Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 389

Thread: MTW Pocket Mod: General

  1. #61
    Camel Lord Senior Member Capture The Flag Champion Martok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    In my own little world....but it's okay, they know me there.
    Posts
    8,247

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    (Briefly off-topic: So Caravel = Manco Capac now? What inspired the name change?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    I hate the province layout in the region, and I do feel it needs an extra province. The Sahara is there and usable. I have reverted back to vanilla MTW/VI 2.01 now. If anything does come of our efforts here, then this mini-mod or at least this information will be available to the wider vanilla userbase and not just XL users.


    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    I'd agree, though I don't want to get into messing with provinces. I'd have to combine the lookup map from XL with the one from vanilla in order to remove those provinces then mess about trawling through the code undoing stuff. That's not really my objective as such. New provinces IMHO don't add that much to gameplay, new units and new factions definitely do. Strangely enough the only new province I really appreciate in XL is Mesopotamia. It does make things interesting. Personally I would have joined the County of Edessa to Syria and used the ID_EDESSA province as Mesopotamia.
    Personally, I think most of the additional provinces make a fair bit of sense. My two personal favorites are Skania in southern Sweden and Algarve in southwest Iberia--I think they definitely alter the strategies of the factions nearby. Mesopotamia actually annoys me, but that might have more to do with the fact that it makes it harder for my Fatamids to take out the Seljuk Turks. ~;P

    Kidding aside, I would recommend keeping Edessa and Syria separate from each other. Both cities played fairly significant roles during the existence of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (although Damascus was never actually taken by the Crusaders). I realize you don't want to monkey with the provinces more than you have to, but Estonia or Savoy still probably the two best choices. Just my two cents; take it with as many grains of salt as you're comfortable with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    Possibly. I'm just not so sure about provinces with that many trade goods being landlocked. On a similar note it would be interesting if local trade good be boosted in value, to make it actually worthwhile, while lessening the value of sea trade at the same time. I haven't really thought about this before...
    I don't know about lessening the value of sea trade (unless it's by only a very small amount). VH already nerfed income from sea trade pretty heavily--IMHO, gutting it much further might threaten to make it not worth the time and effort necessary to set up trade routes. I definitely agree, however, that inland trade could (and probably should) be increased. I don't think it should equal what a faction can get from sea trade, of course; but it could still be significantly increased.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    I know what you mean, and I do think that the XL mod does have some very good improvements, many of them contributing to greater historical accuracy. Some of the new units are rather questionable, and the unit balancing is a bit off though. Another problem is that naptha throwers have been removed in favour of the naptha catapult which replaces them. While some may dislike naptha throwers for whatever reason, others may see their absence as a problem. The changes I prefer are those subtle ones, that on the surface don't make much of a difference, but which improve gameplay. Homelands, trade/farm balance, new valour bonus regions, better historical faction/unit naming, landbridge changes, different dismount types for some units, reassignment of certain units to other factions and restriction of others to specific factions, stat changes to some units, are the sort of changes that make a difference in my opinion.
    Well you probably know better than I--as I've said before, I have only a passing familiarity with medieval history. I'll leave such decisions & changes to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    Another major problem that has had me puzzling for a while is bodyguard units. As they are, they're pretty poor. I am at a loss as to why the Byzantines qualify for a full size unit of Kataphraktoi whereas the Muslim factions have to make do with a non scalable 20 man units of Ghulam Bodyguards. The 20 man units have their pros and cons. Firstly they're small so their support costs are low. This means that having 6 heirs mature one after the other won't break the bank, as it would if each of those units were four times the size. In a campaign as the Volga Bulgars (XL Mod) I had to send alot of my heirs out to fight in the hope they're be killed, and I'd be able to disband their units which were costing me 210 florins in support costs apiece and preventing my economy from getting off the ground. The cons of a 20 man unit is that they're easy victims for missiles, and are quickly beaten and routing, which gives the units leaders alot of the coward type vices. How many times have you simply gunned down the muslim faction leader and his heirs and watched the rest rout off the field??

    The solution in my opinion is to make the 20 man units scalable and reduce the 80 man units (Kataphraktoi, Boyars and Mongol Heavy Cavalry, off the top of my head) down to 20 - also scalable. That way the units scale with whatever unit size the player prefers. That solves the problem for the Muslims, Pagans and Orthodox, but not the catholics. Early Royal Knights are the same as Feudal Knights, the only difference is the unit size. The same goes for High Royal Knights and Chivalric Knights, and Late Royal Knights and Lancers. As I've said earlier in the thread, it would be a good idea to make Lancers available to all factions, as they're simply a Late Medieval Knight type of unit (The Spanish type of Lancers are fantasy). In this way, Royal Knights could be removed altogether and catholic factions could use Feudal/Chivalric/'Lancer' Knights as their bodyguards in a scalable 20 man unit. The tech tree would be adjusted so that Feudal Knights would depend on the first type of Royal Court and not the second, Chivalric would depend on the second and Lancers (who currently don't have a royal court dependency) would depend on the third. The easiest way to do this would be to actually remove the Chivalric Knights, Lancers and Feudal Knights and rename the Royal Knights as Feudal/Chivalric/Lancer and adjust their unit sizes and dependencies accordingly. This sounds a strange way of doing it, but it will preserve the upgradeability of the old type to the new type, which is how the Royal Knight units currently work. The problem with this is that the new Feudal Knights would be unavailable after 1204, and new Chivalric Knights after 1320.
    It's your last sentence (which I underlined) that somewhat bothers me. I'd hate not being able to retrain my Feudal/Chivalric Knights--we deal with enough of that nonsense as it is (Viking units, Varangians, etc.).

    I admittedly can't think of another solution, however; and I do agree that bodyguard units should really be scalable. (Never quite understood why they weren't. ) [sigh] I don't know.


    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    Just something I noticed that's all. I wondered if there was a historical significance. Maybe camels feared the reputation of the Mesopotamians and were reluctant to cross the border?


    The only thing I can think of is that perhaps VH associated Mesopotamia more with the Baghdad Caliphate....and I'm not sure how much the people there used camels. (?) That's more of a random guess, though.
    Last edited by Martok; 11-16-2006 at 21:01.
    "MTW is not a game, it's a way of life." -- drone

  2. #62

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    (Briefly off-topic: So Caravel = Manco Capac now? What inspired the name change?)
    The name change was inspired by the name change feature. I thought to myself, oh no, name change needed! Name needed! Think of a name quickly! Manco Capac was the first Inca so I thought why not, after checking to see if anyone had any similar names. When the 30 days are up (I think it's 30 days or it may be 60 days) I'll either go back to caravel or try something else!

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    Personally, I think most of the additional provinces make a fair bit of sense. My two personal favorites are Skania in southern Sweden and Algarve in southwest Iberia--I think they definitely alter the strategies of the factions nearby. Mesopotamia actually annoys me, but that might have more to do with the fact that it makes it harder for my Fatamids to take out the Seljuk Turks. ~;P
    Thst's why I like it, it helps the Turks out!

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    Kidding aside, I would recommend keeping Edessa and Syria separate from each other. Both cities played fairly significant roles during the existence of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (although Damascus was never actually taken by the Crusaders). I realize you don't want to monkey with the provinces more than you have to, but Estonia or Savoy still probably the two best choices. Just my two cents; take it with as many grains of salt as you're comfortable with.
    Well since I won't be working on the XL mod or in all likelihood modding provinces, that won't be too much of an issue. You're right about Edessa in that respect... I suppose just leaving the provinces as they are ( ) is the best idea. ( )

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    I don't know about lessening the value of sea trade (unless it's by only a very small amount). VH already nerfed income from sea trade pretty heavily--IMHO, gutting it much further might threaten to make it not worth the time and effort necessary to set up trade routes. I definitely agree, however, that inland trade could (and probably should) be increased. I don't think it should equal what a faction can get from sea trade, of course; but it could still be significantly increased.
    I mean in relation to the vanilla game. We've already talked about cutting the trade percentage, but not boosting the actually trade goods value, which would help local trade vastly. At present the local trade just isn't worth it. You have to lay out 1000's of florins in Syria to see a decent income from trade and even then it takes eons to get your money back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    Well you probably know better than I--as I've said before, I have only a passing familiarity with medieval history. I'll leave such decisions & changes to you.
    Not necessarily, my knowledge is also a passing knowledge and what information I have retained (the info that doesn't just pass straight through the sieve) is often irrelevant. What I was referring to, was that while some almost historically accurate units were added (not knocking them either, as they're better than what I could do by a long shot), many of the other fantasy units are still there, pretty much unchanged. I'm not sure that VH ever 'sold' this mod as an historical accuracy mod however so you can't blame him. What i feel we're trying to achieve here is primarily a gameplay mod, with as much historical accuracy as possible thrown in as an extra.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    It's your last sentence (which I underlined) that somewhat bothers me. I'd hate not being able to retrain my Feudal/Chivalric Knights--we deal with enough of that nonsense as it is (Viking units, Varangians, etc.).
    I know. Bu the point is that if you drag a battered unit of Feudal Knights in to be retrained they'll appear next year as Chivalric Knights. That was part of the idea behind it. This is how it works at present with Royal Knights and this is how it would work under the new system with Feudal/Chivalric/Lancer Knights.

    To reiterate in more detail:

    Feudal Knights - removed
    Chivalric Knights - removed
    Lancers - removed

    Early Royal Knights - renamed as "Feudal Knights"
    High Royal Knights - renamed as "Chivalric Knights"
    Late Royal Knights - renamed as "Lancers" (or something else)

    Above Knight's units changed to become a scalable 20 man/horse unit instead of an unscalable one.

    Dependencies changed as follows:

    New "Feudal Knights" - same as old Feudal Knights but only requiring the Royal Court, not the Royal Estate.

    New "Chivalric Knights" - same as old Chivalric Knights but only requiring the Royal Estate, not the Baronial Court

    New "Lancers" (or another name) - Same as Lancers but needing the Baronial Court in addition to the usual dependencies.

    Basically the Royal Court dependencies are stepped backward one level, which to me makes sense, as I'm usually only producing Feudal Knights after 1205 as it is now, because I cannot tech up fast enough. By that time they feel obsolete anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    I admittedly can't think of another solution, however; and I do agree that bodyguard units should really be scalable. (Never quite understood why they weren't. ) [sigh] I don't know.
    I'm convinced of it, and had been working on it for months, before I went AWOL, and have tried many different approaches and all have failed. This is the only one I hav come up with that seems even half workable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Martok


    The only thing I can think of is that perhaps VH associated Mesopotamia more with the Baghdad Caliphate....and I'm not sure how much the people there used camels. (?) That's more of a random guess, though.
    Camel1: "Mesopotamia is over there ya know?"

    Camel2: "Where?"

    Camel1: "The Caliphate of baghdad you fool!"

    Camel2: "I couldn't give that *makes rude gesture* for the caliphate of baghdad!" *prepared to cross frontier*

    Camel1: "Don't say I didn't warn you..."

    Camel2: *pauses* "you're not telling me you believe that load of old camel dung?... about no camels being allowed in mesopotamia?"

    Camel1: "camels can't go there..."

    Camel2: "watch me!"

    Camel1: "ok your life..."

    Camel2: "pfffttt..." *steps over border...*

    Camel1: "NOOOOOOO........."

    -Edit: I've applied the changes and it seems to be ok. My unit sizes for all bodyguard cavalry are now 40 (41 with a facton leader). The Royal Cavalry modded into the Feudal, Chivalric Knights and Lancers seem to work fine. I edited the Ghulam Bodyguard's dependencies to include the same buildings as those needed by Ghulam Cavalry as well as the Royal Court. Their dependencies are the same whatever the era. (early/high/late ghulam bodyguards depend on the same buildings)

    Now I need to get back to re-applying all of the other changes we discussed in this thread... tomorrow. Hasta Mañana!
    Last edited by caravel; 11-17-2006 at 00:26.

  3. #63
    Camel Lord Senior Member Capture The Flag Champion Martok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    In my own little world....but it's okay, they know me there.
    Posts
    8,247

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    The name change was inspired by the name change feature. I thought to myself, oh no, name change needed! Name needed! Think of a name quickly! Manco Capac was the first Inca so I thought why not, after checking to see if anyone had any similar names. When the 30 days are up (I think it's 30 days or it may be 60 days) I'll either go back to caravel or try something else!
    Very good sir. (Oh, and you can change it every 60 days!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    I mean in relation to the vanilla game. We've already talked about cutting the trade percentage, but not boosting the actually trade goods value, which would help local trade vastly. At present the local trade just isn't worth it. You have to lay out 1000's of florins in Syria to see a decent income from trade and even then it takes eons to get your money back.
    Gah! I forgot you were referring to vanilla MTW/VI. You're right; sea trade in the original game is way overpowered. As for inland trade, increasing the value of the trade goods themselves is a brilliant idea! ~ (I wonder if anyone else has tried doing so?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    Not necessarily, my knowledge is also a passing knowledge and what information I have retained (the info that doesn't just pass straight through the sieve) is often irrelevant. What I was referring to, was that while some almost historically accurate units were added (not knocking them either, as they're better than what I could do by a long shot), many of the other fantasy units are still there, pretty much unchanged. I'm not sure that VH ever 'sold' this mod as an historical accuracy mod however so you can't blame him. What i feel we're trying to achieve here is primarily a gameplay mod, with as much historical accuracy as possible thrown in as an extra.
    Agreed. I don't think it was ever VikingHorde's intention to pass off XL as a "realism" mod, although I have a feeling he did try to somewhat improve the game in that respect. What we're talking about doing is actually somewhat similar, albeit in a slightly different direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    I know. Bu the point is that if you drag a battered unit of Feudal Knights in to be retrained they'll appear next year as Chivalric Knights. That was part of the idea behind it. This is how it works at present with Royal Knights and this is how it would work under the new system with Feudal/Chivalric/Lancer Knights.
    Okay, so would *all* knights be upgradable as the Eras changed? Or would only the Royal units be able to do so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    Camel1: "Mesopotamia is over there ya know?"

    Camel2: "Where?"

    Camel1: "The Caliphate of baghdad you fool!"

    Camel2: "I couldn't give that *makes rude gesture* for the caliphate of baghdad!" *prepared to cross frontier*

    Camel1: "Don't say I didn't warn you..."

    Camel2: *pauses* "you're not telling me you believe that load of old camel dung?... about no camels being allowed in mesopotamia?"

    Camel1: "camels can't go there..."

    Camel2: "watch me!"

    Camel1: "ok your life..."

    Camel2: "pfffttt..." *steps over border...*

    Camel1: "NOOOOOOO........."
    I....I got nothin' after that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    -Edit: I've applied the changes and it seems to be ok. My unit sizes for all bodyguard cavalry are now 40 (41 with a facton leader). The Royal Cavalry modded into the Feudal, Chivalric Knights and Lancers seem to work fine. I edited the Ghulam Bodyguard's dependencies to include the same buildings as those needed by Ghulam Cavalry as well as the Royal Court. Their dependencies are the same whatever the era. (early/high/late ghulam bodyguards depend on the same buildings)
    Cool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    Now I need to get back to re-applying all of the other changes we discussed in this thread... tomorrow. Hasta Ma˝ana!
    Excellent, MC. Let me know how it goes!
    "MTW is not a game, it's a way of life." -- drone

  4. #64

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    You're right; sea trade in the original game is way overpowered. As for inland trade, increasing the value of the trade goods themselves is a brilliant idea! ~ (I wonder if anyone else has tried doing so?)
    I think I may have a go at that later, and quite possibly over the weekend, though Mrs Caravel may have something to say about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    Agreed. I don't think it was ever VikingHorde's intention to pass off XL as a "realism" mod, although I have a feeling he did try to somewhat improve the game in that respect. What we're talking about doing is actually somewhat similar, albeit in a slightly different direction.
    I think what we need is a "light mod", that fixes and changes alot of the common annoyances, adds some new stuff, but is extremely lightweight, say a 1MB download and no more. I'd love to host the map I've edited, about 2 years ago, but the file is just too big (30MB or so if I recall correctly!). The map has the landbridges edited out visually. It's very smooth and you can't see where they were. I always use this map myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    Okay, so would *all* knights be upgradable as the Eras changed? Or would only the Royal units be able to do so?
    The new Feudal Knights, Chivalric Knights and Lancers will also be the new bodyguard units. They will be the Royal Knights and the other knights all in one. Because they're based on the Royal Knights, they will be upgradeable in the same way that the Royal Knights were. In a nutshell here are their advantages:

    1) Smaller unit size than the old Feudal Knights, Chivalric Knights and Lancers = lower support costs.

    2) They are a larger unit size than the old bodyguard units, so they're better equipped to fight and protect your heirs and king.

    3) Unlike the old Feudal Knights, Chivalric Knights and Lancers these units become obsolete with every era change, but unlike the former, the new units can simply be upgrade from Feudal Knights to Chivalric Knights to Lancers by retraining the unit after the era change has occurred.

    4) The unit size is not full size, as with Kataphraktoi so you're not paying dearly in support costs every time an heir matures, though you are paying more than you were previously, when the units were 20 man non scalable (up to a maximum of double the cost on huge unit size).

    5) The new Feudal Knights, Chivalric Knights and Lancers can now be built earlier because the tech levels for Royal Courts have been dropped 1 level.

    6) The Lancers are available to all Catholic factions and not just the Spanish and Aragonese.

    I've also changed Mongol Heavy Cavalry, Kataphraktoi and Boyars to 20 man units (scalable). They need some testing before I'm satisfied if they are going to stay like that. Ghulam Bodyguards have also been changed to scalable and their dependencies changed to the same as Ghulam cavalry + the Royal Court. Sipahis of the Porte are now also scalable. I could also add the Royal Court (otherwise useless for orthodox) as a dependency for Kataphraktoi, but that would be historically wrong, so I think the best idea would be to just remove the Royal Courts from the orthodox factions. (Along with the later Militia buildings for those factions that don't need them.)

  5. #65
    Camel Lord Senior Member Capture The Flag Champion Martok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    In my own little world....but it's okay, they know me there.
    Posts
    8,247

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    I think I may have a go at that later, and quite possibly over the weekend, though Mrs Caravel may have something to say about that.
    Hey, whatever you can get done is good. I'd hate for you to get in trouble with the wife, so no rush. I'd do it myself if I knew how, but I'm just not adept at that sort of thing. ~

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    I think what we need is a "light mod", that fixes and changes alot of the common annoyances, adds some new stuff, but is extremely lightweight, say a 1MB download and no more.
    Agreed. Since most of the changes are in the numbers and not visual, we're probably talking about more of a glorified patch than anything else. It would be a nice patch, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    I'd love to host the map I've edited, about 2 years ago, but the file is just too big (30MB or so if I recall correctly!). The map has the landbridges edited out visually. It's very smooth and you can't see where they were. I always use this map myself.
    Cool. Out of curiosity, what other changes did you make?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    The new Feudal Knights, Chivalric Knights and Lancers will also be the new bodyguard units. They will be the Royal Knights and the other knights all in one. Because they're based on the Royal Knights, they will be upgradeable in the same way that the Royal Knights were. In a nutshell here are their advantages:

    3) Unlike the old Feudal Knights, Chivalric Knights and Lancers these units become obsolete with every era change, but unlike the former, the new units can simply be upgrade from Feudal Knights to Chivalric Knights to Lancers by retraining the unit after the era change has occurred.

    5) The new Feudal Knights, Chivalric Knights and Lancers can now be built earlier because the tech levels for Royal Courts have been dropped 1 level.
    Okay, I'm definitely warming up to your changes now. The two points listed above are my favorite. They both make a lot of sense when you think about it. No more oudated Feudal Knights in 1250--just upgrade them to CK's! And actually being able to train the respective units before the next Era arrives is a nice change as well. This is actually sounding far cleverer than I first envisioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    I've also changed Mongol Heavy Cavalry, Kataphraktoi and Boyars to 20 man units (scalable). They need some testing before I'm satisfied if they are going to stay like that. Ghulam Bodyguards have also been changed to scalable and their dependencies changed to the same as Ghulam cavalry + the Royal Court. Sipahis of the Porte are now also scalable. I could also add the Royal Court (otherwise useless for orthodox) as a dependency for Kataphraktoi, but that would be historically wrong, so I think the best idea would be to just remove the Royal Courts from the orthodox factions. (Along with the later Militia buildings for those factions that don't need them.)
    I agree with removing the Royal Courts for the Byz/Novgorods. I've never really understood why they get them in the tech tree anyway, unless CA left it in by accident (which is certainly possible).

    Also, as one plays as the Eggies a lot, I have to say that scalable GB's would be nice as well.
    "MTW is not a game, it's a way of life." -- drone

  6. #66

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    Hey, whatever you can get done is good. I'd hate for you to get in trouble with the wife, so no rush. I'd do it myself if I knew how, but I'm just not adept at that sort of thing. ~
    I'm about to start today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    Agreed. Since most of the changes are in the numbers and not visual, we're probably talking about more of a glorified patch than anything else. It would be a nice patch, though.
    A glorified patch is an apt desription, not really a mod, as a mod involves many more visual changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    Cool. Out of curiosity, what other changes did you make?
    Well err... that's it really...

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    Okay, I'm definitely warming up to your changes now. The two points listed above are my favorite. They both make a lot of sense when you think about it. No more oudated Feudal Knights in 1250--just upgrade them to CK's! And actually being able to train the respective units before the next Era arrives is a nice change as well. This is actually sounding far cleverer than I first envisioned.
    I'm not sure I said anything about training them before era! They're very era restricted. Feudal Knights will no longer be available in High and Late, and Chivalric Knights will only be available in High. Lancers will only be trainable in the Late era. Basically if you have e.g. any battered units of Chivarlic Knights or Feudal Knights left during the Late period you can send them in to be retrained a Lancers. And if you had any Feudal Knights left during the High period you could retrain them into Chivarlic Knights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    I agree with removing the Royal Courts for the Byz/Novgorods. I've never really understood why they get them in the tech tree anyway, unless CA left it in by accident (which is certainly possible).
    Possibly left in by accident. The problem is that many new players will build it, thinking that it may do something. They will look at the description and think that it wil give more power or influence to their king somehow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    Also, as one plays as the Eggies a lot, I have to say that scalable GB's would be nice as well.


    To work...



    -Edit: I was also thinking of reusing the Fedual Knights unit, but reducing it's stats somewhat, and making a new 'mounted militia' cavalry type. I'm not sure of the exact historical accuracy of this, but mounted militias did exist, I just need to find more information on them...
    Last edited by caravel; 11-18-2006 at 14:45.

  7. #67

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Summary updated:

    Summary
    Last edited by caravel; 11-19-2006 at 00:08.

  8. #68
    Member Member Oleander Ardens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    1,007

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Gunpowder units should get a bonus in Tyrolia as it focused early on sharffschŘtzen and scheibnschuetzn in english sharpshooters or marksman to defeat invading troops. In the 15th century the relationship between handguns/arks and pikes/polearms was from 4:1 to 6:1, asthonishingly high. Skirmishing in loose order, hiding behind cover and a taste for sniping the high ranking among the enemy was natural for men which hunted or shoot for the best the price of a shooting fest.
    This men didn't "kill" but "took down the game" "laid them on their skin" speaking in the language of the Jaeger or Hunter.

    Tyrolean sharpshooters showed their potential became later on the bane of the invanding bavarian and french troops. A nice ambush from 1703 might illustrate how they proceeded: Bavarian troops marched down a valley to pacify it. The villages didn't agree with that so the commander of the Schuetzen let destroy the bridges, construct a trench and positioned his best shooters on both hillsides of the valley well hidden. The bavarians marched by without seeing them, and in the meantime some men started to break down the bridges behind them.

    As the bavarians tried to cross, havoc broke loose and many were taken down by the sharpshooters on both sides. A Deroute followed and most were killed and the rest captured. A good deal of the surrendered bavarians were cruelly cut down before the priest, which had fought with the Schuetzen intervened..

    Cheers
    OA
    "Silent enim leges inter arma - For among arms, the laws fall mute"
    Cicero, Pro Milone

  9. #69

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    I'm not sure if Tyrol was famous for it's Arquebuses and Handguns between 1087 and 1453, though I do agree that it's not a bad idea to give gunpowder units some bonuses, and possibly in that region. Between the 11th and 15th century, pieces such as the Arquebus, and early handguns especially, were actually dangerous matchlock weapons that often exploded in the users face, were frowned upon by the all important clergy as "unchivalrous" and were next to useless in rain (or even fog / heavy humidity). They were also heavy, inaccurate, cumbersone, badly balanced, slow to reload, very long and poorly designed, with not much, if any, thought for ergonomics.

    I know that some people will disagree with this statement, but they likely haven't actually used these types of early weapons. The weapons they've used are probably replicas of later 17th/18th century flintlocks which are a totally different animal. A replica, even if it is a replica of a 15th century Arquebus, is still a replica.

    It was also terrible for a preened and handsome dandy on a fine horse and several thousand quids worth of armour, anxious to show daddy that he is a real knight, to be shot off his noble steed by nothing more than an ill trained peasant. Even the bow/longbow and crossbow had this same problem. Warfare wasn't ready to be revolutionised at that time.

    From reading about this in the past, the biggest effect these types of weapons had, until they were better refined, was fear.

  10. #70
    Member Member Oleander Ardens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    1,007

    Default New valour bonus regions

    I will post a few facts in two days, once I get the book about the Schuetzen once again in my hands..

    However keep in mind that Tyrol is perfect country for shooters. Since 1400 at latest the gunpowder weapons started to overtook the crossbows, which became a domain for the nobility. The lower classes of the citiziens and farmers flocked to the gunpowder weapons, increasingly owning a personal fireweapon. The Landesfuerst did support them by organizing shooting competitions and gifting the prices, because he had an strong and fruitful alliance with them against the nobility.

    Some of them even competed with the commoners which enjoyed political power and relative richness. I will post the exact details later

    BTW there is a great picture where the shooters have to hit a wooden knight which is pulled from the left to the right. Fits quite nicely into the plan of the Landesfuerst do get his peasants to shoot down a noble knight

    Cheers
    OA
    "Silent enim leges inter arma - For among arms, the laws fall mute"
    Cicero, Pro Milone

  11. #71
    Professional Cynic Member Innocentius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    878

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Speaking of unique ways of fighting...

    Would it be possible (both theoretically and for you who are creating this mod) to add som real local units? I came to think of this while reading through some books of mine about medieval Sweden (though I guess somewhat similar troops would appear in other regions too, I just haven't heard of them).
    What I mean is this: During the middle ages, the Swedish armies were quite unique for Europe. They consisted of peasants (peasants and peasants, farmers in Sweden always had more power than in wester europe, and were not in villenage) who brought pretty much everything with them to the battlefield (this depended on which part of Sweden they came from). Crossbow, polearm-like weapon (axes in the early middle ages, and the more halberd-like weapons later on) as well as a sword or axe. On top of this some light armour and usually a shield. The tactics used were mainly to ambush the enemy in the middle of some dark, deep forest. This proved efficient many times, even when fighting against much more professional troops.

    The in-game unit could be somewhat like the following:
    A crossbow unit, but with less efficient fire rate and damage, and much much better at melee than ordinary crossbowmen.

    Unit size: 60
    Cost: Cheap
    Support cost: Cheap
    Charge: Strong
    Attack: Very good
    Defence: Weak or average (depends on era, weak in early and high, and average in late)
    Speed: Average
    Bonus fighting in woods (disadvantage fighting in the open).
    Sky-high morale.

    Now, the thing would be this: This unit can only be trained in Sweden, by the Swedes, and suffers from a huuuge morale and valour drop once they leave Sweden. So, in short: is there a way of creating "patriotic" units, who can only truly be used in certain provinces?

    Just wondering.
    It's not easy being a man, you know. I had to get dressed today... And there are other pressures.

    - Dylan Moran

    The Play

  12. #72

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Innocentius
    So, in short: is there a way of creating "patriotic" units, who can only truly be used in certain provinces?

    Just wondering.
    In a word no, unfortunately not.

    This is what could be done. Supposing the Pictish crossbow unit is used, though based on say Highland clansmen type stats? Possibly with slightly better morale, using the "uncontrolled" discipline type. The unit could be retricted as only trainable in Sweden, and nowhere else. And only trainable as the Swedish and that's it. Also there are no specific "bonus fighting in woods" type units. The only way to do this is to make them more of a Ghazi style unit, which are entirelyu suited to ambushes. Amazing morale, fast, devastating attack, very strong or irresistable charge and again "uncontrolled" discipline type, though no armour and terrible defense. This unit would be ideal for hiding in woods and bursting out upon the enemy, or using their crossbows as a decent missile unit if no ambush opportunity presents itself. (they'd need to be turned off fire at will or they'd blow their cover when the enemy come into range).

    Quote Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens
    I will post a few facts in two days, once I get the book about the Schuetzen once again in my hands..
    Look forward to that.
    Last edited by caravel; 11-21-2006 at 22:31.

  13. #73
    Professional Cynic Member Innocentius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    878

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    This is what could be done. Supposing the Pictish crossbow unit is used, though based on say Highland clansmen type stats? Possibly with slightly better morale, using the "uncontrolled" discipline type. The unit could be retricted as only trainable in Sweden, and nowhere else. And only trainable as the Swedish and that's it. Also there are no specific "bonus fighting in woods" type units. The only way to do this is to make them more of a Ghazi style unit, which are entirelyu suited to ambushes. Amazing morale, fast, devastating attack, very strong or irresistable charge and again "uncontrolled" discipline type, though no armour and terrible defense. This unit would be ideal for hiding in woods and bursting out upon the enemy, or using their crossbows as a decent missile unit if no ambush opportunity presents itself. (they'd need to be turned off fire at will or they'd blow their cover when the enemy come into range).
    Well, close enough then Shame you can't make units region-dependant.

    Nice work with the mod, seems to be turning our really good judging from the latest summary
    It's not easy being a man, you know. I had to get dressed today... And there are other pressures.

    - Dylan Moran

    The Play

  14. #74

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Update

    1) Yeoman Cavalry added to the units section of the summary. (I really don't like this name, it needs changing!)
    2) Shipping updated. Ships will take 1 year for coastal vessels, 2 years for the small deep sea vessels and 3 years for the big ones.
    3) Huscarles added.

    The Iron mine has now been implimented. The Iron mine is not a big earner, only a bit better than a copper mine, it costs 550 and 950 to build at present, though I need to tweak that as I go along. The metalsmith and upgrades now depends on the Iron Mine except the Master Metalsmith which depends on the Iron Mine Complex. The castle levels have been preserved.

    I have added roughly 50% of the homelands now. These are mainly for the Muslim factions and the Byzantine, though I have done some for the English, the Castilian Leonese, the Danes and the Italians also. I will write these up once they're finished. For now though I would appreciate any input anyone can give regarding Catholic, Novgorod and Russian faction homelands. For the Golden Horde I'm favouring no homelands at all for MHC, MHA, and MW. Their units need to be trainable anywhere.

    I'm already noticing some shortcomings. The lack of UM in the early campaigns for the Egyptians and Turks make the unit roster feel rather empty, and also make the Town Guard seem pointless (despite the happiness bonus). I feel it needs some other unit training purpose, apart from simply the happiness bonus. I'm thinking that maybe the Arab Infantry should depend on the Town Watch instead of the Swordsmith. They're not the greatest infantry out there so teching up to a keep and swordsmith for these seems to be a lot. Not sure about this yet though, but if the English and Danes can get Vikings and Clansmen from a basic fort then the Egyptians and Almohads should be able to get Arab Infantry from a Town Watch.

    The Square Shield Spearmen unit is also rendered rather redundant for the Egyptians and Almohads by the presence of the Nubian Spearmen. I will probably remove it again. The Turks who don't have the Nubians and use the Round Shield Spearmen anyway aren't affected.
    Last edited by caravel; 11-24-2006 at 10:56.

  15. #75
    Camel Lord Senior Member Capture The Flag Champion Martok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    In my own little world....but it's okay, they know me there.
    Posts
    8,247

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    Update

    1) Yeoman Cavalry added to the units section of the summary. (I really don't like this name, it needs changing!)
    2) Shipping updated. Ships will take 1 year for coastal vessels, 2 years for the small deep sea vessels and 3 years for the big ones.
    3) Huscarles added.
    1.) Very good. If you don't care for the name, we could always simply call it Militia Cavalry like we originally discussed. Possibly Merchant Guard Cavalry would work too, but that doesn't seem as realistic to me.

    2.) I forget--were you changing the costs of ships as well, or just the build times?

    3.) Huzzah! I did just now think of something, though. I know you've upped the build requirements for them, but had we decided on whether to make them more expensive as well? I wonder if that would be too much, or if it would help further balance them....

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    The Iron mine has now been implimented. The Iron mine is not a big earner, only a bit better than a copper mine, it costs 550 and 950 to build at present, though I need to tweak that as I go along. The metalsmith and upgrades now depends on the Iron Mine except the Master Metalsmith which depends on the Iron Mine Complex. The castle levels have been preserved.
    Cool cool. Aside from northern Iberia, may I suggest placing an iron resource in Syria as well? Damscus was famous for its steel swords, almost--if not as--much as Spain was. I think you could also probably place a few in the Alps/northern Italy, although I'm less certain as to how realistic that would be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    I have added roughly 50% of the homelands now. These are mainly for the Muslim factions and the Byzantine, though I have done some for the English, the Castilian Leonese, the Danes and the Italians also. I will write these up once they're finished. For now though I would appreciate any input anyone can give regarding Catholic, Novgorod and Russian faction homelands. For the Golden Horde I'm favouring no homelands at all for MHC, MHA, and MW. Their units need to be trainable anywhere.
    Have you made the Novgorods/Russians into seperate factions, or are they still the same? If the same, then I would recommend their homelands include Novgorod, Muscovy, and Kiev. Aside from that, I'm not sure which provinces would be appropriate to include for them.

    As for the French, I would say their homelands should include all the usual suspects: Flanders, Ile de France, Toulouse, Anjou, Normandy, and Acquitaine. I would also include Champagne, Lorraine, and Provence; I would leave out Brittany, however.

    If you wanted to get somewhat radical, you could even make an argument that the provinces of the Holy Land--Antioch, Edessa, Tripoli, and Jerusalem--should be Frankish Homelands as well. Of course, one could argue that they should be homelands for all the Crusading factions, and not just the French!

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    I'm already noticing some shortcomings. The lack of UM in the early campaigns for the Egyptians and Turks make the unit roster feel rather empty, and also make the Town Guard seem pointless (despite the happiness bonus). I feel it needs some other unit training purpose, apart from simply the happiness bonus. I'm thinking that maybe the Arab Infantry should depend on the Town Watch instead of the Swordsmith. They're not the greatest infantry out there so teching up to a keep and swordsmith for these seems to be a lot. Not sure about this yet though, but if the English and Danes can get Vikings and Clansmen from a basic fort then the Egyptians and Almohads should be able to get Arab Infantry from a Town Watch.
    I think having Arab Inf being dependent on the Town Watch isn't a bad idea at all, MC. It certainly makes a lot of sense, given how they formed a significant portion of a Caliph's army. Me likey!
    "MTW is not a game, it's a way of life." -- drone

  16. #76

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    1.) Very good. If you don't care for the name, we could always simply call it Militia Cavalry like we originally discussed. Possibly Merchant Guard Cavalry would work too, but that doesn't seem as realistic to me.
    Militia Cavalry is probably better until we come up with another name.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    2.) I forget--were you changing the costs of ships as well, or just the build times?
    Costs are all halved. I've been testing it, and it's alot better. I'm playing a Turks campaign, and the Byzantine fleets are now a real problem. Their ships are appearing every year, and engaging mine. I can no longer glut the sea with ships as I used to and easily dominate the med.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    3.) Huzzah! I did just now think of something, though. I know you've upped the build requirements for them, but had we decided on whether to make them more expensive as well? I wonder if that would be too much, or if it would help further balance them....
    I think the build requirement changes are ok for now. I may increase the support and training costs also. I need to have another look at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    Cool cool. Aside from northern Iberia, may I suggest placing an iron resource in Syria as well? Damscus was famous for its steel swords, almost--if not as--much as Spain was. I think you could also probably place a few in the Alps/northern Italy, although I'm less certain as to how realistic that would be.
    Syria is a good one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    Have you made the Novgorods/Russians into seperate factions, or are they still the same? If the same, then I would recommend their homelands include Novgorod, Muscovy, and Kiev. Aside from that, I'm not sure which provinces would be appropriate to include for them.
    The Novgorod/Russian problem...

    I'm convinced that CA struggled with this also. Originally I'm sure they were one faction, the Russians, then CA, possibly after discovering the relevance of Novgorod to the early period, went through the process of coding in another faction for early, the Novgorod, as an effort to create a northern European faction, but never finished them. Instead they assigned them the Russian faction's colours and units, with Vikings as an additional unit and left it at that. There is no real need for the Novgorod faction as the Russians can simply be renamed "Novgorod" in early and assigned the relevant provinces.

    Modding in the Novgorod as they were intended to be would be a long process, involving the new campaign map flags, new units, etc. It would be good, because the Russian faction could then be included in the Early period around Kiev. To be honest though, any player wanting this sort of thing will just go for the XL mod. The aim of this mod is to be as light as possible after all.

    I need to do more work on the Russian faction as a whole, but I'm leaning toward removing Novgorod and renaming the Russian faction as Novgorod in Early. The Viking Unit (the Drangar) also needs to be take away from the Novgorod and possibly a new infantry unit created for them, based on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    As for the French, I would say their homelands should include all the usual suspects: Flanders, Ile de France, Toulouse, Anjou, Normandy, and Acquitaine. I would also include Champagne, Lorraine, and Provence; I would leave out Brittany, however.
    The French are easy enough, however they don't have many unique units, so homelands for them probably won't be an issue. Units such as Hobilars and Gendarmes are the only few that I can think of. The former will need a combined Anglo-French homeland with the latter needing a somewhat larger homeland covering much of France, Iberia etc. Apart from that, there are no other semi-unique French units that I can think of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    If you wanted to get somewhat radical, you could even make an argument that the provinces of the Holy Land--Antioch, Edessa, Tripoli, and Jerusalem--should be Frankish Homelands as well. Of course, one could argue that they should be homelands for all the Crusading factions, and not just the French!
    The Crusading units won't have any homeland restrictions imposed upon them. I may make it possible for units such as Order Foot soldiers and Order Knights (St. James, St. John, Templars) to depend on a chapter house and be trainable in certain parts of the east such as Palestine, Rhodes and Malta.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martok
    I think having Arab Inf being dependent on the Town Watch isn't a bad idea at all, MC. It certainly makes a lot of sense, given how they formed a significant portion of a Caliph's army. Me likey!
    That will give the "Egyptians" 2 decent units early on in Arabia: Bedouin Camels and Arab Infantry.

    I've noticed in my current campaign as the Turks, that the Egyptians didn't do too well after I took Antioch and Tripoli. The huge dent in their income must have placed them in the red. This is probably down to the increased support costs of Ghulam Bodyguards. I may tweak the costs a little and also try to make Egypt a richer province than it is at present.

    The Byzantine's Armoured Spearmen make a big difference also.

    I have renamed the Egyptians, Turks and Almohads per era. They are now known as:

    Turks: Seljukid Empire / Seljukid Empire / Ottoman Empire
    Egyptians: Fatimid Caliphate / Ayyubid Sultanate / Mamluk Sultanate
    Almohads: Almoravid Caliphate / Almohad Caliphate, Marinid Sultanate

  17. #77
    Professional Cynic Member Innocentius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    878

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Iron should be added in Milan, and some southern German provinces (like Bavaria). This area was one of the main producers of weapons and armour during the medieval period, and of course even later on. Even the muslims of the Middle east often bought swords from northern Italy.

    I think that Novgorod should remain at least in the High era. Afte the Mongol invasion, Novogorod lost some of its independancy as a state, but existed untill the late 15th century when the muscovites finally brought an end to them, moving the seat of power in Russia from Novogorod to Moscow. When Alexander Nevsky defeated the Swedes at Neva and the Teutonic Knights at lake Peipus, in the 1240's, he did so as a defender of Novogord.
    It's not easy being a man, you know. I had to get dressed today... And there are other pressures.

    - Dylan Moran

    The Play

  18. #78
    Sovereign Oppressor Member TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Turkey Shoot Champion, Juggler Champion Kralizec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Manco Capac
    Turks: Seljukid Empire / Seljukid Empire / Ottoman Empire
    Egyptians: Fatimid Caliphate / Ayyubid Sultanate / Mamluk Sultanate
    Almohads: Almoravid Caliphate / Almohad Caliphate, Marinid Sultanate
    Who are they? I thought the Nasrids were the main muslim power in Iberia after the Almohads had expired.

  19. #79

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    The Marinids held sway in the Maghreb from the 13th to the 15th century. They actually took Fes from the Almohads in 1248 and established it as their captital. That was basically the end of the Almohad Caliphate, though they still lingered on for a few more years, and the beginning of the Marinid Dynasty. All in all the Almohad Caliphate spanned something around one hundred years.

    The Nasrids were an islamic dynasty in Spain, based around the Granada, not Morocco nor any other parts of the Maghreb.

    The Marinids also held some territory in Spain, but nor Granada. It may be a good idea to give Granada to the rebels in late, as this would have been held by the Nasrids and not the Marinids.

    Quote Originally Posted by Innocentius
    Iron should be added in Milan, and some southern German provinces (like Bavaria). This area was one of the main producers of weapons and armour during the medieval period, and of course even later on. Even the muslims of the Middle east often bought swords from northern Italy.

    I think that Novgorod should remain at least in the High era. Afte the Mongol invasion, Novogorod lost some of its independancy as a state, but existed untill the late 15th century when the muscovites finally brought an end to them, moving the seat of power in Russia from Novogorod to Moscow. When Alexander Nevsky defeated the Swedes at Neva and the Teutonic Knights at lake Peipus, in the 1240's, he did so as a defender of Novogord.
    Adding Novgorod into late would mean modding the Novgorod faction's colours and flag images. I'm not so sure about doing that as yet, as I hadn't planned on altering any graphics for this mod. Editing the graphics for MTW is a complete pain as they appeared to have used some pretty ancient tools. Many of the texture files are stored in the .lbm format (the bitmap format used by Deluxe Paint, originally a Commodore Amiga program). You can't save these files in psp because it's mucks up the palettes forcing you to download another tool to save the file with. Another format used is .bif which you also need to download a special program in order to view and edit.
    Last edited by caravel; 11-30-2006 at 09:46.

  20. #80
    Sovereign Oppressor Member TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Turkey Shoot Champion, Juggler Champion Kralizec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Thanks for the clarification.
    IIRC in XL, the Nasrids are a late period faction that controlls granada and the north north African provinces (except Egypt and the Sinai obviously)
    That would be unhistorical then, but understandable because with less territories the moorish faction cuold be overrun by those powerfull late catholic kingdoms.
    If the starting positions of the Iberian chistians would be a little tweaked, a Nasrid Granada faction might be very interesting (and challenging) to play.
    Just some thoughts...

  21. #81
    Professional Cynic Member Innocentius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    878

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Kralizec
    That would be unhistorical then, but understandable because with less territories the moorish faction cuold be overrun by those powerfull late catholic kingdoms.
    Unbalanced or not, if it's correct I'd let it stay that way. Some factions really need to be doomed factions top open up for a more interesting game. Like the Armenians in Early XL, they stand no chance unless you spend all of your money on helping them out (giving of course that you are their neighbour or have an easy sea-access).
    It's not easy being a man, you know. I had to get dressed today... And there are other pressures.

    - Dylan Moran

    The Play

  22. #82

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Kralizec
    Thanks for the clarification.
    IIRC in XL, the Nasrids are a late period faction that controlls granada and the north north African provinces (except Egypt and the Sinai obviously)
    That would be unhistorical then, but understandable because with less territories the moorish faction cuold be overrun by those powerfull late catholic kingdoms.
    If the starting positions of the Iberian chistians would be a little tweaked, a Nasrid Granada faction might be very interesting (and challenging) to play.
    Just some thoughts...
    The Marinids never controlled as far as Cyrenacia so shouldn't really be there as far as I can tell. Uniting them into one faction and calling them the Nasrids is just wrong in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that the Almohads were the only Berber Muslim Dynasty to get as far as western Egypt., so in the later period the Marinids should probably only be in Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and the Sahara. Granada should be rebel (or assigned to a new Masrid faction), and Cyrenacia should probably be Mamluk controlled.
    Last edited by caravel; 11-30-2006 at 23:18.

  23. #83
    Sovereign Oppressor Member TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Turkey Shoot Champion, Juggler Champion Kralizec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    XL's Nasrid faction isn't historically correct, sorry if my wording was confusing. In XL they're basicly the same old moorish empire (without Cordoba) under a new dynasty.

    Realisticly the Nasrids would be a single province faction, but then they'd probably get overrun rather quickly by the late catholic steamrollers. Granada didn't fell until 1492, a couple of decades after the end of the games in fact. Of course each game is just an alternate history, but I'd be unhappy if the Nasrids/Elmohads/orange guys were exterminated within 30 years in 90% of all campaigns.
    Of course in MTW that's not as much of a problem as in other TW games, because factions can reemerge.

    I don't know anything about the Maranid's possessions and strenghts at the start of the Late period, but maybe they'd be a better choice.

  24. #84

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Well if Granada was rebel the Marinids could bribe or invade also. They'de have as good a chance as the Castillians. Another alternative would be to mode the Andalusian Infantry all periods and create a separate Nasrid Faction that would still be able to train those in Granada with +1 valour. This would assist them in holding out against their enemies. The balance issue would be the same as for the Aragonese or Danes. As yet I have no plans to create a Nasrid faction due to the hassle and time involved.

  25. #85
    Professional Cynic Member Innocentius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    878

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Quote Originally Posted by Kralizec
    Realisticly the Nasrids would be a single province faction, but then they'd probably get overrun rather quickly by the late catholic steamrollers. Granada didn't fell until 1492, a couple of decades after the end of the games in fact. Of course each game is just an alternate history, but I'd be unhappy if the Nasrids/Elmohads/orange guys were exterminated within 30 years in 90% of all campaigns.
    Well, in like 7 out of 10 cases, the same thing happens to the Aragonese in 2.01(VI), Early. The Armenians in Early XL get wiped out within the first 10-30 years. Both Aragon and Armenia remained kingdoms into the 16th respectively late 14th century.
    It's not easy being a man, you know. I had to get dressed today... And there are other pressures.

    - Dylan Moran

    The Play

  26. #86

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    I don't know....... I turn my back for five minutes to play RTW and my thread is back from the dead

    Some nice ideas here, but have not seem anything about farming increases, or did I miss that?

  27. #87

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    It's going to happen soon once we've decided as to how much to increase them by, and how much to lower the build cost by (I'm thinking of halfing it in most cases). I've also got to work on the mine incomes, the trade goods incomes and import tax percentage on trade goods, which needs increasing.

    For the mines i'm thinking starting again from scratch with the build costs. I'm not sure why a gold mine would cost more to build than a copper mine? This is just a game balance thing that makes the mines unworthwhile IMHO.

    In terms of value I would say that the mines should be structured as follows:

    Gold
    Silver
    Copper
    Iron
    Salt

    Though perhaps Iron was worth more than copper in those days? Iron must have been invaluable for warfare, but may have been very common.

    Below this would the forestry, as wood was plentiful back then (I will use the forest clearing graphics for this one). I'm not sure about the income or build cost for this yet.

    I've been a bit slow as present, because I've been playing a campaign to check out the state of things so far. The shipping is better overall. The units changes make a positive difference but may need some further tweaking.

  28. #88
    Professional Cynic Member Innocentius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    878

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    I'd say silver should perhaps be more valuable than gold. Even though gold was more valuable as a metal, the profit from a silver mine would be much bigger than that from a gold mine. Gold is rare, and thus used for luxury. Silver was the most common metal used for coins and other forms of payment, IIRC.
    It's not easy being a man, you know. I had to get dressed today... And there are other pressures.

    - Dylan Moran

    The Play

  29. #89

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Good point, yield. The mine income could also be based on yield and not just the value per good. The silver mine in that case would probably be the more valuable yes.

  30. #90

    Default Re: New valour bonus regions

    Well I've done the farming improvements. Farms cost half as much to build and are more productive. The mines are also more productive but cost the same to build. The import percentage has been raised to 50%.

    I've renamed Yeoman Cavalry to Militia Cavalry for now.

    Anyway... with Christmas approaching, and a court case coming up next february, I'm not sure if I'll be continuing to work on this for much longer. So far the changes I've made have been positive but it's early days yet, and there is still alot to do. I've started to add the Nasrid faction to the late period (FN_ANDALUS) just to see how they go, but have hit a problem when associating units and buildings to them in the crusaders and build prod files. It's ages since I've done this sort of stuff before so I can't think of what I've missed out. I've read through some of the old threads in the repositary, but to be honest that place is in a mess and I can't find any straight answers to my questions by searching. I'm feeling a little phased about all of this now to be truthful.

    On December the 9th or therabouts I'll be hosting the the files I've changed so far for download to anyone that's interested.

    Later

    Manco

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

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