Removing Armourer's as a build requirement

[Kaidonni]

LEV1_INCOME doesn't work at all. It seems I have to have CATHEDRAL_INCOME included, there doesn't seem to be any other building type available for income generating buildings (unless I try the trading post type line, but that might not be a good idea, I suspect it'll act exactly like any trading post). Also, I just had a thought, and am in the process of experimenting. A value of 100 equals 52 florins, and 200 equals 104 florins. It seems that the income values in the build_prod.txt files are percentages, and it is possible that 52 florins equals 100%. 52/100x75 = 39 florins, exactly what I got when I set the income value to 75.

EDIT: Just experimented with Byzantines in Early, changing the construction time for the Armourer line. It seems that it works for a generational set of buildings. Armourer=52 florins, Armourer's Workshop=104 florins, Armourer's Guild=208 florins. Gonna just do one more test, changing Fortress construction time too...

EDIT 2: Yep, Master Armourer=416 florins income per turn. Seems that it works fine now. It doubles every year. A value of 800 seems to be equal to 52 florins*8, and so on and so forth.

EDIT 3: Er...how do I ensure no one can build the Metalsmith? Or shall I give that a similar financial bonus, and still allow people to build it? On second thoughts...no, I want to remove it. I try NO_FACTION, but it seems that the Iron Mine is still stated as a pre-requisite to the Metalsmith+, and I was figuring it wouldn't say that if no one could build it...or if I couldn't build it.

[caravel]

LEV1_INCOME is where your mining income comes from, so yes it does work, but it doesn't seem to work in all cases, particulary for buildings that also train units.

There is no "Iron Mine" in MTW unless you've added one in? You need to remove the metalsmith's depedence on Iron and simply change it to "NO_FACTION", that should do it. If you've added an Iron Mine then you also need to remove the Metalsmiths dependence on that.

[Kaidonni]

It's Tyberius' 2.2 plus XL that I'm using at the moment.

Also, I've tried "NO_FACTION", removed any need for Iron Mines (I've limited it to "CASTLE" and relying on it's own upgrades), but it still shows up. Saved game and new campaigns...it refuses to remove them.

I'm gonna edit the game so Metalsmith's are needed for specific units - all Cavalry and all Axe, like you mentioned. Shouldn't be too hard, just need to ensure the Metalsmith is available from the same levels as the Armourer...I don't know, should it be reliant on anything first, like the Armourer? Just concerned that I'm also giving the AI far too much to build...

I'd like to do what you did, renaming it to Blacksmith and all that, but then there's deciding what units need to rely on it, etc, and what level they rely on, and what the line of buildings should rely on...and now, I don't know if I'll be able to get into my campaign unless I mod this in, with all my fussiness and such...it's like opening a Pandora's box...

EDIT: Been trying to edit in the unit requirements. Each Metalsmith will support the unit requirements from the next level of Castle. So, a Metalsmith will support requirements for both Forts and Keeps, but built at Fort level. Built at Keep level, the workshop will support the Castle units. Built at Castle level, the Guild will support Citadel units. The Master building, built at Citadel level, will support any units from the Fortress. Plus a small financial bonus at all levels. Need to work on renaming, because I'm having does not translate!!! pop up in-game for descriptions, especially of my building...then, how to set the AI to want to build these buildings? Should I incorporate them into the campaign map beginning, what files do I alter there? And so on...it's likely just the renaming and placing them in the campaign that I need help with now.

[bondovic]

Had a thought on this matter of getting income from requirement buildings (possibly every other building as well, like spearmakers, bowyers, swordsmiths and horse breeders). Anyone tried using "Farm_income"? Could be seen as realistic that certain provinces generate more income than others in all respects, not just land fertility. And that farm income could be seen as the sum of average land fertility + population working agriculture? If the population is thought to be a part of base farm value then it's concievable that the concerned province consumes more goods, thus generating more money from smiths, breeders and makers.

If possible one could attatch a very small amount of farm bonus to the buildings. Something in the range of 5,10,15,20. It would add up nicely though, making turtling games a lot different, one being able to create large incomes from a small number of highly teched provinces without having to indulge in extensive trading. If possible, that is.

Or is this simply completely outlandish?

[Kaidonni]

It's not a bad idea at all, but my main concern is that Cegorach reports CTD issues with Pike & Musket, with all the income generating buildings, and I'm worried that any attempt at adding extra income generating abilities here will lead to the same problems.

I'm deciding that the Armourer and Metalsmith lines will be available to factions based on what units they provide. If a faction doesn't get any units AT ALL from the Armourer's Guild or above, for example, they won't be able to build it. I won't apply the same philosophy to Horse Breeders, Spearmakers, and what not, just the Armourer and Metalsmith lines. Also, no income bonus from them (it seems awfully odd that they'd give income but none of the other buildings).

Seems to be the best way to go, more or less. Turns out Scotland, in Early, will only have access to the Metalsmith and up to and including the Armourer's Guild. This will symbolise, in a way, the advancement their buildings provide. Since as higher buildings provide no advancement to them, they have little use for them.

Also, I still need to rename the Metalsmith to the Blacksmith...any tips and advice on that? Plus, should I assign all units with 'AXE' as their weapon type the unit_prod.txt as also requiring the Blacksmith? Some of those units seem awfully un-axe-like, such as Swabian Swordsmen... (and yes, I am aware it's not really to do with the weapon they yield, but the damage it can cause )

[caravel]

I'm deciding that the Armourer and Metalsmith lines will be available to factions based on what units they provide. If a faction doesn't get any units AT ALL from the Armourer's Guild or above, for example, they won't be able to build it. I won't apply the same philosophy to Horse Breeders, Spearmakers, and what not, just the Armourer and Metalsmith lines. Also, no income bonus from them (it seems awfully odd that they'd give income but none of the other buildings).

Most factions require those buildings for something or other. Also what about the master level valour bonuses, would you do away with those to balance it out? Personally I think they're a nice touch and give some incentive/reward for teching up to that level. All other bonuses excluding morale bonuses do imbalance the game and provincial unit specific valour bonuses confuse the AI.

For the Pocket Mod I worked on a flattened tree model for the smithies. The vanilla tree was something like this:


horsebreeder
horsebreeder2
horsebreeder3
horsebreeder4


Fort
-> speamaker, bowyer

Keep
-> spearmaker2, bowyer2, swordsmith, armourer

Castle
-> spearmaker3, bowyer3, swordsmith2, armourer2

Citadel
-> spearmaker4, bowyer4, swordsmith3, armourer3

Fortress
-> swordsmith4, armourer4





The PoM tree is more like this:


Fort (cheap structure, every single province starts with at least one of these)

Keep
-> spearmaker, bowyer, swordsmith, armourer, horsebreeder, blacksmith*

Castle
-> spearmaker2, bowyer2, swordsmith2, armourer2, horsebreeder2, blacksmith2

Citadel
-> spearmaker3, bowyer3, swordsmith3, armourer3, horsebreeder3, blacksmith3

Fortress
-> spearmaker4, bowyer4, swordsmith4, armourer4, horsebreeder4, blacksmith4

*formerly the metalsmith line

This tree works exactly as you see it, without any extra dependencies such as the swordsmith depending on the spearmaker. None of the buildings produce any kind of armour or attack upgrades. The master level produces the +1 valour bonus to units that depend on it. All buildings also produce a small income using cathedral income.

[Kaidonni]

I've decided that the Metalsmith (still need to rename) will be built at Fort level, and combines with the Horse Breeders for cavalry units. The Metalsmith's Workshop and above are available at the Castle, Citadel and Fortress, respectively. I felt needing the workshop for Royal Knights, etc, and numerous cavalry units at Keep level was a bit much, and decided to keep them relying only on the the first level building there. But the more advanced ones are still needed for the units that require more to be built, like the Feudal Knights. I just figured that I'd end up over-thinking the whole situation. Metalsmith deals with Fort and Keep units, Workshop deals with Castle units, Guild with Citadel units, Master with Fortress. Didn't want to spend forever racking my brain with thinking what the metalsmith requirements for units should be...could get overly complicated fast.

I'll keep the valour bonuses in, and will look into using Cathedral income for all of those buildings. That said, limiting the Armourer and Metalsmiths to the highest any particular faction requires seems awfully silly...unless the income isn't a great deal, so...

[bondovic]

The master level produces the +1 valour bonus to units that depend on it.

So the Kwarazmian cavalry, for example, requires the master h.breeder + master s.maker but gets the valour bonus?