Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Re-working the tech tree for 2.0

  1. #1
    Crusading historian Member cegorach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,523

    Default Re-working the tech tree for 2.0

    I always treated 1.5 as a modification which is supposed to work on a core, a skeleton, a frame provided by MTW VI.

    This way PMTW inherited many but often rather useless stuctures.

    Useless, because to be honest who needs those high level swordmakers or spear manufacturers? This period was mostly moving towards larger production of fairly similar weapons mass armies needed and only elite/specialised units required special treatment.

    There is another problem with high level buildings - if a province is lost if reconquered it is usually so devastated it takes years to recover it as a unit recruitment area, especially with more advanced units.



    Frankly I wanted the main techtree simplified and provide more entries for other structures such as cultural/political 'buildings' usually supposed to rise happiness and give more flavour for this mod.

    My main objection was that this way it might be too easy to create a snowball effect with a rising faction able to steamroll through opposition. Second was that modern buildings are possible to erect regardless of the time period they are supposed to be from simply because all what is defining their availability are the building requirements and nothing else.
    This way the map would soon be crowded with the most modern of structures because everything what they required is easy to build.


    Thanks to the discovery of @Stazi we finally have the events to use as a requirement for various buildings, this means more advanced structures can be disallowed from appearing too early.



    I believe it is the right time to think and to discuss the changed techs in the game.

    1580 and 1630 are right now the dates we can use to limit certain structures from appearing so structures in the game can be divided into at least three categories - from the XVIth century, from the age of between both centuries and from the later early-modern period i.e. the most advanced and absolutely not possible to create a century or so earlier.




    Another issue is the recruitment.

    Already factions are limited by the concept of homelands and in general are forced to rely on local troops, mercenaries or massive fleets when moving away from their 'home base'.

    In many ways it is sufficient, but I wondered about using a different approach - the recruitment camps.
    They use the tested concept of 'mirror' units i.e. copies of existing units but with much different recruitment areas, even unlimited in range - but without any risk of appearing as rebels or loyalists so that Tartars in France suddenly do not receive massive support from local peasants who for some reason learnt how to ride horses and shoot bows like experts.

    Recruitment camps as relatively easy to erect, but limited in numbers (even to one) which can provide access to certain units even very far away from the home countries. This way factions kicked out of their recruitment zone could create armies and try to come back.

    Perfect for nomadic factions, but might be too good for the majority of countries in the game.

    On the other hand recruitment camps INSTEAD of the usual, current ways to recruit forces - say three per faction so bigger factions would be forced to use smaller armies. Unfortunatelly I am afraid that the AI would quickly decide to build them all in one province and this way lose access to larger armies.




    I believe that I'll simply use this idea for certain units (usually semi-nomadic and nomadic) and for units which were more likely to receive support or were much easier to recruit in certain areas.

    That included nomadic camps for nomadic faction, a Landsknecht camp (better name?), a Swiss camp and possibly more.
    All either give access to full sized units of a certain type even far away from their homelands or to smaller numbers of soldiers useful as replacements or fully sized, but easier to recruit units which are simply more likely to be available in densely populated/richer areas but only in this one, single camp.





    Obviously whatever is decided it is meant for 2.0, not for 1.6, though some features will be available to test them and to provide a taste of things to come.


    If you have any ideas what to add and what to remove please post them.

    I personally am inclided to remove high level sword/spear makers perhaps with the exception of a single structure of this kind (could be done by setting requirements to specific, unique structures) probably only for certain factions.

  2. #2
    Member Member Stazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    452

    Default Re: Re-working the tech tree for 2.0

    I don't know if I get it all right but the problem you want to discuss is the general idea of recruitment areas? So, lets make a simple list of possible options:

    1. Homelands for national unit only. Out of homelands - only common units and mercenaries.

    2. Homelands + recruitment camps out of homelands with reduced (or not) national unit sizes.

    3. No homelands. Lets build everything, everywhere which makes recruitment camps unnecessary.

    Any other possible options? Feel free to add.

    I'm not sure which option is the best. Considering AI limits and behavior 3. would be the best. But I thinks it's not fun from a player point of view.
    2nd option looks more interesting but camps idea is not much different from the 3rd option. It makes every unit recruitable everywhere too, just with additional requirement. Does that one building make a unit really impossible to appear in rebellion?

    About eras and event. The AI doesn't get the idea of eras (early, high, late) or events like compass or gunpowder and doesn't think in advance. BTW eras work nearly the same way as events, you just don't get the event pop up that informs you about it. So we have EARLY, HIGH, LATE plus COMAPASS and GUNPOWDER which can effectively divide campaign timespan into 6 eras (for units, because there are still only those 2 events for buildings). But, as I said above, I'd avoid using those 3 basic eras at all because of AI. Tech tree and units based only on building requirements sounds better to me. Will it cause a snowball effect with reduces number of high tech buildings? I don't know but I doubt it. The building destruction system usually brings down overdeveloped provinces quite effectively.
    "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.

  3. #3
    Crusading historian Member cegorach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,523

    Default Re: Re-working the tech tree for 2.0

    In some ways I wanted to help the AI - instead of over complicated tech tree there will be a more simplified one, though eras will make certain units and building unavailable in certain years.

    The AI could be poorly equipped to deal with the whole period/era divide, but it is not much good at developing provinces either so if the new units will require certain structures (e.g. military reforms) I wish to make those structures relatively easy to build, but in later years than it is right now.

    I will never give up the idea of era/historical periods - it is one of the most important features in the game and the only one which not only adds 'more modern units, but also the only one which removes certain units from the recruitment/production pool.

    I hope that simplified tech tree will help the AI and at the same time (because of the events) will limit the player when it comes to clever development of provinces.

    I am also considering greater decreases in happiness caused by many structures, this hopefully will force players to invest more in cultural and industrial structures, as well as in garrison units and spies and give AI led factions more time to react.

    Certain factions for sure will be able to achive more e.g. the Ottomans with their massive units and armies, but reduced number of recruitment areas should help to slow them down and still offer rather impressive challenge.

    At least the battlefield AI is relatively good in MTW VI and Pike & Musket period possibly the last period in history where this concept still works - spearmen (pikemen), archers (hangunners) and cavalry with support from various swordsmen and artillery units.

  4. #4
    Crusading historian Member cegorach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,523

    Default Re: Re-working the tech tree for 2.0

    2. Homelands + recruitment camps out of homelands with reduced (or not) national unit sizes.
    This seems to be the closest to what I think will work + regional units sometimes available through special structures e.g. Balcan Vassal State - usually limited to a single, unique structure so there will be a question of a choice where it should be erected - Moldavia or Wallachia for example, but not both.




    So we have EARLY, HIGH, LATE plus COMAPASS and GUNPOWDER which can effectively divide campaign timespan into 6 eras (for units, because there are still only those 2 events for buildings).
    Totally forgot events can define units as well as buildings. This allows even finer tuning of the unit production file. Interesting.

  5. #5
    Member Member Stazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    452

    Default Re: Re-working the tech tree for 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by cegorach View Post
    Totally forgot events can define units as well as buildings. This allows even finer tuning of the unit production file. Interesting.
    I'm afraid you misunderstood me. There are 3 eras exclusively for units and 2 events exclusively for buildings. Together they can create 5 time periods for units but still only 3 time periods for buildings.
    Last edited by Stazi; 03-03-2016 at 23:16.
    "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.

  6. #6
    Crusading historian Member cegorach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,523

    Default Re: Re-working the tech tree for 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Stazi View Post
    I'm afraid you misunderstood me. There are 3 eras exclusively for units and 2 events exclusively for buildings. Together they can create 5 time periods for units but still only 3 time periods for buildings.
    Yes, I did. I've checked the unit_prod file for all entries. Still unit requirements will help with that. There will be a short transition period for certain units and much longer one for others.

    The flaw of this design is that buiilding requirements for units will have to be different in some periods, but that it is a matter of time and work - hours, but no longer than hours.

  7. #7
    Crusading historian Member cegorach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,523

    Default Re: Re-working the tech tree for 2.0

    Another thing I am working on.

    Do you remember the Swiss structures? I want to have more of such techs.

    I thought about them as a way to introduce games within the game where building something will = a minor victory.

    All structures will take time and money, but finishing one will be considered a success.

    Imagine georgian or hungarian unification structures - saying that if you control this and that provinces and finished building X you have won a minor victory regardless how strong you are on the map.

    I thought that some factions could be cool to play even if they struggle to survive and never become a major player, but as long as they exist and do something they are still winners in the game.

    Plus there is no other way to deal with minute territorial gains, minute in the game but huge for the faction it concerns.

    We will test the concept in 1.6. with Switzerland and Georgia, perhaps something else - maybe 'take all german provinces on the map and finish building X' for, say Bavaria?

  8. #8

    Default Re: Re-working the tech tree for 2.0

    I think this is a very, very good idea.

    "conquer all province on the map" to achieve victory is sometimes boring, and a somewhat 'historical victory target' would be very fun!

    P.S. 'take all german provinces on the map and finish building X' can be use for all German minor states.

  9. #9
    Crusading historian Member cegorach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,523

    Default Re: Re-working the tech tree for 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by zweihander View Post
    P.S. 'take all german provinces on the map and finish building X' can be use for all German minor states.
    I thought so, plus it gives another, interesting objective which is taking a province where such a structure (one of lower levels) is already build.

    The idea is to have them expensive and taking a long time to build so the AI should be unlikely to build anything, but in case it does human player might find it attractive to try to conquer such a place.

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