KOTF mod

**Cecil XIX** · 07-02-2009, 20:17

Just to clarify, Zappa was able to deduce the formula for how likely a character is to die once they reach the 'dieable' age.

Originally Posted by Zappa

CDpY = (max_age_before_death - max_age) / (max_age - old_age) * 100%

With the latest numbers that would be:

181-180 / 180 - 40 = 1 / 140 = 0.7% chance of death per year

The default numbers are:

105-90 / 90 - 60 = 15 / 30 = ~50% chance of death per year... In other words, the vast majority will not make it past 62 years old, which is exactly what we have been seeing in the vanilla settings.

There's also some talk that the time scale a mod uses might make a difference. DLV, for which this research was conducted, progresses at 2 turns per year. LTC uses 1.5 turns per year. We could test this ourselves, but it's something I would ask Zappa about if possible.

The thing to remember is that while some, maybe most characters will live longer, some will die sooner than 61. We could use DLV's default range of 50-110, Zappa's preference of 18-100 (Not as bad as it sounds, each character only has a 1.22% of dieing per year) or whatever range we want. I wouldn't want to decide that by committee though, and would prefer DLV's default. Death at fifty would mean 68 turns of playtime if he comes of age at 61, which is pretty good.

Also, fun fact: A character who comes of age at 16 and lives to 110 lives for 188 turns. That's longer than the entirety of WotS, KotR and LotR!

**AussieGiant** · 07-02-2009, 22:29

Why do we want this mod?

**Cecil XIX** · 07-02-2009, 22:46

Assuming you're refering to my proposal, it's to make the age at which characters die less predictable. Right now the parameters are set up so that once characters reach age 60, they have a 50% chance of dieing each year, which is why you hardly see anyone live to 62.

If we change the three parameters to DLV's standard, this would allow characters to die at any age from 50 to 110.

This allows for some interesting RP scenarios, such as sons dieing of natural causes before their fathers, which historically could happen. Simply put, I think things will be more interesting if we don't know that our characters are going to die at 61, give or take a year.

EDIT: Experimental data from the link I provided is pretty interesting, and I'd be happy to do some tests myself if people think it's necessary.

**econ21** · 07-03-2009, 00:00

There is a file - the descr_strat - which is read only once at the beginning of the game, but sets up the AIs starting forces and income. I don't know what Zim is planning regarding initial use of the console, but I wonder if we should either edit that file or use the console to buff up the AI forces and money at the start of the game?

With these games, we usually want to avoid rushing for OOC reasons, but there are strong IC incentives for expansion. Moreover, there is the imbalancing effect of us starting with a lot of RBGs. Fortunately, France is one of the few factions where starting off with a bunch of hotheaded knights has rather a nice historical flavour. However, RBGs are very powerful units in M2TW: they are heavy cavalry, which is uber anyway and scarce in the early period (and apparently can even dismount in Lusted's mod), but also have 2 Hit points and regenerate over time. If France starts with an extra dozen of those units at the start, it would have a big edge even if played by the AI let alone a bunch of humans striving to perform at the top of their game. I don't know what was done about about that in WotB, but some buffing of the AI might be in order. Perhaps we should increase the starting AI forces to compensate - e.g. if have one RBG, they should at least get a unit of knights or some such? But my inclination would be to buff them even more, so that their starting garrisons are at EB like levels making an initial rush is costly. e.g. rebel cities should have strong half stacks and real factions several full stacks (if you are going to start the 100 years war, build a few stacks first...).

I dont think it matters whether we buff up the starting forces by using the console or the descr_strat. But editing the file might make life a little easier when it comes to buffing the AI income. In KotR, we ended up manually giving the AI lots of money every turn using the console. This was flexible, but a little tedious. If we edit the king's purses for AI factions at the beginning to raise their default income, we can reduce some of the routine adjustments and save the console for finetunning.

I'd be willing to make the changes to the descr-strat in consultation with Zim and he could trial it before we kick off. I guess TC grappled with this issue when starting off WotB, so it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on this.

**Cecil XIX** · 07-03-2009, 00:10

Interesting idea. I one-off increase of AI forces in Frances vicinity might cause balancing problems, but if it's for the english provinces in France then it shouldn't be a problem. Those will be almost completely surrounded by us anyway.

I definitely like the idea of editing the king's purse for AI factions. That would be easier to implement, and I suspect the AI would also have an easier time "seeing" what is going on; it might make better use of the money.

**TinCow** · 07-03-2009, 00:21

Originally Posted by econ21

I'd be willing to make the changes to the descr-strat in consultation with Zim and he could trial it before we kick off. I guess TC grappled with this issue when starting off WotB, so it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on this.

Expansion was difficult to control in LotR (WotB is a different game that I have no part in, even though it is based on my LotR rule set). Early rapid expansion was expected and did occur a bit faster than I wanted. I eventually popped an event which spawned several large rebel armies to slow down this expansion, which effectively halted the expansion, but there was a lot of griping about the artificial nature of it. After that, expansion continued steadily, but it never really reached KotR levels. The AI in SS 4.1 was decent enough to keep inflicting regular (if infrequent) losses on us, and cities were lost and avatars killed without me doing anything to interfere in it. LotR was far, far more lethal than KotR or WotS, even if you exclude the intentional deaths, and it never had anything remotely like the Cataclysm.

I think the key to controlling expansion is not to do it by pumping the AI, but by creating mechanisms such that the players themselves reign it in. The proposed rules for KotF include some adjustments that might work towards that. As long as the mod itself has a decent AI (mods that give the AI extra cash every turn help here greatly), I think it will be fine. There are some players here who have no problems provoking civil wars and being nasty when their enemies are most vulnerable...

**ULC** · 07-03-2009, 00:35

Lusteds AI, using LTC Gold, is far superior to that of SS4.1's, due to the fact Lusteds AI is designed around the changes made in LTC. Starting garrisons are pretty much nonexistent, and bodyguards can/will get mowed down by standard spearmen (face first charges can lose you a 1/3rd of your Bodyguard), let alone the advanced spearmen. Also, the AI is fairly aggressive in the beginning, and will seize nearby provinces almost immediately, and by turn 5 will have at least one or two full stacks of it's own.

**Cecil XIX** · 07-03-2009, 00:52

The Throne Room has a bit of experience with LTC Gold, via my test PBEM 'Vassals & Valor'. It didn't last very long, but I did get two impressions that reiterate YLC's point.

1. When Ramses besieged Caen, the AI responded by having the garrison sally while moving almost the entire garrison of Angers to strike him from behind. Since it was Ramses it didn't work, but I was impressed regardless.

2. I also noticed that the AI was expanding pretty rapidly, although I can't remember any specifics.