Printable View
Hi all I've been playing around with the gnome editor and want to add a few more valour bonuses to the game. I've already given Milan a crossbowmen bonus because of what is written about the italians under pavise crossbows unit description. Anyone have any good historical suggestions for bonuses in other regions?
Also I'm looking at allowing some merc units like the alans to be built by other factions not just the BYZ. Anyone like to suggest other units that should be more readily available?
I have Alans as trainable in Georgia and Khazar by the Byzantines the Horde and Russians/Novgorod. It may be an idea to allow all of the eastern European Christian and Pagan factions to train them. I haven't given them a valour bonus there however. I don't use inns/mercenaries in my games (removed) so this is the only way for me to get Alan Mercs. I've also thought of putting the Inn building to other uses.
The lands most lacking valour bonuses are, again, Eastern Europe. It may be an idea to put a valour bonus for vanilla horse archers and/or steppe cavalry in one of the eastern steppe provinces, such as volga bulgaria. Also it may be an idea to add bonuses for the Mongol units in their emergence provinces to give them a bit more edge when they arrive. The Mongols should sweep across Asia and eastern europe making a big mess, in MTW they penetrate the Turkish provinces and slug it out with the Russians before losing momentum and petering out.
In the west it may be a good idea to put a valour bonus for Feudal Knights somewhere in Europe. You'd have to do the research as to where, but possibly in Ille de France to replace the one for Chivalric Foot Knights.
I would also ditch the valour bonuses for all ships (portugal, wessex, Venice, Tunisia, Aragon, Denmark etc) as they're not really much cop and the AI can't exploit them. Another one is the Inquisitor and Grand Inquisitor valour bonuses in Castille. That's a particularly nasty one, as GI's are dangerous enough as it is. It also berates Castille which was not only famous for lunatic witch burners. It would do better with a valour bonus for a Spanish specific unit such as Lancers, Javelinmen or Jinetes.
Another one that I would remove is the Syrian valour bonuses for assassins and Nizaris and replace it with a more realistic one for e.g. Desert Archers, Horse Archers or Futuwwas. I am working on a mod to make the Taverns and Inns in MTW easier to upgrade, to give decent agents to all factions.
Another good one is Bedouin Camels and/or Arab Infantry for Arabia.
Good suggestion on the Mongol valor bonuses. Give all the mounted units hidden bonuses in Kazar (or lesser if an XL style map) and have one territory give a Step Cavalry bonus.
Some great ideas there, Third spearmen.
As one who plays the Spanish (Castille-Leon in XL) a lot, I won't disagree that Castille-trained Inquisitors are perhaps a bit overpowered. ~D I wouldn't mind if Castille gave a bonus to Jinnettes instead, although Lancers would perhaps be more appropriate.
I personally would keep the ship bonuses in, if only because it helps lessen the odds that the AI's lone barque manages to somehow sink my 3 galleys (:furious3:). If you are intent on removing the ship bonuses, however, then I'd recommend Venice's Galley bonus be replaced with a bonus for Italian Infantry.
Another would be to replace Wessex's Caravel (or was it Cog?) bonus with a bonus for Feudal Knights--the English were somewhat known for their cavalry-heavy armies until the Scots showed them the error of their ways at Bannockburn. ~;)
Denmark's Longship bonus could possibly be replaced with a bonus for Viking Carls, but I'm not sure how historically accurate that would be. (And giving the bonus to Huscarles doesn't bear considering; that would just be scary/ridiculous!)
Tunisia's ship bonus could be replaced with a bonus for Muwahid Infantry, although I'm not sure these guys need the help! Still, it could provide the Almos with another strong unit that can help them out in the later stages of a campaign.
I would also recommend Arabia give a bonus to Bedouin Camel Warriors. Not only was it home to the two largest Bedouin tribes (Aniza & Shammar), but it would also be nice if Arabia actually possessed some sort of strategic value for once.
Martok, Vladimir and Caravel
thanks for the great feedback so far guys :2thumbsup:
I had not thought of getting rid of the ship bonuses but that sounds like a great idea. The idea of trying to get a good bit of historical fact behind these valour upgrades really appeals. The Arabia/Bedouin Camel Warriors valor bonus is one I'm going to go with for sure.
Do any of you guys want to suggest any units that should be more readily available to build by more than one faction?
Are you doing this for vanilla or a mod? (so I can get the right units into my head and think)
I presume he's doing it for Vanilla, though not sure.
With regard to Arabia and Bedoiuns, it's the best idea, but I'd throw those poor devils the Arab Infantry in as well. They need all the help they can get. I did it once, and it gave me both the incentive to develop Arabia and reason to train the arabs in the first place. I remember a certain campaign where I used them as mass flankers against the mongols and they gained valour quite quickly.
As to units that should be more readily available, I'd say Futuwwa. The Egyptians should definitely be able to train these as well.
Also, and dare I mention this, it may be an idea to give the Byzantine at least access to Armoured Spearmen.
For the Almohads, Turks and Egyptians I'd take away the Militia Sergeants/Urban Militia. They seem to be a muslim reworking of the Catholic units, that is not at all accurate. Also I feel that with Ghazis and AUMs available there's not a desperate need for them.
Also another one I've wondered about is Armenian Heavy Cavalry. They're only available to Muslims yet they are inherently a christian cavalry type. Oddly enough the unit dismounts to feudal sergeants giving indication that CA may have considered making them available to all factions occupying those provinces, regardless of religion or culture type. They may have made them exclusively muslim in order to fill the gap for an exclusively muslim medium cavalry, though I don't see it as the muslim factions can train Ghulam Cavalry which are almost the same (though AHC cost less to support and have a better charge).
The only other unit changes I can think of are more restrictions.
Good point, Caravel; I meant to mention that in my earlier post but forgot to. I rarely bothered with Arab Infantry in vanilla MTW/VI, as Gazis were always superior in terms of "bang for your buck". VikingHorde's XL Mod gives AI the ability to throw armour-piercing javelins, which helps; but even then they still seem a bit underpowered at times. A valour bonus in Arabia could actually make it worthwhile to train them again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Ooh, that's a good one! (The XL Mod gives the Byz the ability to train Latin Auxilaries, which definitely helps out with their lack of a strong anti-cav unit.) I would even go so far as not only give the Byz access to AS, but give them a training bonus as well (in Anatolia, perhaps?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I agree with removing UM; not so sure about removing Militia Sergeants, though. Having a cheap anti-armour/cav unit can be useful for dealing with Crusades coming through your lands, particularly if you can't recruit significant numbers of Muwahid/Saracen Infantry yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I would also make Jinnettes available to all factions (so long as that faction owns one of the Iberian provinces in which they can be trained). Given that they were partially inspired by Moorish soldiers and tactics, I don't see why Jinnettes couldn't be trained by Muslim factions as well.
Giving the Arabs javelins wouldn't be hard at all though I'm unsure of the historical accuracy of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Anatolia would be a good one, though perhaps Greece would be better? It lacks any kind of valour bonus at present, it's a large area and is really not a province but a generic region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I'm (re)thinking that militias should be there. In my case anyway. I was looking into "homelands" last night, which I have been considering implimenting for a while. It seems stupid to be able to train certain units belonging to specific ethnic groups at an extreme distance from their origins. In this case the militias would be handy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Good idea! I'm thinking province specific is better than faction specific in many cases. Throughout history we see where an invaded people's fighting men are absorbed into or adopted by the conquerors armies. It is more realistic for the Almohads to train Jinetes in any part of Iberia, than for say, the English to be training Longbows in Volga Bulgaria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I strongly suggest leaving the galley bonus intact for Venice. They were renowned throughout the world for the assembly line type shipyard they had and were able to build a huge amount of ships. Ship bonuses for England, Aragon, Denmark, and maybe Big C. would be also be historically appropriate and would give a more realistic feel to the game. All though it's all up to user choice of course.
Now, back to reading the rest of the thread...
If Palastine doesn't have one, then maybe Ghazi bonus there.
I agree with what you're saying, but the point is that the naval system is already a bit of a lottery anyway. Giving the italians super valoured galleys is asking for trouble. Luckily the Sicillians don't have such a bonus in any of their home provinces!
England has the Cogs bonus in Wessex as is. Aragon has the Wargalleys(?) bonus, not alot of use to Aragon themselves. Denmark has the Longboat one, Constantinople has no ship bonus and I'm not sure if it should.
The way I see it, these bonuses can seriously imbalance a campaign. I've lost many fleets in the past to these valoured up ships, especially as regards venice. The Portugal one for Caravels isn't a problem because the place is so unstable and rebellious that the AI never manages to tech up to build a dockyard anyway.
Also if I as the Spanish can take Portugal, and tech it up to build high valour Caravels, then put together many three ship fleets with a Portuguese Caravel as their Admiral's ship at the head, the AI doesn't stand much of a chance.
To reflect the ease of production in Venice the italians should simply be able to produce the Galley type ships more cheaply, which I think they can anyway IIRC.
In reality the AI shipping needs all the help it can get. Yes there are those occasions where your fleets go down one after another, though it's rare if you manage them correctly (attacking first with like ships grouped together in groups of no more than 2 or 3!). The AI sends it's fleets to the stupidest of places, i.e. the Danes often send a loan longboat to the Black Sea instead of putting it to use guarding their coast or forming the beginnings of a trade route. Imbalancing this even further with provinces pumping out high valour ships will only make matters worse.
Palestine has one for Knights Templar, but it can have Ghazis also. Though Ghazis are very generic in the game, and historically there were many Ghazis of different origins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
Basically we can mod many (not sure of the limit) units to have a valour bonus in the one province, but we can't give the same unit valour bonuses in multiple provinces AFAIK. I haven't tried putting i.e. "ID_LIBYA, ID_AFRICA" in the field for the province valour bonus for Saharan Cavalry. For all units it contains only one province (i.e. ID_LIBYA), so I somehow don't think this will work.
-Edit: I'm wrong there, I was thinking or the "ruler advantage" column. There are multiples (such as algeria and morocco for berbers, but they don't apear to work (confirmationm needed)).
I was thinking about their fire galleys.Quote:
England has the Cogs bonus in Wessex as is. Aragon has the Wargalleys(?) bonus, not alot of use to Aragon themselves. Denmark has the Longboat one, Constantinople has no ship bonus and I'm not sure if it should.
Is that the Valour bonus for Aragon, Fire Galleys? And it's standard Galleys for Venice right?
Two points I'd like to throw on the table
1. I am playing XL mod 2.1
2. I've started using the gnome editor because of my boredom with the AI and it's silly tactics. Ships are a pet hate of mine mainly down to the AI's inability to make chains and trade. My idea is to take away the valour bonus for ships and replace each with a more useful faction bonus. but to balance I've made all things sea based cheaper and quicker to build.
Port 1 year, cost 200
Shipyard 2 years, cost 400 etc
low level ships cost 200 and take one year to build
next level 300 and 2 years build etc
I'm hoping that cheaper ships and buildings will mean more ships on the seas, more hope of chains and easy replacements when fleets are lost.
Nor am I. I think VikingHorde gave them javelins (actually I believe they were throwing spears, now that I think of it) mostly so that you had a reason to recruit them, as opposed to any historical precedent. Once you're able to recruit Ghazis & Muwahids, Arab Infantry become pretty redundant--unless they're given a valour bonus, and/or another ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Good idea, Caravel. Also, since Greece was once famous for its hoplites, bestowing it with a bonus for armoured spearmen would be sort of a nice symmetry as well. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
True enough. If you're going to have homelands, then militia units could have a bigger role in your armies abroad. (This is not a criticism in any way, but I do confess to sometimes wishing VH's XL Mod had Homelands like Wes' MedMod, as I think this would help with the "steamroller" effect later in the game. But that would just be icing on the cake for me. ~:))Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Agreed. Some units should be limited more by region than by who can recruit them. I don't think we should see the Polish being able to train Longbows, however, or the Sicilians training Huscarles. ~D There does still have to be some limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I second that as well. I'm more in favor of the Italians/Venetians being able to produce Galleys cheaply, as opposed to being able to produce them with a +1 bonus. Sort of like how the Uesugi clan could train cheaper Archers in Shogun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I believe that's correct, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
For some reason Arabs and javelins doesn't seem to go together, though I could be wrong. The majority of Arab fighters were mounted, and armed with swords and bows of some sort. This is why I'd resist turning them into javelinmen. I'd give them bows before I'd give them javelins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
The Byzantine should have access to such a basic unit. I'm not so sure about giving the valour advantage for the Armoured Spearmen though but if they are able to train the normal round shield ones, then they should also be able to train the armoured ones, or neither. It's simply a generic unit and should be available to any catholic or orthodox unit that can't train Feudal Sergeants as a replacement (as the roundshield spears are used in place of the regular spears for some factions).Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I've been working on and off modding for over a year, and have messed around with units sizes, and stats continuously as well as Sahara and landbridges. As things stand I believe that the stats are balanced enough. It has been my goal to create a sort of non personalised mod that doesn't drastically alter the game, nor add new provinces, new units or any new graphics. In essence the changes would only be scripted. a sort of a semi-realism / gameplay patch/fix that doesn't try to fix what isn't broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
The main issue as I see it is homelands and provincial valour bonuses as well as the 'which factions should train what' issue. There are quite a few muslim units in particular that should be more restricted. Muwahid Foot Soldiers being a good example. They should be restricted to their Almohad homelands, and the Almohad Faction. Murabitin = Almoravid. Muwahid = Almohad. Homelands, for me is absolutely essential and can only mak the game vastly better, but it needs to be implimented well.
That's why I said 'many'. There has to be some limitations. In essence both systems have to be in effect. There will be areas where they overlap and areas where they cancel each other out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
The Italians can produce all of their ships cheaply as it stands (Vanilla) with the exception of Dromons. It would be simple to mod those in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I've also messed up my most recent crusader_unit_prod11.txt so will be redoing that. It crashes and I can't be bothered to search for the error (not a column row reference crash but a real crash). Instead I will create more regular backups and catalogue all of my changes in future! :wall:
Yeah, that'd make more sense. It would be a good way to give the Eggies a hybrid infantry unit, sort of like Jannissaries (except not as uber).Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Agreed. I still think the Byz should have a province that gives Armoured Spearmen a bonus, however. Unless you were going to allow them to train another heavier spear/pike type unit later on, the Byz could use all the help they can get in that department.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I mostly agree, but Muwahid=Almohad only? I don't know about that one. I personally would make them available to all Muslim factions, but that they must own one of the north African provinces (Egypt, Tunisia, etc.). Of course, I'm hopelessly incompetent when it comes to modding such things myself, so you and Third spearmen do what you like. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
(Have we just spent the last several posts essentially agreeing with each other on this point, without actually realizing/acknowledging it? :inquisitive: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
What exactly are you hoping to accomplish with editing the Crusader unit files? Are you attempting to just rebalance their stats, or something a little more extensive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Historically Muwahids were Almohads and Murabitins were Almoravids. So it makes sense that Muwahids should be restricted to Almohad only, and/or only available in Almohad provinces as this is where they come from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Probably, I seem to have a knack for that. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
That file is not just stats, it controls which faction can build which unit, when, where and which valour bonuses from which provinces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Interesting; I didn't know that. I was under the impression they were more like Nubian Spearmen, where they served with several different Saharan/Arabian nations. Thanks for the mini-history lesson. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Right. I was just curious what you were going to change, that's all. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
The word "Almohad" a corruption of Al-Muwahhidun (the monotheists). "Almoravid" is a corruption of Al-Murabitin (the sentinals). The Nubians would have been slaves, Murabitin and Muwahid infantry would not have been slaves, which is why they would not generally have been found serving in Turkish armies in Anatolia! If you look you can almost see how the westerners, in particular the Castellanos corrupted the words to make them more palatable to weserners. This is common.
This is why I feel that both should be exclusively Almohad and that Murubitin infantry should only be available in early, with Muwahid Foot Soldiers possibly replacing them in the high and late periods. (There is a lack of any specific Hafsid units).
In my opinion. they should be renamed as either Almoravid Javelinmen/Almohad Spearmen (or Murabitin Javelinmen/Muwahid Spearmen) and given valour bonuses in either Sahara, Morocco, Algeria or Tunisia. The era restriuctions should also be there.
-Edit: As to stat editing, I'm of the opinion that the stats are mostly ok as they are. Some of the obsolete units (such as i.e. Ghulam Cavalry, and Arab Infantry) need something to make them worthwhile, but I'm not sure that beefing up the stats will accomplish this without pushing another unit into obsolescence.
GAH! No, you can't take the away the Muwahids from my Egyptians! ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
But seriously, yeah that does make sense. I think I've actually heard before that Alhmohad was essentially a "Castillian-ization" of Muwahid (probably elsewhere on this board, no doubt). Didn't know that Murabitin was a curruption as well, though.
Well I personally find Ghulam Cav to be decent enough already (although you're not the only one who thinks otherwise), so I can't really think of any suggestions offhand as to how to improve them. With the Arab Infantry, however, I like your idea of giving them bows and turning them into a hybrid unit. That's probably the best solution I can think of, aside from the throwing spears VH gave them in his XL Mod (but which you feel is historically inaccurate).Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
@Third spearman from the left: So have you made any progress on adding/replacing unit bonuses? You've been kind of quiet the last couple days, and I was curious as to what changes you'd made so far. :book:
slightly off topic, but a question has been burning in me to ask you, caravel and martok. i judge the longbowmen in the xl mod to have built up to be too powerful. what are your thoughts?
To be honest, I haven't noticed that much of a difference, although I can tell they're a little amped up from their original selves. I don't frequently play as the English, however (in either vanilla MTW/VI or XL), so it's possible I haven't enough experience to form a true impression. That said, they still seem fine to me--but then I always felt they were actually a little underpowered in the vanilla game. I think I have/had perhaps overly-high expectations for longbows, and was therefore slightly disappointed with the initial results. (So in my mind, the XL Mod fixed this to at least a degree.)Quote:
Originally Posted by highlanddave
Ghulam Cavalry are essentially AHC with a charge bonus of 6 as opposed to the AHC's charge bonus of 8. They cost less to train, but more to support and they take much more teching up. They need some other kind of stat/cost difference to AHC to make them worthwhile training. I would suggest equalising the charge with AHC, making them disciplined, and cranking up their armour 1 point, but also increasing the cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I was wondering the same. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
That, or just lower their training cost (and keep their stats the same). I like the idea of making them Disciplined either way, though. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
The problem with lowering their training cost is that, unless they're alot lower, and unless their support cost is lowered as well, there is still nothing to gain whatsoever from recruiting them. Thinking about it, I am reluctant to alter their charge at all. I would prefer if they were better in defense and melee and were disciplined. This is more inline with their high prerequisites (Spearmakers guild horse breeders guild). AHC's only need a horse breeder, and they're simply better cavalry. Why tech up to a cavalry that you've already superceded?
Your last point rings all too true, Caravel (although I can't disagree with the rest of your statement either). While I find GC does well enough in battle, I never have understood why their build requirements were so high. Bumping up their stats does make quite a bit of sense.
The only concern I have is making sure they're not made identical to Kwarazmian Cavalry--although that's another unit that could definitely use some buffing as well. (They're too expensive, and their build requirements too high, in comparison to their combat abilities.)
I'm going to try it once I've fixed all of the homelands. I keep hitting a point where the gnome editor corrupts the crusaders file. Even reversing the changes doesn't fix it, so I have to revert to a backup. (Why couldn't CA have made this file easier to edit like the startpos files? :no: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Khwarazmian Cavarly = Kataphrakoi but alot faster with 2 points less to the charge (Kataphraktoi 8 charge, Khwarazmian 6 charge) and undisciplined. Personally I find them overpriced and take too much teching up, so seldom bother with them. AHC with upgrades and a good general can give anyone a run for their money. The Khwarazmians do need some souping up (and perhaps some slowing down), to give 3 levels of cavalry (Armenian, Ghulam, and Khwarazmian). Historicaly they would have been among the ranks of the Mongols and the Turks, I doubt the Fatimids, Abuyyids or Mamluks would have had anything to do with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
And don't get me started on those Sipahis of the Porte! :furious3:
Update: Well I've complated the homelands and the valour bonus regions suggested here, with the excaption of jinetes and armoured spearmen (I still haven't decided about those). Jinetes have always seemed a bit fishy to me. They're not exactly Jinetes as such, but some kind of Javelin cavalry. Sadly they're probably fantasy units. I've made Jinetes available to all, though only trainable within Iberia of course. As to the armoured spearmen it seems wrong to have greece only famous for these. If I can think of another Byzantine unit as well I may add them as an extra "hidden" bonus.
Hi Guys
have been a little busy of late so not had much chance to put in to practice the changes mentioned. I've had one other question come to mind and wanted to get your ideas on it. In my current game I'm playing as the turks in high period. It's now 1389 and I've had the injection of otto troops for the late period but was very disappointed that Janisary troops are only available in the one province that the MA is built in. I think this seems really unfair and might change this, any thoughts on this and the best way to implement it?
A difficult one. The Janissaries were historically elite troops only produced in Istanbul IIRC. The valour bonus for the archers in Georgia and the heavies in Bulgaria are rather pointless. Though the youths may have been 'recruited' from these regions, they weren't trained there. There shouldn't really be any valour bonuses for them, as they're tough enough as they are. As to restricting them to production in Constantinople only, I'm not in favour of that. Since MTW doesn't follow history exactly and since these type of slave troops could have been relocated easily it makes sense to leave a few possible turkish 'homeland' provinces open for recruitment.
As to multiples. I'm not so sure about that. If they become too common they become a bit of an exploit.
I have always modded the Janissaries to Late period only, due to the Janissary corps being founded by Murat I in the mid to late 14th century.
Very interesting thread, I like many of the modding suggestions shown.
Only I have to warn that VH should have been fixed the differences between heavy cavalry that Caravel noted some post before: In XL mod Kataphraktoi and Khwarazmians have the same speed and same charge bonus.
About the removal of syrian valour bonus for assassins- I don't think it's a good idea - it's a balancing factor in all campaigns where a faction takes too soon the supremacy. If you own Syria, you may sit and wait with a good chance to kill the enemy leader and his heirs and, most of times, 12-14 killers will make your day and return you a fair campaign game.
One tip about the GNome editor; I found that sometimes, for little editing work, the notepad has more chance of success. :balloon2:
Greetings
Aragon gives a bonus for gungalleys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Venice for standard galleys.
Do the ship bonuses actually do anything? Ships don't have valour, just command stars. I could be wrong, but I think I recall building a couple of dhows in Tunesia in an Almohad campaign and most of them didn't have command stars when freshly built.
Another thing about ships: is it historical for the Italians to have acces to fire galleys? I also thought that it was kinda odd for the Byzantines not to have a single vessel that can travel through deep sea...
Trebizond archers can be recruited anywhere with the Byzantines, wich doesn't make sense. Better would be to give them a more generic name like "Byzantine toxatoi" (literally archers) and keep the bonus in Trebizond.
For more valour bonuses, perhaps:
Normandy for Feudal knights
Flanders for militia sergeants and maybe pikemen*
Algeria or Tunesia for Murabutin and/or Muwahid infantry
Arabia for Arab infantry and/or Imams and/or Bedouin camels
* the bonus in Tyrolia should be removed, it's redundant as Swiss pikemen are available so nearby. Pikemen should be reworked to be available earlier and made stronger as they're useless in vanilla. Personally I made them available with the lvl 3 militia building (at citadel level) + spearmaker lvl 3 and their stats are now 4 charge, 1 attack, 1 defense, 4 morale. They're still not uber but can usually defeat spearmen from the front.
They do have effect. Ships produced in those provinces have 3 command stars to start with IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I would say that it wasn't historically accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I've already given Muwahid a valour bonus in algeria and Murabitin in Morocco.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Does anyone fancy creating a list of all the suggestions in this thread, taking out the duplications and then I'll implement them in my current game and report back?
ps: I did a bad thing today....I bought Rome Total War Gold Edition :embarassed:
I'll try to do that tonight if I have time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
Well considering you're working on some MTW modding, we'll put off your execution until next month. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
Seriously it's not that bad, but you'll probably need to install a realism/balancing mod, because as it is, it plays like it's been designed for 5 year olds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
Caravel, if you don't get a chance to do it, just PM me. I should have some free time tonight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
"Tar and feather him! Boil him in oil!" ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
But seriously, yeah you'll want to take Caravel's suggestion and download one of the realism mods, either RTR or EB. The latter seems to particularly popular lately, so that might be the one you should try out.
The current version of EB won't work with R:TW Gold: it requires R:TW 1.2. However, the port to R:TW 1.5/Gold (EB 0.8) is almost ready. The same goes for the official R:TR release (R:TR Gold), but there is an unofficial port (R:TR Platinum Edition) that does work with 1.5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Caravel: Most of the ideas in the summary are good, but I wouldn't give the Almohads acces to Armoured Spearmen. One of the unique features of an Almohad campaign is that you can't simply use lots of spearmen to form a sturdy phalanx and circle your cavalry around it, you'll have to better and improvise a lot.
I think your idea for pavise crossbowmen/arbalesters is excellent, though.
I suggest a name change for the Hashishin. The Hashishin (or Nizari, they're actually the same...) were an independent sectarian faction that you would never find fighting for the Seljuks, Egyptians or Almohads.
I think that Fedayeen would be a better name choice. This name was given to various islamic warriors throughout history, most recently a Baath militia in Iraq (not a fine example, I know). The name apparently means "one who is ready to sacrifice his life" according to Wikipedia
(as a side note, in Dune the Fedaykin (a distortion of the name) were Paul Muad'Dibs personally trained commandos)
Why not, instead of giving Armoured Spearmen to Russians and Novgorod, just make Rus Spearmen buildable in all eras by both factions? That way these factions would have their own unique spear unit that is virtually identical to Armoured Spearmen. You could also give them a bonus in Novgorod or Kiev.
Other suggestions for province bonuses:
Szekely in Carpathia or Hungary (I think the Hungarians need a bit of a boost)
Polish Retainers in Poland
Lithuanian Cavalry in Lithuania (this would possibly make teching up to the unit worthwhile)
Byzantine Infantry in Anatolia (the Anatolian heartlands were the main recruiting area for the Byzantine army before the battle of Manzikert)
Inquisitors/Grand Inquisitors/Cardinals in Rome (this would make sense, plus it would make the Pope more annoying than he is already, increasing the fun of wiping him out)
Slav Warriors in one of the eastern European provinces or possibly in Serbia
Druzhina Cavalry in one of the Russian provinces
Woodsmen in Finland (this would make the province more attractive)
Can anyone suggest a province that was famous for its Mounted Crossbowmen? This unit is a favourite of mine, and I would love to give it a bonus somewhere.
On another note, there was another thread some time ago where the pros and cons of assigning bonuses were discussed, and someone mentioned that giving a province a bonus may actually hinder the AI. Apparently the AI will only tech up to the unit with the bonus and stop building anything in the province after that. So that might be something to research more and consider.
A very good point. Changed the listing for Armoured Spearmen. The issue of Rus Spearmen is another problem. I'm not sure of their historical accuracy. Also they don't fit the high and late periods. I believe they are simply a gap filler put in place by CA, whom of which seemed to designate alot of units as "spearmen" in order to fit the rock/paper/scissors agenda. Saracens are a good example of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquis de Said
Added to the list. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquis de Said
Ah... now we hit an obstacle. Byzantine Infantry are probably one of the most historically innacurate unit in the game. Their armour does resemble that of a late kataphraktoi cavalryman, but they appear as footsoldiers with eastern style shields, and short curved swords. I don't profess to be a medieval military history expert, but they are simple fantasy units. The Byzantine didn't deploy this type of infantry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquis de Said
An idea, but as I've stated before, Inquisitors tend to hit the AI more than they do the player. The AI also sends it's own Inquisitors against it's own generals based on low piety and nothing else. So a superb general that hasn't read the bible in a while could end up being roasted by his own faction's inquisitor. Inquisitors are also overpowered anyway. The player can exploit them horrendously, which is why I wouldn't overpower them even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquis de Said
Good one. Or Bohemia, or Poland perhaps? I'll add this to the list once we get some more ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquis de Said
Muscovy perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquis de Said
I don't see any reason why not. Though they already have one in Lithuania. Maybe remove that one once the one for Lithuanian cavalry is in place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquis de Said
I know that the Burgundians, Genoese, Venitians and HRE made use of these, but I'm not sure if any province was exactly famous for them. The crossbow wasn't difficult to use and often considered dishonourable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquis de Said
I've heard of this, and I've often wondered if it causes the AI not to build ports or watchtowers in these provinces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquis de Said
Has anyone considered making Almughavars buildable by the Aragonese (and maybe the Spanish) in Aragon and possibly also in Navarre?
I don't know about the unit's historical accuracy, but I've modded them into the vanilla game in the past and they are a really cool unit. Spearmen that throw javelins and have an irresisitible charge. Almost too good to be true!
In an earlier version of XL I let the byzzies build the armored version because they would always be steamrolled by the Eggys. Plus they're great fun to play with. However, if I face them on the battlefield, I make sure I kill them first.
Looks good, Caravel! You've already covered just about everything I can think of, and then some. :thumbsup:
I did come up with one other idea, but it might be a bit ham-handed. Since the Spanish were reknowned for their steel, I think it would be cool if one of the northern Iberian provinces (probably Aragon, Navarre, or Valencia) was able to train either FMAA or CMAA with a valour bonus. I realize this is already somewhat reflected by most Spanish provinces having iron deposits (thus allowing the owners of said provinces to build a Metalsmith improving units' attacking abilities), but I think it would still be nice if one of those provinces gave a more direct bonus to infantry trained there. Just a thought, anyway.
Not sure about the FMAA/CMAA valour bonuses being in Iberia. Could put them in Navarre, but that hardly seems like the sort of province to be famous for such infantry.
I probably won't be working on this again until sunday, when I'll update the listing to be alphabetical and add some more ideas. There are alot of unconfirmed ideas there that need more input.
Well if you really want to put something there than maybe Spanish javelinmen?
For my Charlemagne-era mod, I wanted to make a Basque faction, so I gave them Navarre. Not knowing anything about the Basques of the period, I figured I'd give them some kind of fanatical low-tech infantry, so I made Highland Clansmen trainable in Navarre as well as Scotland. I know I know it's unhistorical as heck but it works for me, for now, without having to create a new unit. A bonus is that the unit description for clansmen doesn't mention Scotland specifically at all.
Anyway, I made the change in crusaders_unit.txt so it ended up carrying through to my regular vanilla campaigns, with the consequence that now I see the Spanish are training some clansmen in their armies. Personally I think it's a neat touch, so I think I'll keep it. But anyone who knows more about the Basques could certainly correct me; I'd be interested to hear what they *actually* used.
Just an idea; probably not everyone's cup of tea. There are certainly other ways to reflect what I'm trying to do, with re-named units such as Celtic/Slav Warriors, etc.
CountMRVHS
If you wanted to make it a bit more historical, you could move the Highlanders from Navarre to Leon. There was a fairly strong Celtic culture in Leon at one point, although only remnants of it now remain. It's a thought, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountMRVHS
Rather than post this in another thread.
I was thinking of possibly using the Inn structure as a "Levy Raising Structure". By this I mean that it can hire one type of unit and one only, a militia or levy. A Levy unit would be cheap and not very effective. But this would symbolise the Feudal society, and would be a good addition in my eyes, not to mention historical.
The only way to get this working would be reduce the Merc penalties that certain buildings great (BUILD_PROD files) and increase the Inn Merc attractivity (BUILD_PROD files).
I may implement this in my game.
**slaughters chickens, draws pentagram, resurrects thread**
I was thinking previously of putting the Inn to some use, but couldn't think of anything. I had throught of redesigning the assassin/spy tech tree and having the Inn as the lowest building capable of producing both at 0 valour, then having the brothels and taverns for upgrades. I'd given up on that though after having the gnome editor corrupt my crusader_build_prod11.txt a few times...
Using it for basic levy troops is an idea. Personally I don't use mercs so I've usually modded Inns out of the game in the past. The AI can't make use of them so I don't bother either. Mercs always feel a bit cheap and nasty also.
I've been playing through a few campaigns with the XL mod and am quite impressed. It has improved somewhat from what I remember, though it was always a good mod. I may start to mod this, instead of modding vanilla MTW/VI, but haven't decided yet. I need to redo everything and fix a few landbridges and the Sahara province, before I get onto valour bonuses and unit availablity again.
Ah, but did you remember to chant backwards? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I would be inclined to agree with you there, especially since (as you said) the AI doesn't make use of mercenaries. I confess, however, that I find inns to be moderately useful--if only because they enable me to hire artillery crews early on. I'm not sure how to reconcile that, as personally I dislike restricting access to merc, particularly in the Early period. Still, I rather like the idea overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Also: What do you consider to be "basic levy troops"? UM and vanilla spearmen?
Which landbridges are you altering?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
:oops: :help:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I suppose the merc artillery thing doesn't affect me so much. I rarely fight sieges and hardly even build the siege engineer. I just don't like how MTW manages sieges at all, nor can I see much use in any of the siege equipment apart from an occasional catapult. The biggest problem I have is that archers cannot mount the walls, this to me makes the whole thing redundant. Also the stupidity of the AI while assaulting makes it quite unfair. (sending in 1 unit at a time to be shot to pieces etc, breaking the wall then walking away and coming back again, or going around the back to break the wall, then coming back to the front again... arghhhhhhhh... need I go on?). So I avoid sieges and anything to do with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I suppose, UM's, spearmen and peasants would be basic levy troops. Though wouldn't archers be levy troops in some cases also?Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
XL appears to have most landbridges altered already. I'll have to check Sicily/Naples and Sardinia/Corsica, I can't remember if they're disconnected or not (I've only played a little as the Irish, the Volga Bulgars and the Hospitallers so far). Apart from that it's ok. I need to add the Finland/Sweden one as well, and enable the Sahara province of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Once I get back to using my own internet connection (house move, phone line change (what a house move this turned out to be!)) I'll host whatever we come up with here for download so that people can test it out. I suppose I should work on an XL version and a non XL version, though I'm not sure I'll have the time to do the latter.
I wouldn't really know. The AI assaults castles so rarely in my games, it's hard to make a comparison. :sad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Well that's what I was wondering. Surely in the case of the English and the Muslim factions, I would think that at least vanilla archers would be levies. I'm no historian, however, so I couldn't say for sure. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I know that XL removed most of the landbridges (except for the one from Denmark to Skania), but I also think VikingHorde's patch restored a couple of them. I'm drawing a blank on which ones, though. Still, about the only other place where I could see having a landbridge (aside from the aforementioned Dennark-Skania link) would be Constantinople-Nicea....but that's only a maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Sounds good. I'll be more than happy to try it out. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I tend to retreat to castles alot instead of fighting, then I bring in troops to relive them, so maybe I see more attempted assaults. I've grown quite accustomed to fighting them off or at least ensuring that the AI pays dearly for their victory. If I'm a muslim faction I often use this as an excuse to Jihad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I'm pretty sure that Archers were levied at least in England. I'm not at all sure about muslim factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I haven't had the chance to check which landbridges are intact and which aren't. I do feel that Nicaea and Constantinople should not be a land bridge but should be divided by sea. VH made a good job of that area as far as I can tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
It appears as though VH reused the "ID_AFRICA" province as the new Mesopotamia province, so enabling Sahara for XL is not going to be quite as simple...
Gah! Sorry Caravel. I'm pretty sure VH had said something about that previously, but I didn't think of it until your mentioning it just now. My apologies for not giving you a heads-up on that. :shame: I knew he had maxed out all the provinces for XL, but I'd forgotten that little bit (about using the Africa province slot for Mesopotamia).
No worries! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I quite like the Mesopotamia province, but I do think that the Sahara province should have been retained and one of the other extra provinces (such as Estonia or Savoy) could have been done away with. I say this because it helps to break up the straight line of provinces that exists accross North Africa. In Vanilla MTW a Crusades would cut through that area devastating it in a linear fashion. With the Sahara province enabled a crusade can go to Cyrenacia avoiding Algeria and Tunisia by cutting through the Sahara instead.
I'm also not keen on the Khazar/Lesser Khazar situation. Khazaar is now landlocked and it's one time trading potential lost.
As I've said before, mods are all well and good but the personalisations are often enough to be quite offputting to the end user who may see things from an wholly different perspective.
Also I noticed that I can't train Bedouin Camels in Mesopotamia. :book:
That's a valid point. Goodness knows I've taken advantage of the "linear-ness" of North Africa often enough as the Spanish (and occasionally as the Portuguese), so I can't claim to not know what you're talking about. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
As far as which province to eliminate, I would personally suggest Estonia (although Savoy's probably a good choice as well). It seems to possess only minimal strategic value, and it's not as if the Novgorods or any of the Scandanavian factions really need it.
I hear where you're coming from. I suspect, however, that VikingHorde did that to give the Cumans another province--which in my experience they often need. Just my opinion, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I consider myself fortunate in this respect. I'm interested enough in the medieval period to appreciate the improvements the XL mod has made on the original game; but I'm not a scholar either, so I don't notice any glaring errors/omissions that would interfere in my enjoyment of it. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I hadn't really thought about it in a while (it's been some time since I played as the Fatamids), but you're quite right. My guess is that it simply escaped VikingHorde's notice when he was adding the province--it would be fairly odd of him to deliberately preclude camels from being trained there. ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I hate the province layout in the region, and I do feel it needs an extra province. The Sahara is there and usable. I have reverted back to vanilla MTW/VI 2.01 now. If anything does come of our efforts here, then this mini-mod or at least this information will be available to the wider vanilla userbase and not just XL users.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I'd agree, though I don't want to get into messing with provinces. I'd have to combine the lookup map from XL with the one from vanilla in order to remove those provinces then mess about trawling through the code undoing stuff. That's not really my objective as such. New provinces IMHO don't add that much to gameplay, new units and new factions definitely do. Strangely enough the only new province I really appreciate in XL is Mesopotamia. It does make things interesting. Personally I would have joined the County of Edessa to Syria and used the ID_EDESSA province as Mesopotamia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Possibly. I'm just not so sure about provinces with that many trade goods being landlocked. On a similar note it would be interesting if local trade good be boosted in value, to make it actually worthwhile, while lessening the value of sea trade at the same time. I haven't really thought about this before...Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I know what you mean, and I do think that the XL mod does have some very good improvements, many of them contributing to greater historical accuracy. Some of the new units are rather questionable, and the unit balancing is a bit off though. Another problem is that naptha throwers have been removed in favour of the naptha catapult which replaces them. While some may dislike naptha throwers for whatever reason, others may see their absence as a problem. The changes I prefer are those subtle ones, that on the surface don't make much of a difference, but which improve gameplay. Homelands, trade/farm balance, new valour bonus regions, better historical faction/unit naming, landbridge changes, different dismount types for some units, reassignment of certain units to other factions and restriction of others to specific factions, stat changes to some units, are the sort of changes that make a difference in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Another major problem that has had me puzzling for a while is bodyguard units. As they are, they're pretty poor. I am at a loss as to why the Byzantines qualify for a full size unit of Kataphraktoi whereas the Muslim factions have to make do with a non scalable 20 man units of Ghulam Bodyguards. The 20 man units have their pros and cons. Firstly they're small so their support costs are low. This means that having 6 heirs mature one after the other won't break the bank, as it would if each of those units were four times the size. In a campaign as the Volga Bulgars (XL Mod) I had to send alot of my heirs out to fight in the hope they're be killed, and I'd be able to disband their units which were costing me 210 florins in support costs apiece and preventing my economy from getting off the ground. The cons of a 20 man unit is that they're easy victims for missiles, and are quickly beaten and routing, which gives the units leaders alot of the coward type vices. How many times have you simply gunned down the muslim faction leader and his heirs and watched the rest rout off the field??
The solution in my opinion is to make the 20 man units scalable and reduce the 80 man units (Kataphraktoi, Boyars and Mongol Heavy Cavalry, off the top of my head) down to 20 - also scalable. That way the units scale with whatever unit size the player prefers. That solves the problem for the Muslims, Pagans and Orthodox, but not the catholics. Early Royal Knights are the same as Feudal Knights, the only difference is the unit size. The same goes for High Royal Knights and Chivalric Knights, and Late Royal Knights and Lancers. As I've said earlier in the thread, it would be a good idea to make Lancers available to all factions, as they're simply a Late Medieval Knight type of unit (The Spanish type of Lancers are fantasy). In this way, Royal Knights could be removed altogether and catholic factions could use Feudal/Chivalric/'Lancer' Knights as their bodyguards in a scalable 20 man unit. The tech tree would be adjusted so that Feudal Knights would depend on the first type of Royal Court and not the second, Chivalric would depend on the second and Lancers (who currently don't have a royal court dependency) would depend on the third. The easiest way to do this would be to actually remove the Chivalric Knights, Lancers and Feudal Knights and rename the Royal Knights as Feudal/Chivalric/Lancer and adjust their unit sizes and dependencies accordingly. This sounds a strange way of doing it, but it will preserve the upgradeability of the old type to the new type, which is how the Royal Knight units currently work. The problem with this is that the new Feudal Knights would be unavailable after 1204, and new Chivalric Knights after 1320.
Just something I noticed that's all. I wondered if there was a historical significance. Maybe camels feared the reputation of the Mesopotamians and were reluctant to cross the border? :egypt:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
(Briefly off-topic: So Caravel = Manco Capac now? What inspired the name change?)
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Personally, I think most of the additional provinces make a fair bit of sense. My two personal favorites are Skania in southern Sweden and Algarve in southwest Iberia--I think they definitely alter the strategies of the factions nearby. Mesopotamia actually annoys me, but that might have more to do with the fact that it makes it harder for my Fatamids to take out the Seljuk Turks. ~;PQuote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Kidding aside, I would recommend keeping Edessa and Syria separate from each other. Both cities played fairly significant roles during the existence of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (although Damascus was never actually taken by the Crusaders). I realize you don't want to monkey with the provinces more than you have to, but Estonia or Savoy still probably the two best choices. Just my two cents; take it with as many grains of salt as you're comfortable with. ~:)
I don't know about lessening the value of sea trade (unless it's by only a very small amount). VH already nerfed income from sea trade pretty heavily--IMHO, gutting it much further might threaten to make it not worth the time and effort necessary to set up trade routes. I definitely agree, however, that inland trade could (and probably should) be increased. I don't think it should equal what a faction can get from sea trade, of course; but it could still be significantly increased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Well you probably know better than I--as I've said before, I have only a passing familiarity with medieval history. I'll leave such decisions & changes to you. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
It's your last sentence (which I underlined) that somewhat bothers me. I'd hate not being able to retrain my Feudal/Chivalric Knights--we deal with enough of that nonsense as it is (Viking units, Varangians, etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
I admittedly can't think of another solution, however; and I do agree that bodyguard units should really be scalable. (Never quite understood why they weren't. :inquisitive: ) [sigh] I don't know. :shrug:
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
The only thing I can think of is that perhaps VH associated Mesopotamia more with the Baghdad Caliphate....and I'm not sure how much the people there used camels. (?) That's more of a random guess, though. :shrug:
The name change was inspired by the name change feature. I thought to myself, oh no, name change needed! Name needed! Think of a name quickly! Manco Capac was the first Inca so I thought why not, after checking to see if anyone had any similar names. When the 30 days are up (I think it's 30 days or it may be 60 days) I'll either go back to caravel or try something else! :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Thst's why I like it, it helps the Turks out! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Well since I won't be working on the XL mod or in all likelihood modding provinces, that won't be too much of an issue. You're right about Edessa in that respect... I suppose just leaving the provinces as they are ( :yes: ) is the best idea. ( :yes: :yes: :yes: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I mean in relation to the vanilla game. We've already talked about cutting the trade percentage, but not boosting the actually trade goods value, which would help local trade vastly. At present the local trade just isn't worth it. You have to lay out 1000's of florins in Syria to see a decent income from trade and even then it takes eons to get your money back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Not necessarily, my knowledge is also a passing knowledge and what information I have retained (the info that doesn't just pass straight through the sieve) is often irrelevant. What I was referring to, was that while some almost historically accurate units were added (not knocking them either, as they're better than what I could do by a long shot), many of the other fantasy units are still there, pretty much unchanged. I'm not sure that VH ever 'sold' this mod as an historical accuracy mod however so you can't blame him. What i feel we're trying to achieve here is primarily a gameplay mod, with as much historical accuracy as possible thrown in as an extra.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I know. Bu the point is that if you drag a battered unit of Feudal Knights in to be retrained they'll appear next year as Chivalric Knights. That was part of the idea behind it. This is how it works at present with Royal Knights and this is how it would work under the new system with Feudal/Chivalric/Lancer Knights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
To reiterate in more detail:
Feudal Knights - removed
Chivalric Knights - removed
Lancers - removed
Early Royal Knights - renamed as "Feudal Knights"
High Royal Knights - renamed as "Chivalric Knights"
Late Royal Knights - renamed as "Lancers" (or something else)
Above Knight's units changed to become a scalable 20 man/horse unit instead of an unscalable one.
Dependencies changed as follows:
New "Feudal Knights" - same as old Feudal Knights but only requiring the Royal Court, not the Royal Estate.
New "Chivalric Knights" - same as old Chivalric Knights but only requiring the Royal Estate, not the Baronial Court
New "Lancers" (or another name) - Same as Lancers but needing the Baronial Court in addition to the usual dependencies.
Basically the Royal Court dependencies are stepped backward one level, which to me makes sense, as I'm usually only producing Feudal Knights after 1205 as it is now, because I cannot tech up fast enough. By that time they feel obsolete anyway.
I'm convinced of it, and had been working on it for months, before I went AWOL, and have tried many different approaches and all have failed. This is the only one I hav come up with that seems even half workable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Camel1: "Mesopotamia is over there ya know?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Camel2: "Where?"
Camel1: "The Caliphate of baghdad you fool!"
Camel2: "I couldn't give that *makes rude gesture* for the caliphate of baghdad!" *prepared to cross frontier*
Camel1: "Don't say I didn't warn you..."
Camel2: *pauses* "you're not telling me you believe that load of old camel dung?... about no camels being allowed in mesopotamia?"
Camel1: "camels can't go there..."
Camel2: "watch me!"
Camel1: "ok your life..."
Camel2: "pfffttt..." *steps over border...*
Camel1: "NOOOOOOO........."
-Edit: I've applied the changes and it seems to be ok. My unit sizes for all bodyguard cavalry are now 40 (41 with a facton leader). The Royal Cavalry modded into the Feudal, Chivalric Knights and Lancers seem to work fine. I edited the Ghulam Bodyguard's dependencies to include the same buildings as those needed by Ghulam Cavalry as well as the Royal Court. Their dependencies are the same whatever the era. (early/high/late ghulam bodyguards depend on the same buildings)
Now I need to get back to re-applying all of the other changes we discussed in this thread... tomorrow. Hasta Mañana! :2thumbsup:
Very good sir. :bow: (Oh, and you can change it every 60 days!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Gah! I forgot you were referring to vanilla MTW/VI. ~:doh: You're right; sea trade in the original game is way overpowered. As for inland trade, increasing the value of the trade goods themselves is a brilliant idea! ~:thumbsup: (I wonder if anyone else has tried doing so?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Agreed. I don't think it was ever VikingHorde's intention to pass off XL as a "realism" mod, although I have a feeling he did try to somewhat improve the game in that respect. What we're talking about doing is actually somewhat similar, albeit in a slightly different direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Okay, so would *all* knights be upgradable as the Eras changed? Or would only the Royal units be able to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
I....I got nothin' after that. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Cool. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Excellent, MC. Let me know how it goes! :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
I think I may have a go at that later, and quite possibly over the weekend, though Mrs Caravel may have something to say about that. :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I think what we need is a "light mod", that fixes and changes alot of the common annoyances, adds some new stuff, but is extremely lightweight, say a 1MB download and no more. I'd love to host the map I've edited, about 2 years ago, but the file is just too big (30MB or so if I recall correctly!). The map has the landbridges edited out visually. It's very smooth and you can't see where they were. I always use this map myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
The new Feudal Knights, Chivalric Knights and Lancers will also be the new bodyguard units. They will be the Royal Knights and the other knights all in one. Because they're based on the Royal Knights, they will be upgradeable in the same way that the Royal Knights were. In a nutshell here are their advantages:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
1) Smaller unit size than the old Feudal Knights, Chivalric Knights and Lancers = lower support costs.
2) They are a larger unit size than the old bodyguard units, so they're better equipped to fight and protect your heirs and king.
3) Unlike the old Feudal Knights, Chivalric Knights and Lancers these units become obsolete with every era change, but unlike the former, the new units can simply be upgrade from Feudal Knights to Chivalric Knights to Lancers by retraining the unit after the era change has occurred.
4) The unit size is not full size, as with Kataphraktoi so you're not paying dearly in support costs every time an heir matures, though you are paying more than you were previously, when the units were 20 man non scalable (up to a maximum of double the cost on huge unit size).
5) The new Feudal Knights, Chivalric Knights and Lancers can now be built earlier because the tech levels for Royal Courts have been dropped 1 level.
6) The Lancers are available to all Catholic factions and not just the Spanish and Aragonese.
I've also changed Mongol Heavy Cavalry, Kataphraktoi and Boyars to 20 man units (scalable). They need some testing before I'm satisfied if they are going to stay like that. Ghulam Bodyguards have also been changed to scalable and their dependencies changed to the same as Ghulam cavalry + the Royal Court. Sipahis of the Porte are now also scalable. I could also add the Royal Court (otherwise useless for orthodox) as a dependency for Kataphraktoi, but that would be historically wrong, so I think the best idea would be to just remove the Royal Courts from the orthodox factions. (Along with the later Militia buildings for those factions that don't need them.)
Hey, whatever you can get done is good. I'd hate for you to get in trouble with the wife, so no rush. ~D I'd do it myself if I knew how, but I'm just not adept at that sort of thing. ~:dunce:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Agreed. Since most of the changes are in the numbers and not visual, we're probably talking about more of a glorified patch than anything else. It would be a nice patch, though. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Cool. Out of curiosity, what other changes did you make?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Okay, I'm definitely warming up to your changes now. :thumbsup: The two points listed above are my favorite. They both make a lot of sense when you think about it. No more oudated Feudal Knights in 1250--just upgrade them to CK's! And actually being able to train the respective units before the next Era arrives is a nice change as well. This is actually sounding far cleverer than I first envisioned. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
I agree with removing the Royal Courts for the Byz/Novgorods. I've never really understood why they get them in the tech tree anyway, unless CA left it in by accident (which is certainly possible).Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Also, as one plays as the Eggies a lot, I have to say that scalable GB's would be nice as well. :2thumbsup:
I'm about to start today. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
A glorified patch is an apt desription, not really a mod, as a mod involves many more visual changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Well err... that's it really... :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I'm not sure I said anything about training them before era! They're very era restricted. Feudal Knights will no longer be available in High and Late, and Chivalric Knights will only be available in High. Lancers will only be trainable in the Late era. Basically if you have e.g. any battered units of Chivarlic Knights or Feudal Knights left during the Late period you can send them in to be retrained a Lancers. And if you had any Feudal Knights left during the High period you could retrain them into Chivarlic Knights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Possibly left in by accident. The problem is that many new players will build it, thinking that it may do something. They will look at the description and think that it wil give more power or influence to their king somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
To work...
:smash: :whip:
-Edit: I was also thinking of reusing the Fedual Knights unit, but reducing it's stats somewhat, and making a new 'mounted militia' cavalry type. I'm not sure of the exact historical accuracy of this, but mounted militias did exist, I just need to find more information on them...
Summary updated: :2thumbsup:
Summary
Gunpowder units should get a bonus in Tyrolia as it focused early on sharffschützen and scheibnschuetzn in english sharpshooters or marksman to defeat invading troops. In the 15th century the relationship between handguns/arks and pikes/polearms was from 4:1 to 6:1, asthonishingly high. Skirmishing in loose order, hiding behind cover and a taste for sniping the high ranking among the enemy was natural for men which hunted or shoot for the best the price of a shooting fest.
This men didn't "kill" but "took down the game" "laid them on their skin" speaking in the language of the Jaeger or Hunter.
Tyrolean sharpshooters showed their potential became later on the bane of the invanding bavarian and french troops. A nice ambush from 1703 might illustrate how they proceeded: Bavarian troops marched down a valley to pacify it. The villages didn't agree with that so the commander of the Schuetzen let destroy the bridges, construct a trench and positioned his best shooters on both hillsides of the valley well hidden. The bavarians marched by without seeing them, and in the meantime some men started to break down the bridges behind them.
As the bavarians tried to cross, havoc broke loose and many were taken down by the sharpshooters on both sides. A Deroute followed and most were killed and the rest captured. A good deal of the surrendered bavarians were cruelly cut down before the priest, which had fought with the Schuetzen intervened..
Cheers
OA
I'm not sure if Tyrol was famous for it's Arquebuses and Handguns between 1087 and 1453, though I do agree that it's not a bad idea to give gunpowder units some bonuses, and possibly in that region. Between the 11th and 15th century, pieces such as the Arquebus, and early handguns especially, were actually dangerous matchlock weapons that often exploded in the users face, were frowned upon by the all important clergy as "unchivalrous" and were next to useless in rain (or even fog / heavy humidity). They were also heavy, inaccurate, cumbersone, badly balanced, slow to reload, very long and poorly designed, with not much, if any, thought for ergonomics.
I know that some people will disagree with this statement, but they likely haven't actually used these types of early weapons. The weapons they've used are probably replicas of later 17th/18th century flintlocks which are a totally different animal. A replica, even if it is a replica of a 15th century Arquebus, is still a replica.
It was also terrible for a preened and handsome dandy on a fine horse and several thousand quids worth of armour, anxious to show daddy that he is a real knight, to be shot off his noble steed by nothing more than an ill trained peasant. Even the bow/longbow and crossbow had this same problem. Warfare wasn't ready to be revolutionised at that time.
From reading about this in the past, the biggest effect these types of weapons had, until they were better refined, was fear.
I will post a few facts in two days, once I get the book about the Schuetzen once again in my hands..
However keep in mind that Tyrol is perfect country for shooters. Since 1400 at latest the gunpowder weapons started to overtook the crossbows, which became a domain for the nobility. The lower classes of the citiziens and farmers flocked to the gunpowder weapons, increasingly owning a personal fireweapon. The Landesfuerst did support them by organizing shooting competitions and gifting the prices, because he had an strong and fruitful alliance with them against the nobility.
Some of them even competed with the commoners which enjoyed political power and relative richness. I will post the exact details later
BTW there is a great picture where the shooters have to hit a wooden knight which is pulled from the left to the right. Fits quite nicely into the plan of the Landesfuerst do get his peasants to shoot down a noble knight :yes:
Cheers
OA
Speaking of unique ways of fighting...
Would it be possible (both theoretically and for you who are creating this mod) to add som real local units? I came to think of this while reading through some books of mine about medieval Sweden (though I guess somewhat similar troops would appear in other regions too, I just haven't heard of them).
What I mean is this: During the middle ages, the Swedish armies were quite unique for Europe. They consisted of peasants (peasants and peasants, farmers in Sweden always had more power than in wester europe, and were not in villenage) who brought pretty much everything with them to the battlefield (this depended on which part of Sweden they came from). Crossbow, polearm-like weapon (axes in the early middle ages, and the more halberd-like weapons later on) as well as a sword or axe. On top of this some light armour and usually a shield. The tactics used were mainly to ambush the enemy in the middle of some dark, deep forest. This proved efficient many times, even when fighting against much more professional troops.
The in-game unit could be somewhat like the following:
A crossbow unit, but with less efficient fire rate and damage, and much much better at melee than ordinary crossbowmen.
Unit size: 60
Cost: Cheap
Support cost: Cheap
Charge: Strong
Attack: Very good
Defence: Weak or average (depends on era, weak in early and high, and average in late)
Speed: Average
Bonus fighting in woods (disadvantage fighting in the open).
Sky-high morale.
Now, the thing would be this: This unit can only be trained in Sweden, by the Swedes, and suffers from a huuuge morale and valour drop once they leave Sweden. So, in short: is there a way of creating "patriotic" units, who can only truly be used in certain provinces?
Just wondering.
In a word no, unfortunately not. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
This is what could be done. Supposing the Pictish crossbow unit is used, though based on say Highland clansmen type stats? Possibly with slightly better morale, using the "uncontrolled" discipline type. The unit could be retricted as only trainable in Sweden, and nowhere else. And only trainable as the Swedish and that's it. Also there are no specific "bonus fighting in woods" type units. The only way to do this is to make them more of a Ghazi style unit, which are entirelyu suited to ambushes. Amazing morale, fast, devastating attack, very strong or irresistable charge and again "uncontrolled" discipline type, though no armour and terrible defense. This unit would be ideal for hiding in woods and bursting out upon the enemy, or using their crossbows as a decent missile unit if no ambush opportunity presents itself. (they'd need to be turned off fire at will or they'd blow their cover when the enemy come into range).
Look forward to that. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens
Well, close enough then~:rolleyes: Shame you can't make units region-dependant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Nice work with the mod, seems to be turning our really good judging from the latest summary:2thumbsup:
Update
1) Yeoman Cavalry added to the units section of the summary. (I really don't like this name, it needs changing!)
2) Shipping updated. Ships will take 1 year for coastal vessels, 2 years for the small deep sea vessels and 3 years for the big ones.
3) Huscarles added.
The Iron mine has now been implimented. The Iron mine is not a big earner, only a bit better than a copper mine, it costs 550 and 950 to build at present, though I need to tweak that as I go along. The metalsmith and upgrades now depends on the Iron Mine except the Master Metalsmith which depends on the Iron Mine Complex. The castle levels have been preserved.
I have added roughly 50% of the homelands now. These are mainly for the Muslim factions and the Byzantine, though I have done some for the English, the Castilian Leonese, the Danes and the Italians also. I will write these up once they're finished. For now though I would appreciate any input anyone can give regarding Catholic, Novgorod and Russian faction homelands. For the Golden Horde I'm favouring no homelands at all for MHC, MHA, and MW. Their units need to be trainable anywhere.
I'm already noticing some shortcomings. The lack of UM in the early campaigns for the Egyptians and Turks make the unit roster feel rather empty, and also make the Town Guard seem pointless (despite the happiness bonus). I feel it needs some other unit training purpose, apart from simply the happiness bonus. I'm thinking that maybe the Arab Infantry should depend on the Town Watch instead of the Swordsmith. They're not the greatest infantry out there so teching up to a keep and swordsmith for these seems to be a lot. Not sure about this yet though, but if the English and Danes can get Vikings and Clansmen from a basic fort then the Egyptians and Almohads should be able to get Arab Infantry from a Town Watch.
The Square Shield Spearmen unit is also rendered rather redundant for the Egyptians and Almohads by the presence of the Nubian Spearmen. I will probably remove it again. The Turks who don't have the Nubians and use the Round Shield Spearmen anyway aren't affected.
1.) Very good. :2thumbsup: If you don't care for the name, we could always simply call it Militia Cavalry like we originally discussed. Possibly Merchant Guard Cavalry would work too, but that doesn't seem as realistic to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
2.) I forget--were you changing the costs of ships as well, or just the build times?
3.) Huzzah! :thumbsup: I did just now think of something, though. I know you've upped the build requirements for them, but had we decided on whether to make them more expensive as well? I wonder if that would be too much, or if it would help further balance them....
Cool cool. Aside from northern Iberia, may I suggest placing an iron resource in Syria as well? Damscus was famous for its steel swords, almost--if not as--much as Spain was. :yes: I think you could also probably place a few in the Alps/northern Italy, although I'm less certain as to how realistic that would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Have you made the Novgorods/Russians into seperate factions, or are they still the same? If the same, then I would recommend their homelands include Novgorod, Muscovy, and Kiev. Aside from that, I'm not sure which provinces would be appropriate to include for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
As for the French, I would say their homelands should include all the usual suspects: Flanders, Ile de France, Toulouse, Anjou, Normandy, and Acquitaine. I would also include Champagne, Lorraine, and Provence; I would leave out Brittany, however.
If you wanted to get somewhat radical, you could even make an argument that the provinces of the Holy Land--Antioch, Edessa, Tripoli, and Jerusalem--should be Frankish Homelands as well. Of course, one could argue that they should be homelands for all the Crusading factions, and not just the French! :book:
I think having Arab Inf being dependent on the Town Watch isn't a bad idea at all, MC. It certainly makes a lot of sense, given how they formed a significant portion of a Caliph's army. Me likey! :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Militia Cavalry is probably better until we come up with another name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Costs are all halved. I've been testing it, and it's alot better. I'm playing a Turks campaign, and the Byzantine fleets are now a real problem. Their ships are appearing every year, and engaging mine. I can no longer glut the sea with ships as I used to and easily dominate the med.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I think the build requirement changes are ok for now. I may increase the support and training costs also. I need to have another look at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Syria is a good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
The Novgorod/Russian problem...Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I'm convinced that CA struggled with this also. Originally I'm sure they were one faction, the Russians, then CA, possibly after discovering the relevance of Novgorod to the early period, went through the process of coding in another faction for early, the Novgorod, as an effort to create a northern European faction, but never finished them. Instead they assigned them the Russian faction's colours and units, with Vikings as an additional unit and left it at that. There is no real need for the Novgorod faction as the Russians can simply be renamed "Novgorod" in early and assigned the relevant provinces.
Modding in the Novgorod as they were intended to be would be a long process, involving the new campaign map flags, new units, etc. It would be good, because the Russian faction could then be included in the Early period around Kiev. To be honest though, any player wanting this sort of thing will just go for the XL mod. The aim of this mod is to be as light as possible after all.
I need to do more work on the Russian faction as a whole, but I'm leaning toward removing Novgorod and renaming the Russian faction as Novgorod in Early. The Viking Unit (the Drangar) also needs to be take away from the Novgorod and possibly a new infantry unit created for them, based on it.
The French are easy enough, however they don't have many unique units, so homelands for them probably won't be an issue. Units such as Hobilars and Gendarmes are the only few that I can think of. The former will need a combined Anglo-French homeland with the latter needing a somewhat larger homeland covering much of France, Iberia etc. Apart from that, there are no other semi-unique French units that I can think of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
The Crusading units won't have any homeland restrictions imposed upon them. I may make it possible for units such as Order Foot soldiers and Order Knights (St. James, St. John, Templars) to depend on a chapter house and be trainable in certain parts of the east such as Palestine, Rhodes and Malta.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
That will give the "Egyptians" 2 decent units early on in Arabia: Bedouin Camels and Arab Infantry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I've noticed in my current campaign as the Turks, that the Egyptians didn't do too well after I took Antioch and Tripoli. The huge dent in their income must have placed them in the red. This is probably down to the increased support costs of Ghulam Bodyguards. I may tweak the costs a little and also try to make Egypt a richer province than it is at present.
The Byzantine's Armoured Spearmen make a big difference also.
I have renamed the Egyptians, Turks and Almohads per era. They are now known as:
Turks: Seljukid Empire / Seljukid Empire / Ottoman Empire
Egyptians: Fatimid Caliphate / Ayyubid Sultanate / Mamluk Sultanate
Almohads: Almoravid Caliphate / Almohad Caliphate, Marinid Sultanate
Iron should be added in Milan, and some southern German provinces (like Bavaria). This area was one of the main producers of weapons and armour during the medieval period, and of course even later on. Even the muslims of the Middle east often bought swords from northern Italy.
I think that Novgorod should remain at least in the High era. Afte the Mongol invasion, Novogorod lost some of its independancy as a state, but existed untill the late 15th century when the muscovites finally brought an end to them, moving the seat of power in Russia from Novogorod to Moscow. When Alexander Nevsky defeated the Swedes at Neva and the Teutonic Knights at lake Peipus, in the 1240's, he did so as a defender of Novogord.
Who are they? I thought the Nasrids were the main muslim power in Iberia after the Almohads had expired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
The Marinids held sway in the Maghreb from the 13th to the 15th century. They actually took Fes from the Almohads in 1248 and established it as their captital. That was basically the end of the Almohad Caliphate, though they still lingered on for a few more years, and the beginning of the Marinid Dynasty. All in all the Almohad Caliphate spanned something around one hundred years.
The Nasrids were an islamic dynasty in Spain, based around the Granada, not Morocco nor any other parts of the Maghreb.
The Marinids also held some territory in Spain, but nor Granada. It may be a good idea to give Granada to the rebels in late, as this would have been held by the Nasrids and not the Marinids.
Adding Novgorod into late would mean modding the Novgorod faction's colours and flag images. I'm not so sure about doing that as yet, as I hadn't planned on altering any graphics for this mod. Editing the graphics for MTW is a complete pain as they appeared to have used some pretty ancient tools. Many of the texture files are stored in the .lbm format (the bitmap format used by Deluxe Paint, originally a Commodore Amiga program). You can't save these files in psp because it's mucks up the palettes forcing you to download another tool to save the file with. Another format used is .bif which you also need to download a special program in order to view and edit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Thanks for the clarification.
IIRC in XL, the Nasrids are a late period faction that controlls granada and the north north African provinces (except Egypt and the Sinai obviously)
That would be unhistorical then, but understandable because with less territories the moorish faction cuold be overrun by those powerfull late catholic kingdoms.
If the starting positions of the Iberian chistians would be a little tweaked, a Nasrid Granada faction might be very interesting (and challenging) to play.
Just some thoughts...