lost features

**gollum** · 12-17-2008, 17:54

Hi,
i was scrolling through the GA screens with photoshop and noticed two that are not used by the game by the title of *christianisation* one for the catholics and one for the orthodox. It would be awsome to get GA points for turning other provinces christian but i guess that it obviouslu remained a plan.

GA was always very buggy, the hanseatic league comes to mind that is always fulfilled no matter what.

I have heard of another story that says that CA wanted to implement factions getting an offer to lead a civil war party if they have a princess married to the faction that suffers the said civil war. That would also be awsome again.

Do you know any other features that were supposingly in, but never really made it?

Somewhat irrelevant but i have also always thought that the *status* indicator on the unit leader info panel/card could prove useful in making them, or not, eligible for receiving titles. That is generals of royal blood (the said uncles) and generals married into royal princesses could receive provincial titles - but others not. It would be cool and would add another layer - a game within the game - and an important one as such as often the reason why certain factions make or break is who governs provinces. The player is unmatched in this as it stands as he can optimize and refine his choices.

It would be even cooler for the governor to be tied in the province while governing; in this way the player cannot create uber generals that fight in expansionist wars by pilling up in an optimised fashion titles.

Another thought would be to suffer a civil war instead of annhihilation every time a mature hair is not available to take up the throna and that could work well for both the player and the AI factions.

!it burns us!

**caravel** · 12-19-2008, 01:40

Well all of that is hardcoded. There isn't really any way to mod any of that into the game, which is a pity. You will find a lot of extras if you look through the unit icons and info pics. It seems that the tech tree was going to be much more advanced with many more resource dependent buildings. Also borders and border forts appear as if there was some intention to handle them differently. Border forts would have appeared on the map, and it seems that it would have been necessary to attack them first in order to cross the border. The startpos file contains the border fort coordinates and there was to be border fort upgrades, in the same way that there are fort upgrades.

**Brandy Blue** · 12-20-2008, 00:41

This isn't exactly on topic, but close enough.

You know those fortification upgrades that don't change your fortification type but do make it easier to defend? I'm talking about ballista towers, catapult towers, etc. I never build them because my plan is to invade other peoples' territory, not let them invade mine. Sure there are times they would be very handy, but it just doesn't seem to be worth the cost and build time. Since I've never seen them mentioned on this site, I assume other players don't use them either.

So, I think they might be - not exactly lost features, but features which would have been useful if they had been fully implemented.

By the way, does anyone ever bother to build them? If so, why?

**caravel** · 12-20-2008, 02:03

I don't build them. The only one I might occasionally build is the keep and curtain walls or the fort and motte. The "turret" towers are useless as they tend to shoot at your own walls.

**gollum** · 12-20-2008, 05:06

Hi,
nice find - i guess it took two more releases with expansions to at least advertise the feature (upgradable forts in kingdoms) - but it seems that it was not working properly at least initially.

Yes,
i generally build the first upgrade at least - especially in the fort - because i think this determines solely weather the castle will be subsequently set on top of a sloped hill.

Also all first upgreades are useful defense wise both in the tactical map and the campaign - yet caravel is right the second one is always detrimental as arty on towers shoots down your own wals as targeting the enemy that runs around them.

By the way; do you speak Mexican?

!it burnsus!

**Turbosatan** · 12-20-2008, 10:29

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

This isn't exactly on topic, but close enough.

You know those fortification upgrades that don't change your fortification type but do make it easier to defend? I'm talking about ballista towers, catapult towers, etc. I never build them because my plan is to invade other peoples' territory, not let them invade mine. Sure there are times they would be very handy, but it just doesn't seem to be worth the cost and build time. Since I've never seen them mentioned on this site, I assume other players don't use them either.

So, I think they might be - not exactly lost features, but features which would have been useful if they had been fully implemented.

By the way, does anyone ever bother to build them? If so, why?

I find them flippin' annoying. Mostly when I'm trying to rape & pillage -- sorry, sorry, creatively redistribute wealth & resources in newly annexed provinces for the glory of the Motherland -- because when they've been built you can only destroy the upgrade, not the structure it's built on. S'flippin' annoying to go to war for a quick cash injection, steal a province with a castle, smash it to pieces & get, ooh, twenty-three pence in return...

**Taedius** · 12-20-2008, 16:16

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

This isn't exactly on topic, but close enough.

You know those fortification upgrades that don't change your fortification type but do make it easier to defend? I'm talking about ballista towers, catapult towers, etc. I never build them because my plan is to invade other peoples' territory, not let them invade mine. Sure there are times they would be very handy, but it just doesn't seem to be worth the cost and build time. Since I've never seen them mentioned on this site, I assume other players don't use them either.

So, I think they might be - not exactly lost features, but features which would have been useful if they had been fully implemented.

By the way, does anyone ever bother to build them? If so, why?

There is one upgrade I make extensive use of: If you build a Citadel with demi-culverin towers it is possible to build the Master Foundry without upgrading to Fortress. Very handy in naval provinces.

**Martok** · 01-19-2009, 05:47

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

This isn't exactly on topic, but close enough.

You know those fortification upgrades that don't change your fortification type but do make it easier to defend? I'm talking about ballista towers, catapult towers, etc. I never build them because my plan is to invade other peoples' territory, not let them invade mine. Sure there are times they would be very handy, but it just doesn't seem to be worth the cost and build time. Since I've never seen them mentioned on this site, I assume other players don't use them either.

So, I think they might be - not exactly lost features, but features which would have been useful if they had been fully implemented.

By the way, does anyone ever bother to build them? If so, why?

I tend to build castle upgrades in what I consider to be my "border" areas. If I have a province that I intend to use as my kingdom/empire's frontier, then I'll often max out the castle defenses there. Yes, I know the towers tend to fire at my own walls, but I like 'em anyway.

**I of the Storm** · 01-19-2009, 10:29

Originally Posted by Martok

I tend to build castle upgrades in what I consider to be my "border" areas. If I have a province that I intend to use as my kingdom/empire's frontier, then I'll often max out the castle defenses there. Yes, I know the towers tend to fire at my own walls, but I like 'em anyway.

Same here. I sometimes leave one of those provinces - once maxed out on defense - lightly guarded, just to have a nice siege defense with all this extra boom. I mean, I payed for it, so I want so see it make boom...

**caravel** · 01-19-2009, 11:15

I never build upgrades as I never intentionally retreat to the castle. I tend to fight battles in the open and drive the enemy off with great slaughter... [jk]hiding behind walls is for women and belongs in the realm of ancient warfare.[/jk] I've never yet sat in a citadel and fought off the mongols either. Being under siege or sieging just goes against the grain. I find that 9/10 times that you go under siege, the AI will choose to sit it out until your men starve, and having a large enough garrison to withstand a siege means that the siege will probably only last two years at which point you'll be forced to sally with your units under strength. I will fight siege defences every time though when it comes down to it. When I'm sieging I tend to starve out my enemies when possible, or I will assault immediately and auto resolve or send in a spy to open the gates, but because I never play sieges, siege equipment is useless to me.

My preferred fortification type is probably the fort and motte. It's simple and you can get your missile units positioned on the slope with your spears facing the gate and swords, flankers to the left and right with the cavalry behind. The whole trick to this is turning on/off fire at will and making sure that your melee units don't get too ambitious and flood through the gate chasing routers. I've racked up massive kills using this technique against numerically superior foes. Even if you cannot win it's good for a pyhhric victory (makes it harder for the attackers to hold onto your province with the reduced troop numbers).

**Axalon** · 01-20-2009, 13:51

Originally Posted by Caravel

...I never intentionally retreat to the castle. I tend to fight battles in the open and drive the enemy off with great slaughter... [jk]hiding behind walls is for women and belongs in the realm of ancient warfare.[/jk]

Haha! Well put!

In case anyone missed it. All good commanders must keep their language colorful and to the point! As Caravel so brilliantly left a sample on here. Otherwise all the little pixel-soldiers of MTW don’t know who is the boss and don’t do as they are told…

Sorry girls and all dead Romans. No offence is intended here…

This one is for you Caravel...

**The Unknown Guy** · 02-13-2009, 05:47

I remember messing around with the files so that you had to build most of the improvements in a castle before getting to the next level. I think I did this after it began to be discussed in the Pocket Mod forum. The idea was to make upgrades even harder, and avoid having citadels littering the landscape.

I did quite a bit of editing in that regard. I also changed the workings of spearmen and cavalry. I wonder if I still have the files. My final configuration of the workings of troops was fairly balanced (and made cavalry and spearmen work more realistically, to boot), and I'd hate to have to start trying numbers over and over again