Printable View
Ships are universally known to be a very special kind of units: they disappear when the faction is reduced to the rebel status, you can't command them in a battle, you can't hire them as mercenaries or bribe them, you can't re-train, disband or ransome them or appoint their captains governors. I wonder if anything of these has been altered in mods? I mean it would be cool to take two cogs of your own, add a couple of hired baggalas, bribe a dozen of carracks and go buccaneering at will.
Some of the ships have era/faction settings for mercenary status in the unit prod file, I don't build inns so I can't say I've ever seen a ship on offer though. With respect to the bribing/retraining, I'm guessing the problem is the sea region. You can't move a ship into a province for retraining, and you can't move agents onto sea regions to do their abilities.
I build inns and hire the mercs pretty often but I never saw a ship wanting to be hired. As for bribing, you don't need to send the agent to a province to bribe the army, you just point him at the army from any neighboring province of yours and then you are asked for a confirmation of you desire to further corruption in alien countries. Why can't you do the same with a fleet dispatching your spy from an adjacent maritime province?Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
You need to understand from the start that ships are a special type of agent and don't really have much in common with army stacks.
Ships function almost exactly like agents, have a specific mission and specific targets, with the same valour stat (called "command" for ships). Ships differ in their ability to be grouped and in their Range, Attack, Defence and Speed stats. The stats are fairly simple to understand - range should need no explanation - if a ship attacks, it uses it's attack stat, if it's being attacked it uses it's defence stat. If while being attacked, it moves to another province, it uses it's speed stat to determine it's chances of escaping. The last one is more useful to the AI as it sees your moves when you click "end turn" and can react to them... this all involves the usual seed number, "dice roll", with the "command" stat improving the chances, etc.
Sea regions are like another set of land regions (provinces) in a completely different "zone" to the land regions. Nothing can access sea regions apart from ships - which only appear there via being produced from a shipwright in the adjoining province. Definitions in the startpos file determine which sea region is used for a particular coastal province to spawn it's ships. This is how ships get into the "sea zone" and there is no way for them to move out of it (it's hard-coded).
There has been a lot of discussion in the past as to exactly how ship/fleet vs ship/fleet engagements work. We still don't know exactly, but due to the random nature of some battles (who hasn't lost a whole stack of Baggalas to a solitary Galley?), it's not clear exactly what stacks do or if stacks vs individuals are better.
In most campaigns in the vanilla game I usually achieve naval superiority early on (far too early) by grouping ships in twos or threes (solitary ships are too tempting for the AI to attack and mean that in the event of a storm your shipping lanes are broken). When attacking I usually break the fleets into individual ships - grouping them back together the following year.
All ships are specific to major or minor factions, so if you want "pirates" then you need to add FN_REBEL to the faction association column for the ships you want the pirates to use. I would advise against this as the AI is hopeless at shipping as it is and most AI factions will be at war with the rebel faction meaning they will have even more difficulty establishing trade routes.
As for mercenaries, I've never tried it - nor mercenary agents for that matter... I doubt it would work - but perhaps try it.
Does it mean that they are unmoddable? So modding amounts to introducing new units, new factions and new provinces, does it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel
Hi GilrandirQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I think you can disband ships.
Best regards
Victor
Sapere aude
Horace
PS Will you be making an appearance in The Hobbit, which is due out shortly?
Depends on what you mean by "unmoddable". You can't alter the skills/limitations of the "Ship" agent type, but you can create new ships or modify the stats and prereqs of existing ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Well, it's been long since I played MTW so I'm not sure about this one. You may be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped in Samsara
It's about time to start a new campaign, me thinks. French in high, attempt 3.
You are getting it wrong. Do you think it's Orlando Bloom aka as Gilrandir who visits this forum now and then? But if you mean an appearance in a movie theater where it is going to be shown then with all likelihood I will. I only hope they haven't done anything nasty to the book. It is quite short, so I can't imagine how they might have extended the plot to make two movies out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped in Samsara
So, you can create new agents? Muslem princesses? Mendicant monks? Leprous beggars? Individual Holy Grail seekers? Peripatetic troubadours? Any other legendary characters who purport to have filled medieval roads? If so the campaign map can really become way too overcrowded. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
There are set agent types with set abilities. You can create an agent called a "leprous beggar" and base it on the assassin, but it will still function as an assassin...
Muslim princesses are kind of possible but you have to set a building up to train them as the game won't spawn them automatically. This is what I did with agents in my mod ( as far as I can remember ):
1) Harem women (muslim princesses)
2) Experimented with spies/assassins who spread heresy (you can change the faith propagation for all units and buildings)... (this was interesting as it forced the player to use bishops to counter it and made the abuse of spies more difficult - it was only a small percentage and I think churches/mosques were enough to reverse it).
3) Invisible Papal Inquisitors (these were interesting because they removed the Inquisitor agents from the player and turned them papacy only - an unplayable AI only faction by default - thus making them more of an uncontrollable natural disaster - but more importantly because they're invisible counterspying keeps them under control - I can't remember how well it worked...).
So you could have your "leprous beggar" spread heresy and add a support cost (alms), but he would still be an assassin or whatever agent you based him upon...
//edit: The most versatile agent type is the "priest" types. With these you can create some rebel only pagan priests, rabbis, etc, to add flavour and a bit of randomness if nothing else.
They are making 3 movies out of it. I believe they are adding in the Necromancer (Sauron at Dol Gulder) plot line to pad it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
You can create new agents, but not agent types as these are hardcoded. So theoretically you could make a heretic priest that spreads heresy, but it would still need to be given an existing unit type name like BISHOP. You could create a ocean-going dreadnought with 3 range, 9 attack, 9 defense, 4 speed, but it would still be a SHIP unit type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Edit-> yeah, what caravel said.
I did mess with the faith propagation of buildings as well. I remember adding a heretical penalty to the brothels and taverns - increasing as the levels increased. The idea was that the happiness bonus would offset it somewhat as would the effect of the church - I also liked the idea of a province with the highest level tavern and brothel turning into a hive of vice and villainy meaning that large garrisons would be needed to keep it in check. The main reasoning behind this was that though a campaign starts with religious diversity, it's often easy enough for the player to convert provinces and ensure they stay converted. In the end it was all too complex and the AI was oblivious to it all - since then I've erred on the side of simplification rather than adding more toys and complex features which only the player can exploit...
If I had some spare time (and enough drank) I'd create an invisible, rebel faction only, "heretical pervert"... if only just to read "a heretical pervert has been caught and executed" every once in a while...
Just curious, have you tried putting negative numbers in for the faith/zeal propagation for buildings or agents?
Haven't tried it as far as I can remember. When you consider that zeal/faith is a percentage thing, I'm not entirely sure what a negative value would do. When a Catholic Bishop is in a province which is 10% Catholic, 80% Orthodox 5% Muslim and 5% Pagan, he's slowly but surely turning the 90% of Orthodox/Muslim/Pagan to Catholic. If it's negative, then he's turning Catholics into what? Without even testing it I'd say that negative numbers would do the same as zero... but it needs to be tested (though if you delve through the archives perhaps someone has).
Maybe a negative faith value would just decrease other existing bonuses down towards zero. I was mainly thinking about zeal though, your brothel/tavern idea might work better reducing zeal than increasing heresy.
edit-> of course, you can't affect zeal with buildings...
This being a historical (sort of) game, that the beliefs of the times should be at least (and maybe they were) considered. Not sure about the Catholic belief on drinking then but prostitutes were considered good thing and thought to make marriages happier so negative zeal or the increased crime may not be historically realistic. I think the religion against drinking thing was more of a Anabaptist/fundamentalist thing starting during the reformation.
I wonder what methods of execution would be used? Would the powers-that-be stick to the old eye for eye approach to punish the perverts? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel
On occasions you get that anomaly where a province is e.g. 99% orthodox and 1% nothing... I saw that recently. In that case it did eventually go to 100%, but not through normal conversion. As I recall the GH invaded (it was Kiev) and then I forgot all about it, but when I checked again some time after retaking the province it was back to 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
So it's either some bug or it may prove that negative faith could work... It may also be that it's a fraction and thus cannot be represented (e.g. 99.9% Orthodox and 0.1% Pagan)... or it may be that it's the result of a bug which has left 1% without any faith and that priests and religious buildings cannot convert those who are of no faith (this makes sense if you think about it) - but something does correct it - possibly the change in ownership of the province.
In STW there was only one faith - Christianity - and priests and churches would propagate it. Emissaries and Buddhist temples would impact it negatively, so they probably used a negative value. So it would be interesting to see if in MTW a province could be e.g. 90% catholic and 10% nothing - if the same code from Shogun still remains.
You may well be correct about that, but it's not really a historical game, but loosely historically based. Increased crime from the tavern or brothel is "realistic" within the parameters of the game itself. In game terms there are a few ways of representing this:Quote:
Originally Posted by LordK9
1) So called "Negative Income" - i.e. money lost to corruption and crime
2) Propagate heresy - i.e. people are less interested in religion - not keeping to the scriptures, etc, etc.
Negative provincial loyalty would not work well, as the brothel line already give a bonus from the first level due to the "entertainment effect". It could be applied to the tavern but then they'd just negate each other, due to how their tech trees are tied together.
The scum of the earth, hang out at both establishments, so I would say it's entirely feasible to have a small trickle of both heresy and a negative income for both, or e.g. heresy for the tavern and negative income from the brothel (i.e. corrupt officials. It's interesting as it's a "trade off" scenario.
RE:
You may well be correct about that, but it's not really a historical game, but loosely historically based
Yeah, that's what I mean by "sort of" :smiley2:
AFAIK the Catholic church considered all sex outside of marrage sinful, including prostitution. They did, however, consider going to a prostitute better than seducing (or raping) a nice Catholic girl or a married woman, so prostitution was often tolerated, and even used as a means of church revenue. (The Bishop of Winchester owned brothels.) It seems pretty wierd from our point of view, but made some kind of logical sense in terms of the assumptions made at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordK9
AFAIK, drinking was not considered a problem, but drinking excessively was.
Still, if you want to talk history, I see no reason to link brothels and taverns with heresy. In fact, the Cathar "heresy" (which emphasized purity) might have objected to taverns and brothels more than the Catholic church did. Brothels and taverns as a means to stamp out heresy? :)
It also depends what sort of brothel is being represented. English bagnios were bath-houses and so played a useful role in sanitation. However, cleanliness wasn't necessarily next to godliness.
I'd have thought that's more likely to provide a steady stream of customers to both establishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel
I do concur with you that high-level establishments should have a negative impact on income - a few well-placed bribes will mean the competition gets taken down a few pegs.
It's a game...
:rolleyes:
How dare you? Its a way of life, a love interest and probably a religion as well. Also, when history and MTW disagree, you may take it for granted that the historians have erred.Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel
:rolleyes:
As if Plato (or anybody else) did not know its a game... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel
- A
:daisy:
Hi All
I nominate Drone as the next UN secretary-general when Ban Ki-moon decides he's had enough.
Who will second this motion?
Best regards
Victor
Sapere aude
Horace
I beg to differ - the UN don't take sides...
Good answer (now I don't have to reply to Axalon about missing the point).Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel
Last edited by drone; Yesterday at 22:50.Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel
Hi
Damn but it's frustrating not being allowed to see all the punches being thrown here. :stare:
Drone
Couldn't you 'put your telescope to your blind eye'? Please.
Beast regards
Victor
Sapere aude
Horace
I'm missing the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by LordK9
From where I am standing, you guys lost the point long time ago, ever since post 7-8 or there about. This thread isn't about whorehouses, inns, lepers, the UN, historicity or some damn nominal tweaking of buildings, this and that... Its about ships, and modding of ships, as outlined by Gil - that is the point here as that is the actual topic, is it not? That is what you guys should be discussing and posting on here as that is what this thread is actually about, right?
If I am missing the point, I sure am not alone, now am I?
- A
Anyways.... Regarding ships and modding....
Ships are not some agent- or army-clones, they are a separate class of pieces in the game and distinguished as such in the MTW-engine. I get that the agent-class were dragged in here with the best intentions due to some similarities to ships, but I think we be better off to just disregard agents and armies altogether and just look directly on the ships themselves. "Ships in their own right", as it will probably generate less confusion here. Besides, whatever similarities ships do have with other pieces are irrelevant anyhow as their (the ships) functions are unique anyway in the game. They do serve "the same team", but they do that in their own special way as dictated by their functions. In modding terms, ships has also little to do with the other pieces, all over again, and so we have little reason to bother with that on that note as well. Function is probably more then anything is what dictates what is actually possible to mod on ships. Why make things more strange then it has to be?
***
Ships, do not have any mercenary status or related active settings in the unit prod file, if they had, they would have been marked with a "YES"-entry in column 71 in the VI-version of the file. You have simply mixed that up - it happens. Mercenary-stuff is very probably linked exclusively to army-units on the engine anyways - the files suggest it. The engine don't seem to have any functions for ships that actually connect them with the mercenary-concept at any level. Mercenary-stuff are a strictly land-based concept in the CA-designs. Reserved for army-units/pieces it seems, as they are the only "piece-class" that is somehow actively linked to the mercenary-concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
For all we know some ships "in our service" might be privateers anyways, it is a parameter left out in the engine. It can obviously not reflect any such aspect, as there is no functional distinction for it. Had there been some actual parameters for it, then perhaps... The best one could do, as things are, is to simulate the concept somehow (or parts of it, anyways) by various modding-manouvers - if so desired. Creating an illusion of privateers as an extra element of the game etc. Adding new special "privateer-ships" - maybe low requirements, cheap to "hire"/build, expensive to support and maybe some special related building that unlocks this stuff (or possibly using other triggers) etc. etc.
Nope, ships are very moddable, but as they don't function properly in all regards (read: stats and combat circumstances) it might be debatable if it is actually worthwhile to bother much with it. At any rate, the possibilities are (rather) limited - as everything else in the game. We can change stats (about 50%), requirements, costs etc. etc. However adding actual new functions to ships - is not possible. Adding new and/or removing/reducing ships is fully possible. Ships are like any other part/piece in the game somehow limited in capacity and function on what it can actually do within the framework of the game - as dictated by the game-engine (obviously).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Is that not a needlessly dumb and hasty assessment? As if there are not more things that can be changed or altered in this game? For starters, Redux, Medmod, BKB Supmod and Age of Warlords suggest otherwise. And they are all very different from each other, all over, and they are clearly different from raw MTW as well. I would argue that it is more then fair to say that they have all pioneered MTW-modding in different ways well beyond the limitations of "introducing new units, new factions and new provinces". Obviously, there are a bunch of non-medieval themed stuff as well, like Napoleonic TW, Hellenic TW, Samurai Warlords, Pike & Musket and Hyborian Age etc. Same thing goes for them and plenty of pioneering work to be found here as well. By all means download any or all and check that first hand - they are all listed somehow in the MTW mod-index...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
There are tons and tons of things in MTW that can be changed and altered beyond what you are suggesting there... MTW can be changed into a very different game, despite all limitations, using its engine and the framework it provides (even more so in VI/V.2.01)... Just like a car can be transformed into a very different car, while still true to the concept of "car" on general terms. It is basically a question of know-how, effort and various resources (time, talent, tools, material etc. etc.).
Well, this is how I understand these things anyhow...
- A
Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel
Objection sustained. If drone moves his sphere of interest elsewhere who would do the peacemaking at this forum? Unless Axalon steps in to moderate. Perhaps his new position would teach him to be more tolerant and less quick to anger and resentment.
It seems to me dumb and hasty to assess my assumption in those terms. What I meant was to clarify whether modding was all about ADDING new stuff or ability to CHANGE some basic principles of the game. Being no modder still less a mod consumer I am unaware of such things. But your explanation seems to imply that there are some things that cannot be altered, ship functions and properties being one of them. That is what I basically wondered about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Axalon
Ships can be modded in that new ships with different stats, building cost, upkeep and graphics to the existing ones can be created, but ship behaviour cannot be modded.
Mercenary ships are not possible, as with mercenary agents. If you set agents or ships as mercenary units in the unit prod file, you will be able to recruit them at some point, but the resulting unit will appear as part of an army stack on land.
Thread topics sometimes tend to veer from the initial direction. I don't mind the ramification as this acquisitiveness of a thread may yield some eye-openers off the topic which I appreciate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Axalon
...
And another thread down the toilet....
- A
Having been on the receiving end of Caravel's little Yellow and Red cards whilst he was a Moderator ( for no good reason I may add ), I trust Drone has tossed one or two to him now. Per chance he ( Caravel ) is revealing to us why he no longer holds that vaulted position ?
On a different ( unrelated ) note - the UN is useless. I believe it, like the League of Nations before it, should be scraped. And whatever succeeds it should NOT have priviledged members with a Veto. Perhaps then things might get sorted.
Thread has probably run it's course, thanks for all the insight on ship characteristics and modding options. :bow: