KOTF mod

In keeping with what existed in the previous installments of the Throne Room PBMs, it seems we will certainly need to add our own mod above/over the vanilla LTC mod.

Therefore, I propose we list here the different things we may need to change so that we can get the ball rolling that much faster :

1- making RGB availables (along the lines of LotR for the costs but with lower availability)
2- reviewing of the name file for France for added flavour

That is all I can see for now but you're welcome to add to the list.

As for point #2, could someone please upload the name file so that I may start reviewing it ?

Did you catch this post of Cecil's, Tristan?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...05&postcount=8

I don't suppose anyone can make the minimod for the game? I can figure it out if needed although that may delay things a couple days...

I don't have enough time at home to make the mini-mod but looking at LotR-mod it seems that one would have to first reduce the upkeep of bodyguards in export_desc_unit.txt file. Maybe copy the generic North European entry to make a new entry for French bodyguards so that only we get the cheap BGs. Otherwise AI might spam them.

Also add rows to file export_descr_building.txt so that you can recruit the aforementioned BGs from all of the settlement walls / castles.

Edit: For both riding and walking bodyguards.

I'd volunteer for the minimod but I lack the expertise required

Ask FactionHeir. He's a bloody genius with that stuff.

Maybe he will help.

PM sent to FH.

Thx AG, (why didn't I think of this ? :wall:)

No probs. :2thumbsup:

I was the one who modded down the cost of the RBGs for LotR. I'd be happy to do it for KotF as well.

Cool, then there remains only to mod the names...

I've started modifying the files pointed at by Cecil in the OOC thread, almost through with it but a contact with FH hints that I may need to mod the name strings bin file.

Could someone post said file ? I haven't reinstalled M2TW yet...

Tristan, this guide seems to have everything you need, also check out the utility linked at the bottom.

names.txt from LTC Gold, you don't need the .bin, game creates it automatically from names.txt

I would like to propose an addition to the KotF mod.

During the debate between LTC and DLV, I noticed that the feature people seemed to like most about DLV was 'Zappa's Death Mod', which caused characters to die at any age from 50 to 110.

After looking at some research on twcenter.net, it seems this is done by editing three variables in 'descr_campaign_db.xml'. I haven't been able to look at the file in question yet, but it seems we can just include a modified version of the file with KotF mod and have it overwrite the default file in LTC.

I would like permission to contact Zappa, who pioneered this discovery, and ask for his permission to include his work in our mod, as well as ask him if there could be any problems integrating it into LTC.

Is this acceptable to everyone/Zim?

I'd definitely like that. :yes:

Just to clarify, Zappa was able to deduce the formula for how likely a character is to die once they reach the 'dieable' age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zappa

CDpY = (max_age_before_death - max_age) / (max_age - old_age) * 100%

With the latest numbers that would be:

181-180 / 180 - 40 = 1 / 140 = 0.7% chance of death per year

The default numbers are:

105-90 / 90 - 60 = 15 / 30 = ~50% chance of death per year... In other words, the vast majority will not make it past 62 years old, which is exactly what we have been seeing in the vanilla settings.

---

There's also some talk that the time scale a mod uses might make a difference. DLV, for which this research was conducted, progresses at 2 turns per year. LTC uses 1.5 turns per year. We could test this ourselves, but it's something I would ask Zappa about if possible.

The thing to remember is that while some, maybe most characters will live longer, some will die sooner than 61. We could use DLV's default range of 50-110, Zappa's preference of 18-100 (Not as bad as it sounds, each character only has a 1.22% of dieing per year) or whatever range we want. I wouldn't want to decide that by committee though, and would prefer DLV's default. Death at fifty would mean 68 turns of playtime if he comes of age at 61, which is pretty good.

Also, fun fact: A character who comes of age at 16 and lives to 110 lives for 188 turns. That's longer than the entirety of WotS, KotR and LotR!

Why do we want this mod?

Assuming you're refering to my proposal, it's to make the age at which characters die less predictable. Right now the parameters are set up so that once characters reach age 60, they have a 50% chance of dieing each year, which is why you hardly see anyone live to 62.

If we change the three parameters to DLV's standard, this would allow characters to die at any age from 50 to 110.

This allows for some interesting RP scenarios, such as sons dieing of natural causes before their fathers, which historically could happen. Simply put, I think things will be more interesting if we don't know that our characters are going to die at 61, give or take a year.

EDIT: Experimental data from the link I provided is pretty interesting, and I'd be happy to do some tests myself if people think it's necessary.

There is a file - the descr_strat - which is read only once at the beginning of the game, but sets up the AIs starting forces and income. I don't know what Zim is planning regarding initial use of the console, but I wonder if we should either edit that file or use the console to buff up the AI forces and money at the start of the game?

With these games, we usually want to avoid rushing for OOC reasons, but there are strong IC incentives for expansion. Moreover, there is the imbalancing effect of us starting with a lot of RBGs. Fortunately, France is one of the few factions where starting off with a bunch of hotheaded knights has rather a nice historical flavour. However, RBGs are very powerful units in M2TW: they are heavy cavalry, which is uber anyway and scarce in the early period (and apparently can even dismount in Lusted's mod), but also have 2 Hit points and regenerate over time. If France starts with an extra dozen of those units at the start, it would have a big edge even if played by the AI let alone a bunch of humans striving to perform at the top of their game. I don't know what was done about about that in WotB, but some buffing of the AI might be in order. Perhaps we should increase the starting AI forces to compensate - e.g. if have one RBG, they should at least get a unit of knights or some such? But my inclination would be to buff them even more, so that their starting garrisons are at EB like levels making an initial rush is costly. e.g. rebel cities should have strong half stacks and real factions several full stacks (if you are going to start the 100 years war, build a few stacks first...).

I dont think it matters whether we buff up the starting forces by using the console or the descr_strat. But editing the file might make life a little easier when it comes to buffing the AI income. In KotR, we ended up manually giving the AI lots of money every turn using the console. This was flexible, but a little tedious. If we edit the king's purses for AI factions at the beginning to raise their default income, we can reduce some of the routine adjustments and save the console for finetunning.

I'd be willing to make the changes to the descr-strat in consultation with Zim and he could trial it before we kick off. I guess TC grappled with this issue when starting off WotB, so it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on this.

Interesting idea. I one-off increase of AI forces in Frances vicinity might cause balancing problems, but if it's for the english provinces in France then it shouldn't be a problem. Those will be almost completely surrounded by us anyway.

I definitely like the idea of editing the king's purse for AI factions. That would be easier to implement, and I suspect the AI would also have an easier time "seeing" what is going on; it might make better use of the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I'd be willing to make the changes to the descr-strat in consultation with Zim and he could trial it before we kick off. I guess TC grappled with this issue when starting off WotB, so it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on this.

---

Expansion was difficult to control in LotR (WotB is a different game that I have no part in, even though it is based on my LotR rule set). Early rapid expansion was expected and did occur a bit faster than I wanted. I eventually popped an event which spawned several large rebel armies to slow down this expansion, which effectively halted the expansion, but there was a lot of griping about the artificial nature of it. After that, expansion continued steadily, but it never really reached KotR levels. The AI in SS 4.1 was decent enough to keep inflicting regular (if infrequent) losses on us, and cities were lost and avatars killed without me doing anything to interfere in it. LotR was far, far more lethal than KotR or WotS, even if you exclude the intentional deaths, and it never had anything remotely like the Cataclysm.

I think the key to controlling expansion is not to do it by pumping the AI, but by creating mechanisms such that the players themselves reign it in. The proposed rules for KotF include some adjustments that might work towards that. As long as the mod itself has a decent AI (mods that give the AI extra cash every turn help here greatly), I think it will be fine. There are some players here who have no problems provoking civil wars and being nasty when their enemies are most vulnerable... :creep:

Lusteds AI, using LTC Gold, is far superior to that of SS4.1's, due to the fact Lusteds AI is designed around the changes made in LTC. Starting garrisons are pretty much nonexistent, and bodyguards can/will get mowed down by standard spearmen (face first charges can lose you a 1/3rd of your Bodyguard), let alone the advanced spearmen. Also, the AI is fairly aggressive in the beginning, and will seize nearby provinces almost immediately, and by turn 5 will have at least one or two full stacks of it's own.

The Throne Room has a bit of experience with LTC Gold, via my test PBEM 'Vassals & Valor'. It didn't last very long, but I did get two impressions that reiterate YLC's point.

1. When Ramses besieged Caen, the AI responded by having the garrison sally while moving almost the entire garrison of Angers to strike him from behind. Since it was Ramses it didn't work, but I was impressed regardless.

2. I also noticed that the AI was expanding pretty rapidly, although I can't remember any specifics.

Good, I suspect that combined with the game rules will be enough to keep the game interesting until the end without too many problems.

Now that I think about it though, we did retake France in less than ten turns. But that's parially because the V&V system resulting in the player faction gaining a bonus to it's income, and it may be that having to vote on expansion will also slow things down. Still, I don't think econ's suggestions could hurt us. The AI still needs all the help it can get!

One way to give the AI better odds is to reduce the horse-based units allowed in our stacks. We had a limit in LOTR, and it could be pared down, especially at the beginning.

That's true, but at the same time we are playing the French. Mounted knights should play a big role.

Perhaps if we include RBG's as heavy cavalry, for say the first 30/40 years.

That's a good idea. So the first conquests might involve more than one RGB in a stack. Increase the chance of someone getting off-ed early on. It also provides more opportunities for stories where multiple characters are involved.

Thanks, TinCow, that will help a lot. :yes:

Will you need to wait util you get Kingdoms to be able to modify the file?

So we have better French names and lowered upkeep and increased recruitability for rgbs being worked on. The age mod sounds fine. Is the general consensus that LTC already helps the AI enough? Adding a couple (or more) thousand to the King's Purse is easy enough.

I vote we give it a trial run (maybe one Chancellowship period) without any additional funds. We'll see how well we're doing and adjust accordingly.

That's more or less what happened with KOTR, right? That's fine, although I for one would be thrilled if the AI was actually defeating us in a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rowan

Tristan, this guide seems to have everything you need, also check out the utility linked at the bottom.

names.txt from LTC Gold, you don't need the .bin, game creates it automatically from names.txt

---

Thanks...

There remains only to mod the descr_strat.txt file if someone would kindly upload it...

Can't seem to be able to download the utility... too bad... Scratch that, got it :2thumbsup:

The age mod seems like a good idea.

As for the ongoing discussion, then any trial run would be excellent as it will more than likely allow me to get a copy of Kingdoms before we start.

Anything modification that we can do once and then leave the game to it's own devices is highly preferred in my opinion.

Anything that reduces admin work or artificial modification of the game also reduces the chance of errors. That's a must.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

I vote we give it a trial run (maybe one Chancellowship period) without any additional funds. We'll see how well we're doing and adjust accordingly.

---

We can only edit the descr_strat before the game starts, so any adjustment later would have to be via the console. That's fine, it's just that editing the file saves a bit of donkey work for Zim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Is the general consensus that LTC already helps the AI enough? Adding a couple (or more) thousand to the King's Purse is easy enough.

---

I think it is your call, but personally I dont see any downside to giving the AI cash. AFAIK, we've only lost one PBM to the AI in the throne room and I would be happy to see that increase. In KotR, I ended up giving about 10k to the AI each turn and I don't think we noticed it. I suspect it just stopped the AI lands being barren of units. It was the console spawned AI stacks that people noticed and even then, we mowed them down. Personally, I'd give an extra 5k or whatever to the King's Purse, so you can forget about it for a bit. Then adjust up (or down) via the console as you see fit. If our dozen or so extra RBGs feel like cornered rats at the beginning the game, it would be a plus in my view, but I doubt it will happen. Lusted's good at game balancing, but his mod was not balanced for the player to start off with lots of free RBGs.

5,000 sounds reasonable enough, and this is one of those rare bits of modding I can do on my own. :clown:

Zim, once you've edited the descr_strat file, could you send it over to me so that I can make the necessary adjustments to the names of the starting characters ?

So that we don't end up with two mismatched files...

All right, 5,000 seems like a good compromise. If we need more, we'll just add it later on via the consule. :yes: As has already been said, it'll be nice to be challenged by the AI for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

All right, 5,000 seems like a good compromise. If we need more, we'll just add it later on via the consule. :yes: As has already been said, it'll be nice to be challenged by the AI for a while.

---

hmph!!

5 grand. Come on guy's, have we forgotten already just how ridiculous we had to assist the AI in KotR's? I haven't played this mod, but I'd love to be struggling until even mid game with this PBM.

Giving the AI a nice fat 10k right from the beginning would be a little more concerning no?

I'd love for "us" as a playing group to be "concerned" about the AI. It would add an element of fear in something we have no control over...if it all gets too much then we can drop it back.

I just think we are trying to play it safe. Which we shouldn't do in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rowan

Tristan, this guide seems to have everything you need, also check out the utility linked at the bottom.

names.txt from LTC Gold, you don't need the .bin, game creates it automatically from names.txt

---

How did you find the LTC names.txt ? All I can find is the names.txt.strings.bin

I'm encountering some slight problems... While doing everything the guide asks me to, I can't seem to have the files match up in the utility...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I just think we are trying to play it safe. Which we shouldn't do in my opinion.

---

Seconded... better be sorry than safe (at least when it concerns M2TW)...

Most players have proven themselves highly above average when fighting the AI in previous games and I think the AI will need all the help we can give it... Money is a good start :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

Seconded... better be sorry than safe (at least when it concerns M2TW)...

Most players have proven themselves highly above average when fighting the AI in previous games and I think the AI will need all the help we can give it... Money is a good start :2thumbsup:

---

HIGHLY above average is perhaps even being too modest. It's amazing what you can accomplish when the pressure is on. I did things in KotR that I never dreamed of doing in normal game play.

I shocked the hell out of myself a few times.

It's an advanced group of players...and if some can't cut the standard then it creates a good level of differentiation between players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

HIGHLY above average is perhaps even being too modest. It's amazing what you can accomplish when the pressure is on. I did things in KotR that I never dreamed of doing in normal game play.

I shocked the hell out of myself a few times.

It's an advanced group of players...and if some can't cut the standard then it creates a good level of differentiation between players.

---

I have no idea where I stand really - maybe somewhere in the middle. I've beaten well over 2000 soldiers with 240 horse archers, I've beaten back well over 8000 mongol troops with a thousand poorly equipped militia in several sieges, yet I've had entire armies crumple under the weight of massed infantry charges, from being outnumbered with little in the way of support, and losing to superior ranged fire, always when I have a deficit in medium cavalry.

If the AI is able to catch me with superior troops, troops that have an inherent advantage over mine, and in superior numbers, and I have little in the way of cavalry or swordsmen, then the battle will either be Pyrrhic or will result in a devastating loss if I do not have terrain advantage.

Maybe thats the norm :shrug:, but I don't think it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

I have no idea where I stand really - maybe somewhere in the middle. I've beaten well over 2000 soldiers with 240 horse archers, I've beaten back well over 8000 mongol troops with a thousand poorly equipped militia in several sieges, yet I've had entire armies crumple under the weight of massed infantry charges, from being outnumbered with little in the way of support, and losing to superior ranged fire, always when I have a deficit in medium cavalry.

If the AI is able to catch me with superior troops, troops that have an inherent advantage over mine, and in superior numbers, and I have little in the way of cavalry or swordsmen, then the battle will either be Pyrrhic or will result in a devastating loss if I do not have terrain advantage.

Maybe thats the norm :shrug:, but I don't think it is.

---

No need to worry. You're in the highly advanced category YLC!! :balloon2:

What I want though, is for us to worry about the AI. That would make a nice change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Thanks, TinCow, that will help a lot. :yes:

Will you need to wait util you get Kingdoms to be able to modify the file?

---

If someone gives me the files I can modify them now, but I won't have the files myself until the game arrives, nor will I be able to test it to see if it works.

Regarding giving the AI money, it might be worth looking for a mod. SS 4.1 used a system that gave the AI money based on the number of provinces it owned. 5,000 extra is a huge amount for a single province faction, but it's not much at all for a faction with 10 provinces. SS 4.1 scaled the AI bonus, so that the AI was always receiving enough to keep its armies strong, regardless of what size it was. I was hoping that LTC included that script as well, but if it doesn't perhaps there's a way for us to add that on as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

No need to worry. You're in the highly advanced category YLC!! :balloon2:

What I want though, is for us to worry about the AI. That would make a nice change.

---

If troop quality is equal, and terrain isn't hugely favorable to one side or the other, and the Lusted AI has 2 to 1 ratio in numbers, it can be a flip of the coin sometimes for who wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

If someone gives me the files I can modify them now, but I won't have the files myself until the game arrives, nor will I be able to test it to see if it works.

Regarding giving the AI money, it might be worth looking for a mod. SS 4.1 used a system that gave the AI money based on the number of provinces it owned. 5,000 extra is a huge amount for a single province faction, but it's not much at all for a faction with 10 provinces. SS 4.1 scaled the AI bonus, so that the AI was always receiving enough to keep its armies strong, regardless of what size it was. I was hoping that LTC included that script as well, but if it doesn't perhaps there's a way for us to add that on as well.

---

Campaign Map:
-1.5 Year per turn, and dates shown on campaign map again
-Building construction times and cost increased so as to fit in best with 1.5 year per turn campaign.
-Unit recruitment changed. Units now replenish slower and elite units have smaller recruitment pools. Also units no longer recruited from walls or from castle upgrade buildings.
-AI money script added in that scales according to difficulty. Ai only gets money boosts on H and VH difficulties, and then more on VH than on H. The money boost is also subtle and helps make the ai more challenging.
-Tweaks to Guilds which result in more varied Guilds in the campaign. There will no longer be the Thieves Guild spam the ai does in vanilla.
-English Armoured Sergeants, Dismounted Broken Lances, Dismounted Gothic Knights and Dismounted Mongol cavalry units added into the campaign
-AI recruits better armies. They are more balanced and have more higher tier units in them.
-More variance in the date at which the Mongols and Timurids appear.
-Merchants make more money.
-Inquisitors made less powerful.
-Increased movement distance for armies and agents.
-More recruitment slots in castles.
-More free upkeep slots in cities.
-Recruitable generals(including dismounted generals for some western factions).
-Some unused dismounted merc units added into the campaigns
-Pirate and Rebel spawn rates reduced.
-New population levels required for each level of settlement.
-Distance to captial penalty increased slightly.
-Religious Unrest increased.
-Corruption increased.
-Income from trade increased, and population growth from trade decreased.
-Population growth from farms increased.

I suggest we play on VH then :yes:

Based on that, if we play on VH I don't think we need to modify the King's Purse at all.

excellent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Based on that, if we play on VH I don't think we need to modify the King's Purse at all.

---

I fear that would not be enough considering SS had the same system IIRc and we steamrolled it all the same.

Perhaps giving the AI a boost of 5000 fl. (or whatever sum we deem reasonable) should be enough now that this has been brought to light.

Antoher solution if the GM is up to it is for him to manage all (or France neighbours' factions through the hotseat commands) so as to give the AI some good starting positions/ balanced stacks.

And why can't the GM even effectively take control of AI enemy factions once war is declared ?

The problem being that when on the offense, battles would have to be autoresolved on our part with the risks that entails.

Maybe limit the GM control to agents/cities/recruitment management, leaving the moves up the AI, thus mimicking the possible lack of communication between the governors and their generals in the field.

Just a thought.

The ball is in Zim's camp. :juggle2:

If we chose such a system, I may even offer Zim to be Assistant GM to help him manage the work load this would create.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

I fear that would not be enough considering SS had the same system IIRc and we steamrolled it all the same.

Perhaps giving the AI a boost of 5000 fl. (or whatever sum we deem reasonable) should be enough now that this has been brought to light.

---

LTC Gold uses a more modified and newer version of Lusted's AI - not sure if this applies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

solution if the GM is up to it is for him to manage all (or France neighbours' factions through the hotseat commands) so as to give the AI some good starting positions/ balanced stacks.

And why can't the GM even effectively take control of AI enemy factions once war is declared ?

The problem being that when on the offense, battles would have to be autoresolved on our part with the risks that entails.

Maybe limit the GM control to agents/cities/recruitment management, leaving the moves up the AI, thus mimicking the possible lack of communication between the governors and their generals in the field.

Just a thought.

The ball is in Zim's camp. :juggle2:

If we chose such a system, I may even offer Zim to be Assistant GM to help him manage the work load this would create.

---

Due to how the game is coded, by taking control of a faction, and then giving it back, the AI resets, and then reorganizes it's priorities as if the game started.

LTC Gold's AI is also very competent at producing balanced stacks, and usually only a lack of a training facility prevents it from producing a unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

I fear that would not be enough considering SS had the same system IIRc and we steamrolled it all the same.

---

I actually think the expansion rate in LotR was fine. It slowed down of its own accord after a while, and there were regular defeats and deaths to the AI right through to the end of the game. The AI problems aren't erased by money alone. If triple gold chevron armies could be killed in the Cataclysm, there's really nothing that the AI can throw at us that can't be overcome. IMO, the solution to the problem is internalizing conflict, not endlessly pumping the AI.

The real first stop to expansion we witnessed was the creation of the rebel stacks in Anatolia and near Zagreb in LotR... Those gave me the creeps...

Otherwise, expansion was quite fast throughout the game in my opinion even if it was at a higher cost than in KotR.

I fully understand that pumping the AI full of cash is not the best of solutions but at least it provides it with the means to face us on a more equal footing.

The current draft rules specify hard campaign rather than very hard. (I would agree with this, if the aim is to stop diplomacy going sour so quick). I don't know the mod well enough to quantify the effects of this on AI money, but presumably it strengthens the case for increasing the payout to the AI. I'd be inclined to go for 10k per turn extra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

The current draft rules specify hard campaign rather than very hard. (I would agree with this, if the aim is to stop diplomacy going sour so quick). I don't know the mod well enough to quantify the effects of this on AI money, but presumably it strengthens the case for increasing the payout to the AI. I'd be inclined to go for 10k per turn extra.

---

Now that you mention it, I just realized Lusted's probably improved the Campaign AI enough that we *can* boost the Campaign Difficult up to very hard without eliminating diplomacy. And looking at the release info for LTC Gold:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lusted

Campaign AI
-Stronger alliances, and allies which help each other more. This results in alliance blocs forming which also change over the course of the game.
-More logical changes to faction standings. So you and the AI will no longer always end up terrible and untrustworthy.
-More logical diplomacy, so it is now a more useful tool in the campaign.
-Rarer Catholic - Islamic alliances.
-Better AI sense of survivability. AI factions are more likely to want peace/vassal if being beaten/beaten badly.
-Better AI garrisoning settlements, and use of forces to guard it's borders.
-More aggressive AI v Independent Factions(eg the rebels from vanilla), so the AI expands much better early on and so the AI can create powerful nations.
-Better AI invasions. It will now build up more before attacking, and attack with more stacks, and stacks which have more units in them.
-Catholic factions less likely to attack each other, but still plenty of wars going on to give that Total War and Medieval experience.

---

I say we should definitely play on VH/VH.

I think VH/VH is fine, but I agree with TC, under those conditions we don't need to up the AI's purse. If your concern is the AI will still be disadvantaged, we can always operate with smaller stacks and weaker units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightnDay

... we can always operate with smaller stacks and weaker units.

---

I think that would be really hard to pull off in the game. In KotR, players tended not to like my proposals for half stack or "historical" armies - such restrictions are tedious to enforce and it's human nature not to be want to be handicapped. With a gamesmaster and events, there is a little more scope - the cataclysm made some people fight with awful armies, but the cataclysm was a major effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I think that would be really hard to pull off in the game. In KotR, players tended not to like my proposals for half stack or "historical" armies - such restrictions are tedious to enforce and it's human nature not to be want to be handicapped. With a gamesmaster and events, there is a little more scope - the cataclysm made some people fight with awful armies, but the cataclysm was a major effort.

---

Hey now, I hope you're not referring to Becker's Bohemian Militia. :clown:

I actually meant to have the game played at VH/VH...

I don't mind taking control of enemy factions during war but am wary about the supposed problems of turning them back to AI control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Hey now, I hope you're not referring to Becker's Bohemian Militia. :clown:

---

Yeah, TC was really mean to poor old Becker. But at least he survived to leave the game in style. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Yeah, TC was really mean to poor old Becker. But at least he survived to leave the game in style. :bow:

---

Not that mean, at least he gave me a guy who could turn one of my spear militia into armored sergeants each turn. :yes:

One very minor issue I have been thinking of is how we describe the game turns in character.

Apparently, the mod has 1.5 years per turn but saying "next 1.5 years, I will attack X" sounds weird.

We had a similar issue in KotR - I ended up using the word "turn", so an edict might say "for five turns" - but "turn" is a very OOC and immersion breaking term.

I don't think we can use year as synonymous with turn, as in the bottom right hand corner of the interface, we will have the year shown and it will not increment with turns.

I am wondering about "season" as a more in character term. "Next season, I will attack X" or "Edict: the Chancellor will tread water for 10 seasons" etc. It does not sound too bad. I know a "season" may be more literally a quarter of a year, but I am thinking about a "campaign season", which is how you could regard a total war turn.

For some purposes, we could use years - "Dietrich built watch towers for 15 years" when we mean 10 turns. But often it will be more convenient to count in turns and when we do that season might be as a good a term as any.

What do people think? Turns? Seasons? Anyone got any better ideas?

BTW: I guess characters are still aging two years a turn in this mod? so our ages increment in a way that is out of sync with the game year but we can live with that.

Following the discussion in this forum reminds me of a couple forest and tree metaphors. Many players here may have more refined tastes but this is looking really convoluted. The only immersion I'm concerned about is how the interaction in the forum affects the play in the game. Turns, years, what does it matter? I'm happy if it's kept simple. :2thumbsup:

I like the term season. I hated referring to turns - it's too gamey.

I think that a beefed up AI is necessary. In LotR, we slaughtered the AI, although that was partly due to HA's which we won't be able to get as the French. Ideally, it should be moderately difficult to conquer a province if there's spirit of cooperation between houses. Gaining that support, however, is another thing.

For those into stats, the unit stats in LTC seem to be very close - if not identical - to those in the "M2TW grand campaign with Kingdoms stats" mod. They are nicely presented in BrandyBarrel's FAUST for that mod:

http://www.mediafire.com/?4cgy1lcd1in

Although the stats don't tell the whole story (due to the effect of animations), compared to vanilla, I noticed:

(1) Spears get a big boost - armoured spears have the same ATT and DEF as DFK now :eek:
(2) Missiles have ranged attacks unaltered, but tend to have melee ATT and DEF reduced a lot
(3) Cavalry get a minor nerf in stats (but also smaller units)
(4) Swords get a major nerf
(5) France does not get many two handers, but those dismounted nobles look tasty.

Anyone know how the early/high/late thing works? Are there fixed dates at which higher tier units are recruitable? Or does it just affect the initial starting situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Or does it just affect the initial starting situation.

---

That's it.

Hereunder is the changelog to the different files :

1.0 :

Descr_strat.txt :

- Renamed Rheims to Reims
- Changed King Philip to Philippe
- Changed Bertrada de Montfort to Bertrade de Montfort
- Changed the heirs' names : Henry to Henri and Michiel to Charles
- Changed the order of the heirs (historically exact)
- Renamed Perrin Gassou as Alain de Rohan (Rennes)
- Renamed Guillemont de Lyon as Raymond de Provence (Dijon)
- Renamed Raoulet poitevin as Hugues de Champagne (Reims)

- Changed the king's purse for all AI factions (per Zim's request)

The three last were contemporaries of King Philippe and could be considered Duke in their own rights (particularly the first two)

Descr_names.txt :

- Deleted all surnames that didn't sound French enough
- Added some real French nobles and bourgeois surnames from the XIIth up to XVth century.
- Revised the firstnames list
- Added more than 170 references (first- and surnames)

2.0 :

- Changed the king's purse for all AI factions (per Zim's request)

Excellent! Many thanks Tristan! :yes:

Now I have to check if it works....:wall:

Sounds pretty nifty Tristan, good job.

Finally, i've managed to create all the files needed for the French Names Project...

I've only to playtest it but I see no reason why it wouldn't work...

:2thumbsup:

EDIT : Have to wait until tonight when I get home... :wall:

I have limited experience with LTC gold, but I'd say the main improvements to the AI are on the strategy map, in terms of tactics during actual combat it is still limited by it's failure to understand terrain and movement factors. The AI does a much better job guarding cities and bringing reasonable stacks to the fight, but it's just as easy to lead it around and surround it once the fight starts.

I don't have enough looks at the revised diplomacy to tell if it really matters at VH/VH, but I think we should play there. The road should be fairly difficult IMHO.

I will say that I'm very glad we don't have an HA heavy faction. It's just too easy. Also I recommend that people avoid charging directly into set formations of spearmen with their bodyguards. In LotR we had BGs that could butcher armies, which made it difficult to tell when your character was about to die. In LTC if you bog down after a frontal charge at spears above the militia level you will die. Pin them and hit them from behind, or run them until they'll break on impact, etc. Victories need to be won on morale more than brute force, more like what we did in KotR (when not facing 3x gold stacks).

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

. Victories need to be won on morale more than brute force, ...

---

I have not played the mod, but looking at the unit stats (compared to vanilla), that sounds like good advice. Morale values seem unaltered - the AI will run just as much as before. But those spears are sharp now.

Does anyone know how large the LTC is? I was not able to get to an acquaintance's comp with much better internet access today and was wondering about the feasibility of downloading it on dialup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Does anyone know how large the LTC is? I was not able to get to an acquaintance's comp with much better internet access today and was wondering about the feasibility of downloading it on dialup.

---

Less then 500Mb if IIRC

86.4 MB in zipped form, apparently. It probably unzips to 500...

Anyone think any of the mini mods on the LTC site will do us any good?

This one looks neat but likely changes too much (and changes starting date)...maybe for SP sometime.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=166563

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Anyone think any of the mini mods on the LTC site will do us any good?

---

The mini-mod you linked to is interesting - especially increased movement for agents (they crawl in M2TW) - but I agree it changes too much.

Personally, I think it would be best to stick to plain LTC. The mod is very polished (it's a gold version) and in its final form (Lusted is working at CA). Mini-mods will introduce some risk of instability, as they tend to be more works in progress. After player apathy, instability is the worst nightmare for a PBM (one thing that has put me off EB for a PBM - many players report getting so far and then get a crash they cannot go beyond). With the mini-mod for RTR that we used in WotS, IIRC we encountered a crash issue that fortunately we could work around but by the end were using an outdated version of the mod that was not available for download. It was worth using that mini-mod for the in-game Roman ranks, but since then we have developed our own ideas for ranks and titles.

Updated the changelog for the KotF mod here

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

I had almost everything working fine and now when I launch the campaign, I'm taken back to the Campaign Selection screen.

Seems there is a conflict caused by descr_strat. So I'm now doing a bit of retro-engineering to find the cause of the problem...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

I had almost everything working fine and now when I launch the campaign, I'm taken back to the Campaign Selection screen.

Seems there is a conflict caused by descr_strat. So I'm now doing a bit of retro-engineering to find the cause of the problem...

---

It's not the coding, it's the QA that's the hard bit... hopefully you'll :smash: the bugs.

Still working on it but it doesn't look good... Even when following the step by step guide...:wall:

Any people with modding experience are welcome to lend me a hand...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

Any people with modding experience are welcome to lend me a hand...

---

You could try asking Factionheir for a hand - he was very able and helpful with kotrfix. You could also try to entice him to join us while you are at it...

I can look at it if you can't find a real modder, but I can only offer enthusiasm as opposed to experience.

FH is philosophically opposed to Securom last I heard (too bad, I'd love to have him...) but he could certainly help with the mod if so inclined. I can take a look at it, although I'm not a great modder. I do have some programming experience, I'm guessing some really tiny problem is causing your crash, it always seemed to be a single line or punctuation that crashed our programs in school.