Proposal for a new Catholic unit line-up.

[WesW]

I was reading over in the Main Hall about how you can always see what the AI armies on your border look like, and can adjust you forces to counter and defeat them.
I have also noticed how often the AI does not assemble/use correctly a well-balanced army, as I am sure you all have as well.

One of the proposals was for the player to limit his use of watch towers and/or spies, so that we would not be able to adjust our forces. I don't like this, because it disrupts the games balance with loyalty, etc., and because, imo, in real life you usually had good info about the army opposing you, or at least time to move around your forces to meet a threat.

The problem with pre-modern force make-up, from what I gather from reading about the Medieval period, lay in 1)mustering forces, due to feudal loyalties and/or finances, and 2)the limitations on the types of forces available for muster.

I think it would have been an awesome feature if the size and morale of recruits varied from province to province, depending upon provincial and/or governor loyalties as well as religious ties, e.g. recruits from a province with a large Muslim population would not be very inthused, and might switch sides, if brought into battle in a Christian army against fellow Muslims.
I think they are getting closer to this with the drawing of troops from the real population in Rome: TW, but I have not heard of any real strategic addressment of the most critical factor in battle: the will to fight. I think MTW does an awesome job with its inclusion of battlefield factors on morale, but it has not addressed at all the things that effect the base morale of troops.
Anyway, I'm getting off on tangets here. (If anyone wants to put in a good word for me to CA, feel free. I was looking at the credits last night after finishing a Vikings campaign, and I was amazed at all the people who contributed and there various titles. Surely I could be fit in somewhere. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

Anyway, getting back to the game... We can't do anything about morale issues, but we can limit the types of troops available to a faction. The Catholic factions all have access to all of the basic troop types, though of course they have relative strengths in one or more areas.
What I am proposing is the drastic limitations of certain unit types for each faction, e.g. the English would not have mounted knights after the Feudal era; the Italians would not have knights at all; the Hungarians would not have crossbows; etc. (Please note that these are just examples off the top of my head. I would want to gather info from those of you who are well-informed on the makeup of medieval armies for the various factions so that we could make their forces historically correct.)

This would add a lot of replayability to the game, by forcing us to learn new battle tactics to a greater extent than ever, and it would also be a limit to domination, since a faction's forces would be tailored to their local terrain, and would face "serious" handicaps once they tried to expand into different terrain. (Remember that even the Mongols were beaten when they tried to invade the jungles of southeast Asia and the deserts of Syria.)

I know we have the knowledge to accomplish this; it's just a matter of getting the right patrons involved.

So, are you guys interested?

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] (WesW @ May 12 2003,00:22)]
Hiya doing Wes,


Quote[/b] ]I was reading over in the Main Hall about how you can always see what the AI armies on your border look like, and can adjust you forces to counter and defeat them.
I have also noticed how often the AI does not assemble/use correctly a well-balanced army, as I am sure you all have as well.


Been reading my posts have you....


Quote[/b] ]One of the proposals was for the player to limit his use of watch towers and/or spies, so that we would not be able to adjust our forces. I don't like this, because it disrupts the games balance with loyalty, etc.,

Can you expand upon this, how do you see this effecting loyalty and, perhaps, more importantly to what degree?

Regarding Watcher Towers, I don't recall specifically the value they add to loyalty/happiness, but its relatively low and and I believe its "2" (or 4).

I can't recall, but I believe Border Forts add some additional loyalty/happiness, correct?

The relatively small loyalty/happiness benefits are rather "marginal" and when weighed against all the "other" factors re loyalty/happiness, for the average or lesser player, I don't believe they have a significant effect.

I mean, if one is suffering regular rebellions, consistently adjusting taxes because of loyalty, then a person doesn't really have their game under control and the "other" factors are more important. Only a good player, having rebellions under control, playing on the edge would be effected by such marginal loyalty/happiness factors represented by Watch Towers and Border Forts.

Being on the "edge" IS the fun factor for good players For me, the Watch Tower/Border Fort loyalty/happiness factor is ONLY important at the VERY beginning stages of the game; and ONLY because I restrict myself to assigning Governorships/Titles to Knights of Royal Blood. Which, consistently, leaves my province governerships vacate for very extended periods of time and by bank account depleted. Consequently, for me, building the other "loyalty/happiness" buildings, such as Churches, etc., are too expensive for many years. So, the marginal loyalty/happiness benefits from Watch Towers are a bit magnified for me. Others playing without the restrictions shouldn't have a problem, especially lesser players. For the better players....well, that's what its all about---challenge.

[/QUOTE]and because, imo, in real life you usually had good info about the army opposing you, or at least time to move around your forces to meet a threat.
Quote[/b] ]

I DO NOT subscribe to this We are talking the "medieval" period, where everyone was hard pressed to know what was happening 20 miles down the road. Whoops, I take that back--there was NO road The only "real" roads were the roads the Romans built, and....ahhh...they've been fallen for some time and so too would have the roads, with no Romans to maintain them.

Under medieval conditions a general/monarch would be EXTREMELY hard pressed to have "accurate" information regarding the composition of an enemy army gathering to the march, say some 500[/i] miles away. You can make that 200 miles, doesn't matter.

Let's say there was a "spy" observing the gathering of an enemy army or garrison that's 250 miles away. How long do you think information might reach the intended general/monarch. Just off the top of my head I'd say a MONTH or more. The accuracy of such information would be a month or more old and therefore not truly accurate at all

The qualifying factor, imo, would be that of "Cultural Sphere". If you one goes to war with another from the same Cultural Sphere, then one could be rather safe in presuming the war making capabilities of your enemy, because both of you would have similar if not the same resources to gather from.

English Longow meets the Heavy Armour of the French.

European Knights upon stout horses meet the Lightly Armoured Muslim fighter upon Fast and Agile horse mount.

Gunpowder vs. Bow/Arrow vs. Armour

All of the above is due to Cultural Influence. Advances are due to Culture (many things of course make culture); and a person of one culture would know VERY little of the war making capabilities of another culture until meeting upon the battlefield.

Would the French have been so confident at Agincourt, if they know that the Longbow would have been so devasting?

Would the Christian and/or the Muslim have adjusted prior to meeting in the middle east during the Crusades if they had know more about the weaponry and tactics of the other?

Would Saddam of Iraq attacked Iran if he would have know that Iran would use "human wave" tactics? Would he have been so assured in the first gulf war, if you recall, the Iraqis thought their relatively recent war experience with Iran would give them the edge in the desert. They were sure the Americans would not be able to "accurately" maneuver in the desert. The dessert having no maps and little visual references to navigate by on land. They didn't think navigating the desert nor fighting by night would be possible and so were unprepared. Apparently, the Iraqis didn't know or perhaps comprehend) about "Global Positioning Sattelite" Systems; nor did they know or comprehend about "Night Vision" systems.

So it is today, so it was in Medieval times, probably more so.

Yet, the fact of the matter is that most warfare was within the same Cultural Sphere, so other factors were more prevalent than differences between cultural war making capabilities.

The problem with pre-modern force make-up, from what I gather from reading about the Medieval period, lay in 1)mustering forces, due to feudal loyalties and/or finances, and 2)the limitations on the types of forces available for muster.
Quote ]

True (though not sure what "limitations" you mean in 2) )

In light of my above comments, remember that in "Total War" (, which is a bit different as a game than the true reality medieval war) you have 4 cultures in contention. Christian, Muslim, Byzantine and Mongol, so my point is relatively little would be known, ACCURATELY, regarding the war making capabilities, composition and positioning of the "other" culture. Otherwise, when meeting the "other" culture they all would have been better prepared upon doing so.

For example, the French vs the Poles would be very similar warfare; the French vs. the Germans similar again; and they would have a relatively good knowledge of the other.

But the French and the Spanish would be less familiar and would know less about the other. The Spanish and the Almohad would have an even greater unfamiliarity and would know even less about the other relative to Spanish vs French.

English vs. Almohad s/b total cultural clash in war, as they would know VERY little of the other. Same with Danes vs Byzantines or Egytians.

I hope you get my drift. Applying all this principal to the game, then "Spying" should have a "cost" factor, and perhaps the cost factor s/b "relative".

The Danes s/h a VERY high cost factor, in order to be aware of (and prepare for) the Almohad war capabilities. Let the Danes put an army on some ships and send it down to Almo territory and there s/b one heck of a Cultural Shock in store for the Danes; and probably a surprise or two for the Almo as well.

How to accomplish this? I think, possibly, that the "Spy" unit with its present functions s/b "territorily" limited. That is its effective should deminish the further away from its "Home" province. It's functional effect s/b rather limited to the Home province and those provinces IMMEDIATELY surrounding the home provincies borders. All of the Spy Unit's capabilities s/b be reduced by 75% once away from its home or home border province. So, once beyond this territorial limit it would take FOUR spies to equal just one. (More on this later perhaps.)

In addition, the Price of a Spy s/b increased by a factor of "5" AND an additional "Support Cost" s/b added as well.

This would really have an effect on the game in several ways. For one, think about you notice a Spy dropped in one of your provinces. Then you notice there are 2, and then 3. Given the "resources" necessary to "spy" and increasing capability upon each additional spy into your territory, then that Pop-Up telling you that so and so faction is mobilizing for war has REAL meaning Unlike as it is, the message has no true meaning and an enemy spy or two in your terriroty is cause for little relative concern.

The strategic value in the game and of the "Spy" is increased.

[Since you went off tangent, let me add that it galls me to no end that CA continues on this course of "Gimmicktry" in its Add-On. I don't need "Boiling Oil" or "Flaming Arrows" (or necessarily a new map). Unfortunately, it appears that CA is following a too similar path with Rome. What I need and want is more "Strategic" elements interjected into the game Its a STRATEGY game afterall isn't it (rant over)]

Anyway, getting back to the game... We can't do anything about morale issues, but we can limit the types of troops available to a faction. The Catholic factions all have access to all of the basic troop types, though of course they have relative strengths in one or more areas.
What I am proposing is the drastic limitations of certain unit types for each faction, e.g. the English would not have mounted knights after the Feudal era; the Italians would not have knights at all; the Hungarians would not have crossbows; etc. (Please note that these are just examples off the top of my head. I would want to gather info from those of you who are well-informed on the makeup of medieval armies for the various factions so that we could make their forces historically correct.)[QUOTE]

I believe we are of a similar mind, though my point of view is more from a "GamePlay" standpoint than of "historical" accurancy. Do you remember this is a "game", a "strategy" game. So changes s/b toward increasing the strategic element of the game.

Strategy and Tactics successful say for the French vs the Germans should be less successful versus say the Byzantines.

Yes, I'm interested Though, I'm sure this will be VERY difficult to Balance. A lot of playtesting will be needed.

-----

BTW, I installed Vikings over the Med Mod. I only played for about 20 minutes, but something is strange. The Danes start with only Denmark (and have no emmissary). Something's odd correct? Shouldn't the MedMod files been overwitten by Viking?

[EDIT: Forget it, Found your post re IV and the Med Mod. Waiting impatiently.]

Anyway, I do mean to push....so, when will the Med Mod be ready for Vikings??? I really don't desire to play without it.

Thanks again, look foward to your comments.

~ToranagaSama

[Forgive the typos as I have no desire to proof this post.]

[WesW]

I received several emails just yesterday asking when I would be out with a VI version of the Medmod. I guess I will make a thread regarding it, rather than continue to answer the same things over and over individually.
I will try and put together a No Units version pretty soon, which will leave the stats alone for the non-Crusading units, but have everything else.
I was waiting for the Production Excel SS to be sent by ECS before getting into the units. Hopefully Barocca will get it posted here soon. I also want to see how this thread plays out as well. I would have hoped to have had several more replies by tonight.

Been reading my posts, have you?

Well, your posts are usually worth reading. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

As for Watch Towers, there is not much to explain. Towers and Border Forts increase loyalty by 20 and 30 percent, respectively, not 2 and 3 percent.

As for info on opposing armies, remember that no one had standing armies at this time, so a leader had to have a meeting with the nobles to gather support for the war, supplies and equipment had to be ordered and made, taxes sometimes had to be raised, and then the call to arms itself had to be spread throughout the land, with moral justifications for the war to garner public support and enthusiasm, and probably training for the levies after they were mustered.
As you can see, all this would take a long time, and the country against which the attackers were mobilizing would know well beforehand a lot about what was coming their way.

Some of the examples you gave were about cultures which were unfamiliar with each other. Well, from what I gather, this was a rare exception to the rule, with the most notable exceptions being the Mongol Hordes and the Crusades. This were certainly momentous events, but even here the opponents would be much more knowledgeable after the first few engagements.
I don't really want to dwell on this topic of the exceptions, since it is not very pertinent to what I have in mind.

Some of the other things you mentioned were the strength of forces, like English Longbowmen. I feel pretty sure that the French had heard reports of the weapon's capabilities, and either discounted or ignored them for whatever reasons. One of the reasons was probably because their feudal society was built upon the supremacy of the mounted knight, and this was not going to change without some horrendous defeats, since it was more than a military matter, but went to the core of their societal system.
I'm getting a little off-topic here, but my Southern ancestors fought a war practically to the death 140 yrs ago, rather than change the core of their societal system, which was slavery and the aristocracy of the slave owners.

Anyway, the above example actually fits into my theories here, since it was an instance where the English developed a weapon in their arsenal that was a devastating answer to the weapon of their closest and greatest rival.
This is one of the things that I am working towards in my proposal: you only have certain types of troops available to you, since your military/societal system is geared either around your homelands terrain, or to repel the attacks of your neighbors.
I recently read some detailed accounts of Hungarian history, and they fought the Germans with one type of army, and the Turks with another. They favored knights against their German counterparts, and archers and light horse against their Turkish counterparts, with a lot of mercenaries in each to fill out the unit types that their people were not skilled in.

Just to add: I believe that the Spanish, who had been fighting the Muslims for centuries, would be very familiar with their tactics. As you said, the overwhelming majority of wars were fought between neighbors, and you usually know your neighbors pretty well.
The Longbowmen were the result of the English adapting to the French; after the French adjusted, and aided by Saint Joan plus the drain of the war on the English economy, they drove the English back.

This is what I want to simulate here: Your neighbors have these types of troops, and if you meet them in battle it will be this type of terrain. How are you going to develop appropriate troops to counter the threat, or make a successful war of conquest, given that perhaps the best counter to the enemy forces is not available to you, except as mercenaries?

I don't think that any one nation had competent native troops in all the unit types available to the Catholics in MTW. My proposal is to limit the factions to unit types which work well in their native terrain, and/or which they had access to historically.
This will simultaneously present a greater strategic challenge to the human, and either cause little problem for the AI, or actually benefit him, since the AI usually stocks up on one or two unit types anyway, to the detriment of other types.

[A_B]

I like the idea of some limitations on unit types, especially the more elite units. How about simplifying/reducing the generic units, limiting the faction specific units to a few 'core' territories (to slow down expansion), and then greatly increase the territory specific units like Polish Retainers and the new Avar Nobles. I really like the idea of getting access to special units all over the map. Some could be culture specific,and some not.

What is the total limit on units, if there is one? Could we have Norman Knights in Normandy (early/mid), etc. These territiry specific units could have lower honor and discipline levels, so they would only be really effective with a good general to lead them.

I've limited the Mongol unit construction to the Step territories, and greatly limited thier ability to create foot armies. That seemed to help limit thier expansion in the last MedMod (late eara), when before they had been an Uber Faction crushing Europe quite easily.

[Turbo]

Quote[/b] (WesW @ May 11 2003,23:22)]I was reading over in the Main Hall about how you can always see what the AI armies on your border look like, and can adjust you forces to counter and defeat them.
I have also noticed how often the AI does not assemble/use correctly a well-balanced army, as I am sure you all have as well.

One of the proposals was for the player to limit his use of watch towers and/or spies, so that we would not be able to adjust our forces. I don't like this, because it disrupts the games balance with loyalty, etc., and because, imo, in real life you usually had good info about the army opposing you, or at least time to move around your forces to meet a threat.

The problem with pre-modern force make-up, from what I gather from reading about the Medieval period, lay in 1)mustering forces, due to feudal loyalties and/or finances, and 2)the limitations on the types of forces available for muster.

I think it would have been an awesome feature if the size and morale of recruits varied from province to province, depending upon provincial and/or governor loyalties as well as religious ties, e.g. recruits from a province with a large Muslim population would not be very inthused, and might switch sides, if brought into battle in a Christian army against fellow Muslims.
I think they are getting closer to this with the drawing of troops from the real population in Rome: TW, but I have not heard of any real strategic addressment of the most critical factor in battle: the will to fight. I think MTW does an awesome job with its inclusion of battlefield factors on morale, but it has not addressed at all the things that effect the base morale of troops.
Anyway, I'm getting off on tangets here. (If anyone wants to put in a good word for me to CA, feel free. I was looking at the credits last night after finishing a Vikings campaign, and I was amazed at all the people who contributed and there various titles. Surely I could be fit in somewhere. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

Anyway, getting back to the game... We can't do anything about morale issues, but we can limit the types of troops available to a faction. The Catholic factions all have access to all of the basic troop types, though of course they have relative strengths in one or more areas.
What I am proposing is the drastic limitations of certain unit types for each faction, e.g. the English would not have mounted knights after the Feudal era; the Italians would not have knights at all; the Hungarians would not have crossbows; etc. (Please note that these are just examples off the top of my head. I would want to gather info from those of you who are well-informed on the makeup of medieval armies for the various factions so that we could make their forces historically correct.)

This would add a lot of replayability to the game, by forcing us to learn new battle tactics to a greater extent than ever, and it would also be a limit to domination, since a faction's forces would be tailored to their local terrain, and would face "serious" handicaps once they tried to expand into different terrain. (Remember that even the Mongols were beaten when they tried to invade the jungles of southeast Asia and the deserts of Syria.)

I know we have the knowledge to accomplish this; it's just a matter of getting the right patrons involved.

So, are you guys interested?
Wes,

I think a better way of restricting types is to restrict the build of specialty units to historical homelands. Catholic unit trees like the Feudal and Chivalric units could be restricted to at start Catholic countries. Outside these areas a player would be forced to build lower quality troops making the game more difficult and challenging.

If this is done, I would expand the number of low quality units like the Woodsman more available.

[rory_20_uk]

It is a very intersting point that you are raising regarding the will to fight of troops. Just tihking about it makes my head hurt (OK, it is 2.45am here). In several instances one could argue both for and against the troops in a province having good or bad morale (or example, knights in a newly conquered province might be more impetuous, as they might feel that their hold on their estates is by a thread - one show of cowardice and they loose everything; alternately of course they are itching to see their new masters crushed by the enemy, possibly allowing them (or their dynasties in any case) to set up a new kingdom in that province).
With the lower worth units, I would have thought tha regardless of where they are from they would not be there as they have a great desire to fight.
Limiting unit options is an idea, but much of the way that history has progressed is due to the history prior to it. England (and later Britain) really only came into being after the losses of the 100 years war. Prior to this the English holdings were merely part of the King's and Lord's domains, with those in France being just as important. If England had won this, or at least not lost to the degree that it did, the disposition of the English would be very different. Would the two lands share a language, would customs of the French areas (and possibly with this tactics) percolate into the English stategic thinking? Who knows, but I feel that limiting the units that are available is a rather heavy handed way to achieve this.
I agree that spies are in some ways far too good (I tend not to use them offensively, as I find that they have a very short life expectancy in enemy provinces). But again, picking up the gist that an attack was coming would not be difficult to spot for a spy, as concealing the mobilisation of hundreds of men does not go unnoticed. Transfering this information on the other hand would vary from as close to impossible as to make no difference (Austria to Egypt, for example) to relatively easy (Egypt to Ireland - especially if there were operating trade routes. Personally, I think that the chances of catching an enemy spy would be very low (possibly slowly increasing per year if "anti spy" devices were present, and increasing faster if the spy attempts more active spying), but at the same time them being able to give any useful dynamic information would be extremely limited. I would say that possibly showing the buildings present, the tax levels and possibly an idea of the number of men would be all that could be gained, along with movements of troops (but again no knowledge of exactly what). Spy missions to establish with greater clarity could be used, but of course these would incur an imput of money, and risk to the spy. Thus one could find out exactly what army was over the border, but to get such knowledge quickly and accurately would require much planning (a route to get the information out, and a way of evesdropping on the commanders to establish troop types and numbers). I think that this would be more ralistic than merely being able to have complete knowledge of troops accross the borders merely with watchtowers.

Hope this was not too much of a ramble http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[A_B]

Well, i've been thinking about this a lot, especially in the context of how to keep the game fun you've conquored half the map. I think the answer is to have faction specific troops only buildable in one or two home provinces. These would be troops like Longbowman/Billman for the English, etc. The price of these troops should be pretty cheap, so that a faction can always have access to them (even when they are down on their luck). However, upkeep - especially for the human player - should be more than usual, to help prevent building up huge supplies between wars.

Other units would only be buildable in Faction specific countries. Christian units in Europe, Muslim in the Mid-East, etc. There would be some crossover in Spain and the Balkans, where some hybrid units could be built (spanish Jinettes, Bulgarian Brigands).

Also, there would be more territory specific units, such asa Avar Nobles and Saxon Swordmen. This would give the game more flavor.

Finally, in non faction areas, you could only build the simplest units, like basic spearmen. If there are enough units slots (I don't know if there is a limit or not), special units could be created for Christians in Muslim contries, and vice versa. These would have even lower stats, or be very expensive, or both.

The goal of all of this is to insure that factons can field a constant amount of good units (from core territories, and low cost), can expand into like-faction areas, but will have a heck of a time expanding, because the core faction units are limited in amount, and the larger the empire grows, the more battles that have to be fought with generic units.

This seems a rough approximation of what really happens to empires (self-limiting growth), and should make the end game tougher for the human player.

[WesW]

I think A_B is close to getting my line of reasoning with regards to empire expansion. The strongest case for this that I know of would be the Persians. If their battle with Alexander was simulated in the game, there is no way that Alexander would have a chance. But in reality, he did have, partly based on the generalship disparity between the two sides, but also because Alexander, and probably Darius too, knew that all those troops from the conquered provinces were not willing to fight very hard for their Persian masters. They were there primarily for show, so what Alexander had to do was get through the native Persians and capture their king, or run him off, and the rest of the army would go home.

There are other examples as well with the late Roman Empire, Napoleon's march into Russia, etc., but the lesson from them is that empires have to be built with troops from the original nation. This is why I believe a key concept for the Romans was the granting of citizenship to anyone who served in their army, but that just wasn't going to happen in a feudal society.
Conquered peoples will defend themselves well if they fear the attacker more than they dislike their lords, but conquest is what I am primarily talking about here.

In my plan, Spearmen unit-types and Archers would be generic, as would light cavalry.

Pikemen would be available to all Christian factions, but there would be variations for each faction who would only be available in their home provinces.

Crossbowmen would be restricted to western and central Europe where Knights reigned supreme.
Gunpowder units would be generic, as would artillery pieces.

Gendarmes and Teutonic Sgts would be like they were in my mod, but could only be recruited from a faction's home area, meaning there would be different variations for each faction.

Royal Knights would still be generic, but other types would be restricted to Germany, France, England, Spain and maybe Scandinavia.
England drifted away from mounted knights after Stirling, and I read an account from the First Crusade where the author noted that German knights usually preferred to fight on foot.
Both mounted and dismounted knights would be specific to each faction, for those factions that had them, ala Gendarmes.

I guess Urban Militia and Militia Sgts would be generic, since they are primarily defending their homes, and have poor morale anyway. Halberdiers would be like Gendarmes.

I'm not sure what to do about swordsmen, since I have not run across accounts of them anywhere. Anything you guys want to add on their use and prominence would be appreciated.

As you have suggested, with all the new units added to both the Viking and regular campaigns, there is ample opportunity for regionally restricted units like Lithuanian Cav and Swabian Swordsmen that would be available to most factions.

I just like the thought of arranging the game so that you have to innovate and adjust based upon what is available to you, and that perhaps some unit types would be limited or not available no matter how much you built and conquered.

In the present edition of the mod, I moved towards getting the units more alike, since I, and most others, were still learning the game. Now I would like to move in the opposite direction, with great armies still possible, but with factions both strong *and* weak in different areas, instead of the current game where you get a high-powered unit here and there, but have adequate access to all unit types.

[A_B]

Is there a unit limit built into the game? could there be 1000 different unit types? The graphics wouldn't need to change, but in order to get the kind of limitations on territories units can be built in, there would need to be a lot of units (many of them clones).

An example of what i'm thinking - using the turks;
The Turkish province of RUM and Armenia are the Provice Core territores. Those territories can only build the existing units of TurkomanFoot, TurcomanHorse, Ottoman Inf., Janissaries, and Sipihai horse units. In addition, those territories would produce some new Turkish units; Turkish Spear (upgraded spear), Turkish Heavy Spear (upgraded SaracenInf.), Turkish Swordsman. These would be similar to the regular spearman, armored spearmen, etc., but would have slightly higher stats, higher honor, and be much, much cheaper to build.

In adjacent territores, the turks could build SaracenInf., desert archers, etc. (but these units would not be available in Turks Core Territories, to insure the AI builds the right units).

Also, the turks would have avialable special units;
Armenian Heavy cav. (in lower armenia)
Syrian Bandits - new unit in Syria (yes, i know the name could be more creative)
Ghazi Inf. (in palastine)
etc.

The potential problem is that there is a unit limit, and this system will require a lot of units.

[A_B]

I spent some time spliting the map up into Faction Homelands and 'unit type' regions. I don't know how it will format. I built it in Excel, and can email it to anyone you asks.

Region Category Notes; General; Factions would be very limited in the troops they could build outside of those listed below. Example; Christian Faction could only build a few basic/low honor units in Tripoli, if they were to capture it.

Great Power Regions Faction Specific Units and generic units of like religion if owned by other Faction
SetRegionOwner:: ID_ALGERIA FN_ALMOHAD
SetRegionOwner:: ID_MOROCCO FN_ALMOHAD

SetRegionOwner:: ID_CONSTANTINOPLE FN_BYZANTINE
SetRegionOwner:: ID_NICAEA FN_BYZANTINE
Byzantium is a special case. It will have few Faction units. Rather, it can train pretty decent 'generic units', but who cost much, much more than other factions (and buildable in the Balkan/Black Sea regions). This is to represent the standing proffesional army of Byzantium - Good, but expensive.

SetRegionOwner:: ID_EGYPT FN_EGYPTIAN
SetRegionOwner:: ID_SINAI FN_EGYPTIAN

SetRegionOwner:: ID_MERCIA FN_ENGLISH
SetRegionOwner:: ID_WESSEX FN_ENGLISH

SetRegionOwner:: ID_ILE_DE_FRANCE FN_FRENCH
SetRegionOwner:: ID_ANJOU FN_FRENCH

SetRegionOwner:: ID_FRANCONIA FN_GERMAN_HRE
SetRegionOwner:: ID_BAVARIA FN_GERMAN_HRE

SetRegionOwner:: ID_MILAN FN_ITALIAN
SetRegionOwner:: ID_VENICE FN_ITALIAN

SetRegionOwner:: ID_POLAND FN_POLISH
SetRegionOwner:: ID_SILESIA FN_POLISH

SetRegionOwner:: ID_CASTILE FN_SPANISH
SetRegionOwner:: ID_LEON FN_SPANISH

SetRegionOwner:: ID_RUM FN_TURKISH
SetRegionOwner:: ID_ARMENIA FN_TURKISH


Minor Power Regions Faction Specific Units and generic units of like religion if owned by other Faction
SetRegionOwner:: ID_SICILY FN_SICILIAN
SetRegionOwner:: ID_HUNGARY FN_HUNGARIAN
SetRegionOwner:: ID_NOVGOROD FN_NOVGOROD
SetRegionOwner:: ID_ROME FN_PAPIST
SetRegionOwner:: ID_ARAGON FN_ARAGONESE
SetRegionOwner:: ID_MUSCOVY FN_RUSSIAN
SetRegionOwner:: ID_DENMARK FN_DANISH

Christian Regions Generic Christian Units and some regional special units
SetRegionOwner:: ID_NAVARRE
SetRegionOwner:: ID_PRUSSIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_NORMANDY
SetRegionOwner:: ID_NORTH_UMBRIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_AQUITAINE
SetRegionOwner:: ID_PAPAL_STATES
SetRegionOwner:: ID_NAPLES
SetRegionOwner:: ID_FREISLAND
SetRegionOwner:: ID_LORRAINE
SetRegionOwner:: ID_SAXONY
SetRegionOwner:: ID_SWABIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_BOHEMIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_BRANDENBURG
SetRegionOwner:: ID_TYROLIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_PROVENCE
SetRegionOwner:: ID_BURGUNDY
SetRegionOwner:: ID_POMERANIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_CHAMPAGNE
SetRegionOwner:: ID_FLANDERS
SetRegionOwner:: ID_BRITTANY

Muslim Regions Generic Muslim Units and some regional special units
SetRegionOwner:: ID_SYRIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_LESSER_ARMENIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_ANTIOCH
SetRegionOwner:: ID_JERUSALEM
SetRegionOwner:: ID_TRIPOLI
SetRegionOwner:: ID_EDESSA

Spanish Border States Generic Muslim and Christain Units and some regional special units
SetRegionOwner:: ID_CORDOBA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_GRANADA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_VALENCIA

Steppe Regions Generic Step Units and some regional special units
SetRegionOwner:: ID_VOLHYNIA Generic Steppe Units;
SetRegionOwner:: ID_RYAZAN Light Step Cavalry
SetRegionOwner:: ID_CHERNIGOV Slav Inf.
SetRegionOwner:: ID_KIEV Slav Javelinmen
SetRegionOwner:: ID_CRIMEA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_SMOLENSK
SetRegionOwner:: ID_KHAZAR
SetRegionOwner:: ID_PEREYASLAVL

Mediterranean Mixed troop types - features of both european and desert armies - & lots of Mercenary types
Buildable by all religions, but expensive - assumes enough money available through trade Med. Trade
SetRegionOwner:: ID_CRETE
SetRegionOwner:: ID_CYPRUS
SetRegionOwner:: ID_RHODES
SetRegionOwner:: ID_MALTA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_GENOA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_SARDINIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_CORSICA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_TUSCANY

Balkans & black Sea Mixed troop types - features of both european, step, and orthodox armies - & lots of Mercenary and bandit types. Recruiting/training ground for both Byzanitne and Turkish generic type units
SetRegionOwner:: ID_SERBIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_BULGARIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_CROATIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_CARPATHIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_WALLACHIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_MOLDAVIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_GEORGIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_TREBIZOND
SetRegionOwner:: ID_GREECE

Wild Regions Specialty Units only, or very basic generic units
SetRegionOwner:: ID_NORWAY
SetRegionOwner:: ID_SWEDEN
SetRegionOwner:: ID_IRELAND
SetRegionOwner:: ID_WALES
SetRegionOwner:: ID_SCOTLAND
SetRegionOwner:: ID_ARABIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_LIVONIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_LITHUANIA
SetRegionOwner:: ID_SWITZERLAND
SetRegionOwner:: ID_PORTUGAL

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]...but at the same time them being able to give any useful dynamic information would be extremely limited....

My point EXACTLY Static information vs. Dynamic information. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for a medieval lord to be provided with the sorta acurrate "dynamic" information that's available in MTW.


Quote[/b] ]...Spy missions to establish with greater clarity could be used, but of course these would incur an imput of money, and risk to the spy....

Again, my point EXACTLY All one needs is a Border Fort to know PRCISELY and DYNAMICALLY what's happening in a border province (ALL border provinces).


Quote[/b] ]...Thus one could find out exactly what army was over the border, but to get such knowledge quickly and accurately would require much planning (a route to get the information out, and a way of evesdropping on the commanders to establish troop types and numbers). I think that this would be more ralistic than merely being able to have complete knowledge of troops accross the borders merely with watchtowers.

Thank you for seeing my issues.

Spying needs to be made EXTREMELY costly. So costly, that it becomes as it were and is (today) a "Strategic" element. Used sparingly, to attempt an advantage. This is the way it was certainly used in medieval times. There was not such thing, as today, as "keeping an eye" on an enemy or potential enemy---24/7/365

Weren't most spys some sort of "Turncoat" demanding "Expensive" payment??

Sooo, how to effect this, presently, with MTW?

The cost of Watch Towers s/b raised considerably. I'd say to 2000 Florins AND somewhere like 6 to 12 turns.

Probably, the "Offensive" and "Defensive" function of Spying s/b separated. That is, separate units for each purpose, offensive and defensive.

"Border Forts" should do just that watch the "crossing" of your borders; and Watch Towers should not be a requirement. (More likely the reverse, as one would attempt to "defensively" secure one's borders "before" attempting "offensive" Spying.)

In other words, Border Forts "catch" Spys. While, Watch Towers are to allow you to have "alert" when an enemy approaches, in order to gather your forces for defense.

There is a problem with the implementation of this in the game, imho, and the only way, I see, to mitigate/mod this is to increase the expense.

----

How many times have you been surprised or perplexed when facing an enemy AI army? The ONLY time this after my first Campaign or so, was upon encountering Muslim factions for the first times. I, deliberately, did not (and do not) play Muslim factions, nor do I study their units (and I try to forget what I happen to learn).

The first time was the BEST battle EVER. I had absolutely NO idea what ANY of the Muslim units were capable of. I didn't have a clue as to what units were "Knight" tough, which were "Peasant" weak, nor what "special" capabilities any had. The result was that in that first encounter, I got my butt KICKED royally http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I was in absolute SHOCK Strategically, this was devastating. If I recall, I lost virtually my ENTIRE army consisting of my best troops and general. As a result, I believe I lost that campaign. All because I was unfamiliar and unaware.

The thing of it all is, that upon a subsequent campaign, when encoutering the Muslims. I was MUCH more cautious This battle was TRULY the best I've ever had versus the AI *or* a human. Rather than attempt some sort of "direct" attack, I assumed a rather defensive position and began a "series" of PROBING maneuvers.

The battle started with an exchange of Archer fire, I had a bit of a terrain advantage and appeared to be getting the better of the exchange, when I suddenly notice that a couple of my units were receiving serious damage, BUT I had no idea how nor why. They weren't in the AI's archer range, so what gives? I had previously put these units in a "blocking" position vs. what seemed to me to be "simple" enemy "spear" Infantry. I believe my units were MAA. Good "counter" rightttt...NO The Muslim units (I forget the name) were the "Spear-Chucking" sort; and were pummeling my MAA with spears. Obviously, this side of the line presented a "tactical" obstacle not so simply to overcome.

The point of all that is to highlight that, most of *my* battles do NOT involve such caution and in few do I have the "need" for probing maneuvers. Prior to the battle I know the AI's army composition. This is especially so with the "new" BATTLE DEPLOYMENT SCREEN.

----

OMG

I just realized this. This Screen has a serious flaw. Check it out, EVEN WITHOUT A WATCH TOWER/BORDER you can be apprised of your enemy's army composition by way of the Battle Deployment Screen

Take a single unit attack an AI province and up pops the Battle Deployment Screen---No Need for a Watch Tower or Spy. Duh

----

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Anyway, back to my point, the only "tactical" surprises to be encountered are that of "Terrain". Will you have the terrain advantage or will the AI. The greatest battle challenge (for me) is in overcoming the AI's terrain advanage, while minimizing my losses.

There's be more "tactical" surprise with much less "pre-"knowledge, if I/we don't know what's coming or what's there, then I won't be able to build a "precise" counter-army. Which will result in more "suprises", more "caution" and more "probing" for weakness in the AI battleline. More innovation/generalship to make the most of the troops I have been (unfortunate) to bring to battle.

As it is, I don't do "probing", I simply move my cursor over the AI troops, see what units and where the AI has them deployed and respond accordingly based upon my "pre-"knowledge. My ratio of wins/losses must be on the order of 9 to 1. What's yours?

I believe this ratio can be reduced and/or, at least, make the game more interesting if "Spying" is made more difficult.

The Caveate is, of course, that weaker players will simply wind up with a wosre butt kicking from the AI than previously.

IMHO, I'm think I'm talking some "relatively" simple changes that *should* have expotentially greater, positive" effects upon the game.

[EDIT: The cost of Watch Towers s/b raised considerably. I'd say to 2000 Florins AND somewhere like 6 to 12 turns.]

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] (WesW @ May 15 2003,08:05)]

Quote[/b] ] just like the thought of arranging the game so that you have to innovate and adjust based upon what is available to you, and that perhaps some unit types would be limited or not available no matter how much you built and conquered.

In the present edition of the mod, I moved towards getting the units more alike, since I, and most others, were still learning the game. Now I would like to move in the opposite direction, with great armies still possible, but with factions both strong *and* weak in different areas, instead of the current game where you get a high-powered unit here and there, but have adequate access to all unit types.

Wholehearted endorsement.

[A_B]

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ May 15 2003,15:56)]

My point EXACTLY Static information vs. Dynamic information. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for a medieval lord to be provided with the sorta acurrate "dynamic" information that's available in MTW.

Again, my point EXACTLY All one needs is a Border Fort to know PRCISELY and DYNAMICALLY what's happening in a border province (ALL border provinces).

[/quote][/QUOTE]
This post has made me realize how much the game would chang if you couldn't see the exact makeup of other factions units. It would be rather scary.

Perhaps the spy fuction of watch towers should elimintaed,leaving only the catching of spys. The cost of spys (especially for the human play) could be increased, to reflect the advantage it gives you.

Can the functions of Spys, ambassadors, priests, etc. be modded at all?

[Action]

I'm sure you've thought of this already, but if you do this new unit line up, (and it sounds awesome) then you'll need to place serious restrictions on what is available as mercenaries to avoid giving the human player a big advantage.

[WesW]

I just checked the Watch Towers characteristics, and the only flag they have is "front-line specific", which means that it provides both the border knowledge and the spy-catching abilities.
What I wonder is if this is meant to help the AI as much as the human. I mean, the whole AI defense scheme is most likely built upon knowing the composition of the bordering army so that it can force-match. Unless the AI cheats, it will be handicapped more than the human by taking away or increasing the cost of watch towers.
Also, imo, spies should be something you buy, not something you muster and build in a province. I struggle to make enough to garrison my provinces even with the lower requirements of the medmod. The current spy setup is an aggravation to me, and increasing their necessity would just add more aggravation to the game for me.

As for mercs, they may or may not be a big advantage, depending upon circumstances and whether the AI makes use of them. I wish we had someone from CA who could comment on this area.
The way I envision it working for the human is to finally make CA's setup work like it was supposed to from the start. I.E., a lot of mercs are available, but you can only afford to get a few because of the cost, so you will only hire those that your faction is deficient in making.
In my game as the Vikings, snapped up all the Archers and quality cavalry units that I could find once I got into the heavy conquest period, and this is how I envision the regular campaign working under my proposed setup. I never had all that I wanted, but I had enough to kinda equal things out.
In the large map of the regular campaign, things would be much more unpredictable, both in hiring the needed units, and in getting them to the right place. You would also get into financial pain if you hired too many and didn't use them right away.

To me, all this adds up to more decisions and obstacles for the human, at no real loss for the AI, which doesn't do a good job with strategic force development and deployment anyway.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]Also, imo, spies should be something you buy, not something you muster and build in a province.

I'm confused by your statement. Do you mean "buy" as in the present manner of the game, or are you talking about a manner different from the present game?

I agree, spies s/not be musterable.


Quote[/b] ]I just checked the Watch Towers characteristics, and the only flag they have is "front-line specific", which means that it provides both the border knowledge and the spy-catching abilities.

Curious, so how does this differ from Border Forts? Just theorizing, so it would seem that the AI wouldn't be harmed say with the removal of Border Forts from the game?


Quote[/b] ]I struggle to make enough to garrison my provinces even with the lower requirements of the medmod.

Curious, how exactly do you use spies? I don't see a need for a great many of them, UNLESS you engage in the "Flood" tactic to incite revolt. Otherwise, 2 or 3 spies should be more than enough to suit a "defensive" purpose. I use them basically to keep an eye on my generals, usually not much else. I don't "spy" with them, and I don't "flood" with them.


Quote[/b] ]The current spy setup is an aggravation to me, and increasing their necessity would just add more aggravation to the game for me.

I don't understand, please explain further. How so?

Personally, I'd like to see the number of spies "code" limited (to say 5 -6), which would be inline with a more "strategic" use and much less of a tactical purpose such as flooding. Obviously, this would also effect the "preventative" effect with regard to province Loyalty. Example, you have 3, 4 or 5 provinces near revolt, no more PUMPING out spies to save your bacon.


Quote[/b] ]I mean, the whole AI defense scheme is most likely built upon knowing the composition of the bordering army so that it can force-match.

Sounds good, but is it real? Think about what's necessary for the AI (or the player) to "force-match".

First off, in order for the AI to "force-match" for COMPOSITION, the AI would have to have the capability to determine the need, and then to seek and locate appropriate units from other provinces in order to bring them to bear where needed or intended. In addition, the AI would probably need to have some capability for "forethought", that is in some way have READY-BUILT "specific" troops for the purpose of "force-matching" for COMPOSITION.

Without a close approximation of the above, the AI would have little to no "time" available to "build" troops for the purpose of "force-matching".

VERY TALL ORDER for the AI.

The AI's capability to "force-match" is probably rather limited. Most likely, it force-matches" best, not to "composition", but to NUMBERS. If the player has a "full-stack" on the AI's border, then the AI will seek to "force-match" to a full-stack. "This" capability appears to work quite well, except of course the AI can be "fooled" into leaving "other" provinces vulnerable when it attempts to "force-match" for numbers.

Does the AI force-match for "composition"?

I'd "imagine" that designer(s) might have placed a "value" to each unit type, and that each stack would then be represented with a combined total value, and that the AI may be coded to "match" such a "value. Do we know this for a fact? I suppose we need to ask.

But, let's ask experience. What have you all seen, and to what degree?

In any event, with regard to Border Forts/Watch Towers, and the concern that the AI will be "more" handicapped, I'm not sure I accept this. First, there's the above. Second, the OVERALL situation must be looked at. That is, in the present circumstance, the "player" and the AI has "equal" ability to "spy" over the border. The player has the ability to make adjustments. The disparity may be with the AI's ability to make "commensurate" adjusts. Can the AI make adjustments equal to the Player? Questionable, at the least for a variety of reasons.

Flipping the circumstance to a game without Border Forts/Watchers, then the situation remains EQUAL. Both the Player and AI are without the ability to see across borders, BUT the "Player" now has LESS of advantage with regard to making "Adjustments" based upon the ability to see over the border.

For example, given the possibility/probablity that the AI "actually" has the capability to make (limited) compositional adjustments, the Player has the advantage. I believe the Player can and will make "better" adjustments than the AI for a variety of reasons. Let's put a value of 2 to the Player's ability and a 1 to the AI's capability. The Player has a 2 to 1 advantage. Clearly, w/o the ability to see across borders the Player's advantage is now 0 and so is the AI's. Zero to Zero. N'est ce pas? (sp?)

Of course the above ONLY applies to "composition". You may be quite correct regarding the AI's ability to "force-match" to force-SIZE; but then again this may be totally incorrect. Think about it. If the Player can "viusally" see Stacks within an enemy's border province, without aid, then so to MUST the AI. N'est ce pas?


Quote[/b] ]Unless the AI cheats, it will be handicapped more than the human by taking away or increasing the cost of watch towers.

So adding it all up, I think quite the opposite possibility/probablity that the AI might/will be LESS handicapped versus the Player.

[ToranagaSama]

EDIT

[WesW]

I agree with starting a new thread on this topic, as it is unrelated to the original topic here. You may even want to delete your last couple of posts here, so that people won't get sidetracted reading all of it.