Redux: size-settings...

[Trapped in Samsara]

Hi Axalon

The one Redux campaign I have played (I do intend that there will be more.) I used default. Reason: I know this is your recommendation. By contrast I have played Caravel - two campaigns - on huge. Reason: that's what Gollum recommends.

Personally I prefer default due to:
- less demand on system resources than huge;
- the maps become 'bigger' from an operational command and manoeuvre perspective, which I enjoy, and which is significant for cavalry, I feel;
- battles can become more 'exciting' due to units disintegrating more quickly.

That said, I recognise that there is a whole debate about what unit size 'advantages' the AI; how much strategic thinking comes into play when build times and per unit cost increase; and how unit balancing issues are resolved. Which is why I am content to go with the designer's recommendation a priori.

I disagree with Stazi in principle about doing away with different sizes. The reason being that this prevents players from selecting the optimum unit size for their system's resources. In practice, however, if having just one unit size made the modder's job significantly easier I probably wouldn't grumble.

Best regards
Victor

Sapere aude
Horace

[Durango]

@Stazi, Trapped in Samsara: I agree on the notion that the battle mechanics work best on the intermediate sizes. On Huge, the battlefield shrinks along with its features, with hills and patches of forests becoming less viable to use. Units take longer to turn on their axis, because the turn/walk speed is not changed along with unit size. Cavalry have less room to maneuver, reducing their role to be more like heavy infantry (with a lot of counters to boot) instead of speed being their main use.

Huge is however more realistic on the campaign map, with less individual stacks and longer training time giving more decisive encounters. Retraining also becomes much more attractive, giving a real benefit. But just as Stazi says, it's not feasible to have units taking longer than 2-3 years to train.

Personally, I have solved all of these issues by introducing my own custom unit size. It's based on Medium, but with additional adjustments.

Royal BGs: 30 (non trainable, 0 upkeep costs and with more men to survive better on the battlefield)

Cavalry: 50 (substantial, but still very mobile)

Infantry: 80

Spears: 130

Pikes: 160 (Late pikes only, to get the full rank bonus advantage)

Unlike the original Medium, these unit settings have even numbers (very important to me!). Additionally, all units cost +100% like on Huge, but only +75% upkeep to make it easy on the computer, and all units take 2 turns to build. Every unit is set to "non scalable" to allow CAs default Medium size to be chosen without affecting units, so that stacks hold the correct number of men. I have to say that I'm very happy with how all this works, as I can have all the benefits but none of the drawbacks of the original size settings - the battlefield has a good number of men, but still gives plenty of space!

[Trapped in Samsara]

Retraining also becomes much more attractive, giving a real benefit.

Hi Durango

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the AI NEVER retrains or rebuilds partial units. If I'm right, then a bigger unit size advantages the player significantly at the expense of the AI.

That said, I'm completely open to all the other points you've made and look forward to reading other people's comments. I readily buy the idea of pikes being larger than spear companies 'cos I'm completely underwhelmed by them - except in the Pike and Musket mod. (Apart from SAPs, of course, which my therapist tells me have inflicted some sort of psychological trauma on my MTW persona.)


Best regards
Victor

Sapere aude
Horace

[Axalon]

Hello guys and thanks for the replies so far. Interesting things in all posts…

IMO the best solution is to totally abandon size scaling and make the mod playable only with default units size (like Pike&Musket).

Out of a strict design-perspective, I agree. Out of a player perspective however it does limit some initial flexibility, customization and choices. Furthermore, I am uncertain on how a total lockdown/removal on this is truly successfully achieved in MTW without potential crashes – short of telling the player so…. Until I can truly somehow achieve that – this is not up for consideration for me and redux. It might be a different story if that thing had been otherwise (by all means tell/show me how, if you think otherwise).

This way you have full 1-200 range in your disposal and you can make units that really differ from each other.

Obviously, there are far more ways to achieve differences in units, but I understand what you are saying. Unitsize is one valid aspect for unittype-distinction, having a 100 more variables at your disposal on that would not hurt – so to speak.

Another thing is training time. For example 3 years for an elite unit is still acceptable but "Huge" setting doubles that time and IMO 6 years becomes unacceptable even for a super elite unit.

I agree, it is too much and as far as Redux goes I consider it an unwanted bi-effect due to MTW-engine traits on max size-settings (which can not be changed, just evaded). Yet another reason to stick to default, I think. 6 turns for longbows is too much even if you do get a 120men strong unit. With default and 3 turns, then it’s well worth the wait, if people want ‘em (after all, every unit is optional). They are very good and I don’t want people to spam them, this ironically enough goes for the AI as well who builds plenty of those on a regular basis.



---

Huge is however more realistic on the campaign map,…

Personally, I think that argument is open for debate, as we are already wandering around in the realm of simplified symbolic representations and clearly not any historical simulations - thus I think it is fair to raise the question of actual benefits of an asserted realism in that particular regard. The argument as such does not convince me basically, given the circumstances of da game...

[...]with less individual stacks[...]

I wonder if less individual stacks are actually a bad thing for the game (assuming they are functional ones and not some understrength formations). Personally, I would argue the opposite as I like to think that it serves the game in a positive manner, having several and different units running around instead of a few monster-sized units leaving little diversity (certainly less anyway) by default…. Not to mention that tactics and importance to bother with it becomes increasingly irrelevant in such circumstances while smaller formations do create circumstances that work in the opposite direction – making tactics more and more relevant.

[...] and longer training time giving more decisive encounters.

The only reason it can be more decisive somehow is because the encounter themselves will decrease in frequency… This for two obvious reasons, It will be harder to create functional armies due to time and cost increases. Other not as obvious reasons are that the AI will be retreating more and fight less, as it will be harder for it to attain circumstances promising enough to make it commit to battle. The AI is obviously instructed to retreat “to fight another day” if such circumstances fail to materialize. The only time the AI will fight no matter what is when defending a castle – as it then has no place to retreat to… There is no “last stand” parameter aside from castles in MTW and thus the AI will not for certain go down fighting, but by retreating away from the sheer numbers in enemy Army X once its own functional army Y is lost (as max settings is hardly lends itself for quick recuperations somehow)….

This in turn increases the possibility that we may crush an enemy with one single battle - if we even get that battle at all that is and the AI has not already retreated itself to death – leaving us with a walkover victory…. A famous example of that is found in the 2nd ED of Redux, with Portugal (before the Spanish Fix was released). Personally, I find it all unattractive as I do prefer to fight for my victories and that is more likely to actually happen if I don’t use max settings. Furthermore, I also think it to be well over the top to virtually kill an empire by fighting one single battle successfully, to me it more reasonable to have at least some battles before an empire is utterly broken.

Other then that, I have a hard time to see how max size would otherwise be more decisive then default as that stuff is fixed in the MTW-engine.

Retraining also becomes much more attractive, giving a real benefit.

This is a valid point, the time-benefits on max settings is much more significant then on default. As Victor/Samsara also points out this is one of the player-benefits provided in MTW as the AI does not retrain units (last time I checked. I have actually yet to any such example). The AI merges units by default however; veterans or greenhorns, no matter, it just bunches identical troops together to full strength formations whenever possible – much like the “tidy up” option available to player.

[...]none of the drawbacks of the original size settings[...]

What exactly did have in mind on this note?

[...]the battlefield has a good number of men [with max settings applied]

I'm guessing this is the single most important reason why people might consider using max settings in the first place. Many gamers tend to equate massed quantity with “epicness” and sure that is one kind of it. Personally I am more in to hard brutal fighting and that utterly regardless of the quantity involved. A 200-400 men strong army can provide some real exciting action to me, and it might very well provide a battle that exceeds a 2000-4000 men army in terms of sheer drama (actually I prefer the minor battles as I have better control and overview in those). But that’s just me, a tactics-, blood and guts-junkie.



---

That said, I recognise that there is a whole debate about what unit size 'advantages' the AI; how much strategic thinking comes into play when build times and per unit cost increase; and how unit balancing issues are resolved.

I know that some people have paradoxically enough argued that max settings would somehow create the very opposite effects of what post:1 observes and concludes. Other then that, my memory of this is fussy. Feel free to refresh me or link me to where you have encountered this debate you are referring to. As for the whole “we must not take advantage of the AI”- discussion/doctrine on general terms, I can only say that I personally find it highly questionable in its foundations – as I have understood it. In short, to me it is essentially a load of BS for several reasons (should people be truly interested in the “why’s” of that some day, I might explain it in full).

I readily buy the idea of pikes being larger than spear companies 'cos I'm completely underwhelmed by them - except in the Pike and Musket mod. (Apart from SAPs, of course, which my therapist tells me have inflicted some sort of psychological trauma on my MTW persona.)

...?... I find that very strange as Redux’s pikemen are obviously more effective on cavalry then in MTW - the only unit that actually can keep up with that somehow are Swiss Armoured Pikemen. The stats are rather clear on this. This goes for the Heavy Pikemen as well since they are even better then that, and MTW don’t have any formation that can compete with it in capacity – they even got armorpiercing bonuses. There is no counterpart in MTW or anywhere that still uses the CA battlesystem (which most mods do? Right?). So that notion does not add up well with the actual realities in Redux.

That said, I'm completely open to all the other points you've made and look forward to reading other people's comments.

x2....


- A

[Stazi]

IMO the best solution is to totally abandon size scaling and make the mod playable only with default units size (like Pike&Musket).

Out of a strict design-perspective, I agree. Out of a player perspective however it does limit some initial flexibility, customization and choices. Furthermore, I am uncertain on how a total lockdown/removal on this is truly successfully achieved in MTW without potential crashes – short of telling the player so…. Until I can truly somehow achieve that – this is not up for consideration for me and redux. It might be a different story if that thing had been otherwise (by all means tell/show me how, if you think otherwise).

You can lock all units using 21th column in the unit_prod file (unit scalable yes/no). That way, no matter of what setting a player chooses, he always gets the same size units. 100% crash proof method.

[Axalon]

Hello Staz....

Yup, it's true for campaigns, but not for solo-battles (the darn game just disregards that and doubles up all the same in that mode - this even if it shows the default numbers in front-end! This regardless if it is VI/v.2.01 or v.1.1)... So, I am afraid that it is still a no-go on this note - as I do take that into consideration when I do designs for Redux. I am aware that among the few others that also created grand-scale stuff for MTW some simply don't care about that and just focuses solely on campaign-mode in their designs - at the constant price of dysfunctional solo-battles that will crash the game etc. However, I am not in that category.

The specifications and goals for Redux is pretty clear, it will fully support solo-battles and MP-battles as well. That will not happen if I do disregard stuff in solo-battles (the only thing that don't work in Redux are historical battles and campaigns, and that could change as well, provided anybody actually bothered to create some for it. Again I am not that person, since I am not interested enough in that to commit to the workload and time it takes to properly design such stuff. Just the sheer research would be daunting to get things not too screwed up - historically speaking. After all, what is the point of such stuff if it not even remotely corresponds to what it is supposed to reflect? The "ahistorical historical-battles"? - Nah, it will never fly). Sorry, but there it is....

- A

[Stazi]

I am aware that among the few others that also created grand-scale stuff for MTW some simply don't care about that and just focuses solely on campaign-mode in their designs - at the constant price of dysfunctional solo-battles that will crash the game etc. However, I am not in that category.

OK. I've got your point.

It might be a different story if that thing had been otherwise (by all means tell/show me how, if you think otherwise).

You want it!? You've got it. Below I'll try to show my point. No offense.

Keeping custom battles is nice but ask yourself "is it worth the cost"? As you said historical battles/campaigns are not working and probably never will (without investing a shitload of time and effort). So the game is not idiot-proof anymore. While the game is not 100% idiot-proof why not make it a little less idiot-proof? What we loose if we take that way? We won't even loose custom/mp battles as a whole. They will be still playable with default setting. What will we get? Greater variety of units with much more different units' sizes. It leads to different army setups, battle tactics, bigger units will last longer, etc. What will we get on the campaign level? Some bigger units will be more preferable as a garrison. Elite units but with longer training time (3-4 turns) will force a player to think about his priorities and better plan his production (strategically, production queues, etc). These are just examples. I'm sure you can think of many more advantages of that solution. Generally, more choices to make, more different situation to encounter, more challenging campaign - more fun!

Furthermore, I am uncertain on how a total lockdown/removal on this is truly successfully achieved in MTW without potential crashes – short of telling the player so….

I think you underestimate people playing MTW. The game is 10 years old now. I'm sure there are very few teenagers who plays it. IMO most of the players are 25+ and they are not stupid (I'm not saying that teenagers are stupid...they are just a little less... experienced ). If you put into mod description text saying: "Custom and MP battles work only with default size settings!!" 99% of people will get it. Furthermore, people using mods suspect that something may not work or some features were sacrificed for others. It's fully acceptable cause mods are not commercial products and they are limited by an engine of the original game.

If you are not convinced you could even make a poll about it. Question could be like this:
"What do you prefer: a) to keep custom and mp battles playable with "Huge" setting or b) to make the campaign better, funnier, more challenging and more impressive experience?"
Yes, I know . With that kind of question the answer is simple but it's just an example.