Questions re Patch to Erado San or anyone

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Erado San @ Oct. 10 2003,05:24)
The patch supports all languages, yes.

Kings do die at different ages, sometimes older, sometimes younger than 56 years. Almost like real life

Hello, thank you for your comments, I have a few questions:

1) Prior to IV, Kings died with slight variation (its been so long now I forget the exact number), if I recall correctly, at or around 72 (or should that be 79?). Fairly predictable, the variation roughly between 2 to 5 years. [Just woke up memory is weak at the moment.]

Post IV and with "bug", Kings died at 56. Precisely predictable. No variation.

The question is post-"patch", using the above as a guide, what level of variation would you describe in comparison?

2) Is the age of death OPTIONABLE? Can this be modded?

3) The "bug" added a level of pressure (most realistic) to produce an Heir that was not present in pre-IV MTW. It made the fact that a Campaign would be lost with the death of an "heir-less" King TRULY relevant

Is there the same "pressure" and "relevancy"?

Quote
Kings do die at different ages, sometimes older, sometimes younger than 56 years. Almost like real life


This sounds interesting, but the reality may be less so. Seems as if CA is attempting to preserve real relevance for Heirs, but I hesitant to install the Patch.

I found the Age "bug" and the Reinforcement "bug" to both be EXTREMELY realistic, enjoyable, fun, and appropriate.

Thank you in advance for your response.

~ ToranagaSama

---

TS, heretofore, has not commented on the "Reinforcement Bug":

Please tell me what general, what period and what engagement, wherein the general in question experienced ABSOLUTE confidence in his "reinforcements"? Confidence being, that they would arrive "en masse" (or arrive at all); precisely as directed; and, in the "order" that was directed?

Absolutely, NEVER happened, anywhere, any point, for anyone, NEVER in history. You folks want this game to be "realistic" or what?

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ] (ToranagaSama @ Oct. 10 2003,14:36)
TS, heretofore, has not commented on the "Reinforcement Bug":

Please tell me what general, what period and what engagement, wherein the general in question experienced ABSOLUTE confidence in his "reinforcements"? Confidence being, that they would arrive "en masse" (or arrive at all); precisely as directed; and, in the "order" that was directed?

Absolutely, NEVER happened, anywhere, any point, for anyone, NEVER in history. You folks want this game to be "realistic" or what?

Jeebus_Frist wrote this:

I don't feel that these troops should be looked upon as reinforcements just arriving on the battlefield. They are actually troops already present on the field but held in reserve to "reinforce" a weak spot in your line or exploit a breach in the enemy's formation. Hence the irrelevancy of the "arriving in masse or in formation" theory IMO. Rather like:

"Withdraw two companies of longbow and order two companies of feudal men at arms to bolster the right flank."

This wouldn't take much time or effort with the reserves already gathered on the field. One flag to signal the longbow to withdraw and a combination of signals or a courier to direct the feudal men at arms to advance to the right flank.

Even a general who is severely outnumbered will hold one or two companies in reserve until the foe reveals its intent or makes a breakthrough.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[ToranagaSama]

Thank you Solypist for closing the "PATCH, IS OUT" prior to someone responding to my post. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Oct. 14 2003,01:51)]
Quote[/b] ] (ToranagaSama @ Oct. 10 2003,14:36)
TS, heretofore, has not commented on the "Reinforcement Bug":

Please tell me what general, what period and what engagement, wherein the general in question experienced ABSOLUTE confidence in his "reinforcements"? Confidence being, that they would arrive "en masse" (or arrive at all); precisely as directed; and, in the "order" that was directed?

Absolutely, NEVER happened, anywhere, any point, for anyone, NEVER in history. You folks want this game to be "realistic" or what?

Jeebus_Frist wrote this:

I don't feel that these troops should be looked upon as reinforcements just arriving on the battlefield. They are actually troops already present on the field but held in reserve to "reinforce" a weak spot in your line or exploit a breach in the enemy's formation. Hence the irrelevancy of the "arriving in masse or in formation" theory IMO. Rather like:

"Withdraw two companies of longbow and order two companies of feudal men at arms to bolster the right flank."

This wouldn't take much time or effort with the reserves already gathered on the field. One flag to signal the longbow to withdraw and a combination of signals or a courier to direct the feudal men at arms to advance to the right flank.

Even a general who is severely outnumbered will hold one or two companies in reserve until the foe reveals its intent or makes a breakthrough.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I understand what you're saying, but do not subscribe to it, for a couple of reasons.

1) Its not as if Reinforcements enter the map directly behind your lines, readily available. They do NOT. They enter often halfway across the map and must "travel" to where you are. They are all too often quite "Tired" from "traveling", so they need to rest. If I bring a reinforcing Knight unit, I will almost always rest them before engaging.

2) *My* "Reserves" are among my 16-unit Stack.

NOTE: the term used for the units in the Second Stack are called REINFORCEMENTS They are not called "Reserves". This imparts a lot, given an accurate usage of the English language, which is a good bet, since CA is British.

I attempt to bring Reinforcements to reinforce my RESERVES. For example: Lose a First line Unit, move in a Reserve/Second line unit, and bring on a "reinforcing" unit to replace the Reserve unit.

When I choose to use Reinforcements (not all that often), the above is one of the manners I do so. If *I* have to wait for a reinforcing unit to fill a "weak" spot on my "line"---I've already lost

3) I DO NOT play the "Withdrawing" game, as you've described it. I do not use a "Static" line as with a "Withdrawing" method, but a "Fluid" line. Movement and Maneuvering. So, for me, there really is no "weak spot" to be filled.

Lastly, I never "depend" on Reinforcements, and their main purpose, for me, has been a "counter-attack" role. (Re-grouping and counter-attacking or defending.)

Quite a time ago, I viewed a couple of replays of players using, what I term as, the "Withdraw" method, admitedly, prior to the 1.1 patch. These players placed there troops directly at the point where Reinforcments enter (edge of map), so Reinforcements enter directly into their line(s).

Such tactics are a tedious waste of troops, and would not be viable in a Campaign multiplay game; but, if, one enjoys it, sa la vie. Though, simply because one enjoys this style of play doesn't turn "Reinforcements" into "Reserves". http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

---

So, in a nod to diffent styles of play, the "bug" should not be eliminated, but made into an OPTION

At best, it adds some additional "realism", at worst it increases the difficulty level. Don't want either, then, turn it off

---

I also, call for the "56 Year" bug to be made OPTIONABLE, as it adds a additional dimension of realism and difficulty. Don't want it, then turn it off

---

All the above, being said, can someone advise how the patch is effecting the Death of Kings and Generals. Is it MUCH different? Is it back to pre-Viking style, with Kings, Princesses and, now, Generals, dying in the general range of 72 - 81 years of age? How often has the exception been, with Death coming before 72?

Thank you for any comments.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Oct. 14 2003,01:32)]All the above, being said, can someone advise how the patch is effecting the Death of Kings and Generals. Is it MUCH different? Is it back to pre-Viking style, with Kings, Princesses and, now, Generals, dying in the general range of 72 - 81 years of age? How often has the exception been, with Death coming before 72?
I did not play too much yet after installin g the patch (lack of time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif ). But from the two campaigns I started I got the following impression:

1. The precise death of kings at 56 has been removed (I guess I am stating the obvious here)

2. Kings still seem to die at a relatively you age (compared to pre-VI). After I saw a couple of AI-factions' kings die at the same year relatively early into the game I loosely tracked the ages of all kings (using matteosartori ). While pre-VI a lot of kings made it into their 70s or even 80s, now the majority of kings died between age 56 and 63. I watched roughly two generations of kings (equivalent to ca. 25 kings) and saw only 2-3 getting older than 70 (they both died in their early 70s).
This "analysis" is of course purely empiric with only a few "datapoints" so far (might just be a coincidence), but it seems that although the fixed death date is removed (I guess most people will like this), the pressure to produce heirs quickly, would still be present in a lighter version (some people will like this, some people won't).

Hopefully these first observations will be helpful

[RJV]

Hi,

Have I missed the point with the whole reserves vs reinforcements thing? The way I see it is that immediately before the battle you have a number of units in a province - say 20. You decide which of the 20 to use and which to, shall we say, hold back. It makes sense to me that as you can choose the original 16 out of your total 20, so you can then choose the order in which you deploy your remaining 4. As to whether they are reserves or reinforcements, I tend to consider them as 'units held in reserve', which in my mind is not the same (semantics here I guess but what the hell).
Thought for the day - a 'proper' reinforcement option would be, after all the pieces have moved on the strat map you get a chance to send some more units into the province. Depending on distance, unit type, weather (game factors, you know the sort of thing) these units may or may not make it to the battle field in time, and if they do you get an info message to that effect, but you will only get to pick from the ones that have actually arrived at that time. I don't know, just an idea that popped into my head - thoughts anyone??

Cheers.

[ToranagaSama]

I'm an idiot. This thread should have posted to the Main Hall.

Anyway, RJV,

Yeah, it makes "logical" sense, but does it make "realistic" sense? There's a difference.

My point of view is from a, been there done that, nexxxtt standpoint. More realism and more difficulty.

I LIKE the fact that I click for Reinforcements, yet I'm not certain which unit I'll get. Makes it more exciting and "realistic". You take what you get, and IMPROVISE, think fast, deal with it

Anyone can "plan" a deployment of reinforcements, but not everyone can master improvisation, and therein lies the challenge.

I mean really, how man advantages versus the AI, do people really need. Once "Expert" difficulty become "Easy", then ahhhh.....oh, yeah...the MedMod http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Still, even with the MedMod, I need to Roleplay---HardCore Rules.

[Puzz3D]

Early English Campaign first 100 years kings deaths from illness.

English: 68, 67, 63
French: 65, 55, 57
Spanish: 57, 64, 63
Almohad: 51, 58, 54
Italian: 64, 59
Sicilian: 59, 53, 63
Papal: 55, 56, 56
HRE: 62, 51, 54
Danes: 62, 68, 65
Polish: 51, 56, 52
Hungarian: 66, 69
Novgorod: 59, 59, 61
Byzantine: 71, 62, 53
Turkish: 53
Egyptian: 60, 52, 58, 57, 63
Argonese: 51, 60, 40, 53

Average age of death from illness = 58
Average age of heirs accending to the throne = 31

Distribution:
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
00 04 02 04 02 02 03 03 02 04 02 01 03 04 02 02 01 01 02 01

There were a total of 47 deaths from illness. The was one below 50 and one above 69. It appears to be an even distribution of 2.7 deaths/year from 51 to 65 with a lower death rate below and above that range.

[barocca]

moved to main hall upon request,
B.

[ToranagaSama]

Ser Clegane, Puzz3D, and anyone else, THANK YOU VERY MUCH for the detailed information

Seems like they did it RIGHT. An Argonese death at age FORTY. Oh my Love it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

(Marry your King Marry your King Produce Heir and a Spare, ASAP&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Once Wes gives the OK for use with the MedMod, I'll do another fresh install and give the patch a go.

Still prefer the pre-patch "random" reinforcements, but can live with it.

At the risk of having this thread closed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif anything else interesting and new?

[Puzz3D]

ToranagaSama,

WesW's Medmod 3.10 works with v2.01. I'm up to year 1219 with it and seems to be fine. I'm playing the English, and the Byz are very strong. I was trying to wait for the Mongols to hit the Byz, but had to go to war against them a bit earlier than I wanted. Wes did an outstanding job with this mod.

BTW, I did loose a regular campaign on normal because I had no heirs when my English king died. I didn't loose any heirs in battle, but had a run of 7 princesses which hurt. I also didn't do anything to get heirs married which might have been a factor. I finished one complete early campaign to 1453, and didn't observe any long term problem such as running out of heirs towards the end which I thought might happen if heirs became king at progressively older ages as the game progressed. The first round of heirs (brothers) are pretty old when they become king since the factions all start out with middle aged kings, but this disperses over a wider range of ages as the game progresses. I would say the birth rates and death rates are well balanced to give a chance of running out of heirs which adds some tension to the game, but it's a small enough that it isn't a game spoiler.

Concerning random reinforcements: would it be enough to simply not arrange your reinforcements, and take them as they are arranged by the ai?

[ToranagaSama]

Are you using the lateste MedMod? Did you install the patch over the MedMod 3.11?

Re reinforcements, yeah, I thought about that, but I'd still *know* what was coming, and act accordingly.

Pre-patch, I just loved it the couple of times I used reinforcements. The fact that I was actually using my reinforcements is a testament that the battle hadn't gone as expected, though it was still in the balance.

Battle:

I'm far from wherever the reinforcement *might* enter the field. I have no clue where I placed the "flag", whereever, its not in my immediate field of view. I'm SUPER busy managing what's left of my army and fighting the battle. (Note: whenever I'm in the *need* I can never figure out the damn reinforcement "System"&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif I barely have a moment to spare, and I'm clicking that damn "button" like a madman every 30 seconds---

My weaker troops are dropping like flies, only my stronger units are holding out, barely. I'm running them ragged, from one trouble spot to the other---flanking and attacking---men from both sides are fleeing the field in droves, as their units are steadily being decimated---where the HECK are my reinforcements Ahhhh...click...click

I have NO idea what direction the reinforcements will come, so I'm scanning the field 180 degrees every few seconds, hoping they don't come from behind the enemy---where the HECK are my reinforcements Ahhhh...

I'm expecting a "Fresh" unit of Heavy Cav to turn the tide of battle (or at least that's how I lined them up on the Battle Deployment Screen--Knights first.)---where the HECK are my reinforcements Ahhhh...

Then...finally...I see over my shoulder, a unit beginning to crest the hill behind me---Yes I turn back to the battle, and begin to assess how I'll victimize the AI (I hope&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, then scan the screen 180 degrees to get the reinforcing unit, and GAH they're ARCHERS WTF??

I think I'm done, but I'm not giving up. How can I use the Archers to any effect? At this point, I believe my King was the ONLY non-engaged unit. Sending my King into battle was an extremely risky proposition (I rarely commit him to battle), if he wasn't immediately successful there was a high likelihood he might flee, there was also a high likelihood he'd get killed quickly. In any likelihood, my troops would fold like an acordian(sp?). Especially so, given my top units were each engaged with 2 units of enemy troops apiece. What to do, what to do? Click that damn button again, but it'll take too long for "new" reinforcements to arrive.

What to do, what to do. A single unit of Archers, with no protection, weren't going to be too effective in shifting the battle, and using my King as protection for the Archers wouldn't be wise. What to do, what to do? What to do with these Archers? Thinking to myself: Archers are weak as melee troops, using them to pummel the enemy won't be good, what else are they good for?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

Speed Archers are fast, the fastest foot troops, right? Hmmm....AND they are, relatively, "fresh" Hmm...I could run them into range of that one Spear unit guarding the enemy King. Hit them with some Arrows, and I'll bet they come off that slope and attempt to engage (or chase away) the Archers. Hmmm...when they do so, I can wait until they get relatively close, and then "Run" my Archers in a direction away from the battle and especially their King.

Spears are relatively slow, much slower than Archers and slower, even more, than Knights---the King's bodyguard. Note: All troops on the field, from both sides, are engaged. Only the two Kings, Archer and Spear are not engaged.

Sooo, this is what I do. Run the Archers within range of the Spears, hit the spears with arrows and lead them off on a hopeless chase after my Archers. This leaves a clear unguarded path to the enemey King.

I then commit my King and head him, at an "angle" up the slope, directly toward the enemy King. Once *my* King is halfway to the enemy King sitting on the slope. I, THEN, take my Archers and Run them in a "wide" circle, so the Spears won't catch them, BACK toward the enemey King

I figure that my King will hold out, even, 1 for 1, with the enemey King for a bit of time. My hope is to hit the enemey King from the flank with my Archers---surprise the heck out of him.

What I need is for my King to "Hold", pressing the attack, while my Archers haul butt to save his bacon. I *know* my King won't hold for long, just one too many of his bodyguards killed and he'll turn tail and head for the Castle, debilatating the morale of his desparately engaged army.

In the nick of time, my Archers came to within a few feet of the enemey King with the Spear unit hot on their heels. The Enemey King, seeing the Archers, realizing he was about to be flanked ---Turned and, ---Fled So did, ---his entire Army.

(Did you see Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers?)

Victory....I have Victory

You see, if the Knights had come on has expected, I would have still won, but in a more bland, predictable manner. Satisfactory, but the sense of Victory would have been lost.

With the Archers, I had to improvise, think fast, identify and use what advantage I had available, and accept Risk---such IS the manner of true war.

[Puzz3D]

I did a clean install: mtw v1.0, vi v2.0, vi v2.01, medmod v3.10.

[Lancer6969]

What is up with this topic? ITS ALL JARGON http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Looks like multiple topics in one.

[ToranagaSama]

Whatsthematter, only one side of the brain working? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[eat cold steel]

Time for one of my hidden-in-some-obscure-thread-secert-extra-command-line-switch-post me thinks. New to the VI patch:
-old_age:A where A is when the old age kicks in for generals, for kings, royal blood and hero add 10 years to that. It default to 40 which gives you the above variation you see now.
-death_msg:R where R is the rank of a general must be to get a general dies of old age parchment when you are displaying non-critical messages.
-critical_death_msg:R same as the one above, but it display a death message regardless of if the non-critical message check box is ticked or not. The default is death_msg:4, critical_death_msg:11. This gives the same behaviour as before the patch - you only death message when you want non-critical message and the general is rank 4+.

[Swoosh So]

Is there a definative list of all the command line switches ecs?

[ToranagaSama]

ECS, you are the man

Gosh, go away for a couple days, come back and this is what awaits. Thank you.

Had plans to be away again this week, but that's been cancelled. So, this weekend, I'm going to do a fresh install, load the patch along with the MedMod. The new commands will be very interesting to play with.

-death_msg:R - Hmmm...haven't tried the patch yet, so I take it, the death of all generals now percipitates a parchment notice? If so, cool. No need to respond, I'll just experiement.

Anyway, if I have your attention, I'd just like to say that lately I've been playing a bit of Homeworld 2. Doing so has made me appreciate the genius behind the TW's "battle" AI. As well, as the continuing efforts with the Campaign/Strategy AI. I believe you are primarily responsible, if not please pass this on to whomever is.

Sir, I respect your work mightily I do not know of, nor believe there is ANY RTS AI that can compare to TW None whatsoever. The only game to come to mind is Total Annihilation and Chris Taylor. Of course such a comparison must be made through the prism of time and the technical capabilities of the day. (I'm not a RPG gamer, so I've not tried Dungeon Siege, but will one day just to see how he has developed.) You sir, are at the pinnicle of your profession.

BTW, I'm probably going to start a thread on the subject in the Tavern, I wonder does the idea of a Total War "Space" game have any appeal around the CA offices?

I'm thinking of a combo of, Space Empires IV, Homeworld 2, and Total War. Think of what your AI could bring to Homeworld, and how the general CA touch (game design and everything else) could bring "LIFE" to Space Empires---much in the way that TW has done for the Civ TBS model. Does that make any sense?

Thanks again.

~ ToranagaSama

P.S., got anymore surprises?