Some modding ideas reactions please

[Razor1952]

I've launched myself into the modding arena and see how frustrating even debugging small changes can be. Nevertheless I would appreciate some reaction from anyone on these ideas. I'm only working with VI.

Spies/Assassins(s/a's).
Basically I think these should be available for the early to mid game where they could help to be a partial road to victory. At present they are tedious to use because most players use a barrage of agents to achieve to result. I find that unsubtle in a game which should be that.

Proposed(and partly tested)
1.s/a's to cost more(300) , longer to build(2years) and have upkeep (100).-This inhibits agent massing.

2.s/a's building requirements much reduced so highest level valour improver allowed at citadel level.

3.3 types of each s/a's , this allows a favourable province for each main area(Europe/Africa/Asia). eg. CatholicAssasin/OrhtodoxAssasin/MuslimAssasin with valour bonuses if built in say Toulouse/Chernigov/Sinai.
This makes those provinces more valuable if a player wishes to pursue a more subterfuge route.

4.Possibly Extended similar scheme for inquisitors , orthodox and muslims get equivalent "Religous Police"

5.Possibly only a few provinces available to build these super agents.

6.No change to WT/BF.

[Razor1952]

Trade- especially naval trade.

IMHO at present it is a far too dominant strat. Build ships +++, improve trade buildings, capture only good naval trade provinces==$$$$ === easy victory. Basically reduce the value of naval trade but increase local trade for inland provinces.

Proposed solution.
1. Trade goods be rearranged so naval provinces get trade goods which are worth much less than now.

2. Inland provinces to get more valuable trade goods, these goods would not be those in the naval provinces.

[Razor1952]

Inspired By Wes and his excellent MM but a variant.

I wish to muddy somewhat a players perspective of buidling economic versus military building, hopefully it will allow some more skilful approach than the present situation where I just tend to build everthing, except where the economic viability would be obviously too low.

Proposed.(same theme for spearmen)
1 Basic archers to be separated from the main archer development tree.

2. Archers will be available with Forests(new building) . Forests(provide wood for bow/arrows), also produce wood for general commerce and hence provide a small income.

3. Forests can be upgraded to Forest Guilds/Workshops/Master Woodmaker and eacch level provides +1 valour(or discipline/morale) and slightly more income.

The player then has the option of much more valourous archers and some income versus building the more advanced bowmen types (but no income)

I would envisage a similar development tree for basic spearmen and possible peasants.(or even basic horsemen)

(BTW there are already lots of unused buildings in the approriate Vi folders.)

I guess all of this is aimed at making Vi a harder and more skilfull game to play.

Obviously many of the lavish units in many of the excellent mods could be added, to this but I am more nterested in tweaking game play.

[shand994]

Sounds good to me

[Duke John]

I think the assassins and ship trade are things to be controlled by the player. I also have the opinion that it can be abused or overly done and that's why I simply don't do it, but if some people think it's fun then let them do it.
If modding the ship trade keep in mind that it will be also more difficult for the AI to make a profit. It would be better if the player role plays a bit more and doesn't go for an enormous income through sea trade.

I made a post a while ago about relating recources to the measure of available tech tree achievable in a province. For example Wessex could be the capital province of the English and could be built up to tech level five. Other provinces can only be built to level 4 and perhaps Ireland only to tech level 3. This way you get a sense of your homelands which you really need to protect and recapture to survive. The English always throned in London/Wessex so it would be strange to build up a new centre of government in an Italian provence. Restricting the building options in provinces makes you think more about expansion.

I think Wes partially integrated this idea into his MedMod but you could take it a step further, which we will be doing with the Middle Earth mod.

Cheers, Duke John

[ToranagaSama]

latively initial stages regulated to the most “strategically” important provinces.

For example, it would be wise to incur the expense and time to build a Watch Tower in your “main” troop producing provinces, particularly “Iron” province(s). In this way, it would hide from the enemy the degree to which you have (or have NOT) developed your troop producing capabilities. Whether you’ve developed the use of Iron to gain Armour and Attack bonuses.

A Spy Dying, though, would surely give suspicion that the province (and you) has something to hide. Hehe.

Of course, the all the relevant Prices and Turns, above, will, most likely, need to be adjusted/balanced, but I believe they present a good, relative, starting point to play test.

----

Just letting the mind flow:

Adding a slightly different and perhaps additional track, perhaps the use of Spies s/b more like the "Bribe" function. That is, pick up a Spy, drop him in a particular province and you get a pop-up stating the cost to "see" that province (army composition, buildings, etc.). The cost s/b commensurate to the star level of the Spy, distance the information "must" travel to reach the King, etc.

Time should also be introduced as a factor. Information flow was less than immediate. Drop a Spy one province away from the King and the information might be received relatively immediately. Yet, two provinces away would take longer to be received and 5 provinces, for example, would take quite a time.

Regarding other Agents, information from Princesses might be "free", but should take 2 to 3 times longer to be received by the King, than information from Spys.

Similarly for Emmissaries, free but with a "time" factor higher than Spys.

[BTW, I'm going to put this altogether and post to the Main Hall. With some discussion from the Forum, CA might pick some of my ideas and incorporate them into Rome.]

---

Well, I believe there a couple of small contradictions relative to my thoughts then and now. There it is, so whaddya think? The CA guys are definitely listening

[Razor1952]

Thanks for those replies.
@ToranagaSama
Your ideas about spies certainly are valid but I can't see how to implement them in MTW:Vi mod.

@Duke John
Certainly agents could be overused if too powerful, just as Naval trading is too easy at present.

How the AI will perform I guess is paramount to any mod of income.
It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that the ai easily builds farms/mines and has local trade , but finds it hard to build a good trading navy for many of its AI personalities.

Though Wes MM solves this nicely for some AI personalities some AI personalities still perform very badly.

So IMHO it seems that we should boost local income and reduce naval trading. That way those poorer Ai personalities will maybe? perform better.

I would do this by,

1. Directing valuable trade goods ONLY to inland provinces, provinces like Constantinople would have 3 trade goods but these would be low value.(except capital provinces)

2.I like Duke John's idea of Capital provinces and perhaps those only would have good value trade goods for naval trade. Also perhaps some of the lesser provinces might not be able to build the higher trade buildings.

3.Add other local income producing buildings(with appropriate AI prods) like forest/leather industries.Also tie these to the low quality troops to yield higher valour ones(as above)(?some ai personalities will then get more servicable armies). Perhaps also boost farms/mines for some provinces.


Hopefully the effect would be that more ai personalities would perform better.

I guess the agents issue is a somewhat side alley nevertheless IMHO a great game is one in which it is difficult to decide amongst many options what to do.
My ideas on s/a's is an attempt to introduce a bit more challenging play to get your victory.

If Wes would allow it (please Wes) I think maybe 2.04 (no-units) version would be my best starting point.

[ToranagaSama]

Most of my post got screwed. At the risk of being redundant here's the full post. Curious, to what you think of the *doable* changes to the "Spy" units and Border Fort/Watch Towers, etc. My train of thought is a bit more severe in terms of Cost and Turns. (I'd previously posted this in another thread):

Whadday think about this, below is some incomplete, unproofed and roughly formatted thoughts I jotted down awhile ago, and was inspired as an, unposted, response to WesW over in the Dungeon. Comments by ArseClown in the "Provocatuer" thread has caused me to post as is.

I had planned to clean it up, flesh it out and make it into a discussion thread, but haven't gotten around to it. So some fill-in-the-blanks might be necessary for comprehension.

The whole issue has to do with "Spying" IMUHO, the capability to spy is too cheap and too easily done. In the real world spying is costly and is "strategic" in nature.

Conversely and unrealistically, in Total War, spying is incredibly cheap and is utilized "tactically" rather than strategically. I believe strongly that this is an incorrect approach and the game would be better served with a reversal of thought.

The Crux of the matter is that, presently, it is too easy/cheap to spy out the composition of an enemy army. This allows for the player to build a "counter" army. Rarely will a seasoned player be "surprised" by the composition of the enemy's army.

Example, use spy capability to note that the enemy has an army composed primarily of Archers and Cavalry. Player builds counter army of Cavalry and Spears, respectively.

Without the capability to Spy and "know" the enemy composition, the player would "need" to build balanced armies. Also, a prudent player would find himself rather hesistant to attack an "unknown" foe.

Example, the player can see a full stack of AI troops on the Strat Map, but has no clue what kind of troops its composed of. Should the player attack? Should the player attack with his half stack? Should the player wait and attack with a full stack? Knowing or not knowing the AI composition can make all the difference in the world toward a successful attack.

Spying, obviously, is of SUPREME importance, yet in Total War its cheaper than a throw-away peasant unit This is an inbalance that needs correcting.

First, Border Forts and Watch Towers serve essentially the same function, that is to "spy" across borders. In addition, Watch Towers also serve as spy "catchers". The "spying/offensive" capabilites of the two buildings are redundant. I believe the spying and spy-catching functions s/b separated. Spying is an Offensive function and spy-catching is a Defensive function.

Consequently, Border Forts s/b solely used to offensively "spy" across a border, while Watch Towers s/b solely used to defensively "catch" spies. In other words, each building s/b separate and independent of each other with neither being a prerequisite for the other; and each serving separately distinct functions.

Spies and most "spy" units are cheaper than a throw-away peasant unit, and have no maintenance costs. Yet, these units are almost useless to their generic function of spying. How long does a Spy last when the unit is actually used to spy? Not very long at all, a turn or two at best. This doesn't make sense and is the result of Watch Towers and Spy units (used as "counter"-spy units to catch spies) priced ridiculously CHEAPLY.

Count the Emmisary unit as a "spy" unit, as it also allows one to "see" the composition of an enemy army; and its cheap to build and easy to die. Though, actually, the Emissary has a longer life expectancy than the Spy unit, as it is immune to Watch Towers. Watch Towers are a "passive" defense, but the Emmissary must be "actively" eliminated with an Assassin. The cheap cost of the Emmissary, along with its "spy" capability, and its imperviousness to Watch Towers renders the "Spy Unit" indesireable to use for its "named" purpose of Spying. Something is not right.

Consequently, the "spy" value of an Emmissary is, at least, one magnitude greater than that of an actual Spy unit. Something is wrong with this picture, no? Add to the picture, the fact that, if I recall correctly, the cost for each unit is equal (or at least there is no relative difference to cost in relation to the units differing functional value.) Again, an imbalance that needs correcting.

The picture gets worse, take a look at Watch Towers with regard to the above. The Watch Tower's primary purpose is toooo "catch" Spies--that's why you pay the cost for it. Yet, the above highlights that to build "Spy units" to actually spy is unnecessary and cost ineffective, as the Emmissary unit can serve as a BETTER spy with no cost penalty If the AI were a human it would not build spies to spy, consequently rendering the Watch Tower and/or its capability worthless.

[Hellooooo ECS....]

I believe Spying should be left to the Spies, negotiating matters of state s/b left to Emmissaries and neither the twaine shall meet; and/or some mitigating factors should be added to each unit as differentiators, as well as commensurate cost adjustments.

So, the remaining "spy" capable units are the Assassin and Princess. My thoughts are that Assassins s/b sole purpose units with NO "spy" capabilities whatsoever.

I believe that Princesses, as is, fit within the scheme of things fairly.

Lastly, for the moment, let's talk about "counter-spying". How many times have you viewed the parchement/pop-up/whatever, stating that a Spy/Emmissary/Whatever is "counter-spying"??? Too many to count, right Sooo, ahhh, what precisely is the unit doing, and how is it effecting the game? The Spy unit can effectively effect a provinces loyalty and advise regarding disloyal general, but other than this, "counter-spying" is effectively non-existant.

There really is no literal "counter-spying". Counter-spying should involve "dis-information" in some way, no? For example, train a Spy, put him in a province next to a stack and gradually over time the counter-spying/dis-information begins. Simply, say you have a stack and drop a spy unit onto it. A parchment should pop-up presenting the option to postively or negatively effect "dis-information".

If the choice is positive, then gradually, over time, for example, a "half"-stack when viewed by the enemy will appear, increasingly like a "full"-stack. If the choice is negative, then, for example, the "half"-stack will gradually appear to the enemy as a "full"-stack. Simply put, a "Counter-Spy" might be capable or making your stack appear either 25% larger or smaller, depending upon a player's preference.

Think of the possibilities Such a capability would raise the value of Spying and the Strat Map gets a whole lot more interesting.

Well, above is just a quick attempt to add some context to the below and pretty much outlines my conceptual thought. The below is really a partially thought through manner in which some of the above concepts might be "modded" into the game.

My first desire is to present my conceptions and the communities response to CA with Rome in mind; and secondly, perhaps, to inspire a mod to MTW. I don't believe WesW was too intriuged by it all, possibly because I inadvertently hijacked his thread. Sorry bout that Wes.

Unposted post below, probably the cost in Florins and Turns I suggest is best viewed in relation to WesW's mod though it doesn't matter all that much (forgive the repetiveness and keep in mind the game has several "spy" type units):

----

Below are some VERY preliminary thoughts, I quickly jotted down the other day (PRIOR to your response), on the issue of Spying. This is just to provide an outline for my view and all comments are in regard to the cost changes directly following in Ital.

The stated purpose of my proposal is to elevate "Spying" from a SIMPLE "tactical" function (historically and realistically incorrect) to a "strategic" element.

Presently, "spying" is toooo easy and toooo cheap:

Border Fort – Offensive (spy across border), 3000 florins, 12 Turns

Watch Tower – Defensive (Spy Catcher), (remember it might last almost forever) 3000 Florins, and 12 Turns.

For example, A Spy might cost 1500 Florins and take 6 Turns.

Now, what of the other “Agents”

a) Princesses: Things to consider, first is that they *Do* eventually die; second, you cannot build innumerable numbers as is present with the Spy unit; third, almost impossible to assinate.

I think we should play-test with no changes.

b) Emmissaries: They *do* live forever, but are easily assinated; you can build as many as you wish AND they are Cheap; a “Royal Palace” I believe is the building necessary to build Emissaries and that Building is not cheap. I believe its 1000 florins and at 4 Turns. In addition, if memory serves there are two prerequisite buildings required in order to build a Royal Palace. (In *my* “Hardcore Rules” campaigns it takes quite awhile to get Emissaries.)

Adjustments need to be made, BUT I don’t believe that any can be short of altering the code. The functions that Emissaries serve outside of “spying’ are too essential. I suspect that some small mitigating adjustments “might” be possible with regard to the Buildings required, but essentially Emissaries will become THE essential Spy, whenever Princesses are not available.

Lastly, it is possible to reduce the number of Emissaries introduced into the game by increasing the cost somewhat. I believe they cost a hundred florins(?). Possibly quadrupling that to 400 or even 500 florins might serve the game well; additionally there might be a way to limit their lifespan similar to Princesses.

Border Forts s/b removed as a prerequisite for Watch Towers as their elements place separate decision-making paths upon the player.

Taverns should be the prerequisite for Watch Towers AND Border Forts.

Watch Tower s/b commensurate in cost to the expense of a Spy Unit.

Spy units s/b relatively as costly as a Border Fort and Watch Towers s/b commensurately more expensive than Spy units. The aim is to obtain some useful period of “spy” time to justify the expense of a Spy, BUT not to have a Spy last forever. A Spy’s life expectancy s/b relatively short.

In this way, a Spy will have a limited useful time-span, eventually some Watch Tower will catch it; but the spread of Watch Towers will be rather slow and most likely be, at the relatively initial stages regulated to the most “strategically” important provinces.

For example, it would be wise to incur the expense and time to build a Watch Tower in your “main” troop producing provinces, particularly “Iron” province(s). In this way, it would hide from the enemy the degree to which you have (or have NOT) developed your troop producing capabilities. Whether you’ve developed the use of Iron to gain Armour and Attack bonuses.

A Spy Dying, though, would surely give suspicion that the province (and you) has something to hide. Hehe.

Of course, the all the relevant Prices and Turns, above, will, most likely, need to be adjusted/balanced, but I believe they present a good, relative, starting point to play test.

----

Just letting the mind flow:

Adding a slightly different and perhaps additional track, perhaps the use of Spies s/b more like the "Bribe" function. That is, pick up a Spy, drop him in a particular province and you get a pop-up stating the cost to "see" that province (army composition, buildings, etc.). The cost s/b commensurate to the star level of the Spy, distance the information "must" travel to reach the King, etc.

Time should also be introduced as a factor. Information flow was less than immediate. Drop a Spy one province away from the King and the information might be received relatively immediately. Yet, two provinces away would take longer to be received and 5 provinces, for example, would take quite a time.

Regarding other Agents, information from Princesses might be "free", but should take 2 to 3 times longer to be received by the King, than information from Spys.

Similarly for Emmissaries, free but with a "time" factor higher than Spys.

[BTW, I'm going to put this altogether and post to the Main Hall. With some discussion from the Forum, CA might pick some of my ideas and incorporate them into Rome.]

---

Well, I believe there a couple of small contradictions relative to my thoughts then and now. There it is, so whaddya think? The CA guys are definitely listening

[Razor1952]

Well ToranagaSama thats quite a post.

As for MTW:VI only some of those ideas are possible.

-More expensive BF/WTs dooable, was my early thought about this, but basically I reckoned it made it too easy for agents.

-Having uber agents , expensive etc is I think the best way to limit the tedium of massive agent attacks

- delayed info getting isn't moddable I think

As for Rome TW I would make the comments about agents I'd like

-We must bear in mind that many players want only to fight battles, agents are needless diversion for them. Agents must therefore be only an alternative partial strategy to victory. ie. we can't just ignore that this is just a game for fun and make agents too vital/ too subtle / too difficult to use.
- I broadly agree that agents should confine themselves to their main role only.Suggestion as follows

Agents (briefly)
-Provocateurs- Only role is provoke revolt in SUSCEPTIBLE provinces. Very expensive(cost and upkeep) , if caught will provoke war.

-Spies - these find out the compostion of opposing armies/provinces. Accuracy possibly related to valour.

-Assassins- assassinate only.

-Princesses- make alliances and fix general loyalties.

-Emissaries- make alliances, perhaps give general troops strengths but not specifics. Bribes enemy generals. Perhaps the only agents(with Bishops) that doesn't cost in upkeep.

-Bishops etc. raise population fervour.

-Court functionary(secret Police-Stasi-Provost)-strips titles/frames generals/internal spy. Can raise province loyalty a bit for a short while(by cowering the people). Susceptible to being murdered , when leaves provinces gets loyalty hit.


As for costs the general rule would be that they all require some upkeep and are expensive to train. Information is POWER.

BF/WT Pretty much OK with MTW, perhaps BF should be more expensive.

The agent thing should be relatively easily understandable and a newbie could bypass most of the subtlies initially at least. Nevertheless tragic players like myself are hooked on the more inticate possibilities. Lets see how RTW shapes up.