the New Year to be better than any other before! :2thumbsup:
seeing now how things developed [in pages 2, 3 and 4] in that thread is a bit sad - apparently some people detest iron man rules and the gameplay facets that they try to bring out - hence they agressively deconstructed them - some times more rationally and others more straight out emotionally..
I've never thought I'd see a topic considering MTW that had to be so heavily moderated. Especially the one about iron man rules. It's all about personal taste and arguing about personal taste is really.. pointless. Btw I'm not a fan of iron man rules too. MTW is not a very complicated game anyway so further limiting myself to use only certain amount of options makes the game less fun for me. But I see a lot of flagellants here which likes to strangle themself in some strange ways :wink2: so let's see if I can add some ideas to pleasure them:grin2: For example:
- don't use manual merging units option. AI can't do it and it opens the possibility for some significant exploits (gearing up units for free, getting less vices by your generals and governors).
- remove 30 mins time limit for battles. AI doesn't get the idea at all which makes defending provinces quite easy with only minimum effort.
- play on expert difficulty to somehow alleviate the prisoner execution problem. Higher morale of enemy units leads to longer and bloody battles which naturally reduces the number of prisoners.
- keep your governors in their dedicated provinces. Don't move them around or put them under the command of another general to reduce the probability of getting some nasty vices.
That's all I can think of for now (at least considering rational, not so extreme options ~:) ).
I haven't played in ages but wasn't there a way to turn over to the AI control over which buildings your faction builds and which units it trains? I never tried it, but I imagine that would raise the difficulty level a notch.
Hi Brandy Blue, there is, in fact. You can open the 'drawer' behind the mini-map on the top left corner - if memory serves, and the option is there.
I really liked that option, it basically made you a 'servant' of the AI - you could think of him as the king and yourself was like his minister or something, so you had to make do and manage with the things that he decided.
That made the game considerably more challenging - and it also gave me very good insights to the workings of the campaign AI, how the AI made decisions, what he builds, trains etc etc which eventually got me into seeing all the glaring imperfections and omisions the vanilla game has.
Many of these imperfections were really easy to sort out, with small alterations with the basic files of the game, and as time went on, like many others, i started to do them.
It was the fact that so many of them were needed to be made and coordinated in order for the gameplay to really shine, that ultimately got me into modding.
The fact is, that the workings of the campaign very seriously influence the quality and significance of battles - as the game is in the vanilla state, the game can be won through sheer force of numbers and/or exploits of features.
If you blitz the AI early, you can either win outright or reach very quickly and easily a point that you are set to win no matter what, through exploiting the many 'badly implemented' game features.
Mercenaries is a typical example, they are so cheap and so good, that in the early stages of the game, you'd typically have no competition over and over. Once you take a break from expansion, you can disband them to lose the weight of maintenance, and re-buy them again once consolidated for another cycle of expansion. In this manner, you can conquer 3 or 4 other kingdoms very quickly, basically you've won, and the game becomes a drudgery.
The very same reason applies to the idea of iron man rules: they are a workaround to the imperfections and omissions of the campaign game, that make the game more on the same footing as the AI, hence they bring out the need to better strategising in the campaign and better skill on the field of battle.
The whole idea, is to enjoy the game more
In my book, this was done by bringing myself on the same footing as the AI. Sure i wanted to win, but win not steal a victory. That's the reason behind the 'deadly sins' and my modding efforts
Hello everyone! Long time no see! I wish you all the New Year to be better than any other before! :2thumbsup
Hey Stazi, nice to see you around..~:)
By the way, since it has been mentioned in this thread that mods are a problem solver for certain things the AI can't use that result in the use of 'iron man rules' for a better gameplay, my own The Caravel mod was made with that in mind.
It maintains vanilla feel and gameplay, while offering indirect (or where possible direct) solutions to the problems mentioned that result in 'iron man rules'. Let me add that the version that it was left with, was significantly better than initial versions, especially since province incomes were upped to make for a more dynamic game.
It also has customisable province wealth for normal and huge size units, so you can play in either
You can download the mod here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/132434-The-Caravel-Mod
The mod and the quite interesting discussions we had with forum patrons while making it has, if not all - then most - of my experience and knowledge of the TW game - and while it could have been furthered more, it stands pretty solidly and with good workability within the framework of concepts that i wanted it to be hence why i was very happy that the community embraced it in so many ways.
The basic idea, as said in the previous post is: level the game between the player and the AI, both on the campaign and the field of battle, so it becomes a contest of out-thinking and/or outperforming in skill rather than a contest of finding and pushing through all the little exploits the game offers - mostly out of incompleteness
This was what ticked me on, and i put so much effort into it. In the process i had to find how this and that worked, in order to make it happen which - hopefully - benefited the community.
One such discovery - for example - was altering the behaviour code for general's bodyguard units. That made the units standing behind the line and engaging cleverly at the last stages of battle (charging wavering/beaten down units or gaps in the line), instead of launching in the fray at the initial charge, which made them easy targets and frequently won you the battle (as they contained the general unit) or even the war (if the general was the king and he had no heir).
Now, if you see this issue from the standpoint of iron man rules, it becomes: dont kill the enemy general/king at the initial charge - however, its stupid - even if you wouldnt he probably will manage to get killed by himself, i remember battles in the original Shogun (that uses the same engine as MTW) that i was trying to protect the enemy Daimyo from my own units or their fire in order to prolong the fun of confrontation in that same battle as well as an interesting war in the campaign.. which is ridicoulous of course, i mean me trying to save him.. That fix i introduced in the Caravel mod [which people can copy for their own mods/games, hence why i openly publicised the fix] solves that problem.. boy that felt good at the time..
For those interested, you can read about that fix here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/132434-The-Caravel-Mod?p=2053257066&viewfull=1#post2053257066
Obviously, there are many other fine mods for people to try, some on the same line conceptually, others on different ones :bow:
Brandy Blue
01-05-2019, 03:37
Hi Brandy Blue, there is, in fact. You can open the 'drawer' behind the mini-map on the top left corner - if memory serves, and the option is there.
I really liked that option, it basically made you a 'servant' of the AI - you could think of him as the king and yourself was like his minister or something, so you had to make do and manage with the things that he decided.
Unfortunately, part of the fun is managing the empire, which you hand over to the AI. That's the cost of getting better battles in that way. Sounds like I should have tried it anyway. Unfortunately I never got around to it.
Unfortunately, part of the fun is managing the empire, which you hand over to the AI. That's the cost of getting better battles in that way. Sounds like I should have tried it anyway. Unfortunately I never got around to it.
Its also part of the chore too.. :laugh4:
But yes, i know what you mean. Again, for me it was as if i was a lowly minister at the service of superiors, much more like a real life scenario actually than you having all the strings in your hands
If memory serves, perhaps there were two option boxes: one let the AI build what he wants and another one let him train what he wants
MTW has way to many options in the campaign game and the time frame/number of turns it covers is not ideal either - its way too long mostly in order to justify all these options and offer different starting periods - yet from a gameplay/challenge point of view none of this variety options adds to the game. I guess the developers were thinking that most people would play the game superficially - which is true - hence were just giving them superficial reasons to restart a campaign or offering more 'hooks' to their imaginations to buy the game -which from their point of view - commercially speaking - was probably correct.
Something like 130-140 turns, a smaller map offering less cultural divergences and making the possibility of lands conquered more plausibly realistic with less factions and less options would have helped the AI greatly and enhanced his performance helping make the game more challenging/on the same footing as the AI, and hence more fun
Brandy Blue
01-05-2019, 04:12
Something like 130-140 turns, a smaller map offering less cultural divergences and making the possibility of lands conquered more plausibly realistic with less factions and less options would have helped the AI greatly and enhanced his performance helping make the game more challenging/on the same footing as the AI, and hence more fun
But ... but ... OK, I'm confused. Hadn't they already published that game under the name Shogun Total War?
But ... but ... OK, I'm confused. Hadn't they already published that game under the name Shogun Total War?
If memory serves, MTW was initially meant to be called "CrusaderTW" or something, and to have a campaign map covering the Holy Land, something that was realised much later in the Crusades campaign in M2TW
As the project grew in ambition and scope, probably they decided to include all of Europe and all of middle Ages, again as commercial attention hooks to customer interest i suppose..
If you are - say - Russian, you can play as the Russians throughout your medieval history, the same if you are Spanish, Polish, French, German, Italian etc, the scope commercially increases tremendously than having only a crusades campaign
Something similar happened in RTW - it meant to have only the conquests of Caesar, again as the project increased in scope it included all the ancient world and the individual campaigns became the Roman factions of Julii, Scipii and Brutii
Equally - as with the crusades campaign - the campaigns of Caesar were realised much later in R2TW
:bow:
Brandy Blue
01-05-2019, 06:55
Interesting. I always assumed that they shifted the focus from crusades because the fashionable point of view these days is that the crusaders were bad guys, but your explanation makes better sense since it explains the development of RTW as well.
Been nice chatting with you. Haven't "seen" you in ages.
Interesting. I always assumed that they shifted the focus from crusades because the fashionable point of view these days is that the crusaders were bad guys, but your explanation makes better sense since it explains the development of RTW as well.
Been nice chatting with you. Haven't "seen" you in ages.
Been nice chatting with you too BB ~:) nice to see all you lot are well and around :yes:
On the automatic options, there were the following (from memory only):
1) auto assign titles
The player can assign titles intelligently, select high acumen governors for those lucrative provinces, assign titles to high/low piety and/or high/low dread governors to better manage provincial happiness (loyalty) and back this up with some of the secondary titles. The AI cannot do this, it often selects the worst candidates. So if the goal is to level the field, this one at least should be on.
Opinion: These fall into the "Civ style game", micromanagement base building category and detract from what the games should be all about - the battles.
2) auto manage taxes
The AI manages taxes by setting them as high as possible, but as I recall, it does not maintain the 120% needed to avoid faction reemergence. So to put the player on the same level, must be on.
Opinion: For me it's another base building option. (I preferred STW's single tax rate setup, but that also got annoying at times)
3) auto construct buildings
This is where we get into the realm of what should the player actually do? To even it out between the player and the AI, I would say that yes this has to be on.
Opinion: I feel that as the player interacts with the game, moves units around strategically, etc that if you remove the dynamic of being able to construct the buildings you want, you are not far from just surrendering the whole thing to AI control and just playing battles.
4) auto train units
As above - even more so.
5) tidy up units after battle (default on, but I suspect many turn it off)
Turning this one off stops the "auto merge" of units after battle, whereby partial units in a stack get merged together automatically immediately after the battle ends - e.g. you go into battle with four units of whatever troop type and you return from the battle with battered units, some with higher valour than others. The "merge" results in three more complete units.
However the game does not differentiate in terms of how it merges the units. So perhaps two might have taken around 50% losses and gained some considerable valour from a lot of kills, so manually merging them together would make a single strong unit and keep (averaged) valour high. However with this option on, it would probably result in the high valour units being dumped into some 0 valour green unit, thus "diluting" their valour.
The AI doesn't have this manual merging option, so for the purpose of evening up and removing advantages, this would certainly need to be left on.
Opinion: This is a difficult one. It's nice to develop your "veteran" units and see them progress, but there comes a point where they can become an unstoppable force. I've played games in the past where I had cautiously micromanaged unit merges and it gets the point where you can have some seriously unstoppable units. This, for me, leads to a decrease in strategy. Inevitably - I get bored, there is too much reliance on these supermen and immaculately they will get wasted in a bum rush. Balanced units and combined arms and "using what you get" is more satisfying, hence why in later years I started turning this off and ended the micromanagement.
In conclusion
The problem with leaving options 1 to 4 as defaults and turning opinion 5 off, is that the AI is left at the biggest disadvantage.
The caveat with enabling 3 and 4, is that you're handing over some of the most important elements of the campaign game to the AI. You don't know what it's building, you have to constantly check what it's building and it all becomes a bit "blind leading the blind".
I have never seriously played the game with all of options 1 to 4 enabled. However I have done some testing, during my modding days and seen just how badly the AI manages things (hence my reluctance to let the AI manage things...) and first started noticing how the AI tried to tech up to the provincial valour bonus unit (even when it's not available yet or their faction will never be able to train it anyway).
There was someone at the .commie, back in around 2005 who referred to the "AI" as the "programmed opponent" (the PO). This is the best kind of terminology for it, but I'll call it "the AI", as that's what we've always called it...
It is not "intelligent". The AI simply reacts to conditions, performs conditional checks. It does not think, it does not learn. It has no concept of "the game" it's playing.
The campaign map game AI (as per STW) was simply not developed enough for the options and features presented in MTW. The AI cannot really handle the "bells and whistles" of the generals dynamic - e.g. loyalty, piety, dread, acumen, stats, etc and the v&vs which can be crippling factors.
The player can weed out the cowards and exploit such v&vs as the attacker/defender lines, the AI cannot. The AI is unaware that the v&vs even exist.
To put it simply - the AI is still playing STW. It doesn't know about the general's stats, or the v&vs and it when given agents which it is expected/allowed to use on it's own agents/generals, it does just that - indiscriminately.
There is still the argument that the options are there to be used and there is nothing wrong with using them, which is of course true. But if the aim to increase the challenge, for those that want to increase the challenge, then observing some iron man rules and playing with at least options 1, 2 and 5 enabled seems like a good start.
The arguments regarding "modding the game" certainly apply. It's one way, but not the only way and a combination of some modding, changing these options and self imposed rules should have the desired affect for those that want it.
Modding for example cannot stop the AI doing silly things on the campaign map - that's hard coded. It cannot give certain units or buildings to the AI factions and make them unavailable to the player and it cannot change the behaviour of such things as v&vs and killing prisoners.
Modding can do quite a lot within battles.
You can also mod unit stats for ever, but you have to mod all units stats, otherwise you easily create under/over powered units/factions. You also can't get away from the fact that there are too many units to start with and this makes balancing all these units extremely difficult, the problem of obsolete units, units which are redundant from the start, too expensive or require too much expenditure on infrastructure to train, or units which are available from high/late, but which are redundant by the time you can train them.
Units should have specific purposes and counters, as per the RPS system of STW (swords beats spears beats cavalry beats swords). In MTW the RPS is there, but is broken by several additional unit types and by the sheer numbers of different units and imbalances between the factions. The only way around this is to remove and go generic.
In the past, on forums such as this one and the other two - the historical reenactment fans have usually shouted down these kind of arguments as "unrealistic", but a game is a game when all is said and done. The history fans want and encourage these imbalances so long as they are "historic".
But ... but ... OK, I'm confused. Hadn't they already published that game under the name Shogun Total War?
This is all hindsight and we are talking about an old game, but in some respects it still applies.
I must confess that I was never a fan of the Europe/Asia minor/north Africa map design.
If MTW had been a "crusader states" (Levant) style set up, with a smaller more detailed map and less factions, in my opinion it would have been a better game "out of the box".
It would also have been better to have perhaps two or three games in one - i.e. a few campaign map games, such as the Crusades, Norman conquest of England, Charlemagne, Reconquista, Fall of Byzantium, and whatever else.
The same mistakes were repeated with RTW, M2TW and I believe some of the newer ones. There is this tendency for "more, more, more..." which isn't necessarily always a good thing. But the marketing for such games is usually fulls of such boasts which play on the "hundreds" of this or the "thousands" of that...
It would also have been better to have perhaps two or three games in one - i.e. a few campaign map games, such as the Crusades, Norman conquest of England, Charlemagne, Reconquista, Fall of Byzantium, and whatever else.
Some nice ideas there.. Reconquista, Charlmagne either making the empire or warring of the empire's heirs', Norman conquest of England and some more on the same line: the 100 years' war, The Teutonic wars, Byzantine-Turkish wars during the Komnenian period, Byzantine territories after the 4h crusade waring states [venetians, crusaders, turks, bulgars, byzantine heir states], Italian city states
The AI could be progressively made aware of interaction between the various features, as well as having a 'stability index' of his management of the game, by which to make decisions.
Such an index would include such key things as:
-heir availability and use
-kingdom province based wealth, and relative kingdom province based wealth in comparison to neighbouring kingdoms' province based wealth
-appraisal of trade generated wealth potential [can be computed=how many ships, in how many sea squares can bring in how much wealth through the various routes available]
-wealth/provinces held to armies in th field ratio - and comparison of the same ratio against that of enemy kingdoms
-province strategic significance identification [based on wealth+location] as a potential target for conquest and keeping
-principle of maximum held area by minimum province number, which would greatly increase AI kingdom stability
These could be used to make specific plans for expansion at one or more fronts, or decide periods of consolidating already conquered areas and providing waterproofing stability before the next cycle of expansion
Various parameters in the AI 'profiles' in the game files can also be tinkered with good result, i remember changing for the caravel mod the AI preferences for inquisitors trained, that lowered the number of inquisitors, yet still having them around. The same was made with many battle units to produce better AI stacks
dimitrios the samian
01-08-2019, 07:42
this thread is so interesting ...
Imagine if the owners of the code (CA) , would listen in & give us a new patch !! awesome .
this thread is so interesting ...
Imagine if the owners of the code (CA) , would listen in & give us a new patch !! awesome .
They won't, there have been many, many indications over the years that MTW wont be touched again.. some more explicit others less.. however its a nice (day)dream..
It has been patched in fact - the steam release. Unfortunately those of us without steam are left out in the cold despite buying the game many years ago.
However, it is my understanding that the patch only addresses the Windows platform/hardware compatibility issues and does not fix any game play bugs or add any enhancements.
The only way to get real improvements into the game would be via a source code release. That was talked about quite a lot over the years, but there is still no sign of it ever happening. It's now even less likely since the steam release and the fact that the game is presumably generating revenue again?
It's been said before that the STW/MTW source was too legally tied up by a few different companies to be released. Not sure if that is still the case, or if indeed it ever was, but it seems like a poor excuse regardless. CA/SEGA are completely missing the benefits of a source release and giving the old games a new lease of life. There are no tangible realistic commercial reasons for not doing so, the old games (coming on for 20 years) are simply no competitor to the new, will not affect sales of the newer titles and can only be good press/PR and expand the existing community of players.
When I was on the staff here, I had it on good authority that source code would never be released. I can't say much more as the person who informed me requested that it be kept confidential and truth be told, I can't remember the specifics or who exactly it was who made that statement.
The only feasible way to improve on STW and MTW would be via a reimplentation of the game engine(s) (akin to reverse engineering). It has been done before for some other old games (Transport Tycoon, the Monkey Island series, Baldur's Gate, to name some notable ones) and it could probably be achieved for MTW, especially for the campaign map game, but it would require someone with the skills, the time and the motivation to sit down and do the work (for free). Thus far no one has taken up the challenge.
It has been patched in fact - the steam release. Unfortunately those of us without steam are left out in the cold despite buying the game many years ago
Anyone that can connect to the internet in any way can have Steam and the game. Steam version also works offline and even without running steam app. Of course, one has to pay for the game again but that's how it works nowadays.
this thread is so interesting ...
Imagine if the owners of the code (CA) , would listen in & give us a new patch !! awesome .
It would be nice, but... I think you underestimate just how much work it will be on CA's end. For starters, the game is 15 years old now, so the programmers (assuming that they are still working at CA) are no longer familiar with the original code. Secondly, creating a competent A.I. requires more than just adding a few conditional requirements - it's a challenging part of game design.
As this is an old game, it cannot be sold for full price and there is a limited market for it, so there's practically no incentive (and quite a bit of disincentive) for CA to do so. The patch would be mostly appreciated by people like us, who already own the game and won't shell out for it a second time.
(So how does the Steam patch fit into this? Well, I guess it was simply a compatibility fix to allow CA to sell a few more copies via Steam - something that could be done quickly and cheaply.)
The only way to get real improvements into the game would be via a source code release. That was talked about quite a lot over the years, but there is still no sign of it ever happening.
It's been talked about by fans, but was there ever any indication that CA was even considering it?
I am also kinda sceptical that, even if CA does release the source code, a programmer will volunteer to fix M:TW's flaws - given the amount of work it is likely to take.
Anyone that can connect to the internet in any way can have Steam and the game. Steam version also works offline and even without running steam app. Of course, one has to pay for the game again but that's how it works nowadays.
I don't quite agree with the "of course", but I see your point. All the same, you understand that some of us feel a bit miffed that we have to pay again a simple compatibility fix? Why doesn't CA* put that fix on their website as well?
(* This is, of course, assuming that CA created the fix themselves, rather than it being done by Valve or an intermediary.)
Anyone that can connect to the internet in any way can have Steam and the game. Steam version also works offline and even without running steam app. Of course, one has to pay for the game again but that's how it works nowadays.
Some of us just don't want steam and don't want to pay for the same game again. That's how it works [for me] nowadays. ~;)
I'm fortunate in that I now have a PC which can run both games very well. It's actually the same old PC, but getting hold of Windows 7 to replace Windows XP resolved my problems (it's important to state that Windows has not been my main OS for over 10 years - I keep that (offline) Windows installation for that particular purpose). Unfortunately that PC is kind of "stored away" and to get it out I would have to move a mountain of stuff... who knows, things might change in a few months...
(I can't download, install and pay for anything to fix that second problem)
It would be nice, but... [...]
Agreed on all counts, it's really down to the slim chance of a source code release, or some even more unlikely reverse engineering attempt - otherwise you've got what you've got - which isn't that bad all things considered.
It's been talked about by fans, but was there ever any indication that CA was even considering it?
To my knowledge: None at all. CA have remained silent. There was the "something" I referred to above and if that is still the "current" policy, then you've no chance whatsoever of seeing the source. Well maybe not zero, but you are talking decades... bear in mind that there are many thousands of titles going back to the MSDOS, Amiga, Atari and before era, where source code has not been released.
I am also kinda sceptical that, even if CA does release the source code, a programmer will volunteer to fix M:TW's flaws - given the amount of work it is likely to take.
I'm less pessimistic on that count, but it is indeed a moot point. I would suggest that more than a few would be willing to seize on it. If you look at the game engines from ID software, those were forked into independent free projects which added new features, functionality, etc - and used none of the original media. In my opinion there would be a lot of appetite for it.
(* This is, of course, assuming that CA created the fix themselves, rather than it being done by Valve or an intermediary.)
I would not be at all surprised if the work was outsourced under an NDA, but honestly no idea.
I have to say, that it's very good to see many of you still here.
:bow:
I remember always having a hard time with the Turks starting in the High period.
There may be a trick to it, but I don't think the Turks have the provinces/infrastructure to deal with the Mongols.
And the Mongols have a tendency to make a beeline for the Turks.
It is possible - but it is hard. Pin them in Armenia as a start...
After High Russia - what do you suggest?
I'd say, play the French in early, and try to establish the outremer kingdoms/principalities [crusader kingdoms and principalities] in the Holy Land by - say 1187 [date of the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin]..[Antioch, Tripoli, Jerusalem, Edessa]
Should be pretty challenging, especially if you limit yourself to that goal [maintaining those four provinces], as the Crusades will bleed you from armies and money for normal expansion in Europe. It will also be challenging to establish a kingdom surrounded by enemy muslim kingdoms battle wise..
To make it more challenging and more role playing, you can load your King in one of the Crusades and send him to the Holy Land..that should make it even more dfficult to hold your European core terrotories..
Another interesting house rule i saw once posted was: do not start a war - fight only when others start a fight.
Before you say that this is hard, you can actually play with that rule and provoke aggression from neighbours you want to fight [leaving provinces deliberately unguarded to provoke attacks]
It should make the game considerably more challenging..
dimitrios the samian
01-15-2019, 00:43
It would be nice, but... I think you underestimate just how much work it will be on CA's end. For starters, the game is 15 years old now, so the programmers (assuming that they are still working at CA) are no longer familiar with the original code. Secondly, creating a competent A.I. requires more than just adding a few conditional requirements - it's a challenging part of game design.
.....swaying it slightly off topic again , but here goes ..
Yes on all yr points Luden , but taking into consideration how intricate this 15 yr old code may be ....
Many dont do's could have been added back then even a year or two after its release
eg Do not allow the King to sail away from homeland to attack an island of no worth & get stranded !
Dont build artillery if peices already exist and have not been used ...
and many of the silly AI spamming it does etc etc
Im sure if they allowed the talented blokes here still modding, access to the code , we could perfect it ..(as it stands)without adding new features or changing it much .
Their mistake was that game to game as they progressed they kept adding n adding new features n never really sorted any of the incompetence of the AI ( or their own) .
They just gave the buying public a few patches to avoid total embarassment & left it up to the modders to fix .hmmmmm , thats why its moddable
dimitrios the samian
01-15-2019, 02:00
hello again ..... slightly offtopic but related , so i post here .
I found this information by Axalon over at another site .
......................
for MTW specifically... On "hard", all AI units get a +15% bonus in combat. Also, the AI will start to use more "advanced" tactics and manoeuvres in the field. No morale bonus whatsoever and no penalties on you. This happens first at "expert", here the AI units get +4 morale and a +30% bonus in combat. And possibly use even more advanced tactics in the field - this part is still under debate. So I can't tell for sure.
..........................
My thoughts after reading Axalons words are these ....
A "more challenging game" must be played on hard because "the AI uses advance tactics & manouvres "
but for those who like to play mods & create them ... Perhaps designing them to be played on Expert only " is the way forward ...providing that the manouvres & tactics" are better still ( thats the catch)..
This sounds like the optimum challenge but ofcourse if required we can bump the players morale & bonus in combat to balance it out .
Your thoughts guys ?
cheers
Morale saturates after a certain point - so its better to go easy on morale bonuses from the campaign, high base morale and expert difficulty.
'Saturates' means that units will stay on and fight to the death [as if you were playing starcraft] - essentially morale is largely detracted as a gameplay element..
For morale workings in MTW/VI, read this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/75234-How-Morale-Affects-Units
morale>14[correction] is the saturation point.. after it the unit will stay and fight to the death unless against really overwhelming odds..
Refer also to the numerology thread for the more complete info: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/116/medieval-totalwar-numerology
ReluctantSamurai
01-15-2019, 13:51
Just wow on both links. I always had a healthy respect for both Puzz3D and Maeda for their in-depth knowledge of the game. I learned a lot from both of them.
:hail: Puzz3D & Maeda Toshiie
Just wow on both links. I always had a healthy respect for both Puzz3D and Maeda for their in-depth knowledge of the game. I learned a lot from both of them.
:hail: Puzz3D & Maeda Toshiie
Maeda was a really decent member and a very good compiler of whatever of value was being posted..
Puzz was like a TW encyclopeadia, and a pretty decent mp player..
had great time with both, especially though with Puzz during the Samurai Warlords mp sessions and in various chat sessions in-between. Tosa was also there and he was fun to be and play with too.. we used to end up in the same team often, especially during 2v2's..
good times..
My memory is failing, but I'm still not sure that expert level does anything other than add the AI's morale bonus and increase the combat effectiveness bonus further over what hard difficulty does - as should be detailed in Obake Date's and longjohn's archived posts... this was from the info originally provided by either longjohn or giljaysmith (developers).
As I recall, only easy difficulty "nerfs" the battles and makes the AI pretty hopeless - "practice mode".
//edit: here
+4 Morale to your troops on Easy
+4 Morale to AI faction troops on Expert
+12 Morale to ALL units if Morale is turned off in realism settings
On easy its combat effectiveness is reduced by 30-40% (can't remember the exact figure).
On hard it's increased by 10-15%, and on expert its 30%. 30% being around 75% of the increase you'd get from 1 valour upgrade."
Here is a list provided by GilJaySmith, one of the developers of Total War:
- On expert the AI gets a morale bonus - on easy the player gets one
- On hard and above, AI skirmishers will try to avoid being pincered
- On easy the AI will not consider going into loose formation to avoid being shot at
- On easy the AI will not consider outflanking, double-envelopment, or stop-and-shoot tactics
- On easy the AI won't move troops out of the way of castle walls that may be about to collapse
- On easy the AI will try to hide rather than flee if the battle is going badly
- On easy the AI will not try ambushes
- On easy the AI will not try the 'appear weak' battle plan
- The AI is more likely to deploy in woods on harder difficulties, and less likely to camp near the red zone on easier difficulties
- The AI is more likely to consider scouting the map to find the rest of your army if it can't see it all on higher difficulties
- On easy the AI will not skirmish
- On higher than easy, the AI will specifically consider sh00ting at your artillery
- On easy the AI will generally attack rather than defend, and will not consider withdrawing for a much longer time
- On higher than easy, the AI will check to see if it's marching into enfilade fire when attacking your main body
- On easy the AI may come out of a wall breach to chase you if you attack and are repulsed
ReluctantSamurai
01-15-2019, 16:03
The AI is more likely to consider scouting the map to find the rest of your army if it can't see it all on higher difficulties
This was one of the more fun aspects of playing at higher difficulties. In bad weather, particularly dense fog, it was a gas to set traps for the scouts who were usually light cavalry of some kind. Wipe the scouts out completely, then move the units involved in the trap to a different location. Peek-and-Sneak gave me as much enjoyment as winning an epic, 2 hour battle.
:hide:
~D
Gilrandir
01-16-2019, 11:21
Refer also to the numerology thread for the more complete info: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/116/medieval-totalwar-numerology
I don't see how one can apply that information in battle conditions. I mean one should be aware that your army should be as fresh as possible, shouldn't be outnumbered, should have its flanks protected and so on, but trying to add and subtract all those numbers for each unit while you are busy giving orders and watching your enemy? :dizzy2:
I don't see how one can apply that information in battle conditions. I mean one should be aware that your army should be as fresh as possible, shouldn't be outnumbered, should have its flanks protected and so on, but trying to add and subtract all those numbers for each unit while you are busy giving orders and watching your enemy? :dizzy2:
Eerm.. obviously as you say you can't~:) - just notice indeed the [positive and negative] situations your troops can find themselves in[or you can put them in] and the base morale/stats/armor of the units.. knights will last even with unprotected flanks - while less courageous units wont..
just notice the situations and apply them taking into account the type, armor, morale and attack/defence stats of each unit..
you dont have to know exactly the numbers - you can read the descriptions in the unit card, yet.. it would help if you do..~;)
ReluctantSamurai
01-16-2019, 13:07
but trying to add and subtract all those numbers for each unit while you are busy giving orders and watching your enemy
You're right. Unless one is some sort of math savant, it can't be done. But knowing what math the game engine is applying on the battlefield can help with the decision-making; like what to expect if your general gets killed, or which units will withstand gunfire better, or which units are likely to rally from a routing condition, etc.
The obvious ones an experienced player will know (maybe not the actual numbers, but the expected results) ie: you get flanked or attacked from behind, the radius of effect(s) from your general, fatigue, taking persistent missile fire, etc.....
Gilrandir
01-17-2019, 14:53
The obvious ones an experienced player will know (maybe not the actual numbers, but the expected results) ie: you get flanked or attacked from behind, the radius of effect(s) from your general, fatigue, taking persistent missile fire, etc.....
These are the only things you really need to know. So numbers are useless.
These are the only things you really need to know. So numbers are useless.
yes.. and no..~:) - they are useful for match ups - obviously of same type units [not swords vs spears!! the winner is clear there] - swords vs swords etc.. certain "swords" are much weaker than others.. its good if you know that..
even in swords vs say - spears types - very strong spears will hold off or even beat weak swords..
some units have a lot of armour but low attack.. this means they will win in a match up - but slowly.. they'll need time and will tire - its good to know the numbers if you can.. ~;)
EDIT: i mean worth remembering unit stats (attck/def + morale + maybe armor) - for situationa bonuses obviously.. not needed - just the situations..~:)
ReluctantSamurai
01-17-2019, 23:49
So numbers are useless
For in-game, real-time play...yes.
For anal-retentive idiots like me who want to know why certain things happen the way they do, they are not useless:shame:
Gilrandir
01-18-2019, 09:57
EDIT: i mean worth remembering unit stats (attck/def + morale + maybe armor) - for situationa bonuses obviously.. not needed - just the situations..~:)
Unit stats are crucial and are to be remembered, blind, drunk or asleep. The information on what moral penalties/bonuses accrue in what case is to be read once and once only. No arithmetics is likely to be implemented after that while playing.
edyzmedieval
01-19-2019, 02:11
Adding 2 bits here - if you want a more challenging game, I strongly suggest you do either an XL Mod Campaign in High or a BKB Super Mod campaign in Early. :yes:
Another house rule you could use is:
change faction [using the -ian], after a period - say after 1204 - in this way, you will start all over again in a - completely new [as history would have unfolded] - challenging position, and will also eventually have to fight the faction that you grew in the initial period..
teh -ian bit works like so:
1. Make a shortcut of you MTW exe (if you don't use one)
2. Then right click the short cut and select "Properties". This will show you among other things the target box of the exe shortcut. Put then your cursor to the target box. Leave the text there as is, and also leave one space.
3. Then type: -ian
The -ian command line allows you to change factions mid game. It also allows you to add further commands, and zoom in and out of the battle field without limits on the camera angle, which is good for a "close to the action" feel as well as for screenshots. Every faction is represented by a number of your keyboard.
Factions are:
1. Rebels
2. Almohads
3. Byzantines
4. Danes
5. Egyptians
6. English
7. French
8. Germans
9. Italians
0. Polish
Shift+1. Russians
Shift+2. Spanish
Shift+3. Turks
Shift+4. Aragonese
Shift+6. Golden Horde (after they appear)
Shift+7. Hungarians
Shift+9. Pope
Shift+0. Sicilians
Furthermore, and after leaving a space for -ian after each, you add the following two command lines:
-loyalty:130
-green_generals
The loyalty bit makes the AI keep 130 loyalty in all his provinces at all times, This practically means that he is keeping small garrisons in them, and hence his long terms devlopment is much safer from rebellions civil wars and his attacks more prudent rather than recklessly opportunistic
The green_generals makes dead generals being replaced by the game engine by new statistically inferior versions; hence you cannot cultivate super generals over a long campaign. It also downgardes and changes their traits.
For the province loyalty, you can try different values - higher of 130 - however that makes the AI super conservative and practically never attacks.. 130 is a good compromise..
Shift+5 and Shift+8 that are missing from teh list, should be the swiss and the burgundians - after they appear obviously..
Another house rule that can actually be very interesting role playing wise - that i thought from the historical discussion in the crusades thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153616-What-is-the-use-of-crusade?p=2053789879&viewfull=1#post2053789879)[posts #4 to #11] centered around Richard the Lionheart, is the following:
One could actually role-play the entire campaign around the King[/Emperor/Sultan] character, and take it to the battlefield only when the King is present.. in all other cases use the auto-calc..
This will reduce the player's effectiveness in both attacking and defending campaign map moves against the AI, and will make you actually care for the whereabouts and participation of the King character in the field - as well as building him up stats and vices 'n' virtues wise..
When you actually take it to the battlefield [which will be by a combination of when you choose it to be as well as to how the enemies react to your King's army moves], it will be as your 'self' , while on all other battles you will have to depend on 'other general's performance' - essentially the battles being out of your detailed_command_on_the_battlefield control..
You might even end up 'fabricating' excuses for war [on easy targets[faction/province wise] or even harvesting rebellions-with all the risks/delays that would entail] just to build up the King character in the battlefield, or abstain from campaigning when you are dealt with an able administrator of a sovereign that is no good with the sword - or a simple and utter wimp [of a sovereign] that is no good whatsoever..:laugh4:
It might also be very interesting in how you choose to expand/defend - you wont be able to expand/defend very effectively with the autocalc so you may actually take it at one front/area of expansion at the time [while you put yourself in a defenive stance elsewhere] - the one that your King would participate - as it was actually in reality.. this might bring interesting strategic considerations in how you organise_armies/defend/expand..
The diplomatic aspect of the game will also become more important, as - if you dont want multifront wars - you would care more about keeping allies/neutrals thus, and also your standing with the Pope.. instead of going all out war against all..
[imagine - say - fighting the horde in this way..! where you can fight only when the king is present and elsewhere use the autocalc..would be pretty interesting as you would have to very carefully choose your strategic moves in order to minimise penetration from the Horde armies..with luck - where the Horde will actually land and in what numbers - playing a part too, as it would have been in actuality as well..!
or defending byzantium with its multifront frontiers along east/west and south/north - pretty challenging..
or playing the HREmperor with its multitudes of fronts - or the pretty opened up French..
or having to lead the adventurous and coveted by many Italians..]
As your empire will expand, these strategic considerations will become perhaps greater - as your king[/emperor/sultan] will be only in one place at a time while there will be an increasing number of areas that would require urgent attention.. thus you will have to plan your wars[aggressive and defensive] ahead well in the grand scheme of things and also make sure you consolidate properly in order to safeguard what you have already won.. this slowing will give in turn time to the AI factions to re-couperate/re-generate and fight you back better..
Battles you actually play will be fewer, even as your empire grows, and will be the important ones.. hence less overall getting tired feeling by many unimportant battles, that usually happens as a campaign progresses..
If you play like so, and you want to actually experience a crusade and its road through fighting to its holy objective, [I]you will have to get on one as the king, and have much less control in what you leave behind - pretty much like RIchard [and other Kings] did.. :yes: - or otherwise you risk leaving the crusade and its fate to other commanders, and learn of it from your emmissaries and messengers..
Playing this way - may bring also even more to life the political aspect of the game - assassinations/trials/bribings/inquisition/conversions - as your own generals would not be 'performing to a T' in the autocalc[due to - say - bad vices'n'virtues], and may need to be taken out by other means.. and also it would be more important to deal with able enemy generals through other means than in the field[since you wont be able to] - if they make the autocalc especially disfavoring..
Using the Caravel Mod (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/132434-The-Caravel-Mod?p=2053243727&viewfull=1#post2053243727) [which is a very much improved vanilla basically, and has great AI stack composition which will help the player and the AI to have meaningful autocalc battles], might make this option of house rules even more worth it..
:bow:
Adding to the house rules - you can try some wonky experiments like using only spearmen / armoured spearmen as infantry. Or also no ceasefire negotiation.
you can try some wonky experiments like using only spearmen / armoured spearmen as infantry.
expanding on that idea: you can try 'historical' army compositions, like say [as examples] -
the English, mostly bow-missiles and heavy infantry - with some light cavs to chase routers and deliver backstabbing charges selectively - kill enemy with missile hails, while tackling charges and enemy infantry with your heavy infantry as they close to stop the missiles, chase down with light cavs
the Turks, mostly missile/heavy cavalry with a hint of infantry to act as pins for enemy battle lines or like screens around which the Turkish cavalry can operate - harass enemies with missile cavs while heavy cavs wait for disorganised/isolated units/units to charge and break, once all enemies are disorganised chase down - double team with missile cavs too..
the Italians - something similar to the English with larger quantities of medium infantry units based in polearms and xbows/arbs as missiles, as well as light/medium cavs [including the great mounted xbows]
the Byzantines - akin to the Turks but with sligthly less missile cavs, more infantry staying power and harder heavy cav hitting impact.. hence more adjustable in style between western and eastern tactics..
Pyrocrax
03-24-2020, 15:59
So what other house rules to people use, without using an entirely different mod, to try and give the AI a decent chance?[/QUOTE]
House Rules i usually use is this:
Rule 1: I can only have 2 units for every command a general has. (so 2 Command = 4 units. 10 command = 20 units.
Rule 2: This is little harsh but you can only have max 2 generals in one army, you can have only 1 if you want but i think that is too much restriction i think. Also i must have a general to control an army, i can only transport 1 unit at a time if i have to go without a general. So like an army without general can not be more than 1.
Rule 3: You can not under no circumstance make peace with a faction you start war with (depending if you play the expansions) or you can not make peace with a faction you attack or create war with. You can only make peace if the faction comes to you with peace agreement.
Though if the faction attack you, you can try to make peace with them.
Rule 4: You can only have true family members/blood relatives. No Adoptions.
This Rules is the ones i usually do if i wan't a really challenging campaign.
edyzmedieval
04-03-2020, 23:44
With regards to family members, I think the only realistic chance here to make sure your game flows naturally is to use the heir code because sometimes your king doesn't have. And your game is lost.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.