View Full Version : Pocket - MTW Pocket Mod: Units, Buildings and Unit Stats
Two suggestions:
-The old "increase Jinetes cost" one, to make it impossible to spam them. (I know this is a bit of over-repeating, but this time I am testing it myself, playing as Castile, and it seems to work just fine)
Post up the stats and I'll put it in the next release.
-Spanish Javelinmen: as they are now, they´re a tad useless, as they're more expensive to keep up&build than the Jobbagy, exactly as poor in HtH combat, and they lack their charge bonus.
HOWEVER, when compared to Urban Militia, they are actually somewhat better, due to having a slightly higher morale, and, while lacking the "against armor" bonus, have javelins as a compensation factor.
So, how about removing Urban Militia from the Castilian/Aragonese rooster, and leaving the javelinmen as their base unit, with the cost reduced from 35 to 30 (Jobbagy cost)? It wouldn't be a-historical either, as guerrilla warfare using javelins was quite widespread (That was what the almugharavs were about anyway)
I've already removed UM and MS from all factions. The UM and MS are now the Outremer Militias only recruitable in the crusader states. I like the idea of the javelinmen as the base unit. Reducing the cost seems like a good idea also.
:bow:
The Unknown Guy
05-28-2007, 12:25
Post up the stats and I'll put it in the next release.
I just increased the upkeep cost, to make building them more limited. The in-game cost is now at 90. I can't post right now the exact change in the Unit_Crusaders_Build.txt because I´m not at my computer, but it was around 12, or so (I got the idea from the PKT price upkeep, btw :thumbsup:)
On Spanish Javalinmen ( bad name in my opinion, but if one could come up with something better...). What do you think of making them Portuguese and Castile-Leon only? Make the Almughavars Castile-Leon and Aragonese? Also, improve the stats of the SJ so that they can actually fight in HTH, thus better reflecting thier guerilla combat style. Say, 4 Charge, 1-2 Attack, 0 to 1 defense, 1 Armor, and 2 Morale? I also heard that the Javelins used by the spanish were of execellent quality, and could be thrown farther distances then your conventional Javelin.
The Unknown Guy
05-28-2007, 18:53
On Spanish Javalinmen ( bad name in my opinion, but if one could come up with something better...). What do you think of making them Portuguese and Castile-Leon only? Make the Almughavars Castile-Leon and Aragonese?
Almugharavs (from Arab, "bandits", or somesuch, with which muslims referred to all javelin guerrillas in Northern Spain, but for some reason it has stuck to Catalonian/Aragonese -pretty much like the epiteth "byzantine"-) as they are right now in the game are fairly unrealistic, as in truth they would be pretty much what the Spanish Javelinmen are: fast, skirmish units. Certainly not spear/javelin combo anticavalry units. So perhaps the name (and the unit pixel, as javelinmen look like peasants, whereas the almugharav unit has a helmet) could be switched to "Almugharavs", with a mixed description. I'd make them avaiable to all Spanish factions. I'm pretty sure that Castile used them, at the very least when they were just a rebellious duchy of Leon. And I´m pretty certain that Navarre and Aragon used those tactics.
Also, improve the stats of the SJ so that they can actually fight in HTH, thus better reflecting thier guerilla combat style. Say, 4 Charge, 1-2 Attack, 0 to 1 defense, 1 Armor, and 2 Morale
Well, I suggested leaving them as a base unit for the Spanish factions rooster, replacing the standard "fodder" infantry, and making their upkeep cheaper. Historically Almugharavs went with very light, or no armor at all (to increase mobility).
I also heard that the Javelins used by the spanish were of execellent quality, and could be thrown farther distances then your conventional Javelin. Well, this I don´t know. I guess it could be a reference to Roman times, as Roman soldiers used a special, heavy javelin which bent upon impact, making it non-reutilizable, whereas (I guess) iberian and celtiberian tribes might have used regular throwing spears. Maybe someone can clear up this?
I had a thought pop into my head :idea2:. I was looking over the catholic unit roster had have found that they have a lot of redundant units, especially spearmen. I was think of possibly reducing this redundantcy by shifting the rosters slightly. My idea is as follows...
1) Remove most of the Chivalric unit types from the more eastern catholic factions, such as the HRE, Hungary, Poland, etc. It was Spanish, French, Sicilians, and English who would have used and exemplified the ideals of "chivalry".
2) Make the Halberdier east only (HRE, Poland, Hungary, Italians, and Russians). With CFK avaible, they are essentially a reduntant, weaker version of that unit.
I have other ideas, but I would like to hear from the rest of you first. I have plans to balance out the loss of chivalric units for the other factions, but I would like to know what you think first.
I believe the Almughavars in the game are supposed to represent the Catalan Company, and not just Almughavars in general. The spanish Javelinmen should probably be renamed Almughavars and the original Almughavars given much the same stats, with perhaps higher morale and renamed as Catalan Almughavars and only recruitable in Aragon. I wouldn't restrict them by faction, only by homelands. I would have any of the Spanish factions train both types, but only within their homelands, which makes more sense.
I had a thought pop into my head :idea2:. I was looking over the catholic unit roster had have found that they have a lot of redundant units, especially spearmen. I was think of possibly reducing this redundantcy by shifting the rosters slightly. My idea is as follows...
1) Remove most of the Chivalric unit types from the more eastern catholic factions, such as the HRE, Hungary, Poland, etc. It was Spanish, French, Sicilians, and English who would have used and exemplified the ideals of "chivalry".
I have been working on the Spearmen units roster already. You should find it covered in this thread. Initially the western factions have only "Sergeants" which are the standard square shield Spearmen with higher morale. In the high era the Sergeants are replaced with an identical unit equivalent to Feudal Sergeants named "Sergeants". In the late era the Chivalric Sergeants replace the Feudals. Throughout, the unit is called simply Sergeants. All catholic factions have these with the following exceptions:
Danes, Hungarians and Poles: Spearmen (round shield spearmen) in early in place of Sergeants.
The Russians/Kiev and Novgorod have Rus Spearmen in early, and (Armoured) Spearmen in High/Late (for now).
The "Chivalric" naming is flawed as it implies a chivalric era. In reality chivalry can only be applied to the knighthood of western Europe. The Chivalric and Feudal units in the game are so named for lack of any better names, there wasn't a Chivalric era starting in 1204, the change is there really to represent advances in arms and armour but the Chivalric naming is misleading.
I have already removed the Feudal and Chivalric naming from all units. Knights are Knights. When the old early era Knights are done with the High era Knights come into fashion, simple. Lancers will probably be the third level of simply "Knights". This is probably their best role and will give a balanced unit roster. The Gothic units would be the fourth level also only available in late but only to certain factions such as the Italians, German HRE and French. Alternatively the Gothics could be restructured as an alternative third level only for the Italians, German HRE and French. They would then not have the Late era Sergeants or Late era Knights, instead having Gothic Knights and Gothic Sergeants. This is the approach I prefer personally.
2) Make the Halberdier east only (HRE, Poland, Hungary, Italians, and Russians). With CFK avaible, they are essentially a reduntant, weaker version of that unit.
I'm not sure I see the need for that, no historical basis. It would also disrupt game balance. CFK are not available as they are only available through dismount. The AI cannot dismount it's troops before battle, so dismounting could count as an AI exploit. I have considered removing dismounts altogether for this reason, I was persuaded some time ago that it was the best policy to have all cavalry dismountable when looking at things from an historical basis. Of course those men could have dismounted when needed so why not? But because the AI cannot do the same in the same situation then IMHO the historical aspect it moot.
Of course Halberdiers could be removed from the English as they have Billmen which are the same kind of thing, apart from that though all of the Catholic and Russian factions should have them. The Byzantine are simply a faction apart as with the muslims and have their own strengths and weaknesses and eastern mode of warfare, so Halberdiers would not be right for them and would turn them into a "hammer and anvil" faction like the catholics, which is not what we want.
Another factor is the "SPEAR" classification that Puzz3D mentioned. Spears were nerfed in MTW 1.1 and removing the "SPEAR" classification from all units would increase the overall effectiveness of spears instead of them being units that specialise in dying slowly, and remove the hidden +1 attack vs spears that swords get. This would turn spears into lesser cavalry killers, decent infantry and good defensive units when placed in hold formation. It also better reflects the backbone of an army that spearmen were historically instead of the nests of static "pikes" they have been made into in MTW. I would also give spearmen a higher anti cavalry bonus, perhaps 2 in line with pikemen.
I understood that the "SPEAR" classification was not used in SW but after checking the unit prod files it appears to be in both SP and MP? Maybe I've got it wrong. :shrug:
I seem to have this habit of not explaining myself correctly... oh well, here we go...
Originally posted by Caravel
I have been working on the Spearmen units roster already. You should find it covered in this thread. Initially the western factions have only "Sergeants" which are the standard square shield Spearmen with higher morale. In the high era the Sergeants are replaced with an identical unit equivalent to Feudal Sergeants named "Sergeants". In the late era the Chivalric Sergeants replace the Feudals. Throughout, the unit is called simply Sergeants. All catholic factions have these with the following exceptions:
Danes, Hungarians and Poles: Spearmen (round shield spearmen) in early in place of Sergeants.
The Russians/Kiev and Novgorod have Rus Spearmen in early, and (Armoured) Spearmen in High/Late (for now).
The "Chivalric" naming is flawed as it implies a chivalric era. In reality chivalry can only be applied to the knighthood of western Europe. The Chivalric and Feudal units in the game are so named for lack of any better names, there wasn't a Chivalric era starting in 1204, the change is there really to represent advances in arms and armour but the Chivalric naming is misleading.
I have already removed the Feudal and Chivalric naming from all units. Knights are Knights. When the old early era Knights are done with the High era Knights come into fashion, simple. Lancers will probably be the third level of simply "Knights". This is probably their best role and will give a balanced unit roster. The Gothic units would be the fourth level also only available in late but only to certain factions such as the Italians, German HRE and French. Alternatively the Gothics could be restructured as an alternative third level only for the Italians, German HRE and French. They would then not have the Late era Sergeants or Late era Knights, instead having Gothic Knights and Gothic Sergeants. This is the approach I prefer personally.
I knew about the spearmen, I was simply using them as an example. I also know that Chivalric is just like Gothic (Odd that units should be named after a group of people who are essentialy nonexistent). For instance, CFK CAN be made trainable, and renamed Halberdiers. They would serve as the Spanish, Sicilian (Who I think, along with the Almohads, should have an Islamic Halberdier (Muslim MS); I think Adulasian (sp) Halberdier might work for a name), French, and English Halberdier. More eastern factions could make use of the standard Halberdier (with a slight improvement to keep pace); Catholic (and Russia!)ONLY (Actually, I was wondering if the Nicaeans wouldn't have used Halberdiers...have to look that up.) This way it eliminates clutter and redundancy, and also makes the factions a little more unique (Whenever you played as any catholic faction, didn't matter which, you were essentially playing with different colors and location, that about it.)
As for the Gothic units, I think the HRE should have them exclusively. They Could be the western version of the Janissaries. Second, they should be renamed more appropriately, say to "Imperial" or another. The Sergeants could be a form of Halberdier, I am working on making a GMAA, Foot Knights to Zweihanders, GK to just Knights.
I also agree on the "No dismount". It would also free up the "Foot Knights", to be renamed and better used elsewhere.
I knew about the spearmen, I was simply using them as an example. I also know that Chivalric is just like Gothic (Odd that units should be named after a group of people who are essentialy nonexistent).
Chivalric is not like Gothic. Gothic was that particular style of armour: http://www.artfund.org/images/artworklarge.php?id=1933.jpg
The "Chivalric" units in the game roughly represent the armour of the 13th to 14th century, wheras the "Feudal" units are representative of earlier 11th and 12th century armour.
The "Gothic" units represents Gothic Armour that started to appear sometime around the 15th century. With CA allowing the Italians to train "Gothic" units there is evidence of some compromise there, to represent the Milanese armours. Both types of armour were also in widespread use in France.
For instance, CFK CAN be made trainable, and renamed Halberdiers. They would serve as the Spanish, Sicilian (Who I think, along with the Almohads, should have an Islamic Halberdier (Muslim MS); I think Adulasian (sp) Halberdier might work for a name), French, and English Halberdier. More eastern factions could make use of the standard Halberdier (with a slight improvement to keep pace); Catholic (and Russia!)ONLY (Actually, I was wondering if the Nicaeans wouldn't have used Halberdiers...have to look that up.) This way it eliminates clutter and redundancy, and also makes the factions a little more unique (Whenever you played as any catholic faction, didn't matter which, you were essentially playing with different colors and location, that about it.)
I disagree with renaming CFK as halberdiers. They are foot knights armed with poleaxes and not halberdiers. Their stats would have to be considerably nerfed and all that would be gained would be a duplicate unit.
For the Moorish Halberdiers I would give them Halberdiers stats and rename them as "Andalusian Militia". The info pics for Muslim UM and MS are so close that there is no point using both types.
I am against giving Halberdiers to the Byzantine factions as it would turn them into Hammer and Anvil types in line with the Catholics. I'm also against giving random latin auxiliary units to the Byzantine factions, as this would imply that their own rosters were somehow lacking, which in fact they are not.
As for the Gothic units, I think the HRE should have them exclusively. They Could be the western version of the Janissaries. Second, they should be renamed more appropriately, say to "Imperial" or another. The Sergeants could be a form of Halberdier, I am working on making a GMAA, Foot Knights to Zweihanders, GK to just Knights.
There was no western version of Janissaries. The HRE was not a real empire, like the Ottomans or Byzantines with "Imperial" units and unique Knights and infantry, it was a federation of Germans. They should have no really unique units, except a few localised ones such as Swabian Swordsmen. The Gothic armoured units should be more widely available and certainly available to the French and Burgundians. The Gothic Sergeants are simply Gothic Armoured Spearmen, the Gothic Men at Arms were never used. Gothic Foot Knights are armed with two handed swords but are not the "Zweihander" equipped units of the 16th century that were used to break up pike formations. The best name for them is probably the current one as it represents their armour type and infantry type.
I also agree on the "No dismount". It would also free up the "Foot Knights", to be renamed and better used elsewhere.
The Foot Knights could be made trainable in small units as they are with the same dependencies as their mounted equivalents minus the blacksmith and horse breeder.
:bow:
The Unknown Guy
05-30-2007, 09:37
Removing the dismount option would remove something which I think is a blatant exploit as it is. Because (for example): in an Almo game I´m toying with right now, I had four camel archers (you get them when you start) and had to face an army of... horse archers, I think. So instead of using the camels, I dismounted and found myself with four LONGBOW DESERT ARCHERS, hence gaining range to kill those pesky HA before they got near. AKA: I had a short-bow unit, and got ex-nihilo longbow-ers. In the Vikings campaign is pretty much the same: you can dismount your light cavalry to get heavy infantry, for pretty much the same price.
Also: Noticed a bug: Ghulam Bodyguards can be built in Cordoba without a horse breeder (The Ghulam Cavalry still needs it, however).
(When reformed I´d suggest improving the infrastructure of Cordoba a bit, so that better troops than "Militia sergeants", or whatever replaces them in the next version, can be built. Not much better, however, as, as it is, you can scare the Castilian AI into retreating wholly from Castile, and slash and burn)
Sidenote about rebelliousness: You were right, a rebelliousness of 5 is just too high. I was, after a fashion, aiming at keeping the "historically independent" rebellious provinces independent, but as it is now I am the only one able to put a foot onto them. Navarre remains "invictus" (I haven´t touched it as the almos), whereas I only hold to Portugal because I made a massive invasion with my militia guards.
On this same topic, otherwise the increased rebelliousness is a great succeess. Where before I mostly got bandits and peasants, now I get full-fledged religious revolts, making it hard to hold onto fast-conçuest fits (which, on the other hand, does grant islamic factions a bonus, as they can Jihad back those provinces)
Removing the dismount option would remove something which I think is a blatant exploit as it is. Because (for example): in an Almo game I´m toying with right now, I had four camel archers (you get them when you start) and had to face an army of... horse archers, I think. So instead of using the camels, I dismounted and found myself with four LONGBOW DESERT ARCHERS, hence gaining range to kill those pesky HA before they got near. AKA: I had a short-bow unit, and got ex-nihilo longbow-ers. In the Vikings campaign is pretty much the same: you can dismount your light cavalry to get heavy infantry, for pretty much the same price.
Well that is a good example. While it could be argued that Berber camels could be given the composite bow along with the horse archer types I'm not sure that the berbers actually used composite bows of the same quality as Turks, Huns and Mongols.
Also: Noticed a bug: Ghulam Bodyguards can be built in Cordoba without a horse breeder (The Ghulam Cavalry still needs it, however).
Not a bug, Ghulam Bodyguards need only a Royal Palace and have no homelands restrictons. This is something that will be addressed in the next version when all units will be given more realistic dependencies.
(When reformed I´d suggest improving the infrastructure of Cordoba a bit, so that better troops than "Militia sergeants", or whatever replaces them in the next version, can be built. Not much better, however, as, as it is, you can scare the Castilian AI into retreating wholly from Castile, and slash and burn)
That will be decided upon once the province layout has been looked at.
Sidenote about rebelliousness: You were right, a rebelliousness of 5 is just too high. I was, after a fashion, aiming at keeping the "historically independent" rebellious provinces independent, but as it is now I am the only one able to put a foot onto them. Navarre remains "invictus" (I haven´t touched it as the almos), whereas I only hold to Portugal because I made a massive invasion with my militia guards.
On this same topic, otherwise the increased rebelliousness is a great succeess. Where before I mostly got bandits and peasants, now I get full-fledged religious revolts, making it hard to hold onto fast-conçuest fits (which, on the other hand, does grant islamic factions a bonus, as they can Jihad back those provinces)
If you want "independent" rebels then placing a famous leader with good command stars and some decent units and infrastructure should do it. about 3 to 4 rebelliousness is more than enough.
:bow:
Removing the dismount option would remove something which I think is a blatant exploit as it is. Because (for example): in an Almo game I´m toying with right now, I had four camel archers (you get them when you start) and had to face an army of... horse archers, I think. So instead of using the camels, I dismounted and found myself with four LONGBOW DESERT ARCHERS, hence gaining range to kill those pesky HA before they got near. AKA: I had a short-bow unit, and got ex-nihilo longbow-ers. In the Vikings campaign is pretty much the same: you can dismount your light cavalry to get heavy infantry, for pretty much the same price.
Well that is a good example. While it could be argued that Berber camels could be given the composite bow along with the horse archer types I'm not sure that the berbers actually used composite bows of the same quality as Turks, Huns and Mongols.
Also: Noticed a bug: Ghulam Bodyguards can be built in Cordoba without a horse breeder (The Ghulam Cavalry still needs it, however).
Not a bug, Ghulam Bodyguards need only a Royal Palace and have no homelands restrictons. This is something that will be addressed in the next version when all units will be given more realistic dependencies.
(When reformed I´d suggest improving the infrastructure of Cordoba a bit, so that better troops than "Militia sergeants", or whatever replaces them in the next version, can be built. Not much better, however, as, as it is, you can scare the Castilian AI into retreating wholly from Castile, and slash and burn)
That will be decided upon once the province layout has been looked at.
Sidenote about rebelliousness: You were right, a rebelliousness of 5 is just too high. I was, after a fashion, aiming at keeping the "historically independent" rebellious provinces independent, but as it is now I am the only one able to put a foot onto them. Navarre remains "invictus" (I haven´t touched it as the almos), whereas I only hold to Portugal because I made a massive invasion with my militia guards.
On this same topic, otherwise the increased rebelliousness is a great succeess. Where before I mostly got bandits and peasants, now I get full-fledged religious revolts, making it hard to hold onto fast-conçuest fits (which, on the other hand, does grant islamic factions a bonus, as they can Jihad back those provinces)
If you want "independent" rebels then placing a famous leader with good command stars and some decent units and infrastructure should do it. about 3 to 4 rebelliousness is more than enough.
:bow:
The Unknown Guy
05-31-2007, 20:33
Almohad and Nasrid Kingdom roosters footnote:
While playing the almohads, I´ve noticed that there's a big lack of heavy infantry by their part. Sure, you get, eventually, Andalusian infantry, which is as good as any other sword infantry in the game, and better than many, but it comes too late into play. This is partially offset by the access to the composite bows of desert archers, and, as it is now, by mass-building of Militia Guards (armored, good defense), as well as the Al-Mwahid spearmen (the sergeantish ones. Not a very good armor, but fast and with good morale. They make a good stance)
If the almos lose the urban militia, they don't necessarily need replacement, but maybe, if they were given enough infrastructure in Africa, it could be offset by mass building of light cavalry. And there are always the almo spearmen.
The nasrids, however, would not get either the bows or the spearmen, and if they got the sahara cavalry, it would be AFTER taking over the Almos. If they ever did. They would have Andalusian infantry, but again, this would be a late-comer.
So they'd need a replacement for Militia Sergeants. Ideally: a cheap, semi-decent infantry unit. Since the muslim militias already show a polearm, they could be made into a spear (maybe even pike?) unit. The standard Militia guards I do not like: in the battlefield they don't look different to christian units, and they wield this ugly hammer-looking thingie (which while nasty looking, is unfitting given that their portrait displays them with a long weapon)
Almohad and Nasrid Kingdom roosters footnote:
While playing the almohads, I´ve noticed that there's a big lack of heavy infantry by their part. Sure, you get, eventually, Andalusian infantry, which is as good as any other sword infantry in the game, and better than many, but it comes too late into play.
They're all eras and depend, currently, on the Swordsmiths' Workshop and Armourers' Workshop. They're almost equivalent to CMAA so I don't see them as being available too late.
This is partially offset by the access to the composite bows of desert archers, and, as it is now, by mass-building of Militia Guards (armored, good defense), as well as the Al-Mwahid spearmen (the sergeantish ones. Not a very good armor, but fast and with good morale. They make a good stance)
If the almos lose the urban militia, they don't necessarily need replacement, but maybe, if they were given enough infrastructure in Africa, it could be offset by mass building of light cavalry. And there are always the almo spearmen.
The nasrids, however, would not get either the bows or the spearmen, and if they got the sahara cavalry, it would be AFTER taking over the Almos. If they ever did. They would have Andalusian infantry, but again, this would be a late-comer.
So they'd need a replacement for Militia Sergeants. Ideally: a cheap, semi-decent infantry unit. Since the muslim militias already show a polearm, they could be made into a spear (maybe even pike?) unit. The standard Militia guards I do not like: in the battlefield they don't look different to christian units, and they wield this ugly hammer-looking thingie (which while nasty looking, is unfitting given that their portrait displays them with a long weapon)
The Muslim UM/MS will be looked at. There is the possibility of the Ghazi infantry (Dervish) sprite with a longer, currently unused, axe. I'm not sure how the coordinates for weapons within the sprite files are set, Belisario may know. The other alternative one is the AUM/Varangian Guards/CMAA sprite with simply the axe, this is not ideal though. Personally I think the best option would be the neutral looking Swiss Pikemen/Gallowglass/Woodsmen/Swiss Halberdiers/Almughavars/Jobbagy sprite. It would just need the same script as the Swiss Halberdiers and the halberd weapon looks the part.
:bow:
My ideas are simply suggestions Caravel, most of which are motivated by the fact that all the Catholic factions play the same, which IS ahistorical. They shared tactics, not units or styles of battle. For instance, the Spanish and English had a penchant for guerilla warfare, but right now the ENGLISH could beat the FRENCH with knights:inquisitive: :dizzy2: ...I'm missing something.
So the basic premise of all my ideas is to give each and every faction at LEAST a semi-unique unit roster to differentiate it from the others. I want to stop being harrased by French archers, English knights, Danish cavalry, Italian artillery and Polish heavy infantry:dizzy2: . Some diversity, please.
My ideas are simply suggestions Caravel, most of which are motivated by the fact that all the Catholic factions play the same, which IS ahistorical. They shared tactics, not units or styles of battle. For instance, the Spanish and English had a penchant for guerilla warfare, but right now the ENGLISH could beat the FRENCH with knights:inquisitive: :dizzy2: ...I'm missing something.
I agree with you in principle. My point was focused entirely on Gothic Knights however and it is my opinion that they should be recruitable by the Germans, French, Burgundians and Italians, but definitely not by the English, Spanish or Danes for example. The Lancers are also probably wrong for the rest of the factions, perhaps they would do better as the Milanese Knights for the Italians only?
So the basic premise of all my ideas is to give each and every faction at LEAST a semi-unique unit roster to differentiate it from the others. I want to stop being harrased by French archers, English knights, Danish cavalry, Italian artillery and Polish heavy infantry:dizzy2: . Some diversity, please.
I see your point and agree, as I've said my main point of disagreement was converting the Gothic units into "Imperial" units for the HRE. I prefer these units available as they are, in the late era, but with the addition of the French and Burgundians as some of the factions that can train them.
Belisario
06-01-2007, 17:50
The Muslim UM/MS will be looked at. There is the possibility of the Ghazi infantry (Dervish) sprite with a longer, currently unused, axe. I'm not sure how the coordinates for weapons within the sprite files are set, Belisario may know. The other alternative one is the AUM/Varangian Guards/CMAA sprite with simply the axe, this is not ideal though. Personally I think the best option would be the neutral looking Swiss Pikemen/Gallowglass/Woodsmen/Swiss Halberdiers/Almughavars/Jobbagy sprite. It would just need the same script as the Swiss Halberdiers and the halberd weapon looks the part.
:bow:
I am in effect familiar with unit bifs and its shields/weapons. If you need help I can add shields or weapons from one bif to another or even create different shields. However I am not able to make new soldier sprites, this need a high skill in graphics.
The Unknown Guy
06-02-2007, 23:39
Concerning axes: I'd be wary of making units that have too many bonuses. I post this after some experiences in the Vikings campaign, where 300 Tegnar slaughtered a l500 big pictish army composed by hundreds of spearmen, celtic warriors, the king, and his son (both died in battle).
IMHO as it is now Ghazi infantry and Halberdiers are balanced because Ghazis don't get a humongous defense bonus (and hence reckless use results in their demise) and halberdiers, while having good attack and good armor, have a bad morale (hence reckless use results in a mass rout).
I am in effect familiar with unit bifs and its shields/weapons. If you need help I can add shields or weapons from one bif to another or even create different shields. However I am not able to make new soldier sprites, this need a high skill in graphics.
Thanks, I'm looking for Muslim type sprites that have a two handed attack animation and so far I can't see any. Probably the Swiss Halberdiers sprite I mentioned before may be the best compromise. It will certainly look a lot better than the Militia Sergeants and Crossbowmens sprites anyway.
Concerning axes: I'd be wary of making units that have too many bonuses. I post this after some experiences in the Vikings campaign, where 300 Tegnar slaughtered a l500 big pictish army composed by hundreds of spearmen, celtic warriors, the king, and his son (both died in battle).
IMHO as it is now Ghazi infantry and Halberdiers are balanced because Ghazis don't get a humongous defense bonus (and hence reckless use results in their demise) and halberdiers, while having good attack and good armor, have a bad morale (hence reckless use results in a mass rout).
Axes are given the vs armour bonus in the unit prod file and that's it. Apart from that an axeman is a swordsmen. Polearms differ in that they also have a +3 attack vs cavalry and a +1 defence vs cavalry. What makes huscarles so deadly is the combination of the AP bonus and the very evenly balanced stats that consist of a decent defence and high base morale. They don't really have any weaknesses and can hold their own in sustained melee.
A thought on the German unit line. Considering thier rather factitious nation, could we give regional units to them? Say from Bavaria, Franconia, Bohemia, Austria, Swabia (duh!) and Saxony?
A thought on the German unit line. Considering thier rather factitious nation, could we give regional units to them? Say from Bavaria, Franconia, Bohemia, Austria, Swabia (duh!) and Saxony?
I am in agreement with this. We'll need to get some data, info pics and suggested stats down. I can add the units both in game and in battle once that's done.
There is another issue, and one that won't go away. In fact I need to sort this out now as it hampers my testing. Bodyguard units. The AI will still builds these even if I set the influences low, and the price high. But there are other side effects. Too high a training cost actually creates massive six figure ransom notes for prisoners so that is out.
The dilemma is that the though the player can retrain his bodyguards, the AI doesn't, the AI just looks at the stats and thinks, now this is a good unit, and trains one, if I've set a high training cost this basically nukes the treasury in a turn. The support costs are very low, minimal in fact, I've stated my reasons for this before but for those that may have missed it, this is so that AI factions don't get paralysed when an heir suddenly appears on the scene. Also once the heirs have dropped out of succession the faction still has to support those units, and because the AI cannot disband it cannot get rid of them and has to continue paying. This is why you see Aragon and Denmark with many Royal Knight units garrisoned but doing nothing - they are probably tens of thousands of florins in the red. So I have a double edged sword.
The only solution I can come up with is to make the bodyguard units non trainable. That is to say that heirs come of age commanding a bodyguard unit and that's it. There should no retraining, the AI cannot retrain units anyway, so the player is forced to take better care of his royalty. This for me is the best approach to the problem. This won't put Boyars, Kapikulu Sipahi or Kataphraktoi out of the game as regular units as I've already cloned them and made regular and bodyguard versions of each. The only units that will no longer be available at all, except through heirs maturing, will be the Ghulam Bodyguards. The Royal Knights already have equivalents in the regular Knights units.
To me this also better reflects these types of units. They were unique made up of certain individuals, on their death they could not be replaced so easily. It is a pity that heirs units don't regenerate like a kings unit. That was a bad decision by the developer not to include such a feature, even if heirs regenerated their unit much slower it would still have been better than nothing at all.
The player will be able to stockpile the old units of some of those useless ex heirs and use them for merging into their better ex heirs' bodyguard units and heirs' units - which is still more than the AI can do.
The downside will be the loss of that era to era retrain upgrade of Royal Knights and Ghulam Bodyguards, though this is yet another "feature" that the AI cannot take advantage of, and will be lost anyway when building dependencies are changed.
To try and nullify some of the impact of this, it may be an idea to increase the size of bodyguard units further, bringing them up to standard cavalry (40/66/80) size to increase their chances of survival - that is a 40 man and horse scalable unit. The old 20 man units were very easy pickings (and absolutely useless on large and huge unit sizes), with a unit (probably the general) often being routed by barrage of missiles. The increase up to the standard cavalry size would lessen this impact, and help the AI which is not good at keeping it's royalty alive in battle.
:bow:
Will you also be increasig the stats of the bodygaurd units? As an almost unique unit that can't be replenished or retrianed, they could be more powerful then the knights for the era. Also, an increase in size (which I agree with) would also help to not make them useless after thier first battle.
On the German units, should I make them trainable in the region only but avaible to all factions?
The Unknown Guy
06-18-2007, 11:13
I was pondering how viable would it be to make a "Mostly region-dependent" unit rooster, and make the factions stick with only a few standard units. AKA: one or two standard, buildable anywhere, Almohad troop types, one or two standard, buildable anywhere, Byzantine troopers, one or two standard, buildable anywhere British troopers...
The rest would be region dependent. As such, if, say, Russia and the Almohads switched places, Russia would be raising desert archers and saharan cavalry, and the Almohads Steppe cavalry and Rus archers...
The Unknown Guy
06-21-2007, 13:34
I´m experiment with a 67 per turn upkeep on men at arms, and a slightly reduced upkeep for spearmen, sergeants, anatolian infantry, and Kontarakoi.
The idea is to make spearmen (who would be from peasant levies to "lowest of the low" gendry -sergeants) more proffittable, and more abundant, than sword-units.
I think this is not enough, as it does not weaken swords in any meaningful way. I´m considering reducing unit size to 30 as well (something I already tried with the Varangian Guard)
The Unknown Guy
06-22-2007, 11:21
I did the following:
-Reduced all MAAs and alikes (Skulkatoi, Andalusian Infantry) to 40 unit size. Upkeep/month: 45 (roughly. Chivviess and Andalusians a bit more.)
-Reduced their charge to 1
-Reduced their defense to 2
-Reduced spear upkeep so that vanilla spearmen cost 37/turn (making them a feasible "levee" cheap fodder spear unit) and sergeants and alikes cost 50/turn.
This way, swordmen are still the preferred shocktroops to take porcupine spear enemy positions, as they are able to maul them, albeit suffering losses. They also have a reasonable protection against projectiles, but now cavalry pwns them. An unit of Andalusian Infantry was routed in a single charge by an unit of armenian heavy cavalry.
"Gallowglasses", "Clansmen", and the like I did not touch because they are weak as they are, and I regard them as "local mass gendry", which was in place in some European locations, whereas regular men-at-arms are more of a "proffessional", "old", gendry.
I did not touch polearms either as I don´t know whether there´s an issue with them or not. So far I´ve not noticed it, but I havent tested them too much either.
Although I don't agree with the charge reduction, everything else sounds good. I have been working on some units myself, namely spearmen/sergeants, and have found something that works oddly well.
I increased the defense of all Spear units by 2 and armor by 1.
I increased the Anti-Cavalry power by 1 and reduced the defense bonus by one.
I increased morale on all Spear units by 2.
I took away rank bonuses.
What results are cavalry killers that can also hold their own (with a little support) against almost any other unit. Hold Formation simple increases thier ability to survive situations in which other units falter, making them excellent frontline units now. I did keep Pike rank bonuses, as this is both historically accurate and is the main reason people train them anyway.
On halberdier units, I left alone too. I see nothing wrong with them as of right now, but I'll keep looking:beam:.
Cavalry is a different story. I reduced thier defense by 2-3 points, armor by 1-2, and increased charge by 1-2 and attack by 1-2. Cavalry are now excellent as shock troopers, able to charge home and generally wreak havoc, but generally speaking, need to back out of the melee before they get hacked to peices.
The Unknown Guy
07-10-2007, 09:22
Interesting idea. I shall try it, restore men at arms a bit, update sergeants, and nerf cav defense (why did they have defense to begin with?). Other stuff Ive done: removed all dependences upon armoury, changed it for dependences in other stuff. Also now all mercs depend on town-watch buildings and have high upkeep. This hit byz hard, as compensation I updated their units slighty. Also, now arquebuses are late only, with null defense but better accuracy
The Unknown Guy
07-22-2007, 17:04
I reduced cav defense to 0-2(depending on the unit. In general i shared the points among the other stats, and left one or two points of defense depending on the refinement of the unit-ie:pktoxotai have a measure of 2 points of def, but avar nobles, while strong and armored attaked, have 0 def- so in general they are good chargers, but cant hold positions. Upped spear defense to 2/3/4/5 (vanilla/feudal/chiv/gothic) and increased a bit maa attack so they can tear spear units. Pikes are a bit more defensive and even have a half decent attack, but late only. This is because i want late to be shorter and have some good but balanced frantic struggle units. Anyway, now the rock paper scissors balance works
I was toying around with the building production files last night, and it struck me. The A.I. likes to build TROOP PRODUCING buildings, and thus income buildings take a back seat. What happens is that the A.I.s income is hit hard for several years, making it less competitive. But how does the computer decide what is and what is not a troop producing building? What if we fooled the computer into tthinking the economic buildings were troop producers, say for example by switching labels? Give the farm upgrades and such the TROOP_PRODUCER label, and give the actual troop producing buildings a different one?
christof139
08-21-2007, 11:12
I was toying around with the building production files last night, and it struck me. The A.I. likes to build TROOP PRODUCING buildings, and thus income buildings take a back seat. What happens is that the A.I.s income is hit hard for several years, making it less competitive. But how does the computer decide what is and what is not a troop producing building? What if we fooled the computer into tthinking the economic buildings were troop producers, say for example by switching labels? Give the farm upgrades and such the TROOP_PRODUCER label, and give the actual troop producing buildings a different one?
Hi, I tried switching building types in the old METW Mod and I think it made the game crash and/or the buildings malfunction. Can't remember for sure though. It was interesting though.
Chris
The Unknown Guy
08-30-2007, 10:58
Ok, I divided cavalry in three groups: Heavy Cav, Light cav, and melee cav (low charge-no spear, thus only "trampling charge"-, more balanced attack/defense stats, althrough it varies, of course. I want it to fulfill a "dragoon" role. Some light cavs are Gothic knights (very good attack(6), fairly good defense (4), slow), Saharan cav (0 attack, 0 defense, but damn fast (10-26-28,the fastest). I´m concerned about jedis, through), and Gendarmes (I gave them pretty good stats, but I´m concerned about their balance. I play muslims and byz more often than catholics). Also, removed Lancers from Castilian-Aragonese roosters, and gave them Gothic Foot knights and a bonus for pikemen instead (this only makes sense in so far that, whereas Spanish light cavalry was fairly decent, it didn´t have any particularily good heavy cavarly, whereas Spanish heavy infantry was excellent. I was thinking on giving Iberian factions tweaked gothic sergeants, and make them a sort of elite, court-line dependent pikemen, and make regular pikemen dependent on the town militia building)
Also, I made town militias a cheap peasantish unit, poor attack and defense but fairly cheap and better morale than regular spearmen (which I interpretate as levied peasants). They need a trading post, through.
I gave all units featured using a compound bow the NINJ compound bow projectile. So basically, those excluded are vanilla archers, boyars (russians do get steppe HA, through), genovese sailors, and turcopoles. Arab and Steppe "Vanilla" horse archers, I made a Bowyer2, horse_breeder unit, somewhat slow (9-20-22, average cav stats), and with 0 attack, 0 defense, 1 armor (BTW: 0 armor=crash, so use 1 instead), -2 morale, and a tad expensive for all those poor stats. So, turks can get Steppe horse archers, but are better off upgrading horse-breeder to 2, and getting Turcoman horse, which are nimbler, and have better morale and armor. In general I made specialist HA better. I´m also tweaking Faris: I made them all-periods, almo-compatible, made them avaiable in Cordoba and Granada, and upped their support, requisites, and speed, working as a sort of combo between horse archers and dragoons (low armor, through). I´m ambivalent about this. I wanted to give the almos a chance to fight back if they lost Spain to Castile or Africa to Egypt, but maybe regular HA will do. I don't quite like the lack of build capabilities for Almo units in southern spain, through)
Thus, the roosters go around these terms:
Western Europe: Heavy cav (even their light cav, sergeants, is fairly heavy), heavy infantry centered system. Gets stronger as the game goes on.
Muslims: compound bows, light cavalry center. They get some of the fastest in the game. The cbow is also a significative advantage, which gets a bit weaker when Europeans get arbalests in high. Lack of heavy cavalry can make it hard to cut through Europe, specially in later periods. On the other hand, they can work perfectly well on the desert, and light cavalry flankings can be deadly.
Byz: I tweaked these up and down. Now they are balanced, I think: they neither collapse, nor spread quickly: basically, I improved some units (namely psiloi, which now are fast as well), tweaked byzantine cavalry to a HA/Dragoon hybrid (4 attack, 4 defense, 3 charge), lowered the overall morale (Byzinf stays at 0, Psiloi 2, Byzcav 4....), increased their support costs, and increased the building reqs, which are usually one castle level higher than Western or muslim equivalents (IE: psiloi are bowyer2, swordsmith, town_watch2). In short, they can field fairly decent armies in high and late, if jack-of-all-tradish, and not quite good as specialist units from the others, but they lack backbone (mercs), and thus a battle going badly can mean the whole army running for it, and they are also expensive in relation to other faction´s things. So far Byzantium expands, but it doesn´t rule the steppes by 1120 as it used to. The hard need for infrastructure hits them hard in speedy expansion.
I´ve tried to increase the survival rate of the turks, with mixed success. IMHO Janissaries are too good, but too late, so I basically increased a bit their reqs, whereas I made life easier for the poor Turcomans from Early and High. I was thinking on making them Early and High only, and balance out Ottoman units to a more average, balanced level.
Oh, and as I said before, I tweaked the defense levels for spear units. Now they are all but impossible to break in a straight charge by cavalry, even by (or specially) by dragoons (althrough I´m concerned, as saharan cavalry units were at ease flanking and routing poor morale vanilla spearmen)
One more thing: I wanted to make the economical improvements of some buildings era dependent, so I made the last two levels of the trading post and farming dependent on the compass and gunpowder, as well as the improvement from citadel to fortress (gunpowder dep.). I wanted to restrict a bit how much can a player improve his infrastructure in Early and High.
Just so i wont forget:
I checked the vanilla unit-prod file and while it does have an index of each parameter that is prescribed for units it is by no means as much comprehensive or complete as the unit_prod.txt of the medmod IV.
Medmod's unit_prod.txt has a fully comprehensive summary of all the parameters i guess by Wes and probably because eatcoldsteel that designed the campaign game was involved in the medmod. I suggest that you give it a look as i realised that the info that it presents might prove a time saver.
Noir
A further comment regarding rosters of factions:
In the medmod, Wes gave a dedicated unit in each role in each faction; this has advantages (namely that you face always decent opponents in every department), however the disadvantage is that the particularity of the Muslims for example felt vaporised.
For the pocket mod i would suggest a middle ground between these too; hybrids can be strengthened in melee and have fewer and more damaging missiles (this means that they will join the melee ranks sooner) that can be fired from larger range (to overcome the skirmish mode the Ai plays with) as well as being given to factions with more consistent building requirements and distributed better over time (not 4 almost identical hybrids plus vanilla archers, desert archers and crossbows for the Turks! Useless!), rather than being taken out.
Calling on all Russian history experts!
We're looking for a name for Russian royal units (other than Boyars). Any ideas?
Belisario
03-12-2008, 19:55
I'm not sure but Druzhinniks could be an option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhina
I think Belisario is right. The actual unit would be one Boyar, a noble, with a number of his Druzhina, the bodyguards.
In game terms this equates to us calling the Royal units "Boyars" and the non royal ones trained as extras by the player simply "Druzhina" perhaps?
This brings me to Polish units. Polish retainers' info pic = Boyar with lance. The "Druzhina Cavalry" is another unknown to one to me. Is this one a more accurate representation of a Druzhinnik than the other Druzhina/Boyars info pics?
The "Polish Retainers" I would like to do away with and instead use that info pic to create two types of Druzhina/Boyars, HA types and non HA types.
The "Druzhina Cavalry" I don't want to leave as is either. If possible I'd like to create a specific bodyguard unit for the Poles instead of just the usual Royal Knights.
All of this depends on how accurate and how suitable the info pics are.
:bow:
Belisario
03-14-2008, 20:30
My point of view about these units:
1. "Druzhina Cavalry" infopic seems an early (11th century) druzhinnik wielding an axe. I read that axes were a common weapon in medieval Rus lands, even highly decorated ones. But I also think Druzhinas made use of shock cavalry tactics where the lance or spear is a fundamental weapon.
2. "Boyars" are depicted like the cavalry of 15th century Muscovite armies with a strong influence from the Golden Horde and its successor khanates.
More information about druzhinas:
http://books.google.es/books?id=GQcviLmjNm0C&pg=PP246&lpg=PP246&dq=malaia+druzhina&source=web&ots=QBYl41ii21&sig=w8B8e1ognD1AgiTSlQ8Ucly6sic&hl=es#PPP246,M1
http://minaev.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html
I have been working on the unit training requirements somewhat and have changed a lot of that which was in v1.7. I have reverted the requirements back to near vanilla but with quite a few changes and a few additional requirements for some units. The tech tree I have left as is, with the fort as the low level structure that is in every province at the start of the campaign and the Keep upwards being the prerequisites for all of the smith buildings etc. Despite this the AI is still very slow developing. I have been playing as the Aragonese and though the world is quite stable with much more ships and all factions except the Danes making a half decent income, none have teched up to any serious unit training capabilities. I suppose I will have to look at the build requirements again.
Hmmm, often the higher level buildings seem to be just there for the player really. Good move putting a fort in every province. Multiple building prerequisites can cripple unit production, don't want the AI to build a lot of something, make it require two or more buildings to produce. All in all very hard to tweak to perfection.
So in reality units depending on only one building, RTW style, might be a better system for the AI to deal with..? I'm trying to make it easier for the AI and harder for the player, it seems that I've achieved the opposite...
The RTW approach opens up some possibilities, but also renders a lot of the smith buildings useless, unless upgrades are reintroduced - which I'd rather not.
So in reality units depending on only one building, RTW style, might be a better system for the AI to deal with..? I'm trying to make it easier for the AI and harder for the player, it seems that I've achieved the opposite...
That's....unfortunate. I'd not even considered the possibility that creating multiple dependencies for units might introduce complications the AI cannot handle very well. I mean, yeah you don't want Swordsmen to require 10 different buildings just to train, but still. :gah2:
The RTW approach opens up some possibilities, but also renders a lot of the smith buildings useless, unless upgrades are reintroduced - which I'd rather not.
No, I really don't want upgrades brought back in, either. As we've discussed in the past, that would be just as much of a burden on the AI as anything else. :no:
I hate to leave structures unused, but we might not have a choice, at least where unit dependencies are concerned. Perhaps smith buildings could contribute more to income? I'm not sure. Will have to take another look at them, I guess.
I really dislike oversimplifying training requirements so that [1 building = 1 unit]; merely contemplating the very idea makes me feel dumber. However, I suppose it might be worth trying if it'll help out the AI. :sweatdrop:
Mind if I jump in?
I did something that's seemed to help the AI significantly with building production, and that was to tie in the castles into the two events within system - the Compass, at 1150, and Gunpowder, at 1260. Nothing over castle level was buildable until after 1150, and nothing over Citadel could be built until after 1260. I understand this wold only really help with an Early Era game, but the AI showed remarkable improvement when I took away it's option of over-teching on the castle development.
Another thing I did was generally tie in units with one other building, something that usually brought in money. This made the AI, in it's military focus, inadvertently create structures that increased it's economy, without making it completely lost when building units. I made professionals require the "Blacksmiths", the Militia ones the "Merchants". I also used Merchants to recruit regionals.
The last thing I did was limit the sea zones to six theaters. The AI was able to handle this quite well, and it was soon making a good sum of money from trade. Also, sea invasions become more common.
My :2cents:
Good idea's YLC.
And, having numerous building prerequisites is fine. But, don't over do it. Core units, like spears, archers and basic cavalry would be best only relying on one building.
Well I'm thinking of more of a barracks/stables/archery range structure at the moment. It seems to me that unless the AI has a one building/one units recruitment system, that it recruits crap, i.e. peasants etc.I'm thinking that common units that I want the AI to build lots of, i.e. Men at Arms, Knights, Archers, Sergeants = one building only. Whereas "exotic" units such as Nizari Fedayeen should be rare and require a few buildings to train.
I present you with a few scenarios:
1) Every unit depends on either a stables (horse breeder), butts (from VI), muster field (from VI), Royal Court or Barracks (town watch) etc in combination with one of the smith buildings.
2) Every unit depends on either a stables (horse breeder), butts (from VI), muster field (from VI), Royal Court or Barracks (town watch) etc and the smith buildings are removed altogether.
3) Every unit depends on either a stables (horse breeder), butts (from VI), muster field (from VI), Royal Court or Barracks (town watch) etc and the smith buildings are used purely as income producing buildings.
4) Every unit depends on either a stables (horse breeder), butts (from VI), muster field (from VI), Royal Court or Barracks (town watch) etc and the smith buildings are used as income producing buildings which are tied to dependent resources (as in "Gold", "Iron", "Wood" etc) such as "exceptional swords", "high quality armour", "legendary bows", "famous blacksmith", "pikes/spears".
Number 1 is going back to something like Vanilla in my opinion. I don't think it will make a big impact as it's still two dependencies per unit and you are bound to see the AI not building enough.
Now number 2 is probably what I'm leaning towards at the moment. I have never understood how MTW's tech tree is worked out. Upgrades are nonsense in all TW games but in MTW they do sway a battle significantly. The dependencies are also all wrong from a historical viewpoint. Yes those facilities were available but a man would buy, steal or salvage his own gear in those times and a better class of soldier did not necessarily have a better class of kit. If they did it was because they had looted it or inherited it. A man did not simply make his way down the high street dropping in at the Master Armourer and Spearmakers' Guild on the way to see if there were any "buy one spear and get the armour free" deals going. Shogun had a better representation of this where the facilities were not smiths but Dojos which makes a lot more sense.
Number 3 I like the idea of, but it will seem strange to have those buildings there to produce an income and nothing more. Also due to the restriction on the numbers of income producing buildings this could cause instability. Currently it's not as I have all of these buildings producing very small incomes per level - cumulatively they make a difference, alone they'll pull in only a handful of florins.
4 is a bit more ambitious and this is my personal favourite the one I would go for if it wasn't for the fact that it would make weapon resources in a province seem relevant to units (i.e. one would assume that your sword units would get upgrades from having this resource and building the swordsmith) and lead to confusion in that respect. I still think in the back of my mind though that this would be the best option and would prevent these buildings appearing all over the map.
:bow:
The concept I'm currently envisioning actually combines elements of options 1, 2, & 3:
I would propose that basic units (MAA, Archers, Sergeants, & light cavalry) depend on just a single building (stables, butts, muster field, or barracks), with no smith buildings necessary. Knights would have a slightly higher requirement, however: Royal Court combined with a smith building. I agree that the more elite/exotic units should require at least a couple buildings, again including smith buildings. Which leads me to the next part of my idea....
I'm wondering whether smiths should produce a more significant income than they do currently, especially if we were to tie in smiths as an actual dependency for elite/exotic units. By forcing the AI to build smiths in order to gain access to higher-level units, it would also assure that they could afford them.
I also like the #4 option, although you're probably right in that it would cause confusion for players. Unless we renamed the smiths to something else entirely?
Caravel can I ask, from a Historical context of course, was it likely that advanced troops were levied or trained from all provinces? Since trade was not heavy during these times, in the idea if that a province did not have something it usually had to work around that, would it not be reasonable to have each province hold certain resources for unit development?
The concept I'm currently envisioning actually combines elements of options 1, 2, & 3:
I would propose that basic units (MAA, Archers, Sergeants, & light cavalry) depend on just a single building (stables, butts, muster field, or barracks), with no smith buildings necessary. Knights would have a slightly higher requirement, however: Royal Court combined with a smith building. I agree that the more elite/exotic units should require at least a couple buildings, again including smith buildings. Which leads me to the next part of my idea....
The problem with this is that the AI will struggle to tech up to the decent units. As I said exotic units could require a smith building, but mainstream elite units such as e.g. High era Knights probably should not as this would hamper the AI from teching up to them as quickly as the player would.
I'm wondering whether smiths should produce a more significant income than they do currently, especially if we were to tie in smiths as an actual dependency for elite/exotic units. By forcing the AI to build smiths in order to gain access to higher-level units, it would also assure that they could afford them.
Again the problem with having larger incomes on the smiths buildings means that the player can exploit this easily. I prefer the idea of a gradual smaller income build up. For example there are 8 lines of "smith" building:
Spearmaker
Bowyer
Swordsmith
Armourer
Blacksmith
Horse Farmer
Siege Engineer
Gunsmith
If each building was bringing in roughly 100 florins at the base level, that's quite a sum. I have structured it as very low, a couple of florins each at the base levels. Though this could be altered so that as ugprades are applied income increases to reflect volume and better quality of goods produced. I also have cheaper upgrades to the smith buildings only costing 100 each and taking 2 years. So this should balance out when tweaked.
I also like the #4 option, although you're probably right in that it would cause confusion for players. Unless we renamed the smiths to something else entirely?
Renaming is an idea, perhaps something in the name or description that indicates that these are solely income generating buildings? If I were to do this though, I would need to work on some replacement training facilities. Butts are fine for archers but there would need to be upgrades to butts (not the bowyer line). Also I'm thinking that the muster field should be separate from the barracks line. This would be the generic structure for cultural, levied or similar low level units "native" to a province. In view of this the muster field might also need an upgrade or two... Perhaps the Inn could be utilised for this? As technically if a King "trains" a unit of Highland Clansmen, he has not really trained them, but "hired" them, either with promise of a florin or two for their purse, lands, titles or position.
The Horse Farmer line would have to be renamed and used as stables. I don't think leaving these as a smith building producing an income would be wise.
Certain units such as Handguns would probably need to rely on their smith building being in the province as well as the barracks as would siege units depending on the siege engineer. Again these would be training facilities and not really income producing.
So to finish with we would end up with something like this:
Income (perhaps tied to resources in particular provinces to avoid spamming, this way income could be increased per structure):
Spearmaker (Pole Turner?)
Bowyer
Swordsmith
Armourer
Blacksmith
Training:
Horse Farmer (Stables, Stables ???, Stables ???, Stables ???)
Siege Engineer
Gunsmith
Muster field, Inn
Town Watch (Militia Barracks, Barracks, Barracks ???, Barracks ???)
Royal Court
Butts, ???, ???, ???
Military Academy (Possibly depending on the fourth barracks level? Seljuks/Ottomans only?)
Caravel can I ask, from a Historical context of course, was it likely that advanced troops were levied or trained from all provinces? Since trade was not heavy during these times, in the idea if that a province did not have something it usually had to work around that, would it not be reasonable to have each province hold certain resources for unit development?
Yes I'd say that advanced troops would be limited geographically, though we have homelands to deal with that. It may be an idea to use special resources to restrict some buildings to specific provinces and thus restrict training of certain units, but I'm not 100% sure of this yet. It may complicate matters and imbalance the game even more than it is. Inevitably this approach would great very strong areas and very weak ones. Also it's debatable if the AI would build the needed building in that particular province and meet the rest of the requirements in order to train the unit. It also means that if certain factions don't hold certain provinces then some units will be unobtainable altogether. Homelands do this to a certain extent already.
:bow:
The problem with this is that the AI will struggle to tech up to the decent units. As I said exotic units could require a smith building, but mainstream elite units such as e.g. High era Knights probably should not as this would hamper the AI from teching up to them as quickly as the player would.
Fair enough. My main thought/hope was that adding a smith as a dependency for Knights might help the AI financially without seriously impeding its ability to tech up to them. Ah well. :oops:
Again the problem with having larger incomes on the smiths buildings means that the player can exploit this easily. I prefer the idea of a gradual smaller income build up. For example there are 8 lines of "smith" building:
Spearmaker
Bowyer
Swordsmith
Armourer
Blacksmith
Horse Farmer
Siege Engineer
Gunsmith
If each building was bringing in roughly 100 florins at the base level, that's quite a sum. I have structured it as very low, a couple of florins each at the base levels. Though this could be altered so that as ugprades are applied income increases to reflect volume and better quality of goods produced. I also have cheaper upgrades to the smith buildings only costing 100 each and taking 2 years. So this should balance out when tweaked.
Gah! Well I wasn't thinking *that* much (100 florins) -- rather something more like 25-30 florins for the base level smiths, and then working up from there. ~;p
I digress, however. If you've made the smith upgrades that cheap, then it hopefully shouldn't matter, especially if you tweak them so they bestow a (somewhat) larger income at higher levels.
Renaming is an idea, perhaps something in the name or description that indicates that these are solely income generating buildings?
We'd definitely want to edit the descriptions, yes. As for renaming, perhaps something as simple as adding "Shoppe" (Armourer's Shoppe, Bowyer's Shoppe, etc.)?
If I were to do this though, I would need to work on some replacement training facilities. Butts are fine for archers but there would need to be upgrades to butts (not the bowyer line).
Hmm. I confess I'm currently stuck as to what else would be proper names for subsequent structures. Presumably upgraded butts (whatever they'd be called) would be primarily devoted to recruiting crossbowmen and arbalesters?
Also I'm thinking that the muster field should be separate from the barracks line. This would be the generic structure for cultural, levied or similar low level units "native" to a province. In view of this the muster field might also need an upgrade or two... Perhaps the Inn could be utilised for this? As technically if a King "trains" a unit of Highland Clansmen, he has not really trained them, but "hired" them, either with promise of a florin or two for their purse, lands, titles or position.
That could work. Otherwise, perhaps upgrades could go: Muster Field --> Levy Field --> Shire Grounds?
The Horse Farmer line would have to be renamed and used as stables. I don't think leaving these as a smith building producing an income would be wise.
Certain units such as Handguns would probably need to rely on their smith building being in the province as well as the barracks as would siege units depending on the siege engineer. Again these would be training facilities and not really income producing.
Agreed.
So to finish with we would end up with something like this:
Income (perhaps tied to resources in particular provinces to avoid spamming, this way income could be increased per structure):
Spearmaker (Pole Turner?)
Bowyer
Swordsmith
Armourer
Blacksmith
Looks good to me, although again we should probably rename them to avoid confusing players.
Training:
Horse Farmer (Stables, Stables ???, Stables ???, Stables ???)
Siege Engineer
Gunsmith
Muster field, Inn
Town Watch (Militia Barracks, Barracks, Barracks ???, Barracks ???)
Royal Court
Butts, ???, ???, ???
Military Academy (Possibly depending on the fourth barracks level? Seljuks/Ottomans only?)
Yeah, I like that. Here's my crack at the building names:
Stables, Knight's Stables, Ducal Stables, Royal Stables
Militia Barracks, Infantry Barracks, Guard Barracks, Palace Barracks
Butts, Yeomenry Range, Guard Range, Master Range
(Sorry, I know that last series isn't very original. :embarassed: )
Yes I'd say that advanced troops would be limited geographically, though we have homelands to deal with that. It may be an idea to use special resources to restrict some buildings to specific provinces and thus restrict training of certain units, but I'm not 100% sure of this yet. It may complicate matters and imbalance the game even more than it is. Inevitably this approach would great very strong areas and very weak ones. Also it's debatable if the AI would build the needed building in that particular province and meet the rest of the requirements in order to train the unit. It also means that if certain factions don't hold certain provinces then some units will be unobtainable altogether. Homelands do this to a certain extent already.
:bow:
It's the sentence I highlighted in bold that concerns me most. I could all too easily see the AI being critically -- if not fatally -- hampered with the system proposed. So long as elite/royal units can be restricted to homelands, I'd just as soon not mess with the setup (at least for now). We can always tinker and tweak later if it seems desirable and/or necessary.
No, no, I understand we don;t want to limit units to much, I was just trying to find a way of compromising some of Caravels ideas.
Wouldn't it be possible to err, borrow elements of M2TW's building tree at all? (please don't hurt me ><)
I found that it was semi logical at least, and the way they had divided was interesting. Most building served training grounds, IIRC most were referred to as ranges, barracks as housing and training, and the stables the same, etc.
My line of thought is, that we tie things in with a simple system - have the manufacturing building become a requirement of the other buildings, or have more civic minded buildings (such as farms, courts or merchants, to show an increase in population, management, and funds) be those requisites. The AI and the player would both have to work through these, boost the economy regardless, before allowing access to any new troops. In this way, those building essentially are required for said unit, but we don't end up in the mess of actually requiring two buildings for a unit. We could even tack on "troop_producer" to these prerequisite buildings since the AI fancies it so much.
That's if the AI can handle it, and if I'm not doing something you've already done :sweatdrop:
My main thought/hope was that adding a smith as a dependency for Knights might help the AI financially without seriously impeding its ability to tech up to them. Ah well. :oops:
Indeed that was my original idea and is how V1.7 is structured. There are more dependency buildings and the buildings produce an income. Sadly it's too complex for the AI to use.
Gah! Well I wasn't thinking *that* much (100 florins) -- rather something more like 25-30 florins for the base level smiths, and then working up from there. ~;p
Added together though for all buildings at the base level, the player could have all 8 smith buildings constructed and be raking in a large sum per province.
I digress, however. If you've made the smith upgrades that cheap, then it hopefully shouldn't matter, especially if you tweak them so they bestow a (somewhat) larger income at higher levels.
Indeed, though if I am to go with having the smith buildings as not being required to train units then I will probably re-think the costs and incomes of the upgrades anyway. Especially if they are to depend on resources in the province.
We'd definitely want to edit the descriptions, yes. As for renaming, perhaps something as simple as adding "Shoppe" (Armourer's Shoppe, Bowyer's Shoppe, etc.)?
Well "Shoppe" is equated to old english (e.g. "ye olde shoppe") but is in fact a fanciful term and not really old or middle english. The other factor is that we're not only dealing with the english but many european catholic kingdoms, eastern kingdom's and muslim sultanates. I'm thinking that for, now leave the names as they are and edit the descriptions. Anyone who is wondering why these buildings don't train any units can check these. Plus them not being available in every province - with none at all available in some provinces, this should clarify that they're not a necessity.
To expand on this, I already have another building of this type in existence, namely the forester. I have looked through the available review panel icons and have found many move unused buildings of the "Workshop, Guild, Master" types including:
Glassmaker
Leatherworker
Mason
Potter
Salter
Vintner
Weaver
I may include some of these also (dependent on resources).
Hmm. I confess I'm currently stuck as to what else would be proper names for subsequent structures. Presumably upgraded butts (whatever they'd be called) would be primarily devoted to recruiting crossbowmen and arbalesters?
...perhaps upgrades could go: Muster Field --> Levy Field --> Shire Grounds?
I'm thinking that the Muster field line should be short, only two buildings. It is only for low level levies and some special province specific units anyway.
...we should probably rename them to avoid confusing players.
Here's my crack at the building names:
Stables, Knight's Stables, Ducal Stables, Royal Stables
Militia Barracks, Infantry Barracks, Guard Barracks, Palace Barracks
Butts, Yeomenry Range, Guard Range, Master Range
I could go with all of those except the stables line. You see I'm thinking that the stables will not be required for Knights, but Knights will depend on the Royal Court line of buildings and not the Horse Farmer line. Perhaps something less related to nobility?
It's the sentence I highlighted in bold that concerns me most. I could all too easily see the AI being critically -- if not fatally -- hampered with the system proposed. So long as elite/royal units can be restricted to homelands, I'd just as soon not mess with the setup (at least for now). We can always tinker and tweak later if it seems desirable and/or necessary.
Perhaps then units should not depend on the smith buildings, this would remove the problem.
My line of thought is, that we tie things in with a simple system - have the manufacturing building become a requirement of the other buildings, or have more civic minded buildings
This is actually a good idea, though I would be worried about the era of nothingness while waiting for the AI to build the right smiths in order to build a barracks to train a unit. This is how it should work, a particular level of barracks depending on the construction of the required smith buildings before it can be built. The smith buildings would then in turn be tied to the castle level. It's logical and makes sense but I'm thinking that the AI will not take to it.
Random examples:
Barracks <- Armourer, Swordsmith, Spearmaker
Royal Court <- Horse Breeder, Spearmakers' Workshop, Armourers' Workshop
Butts <- Bowyer
Indeed, though if I am to go with having the smith buildings as not being required to train units then I will probably re-think the costs and incomes of the upgrades anyway. Especially if they are to depend on resources in the province.
True. Should we then increase the cost/income so that they'd be more equivalent to the Mine/Forester buildings, do you think? Or is that too much?
Well "Shoppe" is equated to old english (e.g. "ye olde shoppe") but is in fact a fanciful term and not really old or middle english. The other factor is that we're not only dealing with the english but many european catholic kingdoms, eastern kingdom's and muslim sultanates.
Gah. Yeah, that's a good point, especially regarding the non-Catholic factions. I suppose we could try and find appropriate names/terms for the Orthodox and Muslim factions, but that'd probably be more trouble than it's worth.
I'm thinking that for, now leave the names as they are and edit the descriptions. Anyone who is wondering why these buildings don't train any units can check these. Plus them not being available in every province - with none at all available in some provinces, this should clarify that they're not a necessity.
Fair enough. I would still strongly suggest that we rename them at some point, but you're right in that it's not really a priority.
To expand on this, I already have another building of this type in existence, namely the forester. I have looked through the available review panel icons and have found many move unused buildings of the "Workshop, Guild, Master" types including:
Glassmaker
Leatherworker
Mason
Potter
Salter
Vintner
Weaver
I may include some of these also (dependent on resources).
Yeah, that would work. I'd love to see most of these structures in the game (except the Salter, obviously, since we've already got Salt Mines). In fact, I wish I'd thought of some of them myself. :2thumbsup:
I'm thinking that the Muster field line should be short, only two buildings. It is only for low level levies and some special province specific units anyway.
Ah, okay. Muster Field --> Levy Field/Levy Grounds?
I could go with all of those except the stables line. You see I'm thinking that the stables will not be required for Knights, but Knights will depend on the Royal Court line of buildings and not the Horse Farmer line. Perhaps something less related to nobility?
Crap; I'd forgotten that. :oops: Let's see:
Stables, Constables' Stables, Gendarmes' Stables, Master Stables
Again, probably not my greatest effort. I'll see if I can't come up with something better later on here.
Perhaps then units should not depend on the smith buildings, this would remove the problem.
Yeah. Probably best to just keep it simple for now.
True. Should we then increase the cost/income so that they'd be more equivalent to the Mine/Forester buildings, do you think? Or is that too much?
It's have to be balanced out, perhaps lowering both cost and income across the board, but to achieve and end result of a higher income per province than there is currently.
Gah. Yeah, that's a good point, especially regarding the non-Catholic factions. I suppose we could try and find appropriate names/terms for the Orthodox and Muslim factions, but that'd probably be more trouble than it's worth.
The problem with that is that they would need to be separate buildings as you cannot have different names per culture for the same building.
Fair enough. I would still strongly suggest that we rename them at some point, but you're right in that it's not really a priority.
Well when some better names can be though of then yes, though in my opinion the names as they are make more sense than anything else I can think. They imply weapons manufacture and not weapons training.
Yeah, that would work. I'd love to see most of these structures in the game (except the Salter, obviously, since we've already got Salt Mines). In fact, I wish I'd thought of some of them myself. :2thumbsup:
The Salter can still be added, and dependent on the salt mine, which in turn would depend on the Salt resource. Some other interdependency examples would include:
Leatherworker [Tanner?] <- Hides (resource), Improved Farmland ??%
Mason <- No dependency* -> Keep and above??
Vintner <- Wine (resource), Improved Farmland ??%
*I don't want to introduce quarries but it might be an idea?
To summarise the above: The Tanner would depend on the Hides resource and Improved Farmland of a particular level. Perhaps each level of Tanner (Workshop, Guild, Master) could be tied to each level of Farmland upgrade. The exact same would go for the Vintner except that it would depend on the Wine resource. The Mason could just be another low income generating building, perhaps present in most developed provinces at the start of the campaign. (I now have the "capitals" with at least a keep for every faction). As the castle needs upgrading the mason would also need it. It would also be, indirectly, the prerequisite for buildings such as Cathedrals, Grand Mosques, Military Academies etc etc. The masons would also be a way of ensuring that the AI reaches a certain income level before upgrading the castle (Re: YLC's idea earlier).
Examples:
Keep <- Mason
Castle <- Masons' Workshop
Citadel <- Masons' Guild
Fortress <- Master Mason
Ah, okay. Muster Field --> Levy Field/Levy Grounds?
Well as I've said before, Muster Field and Inn, or Inn and Muster Field?? (I'm assuming, as was usually the case that all local troops were effectively mercenaries at that time requiring pay either in land, loot, wenches, ale or titles. The Inn would be the first step, the muster field would be the later step for levying better troops OR the muster field would be the first step for low class militias and the Inn would be the next for meeting with the local leaders of various militias, clans etc.
Crap; I'd forgotten that. :oops: Let's see:
Stables, Constables' Stables, Gendarmes' Stables, Master Stables
Again, probably not my greatest effort. I'll see if I can't come up with something better later on here.
First and last are ok by me, but the second and third are too restrictive culturally.
Yeah. Probably best to just keep it simple for now.
:bow:
It's have to be balanced out, perhaps lowering both cost and income across the board, but to achieve and end result of a higher income per province than there is currently.
Ah, so you mean lower the build cost & income for mines, while raising the build cost & income for the Smith buildings (so that they're closer to being equal)?
Well when some better names can be though of then yes, though in my opinion the names as they are make more sense than anything else I can think. They imply weapons manufacture and not weapons training.
To you and me they do, yes. What I'm wondering, however, is whether other players will make that same distinction. Sorry, I know I'm probably just making a mountain out of a molehill.... :sweatdrop:
The Salter can still be added, and dependent on the salt mine, which in turn would depend on the Salt resource. Some other interdependency examples would include:
Leatherworker [Tanner?] <- Hides (resource), Improved Farmland ??%
Mason <- No dependency* -> Keep and above??
Vintner <- Wine (resource), Improved Farmland ??%
Yeah, I like that. For the Leatherworker/Tanner, I'd say go with just the 20% Improved Farmland -- I don't think the requirements should be super-high for that. I'd say the Mason should depend on either the Keep or *maybe* the Castle, depending on how much income it'll bring in (a mere Fort is definitely too low). With the Vintner, I'd suggest the 40% farmland, maybe even 60% (again, depending on how lucrative it would be).
*I don't want to introduce quarries but it might be an idea?
That, I'm not sure of. I guess it would probably depend on how common they were during the time period: Were there quarries all over the place, or were they relatively rare? If it's the latter, then I'd say it could be worth looking at adding them in. If it's the former and quarries were a dime a dozen, then I'd say we shouldn't bother with them.
To summarise the above: The Tanner would depend on the Hides resource and Improved Farmland of a particular level. Perhaps each level of Tanner (Workshop, Guild, Master) could be tied to each level of Farmland upgrade. The exact same would go for the Vintner except that it would depend on the Wine resource.
Agreed. :bow:
The Mason could just be another low income generating building, perhaps present in most developed provinces at the start of the campaign. (I now have the "capitals" with at least a keep for every faction). As the castle needs upgrading the mason would also need it.
Well since I'd already guessed that that's how we'd do it anyway, I'm definitely all for it. ~D
It would also be, indirectly, the prerequisite for buildings such as Cathedrals, Grand Mosques, Military Academies etc etc. The masons would also be a way of ensuring that the AI reaches a certain income level before upgrading the castle (Re: YLC's idea earlier).
Examples:
Keep <- Mason
Castle <- Masons' Workshop
Citadel <- Masons' Guild
Fortress <- Master Mason
Excellent idea. With any luck, doing so could also help prevent the AI from upgrading castles for which it can't justify the cost (i.e., upgrading to a Citadel in Scotland before upgrading to a Citadel in Aquitaine). :2thumbsup:
Well as I've said before, Muster Field and Inn, or Inn and Muster Field?? (I'm assuming, as was usually the case that all local troops were effectively mercenaries at that time requiring pay either in land, loot, wenches, ale or titles. The Inn would be the first step, the muster field would be the later step for levying better troops OR the muster field would be the first step for low class militias and the Inn would be the next for meeting with the local leaders of various militias, clans etc.
I would say put the Muster Field first, and then upgrade to the Inn. I couldn't say why exactly, except that it just "feels" right.
First and last are ok by me, but the second and third are too restrictive culturally.
Yeah, I'm not keen on the 2nd and 3rd ones either, but I've been stuck on finding better names for them. :wall:
The only alternatives I can think of right now would be Yeomenry Stables and Guard Stables, but I'm not wild about those either -- aside from those names not making a whole lot of sense IMO, I'm also trying to avoid copying too much from the Barracks & Range buildings. I briefly considered Militia Stables, but I think that could really only be applied to the 1st-tier stables anyway, and is therefore a moot point.
Out of curiosity, do you have a rough idea as to which cavalry units will be dependent on which Stables? That might help me with coming up with ideas.
Caravel
In past modding I've added a number of the buildings that you mention. It's a good move I think because they give more depth to build choices and allow you to give a bit more character to different provinces. However, when you talk about a wine or hides "resource", I'm sure you realise that these are actually trade goods and not resources, and my understanding is that you can't restrict buildings with them. I'd love to hear different, but in my experience, the only way to stifle growth of a norwegian wine industry is to make crafty use of the 5 actual resources (maybe in combination with religion) and say you can only have a vintner in a catholic owned province where there is salt, for example. Not ideal, and if anyone could show other ways of regionalising buildings, it would add a lot to the richness of the map. (The only other one I've used is to make certain buildings dependent on a merchant or a port, which of course can't be built where there are no trade goods or coasts.}
I'm sure none of this is news, but I thought I'd join the debate to show there are more people who'd be interested to see the pocket mod make progress again. :yes:
Ah, so you mean lower the build cost & income for mines, while raising the build cost & income for the Smith buildings (so that they're closer to being equal)?
Yes possibly.
To you and me they do, yes. What I'm wondering, however, is whether other players will make that same distinction. Sorry, I know I'm probably just making a mountain out of a molehill.... :sweatdrop:
Well I'm pretty sure that those that try this mod will have sense enough to know. Also it can be in the summary if needed.
Yeah, I like that. For the Leatherworker/Tanner, I'd say go with just the 20% Improved Farmland -- I don't think the requirements should be super-high for that. I'd say the Mason should depend on either the Keep or *maybe* the Castle, depending on how much income it'll bring in (a mere Fort is definitely too low). With the Vintner, I'd suggest the 40% farmland, maybe even 60% (again, depending on how lucrative it would be).
Yes those are all good. except the Mason. You see the Mason is what I would use as a prerequisite to the Keep and upwards. That is, you would need to build the Mason in order to upgrade from a Fort to a Keep. Also high level Mason buildings would be needed in order to upgrade the castle further.
That, I'm not sure of. I guess it would probably depend on how common they were during the time period: Were there quarries all over the place, or were they relatively rare? If it's the latter, then I'd say it could be worth looking at adding them in. If it's the former and quarries were a dime a dozen, then I'd say we shouldn't bother with them.
Well quarrying for stone is pre medieval. The stones for all of those temples, pyramids, coliseums, etc etc had to come from somewhere. Personally though I just don't want to include them.
I would say put the Muster Field first, and then upgrade to the Inn. I couldn't say why exactly, except that it just "feels" right.
Yes I'm thinking the same. Low level "peasant" units: Muster field. Higher levels such as Vikings: Inn. Their requirements might need some more tweaking however. I'm thinking that the Inn would need to depend on the keep or maybe even the castle?
For the Muslim units, the Ribat can replace the Inn. The muster field will have to stay as is until we can replace it with a more eastern looking review panel icon.
The only alternatives I can think of right now would be Yeomenry Stables and Guard Stables, but I'm not wild about those either -- aside from those names not making a whole lot of sense IMO, I'm also trying to avoid copying too much from the Barracks & Range buildings. I briefly considered Militia Stables, but I think that could really only be applied to the 1st-tier stables anyway, and is therefore a moot point.
Well RTW has Cavarly Stables and Elite Cavalry Stables. Perhaps "Militia Stables", Town Stables", "County Stables", "Cavarly Stables"?
Out of curiosity, do you have a rough idea as to which cavalry units will be dependent on which Stables? That might help me with coming up with ideas.
Not yet, though for example:
English
Stables1: Hobilar
Stables2: Mounted Sergeant
Stables3:
Stables4:
HRE
Stables1: Mounted Crossbows
Stables2: Mounted Sergeant
Stables3:
Stables4:
Turks
Stables1: Steppe Horse Archers / Arab Horse Archers
Stables2: Turcoman Horse
Stables3: Armenian Heavy Cavalry / Ottoman Sipahi (or Royal Court with the Sipahis of the Porte etc?)
Stables4: Khwarazmian Cavalry
French
Barracks1: Men at Arms / Sergeants (Early)
Barracks2: Men at Arms / Sergeants (High)
Barracks3: Sergeants (Late)
Barracks4:
Some factions would use all levels of buildings and some would not. This is often the case in vanilla MTW and RTW anyway. We will get around this because the upgrades themselves will be cheap, so if the AI does upgrade needlessly it won't be a big issue. Also the Master level valour bonuses are presently still intact.
However, when you talk about a wine or hides "resource", I'm sure you realise that these are actually trade goods and not resources, and my understanding is that you can't restrict buildings with them. I'd love to hear different, but in my experience, the only way to stifle growth of a norwegian wine industry is to make crafty use of the 5 actual resources
Yes I do understand the difference between trade goods and resources. I've added a wood resource for the forester, so I'm sure I can add a few more resources, even if they are copies of the trade goods. Good to see you around western.
:bow:
Hey western! Good to see you 'round these parts again. ~:wave:
Well I'm pretty sure that those that try this mod will have sense enough to know. Also it can be in the summary if needed.
Good point. Sorry, I'll stop harping on this (very minor issue) now. :bow:
Yes those are all good. except the Mason. You see the Mason is what I would use as a prerequisite to the Keep and upwards. That is, you would need to build the Mason in order to upgrade from a Fort to a Keep. Also high level Mason buildings would be needed in order to upgrade the castle further.
Ah, okay. I didn't completely follow what you were saying before. Yeah, that looks good, Caravel. :yes: Will the Mason be dependent on a resource then, or will it be a structure that can be built pretty much anywhere?
Well quarrying for stone is pre medieval. The stones for all of those temples, pyramids, coliseums, etc etc had to come from somewhere. Personally though I just don't want to include them.
Well then let's not. I don't have a particular hankering for them either, truth be told. I was only interested (and barely, at that) if "rocks" were rare enough to be considered a resource.
Yes I'm thinking the same. Low level "peasant" units: Muster field. Higher levels such as Vikings: Inn. Their requirements might need some more tweaking however. I'm thinking that the Inn would need to depend on the keep or maybe even the castle?
I'd say the make the Inn dependent on the Keep instead of the Castle, as I think the latter would be a bit much. Unless you were intending to use the Inn to recruit some of the higher-level units as well?
I guess it depends on exactly which troop types will require the Inn: If it's going to be used for mostly lower-tier units, I'd say make the Inn dependent on the Keep. If it's going to be used for more mid-level units, then I'd say the Castle would probably be more appropriate.
For the Muslim units, the Ribat can replace the Inn. The muster field will have to stay as is until we can replace it with a more eastern looking review panel icon.
Were you wanting to re-designate the Muster Field to something else for the Muslim factions as well, or just replace the icon? (I'm just wondering if I need to come up with more names. :beam: )
Well RTW has Cavarly Stables and Elite Cavalry Stables. Perhaps "Militia Stables", Town Stables", "County Stables", "Cavarly Stables"?
The first 3 sound good. However, I think Master Stables would be better for the top stable building, as Cavalry Stables strikes me as being a redundant term. I suppose we could replace Town Stables with Sergeant Stables, but that might not fit very well with the Orthodox and (especially) Muslim factions.
Not yet, though for example:
English
Stables1: Hobilar
Stables2: Mounted Sergeant
Stables3:
Stables4:
Oops; I'd thought MS were going to be dependent on the Stables1 just like Hobilars. No matter, though. Looks good.
HRE
Stables1: Mounted Crossbows
Stables2: Mounted Sergeant
Stables3:
Stables4:
Will Mounted X-bows require *only* Stables1, or will it be dependent on the Missile1 building as well?
Turks
Stables1: Steppe Horse Archers / Arab Horse Archers
Stables2: Turcoman Horse
Stables3: Armenian Heavy Cavalry / Ottoman Sipahi (or Royal Court with the Sipahis of the Porte etc?)
Stables4: Khwarazmian Cavalry
In regards to the Ottoman Sipahi: I'd recommend just leaving their dependency at Stables3. Or is there a concern the Turks might spam them?
French
Barracks1: Men at Arms / Sergeants (Early)
Barracks2: Men at Arms / Sergeants (High)
Barracks3: Sergeants (Late)
Barracks4:
:2thumbsup:
Some factions would use all levels of buildings and some would not. This is often the case in vanilla MTW and RTW anyway. We will get around this because the upgrades themselves will be cheap, so if the AI does upgrade needlessly it won't be a big issue. Also the Master level valour bonuses are presently still intact.
Excellent. ~:)
I do have one question: With upgrades being cheaper, are we going to be enabling players (human & AI alike) to just race up the tech/unit tree? Or are the build times going to still be long enough that that shouldn't be much of an issue?
I'll have a mess around this week, see if I can come up with anything. I like the current route your taking though.
Caravel
Hmm - everything I've read and tried says you can only have the 5 resources of MTW + Forest from VI. I'm intrigued to see what you have in mind re "adding a few more resources". This would be either a breakthrough or an epic piece of craftiness (of the pub games with matches variety).
You're right it's hard coded. I'd completely forgotten. Well now I don't have to waste time doing that. It's a bit silly that new trade goods can be added with ease yet resources are completely hardcoded!
Well maybe I will have to tie the smiths buildings to only Iron producing provinces? Or perhaps provinces that have Iron and Copper?
The other alternative would be to rename some of the existing resources and change the icons (this is possible) so that they represent something else:
@{"Copper"}
@{"Gold"}
@{"Silver"}
@{"Iron"}
@{"Forest"}
@{"Salt"}
I'm thinking that because this is so very limited that perhaps we need to be much more generic:
@{"Precious Metals"}
@{"Mineral Ore"}
@{"Forest"}
@{"FREE"}
@{"FREE"}
@{"FREE"}
This would then leave the resources open for other uses such as "exceptional swords", "high quality armour", "legendary bows" etc. Mineral ore would be the dependency for the salt, copper and iron mines. Precious metals would be the dependency for Gold and Silver mines (multiple mines per province).
Ah, okay. I didn't completely follow what you were saying before. Yeah, that looks good, Caravel. :yes: Will the Mason be dependent on a resource then, or will it be a structure that can be built pretty much anywhere?
Well then let's not. I don't have a particular hankering for them either, truth be told. I was only interested (and barely, at that) if "rocks" were rare enough to be considered a resource.
That's why I was thinking of a quarry, that could be built anywhere in any province. The mason would depend on it and it would bring in an income. Castle upgrades would then depend on the mason. Is it too complex or worth doing? I was thinking perhaps forget the quarry and have the mason only and have this as an income generating building that is required for anything from the keep upgrade and above.
I'd say the make the Inn dependent on the Keep instead of the Castle, as I think the latter would be a bit much. Unless you were intending to use the Inn to recruit some of the higher-level units as well?
I guess it depends on exactly which troop types will require the Inn: If it's going to be used for mostly lower-tier units, I'd say make the Inn dependent on the Keep. If it's going to be used for more mid-level units, then I'd say the Castle would probably be more appropriate.
I was thinking the Keep as well, so that settles that. The muster field would be for low level cultural units, e.g. kerns and clansmen and the Inn would be for better class cultural units and mercenary types such as Gallowglasses. There is no rule as to Infantry/cavalry with this either, so some cavalry types could be recruited here (i.e. Alan Mercenary cavalry).
Were you wanting to re-designate the Muster Field to something else for the Muslim factions as well, or just replace the icon? (I'm just wondering if I need to come up with more names. :beam: )
It would need replacing with something else entirely.
The first 3 sound good. However, I think Master Stables would be better for the top stable building, as Cavalry Stables strikes me as being a redundant term. I suppose we could replace Town Stables with Sergeant Stables, but that might not fit very well with the Orthodox and (especially) Muslim factions.
Yes Master stables would be better.
Oops; I'd thought MS were going to be dependent on the Stables1 just like Hobilars. No matter, though. Looks good.
Stats:
Hobilar:
Charge: 6
Attack: 1
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 0
MS:
Charge: 8
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 2
In all other respects these units are the same. MS cost a little more to raise and support. Once MS are available there is no reason to use Hobilars any more as MS are a superior unit. If the dependencies I have proposed aren't suitable then I am thinking perhaps, remove Hobilars from the stables line altogether and have them depend on the Muster field or Inn.
Will Mounted X-bows require *only* Stables1, or will it be dependent on the Missile1 building as well?
MC:
Charge: 2
Attack: 0
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 2
This would be a multiple dependency for a low class unit. Also if I do change the resources around so that the bowyer can only build in certain provinces then it would restrict them too much. There is also the point that crossbows are not really bows, the craft of the fletcher and bowyer is not that of the crossbow maker. I would have crossbow units depend on the barracks or stables line only, and bow units depend on the range/butts only.
In regards to the Ottoman Sipahi: I'd recommend just leaving their dependency at Stables3. Or is there a concern the Turks might spam them?
Well if you remember, the Ottoman Sipahi are now known as the Timarli Sipahi and are much stronger, plus horse archers. I need to either place them under the correct level of Stables (I'm thinking Stables 3 or 4) or under the Royal Court (remember there is only one level of Royal Court for Muslim and Orthodox factions). Note the Sipahi are only available in the Late Era.
I do have one question: With upgrades being cheaper, are we going to be enabling players (human & AI alike) to just race up the tech/unit tree? Or are the build times going to still be long enough that that shouldn't be much of an issue?
Upgrades won't be cheaper as we're redoing the V1.7 tech tree. The smith buildings will need to be tweaked to produce a decent income and the stables, barracks, butts and royal court lines will need to take over as the main training facilities. Upgrades should cost quite a bit and depend on castle levels to stop the player or AI from teching up too quickly.
:bow:
Actually Caravel, their are in fact Infopics and Review Panel icons for the full Royal Court buildings for Islamic factions, they are simply disabled. I enabled them and they work perfectly fine.
Although this may not be the place to delve into it, but you mention that crossbowmen units will be tied to the barracks line. Just a quick question, but will certain factions have an edge in both the ability and production of their crossbowmen, Italians and Germans for example? And will we see a variance in Islamic crossbowmen versus Catholic? Will the Byzantine(Roman) Empire have the ability to hire Crossbowmen? Will other units also be available at the same level as well? Also, kinda off the train of thought, but will units on lower levels of the barracks line become obsolete at certain points? I modded my file once so that as each era based, the previous era's became obsolete, but the requirements for the next generation went down one level. It meant I had some duplicate units, but it controlled the AI's unit production very effectively, so I didn't see Spearmen after 1321, which was really annoying.
For example - Feudal Sergeants at 1st level barracks for Era's Early and High, gone by late, have Chivalric Sergeants at 2nd level for High, 1st level for late.
This avoids the nasty problem of militia armies in late period, as well as having to deal with teching up suddenly when you hit an era and you having nothing to produce at lower levels.
Actually Caravel, their are in fact Infopics and Review Panel icons for the full Royal Court buildings for Islamic factions, they are simply disabled. I enabled them and they work perfectly fine.
Yes I see them now... :dizzy2:
Still there are no Orthodox Royal Courts at all.
Although this may not be the place to delve into it, but you mention that crossbowmen units will be tied to the barracks line. Just a quick question, but will certain factions have an edge in both the ability and production of their crossbowmen, Italians and Germans for example? And will we see a variance in Islamic crossbowmen versus Catholic? Will the Byzantine(Roman) Empire have the ability to hire Crossbowmen? Will other units also be available at the same level as well? Also, kinda off the train of thought, but will units on lower levels of the barracks line become obsolete at certain points? I modded my file once so that as each era based, the previous era's became obsolete, but the requirements for the next generation went down one level. It meant I had some duplicate units, but it controlled the AI's unit production very effectively, so I didn't see Spearmen after 1321, which was really annoying.
For example - Feudal Sergeants at 1st level barracks for Era's Early and High, gone by late, have Chivalric Sergeants at 2nd level for High, 1st level for late.
This avoids the nasty problem of militia armies in late period, as well as having to deal with teching up suddenly when you hit an era and you having nothing to produce at lower levels.
I have adjusted it so that there is a "Sergeant" unit for each era. Vanilla Spearmen are early Sergeants, Feudal Sergeants for high and Chivalric for late. Each unit type disappears per era. I haven't decided on the building dependencies as yet, but it may be that each will depend on the same level building. Good or bad?
Yes I see them now... :dizzy2:
Still there are no Orthodox Royal Courts at all.
Which makes perfect sense, I mean it's not like the Roman Empire ever improved how it managed it's holdings :clown:
I have adjusted it so that there is a "Sergeant" unit for each era. Vanilla Spearmen are early Sergeants, Feudal Sergeants for high and Chivalric for late. Each unit type disappears per era. I haven't decided on the building dependencies as yet, but it may be that each will depend on the same level building. Good or bad?
That seems fine, a bit less convoluted then mine. In fact, it makes sense - each level of barracks would signify the overall capability for it to produce units. Thus, at first level, we have the basic infantryman, supplied with that Eras arms and armor. Next step, we have that Eras specialized infantryman, maybe even a ranged unit. Then we have the heavy hitting infantry, followed by the peak of that Eras footmen (whatever it may be).
The only problem is the sudden inability to retrain the old units, but realistically speaking such a logistical feat would have been a bit above Medieval world.
Which makes perfect sense, I mean it's not like the Roman Empire ever improved how it managed it's holdings :clown:
Indeed, though I was thinking more of the Kieven Rus/Russians and Novgorod. I have already settled on giving the Byzantine no Royal Courts at all.
That seems fine, a bit less convoluted then mine. In fact, it makes sense - each level of barracks would signify the overall capability for it to produce units. Thus, at first level, we have the basic infantryman, supplied with that Eras arms and armor. Next step, we have that Eras specialized infantryman, maybe even a ranged unit. Then we have the heavy hitting infantry, followed by the peak of that Eras footmen (whatever it may be).
That's pretty much what I'm trying to achieve. I don't want a situation where your lowest level barracks becomes entirely useless in the High era. Especially in MTW where buildings tend to get razed a lot.
The only problem is the sudden inability to retrain the old units, but realistically speaking such a logistical feat would have been a bit above Medieval world.
Well I think this is a worthwhile sacrifice, also consider that the AI cannot retrain at all - it's a bit of an exploit anyway. Much better for the AI if they can start producing the latest era units straight off.
:bow:
@{"Precious Metals"}
@{"Mineral Ore"}
@{"Forest"}
@{"FREE"}
@{"FREE"}
@{"FREE"}
I like the look of that, much more compact.
That's why I was thinking of a quarry, that could be built anywhere in any province. The mason would depend on it and it would bring in an income. Castle upgrades would then depend on the mason. Is it too complex or worth doing? I was thinking perhaps forget the quarry and have the mason only and have this as an income generating building that is required for anything from the keep upgrade and above.
I was actually going to propose dropping the Quarry altogether, so it sounds like we're in agreement on this. As long as the Mason is already a prerequisite for castle upgrades, I see the Quarry as being largely superfluous.
I was thinking the Keep as well, so that settles that. The muster field would be for low level cultural units, e.g. kerns and clansmen and the Inn would be for better class cultural units and mercenary types such as Gallowglasses. There is no rule as to Infantry/cavalry with this either, so some cavalry types could be recruited here (i.e. Alan Mercenary cavalry).
Perfect. I'd not even considered that the Inn could be used for some of the cultural/regional cavalry units as well, but I like it. :2thumbsup:
Hobilar:
Charge: 6
Attack: 1
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 0
MS:
Charge: 8
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 2
In all other respects these units are the same. MS cost a little more to raise and support. Once MS are available there is no reason to use Hobilars any more as MS are a superior unit. If the dependencies I have proposed aren't suitable then I am thinking perhaps, remove Hobilars from the stables line altogether and have them depend on the Muster field or Inn.
Well that's kind of what I was wondering (whether the dependency for the Hobilars should be lowered). Not the Muster Field -- I don't think you should be able to recruit cavalry from it -- but the Inn might be a little more appropriate.
However (now that I think about it), aren't the Inn and the Stables1 building (Militia Stables) both going to be dependent on the Keep anyway? If that's the case, then it really shouldn't make much difference.
MC:
Charge: 2
Attack: 0
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 2
This would be a multiple dependency for a low class unit. Also if I do change the resources around so that the bowyer can only build in certain provinces then it would restrict them too much. There is also the point that crossbows are not really bows, the craft of the fletcher and bowyer is not that of the crossbow maker. I would have crossbow units depend on the barracks or stables line only, and bow units depend on the range/butts only.
Sounds fine to me. (To be honest, I'd asked more out of curiosity than anything else. ~:) )
Well if you remember, the Ottoman Sipahi are now known as the Timarli Sipahi and are much stronger, plus horse archers. I need to either place them under the correct level of Stables (I'm thinking Stables 3 or 4) or under the Royal Court (remember there is only one level of Royal Court for Muslim and Orthodox factions). Note the Sipahi are only available in the Late Era.
Actually, I had forgotten that. (After all, I don't play into the Late period that often, to say nothing of the infrequency with which I play as the Turks.) :oops:
I would say make the Sipahi dependent on Stables 3 to start out with and see how that works. If it turns out the Ottomans train them a little too frequently, we can always then restrict the Sipahi to the Royal Court or Stables 4 to limit their numbers.
Upgrades won't be cheaper as we're redoing the V1.7 tech tree. The smith buildings will need to be tweaked to produce a decent income and the stables, barracks, butts and royal court lines will need to take over as the main training facilities. Upgrades should cost quite a bit and depend on castle levels to stop the player or AI from teching up too quickly.
:bow:
Yeah, I realized that afterward, but was too lazy to edit my post. Consider the question withdrawn. :bow:
Well that's kind of what I was wondering (whether the dependency for the Hobilars should be lowered). Not the Muster Field -- I don't think you should be able to recruit cavalry from it -- but the Inn might be a little more appropriate.
This is a bit of a balancing issue. If Hobilars are available from the muster field, there is the danger that the English and French may spam them. In all honesty I'm seeing these as a redundant unit that fill no gap nor suit no purpose unless modified to fit a role. I'm still thinking that second level stables for Mounted Sergeants will put them at the castle level which will be out of reach for most factions and provinces for most of the early era. The solution perhaps is one of the following:
Scenario A
1) Remove MS from the English roster.
2) Make Hobilars an English specific (historical I believe) version of MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages and disadvantages over MS.
i.e:
Hobilar:
Charge: 8
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Armour: 2
Morale: 0
4) Recruit with first level Stables
Scenario B
1) Make Hobilars rectuitable only in Britain. Perhaps limited to only Northumbria.
2) Make Hobilars an English specific (historical I believe) version of MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages over MS.
Hobilar:
Charge: 8
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 4
4) Recruit from Inn
However (now that I think about it), aren't the Inn and the Stables1 building (Militia Stables) both going to be dependent on the Keep anyway? If that's the case, then it really shouldn't make much difference.
Yes the muster field will depend on a fort, but the Inn, Ribat and all of the other recruiting buildings (stables, barracks, butts, royal court etc) will require the Keep and above. For the Muslim faction's muster field equivalent, I'm thinking something like "Nomad Camp", this would then be upgradable to the Ribat.
I would say make the Sipahi dependent on Stables 3 to start out with and see how that works. If it turns out the Ottomans train them a little too frequently, we can always then restrict the Sipahi to the Royal Court or Stables 4 to limit their numbers.
I was thinking Third level stables as well as that would still allow the valour bonus at the fourth level.
Also as regards the Inn due to homelands etc there are going to be a lot of cases where this building is useless to certain factions in certain areas. So it would need to have a secondary function. I'm thinking small income plus happiness boost?
:bow:
This is a bit of a balancing issue. If Hobilars are available from the muster field, there is the danger that the English and French may spam them. In all honesty I'm seeing these as a redundant unit that fill no gap nor suit no purpose unless modified to fit a role. I'm still thinking that second level stables for Mounted Sergeants will put them at the castle level which will be out of reach for most factions and provinces for most of the early era. The solution perhaps is one of the following:
Scenario A
1) Remove MS from the English roster.
2) Make Hobilars an English specific (historical I believe) version of MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages and disadvantages over MS.
i.e:
Hobilar:
Charge: 8
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Armour: 2
Morale: 0
4) Recruit with first level Stables
Scenario B
1) Make Hobilars rectuitable only in Britain. Perhaps limited to only Northumbria.
2) Make Hobilars an English specific (historical I believe) version of MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages over MS.
Hobilar:
Charge: 8
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 4
4) Recruit from Inn
I'd probably go with Scenario A: For one thing, the stats seem a little more realistic, whereas I think the stats from Scenario B would make them a little too "uber". Also, by removing MS, it keeps Hobilars even more useful/relevant, as well as making the English roster a little more unique.
For the Muslim faction's muster field equivalent, I'm thinking something like "Nomad Camp", this would then be upgradable to the Ribat.
"Tribal Proving Grounds", perhaps? Although I like "Nomad Camp" too. :thinking:
I was thinking Third level stables as well as that would still allow the valour bonus at the fourth level.
Another very good point. (By the way, I have to admit that all this talk about them has rather suddenly caused me to want to actually try out the Turks once the next version is released.) :thumbsup:
Also as regards the Inn due to homelands etc there are going to be a lot of cases where this building is useless to certain factions in certain areas. So it would need to have a secondary function. I'm thinking small income plus happiness boost?
:bow:
Great idea, especially with the happiness boost. I always felt that Inns should improve a province's loyalty. :yes:
In regards to Hobilars I prefer part 1 from Scenario B, but parts 2,3,4 from Scenario A.
I'd probably go with Scenario A: For one thing, the stats seem a little more realistic, whereas I think the stats from Scenario B would make them a little too "uber". Also, by removing MS, it keeps Hobilars even more useful/relevant, as well as making the English roster a little more unique.
In regards to Hobilars I prefer part 1 from Scenario B, but parts 2,3,4 from Scenario A.
I present you with:
Scenario C
1) Make Hobilars rectuitable only in Britain. Perhaps limited to only Northumbria.
2) Make Hobilars an English specific (historical I believe) version of MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages and disadvantages over MS.
i.e:
Hobilar:
Charge: 8
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Armour: 2
Morale: 0
4) Recruit with first level Stables
I'm thinking more:
Scenario D
1) Make Hobilars recruitable only in Britain.
2) MS removed from the English roster, Hobilars replace MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages and disadvantages over MS.
4) Recruit with first level Stables
Stats are not set in stone, we can work on those. I think the Hobilars need to have some pros and cons vs the MS. Perhaps horse archer like speed? This is also why I gave them the 4 morale to offset the overall weakness of their stats vs the MS.
"Tribal Proving Grounds", perhaps? Although I like "Nomad Camp" too. :thinking:
That sounds a little too native American. Nomad Camp or "encampment" would reflect Bedouin or Berber camps etc. Gentlemen, we are talking camel recruitment facilities...
Great idea, especially with the happiness boost. I always felt that Inns should improve a province's loyalty. :yes:
:bow:
I present you with:
Scenario C
1) Make Hobilars rectuitable only in Britain. Perhaps limited to only Northumbria.
2) Make Hobilars an English specific (historical I believe) version of MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages and disadvantages over MS.
i.e:
Hobilar:
Charge: 8
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Armour: 2
Morale: 0
4) Recruit with first level Stables
I'm thinking more:
Scenario D
1) Make Hobilars recruitable only in Britain.
2) MS removed from the English roster, Hobilars replace MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages and disadvantages over MS.
4) Recruit with first level Stables
Yeah, Scenario D sounds a lot better. Perhaps they should be recruitable in Ireland as well, though (I thought they were quite common in Eire during the early medieval period)? Not a big deal to me either way, though -- so long as they're restricted to the Isles one way or the other.
Otherwise, looks good to me. ~:thumb:
Stats are not set in stone, we can work on those. I think the Hobilars need to have some pros and cons vs the MS. Perhaps horse archer like speed? This is also why I gave them the 4 morale to offset the overall weakness of their stats vs the MS.
Yeah, I was thinking they should be faster than MS. Better morale to help offset their lesser melee stats would be good too.
That sounds a little too native American. Nomad Camp or "encampment" would reflect Bedouin or Berber camps etc. Gentlemen, we are talking camel recruitment facilities...
Heh. That's true. I guess I don't automatically think Native Americans when I hear "tribe/tribal", but perhaps that comes from living in a state with (relatively) significant Ojibway and Sioux populations. :shrug:
But I digress. Nomad Camp works perfectly fine for me. ~:)
Yeh Scenario D seems to make the most sense.
Better morale to help offset their lesser melee stats would be good too.
Yeh, I agree with that, maybe something like:
Charge 6, Melee 3, Defence 0, Armour 2, Morale 3
I like Nomad Encampment, has the right sort of ring to it.
Sounds good to me, I'll try those stats as those are near enough to what I was thinking and I'll also make them available in Ireland (as I was going to do that anyway).
I've renamed most of the buildings that need it and I've done the Muster Field/Inn and Nomad Camp/Ribat line.
:bow:
*****************
V1.0.8 Beta released
*****************
I see that with the exception of Aleppo, all the Fatamid (Egyptian) provinces start with a Keep. I'm guessing it's supposed to be like that, but I didn't wish to assume.
Also: Love the description of the Nomad Camp. That was definitely a laugh-out-loud moment when I first noticed that. :laugh4:
I see that with the exception of Aleppo, all the Fatamid (Egyptian) provinces start with a Keep. I'm guessing it's supposed to be like that, but I didn't wish to assume.
Also: Love the description of the Nomad Camp. That was definitely a laugh-out-loud moment when I first noticed that. :laugh4:
The Keep is the base level castle. Forts serve as temporary structures and not castles. You can build some basic buildings under a fort and you can do some farming and mining but that's about it. I was thinking that most of the provinces in that region (Antioch, Tripoli, Jerusalem, Damascus) warranted more than just a Fort. Aleppo drew the short straw in ending up without one. So this is really a feature and not a bug as such (which is why I've moved these posts to the other thread).
:bow:
The Keep is the base level castle. Forts serve as temporary structures and not castles. You can build some basic buildings under a fort and you can do some farming and mining but that's about it. I was thinking that most of the provinces in that region (Antioch, Tripoli, Jerusalem, Damascus) warranted more than just a Fort. Aleppo drew the short straw in ending up without one. So this is really a feature and not a bug as such (which is why I've moved these posts to the other thread).
:bow:
I figured as much, but I wasn't sure. I agree that most of the provinces in the Levant should start with at least a Keep, so I'm not complaining. ~:)
Suggested change: Desert Archers cost 500 to recruit and 75 to support. Lowering support to 60 would be a wise move, otherwise there is not much point in training Desert Archers early on as you have Futuwwa which cost 600 to recruit and 75 to support.
Suggested change: Desert Archers cost 500 to recruit and 75 to support. Lowering support to 60 would be a wise move, otherwise there is not much point in training Desert Archers early on as you have Futuwwa which cost 600 to recruit and 75 to support.
Agreed. DA should probably a little cheaper.
Up to date with unit changes suggested so far. Most notably the suggested changes to Desert Archers and Hobilars have been added to v1.0.9.
Keep the ideas coming.
:bow:
Are Mosques meant to provide 0 in revenue?
Also it might be better if the Seljuks start with either Turcoman Horse or Desert Horse Archers rather than Steppe Horse Archers.
Are Mosques meant to provide 0 in revenue?
Grand Mosques provide an income, Mosques do not. Because they are both of the same line, the Mosques shows 0 income.
Also it might be better if the Seljuks start with either Turcoman Horse or Desert Horse Archers rather than Steppe Horse Archers.
That can be done.
:bow:
The English are making far to many Hobilars. I was fighting against them as France and in nearly eavery province they had 6+ units of Hobilars, but almost no other types of unit.
I've noticed that. They cannot be built in France anymore anyway, though the problem is more so the "unit choices" combined with actual unit availability. In vanilla MTW the AI spams them in Aquitaine anyway because it starts with the infrastructure. The remedy is to make other units available earlier and more cheaply than hobilars and to change the "unit choices" to make Hobilars less of a choice. At present the AI wants to build hobilars more than it wants to build Sergeants, Men at Arms or archers.
-Edit: I've adjusted it but only for "POVERTY_STRICKEN()". I'll see what that does. I've already fixed Royal Knights in this respect btw. The AI should not want to build those at all now and should instead train Knights which are cheaper and faster to build but more costly to support.
I've made some changes that basically restrict all early era ships to coastal waters only. I'm thinking that we need Early, High and Late era vessels with only the Late era fleets allowed into the deep sea regions, but for now we'll see how it goes.
I've made some changes that basically restrict all early era ships to coastal waters only. I'm thinking that we need Early, High and Late era vessels with only the Late era fleets allowed into the deep sea regions, but for now we'll see how it goes.
That's not a bad idea. Can it be done without having to depend on the Compass, though? Just curious.
Hmm... the compass is a prerequisite for the third and fourth level shipyards, it is not needed for the ships themselves. At present it does not have effect as the ships that require the third level shipyard are high/late era only anyway. If we wanted to tie shipbuilding to the compass and gunpowder events only then we would have to remove the era restrictions currently in place and use the events to determine when ships become available. e.g:
Dhow: From Early (Muslim/GH)
Baggala: Compass (Muslim/GH)
Boom: Gunpowder (Muslim/GH)
Longboat: From early (Danes only)
Barque: From early (Catholic/Orthodox - excluding Danes, Byzantine, Italians and Sicilians)
Caravel: Compass (Catholic/Orthodox - excluding Byzantine, Italians and Sicilians)
Cog: Gunpowder (Catholic/Orthodox - excluding Byzantine, Italians and Sicilians)
Carrack: Gunpowder (Catholic/Orthodox - excluding Byzantine, Italians and Sicilians)
Dromon: From early (Byzantine, Italians and Sicilians)
Galley: From early (Byzantine, Italians and Sicilians)
Firegally: Compass (Byzantine, Italians and Sicilians)
Wargalley: Compass (Byzantine, Italians and Sicilians)
Gungalley: Gunpowder (Byzantine, Italians and Sicilians)
Hi,
a suggestion that springs from the 1.0.9 beta playtest i did and need to post before i forget;
LOCAL UNITS - flavor versus stack balance and battlefield balance
CA gracefully provided a number of extra *local* units in the VI unitprod file that are used/barely used/not used.
This in my opinion should be taken advantage in order to use the new info pics/sprites to add units that are faction/homeland specific rather than units that can be recruited by *everyone* that occupies the regions they can be built.
This includes many cases you are aware of as the javelin units and the Slav Warrior units.
The problems with such units are;
1. They are very weak in the field and autocalc and get weaker as the ages change
2. The AI preffers them, so they affect stack composition. Its really very easy to fight stacks full of javelins or stack warriors and the *flavor* is not worth this downgrading - neither the *the player enjoys the javelins so put loads in anyway* argument.
3. The AI fails miserably to use them in the field. As with most hybrids the AI does not protect javelins with say spears against cavalry and their short range and skirmish use by the AI turns them into headless chikens once cavalry is unleashed.
You have addressed this problem with eastern hybrids - desert archers are very resilient to medium charger cavalry (at least in deserts) and only knights can round them up like sheep as in vanilla.
Consider addressing it for javs too - the vanilla Murabitins can be an excellent basis on which to base javelins; they should be units that are nearly immune to archer fire - large shield/pavise (but suffer from xbows and guns); units that can partially self resist cavalry (spear attribute that immunes them to horse charges) and also semidecent light infantry so they can be engaged by the AI and be felt.
Increasing javelin range and desreasing ammo should also help in making them more useful to the AI - by the time they empty their loads faster than usual (since longer range and less ammo increase the possibilities of that happening) the AI will use them in melee sooner than he does and in this way they may actually help turn the tide of battles.
4. Availability and upkeep. Two more achilees heels for these units. They are too easily recruitable and cost nothing to get and maintain. So the AI spams them as all know. By making them better fighters (see above) you can justify an increase in their cost and upkeep so that they are built as an icing to a besic force of spears/swords/cavalry/shooters by any faction that can use them and not their bread and butter.
In essence only units that are recruitable in 1 province work well in this way - say the Swabian swords (decent but from single province) or the Avars in vanilla (again decent only 1 province) or the Alans.
Units that need such treatments are the javelins, the slavs, woodsmen etc - the so called junk units.
!it burnsus!
It may just be me, but unit rosters need to be reworked in my opinion so we the AI always has some form Spear/Sword/Shooter/Cavalry combination. Units such as the "Woodsmen", "Archer", "Spearman", and "Medium Cavalry" (all just examples) could be considered the basic level of unit production for European states, modified by that factions exclusive units. As to the Arabic and African nations, I am not sure what one would consider "basic" among them - Desert Archers, Bedouin Camelry, Arab Infantry, and Spearmen?
It may just be me, but unit rosters need to be reworked in my opinion so we the AI always has some form Spear/Sword/Shooter/Cavalry combination. Units such as the "Woodsmen", "Archer", "Spearman", and "Medium Cavalry" (all just examples) could be considered the basic level of unit production for European states, modified by that factions exclusive units.
This ties in well with what I'm actually trying to achieve. I have renamed Archers to "Foresters" and I may extend the availability of woodsmen somewhat. At the moment, as you have hinted, there are gaps (some of which are huge) that need to be filled.
As to the Arabic and African nations, I am not sure what one would consider "basic" among them - Desert Archers, Bedouin Camelry, Arab Infantry, and Spearmen?
Yes, along with Berber Camels, Nubian Spearmen and Desert Horse Archers.
If you have any input as to the correct structure of the unit rosters I'd be glad to read it.
:bow:
Well I'm not happy with the tech tree as it stands so it's probable that in the next version I will be reverting an earlier model, more similar to 1.06. I will then probably work from there reassigning units and removing redundancy.
-Edit: Does anyone have 1.06 by any chance? :help:
I have 1.07, but not 1.06.
Gah... oh well back to the drawing board then. Thanks anyway.
I am open to suggestions for the improvement of the tech tree. As you know I tend to admit when I've got it wrong and I think I've got it pretty wrong this time. The huge gaps between units becoming available are very off-putting and the amount of useless buildings I find myself constructing equally so.
The only thing I like about the current setup is the ribat/nomad camp and the muster field/inn. I'll keep these as they are.
I think I will have to go for a tech tree roughly based on the former one, but with only one building per unit for infantry and two for cavalry and knights/elite cavalry.
Belisario
03-04-2009, 21:18
Do you mean recovering the tech tree based on Spearmaker, Swordsmith, Bowyer, Town Militias and Horse Breeder? I think you will meet again these matters:
Some factions would use all levels of buildings and some would not. This is often the case in vanilla MTW and RTW anyway. We will get around this because the upgrades themselves will be cheap, so if the AI does upgrade needlessly it won't be a big issue. Also the Master level valour bonuses are presently still intact.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.