CA propositions thread

[alpaca]

Well, Lusted and my own self decided (after an instigation from Pnutmaster) to open threads here and on the TWC where all modders can propose (modding) features that you would like to have requested from CA.
Since we'll be the ones that present it to the two kind people we know over MSN (Caliban and Palamedes, big thanks for what you're doing for us already), we will also author it.

The system will work like this:
Everybody can make propositions, and we will collect them in the first post of these threads (and probably mirror them from time to time).
Append to each proposition a number from 1 to 10 signifying it's importance/urgency for you (where 10 is most important).
Also ask for features that have already been asked, as I will treat features that are asked for more often as having a higher priority.

We will then discuss these propositions privately to see what we think is feasible to request from CA and then pass that on to them.
After that, all we can do is twiddle our thumbs and see what happens. The devs are pretty busy with the expansion right now, and we don't have a programmer contact anyways. Usually, we'll get a reply within a few weeks though and will then post that in these two threads.


I know it's not the perfect system (and am already afraid of spam), but it's -the best we can do right now.

A last command: Only post sensible (i.e. small) requests. It's not too likely we'll get things that involve a lot of workload.:whip:


Here's a link to the thread on the TWC: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1631132#post1631132

Features that were already asked about:

- View city feature: won't return
- raising the maximum number of provinces: could happen if it doesn't impede performance too much (pre-caching). Scott K. promised to test that within a few weeks
- Sprite Generator: Will come in 1.3 or if we're lucky in 1.2
- Contextual scripting commands (asked on April, 19th - no reply yet)


Propositions

- Increased hardcoded limits(unit, province, trait)
- More Tools
- Shieldwall formation for spearmen, with possibility to use secondary weapon in very close melee like pikemen.
- More dynamic cavalry combat which could last longer.
- a way to remove an ancillary if a certain event occurs
- a way to directly check for whether a character currently has a given ancillary [without having to give it its own type]
a way to give traits to the leader on various occassions instead of the character performing the action [currently only supported are successful diplomacy, assassination and spying]
- a new special condition for traits that can directly specify who is affected, i.e. EffectOn: FactionLeader; NearestFriendlyCharacters, NearestHostileCharacters
- Conditions working with OR [instead of only AND - saves a lot of extra triggers]
- Possibility to make our own conditions for certain events or more basic conditions
- Better documentation for some files
- Ability to give faction's a "desire" rating for particular regions
- Ability to read and use faction leader traits in the strategy AI
- Access to character name and age
- A setting to enable the choosing of faction heirs
- a configurable message box with yes, no buttons to interact with the player
- a command to disband units through scripting (the reverse of create_unit pratically)
- create commands and triggers to handle more efficiently the family trees (design leaders, design heirs, force births, force deaths, force marriages)
- a system to assign a different battle model and unit to faction leaders like it's done with the strategical model and banner
- destroy_building command
- raised culture limit
- raised map size limits
- raised unit size limit
- raised unit cap
- raised faction limit
- provoke_rebellion working for characters in addition to settlements
- Allow more slots for trade goods, so we can add to the existing
- City/castle wall mechanics. Non-interlocking concentric walls.
- A list of hardcoded limits
- The ability to configure walls to behave like in RTW, aka capturable towers, and towers that fire automatically without unit proximity.
- I'd like to be able to adjust growth rates within a specific campaign without heavily effecting everything else from economy to unrest
- Ability to use up to 4 turns per year with the appropriate number of winters showing up
- It should snow on sub-arctic climates
- Artic (permanent snow) climate
- In-depth details on savegame structure for single player
- The ability to destroy already created watchtowers in game, both normally by generals and through console commands
- Process_rq working
- A fix for the obnoxious bugged province/can't build watchtower/reduced movement deal that happens after a disaster
- Ability to make *every* building in a settlement destructable, including walls.
- Ability to set the tax rate for castles
- Ability to set how many actions agents can perform per turn
- Ability to set min/max range 'cooldown' required between crusades/jihads
- Ability to configure what constitutes a valid target for crusade/jihad
- Ability to set line-of-sight distances for watchtowers and cities
- addition of a working float "multiplier" variable for both of these that can be used to speed up or slow down animations
- Allow users to create their own UNIT formations, like Horde in RTW
- turn based event trigger
- A setting for how much characters should age per year
- Be able to have additional Jihad (or culture)* type missions - for other faction groups
- An ability to vary the seasons in multiple turns per year games
- Engine calculations formulae
- ai_gta commands explanation
- FactionWideTraitExists condition
- OffspringTrait condition
- Enabling negative building capabilities

[Herkus]

1. Shieldwall formation for spearmen, with possibility to use secondary weapon in very close melee like pikemen.

2. More dynamic cavalry combat which could last longer.

[alpaca]

As an afterthought, please append each proposition with a number from 1 to 10 signifying it's importance/urgency for you (where 10 is most important)

Please also ask for features that have already been asked, as I will treat features that are asked for more often as higher priority.

[Andromachus Theodoulos]

Sprite Generator - 8
Increased hardcoded limits(unit, province, trait) - 10
More Tools - 10 (Modding capabilites are one of the biggest assets to PC games...)

Thanks

AT

[Lusted]

There is already the shiedwall formation from RTW ingame, and you can have both spear and sword infantry.

[FactionHeir]

Ancillary file and Traits file:
- a way to remove an ancillary if a certain event occurs (7)
- a way to directly check for whether a character currently has a given ancillary [without having to give it its own type] (10)
- a way to give traits to the leader on various occassions instead of the character performing the action [currently only supported are successful diplomacy, assassination and spying] (5)
- basing on the above: a new special condition for traits that can directly specify who is affected, i.e. EffectOn: FactionLeader; NearestFriendlyCharacters, NearestHostileCharacters. (7)
- Conditions working with OR [instead of only AND - saves a lot of extra triggers] (4)
- Possibility to make our own conditions for certain events or more basic conditions (6)

General:
- More guiding on range and meaning of variables in files. Several files are lacking any documentation making it a trial and error thing to figure out what a change of a certain variable effects. [example: campaign_db.xml, diplomacy_xml] (3)

[nikolai1962]

1. Ability to give faction's a "desire" rating for particular regions that can be used in the campaign AI decisions i.e make explicit and moddable how much a particular faction wants certain terriotory so we can set historical type expansion aims. (10)

edit: this is possibly almost there already. the AI already seems to take into account the faction_creator of regions and has a preference for attacking rebel regions where they are hostile to the faction creator. unfortunately that means they have a tendency to ignore regions where *they* are the faction creator as they are not hostile to themselves. if that could be tweaked so they prefer those regions that would be great.

2. Ability to read and use faction leader traits in the strategy AI e.g mod a trait for faction leader type (expansionist, defensive etc) and that being able to be used in the AI decisions so factions vary whenever their faction leader changes. (4)

3. Strategic AI "event" for new faction leader. An entry to check against when the old leader dies and new leader takes over to use for potential vassal revolts. (3)

4. Access to some of the data passed to events/triggers so you don't need a script for every region (******10+*****)

So instead of something like


character_turn_end

condition specific_settlename_name
trait y > 1

create_building specific_settlename_name


instead something like


character_turn_end

trait y > 1

create_building this_settlename_name (whatever it is)

5. Access to character name and age. (4)

[PROMETHEUS]

I don't hope they 'll consider this for mtw2 , but possibly for their next total war game .....:whip:

10

Models Editor ..... damn a unit editor importer exporter in 3dsmax format to edit it , without such tool Modding is a useless reconfiguring stats work ....

Its the main priority in all the games that you want to mod , all the rest is secondary !

10

Animations Editor , same reasons as above a but slightly secondary in certain terms ....

10

and please make stuff easier to mod like for example with a Construction set like what Bethesda softworks made for their funs of Oblivion game .....

[thenewkingtw]

10* chose faction heir

[alpaca]

Guys, don't give everything a 10. It's useless...
The range goes from 1 to 10 and yet you only use the upper third of it, which honestly doesn't make much sense, and I can't deduct anything from it.

About the tool requests: CA knows that we're in need of tools, there's a reason why we didn't get any (not sure if I can talk about it though), and annoying them by asking for it all the time probably won't help. So I think we might exclude this topic from the "ask for it even if it's already been mentioned" clause.
Please don't ask for tools anymore :yes:

By the way Prom: I have a different opinion really. For me, all graphics are secondary and should simply support the immersion of a game.

[Herkus]

There is already the shiedwall formation from RTW ingame, and you can have both spear and sword infantry.
Though I would love to have the shieldwall formation to work similar like pikemen with secondary various melee weapons for close combat. Having separate spearmen and swordsmen infantry types is not the answer.

Another thing:
raise the max number of men in unit to 200. 7

I guess it is pointless to ask for, but dismounting ability for cavalry at least in sieges would be wonderful. 8

[Lusted]

I meant that, you can have units with both spears and swords, just like in RTW.

[FactionHeir]

Guys, don't give everything a 10. It's useless...
The range goes from 1 to 10 and yet you only use the upper third of it, which honestly doesn't make much sense, and I can't deduct anything from it.


I've used 6-10, not just 10s like others :p

For me, anything below a 5 is not worth mentioning really at this point. They probably may even get introduced in a late patch like 1.9 or so.

[alpaca]

I've used 6-10, not just 10s like others :p

For me, anything below a 5 is not worth mentioning really at this point. They probably may even get introduced in a late patch like 1.9 or so.
Not worth mentioning means that you don't mention it...
5 is medium priority, 1 is low priority and 10 means "this is the feature I want to have most urgently", so if people use 10 for everything, I'll ignore it and they should think about how to set priorities for a few minutes :inquisitive:
The standard priority you should use is 5, everything above should be very important to you.

[FactionHeir]

Not worth mentioning means that you don't mention it...
5 is medium priority, 1 is low priority and 10 means "this is the feature I want to have most urgently", so if people use 10 for everything, I'll ignore it and they should think about how to set priorities for a few minutes :inquisitive:
The standard priority you should use is 5, everything above should be very important to you.

Edited my post to reflect your suggestions.

[Re Berengario I]

Not my role but I think some requests are bit off topic:
200 units, shieldwalls, ships, flying saucers are new game features (some a lot desiderable) but not modding improvements in themselves and they'll require deep modifications to the current game engine.

Anyway here's my list:

- expansion of the "this" keyword to more console commands and also to script commands (like proposed by nikolai1962) (10)

- a configurable message box with yes, no buttons to interact with the player (6)

- make console_commands like give_trait, give_ancillary, remove_ancillary, kill_character, move-character, mp, etc usable inside scripts using the character data exported by triggers. (6)

- a command to disband units through scripting (the reverse of create_unit pratically) (5)

- create commands and triggers to handle more efficiently the family trees (design leaders, design heirs, force births, force deaths, force marriages). (5)

- remove or raise hardcoded limits for provinces and map dimension. (5)

- a system to assign a different battle model and unit to faction leaders like it's done with the strategical model and banner (3)

[nikolai1962]

i ditto all re berengario's as well :)

plus i thought of a new one

destroy_building command (2)

[madalchemist]

(10) - Remove ANY hardcoded feature so that skilled modders can fix and adjust the game according to their desires, with no need of patches, updates or any other release.

...frankly, that would solve all problems, given time.

[alpaca]

(10) - Remove ANY hardcoded feature so that skilled modders can fix and adjust the game according to their desires, with no need of patches, updates or any other release.

...frankly, that would solve all problems, given time.
Yeah and that comment will really help improve things for us...

[Casuir]

extra cultures

faction/culture specific descr_campaign_db.xml settings

[Abe Froman]

-provoke_rebellion working for characters in addition to settlements (5)

[fenir]

most important first.


My Apolegies, in my rush to install the patch, i did not properly read the first post.


In importance...

1. Allow more slots for Units and trade goods, so we can add to the existing.


2. Allow us atleast 5 extra slots for Faction development.


That is all i have at this time

Thank you alpaca and lusted for this ....


fenir

[Lusted]

This is for MODDING requests, not for game features requests. Did you read the first post in the thread?

[Herkus]

A tool for editing and generating battle_models.modeldb file.

[Whacker]

A real, fully moddable game, and official support for it. Client side source code and an SDK. Open source tools that the community can contribute to.

[madalchemist]

Yeah and that comment will really help improve things for us...

Maybe you could just send the request without comments, but you know way better than me that modders can solve problems (like the sucking Diplomacy/Alliances, Antitraits) more quickly than developers...

[Lusted]

Maybe you could just send the request without comments, but you know way better than me that modders can solve problems (like the sucking Diplomacy/Alliances, Antitraits) more quickly than developers...

No we can't, as far as im aware no modder is always a fully qualified programmer in C++ who knows how to edit the hardcode of the game.


A real, fully moddable game, and official support for it. Client side source code and an SDK. Open source tools that the community can contribute to.

This is for stuff to go in the 3rd update, not for the next game, so keep it realistic.

[alpaca]

Maybe you could just send the request without comments, but you know way better than me that modders can solve problems (like the sucking Diplomacy/Alliances, Antitraits) more quickly than developers...
No, because it's a request that has a chance of succeeding similar to that of a mayfly trying to lift an elephant.
And I stated quite clearly that we will make a preselection of the propositions - most of them won't be implemented anyways, and such completely unrealistic requests can be taken wrongly and sound close to CA bashing, even if that might not be your intent.

[Whacker]

This is for stuff to go in the 3rd update, not for the next game, so keep it realistic.

Fine, fair enough. I will not withdraw that comment though, seeing how CA has hyped this game as "modder's heaven" and in my view they've utterly failed to deliver on that.

Things I'd like to see in update 3:

- Dismounting units. I honestly don't care if they don't implement it in the main campaign, so long as we have the actual GAME MECHANIC and ABILITY to configure units to do so.

- Ability to change things like individual unit movement speeds, turn rates, etc. All the stuff that we lost in the engine upgrade from MTW to RTW.

- City/castle wall mechanics. Non-interlocking concentric walls. I can't say that enough. The ability to configure walls to behave like in RTW, aka capturable towers, and towers that fire automatically without unit proximity.

- User-definable religions and cultures, and a good limit please. More than just 5 or so, 10+ should work. By cultures I mean like "roman", "carthaginian", etc. Ignore this if the ability already exists.

- More console commands and BETTER DOCUMENTATION. The docudemon files floating around aren't accurate and don't cover a number of commands available at the console. The better documentation also applies universally, the comments in the config files are helpful for the most part, but quite often are woefully incomplete and/or do not give enough data to help determine what is valid input or settings.

- A list of hardcoded limits for files like export_descr_units. The ol' trial and error gets really old and annoying real fast, esp. when the developer should be able to and should have already told us what these are.

Thanks.

[Lusted]

There not going to put the first 3 in the patch, those are major engine rewrites and game changes. Please be realistic.

We can already add new cultures i think, i know we could in RTW:BI.

Your last 2 are the kind of thing me and alpaca are looknig for, reasonable requests that could be done.

[Whacker]

Again my apologies. I wasn't aware that you were actually a CA dev and know exactly how long/much effort it would take into doing these things. I could see dismounting as a bit of a stretch, but not the wall mechanics at all. At least not giving us back the ability to make walls behave like in RTW, unless they happened to completely lose their old code.

[Lusted]

I've been modding the TW series for over 2 years now, and i've been in a fair bit of contact with the devs. A dismounting feature ain't sometihng they're going to add in a patch. Me and alpaca need people to suggest reasonable things to open up to modders. Like for instance help in making walls moddable not make it possible to change the entire way walls work. They probably still have the old code, but WE don't have access to the hardcode, so what use would it be to us?

[madalchemist]

Asking for CA to remove hardcode wasn't supposed to be a bashing, but if you think it's a request with poor chances of success the fact it won't be brought to CA won't be considered a personal offence for me :book: :)

Edit: Anyway, to speak frankly, which monetary damage would be for CA to add moddable features? Maybe I don't know what I'm speaking of, but i.e. the export_ancillaries made the modders able to add/change/fix the ancillaries of the game; before, it was not possible, right?

The money CA made with MTWII were made within the first two monthes -give or take 2 weeks- of its release. If they'd give the whole world the ability to send the factions cap at 123 instead of 31, in which way would they lose customers? Mods increase the playability of a game, as you know better than me.

Of course, this would not prevent them to keep the expansion hardcoded to sell it when it goes gold.

And regarding to the difficult of reading and programming in C++, I know at least two people in my neighbourhood able to do it, dozens of modders could do it.

I sincerely do not see reasons to keep hardcoded feature, files, etc. as long as it does not help the bug fixing or gives money to CA; please explain me where I'm wrong

[Re Berengario I]

I sincerely do not see reasons to keep hardcoded feature, files, etc. as long as it does not help the bug fixing or gives money to CA; please explain me where I'm wrong

I'll try to keep it simple, for deeper explaination you can ask your neighbourhood C++ experts.

Some hardcoded limits are intrinsic to the engine because fixing limits helps immensely in creating code. It's like knowing if you're building a two storied house or a skycraper.

So while some limits could be simple to remove others would require a complete rewritring of the game.

And don't think a SDK would remove all the limits, this is a wishful thinking for an imaginary world. Take the HL2 SDK and you'll see it can give you a lot of freedom but within the very strict limits of the HL2 engine, you can't make with it a completely different game with seamless zones or 1000 person multiplaying.

[Whacker]

@ Re Berengario I - Some of this is for your review as well sir.


I'll try to keep it simple, for deeper explaination you can ask your neighbourhood C++ experts.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, but I've done more than my fair share of coding. :grin:


Some hardcoded limits are intrinsic to the engine because fixing limits helps immensely in creating code. It's like knowing if you're building a two storied house or a skycraper.

Partially true. Well written code is going to have logic and boundary checks on input, without them you end up with the usual bugs, buffer overflows, etc. Error/input checking in conjunction with good commenting and documentation renders this point moot for the most part.


So while some limits could be simple to remove others would require a complete rewritring of the game.

That's... a bit overboard. One can replace certain variable declarations with a reference to a setting in a file. Depending on how they wrote the code, it might not be a small task, but unless they write horrid crappy spaghetti code that's got almost no commenting, it's not going to be that much work (is my estimation at least).


And don't think a SDK would remove all the limits, this is a wishful thinking for an imaginary world. Take the HL2 SDK and you'll see it can give you a lot of freedom but within the very strict limits of the HL2 engine, you can't make with it a completely different game with seamless zones or 1000 person multiplaying.

I'd offer that's not the right way to look at it. The point and concept I'm suggesting (very strongly so, and you've touched on a bit) to CA is to move to an open client/server type model, much like ID/Valve/Epic have done. The game is logically split into two parts. First, you have the front end client side that you distribute all the source code to along with an SDK. This is the core logic and mechanics of the game, this would be where we could mess around with charging mechanics, combat mechanics, wall mechanics, campaign map/agent mechanics, you name it. The backend piece, the server side, is basically all the behind the scenes machinery that handles rendering, audio, networking, etc, and provides an API with which the client side interacts with. Your statements about "strict" limits are very misleading and not true, everything you said can be done with the Source engine. If you don't believe me, look at some of the thousands of mods on Moddb for evidence. The ID and Epic engines are fully capable of this as well. This is also one of the reasons that I've suggested a few times that it may be worth CA's while to review these platforms and potentially adapt their game logic and assets to one of these. Theoretically it could accomplish all of the above and save them a ton of time and money, and make all of us happy.

Sorry for the long winded post, but I've said this a dozen times and will keep saying it. CA has been hyping this game as "modders heaven" and promising features to this effect, when reality one only need look at what all is NOT accessible in this game vs what is. In fact if you look at the size of the modding community and the hoops we have to jump through to do what little we can with this game, compared to what others are experiencing with say for example Quake4, Half-life2, Unreal Tournament 2004, Battlefield 2/2142, etc etc, it's no wonder there's so few of us. Look at what happened with the Lordz and a number of talented modders who've left due to lack of support and real features and capabilities. I also firmly believe this has directly translated into the rather stagnant multiplayer community. The last thing I want to see is the TW series die a slow choking death, or fade into obscurity because of bad decisions on where to take the series or how to handle certain "big ticket" items like multiplayer or modding. I have literally been with CA and the TW games since day one (ok, week 2 maybe), but I just cannot in good concious say I am enjoying the current offering, nor do I like where I foresee the series going. M2TW is unfortunately the last TW title I will buy at launch, possibly ever, because of these things.

The point of this thread as I understand it is propositions for future patches for M2TW. My previous suggestions stand firm, whether or not anyone feels they are "realistic". I will keep saying these things until CA makes good on their promises and hype with the current game. If they don't with this game or the next, then I will shut up and get off my soapbox, because that'll be the end of the story for me.

Respectfully

[LorDBulA]

The ability to configure walls to behave like in RTW, aka capturable towers, and towers that fire automatically without unit proximity.
Lol. I give 10 priority to NOT SENT this change request to CA.
Automatically firing towers was afoul and cause of a lot of griff in RTW fans.
Now CA got it right and wa ask to change it back to the way we didnt like it?
That just insane. Please dont send this request to CA.

[adembroski]

One tool... a "Campaign Editor"... I'm not asking for a map drawing utility here, rather, the ability to load up a map and rename provinces and cities, generals, place armies, assign buildings to cities, etc.... basically set the starting conditions of the campaign without having to edit 50 million individual files... this program would generate a desc_strat, desc_regions, names.txt, all that wonderful stuff... ability to change the names
Priority- 8


Outside of that...

* I'd like to be able to adjust growth rates within a specific campaign without heavily effecting everything else from economy to unrest (Priority- 5)

*Ability to use up to 4 turns per year with the appropriate number of winters showing up (Priority- 6)

* It should snow on sub-arctic climates (Priority 10... blah!)

* Artic (permanent snow) climate (Priority 1)

* Seconding the disband unit scripting capability with an addition--- destroy building as well (ie ruler reaches too high "dread", a highly chivalric order may deny him use of their forces)... last part might already be in, I'm just starting to get into scripting... Priority 10 Twice!!!!!

[Re Berengario I]

The point of this thread as I understand it is propositions for future patches for M2TW. My previous suggestions stand firm, whether or not anyone feels they are "realistic".

The point is exactly this: propositions for upcoming patches.

90% of your propositions would require a completely new game. This is the reason because they're irrealistic, not because you're right or wrong.

[alpaca]

About the SDK/hardcode issue: Guys, some of this might be interesting for CA for their next game (although only if they already implemented it, because they're probably quite far into the development process), not for a patch or an add-on.
The main problem here is probably that their management doesn't or didn't see supporting modders as a large priority - I guess because of the small fraction of people they constitute.
I know that this view is wrong, but some people in the industry still seem to have it. I hope that SEGA will change their opinion about that seeing the long shelf live of a game like Civ4 which is moddable to a far larger extent than Medieval 2.

What we need are suggestions like "raise this limit", "make this small code change" that seriously won't take more than a few minutes developer time.
I can also say that they are often simply not aware what we as modders need, which is due to the somewhat strange politics of an almost complete lack of cooperation with the modding community.
Again, I hope this will change in the future.


As for the kill_unit command: How do you imagine should a unit be chosen to kill? Units don't have qualified names, they only have an index number that we can't find out.
I can propose it but I'm pretty sure it won't go.

[dietre]

why do ppl want the ability to dismount a unit. Just make it as a NEW unit with gom converter. it takes 10 mins.

ok changes.

10. After watching the movie 300 im all for the Shield-wall. lol u can actualy use it now but its not the same as the r2tw barbians invation and the icons arnt there.

9. well the 1 thing i liked better about r2tw was that ur trebutch and catapolts could fire OVER your walls. in m2tw have a seige engine garrisoned is kinda useless. they come in handy but it would be cool to fire over the walls.

other than that im pretty happy !!

[madalchemist]

About the SDK/hardcode issue: Guys, some of this might be interesting for CA for their next game (although only if they already implemented it, because they're probably quite far into the development process), not for a patch or an add-on.
The main problem here is probably that their management doesn't or didn't see supporting modders as a large priority - I guess because of the small fraction of people they constitute.
I know that this view is wrong, but some people in the industry still seem to have it. I hope that SEGA will change their opinion about that seeing the long shelf live of a game like Civ4 which is moddable to a far larger extent than Medieval 2.

What we need are suggestions like "raise this limit", "make this small code change" that seriously won't take more than a few minutes developer time.
I can also say that they are often simply not aware what we as modders need, which is due to the somewhat strange politics of an almost complete lack of cooperation with the modding community.
Again, I hope this will change in the future.


Thanks to Re Berengario and Whacker for the explanation about C++; now I know more about it.

Alpaca: Alas, it's true CA doesn't see modders as the potential resource they are. You made the point pretty clear.

Given this fact, to "raise the limit" seems the only option, therefore I agree to send suggestions who require a very limited developer time (that, unfortunately, I cannot distinguish from those who require huge dev time, but you can).

So we'll openly post any suggestions we have, and it's up to you to tell which can be accepted due to short time required, and to tell devs the "final message".

Let's hope constructive request will make CA value more the modders.

[Herkus]

why do ppl want the ability to dismount a unit.
It adds more tactical possibilities. Cavalry is quite useless in sieges on both sides, especially for the defenders.

[FactionHeir]

It adds more tactical possibilities. Cavalry is quite useless in sieges on both side, especially for the defenders.

It may be historically accurate, logically correct and open tactical possibilites, but let's face it, we would only see cavalry only armies that way. And when facing spears, dismount.

[Whacker]

Lol. I give 10 priority to NOT SENT this change request to CA.
Automatically firing towers was afoul and cause of a lot of griff in RTW fans.
Now CA got it right and wa ask to change it back to the way we didnt like it?
That just insane. Please dont send this request to CA.

Just because you don't want it doesn't mean that there's a good deal of us who don't. Having the ability to do this won't hurt anything and wouldn't mean that one couldn't keep the current tower mechanics. Spare us that snide attitude in the future.

@ Alpaca - I understand what you are saying. It ceases to annoy me though that some of the items I've outlined above you guys keep saying are "major code rewrites" or "needs a whole new engine". That's bull, if CA knows anything about writing good modular code half of those are not, repeat not major undertakings. So please stop saying they aren't realistic because they certainly should be. If you want a list of "piddly" stuff, then so be it:

1. List of max/min ranges of values. Like for export_descr_units, descr_character, etc.

2. In-depth details on savegame structure for single player. A savegame editor is probably too much to ask for, but it'd be nice.

3. The ability to destroy already created watchtowers in game, both normally by generals and through console commands.

4. Process_rq working. I realize this is somewhat redundant with create_unit but it'd still be nice to have this available.

5. (may be irrelevant) A fix for the obnoxious bugged province/can't build watchtower/reduced movement deal that happens after a disaster. I do not know if this has been fixed, my understanding is that as of M2TW v1.1 it has not.

6. Ability to make *every* building in a settlement destructable, including walls. If not through normal game means then at least through console commands.

Those are in order that I would like to see them from most priority to least.

Thank you.

Edit - added item 6.

[Whacker]

It may be historically accurate, logically correct and open tactical possibilites, but let's face it, we would only see cavalry only armies that way. And when facing spears, dismount.

That's pretty much how western european armies behaved around the high middle ages. Most soldiers, including archers, had at least one horse that they used to travel while on the march, while knights and men-at-arms would remain mounted or dismounted depending on their gear and the situation.

[Lusted]

That's bull, if CA knows anything about writing good modular code half of those are not, repeat not major undertakings. So please stop saying they aren't realistic because they certainly should be.

Im sure they do, but this is for modding changes for PATCHES, something only a few devs work on, not for the next game. For the next game i'd love to have an sdk and stuff, but most of CA ozs resources are now on the expansion.

[Casuir]

Can you ask them to remove any hardcoded issues with castles, i.e. the tax rate, having two different types of settlements opens up some nice possibilities

[alpaca]

Can you ask them to remove any hardcoded issues with castles, i.e. the tax rate, having two different types of settlements opens up some nice possibilities
The tax rate is set in campaign_db, isn't it?

[Casuir]

You sure? I dont see anything in there, refering to the inability to change the tax rate from normal to high/low etc

[alpaca]

Ah you mean that setting. Hmm...
Well you're probably right, that seems to be hardcoded.

[dietre]

isnt auto firing towers like MORE realistic, i mean if a castle built defensive towers they would have soldiers assigned to them. you would have a unit marching to the wall and some go fire arrows. No there would be soldiers manning the towers. (my opinion) so I like to get in on that possibility. however in the walls.txt you can change the # of soldiers in the towers. i increased this and towers without a flag are firing arrows. also i would like to beable to destroy enimy watchtowers on the campaign map, as well as destroy ur own. those would be about a 7 for importance

[Whacker]

7. Ability to set how many actions agents can perform per turn. Aka diplomacy more than once per turn, assassination more than once per turn, etc.

8. Ability to set min/max range 'cooldown' required between crusades/jihads.

9. Ability to configure what constitutes a valid target for crusade/jihad. Aka, "min 10 heresy", at war with { x }, etc. Something like that.

10. Ability to set line-of-sight distances for watchtowers and cities. Possibly for traits as well. Never mind, Factionhair is right. :grin:

11. I'm to understand that movement rates and weapon swing/attack speeds are governed by the animations, which we don't have access to. Whatever the case may be, I'd like to see the addition of a working float "multiplier" variable for both of these that can be used to speed up or slow down these animations. Before you guys jump me alpaca and lusted, I don't think this would honestly be a big deal at all as it would simply speed up or slow down the rate at which the game renders the animation, hence performs the action.

Thank you.

[FactionHeir]

You can already set line of sight distances for traits.

[rorarii]

I dont know how many times I've said these in the past but here we go again ..

(1) FIX strategic AI, in that;

(a) Don't allow armies to leave cities undefended, virutally undefended. OR if a city is under siege, 4-6 units of citizen infantry is automatically creaed to defend, once the siege is over, they disperse. I know this can do done in scripting but large scripts slows down the game.

(b) Don't allow AI generals to wonder in enemy territory, lest they be KILLED EASILY.

(2) Allow users to create their own UNIT formations, like Horde in RTW.

(3) increase no of units per player from 20 to 24, i know it's only an extra 4 but 24 is a better number to create equal, multiple battle lines.

.aaahh, who gives a ...

Actually I'm getting very bored with TW series, it's getting too old, too hard to get anything done (modding) etc. New games like World of Warcraft, C&C3 are the future ...


Rorarii (retired)

[Lusted]

Once again, please keep this thread to modding requests, not ai improvement
requests.

[Lusted]

extra cultures

faction/culture specific descr_campaign_db.xml settings

We can already do this, for instance the UAI mod added in new profiles for all cultures, so you could add in new ones for each faction.

[wilddog]

OK the votes from Wilddog. I haven't done that much on scripting yet so some of these may be able to be handled anyway

10) Be able to have turn based event trigger (not just date).
9) Be able to remove ancillaries
8) Be able to amend ages or increment ages based on true years.
7) Be able to have additional Jihad (or culture)* type missions - for other faction groups.
6) Be able to create an event with a yes or no decision.
5) Use of OR and not just AND.
4) An ability to vary the seasons in multiple turns per year games - ie to have maybe consecutive winters or possibly an Autumn/Spring season (I know there were longwinded scripts to change the season per turn but a simplification of that would be better and I can't recall if the end of winter triggered other things).


ie at the moment Jihad is restricted to Muslims (at least in v 1.1 as far as I could tell) but it would be interesting if a similar trigger could be used by orthodox or by different groupings of culture and ideally the call to war could be triggered by the Faction leader.
Same thing applies to the Pope & crusades (ie having multiple Popes connected via culture).

[Re Berengario I]

10) Be able to have turn based event trigger (not just date).
9) Be able to remove ancillaries


You could set events with <date> <season>, the example in docudemon contains that parametr and it worked in my tests.

remove_ancillary should work as console command but I agree to have something which works within triggers (or at least for character inside settlements where all the console commands fail).

[wilddog]

You could set events with <date> <season>, the example in docudemon contains that parametr and it worked in my tests.

remove_ancillary should work as console command but I agree to have something which works within triggers (or at least for character inside settlements where all the console commands fail).

Thanks for the reply. I'll try it but I'm not sure how that would work if say you had 8 turns per year as you are already into long winded scripting to set seasons? Given that they have the set up for date which doesn't really work on date (just a year from start) to me this aught to be relatively simple and would improve scripting no end. (ie you can then have the randomness that the date events have).

[Russ Mitchell]

Gents, I have two things:

1. First, to please convey actual THANKS for putting up with all of this. Customers or not, a CA guy would need the patience of Job to run through these fora.

2. In terms of modding, I do not have time to go into deep scripting. But I used to (and could again) modifiy the strategic map when I'm not working on research articles, etc.... and there I have only a short laundry list. I could probably figure out how to give the Venetians an increased number of merchants and spies, etcetera, but fairly weak militaries. And I can always mess with unit lists...

But I can't do anything about:

Increase the number of hardcoded limits. Specifically number of regions, and a drastic upward revision in the number of minor (unplayable) factions, in order to actually create the historical circumstances that keep dynastic rulers on their toes. "Rebels" aren't good enough: they're too inert.

For me it's a "10," because, as a history instructor and medievalist, I will never have time to learn any hardcore modding skills... but strategic map files I can handle, and I'm pretty sure I could engineer a Baron's Revolts, Hungarian Interregnum, and Taborite Revolutions (especially if they can be "horded" ala RTW:BI) to make the toughest gamers cry.

[Ashdnazg]

Any chance they reveal how the engine works? - 5
(how attack, defence, morale, dead soldiers and routing units fit together)

[SigniferOne]

I think by far the most important little addition to be had is the ability to generate battle_models.modelDB from XML files. Those XML files don't exist, and there's no tool to generate the modelDB file from them. I suppose hypothetically we could create all our own XML files for our units and attachment sets, and then create our own parser, but if CA released the tool they already created, along with the XML files for vanilla models, it would help immensely. It would be nice if the game itself generated the modeldb file whenever that file wasn't found (same as with .rwm), but if that's out of the question, then a tool generating the file from XMLs would be nice. It's far better than editing the modeldb file by hand. See this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=74083) about how CA themselves generated the modelDB file. I'll go ahead and give this a (9) or even a (10) in desirability...

(5) - It would be nice to know how "e_" commands (in docudemon_commands.txt) work, i.e. "e_select_character" as opposed to "select_character". They've been there since RTW, and I can guess in theory how it could work, but it'd be nice to have some actual examples, to know how it's supposed to be used, what the command was intended for, etc.

(6) - Same goes for the intriguing "ai_gta_" commands (also in docudemon_commands.txt). Do these work on the stratmap level, or on the battlemap level? Do they allow us to affect AI targets and priorities?

[adembroski]

Any chance they reveal how the engine works? - 5
(how attack, defence, morale, dead soldiers and routing units fit together)

Doubtful... that's giving out their 'formula', like giving out the reciple for the secret sauce. It will likely remain internal only.

[Casuir]

I think by far the most important little addition to be had is the ability to generate battle_models.modelDB from XML files. Those XML files don't exist, and there's no tool to generate the modelDB file from them. I suppose hypothetically we could create all our own XML files for our units and attachment sets, and then create our own parser, but if CA released the tool they already created, along with the XML files for vanilla models, it would help immensely. It would be nice if the game itself generated the modeldb file whenever that file wasn't found (same as with .rwm), but if that's out of the question, then a tool generating the file from XMLs would be nice. It's far better than editing the modeldb file by hand. See this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=74083) about how CA themselves generated the modelDB file. I'll go ahead and give this a (9) or even a (10) in desirability...

The xmls look to do a bit more than just generate the modelsdb, they seem to compile the actual models themselves from the base files, I doubt the tool they used would be any good to us.

[Ashdnazg]

Doubtful... that's giving out their 'formula', like giving out the reciple for the secret sauce. It will likely remain internal only.

The real recipe is the code, don't see what reason is there for keeping the formula secret.
They actually revealed it several games back IIRC. (Or was it only guesses?)

[alpaca]

As for the e_ commands: They work, but aren't very useful since you can't select a character on CharacterTurnStart or CharacterTurnEnd for example.
What works is using it with stuff like LeaderOrderedSpyingMission. It selects the leader fine, but it still isn't very useful.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Increase Number of Possible Culture Groups (from 7 to maybe 10 or more)

Since it seems like the number of possible cultures is still seven (same as RTW), is there a way to beg for a couple more at least to be added?

For modders, this really would open up big doors. More difference can be created between the ones that are there, for example if the map is expanded a little more to include some other areas, or if the mod is set in RTW-period. Here is how it would greatly help a mod like EB:

We already use all seven cultures, and we **really** get our money's worth from it. Different GUI's for all seven, different town plans, different building types, different sets of family portraits, different types of building graphics that can be used (each culture has its own set). These are extremely important for us - I can't emphasize it enough. They have allowed us to make an eastern greek set that has palms and a mix of eastern and greek portraits and buildings and its own music also, as well as a very innovative nomadic set that is quite different from playing as all other factions in RTW.

If we have an increase in the number of possible factions, we definitely would like to think about options like a Bosphoran kingdom (and nearby rebel sub factions of the same culture) where you have a mix of greek and nomadic elements resulting in their own culture. We would like to think about making our own Indian culture type as well. And a split of the generic barbarian culture type into one of celts vs. germanic/getic. Different music, portraits, GUI's, buildings, and town sets. We would desperately want at least 3 more culture possibilities. We make all of this ourselves though - we just want the door opened for three more. This is very important to us. Something like an 8 or 9 maybe out of 10. It's not do-or-die for us, but it will really make our work a lot more restricted and we might have to throw out a lot of ideas we have.

That's just how it would affect us. I'm sure other modders can use it too, it's just that we seem to push the limits of what is available. Thanks for any consideration of this.

[paullus]

Indeed, with the faction and model limits raised, we have a lot of new possibilities for modding. However, we can't really make a good use of the increased space in those areas if we can't get things like a few more culture groups (TA said 10, that would be sufficient I think), or even--if it all possible--some more unit and region slots. Now, even those last two, we can get by without those if we have to!

But we simply won't be able to do the increased faction possibilities justice without some more culture slots.

[wilddog]

Sorry but another item from me. Opening up the models-strat so at least the textures can be used via a mymod type set up (which seems to be the same for the launcher) would help a lot.

My main one after that is tied to the Jehad set up to allow that to be more open and/or allow more than one pope (truly) as it can be modded to mean a culture head.

[BozosLiveHere]

Oops, never noticed this thread before. I'll repeat myself from the 1.3 Wishlist thread. Please, pretty please with sugar on top, create a FactionWideTraitExists conditional. This would allow us to:

1)limit the number of generals that get a certain trait in a given faction (allowing us to properly represent titles, offices, etc.)

2)Move traits 'up' the family tree, i.e., make traits spread from generals in the base of the family tree all the way to the faction leader. This would be a massive help, enabling all kinds of cool mechanics using hidden traits.

[edyzmedieval]

CA please extend the limit of map provinces to 250 please. And please, add at least 100 more unit slots, and 15 more hidden resources.

Pretty please, it's not that hard.

Please. Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Pl ease.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.Please.

:bow:

Please CA, extend those limits.

[nikolai1962]

I'm pretty sure internal water messes up the path-finding as does sea inlets on coasts etc. So what would be good would be a new impassable land type that displayed as water i.e just like the impassable desert tile but watery looking so you could draw lakes on the land. Land units would see it as impassable land and naval units would see it as land.

Might work with coasts too i.e have a rectangular land region with the "water" tile used to make inlets etc, as long as there was some coast that butted onto the actual sea it might work. Regardless of that though it would help with the internal water/lakes.

Then again maybe it has no effect on the path-finding and i am imagining it :)

[wilddog]

So what would be good would be a new impassable land type that displayed as water i.e just like the impassable desert tile but watery looking so you could draw lakes on the land. Land units would see it as impassable land and naval units would see it as land.

Needs to look like water on the battle map or it will look strange if you fight a battle very close to it.

[nikolai1962]

Needs to look like water on the battle map or it will look strange if you fight a battle very close to it.

Hmm, true. That might make it more work to code. Shame, i was thinking it might be really easy.

[FactionHeir]

Any chance post 1 gets updated btw? :)

[alpaca]

Any chance post 1 gets updated btw? :)
Yeah sorry, I'm a lazy butt :P

Edit: Ok, updated

[madalchemist]

-5- Could we ask to raise the number of agents (like units, factions, regions)?

You know I'm the one who wanted to add the Inquisitors to the playable factions :wall: :dizzy2:

-4- Some traits are almost never used: the Hates_the_(facion) and the Fears_the_(faction); since they was created, it would be nice to see them more often, and use them (same request of who asked a way to remove ancillaries in some conditions).

[nikolai1962]

if i'm wrong about how the pathfinding works then this is ignorable but otherwise it would be good if, when the map.rwn is generated, you could have a config switch for modders that would output the x,y centre point calculated for each region by the game.

Just knowing how it was calculated would help.

Worth a 10 to me but maybe not for anyone else :)

[ming dynasti]

what about smoke in battle field like rtw? or orthodox can have special like jihad or crusade.. sorry if i am make wrong for asking this question..:sweatdrop: Sorry to CA too..
why view city not avaible? can music change with more faster like aztec music with more spirit?:help: :idea2:

[ming dynasti]

but unit size and another in that proposal is good.. :yes:

[ming dynasti]

ummm how about lan campaign:idea2:

[Lusted]

Okay this is a long dead thread about small modding requests, not a wishlist thread. The modding request sin this thread have long since been compiled and sent to CA.

[Ashdnazg]

So I guess there is no repsonse yet, because otherwise you were posting it.

[Lusted]

Well this would all be for 1.3/Kingdoms, so we would find out when they were out.

[alpaca]

You never know if the programmer have a little time toward the end of the add-on development (unlikely but could happen) to include a few things, so we'll have to wait, as Lusted said.

[Ashdnazg]

I see, fair enough.

[The Internet]

This one is a bunch of inter-connected idea's so sorry if this drags on. :embarassed:



First i'd like to see weight of numbers take effect, i'm sure i've heard modders talk about it now and again and that it is already a feature but personally i've never really seen actual weight of numbers taking effect. For examples sake i#ll use RTR/RTW/EB as an example but it could be said for MTW2 too, a unit of 160 swordsmen can hold their position against a unit almost twice their size (for example, a barbarian unit of 240) which doesn't seem right. By the looks of it too, only the first couple of lines of a unit will actually *fight* while the rest stay back and wait while in reality, they'll all be close behind the other units pushing them forward to try and break the enemy line. Having this will not only make it seem more of a struggle (as that sort of battle is) and more realistic and will also mean that if your units at the front are out-numbered (for example you are fighting some barbarians with unit sizes of 240 and you have legionnaires with a unit size of 160) then you will have to reinforce your main line (as they had to IRL) to stop your main line from breaking/being pushed out of shape. Obviously with weight of numbers being introduced, this would mean that not only would the attack stats be effected, you'd be able to see the effect of a charge (for example, down hill into an enemy line) because it would push the enemy line back visually and would mean that the player on the defensive would have no choice but to ensure that part of the line is reinforced.


My next idea is that with that feature in place a unit of infantry should have 2 options, them being an offensive and defensive stance. With a defensive stance your units would try to keep the line in good shape, they would be able to take the effects of a charge better because they would be prepared for it and with the power taken out of the enemy charge, a counter charge from a second reserve line could possibably turn the tides on the enemy. An offensive stance would do the opposite obviously, it wouldn't be used to hold a line, it'd be used to break one up. Attacking the flanks would be even more helpful simply because if you applied massive pressure one flank and broke/pushed it out of place, the entire battle line would be in trouble, this would increase the need to reinforce the flanks, as they did IRL.


To add onto the other points i've made so far, if these features were to be added, it'd give more tactical options, for one you'd have to think how you're going to set up your unit depths, a broader facing would give you an increased frontage and lessen the chances of your lines being over run/flanked but you would have to reinforce that line with other units because their pushing power would be reduced but at the same time. A deeper formation would allow a greater pushing power but at the same time would reduce the battleline frontage and increase the risk of being flanked or enveloped.


On an example on how this would help the current game, i'll give an example and once again i'll use RTW/RTR/EB. The Macedonian phalanx was not just meant to sit there and expect the enemy to charge headlong into a head of 21 foot pikes, they marched forward in good order and present the enemy with a choice, stand your ground and get impaled and try and break through OR run away and unfortunately for the enemies of Philip/Alexander, they didn't have much of a choice but to run because no one wants to face that. In the current game mechanics, you can march your phalanx into the enemy line and engage them but i never see any pushing happening, the enemy battle line does not get forced back as it would do IRL. Now i know that you can set them to march behind the enemy formation to go right into them and it will have an effect that is kinda similar but that isn't part of the game mechanics and doesn't feel right to use, it's an exploit, a useful one granted but an exploit none-the-less.


There is more on this and i do understand that it would make things a bit harder to code and programme but the Total War franchise is classes as the best of the best when it comes to this sort of genre and i feel that to stay top of the pile it should try and reinvent itself. I do believe that it has gone as far as it can with this current engine until it starts to repeat itself. I'm not asking for historically accurate units or factions, they can be looked at after or by the fantastic modders in the community but they cannot improve the battle engine that is mostly hardcoded, that is up to you guys at CA. The battles to me are a big part of this game (it is called Total War after all) and although i do enjoy them, i do feel that i could be so much better. I am aware of the time constraints you guys are under but you guys could run the risk of just re-releasing the same games over and over again just with a different name and getting stuck in a rut and i for one would hate to see that.


I believe in this sort of stuff so much that i'd give up my job and fly out there just to help you guys out in any way possible to try and improve the TW franchise. I know it'd never happen but hell, it's the thought more than anything that counts, no? Please ignore any grammar or spelling mistakes please, i've been at this post for the last 45 minutes because of various interruptions and i just need to finish it before i cry.:wall:

[Jack Lusted]

This is a modding propositions thread, not games idea thread. It's aim was to get a wishlist from modders to pass on to CA Oz, which was done long ago.

[The Internet]

So much for that then. :furious3:

[alpaca]

I think I'll close this thread to avoid further confusion.