View Full Version : Medmod IV v3.14 Update
The 3.14 Update of the Medieval Mod IV is now posted at my webpage, along with an updated Readme for those wishing to view the mod's contents before downloading.
I have added Chapter Houses to the campaign files for most Crusading factions. Some enable Crusades immediately, and some don't.
Peasants are now available in all eras, and both they and Muster Fields require the 60% Farmland improvement to build. This was done primarily to encourage the AI to build the 60% improvement in fertile provinces.
Mongol units now affect the faith of populations ala Priests. I also added Pagan Shrines or Sacraficial Altars to all Mongol-held provinces in the Late campaign. I hope that these changes reduce the prospect of rebellions and keep the Mongols from having to keep so many units for garrison duties.
I added the new Crusader Kingdoms faction, with the Burgundians standing in for them until the new factions are added in the next version of the mod. This will allow us to play-test the faction now, and I think this is going to become a very popular faction among players.
There is more than one unique feaure about this faction, so please read their entry at the bottom of the faction descriptions doc. Their Homeland had also been re-arranged and expanded, so please view the Homelands page of the Excel file if you decide to try them out.
Pike units are now over-sized ala Muslim units, since they have been so ineffective in my games. I hope this allows us to take better advantage of their row support feature.
I also changed the stats and/or names for some Spanish and French units, so check those out in the faction descriptions doc as well.
In addition, I re-named Viking Huscarles as Svea Axemen, and altered the description to match.
Ditto for Pavisier Pikemen, whom I changed to Italian Armoured Pikemen.
Below are some excerpts from my posts in the 3.13 thread. The first regards an additon to the Readme.
Uprisings and Re-appearances:
I have re-worked the priorities and settings for the various types of revolts to reflect the massive changes that the mod makes to the units in the game. Basically, I have designated Crusade and Jihad units, which are detailed below, as the base units for Catholic and Muslim revolts, while individual units have been selected for the Orthodox revolts. The Crusade and Jihad units were chosen to help standardize the strength and composition of the uprisings and make it easier to change them without having to go through dozens and dozens of units for individual factions. For peasant revolts and bandits I selected individual units on the basis of both their statistics and special qualities, such as being mercenaries or regional units.
Note that there is a bug in the game with regards to revolts. Apparently this bug was in the original, 1.0 version of the game, and somehow re-appeared in the 2.01 patch. The bug seems to involve peasant revolts and uprisings which involve multiple provinces, such as faction re-appearances and the appearance of the Horde. The bug results in the creation of all-artillery or all-Naptha Thrower armies in certain provinces.
I have been making some adjustments to provincial ownership involving the Italians and Aragonese.
I think maybe the Aragonese were too strong in the Late age, so I gave Provence to the Genoese Confederacy. I also swapped Milan and Naples between them and the Venetians. The result is that the Confederacy actually looks a little historically correct, if you consider the Confederacy to be composed of the Sicilians, Genoese and other city-states such as Pisa and Florence.
I am trying right now to keep the Italians together in the Early and High eras, so we won't have to create a new faction just for one era. To this end I made Sardinia Rebel in the High era, and I weakened Corsica's infrastructure.
Also, I decided to tie the game's two Peasant units to the 60% land improvement building, and give the Muslim unit bonuses in the fertile Muslim and Mongol provinces. I did the same for the Christian unit. I hope that the AI will put an emphasis on getting the 60% imp built in those provinces. This means that Peasants require the 60% improvement in addition to the Muster Field, but they are available in all eras now. I have not tested this out to see if the AI will make Muster Fields and start turning out hordes of Peasants again.
In other news, I decided to restrict the Szekely to the Hungarians, and to Moldavia, Kiev, Bulgaria and Wallachia. I restricted Lithuanian Cav to the Poles, and added Prussia as a fourth province where you can get them, as well as making them available in all eras. I hope they can suffice as the Polish mounted archer unit for the entire game.
I removed the Swiss option to use French units, and I removed all sword units from their potential lineup except Swabian Swordsmen. Just another twist I find interesting. I enabled them to use Popolo Cav, so they now have access to all the HRE and Italian missile units. This means they can build any variety, from Archers to Crossbows to Arbelests to the gunpowder units. I just think that they are now a very distinct and interesting faction to both play as and against.
I reduced the stats of the Highlanders some time ago, when the English didn't have any decent infantry. I agree that they were too weak with the current setup, so I raised both their attack and defense by a point, and morale by 2. I must not have lowered their price with the stats, since even with the increased stats they were still priced a little too high. They are now comparable to FMAA, though you will want to try and take advantage of their superb speed and charge abilities.
Yay, should make my games more interesting (again)...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Have a cookie.
Looking forward to trying it out.
Does anyone know if it's possible to change how the sea regions are rated as far as deep sea? Also is it possible to change what type of water a ship can enter? That might be a good way to cut off the Atlantic and North sea areas from the Mediterranean sea powers. You could set the Gibralter sea region to deep sea and changed the Galleys and Islamic ships to coastal waters only. Then only the nations building the 'christian' ships could pass through the stait.
The Beef Baron
11-25-2003, 02:55
i know the outremer's are jsut a test but i thought i'd point out that clicking the GA icon in-game causes a CTD. good work so far wes...everytime i think ive gotten tired of this game you release a new version
cheers,
TBB
Basil Otis
11-25-2003, 05:58
Hi Wes
Firstly, great mod. (I'm also a fan of your CTPII med mod & it's exciting looking at what might come out of the CTPII source code project.)
Anyway, I was thinking about what you've done with the rebels & uprisings & I took to thinking about the problem of reappearing factions having highly limited ability to expand (well I think it's a problem...). Ultimately, the way the economic model works & with the size of uprisings there's not much scope for a faction to expand or become a threat & merely sit around doing nothing.
What you have done may present an opportunity to give re-emerging factions a bit of a hand. If the support costs for the specific rebellion units were reduced to close to zero they would/might have a better opportunity to build infrastructure & even additional units with which to attack. This might require a few rebellion only units that cannot otherwise be built.
Is this possible? Has it been done, or something else to assist with re-emerging factions?
Cheers
B.Otis
PS great to be able to post directly to this forum now
Quote[/b] (The Beef Baron @ Nov. 25 2003,01:55)]i know the outremer's are jsut a test but i thought i'd point out that clicking the GA icon in-game causes a CTD. good work so far wes...everytime i think ive gotten tired of this game you release a new version
cheers,
TBB
I believe all the modded nations do this - the goals aren't set for them so it screws up.
Jacque Schtrapp
11-25-2003, 19:58
I thought I installed wrong, but apparently the main screen doesn't update to say 3.14 with the new version. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Beelzebub
11-25-2003, 23:58
The Outremere kingdom has a chapter house in Cyprus, but can't seem to build crusades there.
The Beef Baron
11-26-2003, 00:02
thanks for the reply bdc
tbb
Quote[/b] (Basil Otis @ Nov. 24 2003,21:58)]Hi Wes
Firstly, great mod. (I'm also a fan of your CTPII med mod & it's exciting looking at what might come out of the CTPII source code project.)
Anyway, I was thinking about what you've done with the rebels & uprisings & I took to thinking about the problem of reappearing factions having highly limited ability to expand (well I think it's a problem...). Ultimately, the way the economic model works & with the size of uprisings there's not much scope for a faction to expand or become a threat & merely sit around doing nothing.
What you have done may present an opportunity to give re-emerging factions a bit of a hand. If the support costs for the specific rebellion units were reduced to close to zero they would/might have a better opportunity to build infrastructure & even additional units with which to attack. This might require a few rebellion only units that cannot otherwise be built.
Is this possible? Has it been done, or something else to assist with re-emerging factions?
Cheers
B.Otis
PS great to be able to post directly to this forum now.
I keep meaning to go check out Apolyton and see what's going on, but I just haven't thought of it when I felt like reading.
I guess I haven't witnessed enough about the re-emergence to make a decision. In theory, they should fight and expand until they have either lost enough men or conquered enough territory to become economically viable, ala the Horde. Is this not happening?
I know this model doesn't work for the Horde, but they are so huge at the start that the model never has a chance to work until they are permanently in the red.
BTW, some of you need to play some late campaigns and see how the Shrines I added and the Horde units' new faith effects work out. In my last game on High, it took 4 or 5 Chinese Inf to garrison each province, which just killed their momentum.
Adding rebellion-only units is doable, but you would have to make a pretty good selection to cover all three campaigns, and there always seem to be unforeseen problems when you get into a project like that.
I know about the Chapter House in Cyprus. I have played around in the past with making it a requirement for some of the Kingdoms units. Right now I just added the requirement of a Monastery for their knights. The Kingdoms can't build Crusades because the Burgundians can't build Crusades.
I don't plan on enabling them or the Teutonic Kns faction for Crusades in the future, either. Those two factions are the result of Crusades, so they should have to support themselves as regular, small factions.
I know this is a poor comparison, but it's all that's coming to mind right now, but to me allowing them to construct Crusades would be like allowing butterflies to build cocoons.
Jacques, I just forgot to update the mod number. I remember thinking about it, but I must have gotten distracted and overlooked it. If you see the Burgundians in High then you'll know it went ok. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
In further developments...
I am currently playing as the Italians in high, and it has been a very interesting game. I have been able to expand pretty rapidly, but trade is everything and even a fairly weak faction can hurt you if they manage it clog up a couple of chokepoints for even a few turns.
If you get ex-comm'd, watch out, because everyone seems to feel free to attack you, and the Pope will always stab you in the back when he gets an opening. My ex-comm'd king died the same turn as the Pope invaded, and somehow this automatically ex-comm'd my new king. Anyway, it gave me an excuse to wipe him out and sieze Rome, which I have made a very fertile province. (It's developed really well, too.)
Playing largely without cavalry has been a neat experience. Having a fast X-bow unit in Italian Sailors has also lead to the need to develop slightly different strategies than normal. The new thing I love most about this mod is how both playing as and against each faction is a unique experience, especially with the almost limitless variation in battlefields.
I saw that the Italians had a little bit of an unfair advantage in being able to build the Crusader Kingdoms units, since you will almost always take over some of their Homelands, or start out with them, so I removed the Italians from the list. They should be able to support themselves in Outremer anyway through their trade network.
I also removed Rhodes from the Italian Homeland.
I have currently replaced Crete and Malta with Anatolia and Nicaea to the Kingdoms' Homeland, but I don't know if this is better, or not.
Finally, I don't think that having Bodyguard units with the missile ability is working out. The AI always brings these units into range and has a duel with you. Or, more often when attacking, he brings them up and targets your commander, which is normally a heavily-armoured unit.
Thus, the Hungarians always brought their Vlastela into range of my Sailors, and I ended up trading a handful of Carracio Guards for entire units of Vlastela, which is really devastating when you kill their commander. I had similar experiences with Kataphracts when playing as the Kingdoms.
What I think I will do is simply replace the bows with shields. I will armour the French Mtd. X-bow unit, make it available in High, and let the Russians use it as well.
Vinsitor
11-26-2003, 15:25
LOL this MOD looks to be very very funny http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
[Befor installing it] Can I still play MP with the original stats? (As with the Shogun mod)
Tnx http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Erhm, not trying to be anoying but you made a mistake with the svean axemen. The danes have them to, the sveans are the ppl i north sweden while the southern or middle sweden are the "Goth"... yes Goth, there is no good translation. Well its spelled Götar.
Also, are you planing to keep the whole viking stile over sweden and denmark?
/Me
The Beef Baron
11-27-2003, 05:51
just got finished playin a few test games...all early. it seems the french are consistently strong. it looks like they are the first to get a crusade on the road and it definitely helps in their quest for world domination. as a result it appears as if other factions (~4-6) get wiped out in the early going. i know its impossible to maintain some sort of balance, but it would be nice to play through the ages against more than a couple of superpowers. to that effect i think it might be beneficial if the consequences of ex-communication are upped. historically the pope/RCC was a large influence, but this does not translate that well in the game. i have seen the papacy conquered in almost every game by the sicilians, while other factions ignore excommunication. is it possible to up the dissent penalty for excomm? or other possibilities.
Cheers,
TBB
Beelzebub
11-27-2003, 07:11
That's more of a game problem. On the campaign map provinces are too big. It's just too easy to blitz nations, especially in the beggining, and they're finsihed after 1 battle. Cordoba and Mardrid share borders, so in the game the Moor/Spanish conflict is settled in about 5 years when historically it took hundreds. Likewise for the english/french war on the continent and the Byzantine/Turkish one. The game is kind of balanced after 50 or so turns, but then there's only 5-6 big nations. At that point the balance gets better because there are a lot of big stacks all over which means core territory won't fall easily in a few turns with only one battle, and also any nation that gets too big is prone to rebellions.
The only really effective way to fix this would be to have a new campaign map with over 5 times as many provinces.
Quote[/b] (Lazul @ Nov. 26 2003,13:15)]Erhm, not trying to be anoying but you made a mistake with the svean axemen. The danes have them to, the sveans are the ppl i north sweden while the southern or middle sweden are the "Goth"... yes Goth, there is no good translation. Well its spelled Götar.
Also, are you planing to keep the whole viking stile over sweden and denmark?
/Me
Well, a month or so ago when you Swedes kept asking for the Axemen, I said that I would be happy to put them in the game, but I would like for one of you to provide me some info and a description for them. None of you ever bothered to help with them, so I just finally went ahead and put in what I figured would be alright for them.
The Danes/Swedes now fulfill a role that enhances the game by providing a unique unit lineup, and I have no wish to change them just because of national pride.
My aim with the factions is to make each of them unique. I try to use historically correct units and such whenever possible, but gameplay always comes first. From everything I have read, the Danes and Swedes essentially mimicked the Germans and French, and I saw no point in making another knight-based faction.
TBB, I only gave the French the ability to build Crusades immediately in the Early campaign, because of historical accuracy in regards to the First Crusade. More factions can build them immediately in later eras. Most of the other factions get Houses to start with, but they only have a Keep as the castle structure. Hopefully the factions will gradually upgrade their House province and thus gain access to Crusades gradually as well.
For those of you wondering, I have tried giving everyone immediate access to Crusades in the past, and this always resulted in 2 or 3 factions beginning them immediately, which usually hamstrung their initial growth. Supporting the Crusades as they made their way across the continent one province at a time was particularly bad for small factions like the Sicilians.
Beelzebub hits upon one of the historical flaws in the game regarding the classic faction rivalries, but we have to step back and remember that this game is at heart a Real-time battle sim set in the Medieval age, and not an historically accurate political/economic sim. One of the things that I enjoy most about modding is adding as much historical flavor and accuracy as possible to the experience, but in the end it is just "flavor", and not the main course.
We don't have access to things like Ex-communication effects. The Papacy was orignally so weak that they were easily conquered, so I have significantly increased both the starting military and economic strength of the Papacy, with the unwanted result that they have become militarily aggressive in many situations. Their aggressiveness is again something that I can't affect. Ideally, imo, the Papacy would be forbidden to launch attacks outside of Rome and the Papal States, while being formiddable defenders.
In my experiences with so-called 4X games, you want your AI opponents to gradually grow in strength as you do, so that you consistently face opponents whose strength is comparable to your own. If most all of the factions survived through the centuries, you would face relatively weaker and weaker adversaries. The only time I see a problem is if the same factions become powers most every time.
I think that the best you can do in regards to faction balance is to give each faction a chance to become a power, and consistently give the player a unique, tough but winnable game for the first 50 turns or so. And "just" doing this is an immense problem when you are talking about a game with three campaigns, a couple dozen factions and the almost unlimited variables that MTW has.
LOL this MOD looks to be very very funny
[Befor installing it] Can I still play MP with the original stats? (As with the Shogun mod)
Well, "funny" is a new one. The mod replaces the projectile stats, so you would need to follow the un-install procedure before going online. It should only take a few seconds to swap the mod in and out, so I wouldn't let this keep me from trying the mod.
Quote[/b] (Lazul @ Nov. 26 2003,12:15)]Erhm, not trying to be anoying but you made a mistake with the svean axemen. The danes have them to, the sveans are the ppl i north sweden while the southern or middle sweden are the "Goth"... yes Goth, there is no good translation. Well its spelled Götar.
Lazul: Methinx all of your comments are more aimed at a 'Baltic Sea' based game/mod than Wes' mod, not wishing to make you mad, eh?
Wes has 20 factions to enable as 'active players'. There are already concerns over what factions in what era will be 'IN' the game.
I agree that we should all get to have all the small nations we like 'IN THE GAME', but one must understand that CA's source-code is out of reach, eh? Double the provinces, and give all mod'ers open source, and we'll all get what we want.
'Till then, I suggest that all interested in this mod, well, read the 'readme' and 'faction descriptions' available from the 3.14 DL's (charts and readmes)---- remember, these change after every download of a txt update, eh?
Wes is one person, CA is many Your were expecting????
Hi there... I`ve found something...
I play Egiptians and now it`s 1205 AD - in Egipt I can train Germanic Knights - mercenary unit. looks realy strange so I won`t build them anymore.
is it correct or a mistake?
marcino
Having recently read the txt's thoroughly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif I'm pretty sure this is deliberate. A way I guess to make western style cavalry available to the muslims.
Ehr... WesW. I never tried to tell how to make the mod, i was only trying to help you out and give you idées.
I really do liek your mod and makes the game alot more fun to play, never meant to be anoying. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Lazul;
Your doing the right thing, guy Don't feel like your doing something wrong, as your not
Your comments are MOST appreciated, so drive on
Any part of the mod that you may comment on is good comment for the 'test team', Wes is looking for all the 'play-testers' he can get, eh?
You too may be part of the making of the mod, eh? Find Wes's emale addy from his Wes/site and join on in, lol
Worx mit mir, Nicht Wahr?
thanx L'zard
so... i just made up some idées for danish and swedish units.
and some got descriptions.
here goes... please comment ppl:
*Early*
*Swedish Hirdmen(mounted) - Strong Charge - Good Attack - Good Defence - Armoured - Good Morale - Swords, not lances
*Danish Hirdmen(mounted) -//-
The Scandinavians have allways been a bit isolated in the north and never developed the same tactics of war as the rest of europe. The Hirdmen are a good exampel. They care no lances and tend to be a bit to brave against spear equiped footmen.
*Svean Axemen - very good morale - Strong Charge - Good attack - Weak Defence - AP (all periods)
These wild men from middle and northen Sweden carry the tradition of the vikings in to the medieval era. Little care of their own lives they rush the enemy lines with mad songs of war and tend to get killed unless they are supported by Knights or Hirdmen or even more Sveans. This fanaticism is no confort to the enemy unless they have bows and are on horses.
*Scandinavian Peasants - very strong charge - weak attack - weak defence (all periods)
The Scandinavian Peasants have allways been very independent and never really been supressed as the ones in easterna and western europe. Therefor the Scandinavian peasants not only work for the nobles but act as support for the knights and hirdmen of the north.
*High*
Hirdmen as royal for sweden.
Danish Knights(mounted) - Very good attack - good defence - armoured - very strong charge
during the high period of the middle ages the Danes became more developed and now used heavy knights much like the germans to drive invaders of or to break defensive lines.
Swedish Longbows - weak attack - weak defence - strong charge - Long range - AP
The swedish longbow was the answer to the danish knights that invaded Sweden around 1210. The longbow proved usefull in the Battle of Lena but the longbowmen in sweden could never dream to match the english. (Semi-Historical).
Bondi - Good Attack - Good Defence - Defence bonus versus mounted...the same as WesW unit. (both danes and swedes).
*late*
Swedish Royal Knights - Very good attack - Very good defence - Irre.-Charge - Heavily Armoured - excellent morale
Danish Royal Knights - Very good attack - Very good defence - Irre.-Charge - Heavily Armoured - excellent morale
and one made up hero: Arn De Gothia....slayer of danes hahah... just kiddin
Hmm, in my 3.14 game emmisaries seem to have become Jihads... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
OK, another of my periodical and radical suggestions;
Remove all siege and artillery weapons from the game. The AI doesn't know how to use them. The Mongols routinely have 4 to 6 morters in thier starting roster when they attack, making it quite easy to beat them piecemeal. Othere factions build too many of them, and it is easy enogh to manuever around the big ones in a battle. Also, the AI doesn't use them that well in sieges.
If they are removed, all open field battles are enhanced. Castles can still be assaulted, but it is very costly to attack the larger type. However, i think this is a good thing. Assaulting was always too easy for the human - line up 8 large cannon and 8 good melee units and in you go.
I've removed them in my current game and the challenge is better.
AB
Is there any way to make them useless against people but gd vs walls? In real life they would be all-but useless against small targets, but stationary castles are different. The really big ones would just be too good otherwise.
Quote[/b] (marcino @ Nov. 28 2003,17:05)]Hi there... I`ve found something...
I play Egiptians and now it`s 1205 AD - in Egipt I can train Germanic Knights - mercenary unit. looks realy strange so I won`t build them anymore.
is it correct or a mistake?
marcino
This is correct. It is a buildable mercenary unit available to the Muslim factions.
Ser Clegane
11-29-2003, 13:23
A questions on the MedMod (probably has been asked before, but please do not slap me)
I usually prefer to play GA, and for some factions I get a CTD as soon as I click on the GA button.
This seems to happen with new factions, such as sweden or the Swiss - is this caused by the fact that GAs are hardcoded and it therefore does not make any sense that I try playing the added factions in a GA campaign?
Thanks in advance for clarification
Yeah pretty much. Bit annoying, I think it could be fixed but I am under the impression it would take Wes ages and wouldn't be worth the effort until the rest is done.
Ser Clegane
11-29-2003, 13:56
Thanks for the quick reply http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I would agree - minor annoyance only, once you are aware of it you can just avoid playing certain factions in GA
Jacque Schtrapp
11-29-2003, 21:14
I believe that certain "minor factions" and all new factions were never programmed to have the GA screen accessed from the strat map, hence the CTD. Even if you are playing a faction that cannot access the GA screen, the game still functions in GA mode for the other factions. Since the entire GA theme (with the exception of points) is hard-coded, I don't believe this will ever be fixe. A shame really, because a well done set of GA's could revitalize the entire game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-29-2003, 21:48
Quote[/b] ]A shame really, because a well done set of GA's could revitalize the entire game.
I agree completelly. It's really something that CA should have thought about. Since they promissed to make MTW a "mod-frendly" game, it's quite an omition on their part. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif
Russ Mitchell
11-30-2003, 03:19
(Hi, Wes, I can finally post on this board...)
re: GA, yes... especially because it's obvious that CA doesn't know diddly about East-Central, Southeastern, or Eastern European history. Yes, I know that's a harsh claim, but they have totally missed...
1. The Neopolitan Succession War
2. The Battle of Semlin and the Hungaro-Byzantine wars for control of the Balkans
3. Where are the Hussite Wagonburgs?
4. Why do handgunners exist in 1321? EEEK (Okay, that last one I can see as a game-balance thing, but nobody except the Italians should get them to start with, and then it's the Bohemians who take it to a high art in the early fifteenth century...
Wes, with the information I have, I still can't see how to do that Excel work you wanted done automatically, rather than by hand... perhaps if i could see the master sheet? Also, I have a large number of corrections for medieval hungary... I'll try to find that thread where the Szekely were discussed, and drop them in there.
-Russ
nobody wants to comment my ideas for scandinavian untis? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Hmm, in my 3.14 game emmisaries seem to have become Jihads...
I have no idea what would cause that.
OK, another of my periodical and radical suggestions;
Remove all siege and artillery weapons from the game. The AI doesn't know how to use them. The Mongols routinely have 4 to 6 morters in thier starting roster when they attack, making it quite easy to beat them piecemeal. Othere factions build too many of them, and it is easy enogh to manuever around the big ones in a battle. Also, the AI doesn't use them that well in sieges.
If they are removed, all open field battles are enhanced. Castles can still be assaulted, but it is very costly to attack the larger type. However, i think this is a good thing. Assaulting was always too easy for the human - line up 8 large cannon and 8 good melee units and in you go.
I've removed them in my current game and the challenge is better.
AB
Yeah, that would be pretty radical, and it would certainly make the game more challenging. Perhaps TS will add it to his list of hardcore rules. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I do agree that they need to be removed from open battles. Usually that are not a factor, and when they are used, they have too much power to strike fear. This seems to be more powerful since the patch. If I have a couple of Catapults when defending, the AI is almost impotent. They wander around forever before finally trying to attack, and then if you fire in their direction they either halt or turn tail.
I noticed that all the artillery units, and only those units, had Castle Defender listed in their unit attributes. I have removed that setting, and I'll see how this affects their placement in the battle queue.
Russ, try and email me a copy of your proposal for Hungarian changes. I did a good bit of military research on them, and Mael (Yelping Godzilla) provided a lot of unit info as well.
OTOH, any economic input you can offer would be very helpful, since I just added things like goods and mines that would provide the necessary income to make the inland factions (HRE, Poles, Huns and Russians) viable, with very little historical basis.
As to the Excel work, you just need to download the 3.14 texts portion and extract the files in the Charts and Readmes folder. The v3 unit stats contains a copy of the units text, which would be the "Master sheet".
Drop me a line about what you can't figure out, and any possible changes to the units text that might solve the problems. For example, I can insert blank spaces between the quotes and commas in the faction list, or perhaps order them alphabetically. I can also order the units in the units text by faction, though there are a good many that are available to multiple major factions, such as the missile units. Those units can be divided by religion, though.
Oh, and you really need to get the VI add-on.
Lazul, your proposed unit list is exactly what I was asking for. Info on Scandinavian armies is hard to find, at least for me.
I think that everything except the Longbows can be done easily enough, and without changing the basic nature of the faction. The Longbows can't be implemented because there are no other variations of bows that can be made.
The Peasant and Svea Axemen sound just like the existing Karl and Landsmenn units. I could change the name of the Landsmenn to the Svea, if it's a big deal to you, but the bonus for Sweden needs to be a later, more powerful unit in order to encourage the AI to develop the province until it can build said unit.
I can change the Nordic Raider unit to the Hirden, and give it the same stats as Dienstleuten, which are Mounted Sgts. w/ cav bonuses of 1 and 1. I can mark the lack of lance and their sword specialization by lowering their charge by two, ala Boyars, and adding an extra point of cav defense, ala Hungarian Nobles.
I can change the Marauders into Scandinavian Knights, with Feudal Kn stats.
I can simply change the name of the Mtd. Huscarles to Armoured Hirden, which means 2 extra points of armour, and I'll exchange the sword for an axe. This will make them very effective versus cav, especially knights.
Collectively, this gives you a diverse cav lineup with an emphasis on defending against the powerful cav of its neighbors, while letting its powerful infantry be the primary weapon.
I looked through the infantry and saw that the Landsmenn seemed weak, so I upped their attack by one, which should make them comparable to Heerban. I don't plan on making any other changes to the infantry units.
Sounds good WesW.
The problem with Sweden and Denmark is that they didnt developed "knights" at the same time. I would say that Sweden enver really had any knights that could match germanic and franco knights. Maybe in late.
But to make this fare, you could make the swedish knights faster but less armoured to give them i chance to flank easier.
Russ Mitchell
12-01-2003, 17:40
Yes, now that I have the CORRECT faction lists in my hands (embarrassed look), I can see that you did an awful lot of work. The problem is that almost nothing of the really good work has been published in a western language right now... you have to know the hungarian sources backwards, and THEN be able to shift through the Russian scholarship...
I picked up the VI mod and installed it last night, so that I had a good comparative base between what was the orig. and what is modded (never change two variables at once), so I'll have economic data available shortly. It's a far cry from what you're used to reading in the western scholarship, though, so be prepared.
EDIT: Sorry to make you feel neglected, Lazul... but I'm poorly versed on Northern European units once you're NW of the Kievan state and the so-called "Saltovo culture."
Russ Mitchell
12-01-2003, 17:53
Oh hey, Wes... if I get time, can I write you new historical descriptions for the game periods? The ones CA provides... suck. It's drawn out of that f-ed up branch fo English historiography which holds that the middle ages only really start with the Norman invasion, and the rest is "migration period," a stealth pseudonym for the now-debunked "Dark Ages"... The so-called "early period" is in fact smack in the middle of the High Middle Ages, and well into the Ottonian Renaissance... the write-up reads like it's still 850 AD...
(grrrr. Insert "Angry Medievalist" noises here)
Its a shame that Wes and BKB can't get together and do a collaborative MOD together. The 30 factions in the super MOD is incredibly challenging and does a great job of depicting the true difficulty in creating a vast empire, and BKB has done a great job with the graphics. What is lacking is some play balance, and AI tweaking, something Wes does a good job with.
Quote[/b] (Russ Mitchell @ Dec. 01 2003,09:53)]Oh hey, Wes... if I get time, can I write you new historical descriptions for the game periods? The ones CA provides... suck. It's drawn out of that f-ed up branch fo English historiography which holds that the middle ages only really start with the Norman invasion, and the rest is "migration period," a stealth pseudonym for the now-debunked "Dark Ages"... The so-called "early period" is in fact smack in the middle of the High Middle Ages, and well into the Ottonian Renaissance... the write-up reads like it's still 850 AD...
(grrrr. Insert "Angry Medievalist" noises here)
Well, this is the stuff that I have been asking for these last few weeks. I would love for you to write them up. You may want to see how I currently have the provinces allotted, but that means simply booting up the mod.
If I can get you to do faction write-ups on Central and Eastern Europe, Dan McB to handle Western Europe, A_B to make any changes to the Orthodox factions, and perhaps one of the Swedes here to handle the Danes and Sweden, that would cover most everything.
They shouldn't take very long to do, except for the new factions and those whom I have enabled for new eras like the Russians, which will have to be done from scratch.
I would just like for someone with expertise in a particular region to go over the current descriptions and make any changes he feels are necessary, and I would think you guys would love to do the ones from scratch.
The write-ups are in the Loc\eng\startpos.txt, along with some which were updated or added later and placed in the changes.txt.
I have pasted in the current write-up for the French in Early, which may be fine as is. Dan McB, for example, would read it over and edit it, replace or insert some text on new topics which were overlooked, or just say that it looks fine as it is.
@["FSM_faction_info_faction_FRENCH_EARLY"]
@{"At first glance, the position of the French King looks unenviable. His centre of power around Paris and the Ile-de-France looks small and vulnerable, and the great nobles often openly flout his authority. That these great nobles also nominally include the King of England is no comfort either. In French eyes, the English Kings may be vassals in France, but in fact they act like unwelcome masters in much of the land. The King of France has no real authority in what should be his own domain where the English are concerned. Sooner or later, this problem will have to be addressed and settled once and for all."}
@{"Until then, France must contend with a potentially aggressive neighbour to the north, the Holy Roman Empire to the east, the relatively weak Christian kingdoms of Spain to the south, and Italy. After the English, the Holy Roman Empire is the greatest rival, particularly if the Emperor harbours ambitions of conquering Italy. If possible, expansion into northern Italy represents a good way of securing French glory and thwarts Imperial ambitions. This is particularly true if relations with the Catholic Church become strained. A French army in Rome is a powerful argument when dealing with the Papacy, but provokes religious discontent by its presence."}
@{"If all this paints a bleak picture of French prospects, things are not quite as bad as they appear. France is a very rich country and can have more-than-ample resources to draw upon. Once the French king has spent wisely and secured his heartlands, an enemy could have a difficult time in taking them, especially against the flower of French knighthood. And when waging a war of aggression, France has the same advantages: in honour and nobility, those same French knights are the envy of the world Above all, France must avoid expansion (and therefore warfare) in too many places at the same time. War against the English must not allow the Empire to nibble away at French possessions, and vice versa. France has the power to prosper mightily, but only when this power is used carefully."}
As for BKB's mod, Dan brought it to my attention a few weeks ago, and I plan to see if BKB will let me incorporate his work into the next version of the mod. I know that adding factions requires a huge amount of work and know-how, so if he has already done the work for many of the factions that I plan on adding, it will be a great relief to me.
Listing him as a co-author would be fine, since the new factions will be the main feature of the next version, along with the campaign and faction write-ups. I am trying to get the last remaining game-play and balancing issues addressed in this version.
To that end, I spent about all day today working on units. I guess you know you're getting close to the end when each decision seems to take forever. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I found that I have not been as thorough in updating the faction descriptions as I thought I was, as I found material that was weeks out of date. Also, removing the bows from the bodyguard units caused a major re-thinking about several factions, in addition to the Danish/Swedish cavalry and a few other things that I am trying out.
In the faction descriptions, I went back and looked over many of the units, to see if I couldn't standardize the references more. I re-described many units in terms of old, familiar units like FMAA, Mounted Sergeants and Feudal Kns., whose basic stats have not been altered for the mod. I was surprised at how powerful some of the Muslim infantry was when described in this manner, especially the Arab Inf and Almohad UM.
Some of the references are not exact, in that a unit may have +1 attack and -1 defense in relation to its reference, or slightly different charge, armour or morale. I didn't think it was good to string out a description for slight differences that will have little effect on unit performance.
I decided to increase the castle required for second and third-level Shipyards to a Castle and Citadel, respectively. This should cut down on the numbers of ships sailing around, and force harder decisions about what to build.
I usually spend as much or more time reading and writing emails as I do posting, and one of the emails I got last week mentioned how Grand Inquisitors were rarely if ever seen in the game. Well, I had been meaning to try and implement a Pagan Priest for the Horde and other pagan factions such as the Cuman and Pru(ssians), and this seemed like the most logical choice.
So, I have made the necessary changes to the unit settings, and it should now be the equal of a Cardinal, requiring a Sacrificial Shrine. I also incorporated it into the Mongol Invasion ala Chinese Mortars, so hopefully some will be created to help pacify the provinces that the Horde rolls over.
There isn't any way I know of to eliminate its diplomatic abilities, so I'll have to play-test some this week and see how it works out.
I also adjusted the Mongol Invasion settings to have fewer supporting units like artillery and napthas, and I gave Warriors a higher percentage.
I made tweaks to many units, from strengthening French and Spanish Militia Sgts. to lowering the building requirements for Szekely. I'll just mention the major changes below.
Spearmen:
I went through the units and decided to take Spearmen away from factions that had other spear units available in the Early era. This may restrict the units available right at the start of the Early game, but I don't think this is that bad of a thing myself.
This means that only the HRE, Poles and Hungarians have access to them, in addition to the Byz, whom I made an exception for because the requirements for Byz Inf are extensive.
I eliminated the Town Watch requirement from African and Turkish Spearmen, so that a Spearshop should be the only requirement for the first spear units for all other factions.
Poles:
I took the bows away from the Lithuanian Cav, and made them available to the Russians as well. I then gave them a bonus versus cav of +2 attack, making them almost equal to Hungarian Nobles, which seems about right to me.
I brought back the Czeladz Bowmen, making them a High unit equal to Byz Cav with X-bows, which is the same as Popolo Cav.
This means that the French will again not have a mounted missile unit, but I don't think that pecking away enemies should be their style.
Hungarians:
I pretty much left the Vlastela alone after removing their bows, only giving them extra speed as a boost.
English:
I tweaked the Welsh and English Longbowmen to FMAA and CMAA with Longbows, respectively. The English have decent cavalry and AP infantry, so this should give them decent sword units if needed, especially when the terrain renders missiles largely ineffective. The English faction bonus for these units means that you get the missile ability for free, so you shouldn't really worry about losing them in melee.
Danes/Swedes:
I have pasted their current faction description text below. They should have pretty decent cavalry, really, if used defensively or for flank attacks versus opposing cavalry. The Armoured Hirden should be particularly effective in the Late era, when opposing knights will have an armour value of 10 or more.
Also note that I have given them access to the HRE/Swiss Mtd. X-bow unit, which will be useful for picking off armoured opponents. The new Teutonic Kns faction will have access to it in the next version, and their combined Homeland includes all the Danish's except for Norway and Sweden, so it wasn't a big deal to give them access.
Danes/Swedes
The descendents of the Vikings remain strong in infantry, but weak in other areas, especially cavalry. They will have to rely on their armour-piercing axes to carve out an empire, using their cavalry primarily to fend off the heavily-armoured knights of their neighbors.
Note: Historically, the Danes and Swedes adopted the same types of forces as those of their neighbors, which were built around the mounted knight. However, for gameplay purposes I wanted there to be a Catholic faction whose forces were built around blade infantry, much as the English are built around archer units and the Italians are built around spear and halberd units.
Early-
Hirden- Mtd. Sgts. w/ no lance, good morale, bonus vs. cav of 1 and 2 (BG)
Mtd. X-bows
Svea Axemen- Viking Landsmenn
Viking Karls- like VC w/ -1 valour; 100-man unit; bonus in Finland
Crossbows
High-
Scandinavian Knights- Feudal Kns. (BG)
Svea Axemen- Viking Huscarles; bonus in Sweden
Viking Bondi- Chiv. Sgts. w/ +1 attack; bonus in Norway
Late-
Armoured Hirden- Arm. Hirden w/ ex. morale, axes (BG)
Armoured Huscarles- JomsVikings; bonus in Denmark
Note: Arm. means +2 defense and armour
Lazul, there isn't any way to give unit access to different factions in different eras, and I don't plan on making whole new units just to do so. I think this setup is close enough in historical accuracy.
The new changes sound very interesting. I'm looking forward to seing them.
I'll just mention a small thing I saw in a game last night.
I (the poles) captured jerusalem on the slim chance that I could build crusader-units there - I couldn't (I know, should have read the files first...). No big, I was at the time surrounded by russian territory, so I decided to incite some rebellion in arabia. The arab peasants revolted the next turn with the force of 4 spies They showed as 4 regular units with 1 man pr. unit, right-clicking showed the regular description. What was that about? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Needless to say the spies didn't manage to wrest control from the russian army in the region...
Sounds good WesW... keep up the good work. But if you need help with anything scandinavian, just say so and ill try to help you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
lekoukou
12-02-2003, 15:07
Hi WesW,
I enjoy your mod immensely. Astonishing piece of work.
I am playing as the Byzantine (early, hard). I am in 1170. I exausted myself in taking out the Turks and I think I will not survive the massive Egyptian attack that followed. They completely destroyed my navy and I am barely holding on the provinces I took from the Turks.
The Russians look the strongests for the moment. They killed the Pope and they have a lot of provinces. The HRE went down (it was attacked by many foes) and so did the Hungarians (eaten alive by the Italians).
If you need someone to help on the French units and territory ressources, I’ll be happy to give a hand (I am French).
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
lekoukou
12-02-2003, 15:31
Ho and I see an Egyptian princess in my game. And no, I am not on wine... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Did you allow princess for muslim factions or this is just something strange?
I suspect it's intended. Names for the princesses would be nice though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
lekoukou
12-02-2003, 16:31
Hi WesW
I find your description for the french period really fine.
You may want to change
"At first glance, the position of the French King looks unenviable" by
"At first glance, the position of the French Capetian King looks unenviable"
if you want to add some historical flavor.
I am not sure if you might need this, but since we are speaking about princesses, here are firstnames of some historical French Medieval princesses:
Adélaïde
Adèle
Agnès
Anne
Béatrice
Berthe
Blanche
Cécile
Constance
Cunégonde
Eléonore
Gisèle
Hervise
Isabelle
Jeanne
Lucienne
Marguerite
Marie
Mathilde
Yolande
Russ Mitchell
12-02-2003, 18:55
Hey Wes... sent you a missive in Word yesterday... if you made those changes re: Vlastela, then likely most of what i've been suggesting is going to fall too far on the accuracy side of the inevitable history-vs-gameplaybalance lever you've gotta work. I'm going to start the excel sheet today, and hopefully get it to you this evening. Do me the favor, time allowing, and let me know which of the suggestions you went against strongly, so that I have a better idea of where you're going, and we don't waste time...
Faction blurbs will come this evening...
I'll just mention another problem I've had with 3.14 here, concerning gunpowder-buildings. I suspect a bug http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
The year gunpowder was invented I (the Polish king Henry III) decided to build a foundry in Franconia and a gunsmith in Saxony. The construction started, but distracted by other matters (treachery by the bastard khan of the Golden Horde) I didn't think more about it at the time.
A couple of years later I decided to build a couple more foundries, but I found out I couldn't Apparently only buildings started the very year gunpowder is invented is allowed. I thought that I might be allowed to build more in the late age but no. I could upgrade the existing buildings though.
To make it even more confusing, a dozen or so years before claiming a 60% victory i found, that I could now build gunsmith workshops again after maybe 100 years (still no foundries). The only thing I can think of that happened is that I lost and regined a couple of provinces on the baltic (including Saxony - my gunsmith province).
I tested this when I started a late game and still couldn't build foundries and gunsmiths (egypt). The existing ones could be upgraded.
I've changed the building files, so there is no longer a demand of gunpowder to build the buildings, and now I can build them fine. Cant really play anything but late games like that though.
EDIT: I just thought of something that might explain it - have you made the gunpowderbuildings unique??
I just thought of another comment to this great mod. Let me just say that again: It's a great mod. Just assisting with the tweaking of it.
My last game as the poles saw 4 super-powers: Danes, Papists, Turks and Poles. In my 3 games so far the same thing has happened to the Italians - early expansion and then disintegration. Also the byz have been destroyed by the moslems in both my nonbyz-games, it seems a very tough starting position for them - maybe they should have nicaea?
The thing I've noticed the most is the danish fleet. When the game with the poles ended last night the danes had 4-5 full stacks of longships and barques in skagerack, north sea and the channel The cost was crippling their economy completely, and for nothing - the only competing fleet in those waters were 2 polish caravels pr. zone. It gave the danes a great tactical advantage to control all waters save the baltic (which they could have taken if they were agressive) but they couldn't afford to build any troops to exploit the advantage. I've noticed in an earlier game, that the Italians make the same mistake in the med.
Another thing is, I think the ai builds up regions where it can build nothing anyway. It probably can't be helped, but it's a severe disadvantage for the computer. At least the rest of us can just turn the useless provinces into cash-cows.
lekoukou
12-04-2003, 15:44
Playing the Byz in Early is a now strong challenge for a human player so I can imagine that the AI will not be successful with them most of the time. Its funny, the Byz used to be arguably the strongest Early faction in the vanilla MTW.
Great great Mod Wes.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Beelzebub
12-04-2003, 18:33
Not really Magraev. It's good the Danes concentrate so much on Naval power. Sure it leaves them open to some attacks, but they can really cripple one of the other western seapowers by destroying their trade network (england, france, spain, sweden) if they get in a war with them, since they'll almost always win quickly at see. Even a human player has to tread lightly around them unless you want to sacrifice a large part of your fleet taking them on. They usually don't tear up the map in most games, but they can easily grab weak provices on the atlantic/baltic posts, to expand. The only way they die is if they get in a war with sweden (and they can usually win that conflict). The HRE never really takes them out, cuz the HRE mostly gets ganked by France, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Italy and Denmark (they get a few provinces out of it if they join in).
Kristaps
12-04-2003, 20:44
Started a WesW-Med Mod 3.14 English campaign yesterday. He's done a great job even though I might disagree with some of the approaches (not making urban militia a universal unit, for example).
One thing I noticed: if an AI faction gets kicked out of its homelands (the AI factions do this to each other frequently) it is soon doomed (the same applies to reemerging factions if they appear in non-homeland areas) since the only troop type they can enlist are spearmen...
On a positive note: saw the Swedes expand all over the map using their melee troop advantage just to be kicked out of their homelands by the Danish (a similar troop assortment) which lead to the ultimate doom of the Swedes in mid-game.
By the way, in this game, the Swedes managed to take the Danish homelands (Denmark and Norway) before being kicked off the map by the very same Danish they just abused. The pope's excommunication papers helped as two English expeditions managed to free these provinces from then already excommunicated Swedes. As a result, now, half of the map is owned by hordes of Danish spearmen with some remains of their original landsmen Not sure if this was the original vision for the mod.
The Beef Baron
12-05-2003, 02:08
hey mag, i think you are only allowed one foundry/gunpowder bldg...as is the case with siege weapon buildings: only one per faction.
TBB
Jacque Schtrapp
12-05-2003, 03:36
Someone may already have posted this, but I can't build the "Baronial Estate" as the French in Late which means no "Compagnies d"Ordinance."
Quote[/b] (The Beef Baron @ Dec. 04 2003,20:36)]hey mag, i think you are only allowed one foundry/gunpowder bldg...as is the case with siege weapon buildings: only one per faction.
TBB
Indeed, you can only build one Here's the line in the Build Prod file: FOUNDRY "Bell Foundry, Cannon Foundry, Master Foundry" "TROOP_PRODUCER, UNIQUE"
As you can see it says "UNIQUE", thus that means only one can be build (per faction).
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Dec. 04 2003,20:36)]Someone may already have posted this, but I can't build the "Baronial Estate" as the French in Late which means no "Compagnies d"Ordinance."
Have you build a Fortress (CASTLE13) and a Baronial Court (ROYAL_COURT3)? Those are the building requirements for building a Baronial Estate.
Quote[/b] (Beelzebub @ Dec. 04 2003,11:33)]Not really Magraev. It's good the Danes concentrate so much on Naval power. Sure it leaves them open to some attacks, but they can really cripple one of the other western seapowers by destroying their trade network (england, france, spain, sweden) if they get in a war with them, since they'll almost always win quickly at see. Even a human player has to tread lightly around them unless you want to sacrifice a large part of your fleet taking them on. They usually don't tear up the map in most games, but they can easily grab weak provices on the atlantic/baltic posts, to expand. The only way they die is if they get in a war with sweden (and they can usually win that conflict). The HRE never really takes them out, cuz the HRE mostly gets ganked by France, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Italy and Denmark (they get a few provinces out of it if they join in).
Yes - it's an advantage to concentrate on boats at first, but you reach a point where your mastery of the seas is beyond question - why do they continue to build boats then - we're talking maybe 15-20 full stacks here (plus a sizeable fleet in the med). They can't afford it and so grind to a halt.
Jacque Schtrapp
12-05-2003, 17:46
Quote[/b] ([DnC] @ Dec. 05 2003,02:50)]Have you build a Fortress (CASTLE13) and a Baronial Court (ROYAL_COURT3)? Those are the building requirements for building a Baronial Estate.
The only buildings I haven't built in Ile de France are monastery, spy building, and gunsmith. I have master level everything else. Baronial Estate simply isn't available in the build list.
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Dec. 05 2003,10:46)]
Quote[/b] ([DnC] @ Dec. 05 2003,02:50)]Have you build a Fortress (CASTLE13) and a Baronial Court (ROYAL_COURT3)? Those are the building requirements for building a Baronial Estate.
The only buildings I haven't built in Ile de France are monastery, spy building, and gunsmith. I have master level everything else. Baronial Estate simply isn't available in the build list.
While looking at the Build Prod file I can't see anything that's wrong. Though there are some things I do not understand why they've been done that particular way.
Sadly Gnome-editor can't seem to open both the Build Prod and Unit Prod files of Wes's latest version. Thus it's a bit harder for me to see what the problem is.
Sorry that I couldn't be of any further help.
Only the HRE, Polish, Russian and Spanish are listed as being able to build the Baronial Estate.
Old Templar
12-05-2003, 21:52
[DnC] - I do not understand why you can not open Wes' files with the Gnom Editor. Go to startpos, highlight MMEarly, right klick and choose "Open with", highlight "Notepad" and Bingo. I hope, this is what you are looking for.
>>>I do not understand why you can not open Wes' files with the Gnom Editor.
I think Wes had changed the explanation lines at the beginning of the files. If you replace the section before the DATA STARTS section with the same part from the original unit file you can use the Gnome editor.
The Gnome editor won't open the unit file from the BKB mod either. I haven't figured out how to get it to work. Is ther another editor out there that does work with the various modded files?
Quote[/b] (Gaddow @ Dec. 05 2003,18:44)]>>>I do not understand why you can not open Wes' files with the Gnom Editor.
I think Wes had changed the explanation lines at the beginning of the files. If you replace the section before the DATA STARTS section with the same part from the original unit file you can use the Gnome editor.
The Gnome editor won't open the unit file from the BKB mod either. I haven't figured out how to get it to work. Is ther another editor out there that does work with the various modded files?
Yes, there is, and it's called EditPlus2. It's what I use, and I have developed an stx file for it that colorizes many of the most commom code blocks in the units and campaign files, which makes it much easier to find info and/or catch syntax errors. If some of you guys want to try it out, I can email it to you, or simply post the file on the forum here.
Jacques, you are right about the Baronial Court. I just can't seem to remember that I need to check the buildings text whenever I fool with that improvement. I have just brought it up-to-date. It's easy enough to fix yourself if you don't want to wait for the next update. Just search for Royal_Court, whole word only, and paste this over the last section of the entry:
"{FN_ARAGONESE, FN_BURGUNDIAN, FN_DANISH, FN_ENGLISH, FN_FRENCH, FN_GERMAN_HRE, FN_HUNGARIAN, FN_ITALIAN, FN_PAPIST, FN_POLISH, FN_SICILIAN, FN_SPANISH, FN_SWISS, FN_NOVGOROD, FN_RUSSIAN},{FN_ARAGONESE, FN_BURGUNDIAN, FN_DANISH, FN_ENGLISH, FN_FRENCH, FN_GERMAN_HRE, FN_HUNGARIAN, FN_ITALIAN, FN_PAPIST, FN_POLISH, FN_SICILIAN, FN_SPANISH, FN_SWISS, FN_NOVGOROD, FN_RUSSIAN},{FN_ARAGONESE, FN_BURGUNDIAN, FN_DANISH, FN_ENGLISH, FN_FRENCH, FN_GERMAN_HRE, FN_HUNGARIAN, FN_ITALIAN, FN_PAPIST, FN_POLISH, FN_SICILIAN, FN_SPANISH, FN_SWISS, FN_NOVGOROD, FN_RUSSIAN},{FN_BURGUNDIAN, FN_FRENCH, FN_GERMAN_HRE, FN_ITALIAN, FN_POLISH, FN_SICILIAN, FN_RUSSIAN}"
Here is the relevent section from the Readme in regards to Margreave's question. Apparently there is a good bit of confusion about this area.
"Royal Palaces, siege engineers, foundries and gunsmiths are now unique. Thus the only way to control more than one of them is to capture a rival’s. Ships no longer require foundries, and artillery pieces no longer require gunsmiths. These rules were enacted to prevent the AI from building hordes of missile units in non-Homeland provinces."
The last sentence also applies to the partial expansion of Homelands and such. If you only allow the AI to build a few units in certain provinces, you end up with masses of those units, especially if they are the weaker, cheaper ones.
Like many mod concepts, you have to make compromises since you don't have access to the hardcode. If you study games enough, you see that the designers often have to make these same types of compromises even with access, but that's another topic. I think there is a general consensus that the Homelands concept has been a success, especially in regards to the human, and the times when a faction gets pushed out and can't compete anymore is just something you have to accept from time to time. I have to think, though, that a faction in this situation must be in very bad shape, since it generally means that it has lost all of its starting provinces.
In regards to the Danes building huge fleets; apparently this is an odd personality setting or glitch in the hardcode, which I can't control. I remember seeing this quite frequently with version one of the mod, but I myself haven't seen it since then, IIRC, though that may just be because I haven't played enough turns in a game.
At about what point does this normally occur? 50, 100, 200 turns?
Quote[/b] (Old Templar @ Dec. 05 2003,14:52)][DnC] - I do not understand why you can not open Wes' files with the Gnom Editor. Go to startpos, highlight MMEarly, right klick and choose "Open with", highlight "Notepad" and Bingo. I hope, this is what you are looking for.
It gives an error noting that the file is incorrectly formatted.
And I can now actually see what the problem is. Should have compared the MM build prod file with the original. Am too busy modding though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Wes,
I would appreciate it if you could send EditPlus2 to daviddnc@hotmail.com (if the file isn't big enough, or else I'll give another mail via PM - don't want spambots to pick it up) or post it here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Jacque Schtrapp
12-06-2003, 17:01
Quote[/b] (WesW @ Dec. 06 2003,09:01)]Jacques, you are right about the Baronial Court. I just can't seem to remember that I need to check the buildings text whenever I fool with that improvement. I have just brought it up-to-date. It's easy enough to fix yourself if you don't want to wait for the next update. Just search for Royal_Court, whole word only, and paste this over the last section of the entry:
"{FN_ARAGONESE, FN_BURGUNDIAN, FN_DANISH, FN_ENGLISH, FN_FRENCH, FN_GERMAN_HRE, FN_HUNGARIAN, FN_ITALIAN, FN_PAPIST, FN_POLISH, FN_SICILIAN, FN_SPANISH, FN_SWISS, FN_NOVGOROD, FN_RUSSIAN},{FN_ARAGONESE, FN_BURGUNDIAN, FN_DANISH, FN_ENGLISH, FN_FRENCH, FN_GERMAN_HRE, FN_HUNGARIAN, FN_ITALIAN, FN_PAPIST, FN_POLISH, FN_SICILIAN, FN_SPANISH, FN_SWISS, FN_NOVGOROD, FN_RUSSIAN},{FN_ARAGONESE, FN_BURGUNDIAN, FN_DANISH, FN_ENGLISH, FN_FRENCH, FN_GERMAN_HRE, FN_HUNGARIAN, FN_ITALIAN, FN_PAPIST, FN_POLISH, FN_SICILIAN, FN_SPANISH, FN_SWISS, FN_NOVGOROD, FN_RUSSIAN},{FN_BURGUNDIAN, FN_FRENCH, FN_GERMAN_HRE, FN_ITALIAN, FN_POLISH, FN_SICILIAN, FN_RUSSIAN}"
I changed it the day after I found the error. It was interesting because I never realized that you could change the build_prod file "in game" and have the change take place. I do appreciate you advising me on how to correct that though. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Wes if you could post your stx file here that would be great.
I'll post it as a separate thread here in the Lab, since it's a pretty long file.
ToranagaSama
12-08-2003, 23:59
Quote[/b] (A_B @ Nov. 28 2003,10:18)]OK, another of my periodical and radical suggestions;
Remove all siege and artillery weapons from the game. The AI doesn't know how to use them. The Mongols routinely have 4 to 6 morters in thier starting roster when they attack, making it quite easy to beat them piecemeal. Othere factions build too many of them, and it is easy enogh to manuever around the big ones in a battle. Also, the AI doesn't use them that well in sieges.
If they are removed, all open field battles are enhanced. Castles can still be assaulted, but it is very costly to attack the larger type. However, i think this is a good thing. Assaulting was always too easy for the human - line up 8 large cannon and 8 good melee units and in you go.
I've removed them in my current game and the challenge is better.
AB
Hello all, TS checking in, about to put HW2 aside for a few and play a Campaign....
I'm with A_B
I virtually always play from the Early Period and only use Catapults to take "stone" Castles (and usually bring them in on the second turn after defeating the defending army, and send them scurring to the Castle. Its rare for me to invest florin in developing beyond the base Catapult.
As it is, taking Castles really isn't all that *costly* in a well-planned campaign. I often have a peasant army and a couple catapults availble to do the dirty work. I'll pull out my *attacking* force and put in the peasant/catapult force to actually take the castle. Quote[/b] ]Is there any way to make them useless against people but gd vs walls? In real life they would be all-but useless against small targets, but stationary castles are different. The really big ones would just be too good otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
I wonder. Imagine taking Constantinople, of course, first you'd have to wear down the Byz or whomever, and then come with a HORDE of peasant, etc. Quite real, don't you think? It would take a great deal more planning, thereby making the Campaign more *strategic*. No?
I wonder how it would effect a High Era campaign, though?
Hmmm...wonder if its possible to restrict Siege Engines to *eras*?
Quote[/b] ]Yeah, that would be pretty radical, and it would certainly make the game more challenging. Perhaps TS will add it to his list of hardcore rules. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I saw that
Funny, I wrote all the above [i]before I came to your remarks re moi.
The situation with huge danish fleets were (by necessity) far into the game - over 200 turns. It would take that long to build that big a fleet.
Still the mod is great wes - my latest game as the swiss is a real challenge. I've taken venice and milan from the italians, but still I'm almost out of money and out of options. Thankfully I have five 6+ star generals (my kickass first kings offspring). They've saved my bacon on more than one occation.
Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Dec. 08 2003,16:59)]
Quote[/b] (A_B @ Nov. 28 2003,10:18)]OK, another of my periodical and radical suggestions;
Remove all siege and artillery weapons from the game. The AI doesn't know how to use them. The Mongols routinely have 4 to 6 morters in thier starting roster when they attack, making it quite easy to beat them piecemeal. Othere factions build too many of them, and it is easy enogh to manuever around the big ones in a battle. Also, the AI doesn't use them that well in sieges.
If they are removed, all open field battles are enhanced. Castles can still be assaulted, but it is very costly to attack the larger type. However, i think this is a good thing. Assaulting was always too easy for the human - line up 8 large cannon and 8 good melee units and in you go.
I've removed them in my current game and the challenge is better.
AB
Sooo, removing Siege Engines would resolve the issue of the AI building too many, and/or the AI wasting *Stack* spots with value-less Siege Engines. Thus, making for a more formidable AI force.
First: Is Column 53 really not used anymore?
If not, then how does the AI determine which unit to use in favor of another (in certain situations)?
Is it just random or hardcoded and out of sight for the likes of us?
Second: If it does work, but hasn't been updated to say it works;
You can also fiddle around with Column 53.
E.g. changing "SKIRMISH(0), ADVANCE_PARTY(1),
OUTFLANKING_FORCE(0), MAIN_BODY(2), HOLD_TERRAIN(0), RESERVE(1), REINFORCEMENT(1), ASSAULT(0), ASSAULT_COVER(0), ASSAULT_COVER_CASTLE_ATTACK(2), COVER(0)" to "SKIRMISH(0), ADVANCE_PARTY(0),
OUTFLANKING_FORCE(0), MAIN_BODY(0), HOLD_TERRAIN(0), RESERVE(1), REINFORCEMENT(0), ASSAULT(0), ASSAULT_COVER(0), ASSAULT_COVER_CASTLE_ATTACK(2), COVER(0)"
..or something like that.
Not entirely sure if this will work, but it might. The AI will now not use siege engines in open battles so often. So just fiddle around and test it out I'd say.
Third: (In combination with - if the above does work) Making siege engines a bit more expensive might also help and/or make changes in Column 15 so the AI is less likely to build siege engines.
Don't count on that I'm right though, I'm just speculating.
I think Wes is more knowlegdable about this.
Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Dec. 08 2003,15:59)]
Quote[/b] (A_B @ Nov. 28 2003,10:18)]
As it is, taking Castles really isn't all that *costly* in a well-planned campaign. I often have a peasant army and a couple catapults availble to do the dirty work.
Hmmm...wonder if its possible to restrict Siege Engines to *eras*?
Ok, let me get this straight: You are playing hardcore rules, and use a cheesy tactic like letting peasants storm the castle walls? (Has images of Halflings with pitchforks storming Helm's Deep) I don't know what to say about that.
And yes, artillery can be restricted by era just like any other unit.
Magraev, if it's taking you more than two centuries to win the game, even when starting out as a "minor" faction.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Seriously, it is pretty much impossible to control AI behavior or even affect the game much beyond the first 50 to 75 turns. After then, there are simply so many variables in the game there's no telling what will happen, and generally this is a good thing as re-playability goes.
Finally, if anyone has a copy of BKB's mod, I would really like to have the campaign files in the campmap\startpos folder, the Early, High and Late texts, as well as the contents of the Loc\eng folder. He has added a lot of totally new factions from scratch, it seems, and if I could simply copy them to the Medmod, it would save us hours and hours of work. Unfortunately, it seems that he doesn't check in while he is in school, so we can't get hold of him.
I'll try and take a look now if I still have it Wes.
Edit: It appears I apparently deleted it a while ago when I was cleaning my harddrives a bit. Sorry.
Read your mail, Wes.........
only a early campaign in my download of BKB's mod.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
PS: sent same to Russ, eh?
Russ Mitchell
12-10-2003, 17:26
Wes: said "cheesy tactic" was perfectly acceptable to the first crusdaers in the Albigensian conflict...
Quote[/b] ([DnC] @ Dec. 09 2003,05:06)]First: Is Column 53 really not used anymore?
If not, then how does the AI determine which unit to use in favor of another (in certain situations)?
Is it just random or hardcoded and out of sight for the likes of us?
Second: If it does work, but hasn't been updated to say it works;
You can also fiddle around with Column 53.
E.g. changing "SKIRMISH(0), ADVANCE_PARTY(1),
OUTFLANKING_FORCE(0), MAIN_BODY(2), HOLD_TERRAIN(0), RESERVE(1), REINFORCEMENT(1), ASSAULT(0), ASSAULT_COVER(0), ASSAULT_COVER_CASTLE_ATTACK(2), COVER(0)" to "SKIRMISH(0), ADVANCE_PARTY(0),
OUTFLANKING_FORCE(0), MAIN_BODY(0), HOLD_TERRAIN(0), RESERVE(1), REINFORCEMENT(0), ASSAULT(0), ASSAULT_COVER(0), ASSAULT_COVER_CASTLE_ATTACK(2), COVER(0)"
..or something like that.
Not entirely sure if this will work, but it might. The AI will now not use siege engines in open battles so often. So just fiddle around and test it out I'd say.
Don't count on that I'm right though, I'm just speculating.
I think Wes is more knowlegdable about this.
Well, it's column 31 in my file, but to the point; this may be the way to go (setting Assault Cover to 0).
Btw, it's the column before this one, 30, which isn't used.
I've been busy researching in light of an ongoing conversation with Russ, so I still haven't tested to see if deleting the Castle Defender designation has the wanted effect. These designations determine where the unit is placed in the formation, so leaving them with only the Missile designation will probably not help things.
Anyway, I would be very interested if you tried your suggestion and reported to see if it did the trick.
Remember that any changes you make to the units text take effect the next time you open the game, so you can make the changes, and then open up a saved game and see the results. Ideally, you would have a save from right before a big battle in which the AI had over 16 units, and some of them were artillery.
Thanks for the files, L'zard. A_B sent a copy, too. I'm glad you sent them to Russ as well, since we'll be discussing new factions and so-forth for the next version of the mod.
I asked A_B to send me the faction sheilds as well, and you need to look over those too, and see how you like them. That should be all I'll need. I hope. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I also just finished reading the thread here about bif problems, and it talks about how to correct a failing in bifreader with editing bifs.
FYI, I just looked through the names text, and BKB put in names and such for many more factions than what he chose for the mod, such as Bulgarians and Serbians.
I think it will take some time testing, because I don't have a battle in sight where the AI has siege engines.
I can just start another campaign and try to get what I want.
Anyways, thanks for the reply and if/when I get the desired battle, I'll test it and let you know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
ChaosDrake
12-11-2003, 23:14
hi
i have discovered a bug ive played the byzantines in the High era and want to conquer constantinople back and i couldnt move my troops out of nicäa too consta. but after i have conquered it from trebizond i could move my troops from consta. too nicäa
and a second bug the mh cant remember which faction it was but it was a muslim(turks or egypts) faction who had have the germanic knights in there build qeue
and at least its a great mod http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif no more giant peasant armys, new factions, new units ahhh its great
BobTheTerrible
12-12-2003, 00:54
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
ChaosDrake-- Both of those changes are intended. The link between Nicea and Constantinople was cut to try and prolong the Byzantines. Germanic Knights were mercenaries much like Swiss Pikemen, as such the Muslim nations can build Germanic Knights.
On another note, I finally won my first campaign ever Took me long enough (1429) MM, normal, high, English. 'Twas a challenge at times, but after taking France it was a little easier.
As you probably know Wes, the Byzantines and the HRE need strengthening. I think the Byzantines can be saved by making them from ORTHODOX_STAGNANT to ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE or some such thing. Also the Pope (After he was destroyed) rebelled with 2 stacks in EVERY province in Italy Nobody wanted to mess with him after that. The Almohads and the Turks and the Swedes were superpowers. The Almohads died when the Papacy, Crudasder Kingdoms, and Italians attacked them. The Turks got conquered by the Golden Horde, along with the Entire Middle East. The Swedes were defeated by yours truly. In a ironic twist of fate, after the Crudader Kingdoms died, the Sicilians got pushed out of their homelands and were stuck in Antioch, Tripoli, and Constantinople.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Hehe, Spain's only province is in Flanders on my game .. imagine that
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
lekoukou
12-12-2003, 11:18
Actually I do like that the Byzantines Empire the way it is set (doomed most of the time). As you know the Byz Empire did not survive this period after all. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Wes, the mod is great. In my game (Byz, hard, early) we are in 1200 and the world map is divided in 7 great powers with very comparable size and might: Spanishs, Frenchs, Danes, Poles, Italians, Russians and Byzantines. It is very nice to see that balance of power developing it self. Putting the concept of core provinces in the game is really working well in my opinion.
It seems, from what I am reading, that it is not always the same factions that are emerging as super powers, unlike it used to be in vanilla MTW. It is the proof that your mod is really good.
Thanks
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Can you simply change the 'way' a faction expands? Change the command (Papist_neutral) to (Papist_aggressive)?
Is it that simple?
BobTheTerrible
12-12-2003, 22:45
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I don't want the Byzantines to be aggressive, because the would surely conquer a lot. But as it is, they are doomed from the beginning. Remember, Constantinople didn't fall until 1453 (right?). The game does not perfectly reflect history, but I think they should be strenghtened so that they could at least hold their territory.
And yes, it is as simple as setting theer behavior in the startpos file to change the way they behave.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
torsoboy
12-12-2003, 23:05
In my limited experience it seems to me that the HRE are gangbanged by the multitude of surrounding factions... much like France used to be completely destroyed in vanilla every time.
I think loyalty to a previous owner should be much higher, although that may be hardcoded...
Let me justify it anyway. Consider how many times the Turks and Rus and everyone else were banging on the doors of Constantinople, yet it lasted until the 15th century. This really isn't represented at all in Medmod or MTW, as (has been said) in 2 years Constantinople can be a smouldering ruin...
Jacque Schtrapp
12-13-2003, 01:01
Quote[/b] (torsoboy @ Dec. 12 2003,16:05)]In my limited experience it seems to me that the HRE are gangbanged by the multitude of surrounding factions... much like France used to be completely destroyed in vanilla every time.
I agree. I was attacked by the Poles, Swiss, Burgundians, Danes, French, English, Swedes, Hungarians, and Italians by the fifth turn of my Late Expert HRE campaign. Nobody can survive that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Norseman
12-13-2003, 16:45
WesW, do you know the limit on how many battlefield units there can be in the crusaders_unit_prod.txt file?
IIRC Lord Krazy once said something about 200+, but I haven't seen him around for a long time. I noticed that you have 223 units in your MedMod v3.14, have you tried to have more?
I read on the forums recently that the deadpage coordinates text can only handle 256 units, so this would seem to be the limit on battlefield units. There are 32 other units in the Medmod, and probably more in the VI text. I don't know what the total limit is.
There are currently 255 entries in the Medmod units text, so you could probably find out if 256 is the limit pretty easily. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
You can try changing the faction behaviour settings, but from my experiences they only affect ship dispersion.
That's interesting regarding the Byzantines, since I thought they were doing ok. Who is it that keeps whipping them?
BobTheTerrible
12-13-2003, 19:34
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
In my experience, usually they sit around and do nothing until they get attacked by the Turks. The Turks will weaken them until a Med sea power destroy Byzantine navies, and then the Russians, Turks and whoever else will gangbang them.
Another thing- I am still not seeing many Crusades. Is it possible to start a crusade marker in a province, if only for the French in Early?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
BobTheTerrible
12-14-2003, 22:05
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Just some feedback from my current game--
I started as the Egyptians in High (normal) to see how the Crusader Kingdoms were doing. I didn't attack them and secured an alliance with them. They began expanding to Russia and then attacked Hungary. They became the richest nation of the world They have many armies. Of course, it is now 1230 so the Golden Horde have invaded and will probably destroy them. One interesting thing-- The province directly above Syria (can't remember the name ATM) was invaded by the Mongols. They came with 6 stacks full of Napta Throwers. They drove the Tirks out by sheer numbers. Should provide some easy training for my Prince
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
maximus2001
12-15-2003, 06:11
Hey Wes,
I took a break from my crusader campaign in High. Stopped at about 1330. It was somewhat easy to take over the Egyptians, and then hold off the horde. Of course the horde took almost all their armies out of russia to try and ransack my kingom. For once it seems like your allies will stay allied and help you out with joint invasions. But when they cancel they stay that way. All in all the crusaders are fun to campaign with. (I had added the feudal men at arms to the outremer, which filled out their roster.) The poles were expanding, Itals too, with the swedes being the biggest power everyone else had only a few provinces.
My new campaign as the HRE is a disaster. I couldn't believe the posts about the gang destruction but its true. I tried two campaigns in High (hard). On the 2nd or 3rd turn Poles attacked,next turn Hungary, next France and Itals,then Aragon and Sweden. Within 7 turns I was decimated down to 6 provinces and pow - civil war. Game over.
I tried to make allies with all neighbors and they all refused until I got chopped up. The pope did not xcom anyone even though they continually attacked me. When I counterattacked Poland, my king got xcommed. It's like the HRE is already xcommed, or heretic, or a non-christian country because they all get away with it. Aaaghhh. Did you change something with their religion?
Just started French in High (hard) and everyone is happy to ally including the HRE. It's 1215 and nobody has attacked GM and they still have a couple of allies. Strange, when AI controls HRE they survive. Maybe it's me but could you check it out.
Enough of my rant, your mod rules. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
JAY THE CONQUEROR
12-15-2003, 11:48
Hey Wes u may not remeber me but i regrettably dissed ur mod ova at totalwar.com, any way i juss downlaoded ur latest version and http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif i lurv it juss beuddurful, wen can we expect the next version to fix a few problemos, mostly textual inaccuracies, no matta reely, anyway congratz on an excellentay mod
Beelzebub
12-15-2003, 17:50
The guy asking for artillery removal has a point. Yesterday I was campaigning against Turkey as the Byztantines, and for a few battles they were fielding 6-10 catapults and demi-cannons in their opening lineup, leaving them over 15 real units in reserve. It's no fair beating them with such a handicap, so I let their army move to the hills then send in some light cav units to destroy the unguarded arty, but still it's kind of ridiculous that the AI would take a catapult with TWO crew over full units of sipha de porte and saracen infantry... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
If you can't find a better way to prevent the AI from using them, go ahead and remove all arty units except culverins, siege cannons and mangonels.
Glad to see you came around to embrace the mod's concepts, Jay. You have to take a little leap of faith with a mod that changes the game so radically in some areas.
Maximus, you may be on to something with the HRE being unofficially excommed or somesuch. Historically, Barbarossa got excommed, and maybe CA originally wanted the HRE to start the campaign in that state, and something went wrong. I have certainly tried all I know to keep the HRE from getting gang-banged all the time.
Even with all the extra units and buildings I gave them, the HRE is still one of the very hardest factions in the game to play, in any era.
I have been busy trying to implement Russ' historical critique and suggestions for the mod, and it has grown in scope and in difficulty, since I don't want to add any more new units. I had to add one anyway, bringing the units text up to 256 entries. I have now allotted every unit in the game to a faction, including the new ones for the next version.
There have been dozens of unit changes, at least one for every single faction. I have also changed or implemented well over a dozen new features, and I think everyone is going to be excited by them.
It will probably be the weekend before this update is ready, and I want this to be the last one for version three of the mod, though there always seem to be enough little bugs in an update this big to warrant another update/fix.
I also want to clean up all the odds-n-ends I find, like with the initial public release, and that always takes a lot of time. This is actually what I spent much of my time on today.
From what I found perusing BKB's mod, he has done almost all of the research for the factions that I want to add for version four, so hopefully the main task in getting the new ready will be debating exactly which factions to add and which provinces they will control.
By this time we should have enough feedback from you guys to judge how the 3.15 new concepts have worked, so that I can release version four without any betas. Hopefully I can have this out by New Year's.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Wes~
and I'll get 3.15 befor I read about it in the forums, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I'm still thinking about writing CA concerning the GA aspect.
Anyone ever wrote to CA directly and got some sort of responce?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
Beelzebub
12-16-2003, 06:45
It was really a huge oversight by CA leaving out moddable GA's. For the game Universal Europa 2, there's a ton of modders constantly releasing new GA style events and missions for it. As far as I know they won't be patching MTW anymore unfortunately, but let's hope they get the message to allow EVERYTHING to be easily moddable for RTW... Oh, and keep up the good work Wes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Beelzebub, You've prolly hit the most 'fire me up' topic on the org/dungeons, lol
All things considered, I (personally) don't blame the CA coders for any failing vis MTW:VI , eh?
Gil Jaysmith, ECS etc from CA have offered insites when and if they could ever since they realized that .Org existed.
Remember that the org isn't a CA sponsored site, and that the CA boyz aren't getting payed for answering our questions. That any answers come at all is better support than 'some' other games get, especially concerning 'modding' the game.
In the 'old' days, 'modding' would be described as 'hacking' the game, and considering what recently happened to Valve's source-code, I wouldn't expect any more openings to source than goes into the 'game editor' for a new game, eh?
Remains to be seen how much 'code' gets recycled into RTW, as we can see a lot of S:TW code still extant in the M:TW txts. RTW is 'sposed to have a new engine....if so, it's possible that parts of the 'hard-code/source-code' won't be valuable anymore, and might get even get 'released'. Don't hold your breath, as any engine code is still worth something to lower-level game makers, so as long as a buck is to made, as the guys that do this need to make thier rent payments too, eh?
PS: something about release dates comes to mind- http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
MTW is getting a bit 'long-in-the-tooth' considering it's original release date,eh?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Beelzebub
12-16-2003, 08:17
Yeah exactly. Like I said, I don't have any hopes for them to make it possible, At this point they consider MTW/VI finished, with no more patching. No more resources for it, all towards RTW.
It's kind of a moot point, but companies won't shy away from encouraging modding because of the HL2 debacle. The problem there was some real hackers used a security flaw in MS outlook express and went into some Valve guy's computer and basically just grabbed the files sitting on it. Doesn't have anything to do with the amount of modder access to the game, just means companies need to be more careful where they leave their code lying around heh.
Generally it's in their best interest to support mods though, one just needs to point out half life as the ultimate example of how mods can extend the lifetime of a game, which means more $$$ for the companies. So it does indeed pay off for them to answer our questions (and in the future, make RTW fully moddable). For example, if it wasn't for MedMod, I wouldn't be playing this anymore. Because of MedMod, I do have interest still, and I even recommend the game to other people.
Basil Otis
12-17-2003, 01:26
Re: the HRE getting G-B'd.
Has anyone tried replacing HRE with a new Catholic faction?
If there's something hardcoded about HRE, then a newly created faction filling the HRE space should solve this problem.
You could rename most of the HRE files so wouldn't require a huge amount of work, well I imagine it wouldn't - but that's easy for me sitting here commenting and not modding http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Cheers
B Otis
Could the HRE as target situation be related to other factions having GA goals that include regions conrolled by the GRE?
Quote[/b] (Basil Otis @ Dec. 16 2003,17:26)]Re: the HRE getting G-B'd.
Has anyone tried replacing HRE with a new Catholic faction?
If there's something hardcoded about HRE, then a newly created faction filling the HRE space should solve this problem.
You could rename most of the HRE files so wouldn't require a huge amount of work, well I imagine it wouldn't - but that's easy for me sitting here commenting and not modding http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Cheers
B Otis
That's a very good idea, something that, say, a mod-maker should have thought of immediately... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
I "think" it would be straight-forward to check out, but I just don't have the time to do it at the moment, so a few of you guys who are interested need to see about this in the next few days and report so I can get it in the update if it works.
The way CA links special faction properties like emergence (Mongols) or no-princesses (Muslims) is either by
1)name (Mongols) or
2)position in the faction list (Muslims). FYI, it was the switching around of some factions in one of these lists that caused the diplomacy bug in VI, the one where you would tell your diplomat to propose to one faction, but the treaty would get made with someone else.
1)Thus you should be able to simply change the name German_HRE someway, say add a character in the middle of German. Use the ctrl+H function to change all the entries in the campaign text, choose High for example in campmap\startpos. Then Search the MTW folder for texts containing the faction name in them, such as the units and buildings texts (you only need change the ones used by the Medmod, I believe), along with the files in the Loc\eng folder.
All you have to do is open the files from the Search list, use the ctrl+h function and select "replace all", and you can change the whole file in an instant. It should only take you 4 or 5 seconds per file.
I scanned the MTW folder and sub-folders manually, and I don't "think" there are any graphics that you'll have to change.
2)The problem here is that the factions are listed several times each in a number of files, and I don't know which one is the key. I have never been able to figure out what I did to make all factions start producing princesses.
I forget now; do the Mongols have princesses? I have got to start playing the game again...
BTW, has anyone tested out the proposed fix to the artillery units always being chosen first for field battles?
Here is the unit text entry for Chinese Mangonels (now called Mortars). The proposal was to change the section towards the bottom that begins with "SKIRMISH(0),..." to set to zero any designations that might affect unit placement in open battles. I would actually set all of them to zero and observe any effects, then, if it works, set the castle_assault_cover back to 2 and see if this puts the artillery in the first sixteen in a castle assault, where they ought to be.
ChineseMangonels ARTILLERY 150 6 1 0 10 10 2 DISCOURAGED MONG_RAIDERS(-2) "POVERTY_STRICKEN(5), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(1), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(80.8), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(80.8), CATHOLIC_TRADER(101), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(101), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(80.8), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(121.2), POPE(151.5), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(121.2), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(151.5), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(121.2), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(80.8), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(101), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(101), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(80.8), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(80.8), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(90.4), REBELS(101), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(0)" {SIEGE_ENGINEER} "MISSILE,CASTLE_DEFENDER" -2 "HIGH,LATE" NO "HEIGHT( 85 ), RADIUS( 25 ), SCALE( 120 ), PROJECTILE_TYPE( MORTAR ), SAMURAI( NO ), MARCH_SPEED( 6 ), RUN_SPEED( 10 ), CHARGE_SPEED( 11 ), MIN_TURNSPEED( 2 ), MAX_TURNSPEED( 8 ), TURN_TO_MOTION_SPEED( 8 ), MAX_INMOTION_TURN( 96 ), FORMATION_WIDTH_SPACING( 60 ), FORMATION_LENGTH_SPACING( 60 ), ENGAGEMENT_THRESHOLD( 1500 ), CHARGE_BONUS( 1 ), MELEE_BONUS( 0 ), DEFENCE_BONUS( -2 ), ARMOUR_LEVEL( 1 ), HONOUR_LEVEL( 2 ), AMMO( 40 ), FORMATIONS_PREFERRED_NUM_ROWS( 2 )" NO "own_unit_tooltip1, own_unit_tooltip2, other_unit_tooltip1, other_unit_tooltip2" "PEASANT, YES, YES" FN_GOLDEN_HORDE "Missile, Shocktroop, Spear, Cavalry" "SKIRMISH(0), ADVANCE_PARTY(1),
OUTFLANKING_FORCE(0), MAIN_BODY(2), HOLD_TERRAIN(0), RESERVE(1), REINFORCEMENT(1), ASSAULT(0), ASSAULT_COVER(0), ASSAULT_COVER_CASTLE_ATTACK(2), COVER(0)" 0 NONE YES 1 NO 0 0 PAGAN(2) SWORD FN_GOLDEN_HORDE
Before, I said that you needed to wait until the AI attacked you with more than 16 units, including artillery, but I now believe that this is incorrect. These same settings are used to make the initial placement of the player's units as well, which is why you always have to manually remove the artillery from your lineup in the battle preview screen.
Thus, you can start a campaign and put your own force together of 17 or more units, and see where the artillery are placed in the preview screen.
So guys, here is your chance to step up and make some significant contributions not only to this mod, but to everything being developed at the Org.
Myself, I have come across a couple of things that might fix other fundamental problems with the game, and I'll be testing those out.
I keep my mod notes on 6"x 8" notepads, about two dozen lines per page, and I have four pages full of individual changes and unit lineups that I have made out for this update. It's definitely the biggest since the public release.
I have the -ian extension activated for my game.
What is the faction number for the Swiss?
I started my game with them and then cycled through the other factions assigning governors and initial builds. I have been doing this for ages and it helps the AI immeasurably. It was especially helpful in vanilla when the AI used to assign titles with command stars to the highest ranking generals and so the Byz would make their 1 star, 0 Acumen Varangian Guards the governor of Constantinople. They would often do other stupid crap like make a 5 Acumen Trebizond Archer the Patriach of Constantinople but not assign a governorship. I saw this many times with all titles and all factions. Every now and then I go through and 'fix' some of the AI units, repairing General units with 1 man, disbanding 0 Acumen governors etc.
But I couldn't get back to my Swiss faction so how do you do it?
Wes
While going through and updating my build sheets these points came up. I have finished sheets for 3.14 the same as I sent you. I had to do it by hand as I haven't been able to work out a way to link the sheets.
The Swedes have a faction advantage for Rogatina Infantry but can’t build them.
The Swedes campmap colour is different in Early than in High and Late. The Early one is much more distinguishable and (to me) likeable.
Teutonic Sergeants have a valour bonus in Livonia but can’t be built there.
Pronaioi Allagion dismount to Paramonai. Imperial Kavallaroi dismount to Imperial Skutatoi. Should this be the other way around?
The Sicilians have 2 units designated as their Royal Bodyguards in the Late Era, Sicilian Chivalric Knights and Italian Heavy Infantry.
Starting a Late game shows they get the Italian Heavy Infantry then, but what about if the Sicilians survive into the Late era from an earlier one?
The Jihad Cavalry have no Unit Class labels.
The Burgundians (or Crusaders) can’t build the Baronial Estate (Court4) so they can’t build Compagnies d’Ordonnance. I think this has been covered already.
The French can’t build Outremer Templars or Outremer Hospitallers?
Italian Light Infantry has only 60 men and a preferred number of rows of 5. This means it can’t hold much of a place in a line being only 12 men wide.
Almughavars can now only be built in Cordoba and Provence.
Shouldn’t the peasant bonuses be extended to cover the other cultures so that Muslim factions will rebuild farmland in captured Catholic territory and vice versa?
There is some overlap but not much.
Charge/Attack/Defence/Armour/Morale
AUM 3/4/2/2/2, $: 262, Up: 75, [Watch3, Sword2, Armourer]
Arab Inf 4/4/1/1/2, Elite, $ 275, Up: 65, [Sword]
These seem a little unbalanced. That’s a lot of extra infrastructure for 1 defence and 1 armour. Drop the Arab attack by 1? it is higher than any other early melee unit.
Varangian Guards 4/3*/3/4/2, Elite, Disciplined, $: 400, Up: 75, [Spear3]
Paramonai 5/3*/4/4/2, Elite, Disciplined, $: 525, Up: 97, [Spear4, Armourer2]
These also seem a little unbalanced. That’s a lot of extra infrastructure, cost and upkeep for 1 defence.
Should the Steppe units be limited to the Byzantines, Hungarians, Polish and Russians? The Russians gain the least advantage because many of the steppes are also their homelands but the other 3 have a huge advantage. Barely any, if any, of their homelands overlap the steppes, so the steppes act as a second homeland that allows them to recruit some excellent cavalry forces without sacrificing production of their other unique units. The steppe units are all very good cavalry:
Steppe Cavalry: Superfast light strike and chase cavalry, bonus in Volga-Bulgaria
Khazar Royal Cavalry: Fast medium cavalry, bonus in Khazar
Avar Nobles: Elite, Disciplined heavy cavalry, bonus in Chernigov
Steppe Heavy Cavalry: Faster and cheaper than Boyars with the same stats (-1 armour), bonus in Ryazan.
and maybe ...
The Crusader Kingdoms should also have a Naptha unit, the Holy Handgrenaders of Antioch.
Build requirements could be a Gunsmith + Swordsmith Workshop + Armourer + Reliquary + Antioch.
Men: 12 (disciples), Ch: 4, Att: 4, Def: 3, Arm: 3, Mor: 6, Ammo: 3 (2 is to few, 4 is too many and 5 is right out…)
Teutonic Knight
12-18-2003, 00:53
Quote[/b] ]The Crusader Kingdoms should also have a Naptha unit, the Holy Handgrenaders of Antioch.
I'm sorry, that's just going to make me laugh every time I see it in the unit box http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Big King Sanctaphrax
12-18-2003, 01:15
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Dec. 17 2003,23:53)]
Quote[/b] ]The Crusader Kingdoms should also have a Naptha unit, the Holy Handgrenaders of Antioch.
I'm sorry, that's just going to make me laugh every time I see it in the unit box http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
'Consult the book of armaments...' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
BobTheTerrible
12-18-2003, 03:12
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Good idea on the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif. It can only be used against small white rabbits http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif .
But on the subject of the Crusader Kingdoms, I started a game as the Egyptians and decided not to attack them at all to see how they do. Well so far I have secured an alliance wit them, and I have expanded to Turkey/Constantinople/Granada (borders of my empire). They have a big navy, have the best income, and used to have the largest armies. They and the Swedes were the ones to beat back the Horde, leaving Poland untouched. They have Greece, parts of Hungary/Asia/Balkans, and ships in every med. sea region. I salute them
Can't wait for the next version, like most of us.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
BobTheTerrible
12-19-2003, 01:52
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Well to finish what I started before, here's how the game is progressing. The Burgundians controlled the seas, had massive armies, and were the richest nation. They had the Balkans, parts of Russia, Antioch, Tripoli, and some other random provinces. The Italians had the second biggest empire, although land-based rather than controllng the seas, although they did have a navy. I, the Egyptians, had the entire Holy Land except what was in the Crusader's possessions, North Africa, and a random Balkans province. My king was middle-rate, 4-star conquering southern Spain. The Italians got excommunicated and had two massive civil wars, but still they hold on. The Germans re-appeared in Switzerland, nibbling at the Polish. The Polish have become the most powerful army-wise. The Danes I have seen holdoing parts of Spain; the Swedes have parts of Northern Russia. Recently I have seen the English in Northen Russia, a surprise to be sure, especially since the French are still alive. I had many jihads ready, (about 7) I was ready to finally tke on the Crusader Kingdoms. I launched my jihads at places I once held in present-Crusader territory. I took Antioch, Tripoli, Hungary, Greece, Wallacha, Khazar, and the Crimea by the second year of the war. Their navies crushed mine, but they had nearly no troops to attack me with. Some generals took this time, when my king died, to revolt in a civil war. Although easily defeated it was a small annoyance since they held Egypt and I had to destroy some good buildings to take it back over.
As it stands now, Italy isn't superpowered but is powerful, Sicily rivals Italy and the two are constantly bickering over the Pope's lands. Poland is scary, with its current holdings including Germany, Poland, parts of France and Russia. Spain is weak. The Almos were defeated. The Byzantines died, re-appeared, the turn they re-appeared their king died, and later re-appeared but their king died in battle. Hungary re-appeared. In Armenia, the Turks re-appeared with all-catapults, leading me to believe that it's one of those glitchy-provinces.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Good report, Clownmite http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
This 'artty' question is gonna turn out to be a major bitch, as far as I can see........
Disallow it from the build-tree and a player-active faction cant build 'em........
Allow it, and the AI factions go overboard.
Noticed the Mongel AI overdoing it in 3.13 myself, Wes. Perhaps something about the build tree in terms of the 'desired' settings? Perhaps make it a serious minus integer as 'to build', instead of just disallowed?
Note to ALL: if the next version of MedMod includes 'special castle maps', any players will need artty, as will the AI (tho making the AI work well has always been the problem, eh?).
We're all remembering that this is a beta, eh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Wes;
Concerning the HRE gang-bang:
Tried all configurations of HRE king attributes yet? Something about low 'influence' comes to mind.... Reset HRE king to +5 influence at start instead of the 3 influence, and possibly the poor old bugger can make a deal, eh?
Quote[/b] (Quokka @ Dec. 17 2003,03:19)]I have the -ian extension activated for my game.
What is the faction number for the Swiss?
Quokka~~
So far as I know, using the 1~0, and shift/1~0, we're only going to have access to 20 factions (unless CA comes out with another hot-key that works, lol). Considering the 32 faction possibility, methinx we're just screwed on this one
The only work-around I've found is to change the 'declared factions' around in order of appearence to allow for the factions you really want to see..........Not sure that this is a good idea for the later campaigns, but can work for early, eh?
Test drive this, let me know if it works for you, eh?
The 'saving grace' would be the existance of another 'hot-key'.
How 'bout it CA? Another trigger, plz?
Actually, methinx that these are hard-coded into the debug part of the source-code, tho I sure would like to be proven wrong, eh?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
(time to petition CA again, sigh!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Was wondering if the wes.apolyton site is currently down? I am really looking forward to tring Wesw's mod, however I havnt been able to access your site the past couple days. I clicked on the 3.13 link provided on this site which leads to the 3d downloads website, however this appears to be the text only portion? Upon loading MTW I get an error as follows: ChineseMongonels has been declared as GENERIC, PAGON, CATHOLIC, ORTHODOX, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN, but its IMAGETYPE_ICONIC was requested from campmap\review_panel\generic\ and is not present there or in the root directory. Assuming this error is because I dont have the graphics portion installed, is there anyone that can provide a link to the graphics download other than the wes.apolyton.net website?
Norseman
12-20-2003, 00:27
Quote[/b] ]
BTW, has anyone tested out the proposed fix to the artillery units always being chosen first for field battles?
Here is the unit text entry for Chinese Mangonels (now called Mortars). The proposal was to change the section towards the bottom that begins with "SKIRMISH(0),..." to set to zero any designations that might affect unit placement in open battles. I would actually set all of them to zero and observe any effects, then, if it works, set the castle_assault_cover back to 2 and see if this puts the artillery in the first sixteen in a castle assault, where they ought to be.
Did some tests, as you suggested. I made two huge armies in Northumbria and Scotland in the EARLY startpos file. I then made changes to the ballista, followed by starting the game and invading Scotland, then repeating the process. The results are not very promising... To make a long story short; no matter what I changed(including doing some changes on other units in the army) the result was always the same, all artillery units was in the "first battle" lineup. The only exception I could find was if there was 16 or more ballistas, the general unit(royal knights) would be chosen rather than the last artillery unit.
My guess is that this is hardcoded, and that the AI lack the ability to recognize what kind of battle it is about to enter. If the AI could recognize if it was to embark on a siege, defensive or attacking battle, it would have been relativly easy to make selection priority lists that made use of artillery in sieges but not in open battles.
EDIT: BTW, I used the original VI 2.01 files for this.
Re Berengario I
12-20-2003, 01:18
Quote[/b] ]My guess is that this is hardcoded, and that the AI lack the ability to recognize what kind of battle it is about to enter. If the AI could recognize if it was to embark on a siege, defensive or attacking battle, it would have been relativly easy to make selection priority lists that made use of artillery in sieges but not in open battles.
The reason why the AI deploys artillery as its first units it's pretty logical.
Artillery cannot move so how could use it after all other units would have been deployed and the battle already started? It couldn't enter the map and move around at will, so it is needed to be deployed first.
A smarter approach would have been not to include artillery in attacking armies and I don't know if there is a way to accomplish it.
I just managed to almost completely remove artillery from the rebel armies setting blank the unit_prod file AI "Rebelling troop mixes" column.
BTW, if you put a negative value there you will have for sure that unit in the army. Fanatics have just a "Crusade(-10)" entry so they'll appear FOR SURE just in Crusades.
I think the goal could be almost accomplished raising the cost of artillery units. Actually they're too cheap, not reflecting the reality. Ccannons were so damn expensive that they were "named": when my city, Bologna, had to fight against the french army, allied to the Pope Giulio II, they brought down a bronze statue of Giulio II (made by Michelangelo, http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif) from the Cathedral facade, they melt it and made with the melted bronze a bombard called "The Giulia". My city was rich but not enough to allow to buy the bronze needed for a new bombard.
Other siege engines like trebuchets and mangonels were destroyed after the siege because the wood needed was too useful for other porpouses and they couldn't be transported in a different place where they were built because of the size (no trucks in 1200 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif). Plus the new lord of the city didn't like to have siege engines out his newly conquered walls, ready to be used by some loyalist forces.
Geez... I'm always writing too much... I'm a pedantic one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I just updated to 3.14 from a couple of versions back.
Did this version update the docs/stats? I seem to still have the old ones.
Great update btw
The Beef Baron
12-20-2003, 06:28
well i decided to start a campaign as the germans...and as everyone else has pointed out it seems that when you load the game up you must immediately grab your ankles. rape only begins to describe the first few turns. after restarting several times, i am now in the mid-1100s with a growing empire. the trick appears to be limited but quick offensives against your neighbours. i started with the french, and then the italians. the poles and hungarians are shaky allies...im waiting for them to get storm into my virtually undefended eastern provinces. but so far so good. no excomms yet, but it has been costly losing hundreds of men storming castles to avoid the two-year warning. nonetheless, this has been by far the best game ive played in the med mod series.
Quote[/b] (L`zard @ Dec. 18 2003,23:31)]Good report, Clownmite http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
This 'artty' question is gonna turn out to be a major bitch, as far as I can see........
Disallow it from the build-tree and a player-active faction cant build 'em........
Allow it, and the AI factions go overboard.
Noticed the Mongel AI overdoing it in 3.13 myself, Wes. Perhaps something about the build tree in terms of the 'desired' settings? Perhaps make it a serious minus integer as 'to build', instead of just disallowed?
Note to ALL: if the next version of MedMod includes 'special castle maps', any players will need artty, as will the AI (tho making the AI work well has always been the problem, eh?).
We're all remembering that this is a beta, eh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Wes;
Concerning the HRE gang-bang:
Tried all configurations of HRE king attributes yet? Something about low 'influence' comes to mind.... Reset HRE king to +5 influence at start instead of the 3 influence, and possibly the poor old bugger can make a deal, eh?
That's a good idea regarding the HRE king. If you can find something simple like this it always works out better than something complicated.
Special castle maps? Do you know something I don't?
I don't want this next update to be considered a beta, but there are going to be some new concepts debuting in it, so there is always the possibility that one of them will become a serious flaw with the initial settings.
I really want this update to be the final, ultimate edition of version three.
I have actually spent hours and hours figuring out how to present the unit stats in an easier to remember way in the Faction Descriptions doc. I also went through all the units in a Custom Battle and noted all of them that needed new pics to show their altered features. I then set up the original files in the un-install feature to take it all back out if the player wishes.
I have gone through all the readmes and updated them, including an expanded and totally re-worked section on how to view and use the readmes themselves to maximum effect.
A new guy has come in and figured out what to do to keep the game from crashing when you click on one of the mod-enabled factions, and if L'zard here can get me the regowner table, you'll be able to play the conquest version of the Glory Goals based upon the mod's Homelands.
I was thinking of keeping this a little "Christmas" present, but I'll go ahead and say that I have implemented names for the Muslim princesses. And thanks to the guy who sent them for me to work into the files.
I went through them all, well over a hundred I'm sure, and picked out around 15 or so each for the Turks and Arabs (Egyptians and Almohads). I tried to choose all the ones that have become common among Christians over the years, like Melody and Jasmine, and I think you are going to find them as interesting as I did.
If someone wanted to find and send in some portraits to match I would be happy to see if I couldn't implement them into the mod as well. They are simply targa (tga) files, not bifs.
If we can find something to help the Hre, that would be a significant breakthrough in and of itself.
If the suggestion works for the artillery, it would also be big.
Myself, I noticed last week that this setting in the units text file, for which I had never been able to figure out the use, might hold the simple key to preventing missile troops from skirmishing: ENGAGEMENT_THRESHOLD( 1500 ). However, setting it to zero had no effect on the troops, meaning that they still began retreating like always.
I reviewed the original CA spreadsheets, and I think that this value determines the range from the opponent at which the unit goes into attack, or charge, mode.
I also found out for sure that there can be no more than 256 entries in the units text, which is a few less than I would have liked. It took some doing, but I finally figured out how to create all the units that we need, without neighboring factions sharing units.
The Faction descriptions doc has changed so much that some factions are barely recognizable, but I can tell you that it's going to be great to play; more fun and historically accurate than ever.
To solve the huge brain-teaser on how to make do with the 256 limit, I was forced to make some detailed decisions on the unit lineup for some of the new factions to be added in version four, and I have included those at the bottom of the factions desc doc for those of you interested.
Finally, L'zard informed me that Microsoft was discontinuing its links to the Word and Excel viewers. Players who can't view the Readmes and the spreadsheet are obviously not going to be able to enjoy the mod to anything like its fullest extent, if they can even figure out what all is going on. So, if any of you know another place to get these readers, please let me know. If need-be, I will post them on my site, provided that they aren't just huge.
That's all for today. Ron, thanks for the units text review. I have gone over it and corrected the mistakes that were still present after all the changes this week, and I'll address your questions in my next post.
I am going to send the mod out to you, L'zard and the other guys once I get it finished to check for bugs and such, which I guess is the beta L'zard referred to earlier. After we give it a good going over, then I'll release it.
Re: excell and word 'readers': This is really just a rumor at this point, but my understanding is that like the 'usual' decommisions of old proggies, the readers are the next in line, along with 98/98se OS'es to be no longer supported as of the new year.
Probably a good idea to grab both readers, and anything else Microshaft is offering, and archieve it, eh?
Wes: the readers are small, so I'll keep these in archieve myself, eh?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Castle maps? Holy Horse Hockey, ModMan Guess I didn't bring that issue up yet, OOPS 'twas just an idea concerning the Constantinople 1 year takeover issue, nevermind~
------------
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/santa.gif is gonna bring me a new set of mod files to work with
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/read.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/read.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/read.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/read.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/read.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/read.gif
(sets point-defence to anti-air; alerts periphery to set defcon 2....)
C'mon Santa, We're waiting for you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I tried a few games over the weekend without much success.
First off I tried the HRE twice (Early/Expert) to check out the gang-bang. Wow the chessmen from History of the World couldn't have done it better.
In the first game England invaded Friesland in 1089 after sinking my ships in 1088. I withdrew to the castle but couldn't break the seige next year. I did however trigger the Pope's warning, so have to wait 10 years. Not really, France attacked in 1092, then the Italians, Hungarians, Polish and the Danish in 1094. I lost 5 provinces that turn and went into civil war splitting 3 and 3. I chose the loyalist but they could only build Spearmen in their provinces, so game over.
In the second, France and Italy invaded in 1090. My counterattack into Lorraine trigger the Papal warning. I got alliances with Hungary and the Danish. I managed to get enough troops along the Italian border to stop further loss of provinces but they still kept attacking. I thought I had made it past the bump until 1102 when the English sank my ships. They invaded Friesland and Saxony next turn. The Polish and Hungarians also invaded, Bohemia and Austria respectively. I managed to hang on until 1120 when I ran out of money and had a negative income and was fighting fresh and better troops.
The only oddity in this game is that in 1094 Pomerania rebelled against the Poles and the rebels were Mongol Warriors 240 of them.
On sunday I played the Sicilians and was having a great time until 1149. Then the game just crashed. I reloaded and changed moves, factions, attacks, build orders, alliances..... I couldn't get 1150 to roll around. Anyone else had that problem?
The Wizard
12-21-2003, 23:20
I have a question:
Where did the MM Viking era go? I was just about to go and see what kind of wondrous changes Wes made to the vikings, and then it's not there A pity http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Is it coming back in 3.15? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
edit: *ahem* excuses if this question has already been asked. *bows humbly*
metatron
12-21-2003, 23:52
Great mod Wes, but I have a question...
I'm playing as the Italians, and I noticed the Papal land's titles for governor. Well, Florence is in Tuscany, no? Also, The Pope himself is the Bishop of Rome.
If it's at all possible, it'd be interesting to have the Papacy have their own provincial titles (like the Muslims have Amir instead of Duke). I could complile a list of every diocese, archdiocese, and see if you're interested.
I think in relation to the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch thing, that Antioch should recieve a +1 valour for Naptha throwers... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Quote[/b] (metatron @ Dec. 21 2003,15:52)]Great mod Wes, but I have a question...
I'm playing as the Italians, and I noticed the Papal land's titles for governor. Well, Florence is in Tuscany, no? Also, The Pope himself is the Bishop of Rome.
If it's at all possible, it'd be interesting to have the Papacy have their own provincial titles (like the Muslims have Amir instead of Duke). I could complile a list of every diocese, archdiocese, and see if you're interested.
I was reading this morning from my comp's Encarta Encyclopedia about how the HRE/Papacy war was largely because the Pope had claimed sole power to place bishops, when they had been picked by the rulers historically.
If there are any inaccuracies in the mod's settings, I would certainly appreciate being set straight about them, but the game won't do what you are proposing. I don't understand everything about how CA set up the system, because there are bits and pieces seemingly scattered everywhere, but basically there is just one name for the provincial governorships. Each faction has its own name for the titles derived from the palaces, but that's it.
Wizzy, you need to un-install version 3 and install version 2.04 if you want to play the Viking Camp.
Ron, I haven't heard of any unexplained crashes, except for a couple of guys over at the .com site, right when the public release first came out. With them, it happened pretty early in the game, and involved the Spanish and attacking Valencia, I believe. I checked out what I could, but didn't find anything, and since no one else reported it I just let it go.
L'zard, mail me those readers so I can post them. That will be better than the link in the readme anyhow.
Norseman, try removing the Castle_defender designation from the artillery units. That is something unique to them, and I would think that their "has" to be something in the units text which tells the computer to place them before everything else but the general. Unless it's somehow tied to their projectile type, and I don't know what to do about that if it's the case. That would be something else to check if the castle_defender isn't the key- change their projectile types to sbow, and see if that has an effect. If you can find it, at least we'll know what our options are.
And finally, the reason I have been absent for the last week or so is because I spent Monday and Tuesday trying to figure out what the hell was wrong with my computer, and the rest of the week reformatting my harddrive and trying to get everything re-installed. I'm still not done yet, but at least I have learned a good bit about my system, and it's set up somewhat better than it was before.
With the way that this update has grown, I am reversing myself and designating it as the first beta of the next mod version, 4. It's going to be a few more days, maybe the end of the week the way things are going, before I'll even have it ready to send to the beta-testers, and I'm thinking a week at least to test and discuss all the changes before releasing it publicly.
So, are there any bugs in this version that are major? This thread started so long ago that I can't remember. If so, I'll fix those and post a patch for this version so you guys can have a good version to play for the next few weeks. If there are, I'm sure you can go over the first couple of pages of this thread and paste them in here. Myself, I'm going to bed right now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Wes:
Better that you should google for the downloads and copy those to the site, eh?
You not having broadband is almost sure to make your isp mail-server gak as we're talking almost 8mb of zip files.
Just google for 'word reader', 'excell reader', and 'powerpoint reader', eh?
At the moment, I'm not 100% sure that the support for these readers is about to discontinue, it's something I read, so stands as only a rumor, eh? I'll check this out more, as I'd hate to start a tempest in a tea cup, LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Leet Eriksson
12-29-2003, 02:11
Wes:i managed to try you mod,but there is a problem,i can understand having ghazis in a jihad,BUT Faris are not religiously tied,the faris existed well before christianity,and religion played a really minor role,as Magnus Lindgren qoutes it:
"Arabian chivalry evolved and emerged from the arid dunes of the harsh desert.People in this primitive culture live in a highly advanced moral and ethical structure with no influence from religion or punishment imposed by God like powers."
but you could rename them Al Rabata"the Brotherhood" these were the first religious "order" of Knights that are connected to islam.A qoute by the same author:
"With the passing of time, Islam came to play more and more of an effective role in the realm of chivalry. By 1115 A.D., 508 A.H., the first religious order of knights was created. This religious order was called, Al Rabata which is Arabic for “The Brotherhood".[24] The order had the basic Arab chivalry code at its heart but added to it the allegiance to Islam and the brotherhood. The knights lived in semi-isolation, devoting themselves to the cause of Islam and the brotherhood. Al Rabata is very similar to Western religious orders, which were still evolving during this period.
Not only was this the first religious order but the first ‘order’ as such. Before the creation of this order chivalry was simply a social institution with a well-defined code but no actual legislating body or organization. The ruler could knight the warriors but it was not necessary. Therefore, this brotherhood marked the first actual full legislation of the Arabian chivalric code in paper and law format."
hope you put that in consideartion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
torsoboy
12-29-2003, 02:30
One more thing: I'm playing an Almohad campaign right now, and have noticed I'm unable to build ships in the northern sea area. This makes the conquest of England and Ireland a bit troublesome for me... Unless I could somehow unearth a million trillion billion florins to buy their armies. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
torsoboy
All Muslim factions can build their boats in the Atlantic section of the map from Brittany northwards along the coast and Scandinavia. They can't be built in the British Isles.
The same is true for the Italians/Sicilians and the Byzantines/Russians.
Norseman
12-29-2003, 18:26
Quote[/b] ]
Norseman, try removing the Castle_defender designation from the artillery units. That is something unique to them, and I would think that their "has" to be something in the units text which tells the computer to place them before everything else but the general."
I did.
Quote[/b] ]
Unless it's somehow tied to their projectile type, and I don't know what to do about that if it's the case. That would be something else to check if the castle_defender isn't the key- change their projectile types to sbow, and see if that has an effect. If you can find it, at least we'll know what our options are.
I can test that, but I think it has something to do with with the unit being defined as ARTILLERY. Maybe I can try changing that as well, although the AI then most likely won't have a clue on how to handle them in a siege.
D'oh, forgot about the Artillery designation. Yeah, I'm sure that's it. Looking through the unit types, though, I wonder exactly what the artillery designation means. I mean, the special attack unit designations probably dictate whether or not they are pieces or part of an army on the strategic map, and I figure that the cavalry designation pertains to the mounts they ride, and maybe some other things in the hardcode, who knows, but I wonder about the artilley.
Well, looking at it, it probably means that the number of men in the entry are the figures which man the piece, and not the number of artilley units.
Btw, I am going to have to take some of the existing units out of the game to make way for some of the new ones in the next version, and I think I am going to take out some of the artillery units. At the moment, I plan on leaving out the types that can't turn, since these are the types I prefer if I can get them, and they are the most useless for the AI.
I can also set the AI building priority for Siege Engineers and Foundries to very low, as well as the weapons themselves, and this should take care of the AI building them, except where it takes over foreign provinces and this is all that's available. Oh, well, all I can do is try.
I plan to remove the Mortar, Siege-cannon, Bombard, Mangonel, and Ballista.
I plan to keep the Trebuchet so you can get something that can hit the walls from safety when assaulting strong castle types.
Removing the Ballista is in everyone's best interest, I hope you agree.
This will leave Catapults, Trebuchets, Demi-Culverins, Demi-cannons, Culverins and Serpentines.
Faisal, no problem with the Faris. Here is what I have for them now:
["Faris_desc"] {"With the passing of time, Islam came to play more and more of an effective role in the realm of Arabian chivalry. By 1115 A.D., 508 A.H., the first religious order of knights was created. This religious order is called Al Rabata, or "The Brotherhood". It has the basic Arab chivalry code at its heart, but adds to it an allegiance to Islam and to the Brotherhood. In Peace, the knights live in semi-isolation, devoting themselves to the cause of Islam and the Brotherhood. In battle, they are fine desert horse-archers, swift and sure on the attack, though lightly armoured."}
["DismountedFaris_desc"] {"These religious warriors form a deadly and flexible spine to the Jihad. Their armour is usually light, but this affords them mobility and does not restrict their slightly wild combat styles, their whirling blades proving particularly effective when charging into unprepared infidels."}
I have added Futuwwa to the Jihad-only list for version four, to give them an archer unit. If you have a better suggestion, I would always appreciate it.
Leet Eriksson
12-30-2003, 13:40
Thanks alot,now they sound a lot more jihad types http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
your mod is doing pretty well so far http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif but i have one concern,without the seige cannon there will be a problem storming the larger castles(fortresses and citadels)...
Norseman
12-30-2003, 23:33
Quote[/b] ]
D'oh, forgot about the Artillery designation. Yeah, I'm sure that's it. Looking through the unit types, though, I wonder exactly what the artillery designation means. I mean, the special attack unit designations probably dictate whether or not they are pieces or part of an army on the strategic map, and I figure that the cavalry designation pertains to the mounts they ride, and maybe some other things in the hardcode, who knows, but I wonder about the artilley.
Well, looking at it, it probably means that the number of men in the entry are the figures which man the piece, and not the number of artilley units.
WesW, I changed ARTILLERY to INFANTRY and now it all looks better. If I use 10 FMAA and 10 ballistas in a attack, the AI now pick 8 FMAA and 8 Ballistas in the first 16 lineup.
Of coarse, the optimal situation would be if the AI in a siege used all artillery units in the first lineup, and none on the open battlefield.
I have now played 2 siege battles and 1 on a regular battlefield, and so far I have seen no problems. Actually, I even think the AI handled the artillery units better in the siege than before I'm probably just smoking something... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
I fear though that more extensive testing may reveal some serious problem with this...
BobTheTerrible
01-01-2004, 00:46
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I started a game in Early as Spanish in GA on normal. I will run over what happened and I have a question too.
Well to start things off I used .matteosartori. just to see how the factions were reacting. I didn't need to use it to cheat. Well an interesting thing happened. I was building up for a crusade to Palestine, I bribed El Cid and attacked Navarre with my King. Other than that I didn't do much, as I was trying to just sit back and see what happened. Well the English and French went at it again, no surprise. But an interesting thing happened. The English attacked Flanders and conquered it. A French counterattack saw the English King's army defeated and tied up in the castle. Since the King was tied up in the castle, ALL of England revolted, except for Scotland. I don't think it was a civil war; I noticed after it happened that, hey, England wasn't red. The English still held Aquatine, however.
The Danes and Swedes invaded England and the English in Scotland attacked Northumbria. Now England was equally divided between the Swedes, Danes, and English. Interesting.
I launched a successful Crusade to Palestine, and was rewarded with a nice little splash screen at the Crusade's success. Another interesting thing though. The turn I launched the Crusade, I went to move it to Cordoba. For some reason, the crusade unit "became" my mouse cursor. I clicked, and the Crusade disappeared completely. It was not in Leon (the place where I launched it from) nor was it in Cordoba. The next turn, it was back in Leon and moved normally.
The Russians have become the most militarily powerful. Every oher turn they send in about 5 stacks to break the siege of Constantinople, which the Byzantines keep losing. The French launched a Crusade to Tripoli but two provinces away they were defeated by the Turks. They are now in a period of massive civil war, about half their empire revolted and every now and then a new civil war will break out. They were also excommunicated for attacking Aragon so now and then a peasant revolt will pop up.
Everything's going great. It is a fun campaign. But on this one turn, it keeps crashing. I hit end turn and before the portraits come onscreen the game just freezes. I don't know what to do. It happened before at a particular battle, but I just retreated from the battle when I reloaded and it was fine.
Another thing I want to ask is for MM what file to load in the gnome editor to make changes to units. I want to double each units cost and upkeep but when I try to load the MM_full_unit_prod file as a Crusader_unit_prod11 file it just freezes. Am I loading the right file?
Thanks in advance.
/ http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
You can get the MM_unit_prod files to load in Gnome with an easy change.
The changes that Wes made to the file are in the explanations at the top of the page, he extended them and so they are longer than before and hence the incorrect formatting message that you get. To remedy this open your CRUSADER_UNIT_PROD11 and copy all of the information from the top of the page down to where it says DATA START. Now just paste that information over the header in MM_FULL_UNIT_PROD11 and save. It should now load in Gnome.
Do the same swap for the relevant BUILD_PROD13 files to get the building data to load.
BobTheTerrible
01-01-2004, 20:48
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Ok, well I tried that, but it didn't seem to work. It still freezes up.
I copied the top of Crusader unit prod 11 and copied everything down to where it said "data start." I then loaded the MM_full_unit_prod file, and pressed enter at the top to make room for the copied part. I then copied it and attempted to load. It froze up ehwn it was loading unit "loading labels" or something similar. Ctrl-alt-delete says its not responding. I don't know where I'm going wrong.
Thank you for the help, though
/ http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Quote[/b] (Clownmite @ Dec. 31 2003,16:46)]http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I started a game in Early as Spanish in GA on normal. I will run over what happened and I have a question too.
I launched a successful Crusade to Palestine, and was rewarded with a nice little splash screen at the Crusade's success. Another interesting thing though. The turn I launched the Crusade, I went to move it to Cordoba. For some reason, the crusade unit "became" my mouse cursor. I clicked, and the Crusade disappeared completely. It was not in Leon (the place where I launched it from) nor was it in Cordoba. The next turn, it was back in Leon and moved normally.
Everything's going great. It is a fun campaign. But on this one turn, it keeps crashing. I hit end turn and before the portraits come onscreen the game just freezes. I don't know what to do. It happened before at a particular battle, but I just retreated from the battle when I reloaded and it was fine.
Another thing I want to ask is for MM what file to load in the gnome editor to make changes to units. I want to double each units cost and upkeep but when I try to load the MM_full_unit_prod file as a Crusader_unit_prod11 file it just freezes. Am I loading the right file?
Thanks in advance.
/ http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
The Gnome editor requires that the units text have the exact number of tab spaces for all units that the Editor has programmed into its template. Well, the game runs fine, or should, without the extra tab spaces at the end of the units that CA added for the VI. These spaces specify the cost, era and faction availability for MP games. I haven't been worrying with these while editing the file, so I am sure there are units where I deleted these extra tabs because the data in them would occasionally mess up searches and such within the file.
This is one reason that I encourage people to use a text editor like EditPlus2 for modding, rather than a set template like Gnome, especially if they plan on extensive modifications.
You can also just open the file in Wordpad and change the costs very easily. The cost and upkeep are the 3rd and 4th tabs, right after the unit name and type. I would recommend showing tabs and spaces to make sure you don't delete a tab by mistake, and turn off word wrap for this particular edit.
Where you describe the crash, I need to know if you made a typo or not.
It happened before at a particular battle, but I just retreated from the battle when I reloaded and it was fine.
Is the word "at" supposed to be in the sentence?
If it is, then I interpret you to mean that you have had these crashes in other games, and retreating worked then, but this time it didn't work.
If it is not supposed to be in the sentence, then I interpret it to mean that retreating worked in this game, and that this is the first time you have experienced a crash.
With both you and Quokka reporting crashes, it would be a great time to have you both give accounts of what units were in your forces. It would also be good if Ron could view your lineup and then load his game and see which factions had the same units in his game, and if they were able to invade the same province that you were attacking when your crash occurred.
Norseman, that's wonderful news about the Artillery designation. I have noticed before that both the units text and projectile text have places for entering the number of men in artillery units, and I thought that the game picked whichever one was larger, though in light of your findings it seems that the game actually ignores the units text entry.
Have you tried adding the Castle_Defender designation back to the artillery?
Another idea is to go back to my original idea of setting all the unit abilities to zero except for the last two, ASSAULT_COVER_CASTLE_ATTACK and Cover.
I am guessing as to what these two pertain to, though there is a good chance that the notes in the unitformations.txt, or one of the others in the Formations folder, will describe them.
There are other abilities designated as Assault and Assault_Cover, which I hope refer to the AI attack stacks for open battles. That would leave the last two designations for attacking castles and defending open battles, I hope. The AI seems to get accuracy bonuses for artillery in open battles, and the types which can turn have been real pains in some of my battles.
This is one reason I want to take out the static types, since these are never of any use to the AI. I'll try and keep the Siege Cannon in, if it is needed in certain situations.
BobTheTerrible
01-04-2004, 02:08
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Thank you for your reply. I will try to sort this out as best I can without making it confusing:
I had regular MTW in July and August and something about my computer didn't like it very much. I would have frequent crashes in, and especially after battles, and an occasional strategy map crash. I assumed it was the video card. For my birthday, I got a new card (128 MB GE Force blah blah) and Viking Invaision. For a while (september-october) I would get occasional crashes. These crashes would be inconvieniently related to certain circumstances. For example, if on a certain turn I had 3 battles involving certain armies, the game would freeze after the last battle. By simply loading the autosave and retreating from the battle, things would be fine. Mysteriously, the crashes stopped altogether for a period of about a month. I downloaded your mod at the release of the version 3.0 and the patches, and things were almost fine. In one campaign, however I couldn't continue due to being unable to retreat (castle siege). I was forced to abandon the game altogether. There were about two more sets of the rare-curcumstance related crashes but they were all resolved by retreating. After the 3.10 updates it was fine. Now that Spanish game has had two crashes. One was the rare-circumstance-related crash, which I was referring to when I said it happened before at a paricular battle, but I just retreated from the battle and it was fine. The second one happened after I hit 'end turn' and it crashed before the portraits were displayed. I reloaded it several times and the same thing happened. The next day I tried reloading and it worked fine. Other than that, I have had no recent crashes.
Well that was exhausting. Anyway I just wanted you to know it could or could not be related to your mod, it could just be my pc. My specs are 900 Mhz celeron with 128 meg GEforce and 3-hundred-something MB of RAM.
Ok, that makes me feel better about the mod. All the new units and so-forth probably make the game take up more RAM than normal, which could explain the crashes. With under 400megs of RAM, you may need to drop back to the lower map resolution if you can. The reason it worked sometimes and not others is probably due to other programs you had loaded and/or running in the background. I think that most games build up clutter as they run, too, so simply quitting and re-starting may sometimes clear things up.
BobTheTerrible
01-05-2004, 21:51
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Just FYI, I run the strategy map in 600x800, and all battles in 640x480. I never load stuff in the backround or alt-tab. Quitting and reloading is probably a good idea and I'll try to try it more often.
/ http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Cahir Mawr Dyffryn aep Ceallach
01-07-2004, 21:47
HI Wes, I tired to send you an email, but it returned to me dou to some server spam protection...The email was like this:
Hi, first of all, I appreciate your work dearly.You've done a great job.
But that's not important now. The reason I write to you is the campaign I played today.It was late/expert/Turks.I've gotten into conflict with Egyptians
and captured Tripoli, which I abandoned the next turn.I went for Palestine.I started to prepare a Jihad there for Tripoli.After five turns and few skirmishes with the Italians
I marked Tripoli as the target province and added some artillery to the Jihad.The next turn I successfully fought a battle for Tripoli.The greater was my surprise the turn after the battle when I discovered that all my Jihad units were now normal, even though I was still besieged the castle.However under the Jihad marker I now had a new army of very few Chevaliers, Gredamers , Voulingers and Mounted Sergeants. When I right-clicked the Jihad it's commander had loyalty to Burgundians and his piety was full of catholic crosses.Weird.Needless to say, Tripoli was 99% Muslim.
Does it have something to do with Tripoli being Burgundian homeland in high era?If you tell me how to make a screenshot I would send you one.
By the way how's your work going on v.3.15?Can I expect it soon?
Russ Mitchell
01-08-2004, 06:16
Ahoj
Press CTRL-PrtScr to make a screencapture. Then paste it into a graphics program, and save...
-russ
torsoboy
01-08-2004, 10:59
Quote[/b] (Russ Mitchell @ Jan. 08 2004,06:16)]Ahoj
Press CTRL-PrtScr to make a screencapture. Then paste it into a graphics program, and save...
-russ
Or press F2 and look in your TGAs folder.
Cahir Mawr Dyffryn aep Ceallach
01-09-2004, 22:11
Nazdar
It seem I can't post the picture without uploading it to internet, which is much of a drag to me.So if you wish to see it, just say so(either here or via email) and I can mail it to you.
BobTheTerrible
01-11-2004, 04:00
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Any word on how the completeing/testing is going?
/ http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
dunnichen
01-11-2004, 10:05
I installed the MedMod 3.14 recently. Everything fine till now with one big exception:
In Single Player - Campaigns there is only the MM_Early campaign. High MA and Late MA don't appear.
I am playing the MM-Early campaign and till now it runs well.
Must be a mistake in High.txt and Late.txt? Strange. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
Does anybody have the same problem or, better yet, a solution?
Westland
01-11-2004, 13:26
This may be a bit to simple. But did you scroll down in the campaign menu?
The Beef Baron
01-11-2004, 16:56
westland...yes, jsut scroll down.
i was also wondering when the new version would be comin out. i havent seen wes in this thread, or the campaign map thread in a while. hope he's doing well.
TBB
metatron
01-11-2004, 20:37
Wes, I've been asking in the wrong thread, but will you please rename the Byzantines to the correct "Roman"?
dunnichen
01-13-2004, 08:09
Quote[/b] (Westland @ Jan. 11 2004,06:26)]This may be a bit to simple. But did you scroll down in the campaign menu?
Uuh, I'm not sure. I will try when I'm back home. I will knock myself down if this would have been the "problem" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-embarassed.gif
dunnichen
01-13-2004, 08:24
Annother question: creating new units in MedModMTW. Has anybody done this?
I tried it, but failed. I used the "regular" method to create new units: copying/renaming/pasting every file in the relevant folders.
Nothing happens. No crash, the unit simply doesn't appear in the recruitment panel.
I tried it again with two other units. This time I made parallel steps in my MTWMedMod-folder and my normal MTW-folder. I changed cusader-unit-prod etc. in "C/Programme/Total War/Medieval-Total war" and made the same steps with MM-full-unit-prod etc. in my folder "C/Programme/Total War MedMod/Medieval-Total War".
In the normal MTW I got the new unit everytime. In MTWMedMod I got nothing. What is wrong? Something more/different to be done? Or is the MM-full-unit-prod already "full"?
How can I create a new unit in MedModMTW? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-help.gif
(I like the new smileys http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-happy2.gif )
dunnichen
Simply you can't at the moment. The CRUSADER_PROD11 can only accomodate 256 entries and thats where it is at the moment, so while your new unit is in the text file it isn't recognised in game. Try removing some units to get below the 256 threshold and your unit should appear.
Some good candidates for removal are the second level conversion units, Cardinal, Orthodox Bishop and Imam. I have only once used them and that was only to see what they looked like, I have never seen tha AI use them.
Quote[/b] (The Beef Baron @ Jan. 11 2004,09:56)]westland...yes, jsut scroll down.
i was also wondering when the new version would be comin out. i havent seen wes in this thread, or the campaign map thread in a while. hope he's doing well.
TBB
Unfortunately, I have been ill the last ten days or so, and have not felt like doing any work, or even getting online in the few hours a day that I didn't spend in bed.
No one knows what the problem is at the moment. I seem to be getting a little stronger the last couple of days, but this latest affliction may be tied to a chronic problem of mine that usually appears every Thursday or Friday, so I'll just have to pray that I don't go downhill again this week.
metatron
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes, I've been asking in the wrong thread, but will you please rename the Byzantines to the correct "Roman"?
Nope, not gonna do it; wouldn't be prudent. (For those of you who remember the elder Bush's presidency.) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
The Byzantines spoke Greek, not Latin, and were Orthodox Christians, not Catholic. I think there was some more things that came to mind when I saw your request in the other thread, but I can't recall them at the moment.
Sorry about forgetting to address your question earlier.
Cahir Mawr Dyffryn aep Ceallach
It seem I can't post the picture without uploading it to internet, which is much of a drag to me.So if you wish to see it, just say so(either here or via email) and I can mail it to you.
If you a graphics program that can alter tga's, use it to cut out the relative portion of the screen and just upload that part.
Btw, there will be on 3.15 version of the mod. The next version will be the 4.0 beta. My illness has obviously cost us a lot of time as far as putting it together, but I hope that the strategic map discussion has progressed without me.
I have just about all of the work done on the units and factions, including descriptions of the new, notable minor factions in the faction descriptions readme. When I get the last of that done, I'll post the readme as a preliminary faction lineup, like I did for the initial version 3 beta. I think everyone is going to be blown away by it, as there have been huge changes to many factions, as well as dozens of other changes/improvements to the game.
torsoboy
01-14-2004, 23:40
Well, good to hear from you and get well soon.
Quote[/b] (Cahir Mawr Dyffryn aep Ceallach @ Jan. 09 2004,15:11)]Nazdar
It seem I can't post the picture without uploading it to internet, which is much of a drag to me.So if you wish to see it, just say so(either here or via email) and I can mail it to you.
Sure, go ahead and email it to me. Use the link at the bottom of this post.
I remember stuff like this happening before, but it was several months ago at least, and I can't recall if it was even a medmod problem for sure.
Some posted a couple of weeks or so ago and reported a similar glitch with Jihads, I believe.
Were the Burgundians still alive when this occurred? If not, this may be some weird glitch with faction re-emergence, which, as you know, has a bug or two associated with it that has nothing to do with the Medmod.
Hey WesW
Been playing the mod alot now and im really enjoying it. Wouldnt dream of playing the game without it now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Nice to see that there will be another version out, looking forward to it.
Just wondering; what changes will there be to the swedish faction? namnes and flags and so on?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
MiniKiller
01-17-2004, 20:16
Just a quick question for you wes.
This mod is not an overwrite correct? I hope it isnt.
Ellesthyan
01-17-2004, 21:21
Minikiller: No, it isnt; the regular campaign can be played but will use the unit names and the projectile stats of the MedMod...
MiniKiller
01-18-2004, 01:51
wait so umm. could u give me an example of what u mean? thanks
Ellesthyan
01-18-2004, 13:26
You can choose to play the MM campaigns, or the regular campaigns. The regular campaign is exactly the same as it was before installing the MedMod except that the names of the units have been changed and that the projectile stats have been changed a little.
MiniKiller
01-18-2004, 19:51
ohh ok so are they more accurate now?
Ellesthyan
01-19-2004, 09:06
Huh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Look: at the start of a campaign you can choose between 7 different starting positions: Viking, Early, MM_early, High, MM_high, Late, MM_Late.
The Viking, early, high and late starting positions are EXACTLY the same as they were before installing Wes's mod, except that the names are different and the projectile stats.
The MM_early, MM_high, and the MM_late starting positions are the mod itself: Wes has made many changes to the regular campaign including a special unit roster for every faction, the homelands concept, the great improvement of the A.I., etc.
Also is the MedMod a lot more historical accurate: for example Byzantium does not control modern Turkey except for Trebizond, Poland controls Lithuania in late, and more things like that.
I hope that answers all your questions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif
-- http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif Ellesthyan
MiniKiller
01-19-2004, 16:14
thats what i mean u said the name are different. I thought u meant in campagin like names of kings etc. I see what u mean now
And for the projectile stats that changed are they seemingly more accurate and better than the orignals?
Wes, I've been gone awhile, playing some other games, dropped by to see what was up with the mod. D/led it, played a bit with it. Very, very nice job I have to say. Love the new and renamed units - is it safe to assume that many units have the same stats, but have been renamed - such as the different types of chilvaric knights for the various empires? Anyway, this is very nice - also the way you set it up so that the original game remains. Thanks for all of the very hard work. CA should hire you - and I really mean that
Grifman
Quote[/b] (metatron @ Jan. 11 2004,13:37)]Wes, I've been asking in the wrong thread, but will you please rename the Byzantines to the correct "Roman"?
Sorry, but that's a bit of a silly request. Inheritors of Rome they were, but we know them today as the Byzantines. That has been discussed in depth on this and many other forums - been there, done that. It's not worth the bother.
Grifman
Quote[/b] (Ellesthyan @ Jan. 19 2004,02:06)]Huh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Look: at the start of a campaign you can choose between 7 different starting positions: Viking, Early, MM_early, High, MM_high, Late, MM_Late.
The Viking, early, high and late starting positions are EXACTLY the same as they were before installing Wes's mod, except that the names are different and the projectile stats.
The MM_early, MM_high, and the MM_late starting positions are the mod itself: Wes has made many changes to the regular campaign including a special unit roster for every faction, the homelands concept, the great improvement of the A.I., etc.
Also is the MedMod a lot more historical accurate: for example Byzantium does not control modern Turkey except for Trebizond, Poland controls Lithuania in late, and more things like that.
I hope that answers all your questions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif
-- http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif Ellesthyan
First off, thanks for the compliments, Grif. It's nice to see one of the old vets post once in a while, with the way the regular posters turn over. I don't know if it's the nature of the game, or what, but people seem to come and go after only a few weeks on average; much faster than on the Civilization-type games' forums.
As for compatibility with the other campaigns in the game,
the way I have the mod set up, I have not altered their units, buildings or campaign files in any way. At last check, there are three units in the regular campaign that have different textures, so they will look all messed up on the battlefield, and I'll probably have to alter a few more with the release of version 4 (their stats are unchanged, though). There are also some units that have altered pics.
And then, most all of the Viking Camp units and a number of the regular camp units have different names and/or descriptions. I am going to see if I can't make a separate file or folder for the mod for all of the names, descriptions and such for version four.
You will use the Medmod projectile stats, but I think you will love them.
I have been careful to craft an un-install package that removes all of this, btw. All you have to use is open the Charts-and-Readmes folder, cut out all of the contents of the un-install folder, and paste them into the Medieval - Total War folder.
My advice would be to play the Viking Campaign until you are tired of it, and then install the Medmod. From what I can figure, the VC contains all of the improvements made to the regular campaign, and the other stuff they added to the regular campaign, such as the cheap javelin units and such, actually hurt gameplay.
What "I" did was play the VC for a couple of months (I also made the 2.04 mod specifically for the VC), then go straight into version three. I have never played a regular campaign with Viking Invasion, if that tells you anything.
Of course, I don't recommend playing the Medmod until you have become pretty proficient at the un-modded game, for the rest of you reading this.
Btw, I have about finished the unit lineup for version four, along with the new projectile stats and an updated Crusade and Jihad lineup. I think we have about decided on the new strategic map as well, after which we will begin deciding upon which new factions to add to the game, and provencial ownership. From there, the biggest thing will be updating the campaign files and finishing up all the other things that I still have on my list.
To summarize, I think that more than half the work in done, and finished components to the mod should start to appear shortly.
MiniKiller
01-20-2004, 21:15
thats is so totally sweet
will the factions and provinces be historically correct for the set time periods? i love realism in my games http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
MiniKiller
01-20-2004, 21:17
oh by the way wes i havent been up to date lately on ur mod so i was wondering whats the difference between 2.04 and 3? it says on ur site 3 is seperate from 2.04?
A very rough comparison,
2.04 is the no units mod. It is just a reworking using the units provided in the game.
3.14 uses has new units and buildings added into the mix and is a much better game.
I have finally succeeded to survive past 1120 with the HRE. I had to drop back to HARD and then it was only because of a lucky http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif Civil War.
As usual the French, Italians and Polish ganged up to start spanking me. I got "lucky" and England didn't take Friesland because I sank their ship in the English Channel. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif After that it was back and forth with France for a while until Italy and Poland jumped on.
In 1106, after losing Provence, Ile de France and Bohemia a Civil War started and Austria, Tyrolia, Bavaria and Burgundy all rebelled and were lost. The upshot was that this got me out of contact with Italy for a year and the war against them stopped. Pulling the armies out of the provinces I would lose gave me a decent force in the 6 that I had left. England invaded Ile de France in 1111 and Spain took Flanders in 1112 so the French finally accepted the Princess that I was throwing at them in 1114. Then out of the blue Poland asks for a ceasefire in 1116.
Things got better when in 1118 Lorraine and Champagne rebelled from the French. I invaded Lorraine and bribed Champagne in 1119 and owned both by 1120, then Poland fronts up with an alliance in 1121. I accepted but was so shocked that I had survived that I needed to lie down.
Its now 1135 and I still have the 8 provinces and have some decent troops finally starting to trickle out, Swabian Swordsmen, Dienstlute in 2 provinces and Mounted X-bows in 2 provinces. I find the lack of Cav is the major killer for the HRE when the French and the Polish have excellent early cav.
Luckily none of my North Sea ships was ever sunk and now a decent trade net is in place, but I am heavily outnumbered and outclassed and my income is drying up as the better and more expensive troops come online. I'm going to have to pull my thumb out to win this one.
I know its going to be an interesting game because the Byzantines just managed to eradicate the Turks and have monster stacks of good troops. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif
MiniKiller
01-22-2004, 00:39
Quote[/b] (Quokka @ Jan. 21 2004,14:07)]A very rough comparison,
2.04 is the no units mod. It is just a reworking using the units provided in the game.
3.14 uses has new units and buildings added into the mix and is a much better game.
So should I install both? or just 3.14? does 2.04 make the original better?
How many different verrsion do you have?
Sorry for so many question and I wil ldef try this soon.
Quote[/b] (WesW @ Dec. 19 2003,23:37)]I was thinking of keeping this a little "Christmas" present, but I'll go ahead and say that I have implemented names for the Muslim princesses. And thanks to the guy who sent them for me to work into the files.
I went through them all, well over a hundred I'm sure, and picked out around 15 or so each for the Turks and Arabs (Egyptians and Almohads). I tried to choose all the ones that have become common among Christians over the years, like Melody and Jasmine, and I think you are going to find them as interesting as I did.
It would be more accurate, if you added "sultan" after the names of the turkish princesses.
Examples:
Esma Sultan
Kösem Sultan
Hürrem Sultan
Most people think, only the ruler(padishah) was called sultan.But actually everybody in the royal family was a sultan.For males the form was sultan+forename, for females forename+sultan.
By the way, I don't know if you are keeping moslem and christian marriages seperate, but the turks married many christian princesses.
Also the turkish names in the original game are all wrong(they are mostly arabic names).I have edited them, and if you want, I can send the modified files.
The Beef Baron
01-22-2004, 04:10
i highly reccommend 3.14. it might tkae some getting used to, but make sure you read all of the chats and read me files to understand all of the changes. it has become quite a challenge now with some of th efactions
Quote[/b] (MiniKiller @ Jan. 22 2004,06:39)]So should I install both? or just 3.14? does 2.04 make the original better?
How many different verrsion do you have?
Sorry for so many question and I wil ldef try this soon.
Just install 3.14
2.04 does indeed make the original infinitely better, but 3.14 improves on even that with new factions, buildings and 80 odd new units to use.
dire wolf
01-23-2004, 04:38
hey wes i just joined specially to thank you your great work you've done with the medmod it's amazing, i mean, like super-medieval, the concept of homelands it's superb (though the computer manages quite often to get kicked out their own lands, but well, their loss is my gain :)), it made me actually trive to dominate the seas (sweating my arse off-damn italians-) and be able to get fresh troops to the front; before i would just hack my way to the enemy capital in the good ol' "wall-type-strategy".
i just love what you've done to my all-time favourites, the byzantines. a great unit roster, if i'm allowed to say.
but i have a question about the vestiaritae... were they an historical unit? correct me if i'm wrong here, but i suposed that the byzantines continued the roman tradition of heavy infantry, not spearmen, so the old "byzantine infantry" would be more historically accurate... also, i can't understand why the byz always lose when the computer, i mean they only have to defend trebizond at the start, it should be quite straightfoward, but the turks seem to crush them solely by numbers (i had a rough time as the turks trying to counter the byz units, my feeble tribalish turcoman kept failing their lord).
but well, that's enough rambling from my part, once again YOU RULE CA should really considering hiring you
Quote[/b] (Komutan @ Jan. 21 2004,20:25)]It would be more accurate, if you added "sultan" after the names of the turkish princesses.
Examples:
Esma Sultan
Kösem Sultan
Hürrem Sultan
Most people think, only the ruler(padishah) was called sultan.But actually everybody in the royal family was a sultan.For males the form was sultan+forename, for females forename+sultan.
By the way, I don't know if you are keeping moslem and christian marriages seperate, but the turks married many christian princesses.
Also the turkish names in the original game are all wrong(they are mostly arabic names).I have edited them, and if you want, I can send the modified files.
Just email me the Turkish names, using the link at the bottom of this post. All the names are in the MTW\campmap\names default_heroes.txt, along with all the heroes and short descriptions of most of them. You can look through the names and heroes and propose your own choices for both if you like. Fix the file up the way you like it, and mail it to me. I haven't made any changes to the original, yet.
There isn't any way to specify which factions are eligible for a given faction's princesses, as long as those factions produce princesses themselves. This all started out as a bug when I first developed version three, and since most everyone either liked the change, or didn't mind it, (and also because I have never figured out what happened to cause them to pop up in the first place), I decided to leave it in the game.
One account of the battle of Manzikert I read stated that the Turkish Sultan requested one of the Byzantine princesses in the treaty signed after the battle, so I didn't think this feature in the mod was very far from history. I would be interested to know more about the practice of swapping princesses between different faiths if you, or anyone else, knows more about the practice.
Thanks for the kudos, Dire Wolf.
I have reverted the Infantry back to a 60-man FMAA-type unit for version four, and I've given the Byz a Feudal Sgt. spear unit.
Actually, I think all the opinions on the units have come in from my research staff, so I'll try and post the unit lineup shortly.
BTW, go back and read the last line of Quokka's long post on this page, where he mentions the Byzantines.
Quote[/b] (WesW @ Jan. 22 2004,23:17)]One account of the battle of Manzikert I read stated that the Turkish Sultan requested one of the Byzantine princesses in the treaty signed after the battle, so I didn't think this feature in the mod was very far from history. I would be interested to know more about the practice of swapping princesses between different faiths if you, or anyone else, knows more about the practice.
A few examples:
Orhan 1 married Theodora, the daughter of byzantine emperor Kantakuzen.He also married Holofira, daughter of the byzantine prince of Yarhisar(being moslem, ottomans didn't mind having more than 1 wife).Holofira's son Murat 1, married Maria Thamara, daughter of the king of Bulgaria.His son Bayezid 1, married Maria Olivera Despina, daughter of the king of Serbia.The list goes on...
MiniKiller
01-24-2004, 01:15
ok so get 3.14 because its the same as 2.04 just improved upon? They arent seperate mods but u can pick which one u want to add which fits ur liking the best right?
Mortal Cabbage
01-24-2004, 17:11
Great mod, Wes, but rebelling spy armies? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
http://www.paksoi.nl/out/wesmod_spyarmy.jpg
It's the first time something like this popped up though. I've been using Grand Inquisitors to cause rebellions quite often in Wesmod, so far having only "normal" effects. Until these guys decided to take on some Kataphraktoi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif
I've uploaded the savegame (TW-VI 2.01 + Wesmod 3.14) here:
Spy_Army_in_Tripoli.zip (http://www.paksoi.nl/out/Spy_Army_in_Tripoli.zip)
(if it costs me too much data traffic I might take this savegame offline again)
/Edit - the Byz left the province the following turn and I invaded it next, together with the Byzantines. The game crashed to desktop when we entered the battlefield... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-embarassed.gif
/Edit2 - it appeared not to be a single incident: in the next years, all rebellions in Tripoli existed of entirely-spy armies. The Turkish re-appeared in Tripoli with about 30 catapults and 1 peasant army, while having a normal army in Sinai. Must be something Tripolian I guess :)
It may just be a thing with Tripoli, since there was the earlier report of the Egyptian Jihad getting screwed up there as well, I believe. I have also gotten reports in the past of strange things happening in Valenica, which is probably the next province in the game, going alphabetically.
metatron
01-25-2004, 20:49
Quote[/b] (Grifman @ Jan. 19 2004,16:41)]
Quote[/b] (metatron @ Jan. 11 2004,13:37)]Wes, I've been asking in the wrong thread, but will you please rename the Byzantines to the correct "Roman"?
Sorry, but that's a bit of a silly request. Inheritors of Rome they were, but we know them today as the Byzantines. That has been discussed in depth on this and many other forums - been there, done that. It's not worth the bother.
Grifman
No it isn't, "Byzantine" was invented by contemporary historians to differentiate the medieval and ancient empire. They were called Roman, they called themselves Roman, and none (save the HRE) had any claim to the throne.
PS: Wes, the empire more often than not was host to a weak leader, thus resulting in civil wars and what not. Perhaps the Emperor should have lowered influence/loyalty among his generals/heirs.
metatron
01-26-2004, 00:49
Now that I think about it, why not rename the Spanish to Castile? I think I'll do that myself and the Roman thing to see how it looks.
Russ Mitchell
01-26-2004, 05:26
Yes, they called themselves the Romans... but nobody else did... and since the Empire was reconstituted on the site of Byzantion...
metatron
01-26-2004, 14:03
No, I have data saying otherwise, that everyone else called them Roman too.
I have to go, but more tonight.
iostephanos
01-26-2004, 18:46
Quote[/b] (Russ Mitchell @ Jan. 25 2004,23:26)]Yes, they called themselves the Romans... but nobody else did... and since the Empire was reconstituted on the site of Byzantion...
[off thread topic]
everybody else called them romans, too; the greek terms were "rhomaion basileia" or less commonly "rhomania", which is the direct transliteraton of the latin "romania"...
"romania" is the term employed by pope urban when he calls for the first crusade, and the term used by the catalan company, who, after establishing themselves in athens, changed the seal of the company to read 'the fortunate army of franks in romania'; the latin emperors of constantinople also used this term
what you are confusing are traditional latin names versus the vernacular; when roger bacon, or anyone else for that matter, speaks of "greeks", the reference is more to language or rite than nationality (as understood then, since "nationalism" has to wait for the french revolution to emerge as the concept we now understand), because the opposite term is not "english", "french", etc., but "latin"
another example: the name of athens (the city) in the middle ages is either "cetines" or "satines" (forget which is catalan and which is florentine...) based on the phrase "eis athenas" (to athens); the name of athens (the duchy) remains "athenae" throughout
steph
p.s. in that time period, "byzantion" only referred to the capital proper as an alternate term, never the empire
[/off thread topic]
Ellesthyan
01-26-2004, 22:12
The western Christians called them the Greek Empire.
They called themselves the Roman Empire.
The Turks called them Rûmaloi.
From the 19th century the modern westerlings call them the Byzantines.
This is done so we don't confuse them with the old and new Greeks, and not with the old Roman Empire. The Byzantines were and are still a unique empire with a unique culture, influenced by the Romans, ancient Greeks, Persians, Arabians, Slavs and "Latins" (western Christians). Therefore modern historians call them the Byzantines, as they are very different from the Greeks or Romans, even from the Eastern-Romans.
"Byzantine" comes from Byzantium, the name of the old Greek settlement that was destroyed during a civil war in the Roman Republic. In 330 Emperor Constantine (The great) created a new city and capital where Byzantium used to be, with as biggest reasons:
A) the war with the Persians could be coordinated easier. B) Rome was getting old and very unhandy (take for example any huge modern city with an old core), and a new capital was necessary. C) according to the legend Constantine had a dream where an angel told him to raise a city by the Bosporus (as opposed to by the Hellespont, where ancient Troy laid, as is his first idea was). D) Byzantium had an ideal location, very good accessible from sea and land, and easily defended. E) The new city could be formed as a new Christian city. (Rome still had many, many heretics)
The new city was called Constantinople, and later became the capital of what is now known as the Eastern-Roman empire. (from 476)
The Eastern-Roman empire is thought to stop existing after the Arabic invasion (in the 7th century); the empire was halved and now the last old Roman Latin speaking provinces were lost. The empire was now mostly Greek speaking, and had been rid of the other patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria; Constantinople was now both the religious, political, military, and economical center of the Empire. From now on we speak of the Byzantine Empire, as ancient Byzantium or Constantinople was the absolute center of the nation.
The Byzantines however did not stop calling themselves Romans for an obvious reason: the emperor's claim on the Roman empire (as opposed to the Holy Roman Emperor of the westerlings). The westerlings called them Greeks tho; as they saw the HRE as the only Roman empire.
If we would have to call the Byzantine Empire a Roman one, many other name changes should have to be made. As all the other kingdom names are taken from modern use, it seems logical not to change it.
WARNING -- this is all of the top of my head. It is at your own risk to read it, and don't blame me if some things are not exactly right I'm quite sure its at least very close to the truth.
Russ Mitchell
01-27-2004, 00:03
Quote[/b] (iostephanos @ Jan. 26 2004,11:46)]what you are confusing are traditional latin names versus the vernacular; when roger bacon, or anyone else for that matter, speaks of "greeks", the reference is more to language or rite than nationality (as understood then, since "nationalism" has to wait for the french revolution to emerge as the concept we now understand), because the opposite term is not "english", "french", etc., but "latin"
another example: the name of athens (the city) in the middle ages is either "cetines" or "satines" (forget which is catalan and which is florentine...) based on the phrase "eis athenas" (to athens); the name of athens (the duchy) remains "athenae" throughout
steph
p.s. in that time period, "byzantion" only referred to the capital proper as an alternate term, never the empire
[/off thread topic]
Quote[/b] ]"romania" is the term employed by pope urban when he calls for the first crusade, and the term used by the catalan company, who, after establishing themselves in athens, changed the seal of the company to read 'the fortunate army of franks in romania'; the latin emperors of constantinople also used this term
Of course they did: that was the **local** usage.
But Liutprand of Cremona certainly does not refer to them as "Romans," and neither is he discussing theology or language when he calls them Greeks. You're correct that the Turks *did*... but they were the exception, not the rule. (If you re-read my post, you'll see I"m already aware of the Byzantion comment). But unless you're going to redraw the entire map to reflect the Byzantine point of view -- however realistic that would be from the point of view of its virulently xenophobic inhabitants -- (in which case the "Turks" will be inhabiting the Carpathian Basin), the City ain't going to be the Romans... that makes no more sense than adopting the Hungarian names and calling the Poles "Lengyelorszag" on the map...
dire wolf
01-27-2004, 03:40
Quote[/b] ]I have reverted the Infantry back to a 60-man FMAA-type unit for version four, and I've given the Byz a Feudal Sgt. spear unit.
hey i don't mean to be anoying here, but don't you think it should be a 100-man unit? i think, the byz teorically have a tradition of using heavy infantry from the times of the legions, in oposition of the more knight-oriented armies of the franks... i think a 100-man unit should reflect this inheritage more acuratelly, and give them a more efective counter to both the numerous muslims and the more advanced chistian units
Quote[/b] (dire wolf @ Jan. 26 2004,20:40)]
Quote[/b] ]I have reverted the Infantry back to a 60-man FMAA-type unit for version four, and I've given the Byz a Feudal Sgt. spear unit.
hey i don't mean to be anoying here, but don't you think it should be a 100-man unit? i think, the byz teorically have a tradition of using heavy infantry from the times of the legions, in oposition of the more knight-oriented armies of the franks... i think a 100-man unit should reflect this inheritage more acuratelly, and give them a more efective counter to both the numerous muslims and the more advanced chistian units
I assume you mean the Byz Infantry should be made a 100-man unit. Well, there was the earlier post where someone (I don't have the page up) said that his playtesting revealed that the AI never correctly used the 100-man hybrid I made for 3.14. I have also heard from multiple posters in the past that by this time, there was never a unit in the Byz forces that resembled the CA, or my, 100-man unit. The AI is set up to behave in a certain way, so that has to be the main consideration when you are making units. AI trouble was why I decided to eliminate most all of the archer-infantry hybrids.
The archers that still have significant melee ability I made like the Trebizond Archers; decent attack but little armour, to be used to break weakened forces or chase them down in the late stages of battle, ideally after they had exhausted their ammo.
iostephanos
01-27-2004, 16:12
don't mean to drag this more off topic, so i'm going to stop after this; it was only meant to be a comment in passing, not in any case something to be understood as "this needs to be changed".
@ russ mitchell: thank you for pointing out luitprand; i think he is open to interpretation, though, at least the english translation i read. when he speaks with the emperor, he says that they (the byzantines) have "changed their language, their customs, and their dress", but doesn't play the race card, which is what nicephorus does, when he says, "you are not romans, you are lombards". somewhere in there, then, i feel there is a compromise between our two views. at any rate, thank you again for pointing him out.
as to "romania" being the 'local' usage, of course; but remember the popes were not in byzantium, nor were they addressing byzantine princes when making their speeches. also, the titles adopted by the catalans, latins emperors, etc., were not only for themselves and those over whom they ruled, but had to be acceptable in form to their peerage (the western powers) as well; this includes being in a form they would understand. again, somewhere a middle ground between our two opinions.
this was supposed to compliment the 'change spanish to castilian' type of sentiment, since "spanish" was slang, referring to any one of the christian powers on the peninsula, and technically "spain" as we know it didn't exist. as well you could say 'change hungary to magyarorszag (sp?)', i didn't mean 'let's change byzantium to yunanistan because that's what turks call greeks now...'
p.s. i am aware that in the same speech, pope urban calls the turks "a persian race"...
@ ellesthyan: that's fairly good from memory; both the arabs and turks referred to the people as "rum"; the asiatic parts of the empire were also called "rum", and "rumeli" (which is what i think you were trying to say), referred to the european parts. it's like saying 'little rum'.
as far as the traditional [end roman empire, start byzantine] with heraclius, that is convention, and i'm not going to say the argument isn't sound, but then so is the counter-argument: not all of the roman institutions were lost, what was changed was in response to the threat of losing a war and to better govern (a reflex that happened often enough in the old roman empire), and this 'greekification' let's say, didn't happen overnight by any means. at heraclius, greeks are still one people among many; after 1261 when the empire, if one can call it that, starts rapidily shrinking, you could say that the empire is almost solidly 'greek'.
also, this 'greek' culture that 'takes over' is already romanized in some respects, and orientalized in others, producing something that you rightly called unique. it's just that the people of the day saw no break in continuity, just as we as russians, americans, or others whose countries have undergone significant change, see none. however some historian many years from now may take a critical amendment, or change in the minority make-up etc., and say that we have entered something new.
steph
metatron
01-27-2004, 18:19
Amen.
Russ Mitchell
01-27-2004, 22:26
You very much have me on the Papal one... I had only recalled that later, even though I still think that the terms is understood in a geographic sense, rather than referring to a people. But in spite of the remaining (and declining) roman influence, you must also count in the dramatic **Persian** influence in that court... although few people know anything about pre-Islam Persia, the influence is huge... and makes for a radically different culture: thus Liutprand's comments. They may not have been "greek" in the modern sense of the word... but they were clearly also no longer "roman" in the commonly-understood sense. And we are dealing with common vocabulary here, rather than discrete scholarly terms... just as the game refers to the Magyars as "Hungarians," the Cymri as "Welsh," and to the Amezir as "Berber." ("Welsh" and "Berber" being explicitly pejorative terms, at least in their inception -- "Berber" itself is an out-and-out insult)... "Byzantine" is the usage that does not require us to write a monograph, rather than a blurb, on the history of each faction...
Good arguments, btw...
Ellesthyan
01-27-2004, 23:13
As this is not the apropiate thread for that, I will not go much further into this discussion.
Although your counter is solid, I'd like to point out that I was talking about languages; the actual inhabitans were of several races and cultures.
The Eastern Roman Empire had its soul "in Rome".
The Byzantine Empire had its soul "in Byzantium".
The Eastern Roman Empire was a vital, powerful nation with a big military both on sea and land. Its ultimate dream was to reclaim the Roman Empire and to create a new pax romanum. It had many hearts; Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome, all were big cities. Its power was not endless however, as it had huge borders and an equal adversary: the Persians.
The Byzantine Empire was an old, fragile nation with a weak military both on sea and land. It was a left over of a once great power, and it was slowly rotting away. They could not materialise the dreams they had as the eastern romans could, they merely could survive. Every year their influence weakened, and the periods of revival were few. Even the weakest factions could raid their lands, and every invasions could have been a mortal blow.
After the Arabic invasion, the "Romans" tried to never fight a decisive battle, and they would win by outlasting their enemy in resources and patience. (Manzikert being a mistake in this strategy)
Sheesh, that actually has become a large post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
I'll shut up now, I promise
dire wolf
01-28-2004, 03:08
ah ok roger that wes i think i read somewhere that the byz actually had mostly light troops and cavalry (ala horse archers) and that, after the themata reorganization of the military, an increasingly dependence on mercenaries... but that would be pretty boring to play as http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
well thanks for the fast reply, i'm anxious to play the release 4, and, i know it's a little early yet to ask, but you have any ideas for r:tw??
Wes, I have a problem. It's 1205, I have Horse Breeder Guild, Armorer Guild, and Royal Estates (or whatever Palace Level 3 is), and I can't build the English equivalent of Chilvalric Knights. What's up? I can build the other High Era English units - Gallowglasses, Billmen, Muntators, etc, but not the Chilvaric Knights. Nor Sargeants or Men at Arms for that matter. Something seems wrong.
Thanks.
Grifman
Ellesthyan
02-11-2004, 16:49
The knights of Gascon are a late era unit, and the most powerful cavalry the english get. That to reflect the relative disadvantage the english had on the cavalry part...
If Im wrong, you should also consider that you can only recruit them in Wessex or the continental possesions.
Thanks for the explanation. But I appear to have another problem - Longbowmen in Wessex are definitely NOT getting the valor upgrade - Welshbowman are definitely getting it in Wales, but regular longbowman are not in Wessex.
Great game by the way. The new units really give you more of a roleplay type game, and the building of units only in their homelands also makes more sense - but it also allows you to make some money by selling all those military improvements in conquered territories.
I really feel like that I have a unique army to each empire - I really feel like the English army is an English one, not a generic one. It's fun having an army largely of archers and infantry - I usually have a knight, a munctator, 3 power Scottish pikemen, two gallowglasses, two billmen, and 4 Welsh/regular longbows. The pikemen/billmen allow me to defeat any cavalry, the bowmen tear up cavalry and slower infantry.
Very fun mod.
Grifman
Ellesthyan
02-16-2004, 02:18
There are 3 kinds of longbowmen:
(regular) longbowmen; doesn't get a valour bonus anywhere
Welish longbowmen; available in high, valour bonus in Wales
English longbowmen; available in late, valour bonus in Wessex
I certainly agree with you :) Only thing is that all those changes doesnt allow you to just play a campaign an afternoon... The A.I. will beat you up if you don't lead all the battles yourself.
PrinceBrobex
02-18-2004, 06:09
The mod rocks exceedingly, finally my Jinettes get to fire all of their ammo And Galician bowmen? Wow
But I do have a question regarding revolts; it's just a few years in and a massive revolt occured in Portugal after an Almo invasion. Four Knights Templar and Four Foot Knights. Naturally I've bribed them - Iberia is mine.
Has anyone else seen anything like this. It's like a Portuguese mini-crusade
The Beef Baron
02-18-2004, 13:22
pretty sure that rebellions are now made up of jihad and crusader troops. i may be wrong tho.
TBB
Norseman
03-20-2004, 10:10
Wes, in case you don't know about this, it may be that the emergence of the Golden Horde in 1230 is not as you intended it to be. All people get is Naptha throwers and artillery...
Link to thread (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=16356)
Probably nothing to do about this now, but maybe something to look at for v4?
Aymar de Bois Mauri
03-20-2004, 15:12
Hey, Norseman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
The problem only concerns the troops that atack Armenia, if there are any.
son of spam
03-21-2004, 23:57
I noticed a fairly annoying bug with medmod lately.
For quite some time, I wondered why my woodsmen were dying like flies when they cost an outrageous 175 florins. Initially I "fixed" the problem by changing the cost to 100 florins http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif. However, one day, when facing the swedes, I actually decided to press F1 to check my unit stats. Lo and behold, woodsmen actually *don't* have a large shield. So that's why they get their ass kicked versus everything Since the unit descriptor said it had a large shield, I was using woodsmen like they had one.
Anyway, I used gnome and modded in the large shield (from NONE to LARGE). Much better now Oh yeah, I also put the cost back 175 :)
Otherwise, I love this mod http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
adding a large shield for free would seem to skew the efficiency of the unit significantly.
with the large shield, now you can spam the woodsmen and wear down the enemy far better with them and win by pure attrition in making them a cost effective counter against most everything.
I think the 175 florins was the cost because they were meant to drop like flies.
Hi all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Just wondering... I have got med mod from Wes' main page (the latest file I think) since few months. But it is strange.In main menu it displays ver. 3.13. Why?
Ellesthyan
03-22-2004, 15:15
Probably nothing, I have it too but my version is clearly 3.14. It hasn't been changed yet from the earlier version, but as it is such a minor (really tiny) mistake I doubt it will be changed anyway.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
03-22-2004, 17:37
Quote[/b] (Ellesthyan @ Mar. 22 2004,08:15)]Probably nothing, I have it too but my version is clearly 3.14. It hasn't been changed yet from the earlier version, but as it is such a minor (really tiny) mistake I doubt it will be changed anyway.
It will be changed for the next version: 4.0 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Russ Mitchell
03-22-2004, 17:49
Wes:
Got a problem.
My to-do list has finally caught up with me, and I'm going to be scrambling throughout the entirety of the rest of this month and April in order to make sure that the work I have to have ready for my next conference is ready... not counting the Syrian armor research I told you about.
The timing couldn't be worse, amigo... but I"m screwed, and definitely must go on hiatus for a while. I've gotten you some of the province stuff, and am happy to advise as I can, but my evenings are going to be pretty much locked up until after the first week in May...
sorry about this, but my plate has finally gotten too full. If the situation changes, I'll be back just as soon as it does..
-Russ
Hiya Wes,
Don't know if you remember me, but I remember back in the earlier modding days having discussions about the CA build files, one of them in particular being the effect of giving unit provincial bonuses has on the AI's ability to tech up appropriately. The thread apparently still exists:
http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....t=10144 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=26;t=10144)
and you were obviously aware of it at the time. :)
Anyway, I decided to give MTW a go again after a rather too lengthy period collecting dust on my shelves, and I thought your mod is an interesting alternative to the main campaign. I see it's come on quite significantly since the last time I visited these fora, and is held in high esteem by other forum members. Quite an achievement
But before I try, I was keen to ask how you circumvented some of the issues I found with unit provincial bonuses affecting AI teching? After looking through your files, I may be able to answer my own question, in that many of the factions' starting provinces have been given a more advanced starting setup (certainly when compared to the vanilla early MTW campaign). Does this prevent the AI from getting stuck, or refusing to build otherwise essential improvements like Gold and Silver Mines?
With respect to that last comment, it was particular poignant for the Almohads and may explain why they always seemed to do poorly against the Spanish. In the vanilla campaign, many of their starting provinces contained gold mines and provincial bonuses for relatively low tech units (e.g. dhow). This seemed to result in them failing to build the mines and when I removed the provincial bonuses the problem was resolved.
Moving on, the only other question I have is regarding the restiction to building your main units in your homelands. I think this is a superb idea and one that has the potential to radically change the game for the better, however, I have only one concern, which I think has already been raised by another patron earlier in this thread.
AI factions have a tendency to be too easily ousted from their homelands, mainly because they won't appreciate the importance of retaining them like a human player will. This can also be said for re-emerging AI factions, which have a habit of re-emerging in non-homeland provinces. Consider the Spanish re-emerging in Russian provinces after a successful crusade there as an example. What happens then? Do they simply become peasant or spearman building fodder?
Regards
Doc
After playing about 50 turns, it does indeed look as if the provincial unit bonuses are hampering the AI from building up in some provinces. This is especially prevalent with regards to building salt, silver and gold mines/mine complexes.
THis can also be a problem for the AI in reaching the high-tech units In provinces where the specialisation is for a low-tech unit (e.g. Berber Camels) the AI will often not build further up the tech tree (or at least more reluctantly) once the province is capable of building the specialised unit. Consider Constantinople in the original MTW early campaign, which never seems to develop enough to produce Varangian Guards due to its bonus for Kataphraktoi.
Maybe something to consider for the next version. Otherwise, cracking Mod. :)
regards
Hi, Doc. I certainly remember you, and your experiments. I have factored your findings into the mod's development ever since last summer.
For the early campaign, I have tried to give each major faction one province capable of building each of the early units in its lineup. I have not gotten to the buildings for the beta yet, and I may not worry about adjusting them for the first beta, but I plan to have the provinces set up like this for the public release.
For the other campaigns, I tried to make it so that most every province could build most of the units from earlier campaigns right at the start, and I added additional buildings to major provinces to try and guide them to their bonus unit.
As you noticed, I also put in a lot of mines, since the AI usually picks guns over butter if it has to choose, so you end up with poor factions, or those like the Huns who are surrounded by enemies, building defensive units until it can't build anything. Thus, the factions who need more income the most are the ones who are the least likely to spend money on income improvements.
Fine-tuning faction income so that everyone has a fair chance to win is the type of thing that only playtesting can reveal.
I chose mostly late and high units for the bonuses, based upon how valuable the provinces were. For example, a capital will usually have a bonus for one of the most advanced units, while barren provinces like Libya will give a bonus for a more minor high or even early-era unit, since these provinces aren't worth investing much into.
I have also tried to use your findings in more "advanced" ways. For example, in version four, both Peasant types will have bonuses in all of their culture's richest provinces. I then gave Peasants requirements of a Musterfield and the 60% land upgrade, to try and use the AI tendency to build to produce bonus units as extra incentive to develop its best provinces.
People have asked why I didn't give the bonuses for all provinces to both Peasant types.
Well, for one thing, I don't want the AI to actually build Peasants, which is why I included the Musterfield, because it has a very low priority setting. I want it building other units, which are only available in the Homeland, and I the most specific I could be is culturally.
Another reason is because I don't want to encourage building in non-Homeland provinces, even though it may beneficial to the AI in some ways.
Another is that I don't know for sure that the AI will still have the tendency to build the bonus unit if the unit is not available in the province, which it will not be.
As you mention, the Homeland concept does have drawbacks, but I knew that from the outset nine months ago, and I still feel that the enhancements to gameplay far outweigh the drawbacks.
For instance, with all the variables and the rise and fall of factions, I think the best approach to making a more challenging game is to have a few factions which gradually grow stronger and stronger, since the player will certainly be doing so. Re-emerging factions are, by definition, ones which have been wiped out, and in my experiences re-emerging factions rarely amount to much in the long run, even without the Homeland restrictions.
I think you have the best games, and this goes back to the civ-type games I modded before coming here, when you start out with a good many small factions, then have a few which gradually consume the others and turn into superpowers by the late game, the same way the human grows his empire.
My main concern with balance is to produce a game where any given faction may end up being one of the superpowers. Therefore, I am trying to produce predictability on one hand, and unpredictability on the other, and that's hard to do.
Factions which re-emerge far from their origin often do so because the area is poorly developed, thus happiness is low. These factions just cause more destruction, and usually go into defense too soon. Therefore you end up with poor provinces which are heavily defended by a faction that is in the red financially and is never going to get out of it. This is what always happens to the Mongols, though I have put a lot of effort into trying to change that, for them anyway.
Hi Wes,
Quote[/b] ]For the early campaign, I have tried to give each major faction one province capable of building each of the early units in its lineup. I have not gotten to the buildings for the beta yet, and I may not worry about adjusting them for the first beta, but I plan to have the provinces set up like this for the public release.
For the other campaigns, I tried to make it so that most every province could build most of the units from earlier campaigns right at the start, and I added additional buildings to major provinces to try and guide them to their bonus unit.
When modding my Early campaign to improve the AI, this to me was the most challenging issue I faced. Trying to maintain provincial unit bonuses and intelligent AI build queues As you quite correctly pointed out, this is obviously more of a problem for the early campaign where many provinces begin relatively unimproved. In vanilla MTW the AI would often get stuck trying to build according to these bonuses, especially in provinces that had bonuses to ships, e.g. Venice. However, this was mainly due to an inconsistent tier development for some improvements, e.g. the first shipbuilder requiring a castle 4 and horse breeders not requiring successive fort development.
Quote[/b] ]As you noticed, I also put in a lot of mines, since the AI usually picks guns over butter if it has to choose, so you end up with poor factions, or those like the Huns who are surrounded by enemies, building defensive units until it can't build anything. Thus, the factions who need more income the most are the ones who are the least likely to spend money on income improvements.
From my initial playing with MedMod 3.14, I would say this is the only area which doesn't quite work in the early campaign. I haven't been able to test in depth for all factions, but the Almohads in particular do not appear to build mines, at least over the first 50 years or so. Maybe in terms of overall balance with the Spanish this doesn't represent a major issue, but in contrast a human player would build these as soon as they are financially able. If this is true for all AI factions then if the human can survive the first 50 years while they build up their economy, then they should be economically stronger than the other AI factions who've concentrated on units or other buildings.
What I found was that if another faction captures a province with a provincial bonus for a unit it cannot build it tends to revert back to the normal build priorities. In other words, if the Italians captured the North African provinces (say) then they would build the appropriate gold mines. Having provincial bonuses seems to somewhat override the standard build values in the build prod file. If mines have been included in the High and Late campaigns, then you don’t obviously have this problem unless they’re destroyed through conquest. Speaking of which, if a technologically advanced province (e.g. Constantinople) with a provincial unit bonus is captured and the port/mine/merchant are destroyed, you may find that these buildings are never replaced as long as the faction controlling the province can build the bonus unit.
With regards to Constantinople, one thing I found that worked particularly well was giving it a Royal Palace and a bonus for Pronoiai Allagion and here’s why:
As it stands the bonus is for Kataphraktoi and if I can recall correctly (long time ago now), the AI builds up the horse breeders and the armourers to reach this goal and then effectively stops. By giving it a palace and the bonus for Pronoiai, the AI will build the required horse breeders and spearmakers, which in doing so opens up Constantinople to build Varangian guard and Byzantine Lancers Not quite so limiting as it is with the Kataphraktoi bonus.
Quote[/b] ]I chose mostly late and high units for the bonuses, based upon how valuable the provinces were. For example, a capital will usually have a bonus for one of the most advanced units, while barren provinces like Libya will give a bonus for a more minor high or even early-era unit, since these provinces aren't worth investing much into.
Agreed, this is definitely the best way of using provincial unit bonuses. Preventing the AI from developing up barren provinces is key and the best way to accomplish this is to give them a provincial bonus for a low-tech early unit like saharan cavalry or bedouin camel warriors. Using advanced units for more useful provinces is also advantageous, for instance, encouraging the AI to produce varangian guard, knights, Italian infantry, avar nobles, etc. However, unless thoroughly playtested, I would advise extreme caution in giving provinces with unit bonuses the ability to generate trade income or build mines. That is unless you plan on either giving the provinces the mines/merchants/ports beforehand or encouraging the AI to build them by some other mechanism such as integrating them into the building requirements of the bonus units.
Applying provincial bonuses also requires careful consideration for the glorious achievement (GA) mode, as some provinces require the building of specific improvements. For example Egypt requiring a Grand Mosque (or Mosque in Medmod?) and some Polish requirement for a University? In the vanilla Early campaign, the Egyptian AI has awful troubles upgrading Egypt due to provincial bonuses and will never achieve the Grand Mosque goal.
Quote[/b] ] As you mention, the Homeland concept does have drawbacks, but I knew that from the outset nine months ago, and I still feel that the enhancements to gameplay far outweigh the drawbacks.
For instance, with all the variables and the rise and fall of factions, I think the best approach to making a more challenging game is to have a few factions which gradually grow stronger and stronger, since the player will certainly be doing so. Re-emerging factions are, by definition, ones which have been wiped out, and in my experiences re-emerging factions rarely amount to much in the long run, even without the Homeland restrictions.
I think you have the best games, and this goes back to the civ-type games I modded before coming here, when you start out with a good many small factions, then have a few which gradually consume the others and turn into superpowers by the late game, the same way the human grows his empire.
My main concern with balance is to produce a game where any given faction may end up being one of the superpowers. Therefore, I am trying to produce predictability on one hand, and unpredictability on the other, and that's hard to do.
Factions which re-emerge far from their origin often do so because the area is poorly developed, thus happiness is low. These factions just cause more destruction, and usually go into defense too soon. Therefore you end up with poor provinces which are heavily defended by a faction that is in the red financially and is never going to get out of it. This is what always happens to the Mongols, though I have put a lot of effort into trying to change that, for them anyway.
I agree. Whilst it’s pleasing to the eye and increases the variety of gameplay to have as many factions surviving as long as possible, to remain a challenge the course of the game has to proceed as you have stated, with AI factions consuming others and forming their own superpowers. Otherwise the game simply degenerates and becomes too easy for the human player as they begin forming their own empire.
I really think the Homelands idea is superb and adds to the flavour of the game immensely. You are correct with the Mongols and other re-emerging factions, in that upon their arrival the initial 20,000 florins that any emerging/re-emerging faction is awarded, is rapidly consumed by unit support. I did briefly experiment with the campaign files to find a way to increase this 20,000 allocation, but as far as I can tell this appears to be hardcoded. As a result, in my mod I had also made the Mongol specific armies much cheaper to maintain (almost free) in an attempt to allow the Mongols time to establish themselves and build their own empire.
Hope this is of some help.
sprucemoose
04-16-2004, 17:08
ello peeps
long time since i played med mod,but can you tell me is version 3.14 being constantly updated,should i re-download this version?
cheers
I have a question about how you tell wich units are available to your faction for the period with this mod. I tried to use gnome editor to view the files to see what the Germans would have for early and the Gnome editor is unable to open it. I figured I'd go into custom battle to at least see what units would be available to me so I could at least look for a way to build the buidings for those units but unfortanely all the factions can select anyone elses units so it cant be figured out that way. So I was wondering is there a there an easy way to besides taking guesses in the game or is something messed up betwwen my MTW file and my gnome editor that is not allowing me to open this.
Oaty,
In order for you to use Gnome Editor with WesW's unit prodfile you have to do the following:
Copy and paste this:
Code Voorbeeld Name/Identifier Unit type Cost Support Cost Production time Starting honour handicap Units base strength Number of men in unit ( Base value before scaling ) Honour step value General candidate? ( eg. Stealth troops are not ) Rebelling Troop mixes this unit can belong to Ruler ID troop advantage Region ID troop advantage Dojo advantage modifier Unit choices (AI) Unit Speciality extra building influences Buildings needed to produce this Unit Unit Class Moral Bonus Aplicable periods Is this units base unitsize scalable? Stats and general info about this trooptype "Is the unit invisible to other players in the strategy map?
For units indicates a stealth unit" Unit specialities Tooltip Labels Mount type The body type + is it recolourable? + does it have a hi-res texture page. If this unit is a leader of a faction then specify here which faction it leads. Different units may be specified for each time period and are assigned in the order the units are listed. Any time periods remaining unassigned will be assigned the last unit specified as a leader for the particular faction. Faction Association Region The order in which the units suitability for formation positions is evaluated. "Another set of suitability values for the formations troop types, this one represents the suitability of a type to perform certain tasks." Specific cultures this unit belongs to. "Ship info, including stats ( if this is a ship ).." NumSupportingRanks Number of ranks behind first that can give support in melee. Default is 0. "Effects chance of becomming inpetuous, and some other morale effects. Default is NORMAL." Affects how evenly spaced the troops are in formation. Cosmetic only. Default is POORLY_FORMED. "ShieldType. The type of shield the unit is considered to have for combat purposes
" "MeleeWithShield. True if the unit can use the shield in melee. False if it has a weapon that needs two hands
" ShieldModifier. The benefit the unit receives from having a shield. Units with heavy "ArmourPierciingWeapon True if the weapon type is particularly effective against armoured troops
" "CavAttackBonus The factor bonus the unit recieves when attacking cavalry
" "CavDefenseBonus. The factor bonus the unit receives when defending against cavalry
" Units this unit is fearful of. This describes how much the unit affects the Zeal of the followers for each religion. This describes how much the unit affects the Faith of the followers for each religion. Dismounting info. DismountInOpenBattle Weapon type Mercenary Unit Period association for non campaign games. Faction association for non campaign games.
Label Label Integer Integer Number of seasons Integer Integer Integer Integer "PREFERRED, OK or DISCOURAGED" Labels Label Label or Integer Use Label ( must correspond to Labels used for buildings ) Personality Label + integer Building label( integer influence ) Use Labels ( must correspond to Labels used for buildings ) Labels Integer Label Yes/No Labels(values) Labels Labels Localisation Labels "NONE, CAMEL or HORSE" Label Labels Label Labels Labels + value ranging 0-2 Int 0 and above 0. Enum Enum Enum YES/NO Float YES/NO Int Int Unit name Religion List with percetage values. Religion List with percetage values. "What troop this becomes when dismounted, if nothing specified then it will be judged as non dismountable." yes if the unit can dismount in open battle. No if the unit can only dismount in castle battles "SWORD, SPEAR, AXE or CLUB
(Note this column is linked from the UnitDefs sheet and should not be edited directly" Can this unit be used in mercenary armies.
"This is used internaly and also to locate files, each name must be uniquie. " Used to distinguish between different types of units. "Cost of producing this unit before any modifiers are taken into account.
(Costs for units are linked from unit def sheet)" Cost of supporting this unit on a per season basis. The number of seasons it will take to produce this unit. The amount of kills this unit must make to 'level up'. Revolting troops are grouped in this fashion. Would imagine Crusaders will have differently named rebelling groups. Some Leaders are given discounts on various troops or buildings. Some regions provide discounts on troops or buildings. If you leave this field blank you will never be able to build this unit. These values describe an additional influence the AI will feel towards creating buildings producing troops that have some advantage in a particular region. "Perio descriptions for crusaders may be created here, please use capitals and underscores." "The frontend offers 60-120 unit sizes, but in shogun this was not applicable to the one man army types like the master swordsman ( always 1 unit ), use if you think this is applicable to the unit type." "This column is linked from Linked To workshet, which is itself linked to the summary and unit def sheets. Please edit the factors there" 1) Your unit title. 2) Your unit info. 3) Your allies unit info. 4) Your enemies unit info. 5) Nuetral others unit info. "1) The type of body the troop will use. 2) Is the troop to wear faction colours 3) Is there a hi res page available? 4) If the troop is mounted, the name of the mount." Faction name "Unit availability to factions; either ALL_FACTIONS or FACTION_ONE, FACTION_TWO, etc; this has been treated as a second level filter and REQUIRES the building filter to be checked for an accurate list of who can raise what (such as might be needed for custom battles)" OR condition for raising units ( As far as I can tell ) This is used to determine where in the deployment of formations this units formation will be placed given the order provided. THIS DATA IS NO LONGER USED Any cultures specified here will exclude all other cultures from generating this unit. "Format:- Range, Attack rating, Defence rating, Speed, Strength." "This column is linked from Linked To workshet, which is itself linked to the summary and unit def sheets. Please edit the factors there" " DISCIPLINED
NORMAL
UNCONTROLLED" "PERFECTLY_FORMED
FORMED
POORLY_FORMED
UNFORMED
" "NONE, SMALL, LARGE, CAV, PAVISE
This column is linked from Linked To workshet, which is itself linked to the summary and unit def sheets. Please edit the factors there" "This column is linked from Linked To workshet, which is itself linked to the summary and unit def sheets. Please edit the factors there" "This column is linked from Linked To workshet, which is itself linked to the summary and unit def sheets. Please edit the factors there" "This column is linked from Linked To workshet, which is itself linked to the summary and unit def sheets. Please edit the factors there" "This column is linked from Linked To workshet, which is itself linked to the summary and unit def sheets. Please edit the factors there" "This column is linked from Linked To workshet, which is itself linked to the summary and unit def sheets. Please edit the factors there" "yes or no
(default is no)" YES / NO ( Default is no ) "EARLY, HIGH, LATE" Faction ID ( declared in the startpos file)
DATA START[/QUOTE]
...over this part in the unit prodfile (MM_Full_unit_prod.txt) of MedMod 3.14:
Code Voorbeeld 1)Name/Identifier (Note this column is linked from the UnitDefs sheet and should not be edited directly. This is used internally and also to locate files, each name must be unique.) 2)Unit type. (Used to distinguish between different types of units.) 3)Cost. (Cost of producing this unit before any modifiers are taken into account. Costs for units are linked from unit def sheet.) 4)Support Cost. (Cost of supporting this unit on a per-month basis.) 5)Production time. (The number of turns it will take to produce this unit.) 6)Starting valour bonus. This affects units present on the map at the start of a campaign. 7)Unit's base strength 8)Number of men in unit (Base value before scaling) 9)Honour step value. (The amount of kills this unit must make to 'level up'.) 10)General candidate? (eg. Stealth troops are not.) 11)Rebelling Troop mixes this unit can belong to. (Revolting troops are grouped in this fashion. One would imagine Crusaders will have differently named rebelling groups.) 12)Faction ID troop advantage. (Some factions are given discounts on various troops or buildings.) 13)Region ID troop advantage. (Some regions provide discounts on troops or buildings.) 14)Dojo (Provence) advantage modifier. 15)Unit choices (AI). 16)Unit Speciality extra building influences (These values describe any additional influence the AI will feel towards creating buildings producing troops that have some advantage in a particular region.) 17)Buildings needed to produce this unit. (If you leave this field blank you will never be able to build this unit.) 18)Unit class. 19)Morale bonus. 20)Applicable periods. (Period descriptions for crusaders may be created here. Please use capitals and under-scores.) 21)Is this unit's base unit size scalable? (The frontend offers 60-120 unit sizes, but in Shogun this was not applicable to the one-man army types like the Master Swordsman (always a size-1 unit), use if you think this is applicable to the unit type.) 22)Stats and general info about this troop type. "This column is linked from Linked to the worksheet, which is itself linked to the summary and unit def sheets. Please edit the factors there." 1) Your unit title. 2) Your unit info. 3) Your allies unit info. 4) Your enemies unit info. 5) Neutral others unit info. "1) The type of body the troop will use. 2) Is the troop to wear faction colours 3) Is there a hi res page available? 4) If the troop is mounted, the name of the mount. 23)Is the unit invisible to other players in the strategy map? This indicates a stealth unit. 24)Unit specialties. 25)Tooltip labels. 26)Mount type. (The body type + flags used for this troop in battle.) 27)If this unit is a leader of a faction then specify here which faction it leads. (Different units may be specified for each time period and are assigned in the order the units are listed. Any time periods remaining un-assigned will be assigned the last unit specified as a leader for the particular faction.) 28)Faction association. "Unit availability to factions; either ALL_FACTIONS or "FACTION_ONE, FACTION_TWO, etc"; this has been treated as a second level filter and REQUIRES the building filter to be checked for an accurate list of who can raise what (such as might be needed for custom battles) OR condition for raising units 29)Region restrictions, if any. 30)Unused. 31)Another set of suitability values for the formation's troop types; this one represents the suitability of a type to perform certain tasks. 32)Specific cultures this unit belongs to. (Any cultures specified here will exclude all other cultures from generating this unit.) 33)Ship info, including stats. (If this is a ship...) 34)NumSupportingRanks (Number of ranks behind first that can give support in melee. Default is 0.) 35)Discipline attiude. Default is NORMAL." 36)Affects how evenly spaced the troops are in formation. Cosmetic only. Default is POORLY_FORMED. 37)"ShieldType. The type of shield the unit is considered to have for combat purposes" 38)MeleeWithShield. (True if the unit can use the shield in melee. False if it has a weapon that needs two hands.) 39)ShieldModifier. (The benefit the unit receives from having a shield. Units with heavy...) (The rest of the sentence was apparently lost. WW) 40)ArmourPiercingWeapon. (True if the weapon type is particularly effective against armoured troops.) 41)CavAttackBonus. (The factor bonus the unit recieves when attacking cavalry.) 42)CavDefenseBonus. (The factor bonus the unit receives when defending against cavalry.) 43)Units this unit is fearful of. 44)This value describes how much the unit affects the Zeal of the followers of each religion. 45)This describes how much the unit affects the Faith of the followers of each religion. 46)Dismounting info. (Gives the troop this unit becomes when dismounted. If nothing is specified then it will be judged as non-dismountable.) 47)DismountInOpenBattle? 48)Weapon type. 49)Mercenary Unit? (Can this unit be used in mercenary armies?) Multiplay era multiplay factions
1)Label 2)Label 3)Integer 4)Integer 5)Number of seasons 6)Integer 7)Integer 8)Integer 9)Integer 10)" PREFERRED , OK or DISCOURAGED 11)Labels 12)Label 13)Label or Integer 14)Use Label ( must correspond to Labels used for buildings ) 15)Personality Label + integer 16)Building label( integer influence ) 17)Use Labels ( must correspond to Labels used for buildings ) 18)Labels 19)Integer 20)Label 21)Yes/No 22)ATTACKER, DEFENDER, AMBUSH, ANTI_INFANTRY, SPEAR, ANTI_SPEAR, MISSILE, ANTI_MISSILE, STRONG, WEAK, CAVALRY, CASTLE_DEFENDER" 23)Labels 24)Labels 25)Localisation Label 26) NONE , CAMEL or HORSE 27)Labels 28)Labels 29)Labels 30)Labels 31)Labels + value ranging 0-2 32)Int 0 and above 0 33)Enum 34)Enum (Format:- Range, Attack rating, Defence rating, Speed, Strength.) 35) DISCIPLINED , NORMAL or UNCONTROLLED 36) PERFECTLY_FORMED , FORMED , POORLY_FORMED or UNFORMED 37) NONE , SMALL , LARGE , CAV or PAVISE 38)YES/NO 39)Float 40)YES/NO 41)Int 42)Int 43)Unit name 44)Religion list with percentage values. 45)Religion list with percentage values. 46)Label. 47)Yes if the unit can dismount in open battle, No if the unit can only dismount in castle battles. 48) SWORD , SPEAR , AXE or CLUB 49)YES/(leave blank to bar from Mercenary service WW)
DATA START[/QUOTE]
I hope it works by posting it like this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
PS. It's the top part of the unit prodfile, just before "HighlandClansman" starts.
NormanPain
04-20-2004, 21:33
hey...Id just like to say that I loved the last version...kind of revived the game for me, its great...and I actually dont see a problem with your homeland restrictions, makes the strategy game much harder and you actually have to think about what provinces you want. A couple of things I noticed though...Ottoman infantry seem weaponless until they engage, Slav swordsmen swords are off...you should use the movements of the Varangian guard's swords for the slavs...BTW those Varangian Guards are the coolest...thank you for replacing the old ones http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif Just a suggestion...maybe you could add norman foot soldiers(i do really appreciate the Norman mounted units included) I was thinking you could make them like the varangians just with a shorter sword...anyways I will quiet myself now and go back to playing your mod...I love it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
WhiteMagick
04-21-2004, 14:12
Hey all. Long time MTW player. First time poster. So be kind :p Anyhow. Whenever I start VI with MedMod 3.14 when the Campaign is loading I always get a warning on the absence of a mongol flag so a default one will be used. I press enter and the Campaign fully loads. All work ok but whenever i right click on the province of Sicily (since i start with the Sicilians) the game crashes. This is even more strange because when ever i right click on the other provinces is does not crash. Any suggestions on how i might be able to solve the problem?
PS. WesW did you recieve my email on the province of Cyprus?
Quote[/b] (WhiteMagick @ April 21 2004,08:12)]Hey all. Long time MTW player. First time poster. So be kind :p Anyhow. Whenever I start VI with MedMod 3.14 when the Campaign is loading I always get a warning on the absence of a mongol flag so a default one will be used. I press enter and the Campaign fully loads. All work ok but whenever i right click on the province of Sicily (since i start with the Sicilians) the game crashes. This is even more strange because when ever i right click on the other provinces is does not crash. Any suggestions on how i might be able to solve the problem?
PS. WesW did you recieve my email on the province of Cyprus?
If you have these problems, then you probably got a bad download, or else you didn't install something correctly.
I don't recall getting anything regarding Cyprus. Put Medmod in the title, so it will be sure and go to the Good Messages folder. I get so much spam that I may have missed it if it simply went to my Inbox.
oaty Posted on April 20 2004,11:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a question about how you tell wich units are available to your faction for the period with this mod. I tried to use gnome editor to view the files to see what the Germans would have for early and the Gnome editor is unable to open it. I figured I'd go into custom battle to at least see what units would be available to me so I could at least look for a way to build the buidings for those units but unfortanely all the factions can select anyone elses units so it cant be figured out that way. So I was wondering is there a there an easy way to besides taking guesses in the game or is something messed up betwwen my MTW file and my gnome editor that is not allowing me to open this.
There is a file in your download, and also on my website, which says "Readme". Listen to the file, for it knows all, and tells all. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
sprucemoose Posted on April 16 2004,11:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ello peeps
long time since i played med mod,but can you tell me is version 3.14 being constantly updated,should i re-download this version?
cheers
Ah, well, it's like this. You see, if I updated the mod, then it would be a new version, and therefore wouldn't be called 3.14 anymore. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
(Unless I updated the Installation portion of the Readme or something extremely minor to the files.)
FYI, I have been very busy the last couple of weeks, but it has been with my health issues, so I haven't been able to work on the mod.
As part of my recovery, I am going to move to Virginia around the first of May, to be close to my cousin, Jill, who will be helping me with the condition that I have.
I figure that most of my free time until then will be spent seeing a couple more doctors, and then getting everything together for the move. I plan to stay with her and her husband until I get my own apartment, and they have an internet connection, so I won't be off the net, though I will continue to be busy, as I am sure you all will understand.
I am going to try and farm out some of the remaining mod work before I leave, so that development can continue, though I will try and use what time I can spare to whittle down the remaining work.
I'll try to post before leaving, as well as email the guys who have been doing so much work for the mod, to let everyone know where things stand.
Well my problem came from not having excel to read your spreadsheet but I found this program http://download.com.com/3001-2064-10281288.html
at cnet.com and it downloaded pretty quickly too. its free for 30 days and if you register its free for life.
Well my question now is when it comes to crusades. I installed the 2.01 patch right before I installed the 3.14 wesmod. so I don't know wich one caused it but the deal is I use to donate troops to another factions crusade if I was catholic but I noticed I can no longer do this. I was wondering if you did this or somehow it got disabled with the latest patch and it is not displayed in the readme text.
Hello, everyone. After seeing everyone last week, I have decided to postpone my trip to Virginia for a few weeks while I try some stuff that a local nutritionalist says should be very beneficial to me.
I have been putting all my spare energy into the mod, and I have spent about 16 hours on it since last Thursday. It will probably take twice that many more hours until I'll be able to turn the engine over and see if it cranks, but I am definitely progressing, and things are coming together really nicely.
I had hoped to farm out some of the work, but it seems that everything requires a lot more decision-making than I had anticipated, so I am going to try and get the rest done myself.
There will still be a lot of place-holders for the new factions, and a lot more that will need to be done before the public release, but I think everyone, including me, is tired of waiting. Believe me, I am doing all that I can to get this huge project up and working.
Quote[/b] (oaty @ April 29 2004,00:35)]Well my problem came from not having excel to read your spreadsheet but I found this program http://download.com.com/3001-2064-10281288.html
at cnet.com and it downloaded pretty quickly too. its free for 30 days and if you register its free for life.
Well my question now is when it comes to crusades. I installed the 2.01 patch right before I installed the 3.14 wesmod. so I don't know wich one caused it but the deal is I use to donate troops to another factions crusade if I was catholic but I noticed I can no longer do this. I was wondering if you did this or somehow it got disabled with the latest patch and it is not displayed in the readme text.
I didn't see this before I posted. Anyway, I have never heard of anyone donating troops to a rival's Crusade, so I have no idea what happened, but I don't think anything I did would affect something like that.
Btw, I have free Excel and Word viewers in my mod stuff, I just haven't gotten around to uploading them. You should be able to find them at Microsoft's website.
Quote[/b] (+DOC+ @ April 13 2004,04:25)]After playing about 50 turns, it does indeed look as if the provincial unit bonuses are hampering the AI from building up in some provinces. This is especially prevalent with regards to building salt, silver and gold mines/mine complexes.
THis can also be a problem for the AI in reaching the high-tech units In provinces where the specialisation is for a low-tech unit (e.g. Berber Camels) the AI will often not build further up the tech tree (or at least more reluctantly) once the province is capable of building the specialised unit. Consider Constantinople in the original MTW early campaign, which never seems to develop enough to produce Varangian Guards due to its bonus for Kataphraktoi.
Maybe something to consider for the next version. Otherwise, cracking Mod. :)
regards
Doc,
I am also seeing this, particularly in fought over regions. The AI almost never rebuilds a castle in these regions. When it does, it builds just enough to make the unit for which it gets a bonus. This seems to result in an usually large number of low quality units (spearmen and archer hordes) being produced by the AI later on in the game as the starting advanced buildings are destroyed by conquest. These drawbacks with the AI cause MedMod to be very challenging at the start with the game becoming easier and easier as the game goes on.
Hi Turbo,
YEs, this is definitely the reason. In my not so humble opinion, this is why provincial bonuses have to be used sparingly and with great thought, as the repercussions on AI province development can be potentially disasterous to the AI maintaining a mid-late game challenge.
That's why in my own mod of MTW which I play I use the following rules when assessing provincial development.
1st.
They have to thoroughly tested. This can be done using the -ian command, starting a campaign and choosing to go the Papist faction for instance. Put the game on auto run and the map on full view and observe how the AI plays and builds for as many turns as possible to convince yourself that the bonus are beneficial.
2nd.
Be very careful in provinces with mining resources, trading goods and metal. In my experience it's best to keep these provinces free from provinical bonuses, unless thoroughly tested. With trading goods on coastal provinces, it's possible to use provincial bonuses for ships and then tie the merchant improvement to the shipbuilding to ensure that the AI builds up sufficiently. Like I said before I'm happy to share my files with anyone who wishes to see what I've done. By having ship bonuses in Wessex, Denmark and Venice along with suitable starting improvements and a modified tech tree, I can ensure that shipping improvements and the top merchant buildings are built by the AI to maximise trade income.
3rd.
In big important provinces, e.g. Constantinople and Egypt for instance, be very careful giving provincial bonuses that can restrain AI development. The Kataphraktoi bonus in Constantinople is crippling and very limiting as the AI doesn't build further improvements to reach other useful units. Changing this to Pronoiai makes a world of difference, as by following the path to this unit, it also uncovers the buildings necessary for Byzantine Lancers and Varangian Guards.
4th.
In less useful provinces with poor income and no resources, provincial bonuses can be used in their element. One should consider low tech units to limit AI developemnt in these provinces, which in turn encourages the spending of wealth in other "more useful" provinces. Obviously it can be equally detrimental to the AI if it tries to build up everything in every province.
Some working examples with my mod include:
Byzantine Infantry in Anatolia
Italian Light Infantry in Milan
Avar Nobles in Moldavia
Faris in Arabia
Pronoiai in Constantinople
Removing provincial bonuses for the Gold Mine provinces of the Almohads, Il de France.
But in general it works better by removing them for main provinces.
Hope you heatlh has improved Wes.
I've resurrected MTW on my PC and was wondering if there will be any further upates to MedMod? Thanks.
Edit - OK never mind, I see the new thread in Engineering. Still I hope you are well Wes.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.