New Shogun readme at the com

[Red Harvest]

Yup we have checked out the charge bonus and resolved some issues there.

A side effect of resolving some of the charge issues is that the AI is much less likely to try and use infantry like cavalry.

Ah, that would be good, the charge bonus has been a bit...odd. I'm trying to remember the name of the person that first raised the major flag on that one...while his original thesis that the charge bonus didn't work was not correct, his impression of the impact was (that it did very little by itself and was essentially a non-factor.) As a result of his posts I then tested to discover that defense was much more important than anything else to the charge, and Kraxis followed up by zeroing in on the armour value of defense being the component that really mattered.

Anyway, I hope all these charge "irregularities" are well addressed.

[screwtype]

I'm trying to remember the name of the person that first raised the major flag on that one.

Might have been Puzz3D.

[Puzz3D]

Might have been Puzz3D.

It wasn't me. I think it was a modder at TWC who posted his concern about charge when he made charge values very large in his mod and didn't see much of an effect. Creative Assembly tends to discount issues found by modders because a mod can affect the game in unpredictable ways. There was a discussion thread here at .org that I was involved in about how to test this charge issue in such a way that Creative Assembly would take note of it. I didn't do any tests myself, but players such as Red Harvest came through and made some very good tests which demonstrated that there was a problem with charge in the vanilla game.

Following the release of the v1.2 patch, I kept tabs for months on everything being posted about problems that players were finding as an extension of the beta testing. If a reported issue developed into a verified problem, I'd do what I could to make CA aware of it. Sometime after the load/save discussions, Jerome requested a bug reporting forum be set up, and that has helped a great deal because CA can quickly read up on outstanding issues that players have discovered and their investigative results.

From our point of view, we don't know which issues made CA's fix-it list, so there is a tendency to keep bringing things up over and over until we get a response from CA. If we knew, for instance, that charge bonus was on the list, the players could focus on bringing some other issue that isn't on the list to CA's attention. Jerome posted that many things reported in the bug forum have already been addressed, but he didn't say which ones. Intrepid Sidekick has mentioned specific items that have been addressed. That alleviates a lot of concern, and allows the discussion to shift to items which are still up in the air. Eventhough we don't know how an item has been addressed, my experience is that CA does a good job on any issue that makes the list.

[Red Harvest]

Agreed, a big problem has been the need to cover a problem incessantly because there was no acknowledgement that it was a known issue.

[sunsmountain]

AI modding has been possible so far using descr_formations.txt and descr_formations_ai.txt.

Is it possible to make a text file that governs when archers stop marching to start firing, or something that influences flanking? It sounds complicated, but i wonder if its at all possible for non-programmers...

Modifying the game speed has a large impact on game experience.

In siege battles, though they are refreshing & new, after a while they become frustrating because of path finding. And why can some buildings not be destroyed? Can this be changed with a simpler model?

Perhaps in the future...

[Shaun]

well darth mod seems to have helped the AI use archers and skirmishers correctly.

[Kraxis]

Ah, that would be good, the charge bonus has been a bit...odd. I'm trying to remember the name of the person that first raised the major flag on that one...while his original thesis that the charge bonus didn't work was not correct, his impression of the impact was (that it did very little by itself and was essentially a non-factor.) As a result of his posts I then tested to discover that defense was much more important than anything else to the charge, and Kraxis followed up by zeroing in on the armour value of defense being the component that really mattered.

Anyway, I hope all these charge "irregularities" are well addressed.

Ahhh those were the days... I still can't get it into my mind that the Cats were so much better than the Cappas. I actually did more tests than I needed to because I simply didn't like the results. I wanted to have the 'correct' results.

But I must admit that the simple fact that this seems to be addressed has me poised to buy the expansion. It is interesting to think that I, one of the most ardent defenders of CA was on the verge of not buying it.

It is also interesting that we get this info in a sort of "btw we have fixed this and that..." like it was nothing important. If only we got the news about the fixes then perhaps we would be more positive (thinking about the Intrepid/sik debate).