View Full Version : Ever wondered why your Spanish Jinetes have no shields?
macsen rufus
08-17-2020, 00:57
If you ever looked, and ever cared, those Spanish Jinetes in MTW:VI don't show any shields in battle, even though they should. This is all down to a single spelling mistake in the original install.
Navigate to /Textures/Men/Items/Shield1/SpanishJinettes
and change it to /Textures/Men/Items/Shield1/SpanishJinetes
then you will see Jinetes with the little round shields they were always supposed to have. It seems strange CA got it right for the weapons but messed up on the shields, but there you go....
It doesn't stop them being irritating b******s when they're showering your flanks wih javelins, but at least they will finally look right ~D
edyzmedieval
08-17-2020, 16:29
So that's why!
Thank you macsen for solving a bug that's about 19 years old. :grin2:
They are under Shield2 in my install, but still misspelled. Good catch!
macsen rufus
08-18-2020, 01:47
They are under Shield2 in my install, but still misspelled. Good catch!
That is probably a '1am posting' thing ~;) Shield2 sounds right, folks...
Steve_12
09-22-2020, 07:28
Wow, I wonder how you got to that, well done!:2thumbsup:
A belated thanks for the tip, macsen rufus! Now I'm gonna have to go fire up a Castille campaign and see how they look. :2thumbsup:
Steve_12
10-01-2020, 12:01
A belated thanks for the tip, macsen rufus! Now I'm gonna have to go fire up a Castille campaign and see how they look. :2thumbsup:
This advice has helped you organize your time~;)
I do kind of wish they fixed it, there's still quite a lot of bugs in MTW that will probably never be fixed.
Diplomacy springs to mind.
Gilrandir
10-27-2020, 06:55
I do kind of wish they fixed it, there's still quite a lot of bugs in MTW that will probably never be fixed.
Diplomacy springs to mind.
What's wrong with diplomacy?
What's wrong with diplomacy?
A lot of times nonsensical, it's very difficult to hold allies. Worst offender is when you get attacked and some ally breaks the alliance with you because reasons.
Also ceasefires are very hard to get even if you have maximum influence as your king.
Gilrandir
11-02-2020, 07:15
A lot of times nonsensical, it's very difficult to hold allies. Worst offender is when you get attacked and some ally breaks the alliance with you because reasons.
Don't you think that it is the way it was in the real life in Medieval Europe? So it is not a bug, but close following historical truth.
Also ceasefires are very hard to get even if you have maximum influence as your king.
Pope is more prone to accept ceasefire. And if you are at war with someone who is far away from your borders it is enough to pull off all your agents and ships so that your enemy isn't seen on the map - and the ceaefire will be automatic. Otherwise it is a problem, but I don't see how this is a bug, it is the game architecture to make it more challenging. After all, TOTAL war should live up to its name.
Don't you think that it is the way it was in the real life in Medieval Europe? So it is not a bug, but close following historical truth.
Agreed, but only to a point. Playing as France for example, warring with the Italians, should not invalidate an alliance that I have with the Poles just because.
And the issue that I have mainly is because I cannot redo those alliances at all after they've been broken. Even after 100 years of playing. It doesn't work out well, and the lack of ceasefires no matter what you try is extremely frustrating.
I remember a Byzantine Empire campaign that got me a huge amount of trade revenue (over 10-15.000 florins per turn in Constantinople) by having boats everywhere. Even after 60-70 years I couldn't redo the alliances, since one of the factions attacked me and I lost alliances.
Gilrandir
11-07-2020, 05:30
Agreed, but only to a point. Playing as France for example, warring with the Italians, should not invalidate an alliance that I have with the Poles just because.
And the issue that I have mainly is because I cannot redo those alliances at all after they've been broken. Even after 100 years of playing. It doesn't work out well, and the lack of ceasefires no matter what you try is extremely frustrating.
I remember a Byzantine Empire campaign that got me a huge amount of trade revenue (over 10-15.000 florins per turn in Constantinople) by having boats everywhere. Even after 60-70 years I couldn't redo the alliances, since one of the factions attacked me and I lost alliances.
If you want something to happen and it doesn't, it doesn't mean it is a bug. The game is honed to be challenging, so the larger you are, the less prone is the AI to let you have allies. But no bugs.
I agree that the game is supposed to be challenging, to make you think tactically, but diplomacy is bugged.
Look at M2TW - you can fight for 20 years and then factions sue for peace. And you can also resume your alliances with your former allies after another 10 years let's say. This does not happen in MTW. Never happened.
Gilrandir
11-24-2020, 06:00
I agree that the game is supposed to be challenging, to make you think tactically, but diplomacy is bugged.
Look at M2TW - you can fight for 20 years and then factions sue for peace. And you can also resume your alliances with your former allies after another 10 years let's say. This does not happen in MTW. Never happened.
Bug is something that goes wrong against the initial scheme. I believe that what you are talking about is the architecture of the game, not a malfunction.
So in this case, the architecture of the game is bugged, because this is not supposed to happen at all. In the end, it's still a problem of the game.
If only MTW would have been fixed on diplomacy, some more minor bugs fixes + adding some more units (Eastern factions are lacking) and then we would have an impeccably epic game.
Still is epic regardless.
Gilrandir
11-28-2020, 12:12
So in this case, the architecture of the game is bugged, because this is not supposed to happen at all. In the end, it's still a problem of the game.
Are you well-versed in the initial design of the game and its real-life implementation that you can claim what was meant to be and what was not supposed to happen?
If only MTW would have been fixed on diplomacy, some more minor bugs fixes + adding some more units (Eastern factions are lacking) and then we would have an impeccably epic game.
If all factions had identical roster there would be no point in choosing them. Different rosters let you try different battle tactics and mirror (with some degree of approximation) the peculiarities of army composition of various real-life medieval polities.
There isn't really much diplomacy in the Total War games anyway(you just attack the weak ones) but i guess changing it would make for a different game. Do you want AIs to stop joining up on you, or maybe have more realistic/historical alliance blocks?
The devs were probably like "we should add a diplomacy screen so that players can spend a bit more time on the strategy part" but that's all, it's not main focus. Maybe even call it cosmetic :)
That's likely true for the first 2 games, though I wouldn't call it cosmetic. Certainly in M:TW, with its crusades and naval trade, diplomacy mattered.
And sometimes the diplomacy was just stupid. The pointless naval wars in M:TW, for example. And in R:TW the A.I. was blatantly programmed to gang up on the player. If you declared war on a faction that was being attacking on multiple sides, its opponents often would make peace instantly. That's pretty immersion-breaking: you think you are making a smart strategic move, but then the A.I. uses a cheatcode.
I didn't like it at first too but that's probably needed to keep the game fun and for the player to have always a challenge. There is an example from reality too, how Russia made peace with the Ottomans right before Napoleon's invasion.
Yes: before, not during. And frankly that was Napoleon's fault for neglecting to make diplomatic overtures to the Ottomans. He complacently assumed that Russia's neighbours would side with him, and would blunder even worse with the Swedes.
You are right that this prevents the A.I. from being a pushover, but when it is this blatant it feels like cheating. That can be fun or frustrating, depend on what you expect from the game.
If all factions had identical roster there would be no point in choosing them. Different rosters let you try different battle tactics and mirror (with some degree of approximation) the peculiarities of army composition of various real-life medieval polities.
S2TW had almost identical rosters and yet it was a very fun game.
It's about the diplomacy mechanics which honestly, in my view, are not ideal. They don't work fully and even by comparison with M2TW we can see that. And also M2TW had problems - I remember trying to play on Very Hard was rather uninspiring since you had to fight sieges every other turn if you played as HRE for example.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.