Some great ideas here so far keep them coming, :2thumbsup:
Any final decision on the MA for the otto Jan infantry I'm still in favour of getting rid of it and allowing production of the troops in any province that meet the high specs.
Printable View
Some great ideas here so far keep them coming, :2thumbsup:
Any final decision on the MA for the otto Jan infantry I'm still in favour of getting rid of it and allowing production of the troops in any province that meet the high specs.
Well the way to do that, IMHO, is to remove the necessity for the Grand Mosque altogether. This way the Military Academy would only depend on the citadel and in this way you would be able to construct multiples. This way (assuming the mods above are present) you can separate your MI from you GM and build the MI in Constantinople (and multiples anywhere else of course) and the GM in Arabia to produce the High valour Imams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
Personally if I was to do this, I would also impose the late era restriction and also have the MI require Fortress level.
Not sure about sending the be-kilted bravehearts to northern spain though... :book:
As to the FMAA/CMAA, Spanish javelinmen may be better... but needs more research.
I'd change the building requirement for the military academy from Grand Mosque to Fortress. Seems much more sensible.
Well, after adding all of the above changes except some of the most recently mentioned, and starting a new campaign as the Danes, this occured:
https://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?...pikemendq8.jpg
Yes the AI French faction is trying, at the expense of all else, to tech up to the +1 valour pikemen now available in flanders with the level 3 militia building and level 3 spearmaker...
That would seem to confirm the issue mentioned in post #42.
A workaround would be to give all bonus provinces border forts, ports and maybe some other buildings on the starting map.
EDIT: another workaround would be to add border forts and ports to the building requirements.
I don't personally like this solution though because
1) it's silly that you should need border forts to build pikemen, etc
2) I prefer not to build border forts. If you have spies or assasins in the province, they'll catch incoming enemy counterparts instead, adding to their valour.
That's what I was thinking, but even then the AI may not develop those provinces further. Now that the French have developed flanders to train those pikemen, will they develop it further? They've teched the spearmaker up to the max, even though that is not the primary prerequisite and, AFAIK, will not give another +1 valour to the unit. If nothing is built in the province for the next few years I could possibly assume that a fortress is being built in order to upgrade to a level 4 militia building (which should give the additional +1 valour), this would indicate that the AI cannot discern which building gives the additional valour.
I have noticed that the valour bonuses in provinces such as Constantinople and Tolouse also affect those provinces in this way. If the province can be teched up fairly fast, i.e. a province that is famous for peasants won't take much teching up, then it appears that the AI can presumably get back to business, but with provinces that give bonuses to high level units, the AI can spend alot of time working towards that particular unit, to the detriment of all else.
On another note, I have thought about modding the HRE/Italian Baronial Estates building to all factions and using it as an additional prerequisite for 'lancers' then modding them as all factions and renaming them to something more realistic (though I've no idea what, as yet).
The Royal Court also needs to be removed from the Orthodox unit roster as it serves no purpose at present. Though I do feel that such buildings could be utilised for the Russian/Novgorod faction as prerquisites for units such as Druzhina and Boyar cavalry.
-Edit: check the post count! :hide:
-Edit2:
I agree but it may pay to force the AI to improve at least it's famrland when it improves it's royal courts and horse breeders. The royal court and horse breeder upgrades could also depend on the famrland upgrades. The problem is that some provinces are just not worth farming...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I also avoid border forts, as I prefer to train first my assassins and later my spies in the home provinces counterspying. I'm not so worried about forcing the AI to build border forts, and I'm not sure if the AI actually needs watchtowers at all. I have a feeling that the AI is in perpetual .matteosartori. mode as it regularly deploys emissaries straight off the mark to a faction leader on the other side of the map. Assuming the AI does require watch towers they could be made an additional prerequisite to the keep (possibly with border forts as an additional prerequisite to the Citadel, though that would force border forts, which I wouldn't like personally).
The problem lies in the fact that castle upgrades can be teched up and up with no other buildings required, which is wrong in too many ways. You can potentially build a fort and keep upgrading it until it's a fortress, constructing nothing else whatsoever. Such structures should depend on the farmlands upgrades, among other things, and perhaps making those considerably cheaper is the best option?
Now that's a good idea I hadn't thought of :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I'd make the castle upgrades* themselves cheaper rather then the farming upgrades. That will make people think twenty times before upgrading Cyreanica or the Sahara to citadel level, wich is silly.Quote:
The problem lies in the fact that castle upgrades can be teched up and up with no other buildings required, which is wrong in too many ways. You can potentially build a fort and keep upgrading it until it's a fortress, constructing nothing else whatsoever. Such structures should depend on the farmlands upgrades, among other things, and perhaps making those considerably cheaper is the best option?
*and also make the defense upgrades (ie curtain wall and ballista towers for the keep) mandatory before you can upgrade to the next castle level, as well as making these defenses somewhat more expensive. This will prevent players from upgrading to citadels and fortresses too quickly.
For the royal courts: maybe it's possible to insert a new agent type that acts like an improved emissary, that's trained at the royal court (just like Cardinals and Orthodox bisshops are basicly just improved bisshops and priests)
Alternatively it could be used like a prerequisite for the Chancellary and some of the other higher-up government buildings.
Why is "lancer" an unrealistic name? It's kinda bland, but not moreso then "plated knights" or anything else I can think of at present.
If they're going to be added to all factions, I do suggest that the valour bonus in an Iberian province is indeed implemented.
Better not reply to this post then, my dark prince :laugh4:Quote:
check the post count!
the idea about additional requirements sounds good. However the question is if the AI will build them on its own, since fortification upgrades usually do not enjoy a high priority with the AI. And I don't quite get the point why players wouldn't want to upgrade to a fortress in the Sahara if fortifying a province actually becomes cheaper.:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
An upgraded emissary also sounds good, it would be interesting to see, though, as to how this could be reflected in-game. The difference between bishops and cardinals is mainly in conversion speed (and they don't profit from valor levels except against assassins), the distinction between mere inquisitors and grand ones in burning chance and range of targets. Since of all the emissary's duties only one seems to be tied to valor afaik (bribery missions, at least that's my impression), it would maybe suffice to provide new emissaries with a valor bonus, similar to the one given to spies and assassins. Given the emissary's role in the game, I'm having difficulties in imagining a broadening of his competences in an 'upgraded' version. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Not sure about this. This won't stop the AI from doing what it's doing. It will still advance through those tech levels in order to get to it's objective, in this case +1 pikemen. I'm confident that if I had made all upgrades part of the tech level, the French would still have raised that province to Citadel abd still teched up to pikmen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Improved emissaries won't work. The only difference between, i.e, bishops and cardinals is the faith propogation AFAIK. Emissaries don't propogate faith so their abilities are unchangeable. The only way to improve them is to have building upgrades that increaese their valour (as is the case with assassins and spies). So it may be possible to use the court buildings to increase the valour of emissaries. Though personally I would use buildings such as the chancellory, admiralty and university etc for this purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
All knights are pretty much Lancers, it seems strange to have a tech tree of: Feudal Knights -> Chivalric Knights -> Lancers. The Lancers in MTW are also fantasy, and shouldn't be restricted to the Spanish. Lancers in the true sense, is how the later lance wielding cavalry of the 18th century are often described.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
The AI will build them if the build prod file is modded to encourage them to do so, and should do anyway if they have to build them to build something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus ret.
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus ret.
As of present there's absolutely no reason why a player wouldn't upgrade their castles in "dirt" provinces (well, if you really want gold armoured Saharan cavalry :laugh4: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus ret.
If you needed to upgrade to 80% farming before building the citadel, the Sahara or Cyraenica would probably be your last province to upgrade, because the farming upgrade there will take an eternity to return the costs.
In fact well armoured (=upgraded) light lancer cavalry has become one of my favorite unit types....not really sure about Saharan cav though ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
seems like I missed that point....the whole issue makes much more sense now :idea2:. good idea, not sure about how the AI will react to it, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Btw, I already modded the pikemen stats myself in my own game and made Flanders the province that gives the bonus. However I realise that I haven't looked into what building gives another valour bonus.
If I have both the militia and spearmaker at lvl3 (same as you, Caravel), how do you edit the prod11 file to make the militia lvl4 building give a valour bonus?
I'm not sure about this myself. It may have something to do with the order in which the prerequisites are listed, i.e.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
"{horse_breeder2, spearmaker3}"
"{spearmaker3, horse_breeder2}"
It can't be the higher level building of the two as there would be cases where both are of the same level, i.e.
"{horse_breeder3, swordsmith3}"
It can be tested of course and I will try it later.
Still doesn't get away from the problem of the AI teching up a province for the valour bonus unit though.
I'm not sure about requiring the farmland upgrades either, as the AI would then have to tech up to 80% farmland to train +1 valour Saharan cavalry in Sahara, which would be pointless. The other option is to make the farming upgrades alot cheaper. At present they are stiflingly expensive wheras trade can be cheap and easy, returning massively. The AI is bad at trade (because it's bad at shipping), but won't have a problem upgrading it's farmland. The horse breeder upgrades could also be made cheaper (half price?). This would negate the wastage of upgrading farmland in provinces such as the Sinai, Sahara, Cyrenacia and Arabia. Every horse breeder upgrade would depend on the previous horsebreeder and the same level of farmland upgrade.
Forcing at least the watchtowers for the keep upgrade would work. Also a church could be forced before a castle can be built, this would serve to push up the loyalty and faith propogation in AI provinces which at present tends to be quite unpredictable. Militia buildings should also be a requirement. If you don't have a decent size militia then a castle upgrade shouldn't happen. The upgrade to a castle reflects (an invisible) rise in population that would need better policing.
Another good one would have been the trader in order to force the AI to trade, but since all provinces don't contain trade goods that won't be possible, unless a new generic very low income trade good could be introduced and added to every province as a default, enabling at least the basic trader to be built. This could then form the prerequisite of the castle upgrade.
Also another point. The indestructable "forest clearing" in the VI campaign. I would like to know how this is made indestructable, as It would be good if all farmland was indestructable, as farmland itself is quite literally destruction (clearing of trees, filling in of lakes, levelling of land etc) that is very difficult, if not impossible, to completely undo.
Not sure but I think that may be hardcoded. Vikinghordes XL mod replaces 40% farming with forest upgrade (20% --> forest clearing --> 60% --> 80%)Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Yea I think I remember that. That does point to it being harcoded. He obviously placed the forest clearing in there to cause the 40% to become indestructable, which is a very sound idea.
I have an idea for the Arab infantry.
Notch up the unit size to 200 (on huge unit size), down their attack somewhat, up their defense a little.
This will give them actually a viable function. As flankers the vanilla AI are redundant because Ghazi infantry is better, and they're no good for head on clashes with heavy infantry like FMAA.
Their new stats reflects that they're not meat grinding proffessionals like FMAA, but their unit size reflects that plenty of them are readily available and compensates a little for their mediocre stats. It will be different from Byzantine infantry as it's a little weaker and is not disciplined but has better morale.
Suggested requirements: militia building and swordsmith at level 1, both. An alternative would be simply the level 2 militia building, as otherwise it would have no function for the Egyptians.
Limiting the recruitment to certain provinces in the middle east (possibly the same as Bedouin camels + Palestine, Tripoli and Antioch) would probably be a good idea too. They're primarily for the Egyptians and I'm not sure wether the Turks should be able to get them. The Almohads already have a good swordsmen unit, but they should be able to get them when they get one of the right provinces (as AUM isn't any good in the desert)
I'm liking this alot. I'll have a go at this later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Indeed, the militia buildings, as regards the Turks, Egyptians and Byzantines, have no function whatsoever apart from the first. The first building provides a happiness bonus, after that they have no effect. So like the royal court for the Byzantines they're useless. They can be modded as not buildable, and I've done it, it just appears that CA didn't bother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I've already limited them to the same provinces as the Bedouin Camels. I feel they should be available to only the Egyptians and the Almohads. The same goes for desert archers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I was working on the build prod 13 file, last night fixing the royal court and adding the baronial estate to all catholic factions and adding it as an additional prerequisite to Lancers, which are now available to all catholic factions with a valour bonus in Castile.
Hi Guys
I didn't mention it earlier but in my game I adjusted some other aspects which might help to solve the AI valour build problem. The way I see it is the AI will tech up to valour bonus level to reap the rewards like any good general would want to. However on the way to that goal the AI spends a fortune and then has little left to improve other provinces.
I therefore aim to give the AI some help by introducing the following:
Increase in farming revenue and reduction in trade income - AI farms well enough but very rarely trades well.
Lower build time and cost to farm lands - 1yr 20%, 2yr 40% etc
Lower build time and cost from fort to citadel - 1yr fort, 3yr keep, 6yr castle, 8yr fortress, 10yr citadel
lastly I like really hard games so I give all the AI factions 50,000 f to start with and take 10,000 myself - in my last game it helped to get the AI off and running and I lost generals to a AI bride for the first time ever :laugh4:
Caravel@ any more updates on the danes game?
I haven't been about here much nor have I played any TW for days now, and anyway I assumed the interest in this thread/subject had died off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
The AI does tech up to the the province to the valour bonus unit, to the detriment of all else. Provinces without the high level unit valour bonuses appear to thrive. Wheras Provinces such as Tolouse, Contantinople and now Flanders in the Danes campaign I was running are totally focused on the valour bonus unit. I loaded the game in -ian mode and tested this on a few more campaigns and found it to always be the same. This has led me to the conclusion that perhaps valour bonuses may not be such a good thing after all...
I have a feeling that it may be necessary to impliment valour bonuses some other way, to prevent the AI from acting in that way.
I think this is always a good idea, alot of mods do it already and it only enhances gameplay and the overall challenge. I actually tried modding out sea trade and shipping altogether once. Basically I removed the links between land and sea and all sea zones and modded out ship yards and ships. After which I put back all of the default landbridges plus many more liniking up the Islands with the mainland, and others such as sicily -> tunisia and greece -> crete -> cyrenacia. Not surprisingly it didn't work well. The main problem being that crusades began to take rather stupid routes... https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ght=landbridgeQuote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
I would add that slotting in the VI forest clearing instead of the 40% farmland would be a good idea (as per Viking Hordes XL Mod) as it's indestructable, and so the razing and burning tactics are less easy to pull off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
I'm not sure about this. The AI has a tendency to upgrade the castle before it upgrades anything else. It seems to prioritise this. We will end up seeing alot of citadels and not alot else constructed in the provinces. The high build cost puts off the AI from upgrading, allowing it to build more of the cheaper faster buildings sooner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
Good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
At present all my changes are for the XL mod and so the increase in farming and reduction in trade is on top of what VH has done already.
Talking of seas, I think the removal of seas around islands like crete would be a great idea. This would help lessen the isolation problem for factions on these islands with a huge army, only one ship and no money.
For me I'd like to see the AI tech up more, as it very rarely does when ever I've been playing and having the AI with more valour based troops can only be a good thing. Maybe we should look at only adding high tech valour bonuses to a few provinces.
Also I think it would be worth trying to give the AI 50,000f at the start game to see how this will affect it's build policy in valour regions and else where. This might cause a positive effect to the valour issue.
I see, so you're advocating increasing them even more? Interesting. On an income related note, it may be possible to make the mines worthwhile. I rarely bother building them as the outlay is high and it take eons to get your money back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
The only landbridge I have added at present is Finland to Sweden. I was thinking about linking the med islands (crete, rhodes, cyprus) to the mainland and linking Sicily back to Naples and Malta to Sicily. Also linking Ireland to Scotland would be an idea. The problem with Islands as a whole is that because of the AI's inability to manage fleets they tend to lose control of them to uprisings causing the province to turn rebel. It's then not much use until you arrive there. Then there's the major problem of the Byzantines reappearing in Crete or the English reappearing in Ireland... If this was implimented then ships are still vital for trade and long distance travel, not solely as a means to reach an island. Those islands, just like coastal provinces would still be defensible from seaborne invasion using your fleets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
Agreed. Though adding the farmland as a prerequisite for the horsebreeder may assist the AI in teching up it's farmland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
It's worth trying. I have heard that no matter how many florins you give the AI, it still wastes the lot on peasants and ballistas anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Yes an increase to farminng even more is a must, and I've already lowered cost and build times for all mines.
I like the land bridge idea for finland sweden, but I just think adding say rhodes to the same sea square as cyprus and the other ports available in the east might encourage more invasion, chance of trade and lessen the cut off problem. adding crete to the greece sea square and Malta to the Tunsina sea square.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Maybe.... but with the valour bonus it will be pikemen and crossbows with a fighting chance against us :skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
A bit off topic,
Column 17:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Where n is any value.Code:"{},{},{},{UPGRADE_VALOUR(n)}"
Regarding the adding and removing of landbridges, is historical accuracy the most important reason for these changes (which would make the landbridge between Sweden/Finland very odd) or is it pure playability?
Well, looking at literally any map, I can see that all my troops would need to do in order to travel from Finland to Sweden would be to walk northwards then bear westwards which would lead them into Sweden. There is no need to cross the Gulf of Bothnia, though the presence of the Aland Islands near the mouth of the gulf (sadly not visible on the MTW map) would make a Landbridge somewhat viable there, but is redundant of course due the land route.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
The lands you are talking about now were not a part of any kingdom at all untill the 15th or 16th century (they were officially Swedish or Norse already by the 13th century though). Only in the 16th and 17th century were these areas truly incorporated to Sweden.
You can't march an army just through nowhere, they need to eat as well. The minimal population of these lands (Laponia etc.) surely would not have greeted armies from a kingdom due south, which they didn't have much to do with. In medieval times, and of course even later on, armies travelling between Sweden and Finland travelled by sea, docking in Visby, Gotland, and then headed on. Åland was another possible port to stop at on the way. There is a reason as to why Laponia is not included in the map.
I bow to your superior knowledge. :bow:
Though there are many sparsely populated, non thoroughly explored and outright dangerous regions on the map, not just in scandinavia. Many of the siberian, german and desert provinces would be dangerous for an army to march across, though a ruler would claim these lands as part of his dominion some of the local folk might think otherwise. In view of this I do think the landbridge is valid, in any case it is just as valid as sending your men via ship from Scotland to Palestine in one year, or sending a crusade, well anywhere which is why I do think it's a valid landbridge.
I was also wondering if you could help me out with some of the Viking units name changes? :embarassed:
Edit: Update: It's now 2am and most of the changes are done The units and their valour bonuses and stat changes are finished, and the buildings are fixed as per the updated summary. The startpos files are mostly done except the late file which I haven't touched yet (apart from to remove inns). Peasants still need to be removed from all files, the sicilian ships still need to be fixed, as does the spearmen/roundshieldspearnmen mix up, the units for georgia and armenia need to be done, the shipping costs need to be sorted out, and the spearmen for the egyptians and almohads need to be added. Other fixes that need sorting are the homelands (i've done some work on this in the past), trade and farming which I still haven't looked at.
Totally agree on that part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
The names of the viking units is a tough one, mainly since there were no viking "units", raids were just composed of men from different social classes. In all honesty, the Viking Carls (or Carl Swordsmen) should be removed as only the very social elite (the cream of the cream) could afford swords, but I guess that'd make the game somewhat out of balance.
The Thrall unit seem fit. The Landsmenn could perhaps be renamed to Drängar (dräng=singular, drängar=plural). In modern Swedish dräng would be the equivalent of farm-hand actually, but they were a form of elite warriors in the army of their (often local) lord or king.
Huscarles is another term that does work, however I think that Tegnar (tegn=singular, tegnar=plural) would be somewhat more appropriate. Tegnar were in many ways the same as vassals to the king, who gained land from him, and this land remained in family of the tegn even after his death.
Huscarl is a term that belongs in the dark ages, the viking adapted the Tegn-system from England, do give the impression of being civilized christians. Tegn itself is in fact only a scandinavian from of the anglo-saxon title "Thegn".
Sorry, I should've worded that better. I was actually referring to a comment you'd made earlier in the thread--you had complained how you often couldn't train Feudal Knights until the Early period was almost over, because of all the infrastructure that was required. I was simply commenting that your changes should help remedy that. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Well wouldn't that be more or less what the Mounted Seargents represent? Seems to me they're pretty much one and the same. I'm not sure either, though. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Excellent! Looks good, MC. ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
One thing that caught my particular attention:
Are you looking at lowering the fortification requirement for both buildings, or just one of them?Quote:
Brothel/Tavern structure needs to be fixed to allow earlier spies.
Couldn't agree more. A Keep to get a tavern! GAH!Quote:
Brothel/Tavern structure needs to be fixed to allow earlier spies.
Some good ideas in there. I'm quite happy to remove the sword bearing Carls, for that reason alone. The Carl Axemen can be renamed simply "Carls". I have read elsewhere that the Huscarls would have carried swords due to their being an elite. I'm not sure as to the accuracy of this though. I like your ideas of using Tegn/Tegnar and Drang/Drangar instead of Huscarle/Huscarles and Landsmann/Landsmenn respectively for those units to better match the period. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
I understand you perfectly now, sorry! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Probably, though I was thinking that these would be a bit tougher than the Mounted Sergeants, a sort of medium Yeoman Cavalry that depends on the County Militia perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I'm looking at lowering the requirement for both buildings to the fort, removing the requirement of a tavern to build the first brothel, and then I may try to bring the Cunnny Warren building over from VI. Hopefully it will then work exactly as it does in VI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
-Edit: No sooner said than done. The Taverns, Brothels and their upgrades now depend on the Fort, the Keep, Castle and Citadel. You no longer need the Fortress to build that last type of Brothel/Tavern. They are now both equal in cost, construction time and level. I have also added the "Cunny Warren" as the final upgrade for the Brothel (this was previously absent).
Thinking of it, Huscarles could also be renamed as Hirdmen. A hird was simply a small unit of bodyguards, although these were becoming outdated by the 12th century. In the end, Tegn is perhaps the most accurate term since we're talking about the 11th and 12th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
And after a second thought, I think that Thralls should simply be renamed Vikings since:
1. Thralls were not intended to fight. They were slaves, often taken as loot on a previous raid.
2. They fit in with the description of the traditional viking: armed with a spear, no armour.
One possible reason why Orthodox factions can build the Royal Court is that if they conquer a catholic or muslim province, it doesn't get razed (of course royal estates or baronial courts still would be)
Manco Capac (interesting name btw, could you explain it to me? Is it an actual person): maybe you could have different mounted sergeants for the different eras. The vanilla mounted sergeants would be early only, after that you can retrain them into the high version wich would use the model and skin of Feudal Knights (perhaps with some changes)
Hmm. I see what you're saying now; yeah, that could work. You'd almost have to give it stats similar to that of Feudal Knights, though. Otherwise they wouldn't really be worth training.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Excellent! :thumbsup: So what's left now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Also rename Fyrdmen, Ceorls.
I'm quite happy to make those changes. I always though that "Viking" was just a loose term for the scandinavian raiders that attacked Britain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Possibly but yes the later upgrades, that take all the time and money, still get razed when an othodox faction moves in. I suppose the muslim factions have to live with their grand mosque's destruction when the catholics and orthodox invade also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
The first Inca. I was testing out the new name change feature. I'll probably change back to Caravel so don't get used to this one yet! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
That's a good idea, the problem is retraining them into a different unit, which I'll explain below...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Then no one would bother with the Feudal Knights. I was thinking, a bit faster, and with lower defense and armour and not elite? I'll have to see how I can slot them into the unit roster. I haven't even started this unit yet, so there's alot to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I've done all of the startpos files now, all of the unit positions are fixed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
- Some ships added for the Moors (formerly the "Almohads") and the English.
- The Sicilian barques are replaced with galleys
- The round shield/square shield spearmen mix ups are corrected
- All peasants removed
- Old Feudal and Chivalric Knights removed and replaced with the new ones
- Georgia and Lesser Armenia units placed and provinces removed from Byzantine control.
A problem has arisen however. The new Knights don't upgrade from one to the next and I have a few ideas as to why. This is a hardcoded fix that CA implimented in a particular patch IIRC, so it may be very restricted.
The EarlyRoyalKnights, HighRoyalKnights and LateRoyalKnights must be somehow hardcode linked to the Royal_Court building, and it's upgrades, if there are other dependencies, such as a spearmaker or horse breeder the RK per era upgrades don't function.
It is also possible that EarlyRoyalKnights, HighRoyalKnights and LateRoyalKnights can only be upgraded if they always have the same dependency or dependencies whatever the era, and regardless of what the dependency is.
Another possibility is that the Royal_Court, and it's upgrades, is a unique building (a hardcoded 'feature') that supports the upgrading of any unit that depends exclusively on this building, not units that have multiple dependencies such as the old (Feudal/Chivalric Knights), to the next unit in line (early/high/late specific units).
All of this needs to be tested later. If 'e' is true then things could get rather interesting, but somehow I doubt it is. The way to test all of this is as follows:
Remove all other dependencies, affectively causing all of the RK units to depend on the Royal_Court only (not any additional spearmakers, armourers or horse breeders), this effectively gives us what we had before in a scalable unit with some name changes, and see if that works, if it doesn't then the whole thing could depend on every unit using the same campaign battle map name "Royal Knights". This would be a bit of cheap and dirty, but not impossible.
If it did work then, as another test, other units e.g. peasants, urban militia and militia sergeants could be era restricted (early, high and late respectively) and changing their dependency to the Royal_Court. If they can be upgraded from era to era, then that explains it. The Royal_Court itself is the key and not the units.
A test for the "cheap and dirty" approach would be renaming e.g. "Peasants", "Urban Militia" and "Militia Sergeants" to "Royal Knights" (note: their english language file names and not the internal names) making them era restricted (early, high and late respectively) and changing their dependency to the Royal_Court. If they can be upgraded from era to era, then that explains it. (The cheap and dirty approach. I really doubt this is the case)
Well Ceorls were the lower class peasants and smaller land owners as opposed to the Thegns (Thanes) who were the upper class landed freemen. Fyrdmen means basically "Army Men" (warriors), the Fyrd being the army. I wouldn't agree with renaming the Fyrdmen as Ceorls because there were roughly three types of Ceorls: Fyrdmen, Gebedmen and Weorcmen (soldiers, priests and workers). Fyrdmen seems to fit the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
Yes, that's true. However, the "common viking" was just a peasant armed with a spear, axe or bow, and often a shield.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
I'll update the Summary to that effect tonight. Also as regards the Huscarles and Tegns, I was under the impression that Huscarles were a different thing to Tegns? I feel that the Huscarles as an elite bodyguard are probably not interchangeable with the Tegns. Perhaps Landsmenn should be renamed as Tegns and Huscarles removed altogether as they really don't fit the medieval period? The basic Viking could be renamed as Drangar and the Viking Carls also removed. Then the Thralls could be renamed as Viking Carls? Am I making sense? I'm looking at this on the stength of the current info pics and not the current names. I'm breaking it down as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Thrall = Viking1
Viking Carl = Viking2
Viking (Vanilla MTW) = Viking3
Landsmenn = Viking4
Huscarles = Viking5
Viking1 = Poorly equipped basic Viking
Viking2 = Adequately equipped Viking with sword
Viking3 = Adequately equipped Viking with axe
Viking4 = Well Equipped Viking
Viking5 = Elite Bodyguard or Royal Viking
Now lets say that Viking2 and Viking5 are redundant, because the first has a sword which is unusual for that type and the last is just not right for the period, Huscarle Bodyguards. That leaves us with:
Viking1 = Viking Carls
Viking3 = Drangar
Viking4 = Tegnar
Yes/no? :help:
Also I plan to remove the Saxon Huscarles, as they simply would not have been around much after Hastings, and rebel Huscarles is silly. Rebel Fyrdmen ok, Huscarles no. Overall I prefer to boot Huscarles out of the 1087 - 1453 campaign because they are just wrong for the time period.
That sounds fine, although you could keep the Huscarles and simply rename them as Hirdmen (many bishops, kings and even knights had a personal hird even until the 13th century) if you'd like. For balance reasons I leave that up to you, but I agree that Viking2 should be left out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Good work on the mod, I really like your idea of having a milita-cavarly related to the Town Watch-series of buildings:2thumbsup:
Well, well, sometimes the simplest solution is the one. Cheap and dirty it is! Simply renaming them in the English language "names.txt" file to "Royal Knights" has made the upgrades start functioning again. I also tested other building dependencies with the Royal_Court (for Ghulam Bodyguards) and it was the same. They were still upgradable. So it seems that the name is the key after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
This leaves me with a situation. At present I now have the Bodyguard units restored to as they were in vanilla except they're scalable (still half the size of a standard cavalry unit). No other differences. Same dependencies, everything. The Chivalric, Knights, Royal Knights and Lancers are back in, though the modified tech tree still stands for them as it did for the RKs. The Royal_Courts dependency has been lowered one level, so Feudal Knights can be trained from the Royal_Court with their other dependencies, and so on. Lancers are still all factions and in addtion to the Royal_Court3 they still need their existing dependency structures also. To me this seems ok, though I'm not sure about the Royal Knights. I may raise their depencies to the same as the other full size Knights, but keep them as half size versions. Need some input on this one!
The County Militia Cavalry or Yeoman Cavalry (haven't decided on a name yet) I'm not sure about as yet. I'll need to work on that one. I may have to create a new unit for them using the Feudal Knights model and info pic and change the Feudal Knights info pic to be the same as the EarlyRoyalKnights. That's one of my later tasks.
The Viking changes are going to happen now. I may post screenshots in a while also if I'm able. :2thumbsup:
Ok I've edited the summary, unfortunately it's now getting too late so I'll have to do the actual names and descriptions editing tomorrow. All the changes, and testing, to the Knights took quite a while (I need to look at their support costs also).
Mas tardes. :juggle2:
Sounds good, buddy. :yes:
I should emphasize that I believe Yeoman Cavalry should not have the exact same abilities as FK's--they're not nobles, after all. ~;) I think what you've suggested for them is pretty close to what I had in mind. I was thinking they should maybe have a slightly higher charge bonus (due to being lighter and faster), but I agree with the lower defense/armour values. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
I was only thinking that Yeoman Cavalry should perhaps have similar stats to Feudal Knights because by the time you have the necessary infrastructure to train them, you'll almost certainly be in the High era already (when FK's are no longer available, as they'll get upgraded to Chivalric Knights). Otherwise, there would be no medium-type cavalry to fill the niche in between Chivalric Knights/Lancers and lighter cavalry (Mounted Seargents, Hobilars, etc.).
Well I'm thinking that Yeoman Cavalry (have we decided on that name?) should basically be a Feudal Knights, that are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
1) Cheaper to support
2) Cheaper to train
3) Better Charge
4) Faster
5) Available in high/late only
6) Less armour (possibly 2 points less)
7) Lower defence (2 points less)
8) Lower Morale
9) Not elite
I will stick with making FKs, CKs and Lancers era restricted. Lancers will supercede CKs in late, and though CKs will not necessarily supercede FKs (they can be useful in the desert), the Yeoman Cavalry will provide a suitable replacement.
Proposal:
The YCs will depend on the Spearmaker's Workshop (no.2), Horse Breeder (no.2) and the Town Militia (no.3), and not the County Militia (no.4 - the one previously used for pikemen which is actually redundant now, apart from as a valour bonus) which takes much too long to tech up to.
I'm also considering era restrictions and name changes for Feudal Men at Arms, Feudal Sergeants and Mounted (Feudal) Sergeants to Early period only. Don't shoot me yet! The problem is that pretty much all catholic faction military units in the time period of the game are technically "Feudal". It is as stupid to call Men at Arms, and Sergeants "Feudal" as it would be to call our own modern armies "Republican", "Democratic" etc. The Chivalric Sergeants and Chivalric Men at Arms are still Feudal, they're just very roughly 13th - 15th Century Sergeants and Men at Arms.
Good Idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
I'm thinking of this sort of structure now:
Men at Arms - Early
Sergeants - Early
Mounted Sergeants - Early
Chivalric Men at Arms - High/Late
Chivalric Sergeants - High/Late
Yeoman Cavalry - High/Late
Also, there is another issue, as ever, with the Almohad Urban Militia (currently renamed Al-Muwahhidun Urban Militia (see earlier in the thread for an explantion of this)). They seem to be an effort at a loose representation of a al-andalus Moorish infantry garrison unit (a sort of a catholic/muslim hybrid unit for lack of a better description), from what I can see, yet they don't fit anything "Almohad" that I know of. The Almohads originated in Algeria and their infantry would have been alike to the Murabitin Infanty or Muwahid Foot Soldiers (renamed Al-Murabitin Infantry, Al-Muwahhidun Infantry) yet these units are apparently famous in Granada??!! I'm not sure about that one. Maybe they were famous in Granada but that probably wouldn't make them Almohad nor Almoravid. This would indicate that they (or the idea behind them anyway) date back to the early 11th century Taifa kingdoms, which is a possibility. They could also be loosely based on something from Ummayad Spain (10th century) of course. On the whole I think they're probably fantasy. Removing them may imbalance the Moors campaign though. I think they were a flawed attempt at game balance in the first place, instead of better Berber cavalry and infantry as well as Almoravid and Almohad specific cavalry and infantry units. All in all it seems that all the effort went into the Turks and Egyptians unit rosters and the Almohads were sold short. Their only unique units are Almohad Urban Militia, Murabitin Infantry and Berber Camels. They don't get Saracens nor do they get any of the vast selection of skirmishers, horse archers and other cavalry available to the other muslim factions. A unit that should have been a totally unique Almohad units, Muwahid Foot Soldiers, was also assigned to all muslim factions.
In view of this the Almohads probably need more attention than some other factions. Giving them back Muwahids exclusively is a start and access to Jinetes would be a big help. AUM's, if not removed altogether, probably need to be renamed "Andalusian (Heavy) Infantry" or something to that effect. They should probably be available in Early and High only, to reflect the decline and ultimate end of muslim Spain.
The Militia Sergeants are another unit that is wrong in so many ways. But is especially wrong for the Moors (the only muslim faction with access to Militia Sergeants). The info pic (the same as the UM info pic but with the character in a different pose) may be reusable. The Sergeants part of the name could go, for all factions. This would be the simplest solution. I haven't completely decided on a name as yet, but I do feel that the structure should be as follows:
Urban Militia = Urban Militia
Militia Sergeants = Militia Guards (or alternative neutral name)
Urban Militia
Valour Bonus: No Change (Tuscany)
Eras: All Periods
Trainable by: Catholic/Orthodox/Almohad (Moors)
Militia Guards
Valour Bonus: None (I don't remember their being a valour bonus for these, perhaps Cordoba?)
Eras: All Periods
Trainable by: Catholic/Orthodox/Almohad (Moors)
This would remove UMs from the Egyptians and Turks. Which I don't see as a problem. It would also give the Almohads 2 units that the other muslim factions don't have.
Looks good pretty good, MC. I would be careful about not lowering morale too much, though. I agree they shouldn't have the same morale as FK's, but it should probably still be at a decent level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
(By the way, I don't know if Yeoman Cavalry are what we should call them or not; I just like using the word Yeoman. ~D)
Agreed. I think those are reasonable requirements for the YC. That way, you'll only need a Castle to train them, and not a Citadel. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
I think that'll work! ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
I do think the Almos/Moors still need an AUM-type unit, although renaming them Andalusians (or whatever you called them) would certainly be fine. Otherwise, they'll simply be too underpowered in the Early & High periods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Everything else sounds good, though. :2thumbsup:
That's all done apart from the Yeoman Cavalry, get thee to the Summary! :2thumbsup:
I've taken the liberty of messing with the new Viking Carls unit. It is now a better (more impulsive with a better charge and unformed) cheaper version of the spearmen unit, only available to the Danes. Problem is that it disappears after the end of the High period and will probably be superceded by Sergeants and Chivalric Sergeants. The Carls description fits this unit (formerly the Thralls) perfectly. Thanks to Innocentius for coming up with some brilliant ideas to fix the Viking units once and for all. ~:cheers:
Huscarles are currently not in there, though if there is enough support and some strong argument as to why they should be, I'd like to hear it. :bow:
AUM are also staying in, unchanged, as the Andalusian Infantry (Andalusia is basically "Muslim Spain". I was leaning towards "Al-Andalus Militia" but decided against that at the last minute. "Andalusian Infantry" has a nice ring to it.). Done. :yes:
~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Good job guys! I was always a little bothered by the term Thralls, as I didn't think that would apply to any type of fighting men in a jarl's employ. Good to see this fixed. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
They're gone? :sad: Aw, but Huscarles are awesome! ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
On a more serious note, Huscarles--at least in the Early period, when they're available--often seem to be one of the only Danish units capable of generating decent governors. Given the Danes' starting lands, and the need to maximize Sweden's wealth (once you conquer it), this is a more important factor than it first appears to be.
If the Huscarles need to be "watered down" a little so that they're not so uber in combat, that's fine--I don't think any of us are going to argue that they're underpowered. ~:rolleyes: I'm admittedly not enough of an historian to argue why they should be in the game from a realism standpoint; but from a gameplay standpoint, I do think they perform a fairly important function. (Plus given that they're simply so much *fun*, that shouldn't be dismissed either!)
Agreed. Well done, MC. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
I'm actually quite pleased with how the Viking Carls have turned out. The Viking Carls description fits the Viking Thralls info pic perfectly, and the stats are now quite interesting, and make the unit useable as opposed to useless. Although they are not indifferent to Vanilla Spearmen the strong charge makes them suited to occasional flanking or downhill charges against cavalry before pinning. Also their "rabble" formation makes them more difficult for archers to hit, but less cohesive. The last point is their uncontrolled behaviour. They may get too big for their boots, underestimate the enemy, and decide to charge without orders if you don't keep a close eye on them. :stupido2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
The governor generating thing is I think down to the "general candidate" field in the crusaders files. I believe that setting this to prefered, ok or discouraged (and possibly some more that I can't remember off hand) may determine whether a good general appears at the head of a certain newly trained unit or not. This can be modified so that Tegns (the old Landsmenn) get the same kind of good generals as the Huscarles did. Income is critical to the Danes. Making every florin count is important at the start of the early period I agree. Hopefully this will also be addressed with the cheaper overall shipping proposal. (I'll be working on that soon, it's in the summary).Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Also the trade goods idea needs to be looked into. The idea of increasing the values of the trade goods to improve local trade won't help as it will also increase the costs of the goods traded overseas dramatically. I'm pretty sure you just earn that amount per good for every port you trade it at (it seems to be much simpler than I had at first envisaged). So if you had three trade goods, one worth 50 another worth 20 and another worth 40 and you were trading with about 15 provinces. that's over 1500 florins worth of trade income anyway. To me it seems that simply lowering the costs of the goods themselves is the key, while removing trade goods from landlocked provinces altogether. Not much can be done about new goods added during the campaign at a certain date, but at least the bulk of the problem is gone. This will stop the AI wasting florins on traders in most landlocked provinces anyway. The import tax percentage can then be boosted, so that while you're trading you're also giving an the income to the AI and vice versa. This is currently at 20%, raising it to 50% would mean that the AI makes a decent bit of income from your trade.
Farming and mining can then be boosted significantly. I may add extra mines if I can think of anything. I know that at present the Game has gold, silver, copper and salt, but it could have other types of "mines" such as Iron Ore mines, Quarries, Chalk Mines, Forestry.
I sort of guessed that if I removed them that there would be revolts! ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I may mod them back in (as Hirdmen as Innocentius suggested), but I think the building dependencies need to be changed considerably. They should depend on the Royal Court (1), the Armourers Guild (3) and the Swordsmiths Workshop (2). I wouldn't change the stats, because that would defeat the object. Crippling them would probably be worse than removing them. Gameplay is also a factor. Varangian Guard, Andalusian Infantry and JHI are probably also overpowered but they're not getting changed.
They sound a little like Highland Clansmen, except with spears. It should be....interesting to try them out. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Well if Tegns can be modded so that they're more likely to have good acumen, that would definitely help. I still think the Huscarles should stay in, though. ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Interesting; I didn't realize that was why trade goods in landlocked provinces are so hampered. If raising the tax percentage on imports will help the AI, then I would definitely say go for it! :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
Some good ideas there. Timber mills (for Forestry) could help benefit the HRE, as well as some of the northern and eastern provinces on the map. Would you limit iron mines to the provinces that currently have iron (a majority of which are in Iberia), or do you think you'd expand them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
I think the build requirements you propose are pretty reasonable, except I wonder if needing an Armourers Guild is maybe a little high. Given that you need a Citadel to build it, it seems likely that by the time a Danish player had constructed all the necessary buildings to train Huscarles, the Early period would be nearly over. (Unless my math is way off, upgrading your castle to a Citadel, along with building the other structures, would take around 60 years. And that's if you didn't build anything else!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manco Capac
So unless you were planning on making Huscarles trainable in both Early and High--which I wouldn't recommend, and I don't think that's what you had in mind anyway--I would ask if perhaps the requirement ought to be lowered from an Armourers Guild to an Armourers Workshop. I doubt anyone would have a major problem with having to tech up a good bit before training Huscarles, but they should still be trainable for a reasonable period of time before the Early period expires.
Sorry if I sound like I'm trying to boss you around and tell you what to do, btw. I just do my best to give input, but I know I come across the wrong way sometimes. ~:rolleyes:
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
They can be modded to appear as overall good governor material, with better stats. That is what usually occurs. There is no single attribute that boosts the accumen of generals belonging to a certain unit. It's still random. Also elite units, in general, seem to produce some good generals. Alot of the time having a good faction leader will determine the quality of the generals that appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Trade goods in landlocked provinces are largely pointless because there's no one to trade with. In my experience trade needs a port as well as a trader. Even if you've got neighbours that are allied to you, trade with them doesn't occur. Trade is only worthwhile if you're trading by sea and that one province is sending, e.g. saltfish to 10 provinces. Local trade is trade within that province only. Local trade is exactly the same size income as foreign trade with a single foreign port. It is an income based upon a set percentage of the trade goods in the province, which is obviously further affected by upgrades to the Trader. It never seems to match the trade value in the startpos files. I forgot this earlier when I described the income from trading with other provinces. You never get the full trade goods value, but the cost per good always appears to be the same whether trading with your own province or others via a port. To reiterate:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
1) Land locked provinces cannot trade with each other in any way. If you build the trader in e.g. Syria you will get one complete export trade income from the all of the goods there. This is internal Trade within the Province itself (Syria Trading with Syria not with any neighours whether allied neutral or your own provinces)
2) When a province with trade goods builds a trader that province gets a default standard trade income called "local trade" that is the same value as if you'd traded all of those same goods to another allied or neutral province, that accepts all of those goods, by sea.
3) The import percentage is so low that the importers get a pittance for any goods they import. Raising this from 20% to 50% makes a small difference though it may need to go higher. This will need to be tested for game balancing.
Starting up a Russian/High campaign I built the Trader in Muscovy for 800 florins, the only trade good, furs, is worth 20 florins. The startpos file sets this as 40. Upgrading to the Merchant cost me 1000 forins and I'm now making 24 florins. The Merchants guild costs me 1200 and now I'm making 30 florins. The final upgrade, the Master Merchant, costing 1400 florins has raised the income from furs to 34 florins, but not the 40 in the startpos text file. So is this some kind of seed number or a percentage? Is it 40 percent of something + whatever the traders and their upgrades give, or something else? I'm not sure. In total the outlay was 4400 for the trading buildings, so the Russians just need to wait 220 years for it to pay for itself then they sit back and enjoy the 34 florins per year. :inquisitive:
So really most of those landlocked trade goods need to go, in case the AI goes and blows a few thousand on traders... The other alternative would be to increase the number of Landlocked trade goods and encourage the AI to build the traders more. With more goods the incomes do get quite sizable. Syria for example is, sort of worthwhile, once it aquires those extra goods.
The build prod file contains not info pertaining to the nature of the trader structures. They are labelled as "TRADING_POST" type structures and nohing more. There is nothing in the file to relate to the extra income produced by the upgrades. This must be hardcoded. The game engine possibly recognises that the buildings are in a province and adjust the incomes. There is also nothing in the dependencies info about building conditions, so this must also be hardcoded...
...Mines have the resources column, which they depend upon in order to be built, then the building itself generates a set income stored in the build prod file. Based on that I can have various types of new mines up and going very quickly, just need good historically based ideas and locations!.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
The Iron mines would be added to provinces that already have Iron, or the whole thing could be done differently...
At the moment the Metalsmith depends directly on Iron. This could be restructured as follows:
Metalsmith (and upgrades)
Dependency: Iron Mine
Iron Mine (and it's upgrade "Iron Mine Complex")
Dependency: Iron (Ore) Resource
This way we have slotted in a new structure that also gives an income. Then, as I've said in the previous post, Iron resources could be made more plentiful to inlcude about half the provinces (As I've said I need some assistance as to where they should be located as I want them as historical as possible, as well as balanced). Iron was a necessary component of steel, which was used extensively throughout the medieval world for arms and armour of all kinds, so just having it in a few provinces is daft. I think the representation in the game is of "famous steel" (e.g. Toledo steel in particular), abstracting other deposits out. The Toledo Steel thing can still be preserved by only allowing the Spanish (Castilian Leonese) to produce the last Metalsmith upgrade.
I agree. The requirement for a castle is sufficient. That's done. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
That's not a problem. I really appreciate all of the input from all of the members in this thread! The rest of the traitors have obviously sneaked off to play M2TW!! :furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Now, for the latest. The Yeoman Cavalry are in. I haven't tested them yet but they do work (I hate adding units, it's very tedious and I always forget something or make a typo somewhere).
The next thing to do is change the shipping costs. I've done the ports and shipyards already, but the ships themselves I've overlooked! So I need to do those next.
After that, down the mines!
Then it's the trade and farm balancing act.
We should have a testing version ready by next week. The whole thing is mainly text files but a few unit icons (renamed replicas not originals) need to be added also. Because of this I can't Really just post up the text files and allow people to just generate their own txt files from that, so it will have to be contained in a zip file. I should be able to host it early next month, once my internet connection is working again. I can't FTP into my ISP webspace from this connection, it won't allow it.
Hi all! I've been lurking in this thread from the beginning, following the discussions with interest. The work you've done sounds fascinating. One question: when you feel these changes are complete enough, is it going to be downloadable somewhere as a mod? I'd love to play with it when the day comes. :2thumbsup:
As you've made Pikemen Town Watch(3) dependant, have you left Halberdiers Town Watch(3) dependant?
Once the changes are complete, and my webhosting is back up and running their will be a zip file available for download. This will be the testing version, and only those interested in taking part in testing should install. I'm hoping at that stage that we will get alot of feedback on any changes or tweaks that need to be made. The more people on board the better, as to the name, I hadn't thought about that as yet. Naming such a mod may seem a bit self indulgent and over the top when you consider that this is no where near the scale of mods such as BKB, NTW, HTW or XL. This is more of a patch than anything. I would like to get as much historical accuracy in as possible but I'm no historian. And any history I do read up on tends not to be military based, so though I understand somewhat about e.g. the Byzantine economic and social history, I'm not aware of what shape of helmet was worn by their infantry between 1090 and 1100, for example. My other focus is gameplay. Achieving a better balance and strengthening the AI's position is a priority. The more people involved the better. If people don't understand modding it's not a problem, ideas and information are more important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geezer57
:bow:
I have. Though Pikeman are only available in Late, so Halberdiers will appear first. I could still make the Pikeman available in Late if I was to lower the build requirement for the Town Watch(4) to a Citadel. At present the depencies are as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
TOWN_WATCH - CASTLE
TOWN_WATCH2 - CASTLE4,TOWN_WATCH
TOWN_WATCH3 - CASTLE10, TOWN_WATCH2
TOWN_WATCH4 - CASTLE13, TOWN_WATCH3
They could be restructured like this:
TOWN_WATCH - CASTLE
TOWN_WATCH2 - CASTLE4,TOWN_WATCH
TOWN_WATCH3 - CASTLE7, TOWN_WATCH2
TOWN_WATCH4 - CASTLE10, TOWN_WATCH3
CASTLE7 is the Castle, which was previously not a dependency for the TOWN_WATCH buildings. The previous dependencies were Fort, Keep, Citadel, Fortress. Using this method, the dependency for Pikemen can be changed back to the TOWN_WATCH4.
It seems to me that alot of effort was made to stop the factions from obtaining pikemen and halberdiers too early and in large numbers. This is rather silly because neither are elite troops, and neither are that good, and both are era restricted anyway. I preferred chivalric foot knights (train 20 man units of Royal Knights and dismount before battle) to halberdiers and Chivalric Sergeants to Pikemen. They just don't seem worth the effort with the old dependencies, now with the revised ones I feel I might use them more. (and hopefully the AI will also)
The summary should be updated later with the homelands so far. That is going to be a big job because I'll need to add all of the rest of the units in the game to the list.
They're basically the same as a mine, except with a different name and depending on the forest resource instead of e.g. silver or salt.
Just something I've stumbled upon in my own research, as this was brought up about a page ago.
Huscarls is the Saxon/English name, the appropriate Norse/Danish name is Butsecarles. Cnut copied their style of fighting from the Saxon Huscarl style of fighting, and then it was implemented across Scandinavia.
Also Heerthmen/Hirdmen are completely different to Butsecarles. Hirdmen would fight with swords, Butsecarles with axes. But the most interesting thing is that they first appeared as a fighting body between 995 - 1035 and the Vikings began to fade out with the advent of cavalry and civilisation in the late 1100s; entirely appropriate for the Early period.
Well, that really depends. The axe was the weapon favoured in Scandinavia well into the 12th century, and there was no specified "dressing code" for hirdmän, so it's equally possible that a hirdman wielded a sword or an axe. It was quite common that hirds worked as small dragoon units, riding to the battle but fighting on foot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
While I'm at it, I might just mention what I know about hirds, if it could be to any use.
Hirds were small bodies of men, used as personal protection to a certain person. Hirdmän/hirdmen were mostly sons of some nobleman, but who were the third or fourth son in line, preventing them from gaining any profitable heritage, or making them "unmarriable". They could of course be bastards (frillosöner) but that wasn't really a disadvantage untill the 13th or 14th century, when christianty had finally rooted properly.
Anyway, these sons or heirs tended to join a hird for some nobleman (mostly a friend or relative to their own family). There were juridical limitations of how big a hird was allowed to be, depending on the class of the person "owning" the hird. For example, the bishop of Skara was allowed to have a 12 men strong hird, but this of course varied from time to time. The biggest hirds were in the hundred or something, IIRC.
Rythmic and Innocentius have obviously done alot of research into this, so I will be happy to impliment in the mod whichever they can agree on. Again though, remember how I broke down the viking units in the game before then named them fitting to their appearance, arms and stats. I do think that the old Thralls should stay as they are at present (Carls), and the that the Old "Vikings" should be the Drangar (the younger more inexperiences warriors). The Landsmenn should remain as the Tegnar (the Thegns, older more veteran warriors) as that really does fit their stats and info pic. The Huscarles I don't really know about, but I've decided to leave them in there for gameplay reasons. I haven't kicked Nizari (Nizari Foot Soldiers), AUM (Andalusian Infantry) and Hashishin (Fedayeen) out so I suppose I can't boot out the Huscarles either. Perhaps both Huscarles and Hirdmen need to be in the game? A new unit based on Landsmenn with the old Viking Carls info pic could possibly be used for Hirdmen? I think there is another also for the Early Varangian Guards, but I can't remember that one. Either way it's likely to be axe wielding.
Another thing is the unit sizes. The Carls would have been in large numbers, the Drangar in moderate numbers and the others in small numbers. The Huscarles perhaps only in scalable 20 man units?
Yes, I was just generalising (it is called the Dane axe or Viking axe for a reason :laugh4:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Yeah, a tactic also used alot by German(ic) peoples of the Era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
That fills in the gaps of my knowledge. IIRC there were possibly never more than 2000 Hirds across Scandinavia, but I'm not entirely sure of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
For gameplay reasons it sounds like a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Hmm, that might work. It would also help them from being being so overpowered on the "Normal" unit setting, since they wouldn't have 60 men anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
How would you make them scalable, btw? Would it be similar to what you did with converting the RK's to Feudal/Chivalric/Lancers?
Well they're already scalable. The only non scalable units in the vanilla game are the 20 man Bodyguard units as far as I know. I just put the word scalable in there in case anyone thought I was going to make then non scalable (20 mem no matter what unit size you select). :2thumbsup:
I've been reading (and posting) in a thread in the modding forum and I has got me thinking. The Tavern/Brothel structure is just wrong for the muslim factions. I feel that they need to replaced with a single building and it's upgrades, based around the harem principle, that trains both types of units and ultimately a kind of "muslim princess" that can be married off to your generals and princes to improve loyalty and produce heirs. I think this is possible, though I can't guarantee it yet. This would be better than muslims having princesses, which wouldn't be realistic.
It is possible. Patrick made trainable princesses (he called them Seductresses) for the Muslim factions, which is downloadable from 3D downloads I think.
To save you some time and effort, have an almost finished building stat.
UPDATED: Made them more expensive, longer to build and fiddled with some AI stats.Code:3 HAREM "Harem1, Harem2, Harem3, Harem4" AGENT_PRODUCER "1300,1500,1700,1900" "6,6,8,10" "{CASTLE},{CASTLE4,HAREM},{CASTLE7,HAREM2},{CASTLE10,HAREM3}" "Office Level 1, Office Level 2, Office Level 3, Office Level 4" "POVERTY_STRICKEN(5), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(30), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(80), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(80), CATHOLIC_TRADER(120), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(120), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(80), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(100), POPE(150), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(100), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(50), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(120), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(120), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(200), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(50), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(100), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(100), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(10), REBELS(100), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(0), POVERTY_STRICKEN(7.5), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(45), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(120), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(120), CATHOLIC_TRADER(180), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(180), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(120), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(150), POPE(225), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(150), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(75), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(180), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(180), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(300), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(75), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(150), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(150), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(15), REBELS(150), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(0), POVERTY_STRICKEN(11.25), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(67.5), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(180), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(180), CATHOLIC_TRADER(270), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(270), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(180), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(225), POPE(337.5), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(225), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(112.5), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(270), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(270), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(450), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(112.5), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(225), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(225), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(22.5), REBELS(225), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(0), POVERTY_STRICKEN(16.875), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(101.25), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(270), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(270), CATHOLIC_TRADER(405), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(405), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(270), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(337.5), POPE(506.25), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(337.5), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(168.75), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(405), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(405), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(675), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(168.75), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(337.5), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(337.5), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(33.75), REBELS(337.5), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(0), " NO MUSLIM "{}, {UPGRADE_VALOUR(1)},{UPGRADE_VALOUR(2)}, {UPGRADE_VALOUR(3)}" "1,2,3,4" "10,10,20"
Whoops, my bad. ~:doh: When I posted that, I was (for whatever bizarre reason) subconsciously under the delusion that they were always units of 60 men, regardless of what the unit size was set to. (I know they're not, but that's what I was thinking at the time!) :dunce:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Hmm; fascinating. I rather like the concept. Wouldn't that be somewhat unbalanced in favor of the Muslim factions, though (since they would only have to construct one building for Spies/Assassins instead of two)? Or are the costs/build times increased for the Harem to equal things out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Do you think you could increase the range of longbows. Because as it is Arbalesters have similar (if not almost identical) stats. I find it pretty odd that their range is so pitiful.
Rythmic, thanks for the code. I'll try that later. :2thumbsup:
The longbow range can be extended easily IIRC. What sort of range would we be looking at though?
The Harems would have to cost more to build, probably double at every level, which is the equivalent of building both a brothel and tavern. The "Harem Women" would have to cost quite a lot as well. Probably about 1000 each and take several years to train. *cough*I envy the man that trains them!*cough*
Anyway, this would even it out somewhat as they wouldn't be easily obtainable and you wouldn't be able to spam them. I'm 100% sure that the AI would be able to use them also, in the same way it uses princesses.
Does the AI know how to marry princesses to it's own generals though?
That can easily be fixed by just editing them in the missile units .txt-file. I did so myself a few weeks back, so in my game the LBs have longer range, higher accuracy, fire somewhat faster and are much more lethal. I also increased their ammo a little so that they'd continue firing for the same amount of time as regular archers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
This means they're somewhat overpowered, but indeed more realisitc. This makes it much easier when I'm playing as the English, which is a bit of a shame, but make them almost impossible to beat when playing as another faction.
Good question. I don't think I've ever seen married generals outside of my own faction, but I could be wrong. :shrug: Still, I have my doubts as to whether the AI makes effective use of princesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I've been wondering about this myself. Now I may be wrong about this but I've often, playing as the Danes, been visited by a Novgorod or other faction princess, and an alliance has been formed and the princess either sat there for a few years or moved on. The important point here is that I had unmarried heirs and an unmarried faction leader, yet the AI could chose not to offer marriage in the first place and just use the princess as a free emissary, which is something that the player can't do. Now when the Ai princesses sit there they may suddenly dissappear which may mean they've been assassinated. Also the AI often dumps princesses in a neighbouring province and leaves them there. e.g. the Danes often leave loads of them in Saxony. It seems to me that the AI can decide what it wants to do with it's princesses, but often reaches some kind of an obstacle that prevents it from doing any more. This may be a safeguard to prevent the AI from continuously sending them around the map looking for husbands. I have also never seen a married AI general, and because of this, and the above, I doubt the AI is coded to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Edit: -
I've added the Harems and the Harem Women, and they work. These can be married to generals with no problems, but if married to your own princes can cause the secret incest vice. They can also be sent off to other factions to propose marriage.
I'd also just noticed something I'd completely forgotten about, a relic from MTW 1.0/1.1. The original tavern and brothel. These look islamic for the muslim faction and orthodox for the orthodox, instead of all looking catholic as they do now. If I could get my head around this bif editing I'd have a go at creating a set of bifs for all of the brothels and taverns, and a muslim version, containing both symbols, for the Harem.
Just need to fix the language files for the Harem Women now, and the portraits. For the info pic I may have to use the same as the building as there is no princess info pic (the one in the folder is called princess.bif but is in fact genoese sailors).
NOT something I'd like to try explaining to a Genoese sailor :laugh4:Quote:
the one in the folder is called princess.bif but is in fact genoese sailors
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
Summary updated: Link
There are now a few more things left to do. The Harem womens portraits will probably be the existing princess' ones for now. I may look into finding some others.
- Arabic and Turkish woman's names for the harem women are needed.
- More ideas for catholic homelands are needed, i.e. for Gothic Knights and other specific units. There are certain catholic units that I won't be able to restrict, i.e. feudal sergeants. (Sergeants), these are so widespread that I would have to enter nearly ever province on the map except the deserts. I've tried doing this before with another units and I think that the number of provinces crashed the game.
- Novgorod and the Russians. What to do with them? I'm against adding another real Novgorod faction at present. I'm thinking of leaving them as they are unless anyone comes up with another idea.
- Longbow ranges. What sort of range would be best?
These are my LB stats if it's to any help:
Length: 25
(Freq: 11)
Range: 7500
Velocity: 175
Accuracy: 0.7
Lethality: 0.75
Power: 1
Armour Mod: 0.5
I also edited their ammo to 30 in the "Units file" (can't remember the name, something with crusader though).
Be warned that this makes the LBs (that's all LBs - like Welsh Longbowmen - not just longbowmen) quite imba unless you edit all the other missile units as well, although more realistic. Under all circumstances they should be able to out-reach arbalesters, if even slightly (perhaps only by 500 points, giving them a range of 6500).
I'd be glad to help with the homelands if I only new more exaclty what it was about, it makes feel stupid but I'm not actually sure of what you're talking about~;)
Good work on the mod anyway! ~:cheers:
I can try those stats in the first release and see how it goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
crusaders_unit_prod11.txtQuote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
The welsh longbowmen won't be an issue as the mod is for vanilla MTW/Vi and not XL. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
The homelands are basically the provinces where units can be trained. Examples of exisiting homelands would be Scotland for the highland Clansmen or the desert provinces for the Bedouin camels. I am proposing to extend this and add homelands for most other units. I have done this for many units already. If you look towards the bottom of the summary you can see them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Innocentius, you think thats uber. I have them at 9000 Range and Armour mod 0.35. I never play as the English anywho so all it does is hamper my expansion.
Hehe, although the range has no really positive effect unless you alter the Velocity to something similar (like 190). I have tried to edit them to Accuracy: 1 and Lethality: 0.99. Let's just say that wasn't even funny. It was just bloody.
The Harem .bifs (building graphics) are now finished and the harems are working. The harem is a single building tavern/brothel for the muslim factions only. The Harem will cost twice as much as the tavern/brothel and the build times will be different, getting steeper as it is upgraded. The VI tavern and brothel will no longer be available to them. So far I have these, rather poor, names: Harem, Great Harem, Grand Harem, Sultan's Harem. Any ideas on better names would be appreciated. Ideas such as "Caravel's Escort Agency" will not be considered. The Sultan's Harem allows the training of Harem Women, a kind of princess, that can be trained for 1500 florins and married to one of your lucky generals, or sent off to woo a rival faction leader. The only things left to find for these are some portraits. I have some names I can now work with thanks to Martok and LEN.
:2thumbsup:
As I had mentioned in another thread. I was planning a review of all crossbow units as follows:
Crossbows:
All Periods
All Factions
Arbalests:
High/Late Era
Catholic and Orthodox
Pavise Crossbows:
Late Era
Catholic (excluding Danes, Hungarians and Poles)
Pavise Arbalests:
Late Era
Catholic (excluding Danes, Hungarians and Poles)
Mounted Crossbows:
All Periods
Holy Roman Empire, Hungarians, Italians, Burgundian, Swiss, Polish, Russian, Novgorod.
Mounted Crossbows are unchanged, I've placed them there for consistency, and also I was wondering if anyone had any more historical data as to when and where they were used? At present they've been placed in a geographical area stretching from the German and Italian provinces, eastwards into Russia.
Also I've been looking at some of the influence factors that makes the AI train certain troops, specifically siege weapons. For those familiar with the crusaders file, I'm referring to columns 15 and 18 in particular.
With some tweaks here and with some other stat changes, i may be able to achieve the following:
1) Reduce the number of ballistas trained by the AI
2) Increase the units size of Al-Muwahhidun Infantry to 100 and cause the AI to use them as a spear unit, not a flanker. This would effectively make them a better version of Feudal Sergeants with higher honour and a stronger charge.
More homelands:
1) Nubian Spearmen could be unassigned from the Almoravid/Almohad/Marinid faction and they would keep the Al-Muwahhidun Infantry as their one and only spear unit (except square shield spearmen) throughout the campaign. The Moorish dynasties had pretty much nothing to do with Nubia historically so Nubian Spearmen belong moreso to the Egyptians anyway. The Nubians would have been only trainable in Egypt, though for gameplay reasons they could be also available in Cyrenacia and the Sinai. I feel that the Nubians should in fact be a hybrid spear/javelin unit. I'm not entirely sure how to do this however, as it involves changing their animations. I'm not sure if the sprite used for the abyssinnians and nubians has the javelin throwing animation frames, I doubt it.
2) Abysinnian Guards would only be available in Egypt and Arabia.
Also I've noticed that the Byzantine are still surging through Europe like an unstoppable war machine. The addition of Armoured Spearmen greatly appreciated obviously... though the real issue is the many starred Kataphraktoi princes of course.
Perhaps Pavise Crossbowmen should be available to the Catholic factions in Early as well, IIRC, Richard Coeur de Lion used pavise crossbowmen in his army during the third crusade.
I had allways believed them to be 13th century. I can't find any record of them occurring before that. They apparently originated out of Pavia in northern italy, hence the valour bonus in Milan.
I think it's in the Osprey book about the Third Crusade as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia