Conceptual design of a Wars of the Roses game

I am longtime fan of the Wars of the Roses and it has always been a wish to create a game that captures the atmosphere of the period. I tried it with M:TW, but after I finished a few units I abandoned it as soon as R:TW hit the shelves. Now I have learned a lot about scripting and I am beginning to believe that I can finally make my wish a reality.

However I am stuck in the conceptual design. I have a few ideas, but before I press on and make it a real project I need to have the ideas thought out resulting in a concept that should work. Below are a few of them:

Interface
I will eliminate the standard user interface of R:TW. Instead there will be 3D objects on which the player can click or which will display information. A book will show events or general information of nobles, a writing feather will show the diplomatic view/options while a sword will enable military view/options.

Game phases
There are no regular turns, in fact the whole game will be played within a single turn. However with the use of scripts there will be turns which probably are divided into phases; political, military

Campaign map
The R:TW map will be replaced with a map a la M:TW since I find the boardgame style much more suiting for the atmosphere. The map will get the look of a parchment map laying on a wooden table. There will be shires and some of them will be divided up to give more options in movement.

Armies
There will be no techtree. There was no real standing army during this period. Instead armies were mustered when needed and disbanded when the campaign ended, which only lasted for a few weeks at the most. If an army is ordered to be mustered it will be created in the shire of the noble, which can then be picked up. As a result of this the opposing factions will need to fight a strategic game in which they try to pick up as many friendly armies while preventing the opponent from doing the same (as it happened in history).
The composition of armies will be set (with perhaps a little randomization) with more powerfull armies having more and better equipped troops. Troops will have their own livery and banners so when you have several nobles you will see their personal regiments on the battlefield.

Fully scripted strategic AI
The strategic AI also gets ditched and I will make scripts that will ensure that the computer opponent can cope with these new rules.

Royal family
The game places you in the role of either the Lancastrian or Yorkist family. You have will have 4 or 5 heirs in your royal family and it is your aim to elimate the entire opposing royal family.

Nobles
The royal army is not very large so you need to depend on allied nobles. To attract the nobles you will need to play a political game. I was thinking that you receive a number of loyalty counters which you can give to the nobles. Once a noble has enough loyalty you can ask him to raise troops once you start a campaign. However the other faction can also place counters. As their loyalty changes they may decide to not answer your call-to-arms or switch sides.

Events
Coronation: to make your heir king you need to move him into the London area. The opposing faction can hinder you by blocking the way with an army. The coronation is important since kingship will you give more loyalty counters.
Alliance with France: this will give the Lancastrian faction the option to flee to the continent. You will also receive French mercenaries.
Alliance with Burgundy; this will give the Yorkist faction the option to flee to the continent. You will also receive Burgundian mercenaries.

Random events
Most boardgames have a stack of cards that introduce random events and this could be interesting to spice up the game a bit.

Evasion
When the situation in England has gone particularly bad, for example after a big battle leaving you with no forces it is possible to evade. The Yorkists can flee to Ireland or Burguny when allied. The Lancastrians can flee to Scotland or France when allied. When in these countries the heir/king can play a political game by encouraging revolts by loyal nobles and once the chance is there he will be given local troops and a single chance to return to England and reclaim the throne.

Battles
The auto-generated maps will also be removed (what am I keeping? :tongue2: ). Instead the battles will all be played on custom maps so they will be far more interesting than the barren wastelands of R:TW. Once a battle has ended a seperate script will tell which nobles have been captured or killed. Captured nobles can be executed (if possible to script). If a noble is dead then he will either be replaced by his son or by a new noble family who is loyal to your faction.
Since you cannot raise armies that easily your situation will be very uncomfortable when you lose a battle. This will make the battles more dramatic as the future of your faction can depend on the outcome.



Hopefully you now understand that this idea is to create something entirely different from the other mods, so you shouldn't compare them. I want to make gameplay similar to that of boardgames so the conceptual design is also different then of the other mods which are primarily about how to fill the factions slots and techtree. I need to create new rules and I ask for your help. Above you could read a few features but it still feels a bit empty and I am still not sure wether it would be worth the effort. So my question to you is wether you could come up with features, rules or other ideas to make this concept more appealing.


Cheers,
Duke John


P.S. Please do not question/comment on the technical issues. I am not really troubled with them as most of them are already tested.

Just wondering, you say all the technical issues are tested, is there any screenshots just to prove it, im not doubting you i just would like to see.

If you do half of that, I'll name my next dog after you. And perhaps my children.

King Ragnar, I don't have the bits modded into the game anymore. And you wouldn't have seen much anyway.

Alexander the Pretty Good, what do you like especially? From your reaction I gather that you like the concept, but what makes it so appealing to you? If I know that then I could strengthen it. At the moment I have only myself and I really need more input to continue.

just a little idea for the nobles, perhaps when you win a battle in whihc you are outnumberd, say 2:1 or more, and there is a noble nearby, it could increase their loyalty (they will start to see you as a "proper englishman" and a good leader too)
eg:

2:1 +1.5% loyalty
3:1 +2.5% loyalty
4:1 +3.5% loyalty
etc etc

Sounds good. I particularly like the way it lends itself to a more structured game, allowing you more freedom as to what the AI can get up to and hence allowing a more capable strategic AI to be implemented.

Best of luck!

Dang? That sounds like a whole new game! Yeah if even half of that is possible... wow!

You're right about the need for the game to be fought over a more boardgamey style map. The battles were less for land and conquest as they were for political power.

Was thinking for the minor nobles/leaders you could make specially recruitable retinues that would only be available in that leader's particular area like Bonville, Roos, Scrope, Devreaux.

If you can find a way to make factions more loyal and not have them change sides every two turns you could take advantage of more factions probably. Then again it will be easier, office and title wise to have just two factions and regional-recruitable nobility.

If you know enough about scripting you got it all over the rest of us. I'm limited to thinking 'within the box'.

Was thinking of having a 'Parliament section' - you create a landmass surrounded by mountains or other impassable terrain and within you have nothing but diplomats of the various factions. Thus you always have diplomatic channels open because they can't kill each other and wheeling and dealing becomes more important than battlefield victories.

Thinking of factions based on BI:

Lancaster - WRE
Tudor - WRR (the rebel factions would function not as rebels but as a sort of emergent faction that comes into play on the faction's demise or plays second fiddle to the main faction and takes over the rights of the faction when it disappears)

York - ERE
de la Pole - ERR

Mowbray/Howard of Norfolk (Earl Marshal who would start out neutral and is courted by both sides for his potential power)
Stafford of Buckingham (could head the 'moderate' Lancs w/c can come to an accomodation with the Yorkists)
Beaufort of Somerset (alternately he could be in command of the diehard Lancs and the Lanc party, dudes like Clifford, de Vere and Holland)
Neville of Warwick (this faction would technically be split up into something like three - old Neville of Salisbury should be Richard Duke of York's loyal compatriot, young Neville of Warwick should be the leader of the main Neville faction with his brothers as 'heirs' and ancient Neville of Westmorland would be a pretty weak but present rival)
Percy of Northumberland (leader of the northern Lancs)
Talbot of Shrewsbury (leader of the Welsh Lancs)
Courtenay of Devon (leader of the West Country Lancs)
Fitzalan of Arundel (leader of the moderates and minor nobility)
Stanley
Herbert (along with Devreaux, Lord Ferrers of Chartley, leader of the Yorkist Welsh)
Hastings
Audley/Touchet (leader of the north midland lords)

Foreigners and Irish
Scotland - under king James
Douglas - his main rival
France - under king Louis. Burgundy could be abstracted.
Butler of Ormonde - chief Lanc lord in Ireland
Fitzgerald of Desmond - chief York lord in Ireland

One model I can probably point to is the Paradox game Crusader Kings. It's got the best (to my knowledge) noble-vassal and inheritance and family relationship system in computer gaming today. I was trying to mod a War of the Roses game in it but the project was WAY over my head and no one was interested so I threw in the towel (I did get as far as modding in the Courtenay and Bonville families from the west country - which surprisingly are cousins!!) The lovely thing here was you DID NOT gain power by gaining land - you needed to break up your holdings and give away stuff to vassals to keep them happy and to maintain effective control cuz if you controlled too much territory you got a management penalty. So vassalage as well as granting titles (and I modded some titles into offices) was key to the game. Now if you can figure out a way to replicate this in RTW then I'll play Lord Stanley and crown you king at Bosworth!

Best of luck!
Clare

GeoffreyS
The AI will only be as clever as I can script it, but I have confidence that it can be a bigger threat than the R:TW AI that sends in armies in pieces.


GrimSta
I cannot use percentages but I am tinkering with the idea to implement some kind of "critical mass". After Towton and Tewkesbury the Lancastrians were severely beaten and they had no hope of recruiting new armies anywhere in uthe near future. A few uprisings faded away once they heard of a major victory. So in the game your aim is to set up a big battle and win it so you can make a statement saying: "I am the rightfull king!". But if you lose then run fast since England won't be a safe place anymore. And that will make battles quite a bit more dramatic.


Ah, I was expecting you already Clare :medievalcheers:

Quote:

---

Was thinking for the minor nobles/leaders you could make specially recruitable retinues that would only be available in that leader's particular area like Bonville, Roos, Scrope, Devreaux.

---

Each noble will get retinues with their own livery and banners. And the retinues will only be available in the shire that the noble controls.

Quote:

---

Was thinking of having a 'Parliament section' - you create a landmass surrounded by mountains or other impassable terrain and within you have nothing but diplomats of the various factions.

---

Diplomats or other agents are not used in this game since the diplomatic system would not work. However, do you know wether parliament can be put in the mod somehow? In Kingmaker parliament could be called and depending on the number of votes a player has he could assign empty offices (noble died).

Quote:

---

So vassalage as well as granting titles (and I modded some titles into offices) was key to the game. Now if you can figure out a way to replicate this in RTW then I'll play Lord Stanley and crown you king at Bosworth!

---

Perhaps it would have added more replay value if you could control a noble, but that would also mean that there would let's say 15 factions. Since the AI is entirely scripted and the scripting commands are far from flexible it would quickly result in hundred thousands of script lines... which perhaps isn't impossible after all... :thinking:
Do you know the boardgame Kingmaker? In that game you control a group of nobles (which vary during the game) and the goal is to be the one that controls the sole king at the end of the game.
I did think about wether the mod should take the noble point of view. But then you would be stuck with playing mostly with just the noble's retinues. When playing the king you can control many nobles and seeing all their colours on the battlefield is one of the main attractions of this mod.

I don't think that I could script vassalage. And even then it would probably mean using not user-friendly solutions since my tools are limited. But I might be able to include granting titles.

Quote:

---

I'm limited to thinking 'within the box'.

---

Try thinking in terms of boardgames; counters, cards, pieces and a limited amount of them. It's less flexible than a computergame but that doesn't always mean less fun or challenge. Don't think in variables, tons of names/titles/nobles or complicated formulas since I cannot script that.

Cheers,
Duke John

SO are you going for a type of Risk campaign? But with RTW battles, if so will be cool if made. Good Luck

Duke John - some of the things I like are:

Shiny New Stuff - if possible, make this mod as different from RTW as possible. New interfaces, new concepts, new campaign map, all make this a new experiance.

Less Micromanagement - it sounds like armies are created very differently. I've always wanted to generate a full-fledged army in less than a year for use in game - as long as it is historically balanced (meaning painfully expensive). Also, adjusting the movement ala MTW reduces micromanagement (I would think; I don't know how you plan on doing this).

More Macromanagement - if that isn't a word, I'll patent it. I like the ideas of a bigger world with things like real, working allies, coronations, places to flee to, more dynamic-sounding families. Give me more to do than conquer, conquer, build, conquer.

no offence, but after what happened to Sengoku Jidai I think you should either try to get your feet back on the ground and actualy make a mod instead of trying to come up with insane ideas that I doubt you'll ever pull off - or you should program your own game instead of trying to turn RTW into a completly different game.

Either way, good luck with this. I think you may need it.

Thanks for the comments on what you like, Alexander. However, you cannot really train armies. It goes like this: you play some kind of political game with loyalty counters/offices. Then when you think the time is ripe to strike you start a military campaign. You can then choose a certain number of nobles who you wish to back you up. Wether they actually listen to your call of arms depends on their loyalty. If they do then their armies will be visible on the campmap. You cannot control them (part of the excitement) but they will follow logical paths towards a rendez-vous which you can set. You control the royal army and while en route to the rendez-vous you will pick up more regiments depending on how loyal the region is.

Meanwhile the enemy is doing the same and at some point you may decide that you do not wait for your allies but confront the enemy sooner. The enemy may of course do the same as the aim is not so much getting the biggest army as preventing the enemy from doing the same. Your allies may also fight a battle prematurely or even dissolve as the opposing forces make them rethink their allegiance.

You will not fight that many battles as there is a big chance that a heir will be lost during a battle and you only have 4 or 5 heirs. My aim is to give the player a short campaign from which he can remember all battles. When finished it should give the player the feeling that he has rewritten the Wars of the Roses.


I'll take that as a challenge then Adherbal :grin:

Cheers,
Duke John

DJ - that clears it up, and makes me want it even more! ~D

Duke John...the second you release this im going to have an AAR saying how Richard won ~;p

Quote:

---

I'll take that as a challenge then Adherbal

---

fine, it's a win-win situation for me: being proven right, or having an excellent mod to play ~;p

Actually KINGMAKER the computer version was one reason I got really into this period. If you recall I was thinking of just using the MTW basic Europe map in a 'board game' fashion though it was more boardgame SLASH terrain map kind of thing. With BI however since maps are easier to do you could actually have non-contiguous territories w/c can represent offices or holdings - like the holdings of let's say Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick can be represented scattered across the map, same thing with offices. Then again you can also make it totally 'board gamey' by just making box type areas that players can move into w/c can be just representative of various things.

I also liked that MTW style 'crusade' function in that you would set a 'rendezvous' or 'objective' territory and the 'crusade' would move toward it, picking up followers as it went along. If you can script this... visors up salut!

Yes, seeing the banners of the various nobles is a DEFINITE draw. If I had a penny for every time I wanted to do a mod like this just for the sake of seeing the faction banners and coats of arms... speaking of which, any chance of having treachery ON the battlefield?

If you keep diplomacy in game but only limited to that specific 'Parliament box' as I described previously perhaps you could just have them demand certain 'areas' w/c are linked to titles/offices in the way that they demand control of settlements in BI. However the trick is activating it depending on certain conditions (Parliament in session). For example there's a certain region that represents 'The Earldom of Warwick' - the diplomat from let's say Courtenay can demand that this 'region' be turned over to him in the normal way. If titles can be attached to regions that would be better.

Cheers,
Clare

Power Counters
A new idea with a cheap name. Once a military campaign starts, either intiated by the player or the AI, then both factions get a number of Power Counters depending on, lets say, the number of loyal nobles, kingship and offices. These counters represent the power an heir can impose over his subordinates. He cannot expect all of his nobles to raise their armies so he needs to choose which nobles will contribute to the campaign. PCs may also be used to cause revolts, or perhaps it would be best if they were random and not controlled by either faction.

A campaign may not be decided by a single battle so spending all your PCs might leave you vulnerable for the rest of the campaign as the armies of your nobles will dissolve if their leader is killed or when the campaign takes too long. Hopefully this will add a bit more strategy to the game as players will need to think how many armies he requires.

An further use of power counters may be that they are used when moving through hostile territory.



Clare

Quote:

---

Then again you can also make it totally 'board gamey' by just making box type areas that players can move into w/c can be just representative of various things.

---

That is possible. What sort of things do you have in mind?

Quote:

---

any chance of having treachery ON the battlefield?

---

No, the engine does not allow that.

Book
As explained in the first post I will include a book that shows information. This is needed since the standard user interface needs to be disabled to make this concept work. Below is a quick model put into the game. The right page would be readable and could display information like what troops a noble has (always the same) plus his banner. It could also notify the player that an heir has been crowned king or the rules of the game. The book would lie right next to the parchment that displays the map of England. Since the pages are textures I can add fancy stuff like caligraphic lettering, a painted and those large capital letters.
http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/u..._test_book.jpg

The map
The map will show England divided into the shires, plus the regions that are used when evading the country; Scotland, Ireland, France, Calais and Burgundy (the map texture is from Imperial Glory).
http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/u...r_test_map.jpg
Each shire will have a 3D shield icon sitting in the middle. Alongside the shield there may a 3D icon showing allegiance of the noble; either a white rose (Yorkist), a red rose (Lancastrian) or no rose (neutral). The shield is used for various interface issues such as movement, giving loyalty counters, setting the rendez-vous and displaying a page from the book.

Since the map has a large open space in the right top corner I think I will place the book there on a book stand. This will make it easier to read and it will also make the area of focus smaller.

Cheers,
Duke John

wow! i must say im impressed by your ideas!!.....so for this we can expect all of the Nobles who took part in the wars of the roses and new models for them (kinda obvious that one :P)

If you pull this off i will love you.....but im not that kinda englishman :elephant: oh! heres an idea!!

Remember in Age of Mythology there were some very good descriptions of the mythology of the factions (norse, greek, egyptian) taken from a book about it....you know, like gods worshipped hopw they worshipped them, stuff like that.....is it possible you could add that sort of stuff onto the book? (names of all nobles, political idealogies of the time, current wars, nations involved in giving aide and what really happened: Which nobles supplied who with what etc etc)

Good idea! I have a limited number of pages at my disposal so I will have to see how much background stories I can put into the book. But yes, that is possible. Although it probably means that you cannot go instantly to a certain page unless it is displayed as a reaction to clicking on some UI element; like the shield.
... or I might add some kind of indexing UI element; you know those cloth strips that are used between two pages to remind you where you were?

A bit of brainstorming:
Heraldic shields outside of England: 2 pages showing background history of the country; for example France at war with Burgundy, the fight for independence of Scotland.
Harbour: a bit of info about the Hanseatic League, the dangers of sea-faring.
Family heraldry: Perhaps I can use part of the map to display the heraldry of the different heirs. A counter can notify which one is the current heir and wether he is crowned. Clicking on the shield will show the characteristics of the family member.

Please give me more! :medievalcheers:

ummm....familly heraldry for all the old english families not just the heirs....i know i wouldnt mind seeing mine ~:joker:

There's a Henry VIII game somewhere online (downloadable) that uses just boxes to represent COURT - FRANCE - IRELAND - PARLIAMENT - NORTHERN ENGLAND, etc - and my old idea for a WotR game had bloody LAWYERS so if you want you could make it absolutely representational and dispense with a map completely. OR you could split the map into sections - one for armies and strategic movement, one for political maneuvering. Areas on the map would not represent counties but power bases for noble families (ie. all the Bonville or Devreaux or Welles holdings and possessing the 'territory' meant you have the allegiance of the character), lands covered by offices (ie. Warden of the Cinque Ports would be based at let's say Rye, but cover the entire SE English coast)

Sieges would not reflect the strength of a castle but the loyalty of the people (minor nobility and gentry) to the ideology. Relgion (ie. political loyalty) would have a huge part to play so taking over a 'lancastrian' area would invite rebellion for a Yorkist lord no matter how strong a castle (and they weren't really the mighty fortresses of long ago but fortified manor houses = that's why Richard of York marched out of Sandal and fought at Wakefield rather than endure a siege). Only the Marcher fortresses would be that strong.

Just some thoughts,
Clare

I wish they kept the damn marriage thing though!

Yes heraldry and family lines would be nice...

And lucky you I got some new books on the wars (sigh) Battles in Britain and an Osprey or two.

So this will all be scripted? I'll say it before and I'll say it again, if even half can be pulled off I'll pull the battered crown out of the thorn bush and crown you king.

Clare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

The map
The map will show England divided into the shires, plus the regions that are used when evading the country; Scotland, Ireland, France, Calais and Burgundy (the map texture is from Imperial Glory).
http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/u...r_test_map.jpg
Each shire will have a 3D shield icon sitting in the middle. Alongside the shield there may a 3D icon showing allegiance of the noble; either a white rose (Yorkist), a red rose (Lancastrian) or no rose (neutral). The shield is used for various interface issues such as movement, giving loyalty counters, setting the rendez-vous and displaying a page from the book.

Since the map has a large open space in the right top corner I think I will place the book there on a book stand. This will make it easier to read and it will also make the area of focus smaller.

Cheers,
Duke John

---

Neat map! I think that you'd probably just want to include the British isles and Northern France, Normandy to the Frisians including Paris.

The box idea goes like this - it's a takeoff on the idea I had for the MTW WotR map using Europe for England. It's essentially monopoly squares like to get to London from Dover you pass from Dover to Canterbury to Blackheath to Southwark. Something like that.

Clare

great idea!! love to see how it progresses

I'm at the moment translating the concept into scripting codes. To aid that process I am making a Design Document. If enough people are interested then I could update this thread with my progress. You can get a clearer idea of what I am trying to achieve and, perhaps more interesting, how.

if you need any help with arkeological or historical data i would gladly help!!

You can certainly help! I need the coat-of-arms of the nobles controlling the following shires around 1460:
Durham
Lincoln
Cambridge
Sussex
Surrey
Northampton
Leicester
Cumbria
Hampshire
Clwyd
Gwynedd
Powys
Dyfed
Hereford
Bristol
Exeter

A link towards a image or description of the coat-of-arms will suffice.

Thanks,
Duke John

sure be right back..

I have streamlined the concept of counters a bit more. I hope to get screenshots soon enough to explain it a bit more, but if all goes well then it will be very easy to understand for the player. Each element on the strategic map will have one function and some functions use Power Counters to work while others simply require the presence of a certain amount of Loyalty or Popular Support Counters. You will read something about the coat-of-arms section of the strategic map. This is a column of all nobles and heirs with their own heraldic shield. Nobles have next to them their loyalty rating, while heirs have space for Power Counters and Popular Support Counters. Anyway, here is a piece of the Design Document:

COUNTERS

Power Counters
These are placed under the heirs of a faction at the coat-of-arms section of the strategic map. The player can this way see how many he has left. They are placed at the beginning of the political phase and any unspent counters can be kept up to a certain maximum. The player can thus save for an all-out attack.

The amount of Power Counters that a faction receives depends on the following:
Total Popular Support Counters:
1; -2
2; -2
3; -1
4; -1
7; +1
8; +1
9; +2
10; +2
Each Noble with a loyalty of 4; +1

Loyalty Counters
These are placed right next to the noble's Heraldic Shield on the Coat-of-arms section of the map. They represent the loyalty of a noble towards either the Lancastrians (red rose) or Yorkists (white rose). A noble can have up to 4 counters of one kind. If no counters are present then the noble is neutral. The amount of loyalty gives the following effects:
4 LCs; 100% chance that the noble will raise troops, +1 Power Counter
3 LCs; 100% chance that the noble will raise troops
2 LCs; 80% chance that the noble will raise troops
1 LC; 50% chance that the noble will raise troops, 10% chance per turn that the noble will chance sides.
0 LCs; 5% chance per turn that the region rebels, 10% chance that it will randomly choose a side.

The loyalty of a noble can be influenced the following way:
Faction spends 3 Power Counters; +1
Total Popular Support Counters:
1; -2 per turn*
2; -1 per turn*
9; +1 per turn
10; +2 per turn
* Does not affect nobles with 3 or 4 loyalty counters.

Popular Support Counters
These are placed under the heirs of a faction at the coat-of-arms section of the strategic map. Kings and heirs need to be supported by population as without it they can hardly claim to be the rightful king of England. This idea is represented by Popular Support Counters. A faction can have at the most 10 counters.

The amount of Popular Support Counters is influenced by the following:
Killed king; +4
Killed heir; +2
Won major battle; +2
Won minor battle; +1
Rebellion surpressed; +1
Every turn a rebellion is not surpressed; -1
Evades country; -1
Lost minor battle; -1
Lost major battle; -2
Lost heir; -2
Lost king; -4

SPENDING POWER COUNTERS
The player can do the following things with Power Counters:
Incite a revolt
Cost: 5 PC
Description: A very costly action but it might divert the opponent or even decrease his popular support if not removed. This action is only possible when the faction has evaded the country.
Increase loyalty of nobles
Cost: 3 PC
Description: By clicking on a coat-of-arms the player increases the loyalty of a noble by one loyalty counter.
Raise a noble's army
Cost: 3 PCs
Description: By clicking on a heraldic shield of a powerfull noble the player issues a command to the noble to raise an army. Only 3 noble controlled armies can be present per faction.
Raise troops
Cost: 2 PCs
Description: By clicking on a heraldic shield of a lesser noble the player issues a command to the shire to raise troops. If the province becomes occupied by the opposing faction then the raised troops will disappear.
Set rendez-vous
Cost: 1 PCs
Description: By clicking on the rendez-vous flag the player can set a new rendez-vous.


I hope that you start to see the strategic possibilities that this system offers. Will you try to keep many nobles loyal or will you focus on a just a few very loyal? Losing a big battle will mean that you have lost control and the only way of regaining the throne might be evading the country and hire mercenaries.
Of course it will be a big challenge to write a challenging AI for it, but that won't stop me from trying.

Cheers,
Duke John

Sounds good (have NO idea how you'll make it work but then again you've done magic before) and it's really the way that loyalty/recruitment should work in this time period.

Harlechman

I really hope this works out, as the system sounds very promising; if done well it should present plenty of interesting choices.

Sorry for taking so long with finding the CoA for the shires but i have to get past my exam so be patient... Duke John do you want CoA from exactly 1460- or will modern CoA do?.. i can give you the historically right CoA's but it's will take a bit more time to find it...

Only the historical ones please. I have searched a bit myself and the list is now a bit shorter. During my search I learned that some titles did not exist at all times and I'm getting the idea that not all shires had dukes or earls and some shires might even share a noble.

I had the idea that each shire had its own heraldic shield which could nicely function as an interface element. But what if we can't find the heraldry of a duke simply because there was no duke? Shall we take the heraldry of a famous Lord?

I'm not from England so this is all new from, but the heir of the English King gets the Duke of Cornwall plus the Prince of Wales titles. I read a few times about Edward, the Prince of Wales recruiting the men from the West and I always thought that it would mean men from Wales, but it probably means Cornish men. Richard Neville was Earl of Salisbury and Warwick. What to do with nobles who have two titles?

What to do with the titles of dead heirs? Should they become regular nobles? Or remain vacant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

Only the historical ones please. I have searched a bit myself and the list is now a bit shorter. During my search I learned that some titles did not exist at all times and I'm getting the idea that not all shires had dukes or earls and some shires might even share a noble.

I had the idea that each shire had its own heraldic shield which could nicely function as an interface element. But what if we can't find the heraldry of a duke simply because there was no duke? Shall we take the heraldry of a famous Lord?

---

Well I have learned from my studies of medieval arkeology at Århus Universitet in denmark that it was quit common for a duke to control more than one shire and by being duke you often acted as count in both shires or you had another count act in your place. This mite be to our advantege since as I recall you have to appoint a gowener in a city if you want to build either units or buildings. so why not change thier title from gowner to count an then give your factions leader a wise called" title: duke of blah blah" and theiby give him some advanteges in leadership and diplomacy. If you have patiense I can come up with a list of which shires formed the dukedoms in 1460+. So to answer your question: it would be natural to take the dukes CoA as a faction symbol and in the case of an independent count (one that does not answer to a duke) we could either go for his CoA or we could make them "rebels".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

I'm not from England so this is all new from, but the heir of the English King gets the Duke of Cornwall plus the Prince of Wales titles. I read a few times about Edward, the Prince of Wales recruiting the men from the West and I always thought that it would mean men from Wales, but it probably means Cornish men. Richard Neville was Earl of Salisbury and Warwick. What to do with nobles who have two titles?
What to do with the titles of dead heirs? Should they become regular nobles? Or remain vacant?

---

Neither am I.. i just love that period ~;) and when we have a noble with two or more titles then just call them Edward de blah blah, count of blah blah, duke of blah blah ~D

I'm not shure i understand your last qeustion... if a duke/count dies then his heir takes ower the families CoA but if an heir dies.. then he.. well dies

I just had a thought... I know how most of the CoA was organised in england at that time, so i wondering.. could it be possible to to give every member of the family a different CoA?

Very understandably you are not understanding the system that I am putting into the game.

There is no R:TW family tree, nor are there cities, you cannot build buildings or train units. The strategic part has virtually no resemblence with the original R:TW gameplay. The whole strategic map is practically one big region and only by scripting am I dividing it into different shires in which you can move a la Risk/M:TW.

Each region has a centre/node/interface element that is represented by a heraldic shield. This shield does not represent a castle or something conquerable. It merely says to the player; in this region the Earl of Warwick is the big boss, and if he is loyal to you then by clicking on the heraldic shield he just might raise an army for you. This army will then automatically (by a script) move to a rendez-vous and if it's in the same region as the royal army then they will merge.
A trait will keep track of which armies have merged with the royal army. You cannot view the contents of the army, after all the whole R:TW interface has been disabled. However you will be able to see which nobles have joined the royal army, so you are not entirely left guessing. Once the Yorkist/Rebel/Lancastrian forces meet then real armies with real units will be generated based upon the amount of recruitment, merged forces and popularity. These armies are then placed on a custom battlefield and the battle will automatically commence.

There are only 2 factions (although technically very different from R:TW); the Lancastrians and the Yorkists. Then there are also revolts but they have no goal except to cause abit of trouble (see the Counters section).

I hope to have some representative screenshots ready next week. Only by writing everything down can I keep up with it myself.

Quote:

---

could it be possible to to give every member of the family a different CoA?

---

That was the idea.

Quote:

---

if a duke/count dies then his heir takes ower the families CoA

---

A duke can only die on the battlefield. That is seperate from the duke on the strategic map, who will not die as he represents a region not really a person. Unlike in R:TW these are not linked.

sounds complicated.. and a bit like paradox's Crusader kings ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

A duke can only die on the battlefield. That is seperate from the duke on the strategic map, who will not die as he represents a region not really a person. Unlike in R:TW these are not linked.

---

Ah.. I see... how did you come up with that idea?

About the heraldry... I can come up with a concept on how all the heraldry thing works in england (how heraldry differs inside the family)

Is there anything else besides the heradry I can help with?

I love the sound of this Duke John, totally unique

Hi Duke John how are you doing? is there more i can do besides the heraldry stuff?

Sorry for the delay...

Realistically you are caught in a bit of a quandary if you want to keep things at the shire level as many nobles would have holdings in various shires and sought to acquire more. While it doesn't really sound as good I would think that something smaller than a shire, a fief or mega-fief of some sort would be easier to find lords and offices for.

I'm thinking that really might be better - the problem then is, when and where do you cut off the list as there were innumerable numbers of local gentry with fiefs but no titles - people like the Bonvilles, Kyriels, Welles', Conyers, Paston, etc. - and the better (thanks to Kingmaker) known Roos, Scrope (Masham was DIFFERENT from Bolton), Grey (Ruthin, Groby, etc.), Herbert, Devreaux (should have been included as he was a top Yorkist adherent and became Lord Ferrers of Chartley), etc.

I have the arms of these folks buried in my old research files but it might take a while to dig them all out. Perhaps yeah, stick to the shire size holdings first but if this thing works, heck I'll dig them out - locations and coats of arms too!

Best wishes,
Harlechman (Clare)

Harlechman, dividing the shires into smaller regions would technically not be a very wise decision. I have to write a script that enables the AI to base a decision on how the enemy armies are positioned. Very easy to do with 4 regions, a bit more difficult with 40 regions but 100+ regions would make it a nightmare and possibly 100,000s of scripting lines (because scripting commands are far from flexible). I don't know how much R:TW can handle and limiting the amount of regions is one way of safeguarding the feasability of the project.

However there is nothing that can stop us from adding a whole bunch of lords. If the Royal army passes through a shire then it could pick up a whole with his personal retinue. Or the Royal army automatically gains Lords from the 4 most loyal regions. This beefs up the royal army from the start and makes its composition a bit more interesting if it fails to merge with dukes.

So I can certainly use the coat-of-arms that you have found.

Cheers,
Duke John

Duke John i have made a list with all the heraldry you wanted for shires... i know many of them aren't from the specific period but niether are the all the shires you have come up with... give me some extra time and ill make you a map. but first of all i need to get past an exam so be patient until then here's something you can work with..

Durham
https://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4003/durham7gd.jpg

Lincoln

Cambridge

Sussex
Surrey
Northampton
Leicester

Cumbria

Hampshire

Clwyd
https://img213.imageshack.us/img213/115/clwyd5jc.jpg

Gwynedd
Powys
Dyfed
Hereford
Bristol
Exeter

more will come

tutankamon

Quote:

---

i know many of them aren't from the specific period but niether are the all the shires you have come up with

---

Do you have a map which shows the shires during the Wars of the Roses? I made a map over a year ago for a M:TW mod and don't have the sources anymore. There was a large amount of guesswork and even using games to get complete map of England.

Quote:

---

Is there anything else besides the heradry I can help with?

---

A map of England around 1460 :san_grin: It might make things easier as some shires for which we haven't found dukes or earls are gone.

Cheers,
Duke John

I went over the map again, basing the shires on the following maps:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/histo...tudor_1485.jpg
http://renaissance.dm.net/compendium/map-england.html

After a bit of searching on wikipedia.org and with what I had already I'm almost done with researching which shires existed and which nobles ruled them.
http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/u...of_england.gif
Green is nothing out of ordinary.
I could not find anything about Berkshire or Middlesex. Middlesex can be replaced by London and an appropiate title.

When an heir or king dies then his titles become unused for the rest of the game.

Any comments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

Do you have a map which shows the shires during the Wars of the Roses? I made a map over a year ago for a M:TW mod and don't have the sources anymore. There was a large amount of guesswork and even using games to get complete map of England.

---

We have a lot of old book about that period in Englands history at our library at Moesgård in Denmark... so I will have a map ready soon but yours look good :san_wink:

I was wondering are we gonna aply some historical battle? if so here's a short list of some of the battles..

The Battles of the Wars of the Roses

1st St. Albans - May 1455

The Court met the Yorkists under the Duke of York and the earls of Salisbury and Warwick at a town just north of London. The Court dug-in inside the town. When negotiations broke down, York and Salisbury led the assault upon the barricades in two main streets. The defenders held the barricades and the Yorkists made no progress until Warwick led his reserves through some gardens and broke down the walls of some houses. He broke into the Lancastrians in the middle of the street and their position collapsed. Casualties included the Duke of Somerset, Earl of Northumberland and Lord Clifford killed, King Henry wounded and "captured". Numbers involved were small, probably a few thousand on each side.



Tudor Rose

Blore Heath - September 1459

Lords Audley and Dudley with a larger force of inferior troops, intercepted the Earl of Salisbury near Market Drayton in Shropshire. Both sides initially dug-in. Audley became impatient and ordered an attack upon Salisbury's position. There followed a long, bloody fight in which Audley was killed and Dudley captured. [He turned Yorkist after this battle.] Salisbury led his troops away in a night march, leaving his cannon to fool another Lancastrian force into thinking he'd stayed put. A couple of thousand on each side.



Tudor Rose

Ludford Bridge - September 1459

After pussyfooting around, the two sides met not far from York's castle of Ludlow. The Lancastrians clearly outnumbered the Yorkists, possibly by 2:1. The Yorkists parleyed but, in the night, the Calais garrison under Anthony Trollope defected to the Lancastrians. Realising their battle plans were revealed to the enemy, the Yorkist leaders dismissed their troops and fled abroad. There was no true battle but the Lancastrians sacked Ludlow. 10-20 000 Yorkists and a lot more Lancastrians.



Tudor Rose

Northampton - July 1460

The Yorkists approached a dug-in Lancastrian force outside the town. York's son, Edward, Earl of March led his men in column straight at the Lancastrian left flank. There, Lord Grey de Ruthyn's troops, [nominally Lancastrians], put down their weapons and helped them over the barricades. Then both contingents attacked the Lancastrians' central position. In the face of this treachery, the Lancastrians collapsed and it became a massacre. The noble dead included the Duke of Buckingham, Earl of Shrewsbury and Viscount Beaumont. The Yorkists recaptured King Henry. Up to 20000 Lancastrians and a few more Yorkists.



Tudor Rose

Wakefield - December 1460

The Duke of York and Earl of Salisbury spent Christmas at the Duke's castle of Sandal outside Wakefield in Yorkshire. The Lancastrians moved into the area and began despoiling York's estate. On spying a moderate Lancastrian force near the castle, York, [against the advice of Salisbury and others], ordered a direct attack. As he made contact, two previously concealed Lancastrian forces emerged from nearby woods and surrounded the Yorkists. Those not slain in battle were murdered as they fled, including York's 17-year-old son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland. A couple of thousand Yorkists and 2-3 times as many Lancastrians.



Tudor Rose

Mortimer's Cross - February 1461

March, recruiting near Wales, heard of the disaster at Wakefield and then that the Earls of Pembroke and Wiltshire were recruiting in Wales, themselves. He met them in a small market town in Herefordshire. A vision of three suns in the sky inspired the Yorkists and March positioned his troops with great tactical sense. Wiltshire led his men against the Yorkist right flank, which broke and was pursued. But in the middle, Pembroke was repelled by March's centre and surrounded. Wiltshire returned to succour Pembroke and managed to ford the river. The Yorkist left flank beat back Sir Owen Tudor, [father of Pembroke], and he was captured as the Lancastrians fled; Pembroke and Wiltshire escaped. Sir Owen was beheaded. 4000 Lancastrians, 5000 Yorkists: the Yorkist troops were probably of higher quality than the Lancastrians, too.



Tudor Rose

2nd St. Albans - February 1461

Queen Margaret led a rapacious force of northerners south to be met at St. Albans by Warwick. He dug-in and placed pickets in outlying villages. Alas, some of his pickets slept on the job and the Lancastrians took his position in the flank. In an all-day battle, he fought a rearguard action till nightfall and miraculously withdrew much of his force intact. [The only time a defeated force remained viable.] Treachery may also have played a part in the battle. 9000 Yorkists, 12000 Lancastrians, [though this was but a fraction of the Queen's total force].



Tudor Rose

Towton - March 1461

The two sides met in Yorkshire on the river Aire, halfway between Doncaster and York. Preliminary skirmishes at Ferrybridge saw the deaths of Lord Fitzwalter for the Yorkists and Lord Clifford for the Lancastrians. Then, at Towton, 15000 Yorkists faced 25000 Lancastrians. As driving snow blinded the Lancastrians, Lord Fauconberg ordered the Yorkist archers to step forward and shoot a single volley at the enemy. When the Lancastrians replied, their arrows fell short but they couldn't know it. The Yorkists then picked up the spent arrows and shot back accurately as the wind carried their arrows further. Stung by the arrow storm, the Lancastrian main force attacked.

Despite the arrows, the Yorkists gave way under the weight of numbers. They were saved from immediate destruction by the late arrival of the Duke of Norfolk. Under his attack on the Lancastrian left, the Lancastrians slowly gave way until they broke in late afternoon and all that evening and night turned into a massacre. King Henry, Queen Margaret and Prince Edward escaped but the Earl of Northumberland died and the Yorkists captured and beheaded the earls of Devon and Wiltshire. The precise numbers involved on either side are very disputable but everyone is agreed that a *very* high fraction of the combatants were killed. In relative terms, it was bloodier than the Somme.



Tudor Rose

Hedgeley Moor - April 1464

In little more than a skirmish, Lord Montagu surprised Somerset with 500 men near the Scottish border. Several of the Lancastrian captains, realising that they were sure to lose, ran away and the main force scattered. Somerset and the others escaped thanks to Sir Ralph Percy, who refused to flee and died on the battlefield.



Tudor Rose

Hexham - May 1464

Three weeks later, Montagu and 4000 men again intercepted Somerset with only 500 at another town near the Scots border. Somerset picked what he thought was a good defensive position but which was actually a trap; [all the Beauforts were poor generals]. Montagu blocked the only exit and charged directly. The Lancastrian force broke at the sight of the enemy, most were killed but a few were captured, including Somerset. Montagu ordered his beheading.



Tudor Rose

Edgecote - July 1469

The Yorkist earls of Pembroke, [different to that met at Mortimer's Cross - Herbert], and Devon, [likewise not a Courtenay but a Stafford], were outnumbered when they had to face Robin of Redesdale, a few miles from Banbury in Oxfordshire. The battle centred on control of a ford over the Cherwell. Pembroke won the first round and forced the withdrawal of Redesdale but Warwick, [the same as before but now a Lancastrian], appeared with 15000 men. Devon panicked and his men routed but Pembroke fought on and nearly won but a small force of cavalry took his men in the rear. Warwick executed Pembroke and his brother. His Welshmen took 2-4 000 casualties but deaths were high on all sides. Commoners captured Devon at Bridgwater and murdered him for his cowardice.



Tudor Rose

Losecote Field - March 1470

Edward IV, [last heard of as March], met with rebel sympathisers near Stamford at the Lincolnshire/ Rutland border. Edward had a lot of well-armed and trained troops; the rebels were peasants under Sir Robert Welles. The rebels broke under concentrated artillery bombardment before being engaged hand-to-hand. Edward called off the pursuit to prevent a massacre. The three rebel captains, Sir Robert Welles, Sir Thomas De la Lande and Sir Thomas Dymoke were all beheaded after their confessions had implicated Warwick and Edward's brother, George Duke of Clarence.



Tudor Rose

Barnet - April 1471

Warwick, the Duke of Exeter, Earl of Oxford and Montagu with 12000 men faced Edward IV, Richard Duke of Gloucester and Lord Hastings with 9000 men at a village between London and St. Albans. Warwick had a large artillery train but it was useless in the damp, foggy weather. Because of the fog, the armies aligned crookedly. Gloucester overlapped Exeter on the Lancastrian left and on the other flank, Oxford overlapped Hastings. When the two sides came together, this staggering caused the two lines to swing from an East/ West alignment to North/ South. Warwick saved Exeter by leading the reserves to take Gloucester in the flank. On the other side, Oxford pursued Hastings' force when it broke. Things looked very bleak for the Yorkists. Their left flank had broken, their right was giving way and only the reserves had prevented the centre from falling back. Then Oxford managed to rally a few of his troops and came back to take the Yorkists in the rear. However, in the fog and thanks to the turning of the line, he charged into Montagu's men by mistake and they mistook the Oxford emblem of a Star with Streams for Edward's of a Sun in Splendour. Then, when Oxford was recognised, cries of treason went up from the ranks and Montagu's men panicked. When Exeter fell in the fighting, the line broke. Warwick died in the subsequent rout.



Tudor Rose

Tewkesbury - May 1471

After Warwick's death, Edward set about chasing Queen Margaret. Having destroyed the bridges over the Avon and Severn, Edward finally caught up with her army at a town midway between Gloucester and Worcester. Somerset, [brother of the previous], set Lord Wenlock to oversee Edward, Prince of Wales in the centre. Devon, [again a Courtenay], commanded the left, Somerset himself took the right. The Lancastrians numbered 5-6 000. The Yorkists had only 3500 to 5000 but were in much better condition and were better troops. Somerset's battle plan was for Wenlock to attack the centre, holding Edward IV's army while Somerset's division swung around the flank into Gloucester's force. However, Edward had spotted the likelihood of this and protected his flank with a concealed force of 200 spearmen. When these took Somerset in his own flank, his plan fell apart. Contrary to orders, Wenlock held back the centre; Somerset found himself surrounded by Gloucester's men and Edward's reserves. His men were cut to pieces. Somerset himself is said to have fought his way back to the centre, accused Wenlock of treachery and killed him with a poll-axe, but this is almost certainly untrue as the battle collapsed too quickly for this sequence of events. The familiar massacre occurred with Somerset, Wenlock, Prince Edward all dying with many others. There are a lot of stories about how the Prince died but he was probably cut down in the rout. With him died all hope of a Lancastrian recovery. His father died in the Tower shortly after, "of pure melancholy", [yeah - right], and Queen Margaret retired to ignominy in France, a broken woman.



Tudor Rose

Bosworth - August 1485

Richard III, [Gloucester in the above], had usurped his nephew, Edward V. The Princes in the Tower were almost certainly dead by the time that Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond landed in Wales with a force of French mercenaries. With him was his uncle, Jasper, Earl of Pembroke, [remember Mortimer's Cross?]. People flocked to Richmond's banner as he marched towards London. Richard III met him at a town west of Leicester and north of Coventry. He took a position atop a small hill. With Richard were the Duke of Norfolk, [grandson of the previous], and the Earl of Northumberland, [son of the previous and now a Yorkist]. Richmond led his smaller force to the foot of the hill. Both sides were fairly equal in numbers. To the North and

South were significant forces under Lord Stanley and his brother, William. The battle took only two hours. Richard tried to make the Stanleys join on his side by threatening to kill Stanley's son, Lord Strange. [Richard had asked for a hostage against just this sort of treachery.] Stanley replied, "I have other sons!" Richard and Norfolk engaged but it became clear they were losing. Northumberland refused to support Richard with the reserves and then the Stanleys engaged on Richmond's side. Richard made one last attempt to attack Richmond personally but was cut down on the field. He remains the only English King to have died in battle since the Norman Conquest. Lord Stanley handed the crown to Henry Tudor and he promptly crowned himself Henry VII. Thus, the Tudors replaced the Plantagenet dynasty after 331 years. The people of York lynched Northumberland few years later. His retinue just watched them do it and it's said that Northumberland's treachery to Richard III at Bosworth lost him their loyalty.



Tudor Rose

There were a few other raids, skirmishes and sieges but that's basically it. You could also include the battle of Stoke June 1487 when Lambert Simnel, pretending to be Edward V met his comeuppance near Newark in Nottinghamshire.

You might wan't to change it from Bosworth to Redmorre as it was known.
What are you going to do about independant affinities?
Government titles were possibly the key factor in the creation of the war, will they factor.
As for this duke thing, alot of the time if a duke was captured he would be executed and have no heir his lands would then be given to another man. So you might want to read up about all the hiers each majore Duke/Earl had during the period. So if enough of a certain number of these Lords die upon these fields you could make so that his lands are given to another lord.

Tutankamon
I might first release a battle pack, but I also want to research how much is possible before acting like I'm finishing it one day.

Bopa the Magyar

Quote:

---

What are you going to do about independant affinities?

---

I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain it a bit more?

Quote:

---

Government titles were possibly the key factor in the creation of the war, will they factor.

---

I have yet to look into that. Titles would give some bonuses to popularity, power or extra units so it would add another layer of depth to the gameplay. At the moment I don't know much of this is possible and wether I can make an userfriendly interface around it.
If you can come up with a set of rules that makes it clear when a title is given and when it was taken away then you would certainly help me.

Quote:

---

So if enough of a certain number of these Lords die upon these fields you could make so that his lands are given to another lord.

---

Having different names for each noble would be near impossible. Since most nobles are mentioned after their title I think this isn't that bad.
What you propose is possible, but making it clear to the player how many heirs are left is not, or at least it would be a waste of resources. If that is not an issue then I can easily include it.
Or I can add a script that gives the dead noble at random an heir or not. If has an heir then the noble will remain loyal to the original faction. If not then it will become loyal to the faction that has the most popular support.

Affinities- In the wars of the Roses fighting was done primarily between the nobility aka knights in large numbers and men-at-arms aka proffenssional soldiers. The men of lesser stature were left almost untouched even benefitted. Lords would take into battle not a feudal levy but their only private army consisting of very heavily armoured foot soldiers and foot knights plus archers. These men were bound to their Lord as he offered them protection from the law, as these men were themselves lesser nobles/gentry who had their own agenda eg. if lower noble says another of his rank has a castle he should own he breaks the kings law and goes off and beseiges it starting a private feud. Now the man he is fighting also has a higher lord who protects him. Thus the two nobles covertly support their "thugs with men and money". As these Higher Lords or Magnates were so powerful the king could do nothing. Such relationships were known as Affinities, basically local warlords and their thugs. Thus the names of Englands pube, the "Bear" would signify the Bear and Ragged staff the symbol of the Earl of Warwick meaning that it was in his territiry.

This project is abandoned. I am no longer modding R:TW. While the 3D engine is fantastic I can no longer enjoy a game of R:TW. Replacing the continuous strategic map and techtree with my concept might have given me some fun, but there are always remains the AI... I'll just leave it at that.

I found it very enjoyable to talk about game mechanics, so many thanks for all the comments! :medievalcheers:

Cheers,
DJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

This project is abandoned. I am no longer modding R:TW. While the 3D engine is fantastic I can no longer enjoy a game of R:TW.
DJ

---

that's sad to hear I was looking forward to se a mod like this and by your record of previous projekts i have no doubt it would have been great :san_grin:

But with your permission I would like to give it a go and see if there's anyone ells who would like to make it come true, although in a slightly other fasion..

Och!! Arrrgghhh... :(

http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/u...r_1000_men.jpg

It doesn't end here for me :san_tongue:

You're making a new engine? Or using another game? Whatever you're doing, I wish you good luck!

nice screen...good luck for your mod!

Quote:

---

Campaign map
The R:TW map will be replaced with a map a la M:TW since I find the boardgame style much more suiting for the atmosphere. The map will get the look of a parchment map laying on a wooden table. There will be shires and some of them will be divided up to give more options in movement.

---

If you do this alone I will dowload the mod. That would be unbelievable.

Looks like very much work tough, hope you can pull it off.

Or you could read the rest of the thread and realise this has been abandoned :(

A mod might wanty to close this

I guess I wasn't wrong when I said you were overconfident about RTW modding/scripting possibilities then.
That last screenshot is interesting though. Somehow it looks familiar. I guess you wanna keep us in the dark about exact details, but if that engine allows for more freedom than RTW modding I'm might be interested in giving you a hand on this project.

well Duke, if you dont finishs the project could you atleast say how you did the map.I have been dying for a RTW with MTW map ever since I first played.

That's a screen from one of the American Conquest-series games, right?

I'm willing to go forth with the idea if there's anyone who knows how to mod or script or anything since I'm only good at the researching and design bit:san_rolleyes:

Sadly... I think that a War of the Roses mod really stood a chance of becoming a reality if they kept in the MTW mechanisms of marriage and crusades - that way, marriages could be arranged - as they were historically - between the great families, while crusades and jihads would stand in for the chevauchees and expeditions during the war. I mean you can get the look of it in RTW and you can have family factions but you got the limitations of the game engine...

Best wishes and best of luck though DJ, wherever you are! Hope that you can still realize the WotR game that we all dream about!

de Clare

That screenshot is a quickly thrown together in Paint Shop Pro and was a test to see how an isometric game with small units looks like. Now you can say that such a screenshot is worthless, but while not yet a game engine it did gave me the confidence that something that simple can look good enough. And programming a isometric game engine is not rocket science, it is defintely a reachable goal. Some time ago I made with Macromedia's Director 20,000 animated sprites onscreen, plus I got a 3ds model converting tool working, so I think that Director can be used to create a TW style of game.

I do not have the hope of creating a 3D battle engine since that would introduce many obstables. A isometric game engine is alot less complicated and games are still produced with it (Cossacks 2 and other real time strategy games). This project may not succeed at all, but I now realize that what I aim for cannot be accomplished with the TW engines and I have little hope for the future considering that the CA developers are happy with R:TW. So TW was an dead end for me anyway.

I am now searching the web for tutorials and thinking about how the engine should be like; real time versus turnbased, scale. And IMO very important how to give the player an unique gameplay that reflects more truthfully medieval warfare. I want to be able to recreate the battle of Tewkesbury where the whole battleline rotated 90 degrees or where an unit attacked his own unit as it thought it was the enemy in the fog. An engine where it becomes logical to divide your army into 3 divisions and to keep reserves. I am also looking into DBA and Warmaster rules for some ideas.

If any of you think that spending many months on creating a game engine is a fun hobby then feel free to PM me or post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adherbal

I guess I wasn't wrong when I said you were overconfident about RTW modding/scripting possibilities then.
That last screenshot is interesting though. Somehow it looks familiar. I guess you wanna keep us in the dark about exact details, but if that engine allows for more freedom than RTW modding I'm might be interested in giving you a hand on this project.

---

No, you were wrong. It wasn't the impossibilities of scripting that made me quit, but the tactical AI that leaves me time after time saying "What the hell are you doing!?"
I don't want to keep you in the dark about details. If I have something to show I will definetily love to share it although this subforum is not really the place anymore. If you are interested in wasting many hours then you are always welcome to share your own ideas how a medieval wargame should play like.

King of Atlantis, my idea cannot be used for everything. Ideally only for 2 factions with 1 being controlled by scripts. This way you do not have to test versus multiple factions; 4 factions can mean 12 times as many code and I don't know wether R:TW can handle that much! But in short; you place (selection) characters in each "region". If the player selects one these characters then the army model is instantly moved into the region and the selection characters are moved from the map.

Cheers,
Duke John

Hello anyone I feel like talking to wall :embarassedg: