Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Redux: size-settings...

  1. #1

    Default Redux: size-settings...

    This is a reworked and updated version of the ”twin-article” from 2008 on size-settings and how it can influence the game-
    experience in general. I set up this specialized thread for the topic - as it is important enough - and for easy access.

    -------------------------------------------------------



    Size-settings...

    To me it is obvious that both Redux and MTW are designed with default size-settings in mind. If we disregard personal preference as a valid factor, a quick look at the campaign-files and we got all we need to dismiss any other notion. Default-settings simply do better correspond to how both games are actually designed then any other setting does....

    I am not forwarding this “article” as to rob people of their size-preferences – those they happily can keep – but I am doing this as to examine the actual effects of size-settings if we outright ignore personal-preference as a factor - as we explore the aspect and its effects. Here I have done this out two of perspectives – the strictly tactical impact of it (battle-mode) and the strictly strategical impact of it (stratmap-mode). I also think that these findings can be applied for both MTW and Redux alike, despite their blatant and extensive differences.



    The tactical impact of size-settings

    There might be more aspects then the five I have focused on here and by all feel free to further comment or forward other and additional aspects that I might have missed here – of any relevant kind. Anyhow, the ones I have focused on are as follows.... (In spoiler)

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    • Time
    • Command
    • Efficiency
    • Diversity
    • Balance


    1. Tactical impact: Time
    -----------------------------------------------------
    The logic is plain and obvious, the more troops we have in one single unit the greater margins we get for errors. A unit that holds more men can simply survive longer, just because of that fact; it holds more men. Now, if a unit survives longer, even if we deployed it or used it wrongly or at least less efficiently. It also ultimately means that we have longer time to remedy a bad situation, thus the circumstances of battle becomes more forgiving to us. With increased size-settings, we increasingly get these circumstances and thus things get easier for us to handle with such setting…. Valid for both MTW and even so more in Redux.


    2. Tactical impact: Command
    -----------------------------------------------------
    This aspect is also heavily linked to time. The more time offered to us, the greater the likelihood that we give appropriate orders as we clearly can better assess the circumstances when given more time to do so. Thus command will be given greater advantageous circumstances in general due to increased time because of the increase in men that needs to get slaughtered before we can see results and that takes more time. That circumstance clearly makes it easier for us to give better and proper orders in battle. This is valid for MTW but even so more in Redux.


    3. Tactical impact: Efficiency
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Regardless how efficient unit X might be - the general terms apply all the same - the more quantity of men that needs to get killed before an enemy-formation is destroyed by unit X will counteract that efficiency by sheer time-increase. That is, if efficiency is measured by results and the time it takes to achieve these results. If so, then it is beyond doubt that unit X clearly becomes less effective as compared to default settings where the results and the times to get those results are faster. This is valid for MTW but even so more in Redux.


    4. Tactical impact: Diversity
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Diversity in troops is born out of the necessity for it – as in the margins are too small for us to ignore it. However, with enough quantity the need for diversity and specialized capacities eventually disappears. By that token, increased quantity of men in formations is more the just one step in that direction. With enough “big” formations (200men units for instance) the need for diversity decreases as such formations are enough in total to virtually ignore the details and aspects of diversity if these formations are numerous enough in total – as in the sheer quantity will prevail anyway and thus the need for diversity disappears. By increasing size-settings we clearly approach such outlined circumstances and as a result we can more easily get away with ignoring diversity due to sheer quantity in men at our command in each army. As a result, things do get easier to grasp and handle in battle with increased size-settings. This is valid for MTW but even so more in Redux.


    5. Tactical impact: Balance
    -----------------------------------------------------
    The visible and internal effect and gaps between “scalable” units will be smaller while non-scalable units in relation to the “scalable” units will be significant with size-settings. The overall unit grid – of which the “non-scalable units” is a part - will get increasingly distorted and skewed (in direct relation to the higher settings we use). That means that non-scalable units get gradually more irrelevant as their usefulness is virtually disabled in regards to all the other scalable troops. The relevance of 10man unit in the field as compared to a 200man formation of soldiers (at max settings) is virtually none. Even if they did somehow survive that encounter, they must do it all over again with the next formation they fight – and this in the same battle…

    The sheer numbers in the enemy formations is likely to simply “drown” such small units, if not successful the first time, the second attempt is even more likely to succeed at acceptable costs. The point of using such non-scalable units is thus virtually lost. Various levels of diversity are lost. The actual unit-grid balance is also lost. Quality in capacities is also increasingly irrelevant as we can virtually afford to ignore it with little consequence. In short, things will thus get much easier, both to grasp and handle as the complexity decreases simply because there is little consequence if we do ignore it – the sheer quantity will eventually prevail anyhow. Thus the balance is seriously damaged and distorted because several parts of the unit-grid have virtually ceased to function properly – or at the very least as supposed too.

    All this likely to result in that our solutions can get increasingly standardized by applying sheer quantity as a universal remedy for all problems we encounter in battle – we simply don’t need to bother with much else - that circumstance can hardly be categorized as balance in a tactical sense or in game-terms. This is valid for MTW but even so more in Redux.


    Conclusions: Tactical impact
    -----------------------------------------------------
    In short, size-settings do have an effect and impact on both Redux and MTW if we change it. The more we increase it – the easier games we get as a result – at least as far as the tactical impact is concerned. There little doubt that playing at maximum size-settings will never ever provide the same or as demanding experience as default size-settings does in a strictly tactical sense – due to reasons outlined above and regardless the game. For optimal tactical game-experience we have too apply default size-settings as there is no other setting that can truly match it in purely tactical terms – due to game-designs. We can use that insight as means to further “fine tune” our difficulty/challenge in our games due to size-settings – if we like - this beyond the fairly crude difficulty-setting alone. That circumstance could be valuable information to anybody interested in such things.


    The strategic impact of size-settings

    The effects of size-setting highly unlikely to be the on the stratmap as in purely tactical sense and thus it is meaningful to make distinction and investigate that separately – as I am attempting to do below. Anyhow, as I understand it, some relevant aspects are… (In spoiler)

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    • Cost
    • Army-quality
    • Start-up distortion
    • Province control
    • Slowed pacing
    • Sieges


    1. Strategic impact: Cost
    -----------------------------------------------------
    The higher size-settings we use, the higher costs of troops we get and that circumstance will have an impact on the game. With increased unit- and support-costs the likelihood of getting all the troops we want are less likely to happen – especially so at the beginning of a campaign – and especially so for Redux as economics are less forgiving there. These circumstances will on general terms make things harder for the player. However, the AI economy will also suffer and thus it is likely to be more “reluctant” to go for expensive (but valuable) units – especially so in MTW. This will make things slightly easier on long term for the player. So, it is unclear what the dominating effect will be in this aspect...


    2. Strategic impact: Army quality
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Higher unit size settings will probably also result in a slightly lower overall quality in armies during the campaign because it is usually too costly to recruit expensive formations (especially in the beginning). Thus the frequency of more cheap units to appear during the game is likely to increase. This is more or less true for both Redux and MTW – but especially so for MTW. Thus creating the general effect that the opposition is probably less advanced and capable which on a strategic level makes circumstances less threatening for the player. Thus, things do on general terms get easier rather then harder as a result…


    3. Strategic impact: Start-up distortion
    -----------------------------------------------------
    As the initial units at start-up does not scale with the size-settings - the enemy territories and especially rebel ones has obviously a decreased capacity to defend their regions in the long run as these units/armies are not scaled with everything else. Thus with increased size-settings the initial and actual influence of the player is increased somehow due to size-settings – as it easier to expand on underpowered rebel-armies etc. initially. Thus the game get easier somehow due to this circumstance, both in Redux and even more so in MTW.


    4. Strategic impact: Province control
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Many formations/units get bigger with size-settings - the amount of actual units required to maintain order in provinces decreases thus. A 200man (max settings) unit will obviously be twice as effective as a 100man (default setting) unit for instance. This ultimately means that, more units can - and will - be used for “active service” elsewhere. This is especially true for Redux but also to a lesser degree in MTW as well. After all, it does require less actual units to maintain proper order in a province while at the same time the unit’s capacity to withstand possible losses is doubled - if forced to fight. However, the time and cost the get the 200 men in place in province X is the same. All this while it is only 1 unit on max while in default it requires 2 units (which individually can not withstand losses as successfully anyhow)… In essence, things do get easier to handle yet again due to this aspect.


    5. Strategic impact: Slowed pacing
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Using maxed size-settings means that it (usually) takes longer to acquire troops and to build up functional armies. On a strategic level this means a slowed overall game-pacing in (most regards) and that will eventually and in the long run benefit the player more then the AI. If nothing else simply because the player can - and will - better utilize that extra time provided then the AI. Furthermore, an army lost will take longer to replace – that circumstance will also eventually benefit the player more for the same reason – players will use the extra time better then the AI will. As a result this will make the game somewhat easier to overview, predict and handle – in essence make things easier somehow due to this aspect.


    6. Strategic impact: sieges
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Castle garrison-capacities don’t scale at all so size-settings will obviously influence sieges somehow on a strategic level - as (usually) more men per unit means that sieges will be shorter and thus less relevant for the game on general terms. If that creates an easier or harder game is unclear but it seems probable that the AI is likely to benefit more from this circumstance then the player – as it is more inclined to actually do sieges (while not assaulting as it probably should and could). Shorter sieges mean that troops can faster be used elsewhere for other tasks – that much is clear anyhow. This circumstance is valid for both Redux and MTW alike.


    Conclusions: Strategic impact
    -----------------------------------------------------
    On general terms size-settings will gradually create an easier game the higher size-settings we use – due to outlined aspects above – max settings will yet again create the easiest of them all. The increasingly skewed and unusual circumstances that size-settings create on this level are hardly small enough for us to simply ignore (at least combined). It is fair to say that it does have an effect in the game and it does make the game somewhat easier in general and in the long run (probably more so in Redux then in MTW - due to economics, rebelliousness etc. etc.). As a result we should consider this reality well before any such changes on size-settings are actually made. That is, if that factor is somehow important to us as we play either game.


    Closing remarks on size-settings

    Size-settings certainly do make an impact on both Redux and MTW – as increased sizes do create and generate circumstances that increasingly are easier to handle for us. On max settings it is easy to abuse – let’s say the hardcoded retreat behaviours of the AI. The greater unit size you set, the more easily you will able to trigger that behaviour in the AI, even if it is unintentionally. We can in such ways virtually scare the enemy to “retreat to death” – without any fight – provided the correct conditions for it of course. The sheer weight of numbers also brings several other drastic effects to the game-experience; battles will get less complex and more forgiving, provincial order is easier to maintain and the overall slowed game-pacing will eventually benefit the player more then it will the AI etc. etc.

    I have attempted to bring light to some of the actual effects on either game due to size-settings if these are changed (increased) – while disregarding personal preference as a factor. That means that people can still prefer whatever setting they like, it is still their privilege and headache - to me that is irrelevant here as it is not factor considered in this context.

    It is clear that due to size-settings – we can indeed further fine tune difficulty of both games if we like – beyond the crude difficulty-setting as that alone does not define or influence our experiences with either game. Size-settings do it as well…


    Discuss topic and findings at your discretion.

    - Cheers
    Last edited by Axalon; 08-02-2011 at 17:29. Reason: update...

  2. #2
    VictorGB Member Trapped in Samsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    Hi Axalon

    An interesting essay. On a somewhat controversial subject.

    The only thing I would add is that using smaller unit sizes 'equates to/has the effect of' being given bigger tactical maps, it seems to me. This comes to the fore with cavalry-heavy armies, allowing them a bit more room to manoeuvre.

    Off topic: am playing Beta 1001 + VI module and having lots of fun - Italians, Standard difficulty. Absolutely rock solid (no crashes or hiccups) after 88 years; say, a dozen hours' play. What do the "Embargo" line of buildings really do? I cannot figure this out.

    Best regards
    Victor

    Sapere aude
    Horace

  3. #3

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    Somewhat controversial subject? How so Victor?

    - Cheers
    ------------
    I have answered the Embargo-stuff over at the general
    thread – in the interest of keeping topicality here...
    Last edited by Axalon; 05-27-2011 at 14:43. Reason: Clean up...

  4. #4

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    There's an issue that you seem to have got wrong in there...

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    4. Strategic impact: Province control
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Many formations/units get bigger with size-settings - the amount of actual units required to maintain order in provinces decreases thus. A 200man (max settings) unit will obviously be twice as effective as a 100man (default setting) unit for instance.
    That is not the case. A 120-man unit on "Huge" gives the same 10% happiness bonus as a 60-man unit on the default size. So unit size has no effect on the number of units you need to use as a garrison.
    Last edited by scowie; 07-08-2011 at 01:27.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    It is a known fact that scaling is relative across the board...and must be balanced for benefits in both Battle & Campaign version of the game.


    I am liking the changes in this mod. It does balance well. The only units I don't agree with are the "Champion" units of 1 Man. It's different, but I think those were played out long ago with earlier mods and are just overpowering and easy to exploit both on Attack and Defence.
    Last edited by Madden; 07-30-2011 at 21:20.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    Clearly, you are right Scowie (so much for consistency on CA-design in MTW). Another thing I noticed as I checked this out (on VI) was that the game merges units (when possible) on maximum settings (2 units become 1 if they are the same kind). I did not know that up to this point.

    - A

  7. #7

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    As I am a bit curious here, a few simple questions to anybody who played Redux, and who is inclined to answer here of course. This utterly regardless what
    post:1 might discuss and conclude, and it does not somehow require any fancy answers here, long or short ones - your call. So...

    • On what size-settings do you play Redux? ....Default/Maximum/Other (what then)?
    • Do you play on different size-settings while playing Redux as to MTW1? ....Y/N? (If so, what sizes might that be then? Any reasons why?)



    At your discretion folks....

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; 02-03-2012 at 18:35.

  8. #8
    Member Member Stazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    451

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    I mostly play with default size settings. The only exception is when a mod is meant to be played with other settings (like Caravel).
    IMO the best solution is to totally abandon size scaling and make the mod playable only with default units size (like Pike&Musket). This way you have full 1-200 range in your disposal and you can make units that really differ from each other. 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. Generally, abandoning the whole size settings thing gives you much more options which I personally prefer.
    "Do not fight for glory. Do not fight for love of your lord. Do not fight for hatred, honor or faith. Fight only for victory and you will succeed." - Uji sensei.

  9. #9
    VictorGB Member Trapped in Samsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    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

  10. #10
    Forever MTW Member Durango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    228

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    @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!


  11. #11
    VictorGB Member Trapped in Samsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    Quote Originally Posted by Durango View Post
    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
    Last edited by Trapped in Samsara; 02-08-2012 at 16:21.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

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



    Quote Originally Posted by Stazi View Post
    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).


    Quote Originally Posted by Stazi View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stazi View Post
    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.



    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Durango View Post
    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...


    Quote Originally Posted by Durango View Post
    [...]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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Durango View Post
    [...] 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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Durango View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Durango View Post
    [...]none of the drawbacks of the original size settings[...]
    What exactly did have in mind on this note?


    Quote Originally Posted by Durango View Post
    [...]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.



    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Trapped in Samsara View Post
    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).


    Quote Originally Posted by Trapped in Samsara View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trapped in Samsara View Post
    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
    Last edited by Axalon; 02-11-2012 at 10:53.

  13. #13
    Member Member Stazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    451

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stazi View Post
    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.
    "Do not fight for glory. Do not fight for love of your lord. Do not fight for hatred, honor or faith. Fight only for victory and you will succeed." - Uji sensei.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    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

  15. #15
    Member Member Stazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    451

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon
    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.
    "Do not fight for glory. Do not fight for love of your lord. Do not fight for hatred, honor or faith. Fight only for victory and you will succeed." - Uji sensei.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    Staz, I truly believe that you believe that doing these things is for the better. The difference between us here is how we value unitsize-clusters importance and impact for the overall game – not just for campaign. You believe it is well worth to fixate/lock it to default (at the given cost) – I don’t. You see great benefits with an additional 100 variables in one single aspect of unit-design and the effects you hope it will bring. I don’t. I see problems increasing due to the pricetag it involves for the entire game - and only potential and limited gains in campaign. For me, the overall scaling between known benefits and drawbacks is not good enough to do it. Thus I won’t…


    Quote Originally Posted by Stazi View Post
    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!
    I essentially agree, but all that stuff is already a reality in Redux - it's already there somehow. All of it. The framework 1-100 men are totally acceptable and viable for Redux, and personally I see little serious use for gaining 120, 140, 160, 180 and 200-clusters to be honest (which is probably the only ones I would consider in the event). I have no immediate ideas on where utilize them (short of peasants) as the roster already seems to function very well within the 100-framework - at least to me, this whenever I have tested it and I have done that to ridiculous extents. The troop unit-matrix (and ALL stuff related to it) works and it is already more advanced and diverse then the MTW1-counterpart ever was. It is not me boasting, it is fact, the numbers are all there and they are adamant in proving this (feel free to check it out first hand at any time folks). So, the gains you are looking for are already a reality, everything, except some additional extra unitsize-clusters on an already more diverse design in that very aspect. Maybe not perfectly corresponding to your personal preference and ideas but it is still there all the same...

    - If you truly want more unitsize-clusters in Redux – you make it happen. The sheer technical work for it is essentially a cakewalk - it is only 1 file that needs to be edited to get there (and we both know it). The hard part is design and to make the entire unit-matrix function as whole, even if we are just talking about unitsize-clusters. If you want a minimod for Redux that enables additional unitsize-clusters for personal use, do it. If you think the results are good enough, you could upload it for all likeminded people and I’ll fully support/approve a dedicated thread for such a minimod. I have no problems with that, and that is the best I can do for you on this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stazi View Post
    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.
    You would be surprised how much people can screw things up - really - I am not joking here, sadly enough. Redux is 99% fool-proof - once installed correctly (and not even that is certain, as people screw that up as well, even these days). That 1% is still around because of the shutdown of all historical stuff – otherwise it would bee a 100%. And even if it were a 100% fool-proof my experience tells me that people would somehow manage to screw things up anyway. Still, the more fool-proof it is the less problems I get on my hands as a result, and that strikes me as very desirable....

    I hate to say it (and I’ll happily be wrong about it), but I think you are too optimistic about people. Either way, I have zero doubt that there are indeed are plenty of folks out there that do get it and can handle it (regardless of age), and some of them might even play Redux as well. However, those were never the ones that worry me, it is the others. Each year I see one thing more screwed up then the next, and every time I think “now I have seen it all” some new even more bizarre crap comes up – and this is just related to Redux somehow. I’m telling you, the world is seriously screwed up place with some really bizarre gamers/people in it.

    (Why, do these posts always get to be so big?)


    - A

  17. #17

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon
    (Why, do these posts always get to be so big?)
    Probably because you're the author, Axe ;)
    The Caravel Mod: a (very much) improvedvanilla MTW/VI v2.1 early campaign

    Please make sure you have the latest version (v3.3)
    Since v3.3 the Caravel Mod includes customised campaigns for huge and default unit settings

    Download v3.3
    Info & Discussion Thread

  18. #18
    Member Member daigaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alemannisches Dreiländereck
    Posts
    204

    Default Re: Redux: size-settings...

    Hi,

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    • On what size-settings do you play Redux? ....Default/Maximum/Other (what then)?
    • Do you play on different size-settings while playing Redux as to MTW1? ....Y/N? (If so, what sizes might that be then? Any reasons why?)


    - A
    I never bothered with size settings, always used the default ones. Not being too trained with epic battles ´cos of lack of machine power I was (and still am) glad to have not too many men on the screen to "care" for ;-))

    (and I love small, effective units. Now playing redux, it´s simply fun to see units of 10 or 20, highly skilled and trained (valour min. 3, morale well beyond 10, armour and weapons upgraded), to smash into units of 60 or 100 - and walk through them ;-)) Done so with Norse Bodyguards(20) and Pathfinders(10), as well as with "ordinary" Norse Spearmen(only 40!!). On the other hand, I do see the beauty of a unit like 100 Lithuanian Cavalry - nothing better to clean out a battlefield ;-)) )

    So for me the choice of default might be lack of experience with battles. Others who did use the TacMap more might have found something in higher settings for their gameplay - for me, I would even choose smaller units to specialize still more within one stack to make battles as interesting as possible....but if the Pathfinders are down to 5 men they won´t do much damage any more, so - default will stay my choice...

    greetings,
    daigaku
    Last edited by Axalon; 05-10-2012 at 19:19. Reason: Formatting... - Axalon

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO