Anno Domini

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Re Berengario I

Random traits work the same as in Vanilla despite the different turns/years because named characters live the same number of turns. With 2 turns/year they live for a "natural" amount of years while in Vanilla they were almost immortal.

Sincerely some bit of randomization is needed but I also notice that there could be something strange with chances.

I have to trust though that CA code produces reliable percentages and chances otherway we could throw the game out the window.
80% of a 1% chance should give 0.8% and if you see the log on how ancillaries are acquired (you can see the random roll there) I'd say it works.

I think here plays the theory that strange patterns are a lot easier to remember than normal patterns so they seems a lot far common than what they really are.

---

I am a bit concerned that their random number generation isn't all that solid, based on some testing. But we can't do much about that.

And it may just be bad luck with the cases I saw. I haven't played enough to really know yet, that was a first impression. I do know vanilla has some issues though (and you fixed a couple of my least favorites, I see, like bad taxman!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Re Berengario I

About the hereditary thing I fear it's something CA didn't code even if you can see foreign named characters in your family tree when you marry away one of your princesses to another faction leader or heir.

---

We had that in MTW, I think. Not that it mattered often. Would have been a nice twist.

Looks like you took out the benefits of marrying a charming princess though. My heir didn't get "wife is whatever" as they do in vanilla. Results in greater fertility. Most of the princess stuff is wasted in any case. They just don't "happen" often enough as it stands. A couple adoptions leaves room for 2 kids, and at least one is apt to be a boy. That's 1 princess per generation in about average. That's a lot fewer than generals. Don't understand why CA spent all that effort on princess traits when they rarely are significant in play.

Now, if they'd thrown in more Lamarkian passing along of traits from both parents... And given us a few more princesses... Then we could be breeding real generals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Re Berengario I

"+1 from popularity" is a CA thing, blame those aussies, mobilitate is mine though :P

---

Darned Aussies! I thought it was you because it's not consistent. And I saw it on a title you added. (Think the one for Zenova.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vonsch

Looks like you took out the benefits of marrying a charming princess though. My heir didn't get "wife is whatever" as they do in vanilla. Results in greater fertility.

---

Princesses have expanded traits in AD, a lot more deep and consistent than Vanilla.

AD has traits for both named characters and princesses designed upon the seven deadly sins (do you remember the "Seven" movie? Those ones) and the seven heavenly virtues. Those traits are very close to the medieval mentality and they replace most of the CA original ones as some of them seemed really out of place in a medieval setting.

If you marry a "vicious" princess you could have really nasty sons (and other nasty effects). Have a look at them in EDCT ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Re Berengario I

Princesses have expanded traits in AD, a lot more deep and consistent than Vanilla.

AD has traits for both named characters and princesses designed upon the seven deadly sins (do you remember the "Seven" movie? Those ones) and the seven heavenly virtues. Those traits are very close to the medieval mentality and they replace most of the CA original ones as some of them seemed really out of place in a medieval setting.

If you marry a "vicious" princess you could have really nasty sons (and other nasty effects). Have a look at them in EDCT ;)

---

Yes, I saw the additions of the 7s. But didn't realize that the vanilla charm trigger for fertility was gone. Not a big deal, just an observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vonsch

Yes, I saw the additions of the 7s. But didn't realize that the vanilla charm trigger for fertility was gone. Not a big deal, just an observation.

---

Fertility is there but it's not linked to just one trait but to both health and behavioural traits. A "lusty" woman can bring you some headaches but also more children for example.

CTD trying to load from an autosave, but that's probably a CA bug. Or maybe not, won't load it from a restart either. Haven't seen this before.

Can load an earlier quicksave fine.

Don't use autosave, MTW2 corrupts savegames when it saves during script execution. I already have uploaded in the AD subforum on TWC a new campaign_script file which disables saving during the execution of some scripts with long durations (like the movement ones).

The best advice is to save often and on your turn when you're ready to press the next turn button.

I note that the banquet bill ends up as a negative income, rather than an expense. Seems odd. Makes the financial overview confusing. It does seem to factor into the diplomacy/tribute income from my calculation. When I saw that negative I wondered what on earth was going on.


I see England as "House of Normandy-Anjou" on the diplomatic overview, but the towns are "Plantagenet towns." Is this intended?

And my Portugee are "Afonsine towns" but it's "House of Borgonha-Afonsina." Meanwhile, Spain is "Town of House of Jimenez-Borgona" on the town and "House of Jiminez-Borgona" on the overview (better match, but inconsistent phrasing with "town of..." versus "... town"). Lots more examples.

I know, I know, "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." So, I have a small mind. I can learn it and live with it, but
it's a bit confusing to the player who hasn't learned the connections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vonsch

it's a bit confusing to the player who hasn't learned the connections.

---

The names are accurate (with the limits of the game), the descriptions are consinstent with the terms most widely used in historical texts (like Borgonha-Afonsina and Normandy-Anjou as dinasties and afonsine and plantagenet as adjectives) and the "links" to be understood are half of the fun of every game based on REAL history and not fantasy middle-age.

For example is house of Normandy-Anjou because with the death of Henri I, son of William the Conqueror, there was a civil war (once of the many) from which the daughter of Henry I, Mathilde (also called Empress Maud) emerged as the winner. She was married with Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, who was nicknamed "Plantagenet" from the broom flower which he took as his emblem, hence the name of the line of English kings descended from him.

So the english royal dinasty from that moment on was technically House of Normandy-Anjou and the term "plantagenet" was used to refer the english kings.

Wikipedia is your friend and anyway there's always FPS to play with if historical games are confusing.

Perhaps you might simply name them so and so Plantagenet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Re Berengario I

Wikipedia is your friend and anyway there's always FPS to play with if historical games are confusing.

---

Now, Re, if you want to insult people testing your mod, you're going to end up with few testers and players. I SAID I can handle it. And I'm not ignorant of history, just not a medieval specialist (and my specialty is literature anyway). I don't recall ever reading of it referred to as "Normandy-Anjou." As House Plantagenet, yes. That's not to say I have a bullet-proof memory.

Quote:

---

So the english royal dinasty from that moment on was technically House of Normandy-Anjou and the term "plantagenet" was used to refer the english kings.

---

While we're doing searches, try searching on "dinasty."

Oh, and for the record, Wikipedia on "normandy-anjou." Now try searching under "Plantagenet" and tell me which is considered "standard."

I suspect your position on this derives from history books written in other than English. "I've heard "House of Anjou" on occasion, but don't recall "Normandy-Anjou," even if that's arguably the technically correct form. When I alpha-tested Hundred Years War some decade or so ago, I believe it was Plantagenet there, but may have been "of Anjou."

And if you're arguing for using the original, why "House of Borgonha-Afonsina?" Since when is "House of" Portuguese?

I just checked the only history I have close to hand, Seward's "The Hundred Years War." That's a bit late in the period, but "Normandy-Anjou" isn't referenced at all. It uses Plantagenet. Mostly neither though. The royalty is referred by Christian names on the whole. The one history of medieval Spain I have (Joeseph F. O'Callghan) doesn't bring up either. But it uses "Burgundian Dynasty" for Borgonha-Afonsina.

\
My point stands. It's confusing because of the use of two different terms in two different places. English is very unshy about turning nouns into adjectives and vice versa. Picking one is completely acceptable. History mostly has picked one. I'm not bringing this up because I don't like the names you chose, only because I found the use of multiple different names confusing. My recommendation is pick one, stick with it.

If you're okay with creating confusion with your player-base, let it stand.

My comment was meant as constructive criticism based on my experience of the game, which I believe you have been requesting. If you'd prefer that I don't pass along feedback, say so. I can stop.

I like the concept of the mod, a lot. I'm just trying to help you polish it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vonsch

My point stands.

(...)

My comment was meant as constructive criticism

---

If we're discussing here to have a point, take all the points you want.

My mod isn't a tesis on medieval naming conventions otherway I'd use latin titles like "Henricus, Anglorum Rex, Normandiae Dux, Andecavis Comites" which was the actual title of the plantagenet kings (like Henry II) on official documents of the time.

Would that be less confusing? I don't think so.

It's a bit confusing because in MTW2 we have to give dinasties more than a name both because the time-span is a huge (otherway I'd just stick with the House of Normandy of William the Conqueror, who wasn't a plantagenet or angevin at all) while I'd try to use adjectives where adjectives could be used (like with armies, towns, and fleet).

Actually both the titles and the adjectives are pretty consinstent even if they're different. I'd use Army of House of Normandy-Anjou if the term "plantagenet" wouldn't exist, but since it existed I used it because it sounds a lot better than the first. To be historically more correct every army, fleet, or town would have a local name like "Army of the Duchy of Normandie", "Fleet of the City of Calais", etc but it would result in a greater mess (if it would feasible at all in MTW2, which I doubt).

In middle age there were about 3 different Burgundian dinasties, the burgundian one, which was a branch of the capetians, the castillan one and the portoguese one. That's why using Burgundian just for the portoguese one is confusing. It would not be if it would be a game encompassing just Portugal, but MTW2 is not.

All, true, Re. You made the argument that "Normandy-Anjou" was more correct or accepted or something. I simply pointed out the holes in that. But that wasn't my original thrust anyway.

I've said, and re-iterate, use whatever name you like. My only issue is and was that the lack of consistency in the same faction's naming on the diplomatic overview and the towns is confusing to me (that much is fact) and in my opinion will also be to many or most others.

I agree that the proliferation of Burgundian dynasties is confusing. Was then too. I wasn't suggesting you make the Portuguese dynasty "Burgundian." I was simply pointing out that that's the modern reference to that dynasty. And pointing out the inconsistency of your position on authenticity with using some Portuguese spelling mixed in with some English. (And, again, the confusion generated by using one term for the towns, another for the faction "name.")

But I leave it to you. It's your mod.

Jeez... can we agree that both are more acceptable, within the structure of this mod, than "England", and leave it at that?

Hear, I know there are inconsistencies, some are the best compromise we can achieve as we cannot modify how the program works, just the data it uses.

A lot worse inconsistency is the name of the towns, where I did try to use how the city is named by its inhabitants of the time, but of course it did come out very far from perfect (always better than the english names as Adembroski pointed out though).

Summin' it all, I'd like to have all the names, titles and so forth in latin for the occidental lands, greek for the lands of the "byzantine" commonwealth and arab for the islamic lands.

I can, with some faults, cover the first two but I'm really at a loss on the third, especially as I'd have to transliterate the words.

It would have a lot more consinstency all around and would really smell of Middle Age. It would freak out a lot of players I fear though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Re Berengario I

Hear, I know there are inconsistencies, some are the best compromise we can achieve as we cannot modify how the program works, just the data it uses.

A lot worse inconsistency is the name of the towns, where I did try to use how the city is named by its inhabitants of the time, but of course it did come out very far from perfect (always better than the english names as Adembroski pointed out though).

Summin' it all, I'd like to have all the names, titles and so forth in latin for the occidental lands, greek for the lands of the "byzantine" commonwealth and arab for the islamic lands.

I can, with some faults, cover the first two but I'm really at a loss on the third, especially as I'd have to transliterate the words.

It would have a lot more consinstency all around and would really smell of Middle Age. It would freak out a lot of players I fear though.

---

I see the future here... once I release this DL mod someone's gonna be upset at it's execution. That's worse than the real world... cannon vs. non-cannon, I'm going to get a DL fan that doesn't like the books I chose to be my prime source material and he's going to go off on me... but I think I'm the type that'll just say "then make your own damn mod" and be done with it.

Is AD the most played mod for mtw2 at the moment?

i find it rather difficult to get an idea of what the community as a whole is up to. i was playing RTR for over a year when i found out about europa barbarorum, wich was being run by the founders of rtr, and is a far better mod. I dont want to make that mistake again.

I don't know if AD is the most played mod at the moment, it's one of the most downloaded for sure and if you liked the gameplay of EB I think, but I can biased here so everyone is free to contradict me, that the gameplay of AD could suit your tastes.

Since there seems to be an informal open forum here, Berengar, may I ask (rather than infer criticism) what your reasons were for not including Sweden and Norway as factions, in particular. Although the point stands with any lesser faction really.

I think it can be argued that even if the actual existence of those particular factions at the game start date was a bit rocky, they did exist in a recognisable form and continued to be very important in later history.

Obviously you have automatically handled the issue of smaller factions by the use of the rebels, which is quite satisfactory- indeed rather enjoyable, but still I was wondering how the choice on playable factions had been made. Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hross af Guttenburg

Since there seems to be an informal open forum here, Berengar, may I ask (rather than infer criticism) what your reasons were for not including Sweden and Norway as factions, in particular.

---

The main reason is because I still not added any new faction.

There will be new factions in future, probably when all the rest of the gameplay will be almost settled down, and yes, I already have in mind which they will and no, I won't open a discussion about them.

Still the crowns of Norway and Sweden are already in. AD is using dinasties not countries which really didn't exist in middle-age as we intend them today (Kalmar Union a brilliant example of it).

considering the enormous loading times, adding extra factions would be a killer for the low°end pc users among us.

btw, because the titles count as retinue additions, they are limited to a number of 8 total. If they were to be vices/virtues, the number of available titles to a king would not be limited. rights?

I'm not really sure about it because right now rebels are subfactions both in complexity than size so I don't think it would have an enormous performance hit transforming most of them in regular factions, actually it could even speed some things up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Re Berengario I

It would have a lot more consinstency all around and would really smell of Middle Age. It would freak out a lot of players I fear though.

---

The Middle Ages smelled like dead pigs, rotten meat and severed appendiges.
I hate all of those smells, let alone all of those together. However, I love Anno Domini.

@ Re Berengario I & mod team:
Love the work that has gone in to this mod so far. Europe is really portrayed well but sine you´re closing in on the province limit my question is: Why are the Levant, Fatmid- and Moor-holdings and Africa still so badly portrayed? Are u going to correct this in future releases? Now they are just marginal fotnotes. Thx in advance!

@Djurre

Royal titles will stay as ancillaries because I want a limit to them.

@PseRamesses

Badly portrayed? Corrections?

Which, what and, most important, why? Generic affirmations doesn't help me at all.

Take in count that there are also limits and choices have to be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Re Berengario I

@PseRamesses
Badly portrayed? Corrections?
Which, what and, most important, why? Generic affirmations doesn't help me at all.
Take in count that there are also limits and choices have to be made.

---

Sorry if I seemed ambigous (sp?). I meant province distributions. Central Europe is littered with provinces but not much has been altered from Gibralatar to Baghdad.

Because there weren't so many cities and populations as in Central Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Re Berengario I

Because there weren't so many cities and populations as in Central Europe.

---

In some parts of the mentioned area I agree with your statement but this is weakening the Fatmids and Moors in gameplay and that´s what I´m talking about here. When it comes to the Fatmids sphere on the map atleast one settlement should be added in lower Egypt, one more in the delta area, atleast two more in the Levant area. In reality the Fatmids could field huge numbers of troops. Also their trade incomes from middle Africa, Africas horn and India isn´t in the game since the map doesn´t cover it, same with the Turks eastern trade revenues. Therefore they have to be compensated for it in other ways, maybee a new trade-structure could compensate for this or a bolstered internal trade revenue.

I don't add settlements because Fatimids need troops, I add settlements if they existed and were historically relevant more than others.

Other mods look at faction balance, AD looks at a historical perspective, within the limit of the engine and the number of provinces we could play with.

For example the only relevant settlement that could be added in the delta of Nile is Damietta, which was more a fortress than a huge bustling city though.

If I'll have a free slot I'll add it, if there will be more relevant settlements to add elsewhere I won't despite Fatimids gameplay or whatelse.

In reality Fatimids could muster a huge number of troops when they were able to reconquer the syrian lands. Before this (which happened at Sal'al'din times) they were kicked repeatedly in the butt by a bunch of crusaders.

Turks have their eastern owning (look just how much money Tabriz could create) and also Alexandria is one of the richest city in the map and usually Fatimids is one of the richest faction in my games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Re Berengario I

I don't add settlements because Fatimids need troops, I add settlements if they existed and were historically relevant more than others.

---

Do what you want, it´s your mod. My statements are not critisism mere suggestions. There is no arguing that a vital part of the Fatmid sphere of interest and source of incomes are not present due to the limit of the strat-map. This is why I think they should be compensated for this in some way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Re Berengario I

Other mods look at faction balance, AD looks at a historical perspective, within the limit of the engine and the number of provinces we could play with.

---

Hmm, this is not quite true m8. Ex: you have several settlements, like in Scandinavia, that was so small (1-3000 people) that I easily could find 50 settlements in other places that was far more significant than some dirthole in the north. (Remember, I´m Swedish and have an extensive knowledge of this area) All I´m suggesting is historical balance, nothing more.

That Tabriz and Alexandria makes a lot of money is IMHO not sufficent enough for the Turkish "abscence" of half their lands and the trade revenues there from. Same thing with the Fatmids. In this regard the Moors are better off.

My reply wasn't a response to criticism.

I just affirmed the logic behind the AD mod, because other mods have different logics (not worse or better, just different, to not be misunderstood).

I think people need to know things clearly before playing :D.

About the size of settlements in the current version of AD they weren't correctly balanced and researched.

And significance also means historical or strategical significance. For example Asqalon (or Ascalon in english) was just a hole in the desert but very important to close the Palestine from Fatimids attacks from the south.

You don't know how much I would like to have a huger map with Persia in and 400 provinces to play with. But because this is not possibile until I'll manage to corrupt some CA developer I have to make some choices.

In the upcoming version I reached the province limit (mostly put in middle east btw ;)) and still I'm very unsatisfied because I would like to have put into some others but I wouldn't like to take out others ones.

So compromises are needed, and compromises are always questionable otherway they wouldn't be compromises.