MTW Pocket Mod: General

[caravel]

Gah! and I can't find any other program that doesn't mess up the palette of the .lbm file. CA must have used Deluxe Paint on the Amiga to do the graphics in this game.

I'm not prepared to redo the entire lukmap file, and I prefer not to use the lmm. I have checked out the gimp but the plugin for lbm/iff is no longer available.

I'm probably going to forget lukmap editing for now.

[The Unknown Guy]

So editing maptex is not enough? (I never tried, but after I found the file I fancied it was).

What kind of file type is lbm? (meaning, what is the relation between the humongous Maptex2 file and Lukmap?)

[caravel]

Maptex is actually the texture file. You can do pretty much anything with that. As you can see it doesn't define any border or provinces, it's simply an image. You could place another image on there if you wanted providing it's the same dimensions and file type. The Lukmap is the actual province layout and is the real map. It works by looking up the palette index numbers of the colours and comparing them with a province table, from this it determines region outlines, positions, borders, seas, etc, etc, but not connectivity between regions which is determined by the setneighbours in the startpos file. Sea regions use one colour each and land regions use two colours each, one for the border and one for the region itself (the province). The rest of the map, the dead areas in between the regions and unused areas, use a shocking pink colour, which I believe corresponds to the very first colour in the palette, and this is where the problem is. The provinces don't seem to correspond to the actual RGB values but to the number referring to the colour's position in the palette. So changing the colour of a province in the lukmap has no effect so long as the colour is still unique. If you recoloured, for example, Wessex accidentally the same colour as Syria, then that would either become effectively the same province (Syria) or crash the whole thing (more likely the latter). For example, Rhodes on the map is a tiny Island, with a an extra zoomed in mini map to make it usable. Both are detached from each other, but because they're the same colour, they're the same province (Try dropping your army stack on the real Rhodes, the small Island, you should be able to get one stack or agent on there).

LBM is an old type of 256 colour (This is also partly why the number of regions are restricted) bitmap used by Deluxe Paint, an old art package for the Amiga computers. They are of the old paletted image types, whereby if you changed a colour in the palette the colour in the image would change to that colour. This is why it doesn't matter which colours are used in the Lukmap file so long as they are unique and occupy the same positions in the actual palette index. I can save a semi working Lukmap from Ultimate Paint, with all of the provinces messed up as the palette index has been effectively scrambled, but I would have to then find out all of the original palette positions for the land regions, land region borders and sea regions, and then recolour the whole thing manually. Even then I'm still not sure if it would work.



Oh well I have a new HDD to install later, so I'll see how I feel after that.



Edit: Examination of the Lukmap2 LBM with a hex editor reveals that there is a "CMAP" section and a "BODY" section, I expect the body to refer to the image data, whereas the CMAP must be the "colour map". It may be possible to restore the original palette, after the file has been processed by Ultimate Paint, by a simple copy and paste of the CMAP section from the original file to the modified one. I will try this later - it is a long shot though.

[caravel]

Well back on topic, I was looking into the roles of Inquisitors and Grand Inquisitors both in the game, and historically. It seems to me that because all Inquisitions were Papal Inquisitions then Inquisitors should be restricted to the Papacy only. Factions training Inquisitors and sending them off on missions in foreign lands, killing other factions' generals is highly unrealistic and not a true reflection of inquisitions. The Spanish Inquisition was outside the time frame of the game (late 15th century) so it is irrelevant. Both the Episcopal Inquisition and the Papal Inquisition (you see mention of these in the game as the Cathars and Albigensian Heretics - the latter whom were crusaded against) were totally authorised by the Papacy and only the Papacy had the authority to start an Inquisition.

The Grand Inquisitor would have been only a single individual, but for our purposes this is going to be difficult to achieve. I would do away with Grand Inquisitors altogether and restrict the Inquisitors to the Papacy only. I would then up their training time to four years and perhaps increase their cost. The Reliquary, I would probably remove.

It would have been a fascinating feature of the game if the Papacy/Church had been set up as totally independent entity to the factions. Whereby all of your churches would provide income to the Papacy and the Papacy would also be able to train their own bishops/cardinals from your churches and you would be unable to train any. The player would be striving to coexist with the church and keep them out of affairs of the state. You would not build churches or monasteries, the Papacy/Church AI would build them in your provinces and they would have their uses and their drawbacks. A faction leader's piety would be an indication of his standing with the Papacy and church as a whole. An impious man would not get much cooperation whereas a pious man would be able to send bishops as emissaries to carry out certain tasks or to help convert a province, etc... Oh well you can't have everything.

[The Unknown Guy]

It seems to me that because all Inquisitions were Papal Inquisitions then Inquisitors should be restricted to the Papacy only. Factions training Inquisitors and sending them off on missions in foreign lands, killing other factions' generals is highly unrealistic and not a true reflection of inquisitions.

Hmm, half-half, I´d say. The priests who tried the Knights Templar, for instance, were pet-priests of King Charles IV (?) of France, for instance, whereas the actual pope sent in his own men to try to aquit them. And in general, all Inquisitors relied heavily on the local armed forces to do their dirty work (such as actually fetching the poor b. they wanted to put on trial). This I do recall from the forementioned history magazine.

As for other sources of info: according to Wikipedia,

All medieval inquisitions were decentralized. Authority rested with local officials based on guidelines from the Holy See, but there was no central top-down authority running the inquisitions, as would be the case in post-medieval inquisitions. Thus there were many different types of inquisitions depending on the location and methods; historians have generally classified them into the episcopal inquisition and the papal inquisition.

(editing to make it shorter)
The episcopal inquisition, was established in response to the growing Catharist heresy in southern France. It is called "episcopal" because it was administered by local bishops, which in Latin is episcopus. The episcopal inquisition was not very effective for many reasons. (goes on to cite how it was not too effective) The Church responded to the failures of the episcopal inquisition with a series of papal bulls which became the papal inquisition. The papal inquisition was staffed by professionals, trained specifically for the job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition
(for what it's worth, they do seem to have some history book dealing with the "matter
(My motto regarding anything found on Wikipedias: Caveat Emptor)

So, could the two types of Inquisitor be divided and altered? Making, for instance, the regular inquisitor fit the said model, and nerf severely its capabilities to send people to the stake, or limit them in some other way (having just one? having them disappear on failure "as an amend" to whichever nobleman they were pestering?), whereas the pope could get Grand Inquisitors, renamed to Dominican Inquisitors, with high effectiveness?
(For gameplay purposes: whereas using mass inquisitors as hounds is certainly cheesy-and ridiculous, as no inquisitor would be able to get a monarch's men at arms after him-, being able to have to deal a certain ammount of "faith ordeals" is fitting, particularily in your lands, or borderlands. And besides, they´d be needed to keep zeal high. Otherwise crusades would collapse)

Also, does the papacy actually churn out Inquisitors? I think I saw some, playing as Byzantium, but there are two problems with this sighting
- It was in one of those "War Pope" games
- As they work only on Catholics, I don't know whether it would actually try to burn at the stake one of my generals. Hence I don´t know if they were actually put to use. I do know that the pope didn´t like me too much as it let the Germans crusade against me.

[Martok]

@ Cambyses II: I wholeheartedly support your idea to restrict the Inqs/GI's to the Papacy only, as well as increasing their training times and/or costs. As someone who plays the Spanish/Castille-Leonese a lot, I can personally vouch for just how unbalanced they are -- it's just too easy to burn another faction's royal family, along with any other good generals they may have. So long as they're not overpowered and heavily abused by the Papacy, I think your idea is a good one.

P.S. -- I concur Grand Inquisitors should be removed from the game entirely. It's simply ridiculous that they can convict kings and even Popes of heresy.

Also, does the papacy actually churn out Inquisitors? I think I saw some, playing as Byzantium, but there are two problems with this sighting
- It was in one of those "War Pope" games
- As they work only on Catholics, I don't know whether it would actually try to burn at the stake one of my generals. Hence I don´t know if they were actually put to use. I do know that the pope didn´t like me too much as it let the Germans crusade against me.

Yes, the Papacy does train Inquisitors. I remembr in particular one of my Sicilian campaigns last year where I had to temporarily destroy my port in Malta, just to strand one of the buggers (who insisted on frying my generals one after the other) until I could kill him.

Only generals working for a Catholic faction can be tried for heresy by Inquisitors. Muslim, Orthodox, and pagan generals are not affected by them.

[caravel]

Hmm, half-half, I´d say. The priests who tried the Knights Templar, for instance, were pet-priests of King Charles IV (?) of France, for instance, whereas the actual pope sent in his own men to try to aquit them. And in general, all Inquisitors relied heavily on the local armed forces to do their dirty work (such as actually fetching the poor b. they wanted to put on trial). This I do recall from the forementioned history magazine.

I think the Inquisitions in the game represent the real Inquisitions authorised by the Pope himself by way of a Papal Bull, not petty "inquisitions" carried out by local rulers.

So, could the two types of Inquisitor be divided and altered? Making, for instance, the regular inquisitor fit the said model, and nerf severely its capabilities to send people to the stake, or limit them in some other way (having just one? having them disappear on failure "as an amend" to whichever nobleman they were pestering?), whereas the pope could get Grand Inquisitors, renamed to Dominican Inquisitors, with high effectiveness?
(For gameplay purposes: whereas using mass inquisitors as hounds is certainly cheesy-and ridiculous, as no inquisitor would be able to get a monarch's men at arms after him-, being able to have to deal a certain ammount of "faith ordeals" is fitting, particularily in your lands, or borderlands. And besides, they´d be needed to keep zeal high. Otherwise crusades would collapse)

Well, one could give the Pope the Grand Inquisitors and rename them, and give the other factions the normal Inquistors, but that is all we can really do with both types of agent, as they're unmoddable. This really defeats the object however. As Martok has pointed out, the Inquisitors as a whole are much too overpowered, so restrictions, and the total removal of the Grand Inquisitors, are needed if gameplay is going to be balanced (GAs are MTWs answer to the Geisha in STW. We didn't need the Geisha then and we don't need GAs now). Whatever their origin they would be following the orders of the Pope. Which is why I think restricting them to the Pope would be the best policy. I would even restrict cardinals to the Pope if I thought he would use them correctly. I would make Cardinals the Papal version of Bishops, this would give the pope greater power to convert provinces than the player has, unfortunately the AI will fail miserably in this task so it's not worth it. I will be reducing rates of conversion anyway. Buildings and units that propagate religion will have that power severely nerfed, as at present provinces convert over far too quickly. This will go hand in had with the increase of the default rebelliousness suggested by Noir, but will need to be balanced in order for it to work properly.

Also, does the papacy actually churn out Inquisitors? I think I saw some, playing as Byzantium, but there are two problems with this sighting
- It was in one of those "War Pope" games
- As they work only on Catholics, I don't know whether it would actually try to burn at the stake one of my generals. Hence I don´t know if they were actually put to use. I do know that the pope didn´t like me too much as it let the Germans crusade against me.

I have seen the Papacy train Inquisitors on many occasions, though with the usual AI drawbacks of trying it's own low piety generals for no obvious reason.

The effects on crusades will be a none issue as the zeal increasing effects of Inquistors can be transferred to Cardinals or even Bishops in a lesser form. This is how Alims and Imams work currently, the Imams increase zeal whereas the Alims have no effect. It may be a good idea to add a small zeal raisng effect to Alims and Bishops to give AI Crusades and Jihads a better chance of succeeding, as the AI cannot top up it's Crusades/Jihads with extra troops in the way that the player can.

[Martok]

The effects on crusades will be a none issue as the zeal increasing effects of Inquistors can be transferred to Cardinals or even Bishops in a lesser form. This is how Alims and Imams work currently, the Imams increase zeal whereas the Alims have no effect. It may be a good idea to add a small zeal raisng effect to Alims and Bishops to give AI Crusades and Jihads a better chance of succeeding, as the AI cannot top up it's Crusades/Jihads with extra troops in the way that the player can.

I completely agree. I didn't even realize that was possible, else I would've brought up the idea to you a long time ago. It would be nice if Bishops and Alims did raise zeal at least a little bit, as they're of only limited usefulness with their current abilities.

[caravel]

Another way to deal with the standard Inquisitors would be to make them hidden like Spies and Assassins are. This way they would (theoretically) get caught by rival spies and assassins or border forts. With only the Papacy training them and with them working in this fashion they would not trouble you as much. You wouldn't have to worry about chasing them around with assassins - simply tighten up your security. The only way you would know an inquisitor was there would be when an inquisition occurs. I'm not sure if this would work in practice as I'd have to test it. Personally when playing as a catholic I "religiously" assassinate rival faction Inquisitors as if left unchecked they can valour up and become dangerous, this is just an automated way of doing that.

I was also considering setting the Harem Woman agent as invisible so that sending it abroad would be a risky prospect, as it would have been. Such a woman would not really operate as a public emissary but would be more of a shady character.

Edit: It works with Inquisitors, I get the message "your spy lost" when he enters a rival faction's province with a border fort.

[The Unknown Guy]

(GAs are MTWs answer to the Geisha in STW. We didn't need the Geisha then and we don't need GAs now)

Very good point. I hated the Geisha. Specially REBEL geishas (I saw -felt- one once)

The effects on crusades will be a none issue as the zeal increasing effects of Inquistors can be transferred to Cardinals or even Bishops in a lesser form.

Cardinals would be more fitting, imho, as bishops can be churned out from any church. Then again, the çuestion is whether it should be easy to plug the population into a religious frenzy from early on, or if it should reçuire some effort, which in turn would regulate the number and strenght of "holy wars", to a greater or lesser degree. I think that, with increased zeal, the number of crusades around would increase, if only because the player would have an easier time raising zeal, and their strenght would be certainly greater. The problem is twofold: Muslim factions, which do not Jihad nearly as much as the catholic factions crusade, would likely be on the receiving end of "juggernautish" crusaders, which could be spawned from early on (whereas Jihads would reçuire the Grand Mosçue to be built). The other problem is that one or more crusades following the same route would tear down the garrisons in their path (as most provinces would hold a high zeal), resulting in... odd, geopolitical changes.
A possible solution to "huge crusades" would be increasing the building reçuirements for Chapterhouses (which right now can be built before you have access to mounted sergeants). This would give non-catholic factions the chance to build up a decent army to withstand the crusade. And would limit once again the number of crusades going around, which is convenient too, to avoid several crusades following the same path ripping apart the garrisons there.

I have seen the Papacy train Inquisitors on many occasions, though with the usual AI drawbacks of trying it's own low piety generals for no obvious reason.

That faction´s low piety generals, or all AI´s low piety generals? The latter would be an annoyance, as you would be the only one to suffer Papal presence, no matter where you were. The former makes sense (specially if only the papacy issues inçuisitors) as the AI wouldnt go around destroying itself. Plus, in my HRE game I have a pope with 0 piety. (this would present problems to the agent handling AI if it went after its own)

Another way to deal with the standard Inquisitors would be to make them hidden like Spies and Assassins

Well, on the other hand, having only papal inçuisitors to deal with wouldn´t be that much of a problem. At worst, standing ready to kill them off as they arrive.

I was also considering setting the Harem Woman agent as invisible so that sending it abroad would be a risky prospect, as it would have been. Such a woman would not really operate as a public emissary but would be more of a shady character.

Granted, sending a character which is essentially a (well, what she is) with open fanfarre and noise to a foreign ruler's court would be a bit unfitting. On the other hand, it's not exactly the kind of "threat" spies would be looking for, either. :p
BTW: does the AI build them? Never seen it, but it might be because of their high build reçuirements.

[caravel]

Very good point. I hated the Geisha. Specially REBEL geishas (I saw -felt- one once)

They were probably about the worst thing about STW, as well as the rubbish introduced by the MI expansion, and if you didn't want to end up losing all of your generals you were pretty much obliged to train your own Geishas to deal with the AI ones. The GAs are similar in that they can simply toast all of your generals one after the other once they get to a certain valour.

Cardinals would be more fitting, imho, as bishops can be churned out from any church.

I agree. I have looked at adding a zeal increase to Bishops and decided against it. Only the player can use Inquisitors intelligently to boost zeal for crusades anyway so this will help the AI.

Then again, the çuestion is whether it should be easy to plug the population into a religious frenzy from early on, or if it should reçuire some effort, which in turn would regulate the number and strenght of "holy wars", to a greater or lesser degree. I think that, with increased zeal, the number of crusades around would increase, if only because the player would have an easier time raising zeal, and their strenght would be certainly greater. The problem is twofold: Muslim factions, which do not Jihad nearly as much as the catholic factions crusade, would likely be on the receiving end of "juggernautish" crusaders, which could be spawned from early on (whereas Jihads would reçuire the Grand Mosçue to be built). The other problem is that one or more crusades following the same route would tear down the garrisons in their path (as most provinces would hold a high zeal), resulting in... odd, geopolitical changes.
A possible solution to "huge crusades" would be increasing the building reçuirements for Chapterhouses (which right now can be built before you have access to mounted sergeants). This would give non-catholic factions the chance to build up a decent army to withstand the crusade. And would limit once again the number of crusades going around, which is convenient too, to avoid several crusades following the same path ripping apart the garrisons there.

I've thought about raising the requirements for the Chapter House, but don't particularly want it to depend on the Cathedral. Perhaps it could be made to depend on the Reliquary? This brings me onto a related subject. i had considered turning the Church, Monastery, Reliquary and Cathedral into a single tech tree line. The first building would be the church and the others would function as upgrades. The Chapter House could be added in between the Reliquary and Cathedral. I'm just wondering if this system would make it simpler for the AI, as I've noticed that it often still fails to build churches.

That faction´s low piety generals, or all AI´s low piety generals? The latter would be an annoyance, as you would be the only one to suffer Papal presence, no matter where you were. The former makes sense (specially if only the papacy issues inçuisitors) as the AI wouldnt go around destroying itself. Plus, in my HRE game I have a pope with 0 piety. (this would present problems to the agent handling AI if it went after its own)

The AI faction burns it's own generals with it's own Inquisitors. I have seen this a few times, and definitely remember the Papacy doing it. I remember clicking on the Inquisitor in question and seeing that his mission was to burn a papal general. Next I checked out the target, and apart from low piety, he was a decent general with maximum loyalty and no vices. This proves that the AI sends out Inquisitors at random targets. It seems like a bug as the AI doesn't use assassins to assassinate it's own generals or agents.

Well, on the other hand, having only papal inçuisitors to deal with wouldn´t be that much of a problem. At worst, standing ready to kill them off as they arrive.

I think it's a good idea as they would operate invisibly and silently. When caught you wouldn't know who they were as it would just say "enemy spy caught". You could think of them as Inquisitors doing the work for the Church, or a monastic order, in general. You would only know about them when they start one of their damned inquisitions in your province or decide to try one of your generals for heresy. Keeping spies or assassins your provinces as well as the usual Bishops, will give you enough protection.

Granted, sending a character which is essentially a (well, what she is) with open fanfarre and noise to a foreign ruler's court would be a bit unfitting. On the other hand, it's not exactly the kind of "threat" spies would be looking for, either. :p
BTW: does the AI build them? Never seen it, but it might be because of their high build reçuirements.

I have never seen the tech up to the Sultan's Harem as yet, so I'm not sure if they build them or not. They should do as the unit choices are set. The reason why I'd have them as invisible units is because the player can spam them, despite the cost and build time, once they have teched up to them. This will further deter this, as they will be cleaned off by counterspies and border forts.

[Noir]

A few comments on the preceeding posts:

1. Relative to rebelliousness of provinces and religious conversion rates:

Increasing the default rebelliousness, means that provinces will rebel faster than before if you leave them with a small garrison. There is also another way of doing it suggested to me by Puzz3D that alters the level of province loyalty that rebellions will happen and this is including -loyalty:xxx (say for example 130) to your MTW shortcut. The AI reckognizes it and plays with it.

What i did in my home mod for MedMod IV was to raise the rebelliousness of most provinces to 2 (a few were set to 1 and a few to 3, 4 and 5).

Since the AI garrisons provinces, he has less troops available to invade according to the threshold of the personality he has taken. The AI does invasions on the basis of the No. of men that guard the next province relative to the No. of men he has in his own bordering province.

This effectively implies that:
1. Invasions happen less often - ie the overall level of aggressivness between factions is lowered.
2. There are no more 0-garrisoned provinces and all the troops are not at the expanding frontier, as the AI typically does in vanilla.
3. Invasions are slower (the remmnants of a victorious army are not often enough to deal with the rebellion)

By having garisson armies the AI achieves territorial robustness over space and time ie his territories shift far less often and so are more developed as he holds them for longer. This i further enhanced with strict homelads, forcing the AI to stay whithin a geographical area that he reckognises as his recruiting core.

The other fator that greatly afects this is upkeep costs. If they are too high, then invasions happen even less frequently - if they are too low they happen more and more often till the altered rebelliousness doesn't have any effect.

By tweaking the two i was able to reach the size of battles that pleased me which was a one full stack(+a few extra units perhaps) vs another full stack.

The use of agents further affects that, as spies and priests affect the loyalty and faith of a province.

In particular i cut the conversion rates from buildings to about a tenth of what they currently are and from priests to about a fourth, and i also gave to muslim bodyguards the ability to work as priests. Wes has done that for the Golden Horde BG units. This helps the muslims to keep their lands muslims as there are about 13 catholic factions and only 4 muslim ones on the map that in vanilla ensures that everyone eventually turns catholic no matter how hard you try.

2. Relative to agents

Agents i worked this way:
Agents are now introduced by the compass and gun-powder progressively to reflect the historical development of centralised states during the campaign. Gameplay wise this also provides with playing for some eras with not the full range.

The division is as follows:
1. Religious era: Start to Compass
Only religious agents are available to reflect the emphasis on religious matters. Note that conversion rates are now about 25% of what they were in the original game – that is provinces do not change religion with 4 priests in 10 turns. They take now about 40 to 50 turns to change, and if at the border more (as they get the conversion wave from both religions in that case).
2. Era of political machinations: Compass to Gunpowder
Assassins are introduced. Inquisitors and the like now do not reign supreme as they can get assassinated.
3. Macchiavelian Era: Gunpowder onwards
Now spies are also available. Note that assassins and spies, can be produced at the 1st level only (the rest was remobed) and sine border forts are also out they are your only defence against enemy spies and assassins. Some of them will need to work as counterspies and you’ll find that they tech up pretty quickly.

GOOD GAMERS RULE:
No offensive spy use. That is not moving spies to enemy provinces unless you hold them partly or totally (siege) from the previous turn. That prevents putting the AI to trouble with caused rebellions (he can’t really defend against that).

I find that the game is lots of fun in this way as there are 3 distinct agent gameplays.

In this way, religion reigns supreme in early, while late on inquisitors and priests may be assassinated.

Note also that i have removed the border forts. this accounts for way more fun gameplay IMO if the player does not play with offensive use of spies.

I disagree with the ideas proposed by Cambyses II of taking off the inquisitors from factions other than the papacy, making them invisible and expect the border forts to capture them (entirely ahistorical/does not reflect the power they yielded in their hey day neither the political machinations they were involved in) and also it subtracts some of the fun that the game offers.

I always hated the fact that the border forts worked as an inmistakable net for capturing all troubles, that effectively acts as a protector for the AI factions that are too vulnerable to what the player can do and so i modded them out and introduced agents gradually in.

Priests have the power to cower or incite rebellions in the early era due to the low conversion rates - and you can't assassinate them.

I agree that the GIs should be removed or severely limited ie Papacy only for example, and in fact this is what i did in my home mod.

Adding zeal increasing powers is not a good way to deal with weak AI crusades IMO, because itwill work to the advantage of the player. Zeal needs to be increased very very slowly with many agents and i cut down on that too in my home mod. I dislike cheap tactics as rushing an inquisitor or two in a province before a crusade appears to make it attract more units.

A crusade needs to become more powerful by means of messing with the crusader build prod and so ensure that it gives two stack army by default in early and one full army by default in high and less than that in late.

This is what Wes has done in MedMod IV and it works wonders. In that way i play with the default army and never add extra units myself to feel the challenge of getting the crusade where it needs to be as is.

May i also add that only three factions are allowed to crusade: the French, the HRE and the English as it was historically - i dilike the idea of Polish and Hungarian crusades and even more of Spanish crusades that bears no resemblence to reality to my understanding and from a gameplay perspective overloads the map with "revenge/opportunistic" crusades more than enything else.

Many Thanks

Noir

[The Unknown Guy]

Since the AI garrisons provinces, he has less troops available to invade according to the threshold of the personality he has taken. The AI does invasions on the basis of the No. of men that guard the next province relative to the No. of men he has in his own bordering province.

This effectively implies that:
1. Invasions happen less often - ie the overall level of aggressivness between factions is lowered.
2. There are no more 0-garrisoned provinces and all the troops are not at the expanding frontier, as the AI typically does in vanilla.
3. Invasions are slower (the remmnants of a victorious army are not often enough to deal with the rebellion)

By having garisson armies the AI achieves territorial robustness ie his territories shift far less often and so are more developed as he holds them for longer. This i further enhanced with strict homelads, forcing the AI to stay whithin a geographical area that he reckognises as his recruiting core.

You know, this sounds a rather intriguing possibility. So you say that the AI becomes more stable and less "expand and blow up by bloat effect" prone?

(It makes it more realistic, besides. Either you keep your subjects under your rule or bandits and mercenaries on the lines of Werner von Osbert (spelling?) will try to set up their own racket)

I´m rather eager to try this. It's changed from the startpos file in campmap, right? Any suggestions to specific province rebelliousness?

I disagree with the ideas proposed by Cambyses II of taking off the inquisitors from factions other than the papacy, making them invisible and expect the border forts to capture them (entirely ahistorical/does not reflect the power they yielded in their hey day neither the political machinations they were involved in) and also it subtracts some of the fun that the game offers.

I think it's a pity to lose the possibility of using inçuisitors altogether, althrough there's Cambyses's point of them being abused, which is true, as they work too much like the Shogun Geisha.
If restricted to the Papacy, which is an option, they should not be interceptable by spies, and the player ought to commission assasins to them.

However, if NOT restricted to the Papacy, and instead players are allowed to build them, having them being able to be caught by border forts would effectively remove most of the abuse done through inçuisitors, as you would only be able to make "Faith Ordeals" at will in your home provinces, to your own people. Making them go deep into enemy territory might mean getting caught by a spy (or, in a roleplay setting, getting "assasinated çuietly" in the border, before they can wreak havoc). It would make sense as well, as inçuisitors favoring one faction might find themselves in deep trouble if venturing in enemy territory.
(I offer this as a middleground alternative)

[Noir]

Originally posted by the Unknown Guy
You know, this sounds a rather intriguing possibility. So you say that the AI becomes more stable and less "expand and blow up by bloat effect" prone?

Yes. The blow up effect manifests much less as the AI factions spend way more time in stability and also if coupled with simplifications in the military buldings building time and costs as i suggest earlier in this thread as well as the roster simplifications (one decent unit per role per faction), makes the AI factions powers to be reckoned with and the campaign way more realistic and lessoverblown.

Another thing i did that influenced that is that i cut down the seas into 4 distinct zones and modded out the 2 higher merchants. This puts a ceiling into the trade profits that factions can make including the player - the bloat effect happens when the AI has a lot of money and starts spaming anything he can:units agents fleets. The zones communicate only with deep sea vessels that are very expensive to maintain and time consuming to build.
The zones are:
1. Eastern Med and the black sea
2. Western Med
3. Atlantic Coast to English Channel
4. Baltic sea

This also furher limits the AI factions to reasonable expansion that they can support rather than the Byzantines invading Flanders with their faction leader because they have fleets there only to be plagued by a civil war soon after he is cut off.

All these superempires that you see in the "Pictures of your empire thread" are simply not feasible. You have to work hard and play well in the battles to stay around as you face an AI that holds his act together.

The bloat happens because of the trade network being unrestricted and boat maintenance being negligible relative to the profits sea trade is making.

Bloat for the player also means "game over", if you are too rich you know you can't lose and all battles can be won by swarming the opponents - tactics are not needed anymore. The same goes for upgrades and morale bonuses which i similarly moded all out.

Originally posted by the Unknown Guy
I´m rather eager to try this. It's changed from the startpos file in campmap, right? Any suggestions to specific province rebelliousness?

Originally posted by Noir
What i did in my home mod for MedMod IV was to raise the rebelliousness of most provinces to 2 (a few were set to 1 and a few to 3, 4 and 5).

However be aware of the other factors affecting it, principally the units upkeep costs and how these relate to the margin of profit that can be made by trade in each era with every level of merchant. The two need to operate together.

Another way is to pass to you the files of my MedMod IV home mini-mod, which i'll be very happy to (this includes anyone else that wishes so).

May i also add, that i will be more than happy for Cambyses II to adapt any of the preceding suggestions for the Pocket mod, as has been discussed sometime ago with him, so please dont take it as i am "advertising" or "competing" in any way. I am not interested in releasing what i did, but i am happy to share it with others if they wish so.

Many Thanks

Noir

[caravel]

I disagree with the ideas proposed by Cambyses II of taking off the inquisitors from factions other than the papacy, making them invisible and expect the border forts to capture them (entirely ahistorical/does not reflect the power they yielded in their hey day neither the political machinations they were involved in) and also it subtracts some of the fun that the game offers.

I always hated the fact that the border forts worked as an inmistakable net for capturing all troubles, that effectively acts as a protector for the AI factions that are too vulnerable to what the player can do and so i modded them out and introduced agents gradually in.

Well that's exactly why border forts have been in since STW - because the AI cannot manage spies or assassins, well agents in general, effectively. Border forts help to clean up a lot of the assassin spam that the AI produces. They also protect the AI from the player. I disagree with your removal of border forts for this reason. I know that if I removed them, that I would be able to assassinate the AI at leisure, and that the AI, especially the Byz, that has a tendency to go after a certain faction or province with it's assassins will have a field day. I dislike border forts also, and adopt the policy of not building them myself, but leave them for the AI only.

Priests have the power to cower or incite rebellions in the early era due to the low conversion rates - and you can't assassinate them.

This basically means that my priests can sit in e.g. Almoravid lands and convert at will with no danger of being picked off. The Catholic factions in particular have a habit of sending in a lot of bishops to convert a particular province before sending a crusade or before invading. You can often guess where the AI is going to attack next when you see his priests deployed en masse. This is why I would not restrict assassins or spies, as it's ahistorical and will tip the game balance in favour of massed conversions.

I agree that the GIs should be removed or severely limited ie Papacy only for example, and in fact this is what i did in my home mod.

The Grand Inquisitor was the head of the Papal Inquistion IIRC, one individual, not many. The player can tech up to these quickly and proceed to obliterate the AI catholic royalty. This is why they need to go.

Adding zeal increasing powers is not a good way to deal with weak AI crusades IMO, because itwill work to the advantage of the player. Zeal needs to be increased very very slowly with many agents and i cut down on that too in my home mod. I dislike cheap tactics as rushing an inquisitor or two in a province before a crusade appears to make it attract more units.

Zeal increasing ability needs to be added to Cardinals instead of Inquisitors. Currently Inquisitors have two "passive" abilities, that is the zeal increase and the mass inquisition. The zeal increase increases the zeal of the province by the percentage in the unit prod file on a yearly basis. The mass inquisition is an effect that has a percentage chance to occur every year. It is based on the zeal of the province. If a province is at around 60% zeal or more, the mass inquisition has a very good chance of occurring. This another "feature" that the player can take advantage of and the AI cannot. The Player can use this in several ways. The first being to increase the zeal in rival faction catholic provinces along the route to an acceptable level and then pull the inquisitor(s) out. The second is to raise zeal in your own provinces to the point of a mass inquisition and then pull out the inquisitor(s). The crusade can then be launched, leaving your own men for the most part intact, and sucking up the AI's troops in the high zeal provinces on the way. I would prefer to have cardinals that raise zeal slowly. Cardinals are much more difficult to get hold of anyway (as with imams that already function in the same way). For the Inquisitor I would remove the zeal increasing ability. For an agent that is constantly on the move burning people anyway (when used by the AI) it is not that useful, and the ability is better given to a more static agent that will stay in one place for at least a few years.

My proposal to make "invisible" Inquisitions will in my opinion, give these units some immunity from "direct assassination", but it will also mean that they have the chance of "going missing" if they stray. Historically anyone travelling in foreign parts took such a risk. Taking them out of the player's control, and giving them to the Papacy only, which in my opinion is correct, will balance it further as that way all catholic factions will be equally at risk from Inquisition. and the only way to beat them will be to increase your security (hire some thugs and have the meddler disappear). The difference is that instead of having to play cat and mouse sending your assassins chasing an Inquisitor half way across Europe, it will all be dealt with automatically and silently. As I've stated before, you won't know Inquisitors are there until you see the announcement that one of your generals was tried for heresy or until they start Inquisitions in your provinces. If caught it will read "enemy spy caught" so you will never know if you caught and Inquisitor or not. IMHO this will help the AI that is better at this kind of passive use of agents than at sending agents on missions. It will also solve the problem of the AI trying it's own generals for heresy, as only the papacy will do this now, and as they can never be wiped out, it won't affect them as such. While there has been mention of "Pet Inquisitors" by local rulers the only real example of this was before the 1230s during the Episcopal Inquisitions, it only occurred on a large scale in the Spanish Inquisition, and that falls outside of the game's time frame, though I doubt any of these would have taken it upon themselves to try and burn a heretic in Scotland or Pomerania being more interested in the affairs of the local ruler. Only Inquisitions set up by the Pope himself would have had the authority, the Papal Bull, to travel abroad and root out heresy in foreign lands. During the mid 13th century it would have been down to the Dominican Order under direct Papal Authority (The Papal Inquisition) to deal with heresy. In view of this I would also restrict Inquisitors to the high and late eras, to give the AI, and indeed the player, some breathing space.

May i also add that only three factions are allowed to crusade: the French, the HRE and the English as it was historically - i dilike the idea of Polish and Hungarian crusades and even more of Spanish crusades that bears no resemblence to reality to my understanding and from a gameplay perspective overloads the map with "revenge/opportunistic" crusades more than enything else.

Many would argue that the Reconquista of Spain was in fact a crusade. The Sixth Crusade involved the Hungarians and Austrians. The Danes were Involved directly in the Northern Crusades. The Crusades against Timur Lang involved the Lithuanians and many other Eastern Europeans.

Also considering we're not following history to the letter, it seems rather odd if the player has an Hungarian/Polish/Danish/Italian/Spanish/Aragonese/Sicilian super empire stretching across 50% of Europe but can't launch a Crusade because the Pope says: "well you're not one of the crusading factions are you?".

[Noir]

Originally posted by Cambyses II
Border forts help to clean up a lot of the assassin spam that the AI produces. They also protect the AI from the player. I disagree with your removal of border forts for this reason. I know that if I removed them, that I would be able to assassinate the AI at leisure, and that the AI, especially the Byz, that has a tendency to go after a certain faction or province with it's assassins will have a field day. I dislike border forts also, and adopt the policy of not building them myself, but leave them for the AI only.

The AI is in disadvantage only if the player plays with what i call "offensive agent use", that is assassinating and using agents out of his borders. Conversely though, if you are using the border forts that are indeed a viable alternative there is almost no advantage by them as they (agents) are all caught when operating outside your territories that effectively gives the same gameplay as the one with the iron rule i describe minus assassinations by the AI.

Originally posted by Cambyses II
This basically means that my priests can sit in e.g. Almoravid lands and convert at will with no danger of being picked off. The Catholic factions in particular have a habit of sending in a lot of bishops to convert a particular province before sending a crusade or before invading. You can often guess where the AI is going to attack next when you see his priests deployed en masse. This is why I would not restrict assassins or spies, as it's ahistorical and will tip the game balance in favour of massed conversions.

Not at all. The conversion is so slow that with frequent exhange of the povinces or with bordering of provinces of different religion it takes more than 60 years to turn them around even with the full sets of Priests the AI is using. In most cases the AI is waisting his time if he does not conquer them as well. What you describe is the gameplay of vanilla.

I have playtested this extensivelly and the possibility you are raising for playbalance is not happening at all, it works as described. As for being "ahistorical", well it's for each to decide what is historical or not in a game that is meant to be an abstraction of some sort in any case. For me it plays more historically as a gameplay, for you not.

Originally posted by Cambyses II
Many would argue that the Reconquista of Spain was in fact a crusade.

The Iberian affair was indeed in a form of a crusade that was aided massively by lords in France AFAIK that contributed in the decicive victory of the Christians that turned the tide of war. As such, and following the way you put it, it doesn't justify giving the Spanish and Aragonese the ability to properly crusade against any others then.

Originally posted by Cambyses II
The Sixth Crusade involved the Hungarians and Austrians. The Danes were Involved directly in the Northern Crusades. The Crusades against Timur Lang involved the Lithuanians and many other Eastern Europeans.

I will go with your words and point out that were involved not organised, launched or expedited is the key word here to my understanding. This is expressed well with the ability of a crusade to suck in troops from every province it passes by.

Many Thanks

Noir

[The Unknown Guy]

(Caravel) Many would argue that the Reconquista of Spain was in fact a crusade.

It was. The battle of the Navas de Tolosa was a "Crusade" in the sense that the Pope made a call to all the Northern Christian Kingdoms to join into a coalition against the Almohad Caliphate.

(Noir)
The Iberian affair was indeed in a form of a crusade that was aided massively by lords in France AFAIK that contributed in the decicive victory of the Christians that turned the tide of war. As such, and following the way you put it, it doesn't justify giving the Spanish and Aragonese the ability to properly crusade against any others then.

Back then it didnt happen, but the later, unified Spain DID crusade against the Ottoman Empire, after a fashion. Look at the battle of Lepanto, or the lifting of the besieged fortress of the Hospitalers in Malta.

(Caravel)Not at all. The conversion is so slow that with frequent exhange of the povinces or with bordering of provinces of different religion it takes more than 60 years to turn them around even with the full sets of Priests the AI is using. In most cases the AI is waisting his time if he does not conquer them as well. What you describe is the gameplay of vanilla.

I rarely (read: practically never) have managed to cause religious unrest by just spamming priests. Nor have I suffered from religious unrest, even when playing as Byzantium and being spammed by enemy bishops.

(Noir) The division is as follows:
1. Religious era: Start to Compass
Only religious agents are available to reflect the emphasis on religious matters. Note that conversion rates are now about 25% of what they were in the original game – that is provinces do not change religion with 4 priests in 10 turns. They take now about 40 to 50 turns to change, and if at the border more (as they get the conversion wave from both religions in that case).
2. Era of political machinations: Compass to Gunpowder
Assassins are introduced. Inquisitors and the like now do not reign supreme as they can get assassinated.
3. Macchiavelian Era: Gunpowder onwards
Now spies are also available. Note that assassins and spies, can be produced at the 1st level only (the rest was remobed) and sine border forts are also out they are your only defence against enemy spies and assassins. Some of them will need to work as counterspies and you’ll find that they tech up pretty quickly.

Eh, forgot to mention earlier: This I don't like. I think that spionage and assasinations have always been a part of the world's politics. To point out two instances: The Hashasini, in the Muslim world, and the assasination of a Pope (the predecessor of Clement VIII) in Rome by a man hired by the King of France. Bringing up the power struggles in the Byzantine Empire would be opening a too large can of worms :)

(Caravel) My proposal to make "invisible" Inquisitions will in my opinion, give these units some immunity from "direct assassination", but it will also mean that they have the chance of "going missing" if they stray. Historically anyone travelling in foreign parts took such a risk.

True, and in fact I guess that if a ruler had reasons to fear inçuisitors heading his way, he'd dispatch a group of partisans to "deal with them. Many inçuisitors ended up assasinated by random mobs anyway. Its not like they were particularily popular.
On the other hand it would pave the way for a "massacre of the inçuisitors", in which they would effectively be almost unnoticeable in the game due to all of them being caught. Maybe make it so that they start off with higher honor, thus compensating the "interception" capabilities of border forts and spies?

Caravel:
The Grand Inquisitor was the head of the Papal Inquistion IIRC, one individual, not many. The player can tech up to these quickly and proceed to obliterate the AI catholic royalty. This is why they need to go.

I always thought that it was a made up title. For instance, Torçuemada was not "Grand Inçuisitor", but "General Inçuisitor". And it meant that he was at the head of the organization, and laid out the how-to's. Hunting frenzies were carried out by underlings.
(I have a book about the Inçuisition somewhere, but I just can't find it right now :/ )

Caravel: Well that's exactly why border forts have been in since STW - because the AI cannot manage spies or assassins, well agents in general, effectively. Border forts help to clean up a lot of the assassin spam that the AI produces. They also protect the AI from the player. I disagree with your removal of border forts for this reason. I know that if I removed them, that I would be able to assassinate the AI at leisure, and that the AI, especially the Byz, that has a tendency to go after a certain faction or province with it's assassins will have a field day. I dislike border forts also, and adopt the policy of not building them myself, but leave them for the AI only.

I do pretty much the same. It´s not like agent spamming is a big deal, anyway, as only one spy will be operative in each province, and that was the major possibility of agent abuse in Shogun (where you could turtle up and destroy very powerful rivals by inciting rebellions in their backwater provinces, or just cramming provinces with more and more spies so that the AI concentrated all it's military assets in keeping loyalty there.).
Border forts are in to avoid assasin spamming, for the most part, IMHO, as otherwise it would be easy (or easier) to destroy factions by just shooting lots of assasins their way. One thing I noticed is that, if heirless, the AI tends to withdraw its leader to some BFed province without forts.

Also: observation: as the game is right now (last version of the PM) the AI DOES use agents for defensive purposes. I´ve lost several good spies in formerly-mine provinces without BFs.

[General Dazza]

I always hated the fact that the border forts worked as an inmistakable net for capturing all troubles, that effectively acts as a protector for the AI factions that are too vulnerable to what the player can do and so i modded them out and introduced agents gradually in.

Just to throw my 2c worth in. To me border forts make complete sense as a gameplay concept, irrespective of how well the AI handles agents.

The border forts as I see them respresent the non-mobile (i.e. not roaming agents) security that any faction would put in place in territory it owns (particularly terriroty that is has just captured).

When a faction takes over a province, it is completely natural to create a system of local security to stop enemies/outsiders from causing political unrest. That would include the mayor's network of informants and police/local troop garrison etc.

It shouldn't be easy to send assassins/agents of unrest into enemy territory as that local security would be particularly alert. That goes also for friendly factions - someone coming in to cause unrest would be likely to get noticed by the authorities at some point.

[The Unknown Guy]

It's not like there were means for absolute borderl control in the medieval period...

In any event, the point is mostly moot, as it is a personal choice whether to use them or not. Personally, I don't, for three reasons:
- It would hinder the AI in it's botched strategic deployment of agents
- If I lose the province, they turn against me
- My spies and assasins lose valuable points that could be put to use.

[caravel]

Just to throw my 2c worth in. To me border forts make complete sense as a gameplay concept, irrespective of how well the AI handles agents.

The border forts as I see them respresent the non-mobile (i.e. not roaming agents) security that any faction would put in place in territory it owns (particularly territory that is has just captured).

Border forts are ahistorical in that this kind of border security simply did not exist then and does not even exist today. This is something that Rome does do correctly in that a spy has to infiltrate a settlement to have an effect but can wonder freely in a province. Border forts would have to surround a province at a distance of no more than about 1/4 mile apart and have teams of customs officials and guards operating 24/7, this would in real life terms be well nigh impossible - even today.

Border watch towers are another ahistorical feature. Such structures positioned on the frontier line would have little strategic value. Historically watch towers would have lined the outer walls of forts, not the border regions. They would have been on the look out for enemy armies, not a lone ragged traveller. Spies or assassins would not walk through open country in full view of border defences, they would enter through the city gates passing themselves off as townspeople. The only exception would be those placed on hills, near to the towns themselves overlooking the border with an enemy. This structure would command a clear view over the countryside and give advance warning of an approaching enemy army. As not all regions are suitably hilly and/or the lay of the land is simply unsuitable, this type of lookout outpost would be a bonus rather than the norm.

When a faction takes over a province, it is completely natural to create a system of local security to stop enemies/outsiders from causing political unrest. That would include the mayor's network of informants and police/local troop garrison etc.

The biggest factor would be garrison size, that is militias brought in from outside. Intrigue would play a much lesser role with a recently conquered people. In those days, of banditry, outlaws and general lawlessness, it would also have been next to impossible to prevent outsiders from entering. Networks of informants and hired killers are already represented by spies and assassins.

It shouldn't be easy to send assassins/agents of unrest into enemy territory as that local security would be particularly alert. That goes also for friendly factions - someone coming in to cause unrest would be likely to get noticed by the authorities at some point.

The problem with border forts is that if one exists then it's almost impossible to cause unrest in rival factions' provinces as the border fort will pretty much catch them all. I hate having to spam 20 assassins just to give one a chance to get through a border fort province. I'd prefer to pay more for my spies assassins and pay upkeep for them, so as to increase their value than spam hundreds of failures. Sending an agent to a border fort is predictable certain death, this in itself ruins gameplay. At least if the AI has a spy hidden there and your assassin gets caught it adds a bit of diversity and has you wondering what kind of agents the enemy has in their province. It also means that the AI spies and assassins gain valour for catching yours, which is better than the border fort doing all the work. The AI also does not border fort it's provinces in any kind of logical fashion. Some provinces, especially those with unit valour bonuses, will remain without border forts, or even watch towers, for the entire campaign.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Both Watch Towers and border forts should be removed from the game. If you want information on neighbouring provinces you should have to send one of your people in there to have a look around, whether that is a nosey bishop, overly inquisitive emissary or someone more covert, and not rely on an ahistorical and wholly unrealistic border fort/watch tower with satellite uplink, giving you real time information of everything occurring in your neighbours' provinces, while stopping and killing everyone that tries to enter your province in a sneaky fashion.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not advocating the removal of border forts, and that would be somewhat contradictory of my previous post, but I do think that they shouldn't have been there in the first place. The problem with relying on only spies and assassins is that the AI has a tendency to not deploy them where they're needed.

[The Unknown Guy]

The AI already has a built-in spy defense, as it tries to withdraw to no port provinces when the assasin killfaction threat is looming. Or so it seems.

Also, they build lots of assasins, which already gives them a measure of security against enemy agents, by the assasin's own defensive possibilities.

Suggestion for the Papal inçuisitors matter: remove assasins and spies from the Pope's unit rooster, so that he builds just inçuisitors, and uses them instead of those two.

[Noir]

Originally posted by the Unknown Guy
Quote:
(Caravel) Many would argue that the Reconquista of Spain was in fact a crusade.

It was. The battle of the Navas de Tolosa was a "Crusade" in the sense that the Pope made a call to all the Northern Christian Kingdoms to join into a coalition against the Almohad Caliphate.

Yes, posted previously that i agree, and it was calling for knights from Europe to join the Christian coalition of Iberian kingdoms against the Almohad threat that culminated in the aformentioned battle. A Spanish/Aragonese crusade wouldn't represent that as well as an English or French crusade that would suck in large amounts of Spanish troops at the border IMO, much like the ones i am getting at the moment. Or even better a combined attack of Spanish armies in combination with a French crusade another scenarion that i otfen see in the mini-mod.

Originally posted by the Unknown Guy
Back then it didnt happen, but the later, unified Spain DID crusade against the Ottoman Empire, after a fashion. Look at the battle of Lepanto, or the lifting of the besieged fortress of the Hospitalers in Malta.

So, if its "they were involved" (Caravel) and "after a fashion"(the Unknown Guy), these battles/ involvements may be represented by crusades passing over lands and by proper wars. They certainly don't have to mean that the Spanish or Aragonese should have the ability throughout the middle ages to crusade against say the Byzantines or the Holy Land as they never did.

I doubt in any case that the Spanish/Aragonese AI would crusade against the Almohads as before winning some or all of the Iberian he is not so well financially to do so prior to that. It is most likely that he would crusade against other places after he wins the Iberian. Wouldn't that be "ahistorical", as Caravel likes to often argue (simple and well meant humor and nothing more :)?

On top of this the "Reconquista" involved significant aid from mainland Europe to my understanding, and i can't see how this is better represented by allowing the Spanish/Aragonese launching their own crusades, as previously said. It needs to be a struggle that the Iberians win by a small margin and with external aid, not one that they hold all the winning cards and are allowed a choice in their enemy's destruction IMO. This were the "historical" element needs to be preserved and expressed in my opinion and allowing them the crusade is against that.

Originally posted by the Unknown Guy
Eh, forgot to mention earlier: This I don't like. I think that spionage and assasinations have always been a part of the world's politics. To point out two instances: The Hashasini, in the Muslim world, and the assasination of a Pope (the predecessor of Clement VIII) in Rome by a man hired by the King of France. Bringing up the power struggles in the Byzantine Empire would be opening a too large can of worms :)

It's alright, these are just suggestions, and a general debate; they dont have to be liked.

By the way in a recent campaign the pope got assassinated 3 times in a row in the "middle" agent era by a powerful but excommunicated Holy Roman Emperor. I dont recall seeing this by an AI faction in the vanilla or any other for that matter version, and it reminds me very much the historical incident you refer to. I have a feeling that its because of the border forts that such things cannot happen very often.

Originally posted by the Unknown Guy
Quote:
(Caravel)Not at all. The conversion is so slow that with frequent exhange of the povinces or with bordering of provinces of different religion it takes more than 60 years to turn them around even with the full sets of Priests the AI is using. In most cases the AI is waisting his time if he does not conquer them as well. What you describe is the gameplay of vanilla.

I rarely (read: practically never) have managed to cause religious unrest by just spamming priests. Nor have I suffered from religious unrest, even when playing as Byzantium and being spammed by enemy bishops.

If i may, you are quoting me and not Caravel here. Unless you are addressing this to him? In any case the point i tried to make is that in vanilla religious unrest doesn't happen as the rebelliousness is low (0 as default value). In the home mini-mod i play is high (2 as default value) and put together with the slow conversion rates religious unrest is a common feature to advancing armies. I like this element very much and i find it way more historically accuarate than conversion in 20 turns with 4 priests that happens in vanilla and most mods.

Originally posted by General Dazza
Just to throw my 2c worth in. To me border forts make complete sense as a gameplay concept, irrespective of how well the AI handles agents.

The border forts as I see them respresent the non-mobile (i.e. not roaming agents) security that any faction would put in place in territory it owns (particularly terriroty that is has just captured).

When a faction takes over a province, it is completely natural to create a system of local security to stop enemies/outsiders from causing political unrest. That would include the mayor's network of informants and police/local troop garrison etc.

It shouldn't be easy to send assassins/agents of unrest into enemy territory as that local security would be particularly alert. That goes also for friendly factions - someone coming in to cause unrest would be likely to get noticed by the authorities at some point.

I agree with you, however that degrades the use and function of agents for the AI factions; the role of border forts may be reproduced by keeping some of your agents stationary to catch enemy spies and assassins and the effect is the same. As for the player causing havoc to the AI lands i mentioned that i play without offensive agent use.

All in all, border forts are a "device" added to make up for the incompetence of the AI in agent use and protect him from the player. What i do as mentioned is never use spies and assassins offensively (not in any province that i don't own or siege). This enables the AI to assassinate my generals and other factions' generals, princesses, emissaries, inquisitors and Popes. If you put border forts in, you end up with the same result ie keep your spies within your borders mot of the time, minus the activity of AI factions versus other AI factions and yourself.

It is for this reason i modded them out as the resulting gameplay is more rich IMO by keeping to a simple ironman rule.

What sounds "reasonable", "logical" or "historical" i won't touch as it is a matter of feel or opinion, i realise after all. For example we were previously arguing with Caravel the number of factions in the Iberian in early for a more interesting interaction and he would almost refuse to continue the debate unless "Portugal" was called "County of Portugal". Frankly that makes not much difference to me at all (it is the more interesting political military interaction that i'm after), but i realise it does to him (Nizaris become Nizari footsoldiers and the like are in the same spirit), its his touch for immersiveness that makes the game feel "historical" and i have my own such touches that he frequetly condemns (sometimes reasonably sometimes unfairly IMO) as he has used the word/expression "this is ahistorical" a large number of times as a response to my posts. So many that i wish he would make one of his fine jokes for himself relative to that

On the other hand i have my own prefered "touches" (for example for me its ahistorical allowing the Iberians to Crusade), but this is all subjective and a matter of taste at the end of the day.

I just make suggestions that have a practical/gameplay aspect and also by necessity an immersiveness feel. Its up to Caravel to dissmiss them or adopt them, however it is pointless unless i have the right to "defend them" conversation wise.

One of the reasons i dont pursue public release of my mini-mod, is because i am really not interested in suiting it to other's people gaming habits and standards and historical likes. I play the game i want to play.

I doubt if any of the mods may be called "historically accurate", as this is simply not possible within the limitations of the game, to my understanding. Only something that resembles history is possible and i try to reproduce that more in the way the game unfolds over time rather than respecting details and names in campaigns that will end up way off history anyway. All my suggestions are along that route.

Crusades shouldnt contain Knights Templar before capturing and holding the Holy Land as they didn't exist prior to that. However, we regard it as "historically ok". All rosters are pre-determined for a faction and this is the biggest historical inaccuracy ever. The way one fights and the men he recruits come to suit specific needs and historical developments - they are not predetermined a-priori! For example the English may launch a succesful Crusade in Andalucia in the game, but i have not included a crusader roster in Granada for them - its a pitty. If on the other hand i allow them the crusader roster in too many Muslim lands then they can eradicate the Muslims simply by swarming them - again ahistorical. So i end up giving the roster to them in a limited amount of provinces that they historically occupied in Crusades, because its a middle path and accounts for gameplay and historical accuracy.

There are many many other things that in reality are out of the question however nobody complains either because they became a habit to them game-wise or simply because there's nothing to be done.

The game balances awkwardly between "reproducing history" and "making history" while in the end it fails to do both IMO, and it doesn't really matter as long as the challenge and struggle are satisfactory as well as a feeling that "you've been there". It is for this that the way a campaign develops is where i put more focus rather than in reacreating details and initial conditions.

Many Thanks

Noir

[caravel]

Yes, posted previously that i agree, and it was calling for knights from Europe to join the Christian coalition of Iberian kingdoms against the Almohad threat that culminated in the aformentioned battle. A Spanish/Aragonese crusade wouldn't represent that as well as an English or French crusade that would suck in large amounts of Spanish troops at the border IMO, much like the ones i am getting at the moment. Or even better a combined attack of Spanish armies in combination with a French crusade another scenarion that i otfen see in the mini-mod.

I still disagree, because an English or French run Crusade to Cordoba would actually seize Cordoba for the English or French, and not for the Spanish or Aragonese. This puts them at a disadvantage. Rather than have the system your propose I would prefer to mod crusades out altogether. Also the Crusades in MTW are not based on history, they don't occur at the same dates that the true crusades occurred. The French may launch a Crusade for Arabia in 1100, is that any less ridiculous than the Spanish Crusading to Cordoba? Also as I state previously, the game doesn't follow historical events, so it is possible that Spanish empire controlling half of Europe should be able to launch crusades.

So, if its "they were involved" (Caravel) and "after a fashion"(the Unknown Guy), these battles/ involvements may be represented by crusades passing over lands and by proper wars. They certainly don't have to mean that the Spanish or Aragonese should have the ability throughout the middle ages to crusade against say the Byzantines or the Holy Land as they never did.

No, the Danes were involved in the sense that they were one of the factions that actually started it. With the crusade against Timur Lang, yes it should be a Lithuanian crusade sucking up units from territories it passes through.

I doubt in any case that the Spanish/Aragonese AI would crusade against the Almohads as before winning some or all of the Iberian he is not so well financially to do so prior to that. It is most likely that he would crusade against other places after he wins the Iberian. Wouldn't that be "ahistorical", as Caravel likes to often argue (simple and well meant humor and nothing more :)?

No it wouldn't be ahistorical in that sense. If you wish a totally historical campaign, then you would need it to run on a script where you do not interact at all. You would simply sit there and watch history unfold. MTW gives you a historical starting point and puts you in control from there. Crusade is not a unit, it is a potential that is there for any faction.

On top of this the "Reconquista" involved significant aid from mainland Europe to my understanding, and i can't see how this is better represented by allowing the Spanish/Aragonese launching their own crusades, as previously said. It needs to be a struggle that the Iberians win by a small margin and with external aid, not one that they hold all the winning cards and are allowed a choice in their enemy's destruction IMO. This were the "historical" element needs to be preserved and expressed in my opinion and allowing them the crusade is against that.

As I've stated previously, the reconquista cannot be modelled in that way, because outside help cannot be enlisted in that way, due to how crusades actually work in-game. The French marching through your territory sucking up all of your troops are not helping you reconquer Cordoba they are conquering it for themselves and stealing your troops to do that.

By the way in a recent campaign the pope got assassinated 3 times in a row in the "middle" agent era by a powerful but excommunicated Holy Roman Emperor. I dont recall seeing this by an AI faction in the vanilla or any other for that matter version, and it reminds me very much the historical incident you refer to. I have a feeling that its because of the border forts that such things cannot happen very often.

I agree with you, and if you read back in this thread, you'll see where I had planned the removal of border forts and where it was opposed. The issue for me is that if I was taking out border forts, I'd want watch towers to go also. Another factor is the behaviour of AI spies and assassins. I have been observing their movements of late and have not been impressed. Spies move randomly and assassins assassinate randomly. The counterspying is not always effective because the units won't stay still for long enough.

In any case the point i tried to make is that in vanilla religious unrest doesn't happen as the rebelliousness is low (0 as default value). In the home mini-mod i play is high (2 as default value) and put together with the slow conversion rates religious unrest is a common feature to advancing armies. I like this element very much and i find it way more historically accuarate than conversion in 20 turns with 4 priests that happens in vanilla and most mods.

I agree with you there, and I have said that I'll be working on that soon enough.

I agree with you, however that degrades the use and function of agents for the AI factions; the role of border forts may be reproduced by keeping some of your agents stationary to catch enemy spies and assassins and the effect is the same. As for the player causing havoc to the AI lands i mentioned that i play without offensive agent use.

Again, you can keep your agents stationary, a spy or assassin in each province, but the AI cannot do this effectively as it keeps shuffling them around. (see above)

All in all, border forts are a "device" added to make up for the incompetence of the AI in agent use and protect him from the player. What i do as mentioned is never use spies and assassins offensively (not in any province that i don't own or siege). This enables the AI to assassinate my generals and other factions' generals, princesses, emissaries, inquisitors and Popes. If you put border forts in, you end up with the same result ie keep your spies within your borders mot of the time, minus the activity of AI factions versus other AI factions and yourself.

I agree also. Border forts are exactly that, but from what I have seen there is no other mechanism to do this job. It is a pity that border forts did not function as base level spies, that would clean up rival 0 valour spies and assassins and some 1 and 2 valour. As it is they appear as something equivalent to a roughly 4 valour spy as it is extremely difficult to get anything below valour 5 past them. If border forts had worked as 0 valour spies they would have then been the stationary counterspy that the AI needs.

What sounds "reasonable", "logical" or "historical" i won't touch as it is a matter of feel or opinion, i realise after all. For example we were previously arguing with Caravel the number of factions in the Iberian in early for a more interesting interaction and he would almost refuse to continue the debate unless "Portugal" was called "County of Portugal".

That is nothing short of a gross exaggeration on your part. I was debating as to what the faction should be called, considering it didn't exist in 1087 as an independent kingdom that was a valid point. I didn't put the breaks on the whole debate due to that, in fact I made it clear previously that ideas for new factions would be welcome despite the fact that I haven't begun to work on new factions as yet.

Frankly that makes not much difference to me at all (it is the more interesting political military interaction that i'm after), but i realise it does to him (Nizaris become Nizari footsoldiers and the like are in the same spirit), its his touch for immersiveness that makes the game feel "historical" and i have my own such touches that he frequetly condemns (sometimes reasonably sometimes unfairly IMO) as he has used the word/expression "this is ahistorical" a large number of times as a response to my posts. So many that i wish he would make one of his fine jokes for himself relative to that

Nizaris became Nizari Footsoldiers because calling them simply "Nizaris" would be like calling Feudal Men at Arms "Feudals". Also Hashishin, were renamed "Nizaari Fedayeen" and they and Nizari Foot Soldiers ("Nizari Infantry" if you prefer?) had their training dependencies changed, and were allocated homelands.

On the other hand i have my own prefered "touches" (for example for me its ahistorical allowing the Iberians to Crusade), but this is all subjective and a matter of taste at the end of the day.

As I've said it's not ahistorical from a campaign perspective where the campaign does not follow historical events to the letter. For example the Almohads may never have build a Grand Mosque in Syria, so do you prevent them from doing that on the basis that it never happened historically? Do you not train a very large army and invade a certain province, because it didn't happen?

I just make suggestions that have a practical/gameplay aspect and also by necessity an immersiveness feel. Its up to Caravel to dissmiss them or adopt them, however it is pointless unless i have the right to "defend them" conversation wise.

I have listened to and adopted many of your suggestions. I have taken note of everything you've posted and have appreciated all of your input. I haven't dismissed it out of hand, in fact I've replied at length sometimes agreeing, sometimes not.

One of the reasons i dont pursue public release of my mini-mod, is because i am really not interested in suiting it to other's people gaming habits and standards and historical likes. I play the game i want to play.

That is all well and good, but you have to understand that this is a public mod. Also I dislike a mod that I have absolutely personalised to my tastes as then it gets boring and predictable. Similarly I dislike some of the other mods that have been personalised according to others tastes. You may see this mod as personalised, but I don't. I haven't added units that I like personally, I've only sought to add balance and correct errors. Some of the name changes were among the earliest work I have done on this mod. I haven't added personal favourite fantasy units based on Wikipedia articles, I have modified existing units. From your perspective this project may appear behind, but you are already playing a 90% finished mod and are basing many of your views of this mod on that one.

I doubt if any of the mods may be called "historically accurate", as this is simply not possible within the limitations of the game, to my understanding. Only something that resembles history is possible and i try to reproduce that more in the way the game unfolds over time rather than respecting details and names in campaigns that will end up way off history anyway. All my suggestions are along that route.

Exactly, hence my earlier crusade argument. But since we are representing cultures and a period of time, accuracy is important - otherwise we may as well give the Byzzie Infantry machine guns.

Crusades shouldnt contain Knights Templar before capturing and holding the Holy Land as they didn't exist prior to that. However, we regard it as "historically ok". All rosters are pre-determined for a faction and this is the biggest historical inaccuracy ever. The way one fights and the men he recruits come to suit specific needs and developments they are not predetermined a-priori! For example the English may launch a succesful Crusade in Andalucia in the game, but i have not included a crusader roster in Granada for them - its a pitty.

I have been working on this on and off, again you assume because I haven't addressed a problem, that I'm somehow a) not aware of it, b) don't care, c) have double standards as far as historical accuracy is concerned. I have most order Knights as trainable in their historic regions, and will be removing them from crusades at some point. At present I have a "to do" list as long as one of my wife's shopping lists and very limited time.

The game balances awkwardly between "reproducing history" and "making history" while in the end it fails to do both IMO, and it doesn't really matter as long as the challenge and struggle are satisfactory as well as a feeling that "you've been there". It is for this that the way a campaign develops is where i put more focus rather than in reacreating details and initial conditions.

The game doesn't seek to reproduce history. It gives the player a campaign on an historic theme. What were are trying to do here ( ) is improve gameplay while also correcting historical errors that actually can be corrected.

[Noir]

First off all comments do not come as criticisms or demands (and i think i have said that enough times in the past as to be believed?).

You are taking an apologetic/defensive mode, while i am simply debating. I take the role of the "devil's advocate" for the sake of putting things forth and i never mentioned anywhere that i feel you neglected them - unless you feel that because i debate them even when you dismiss them. I dont debate them to make you consider them more. I am debating them to debate them.

In certain cases i am adressing other people (as the Unknown Guy or General Dazza) and discuss a thing as the conversion rates with them. I dont repeat the discission to get on your nerves, i know that we've made it already - i just make it with them.

I also posted a number of times that i understand the fact that this needs to appeal as a public release, and i really do - i still don't see why though i shouldn't post and argue my ideas and thoughts even if they arent meant to please a wider player base. Some of them might still be useful perhaps, no?

The fact that i judge from a 90% finished mod is better in my opinion as it hepls showing blank areas - it doesn't mean that i think you don't know were the blank areas lie. The full of the aims you put forward for the mod are way out of reach if you dont alter the map and include more factions IMO, so i suggested you introduced them and also remember that i offered a helping hand with file work and my offer still stands.

As for standards relative to historical accuracy, yes i believe you have indeed double as all of us IMO, and i mean to say that you put emphasis to certain elements and much less into others IMO. My "exaggeration" was in line to bring this out as an example, it was not in any way to offend or misinterpret you, despite having achieved one or both of the latter two apparently, rather than my original aim.

Crusades in the way they are put in the game, expressing a faction's potential as you posted do not correspond to 3 fragile militarised kingdoms pushed back in the backwater Pyrhenies IMO.

An alternative would be to allow the Spanish to Crusade in the late era but not in the early era, say.

Introducing the French to Cordoba after a succesful crusade is a possibility anyway as the game stands - they are allowed to do so if they wish. The matter in question is whether the early Free Christian kingdoms themselves can do it, by holding onto Aragon, Castille, Navarre and Portugal alone, and they most likely won't, as the money they are getting are not enough most of the time in my experience.

On top of this not all Crusades were of the same size or of the same scope, and the game cannot reflect that unfortunately. It ends up in the "ahistorical" result of a Hungarian Crusade of the late era being as large as a German Crusade of the early era. Ahistorical in the sense that the two factions exactly shouldn't enjoy the same potential and that the two expeditions would be most likely far apart in aims and participation.

I repeat that i debate, and there is no need to feel as i am demanding, misinterpreting accusing or anything else. If i made mistakes i am happy to aknowledge them. I enjoy reading the thread and trying out your mod in any case. I am not bothered at all in how many things from the ones i say you'll take on board or not, and i mean this in a good sense.

Please dont feel like this, as i dont mean my posts in this way - disagreeing in opinions is one thing, getting nervous is another. I tried to enter humorous touches in my expressions, but judjing from the response ( ) i better give this a rest.

So, I think i'll rest my case for a (short) while now.



With all my good will:

Apologies (if needed) & (as always) Many Thanks

Noir

[The Unknown Guy]

Crusades in the way they are put in the game, expressing a faction's potential as you posted do not correspond to 3 fragile militarised kingdoms pushed back in the backwater Pyrhenies

This is more suited to the Library forums, but still, since it's a historical context discussion...

First: they weren't "backwater Pyrenees" kingdoms. It was all the northern zone of the Iberian Peninsula. It hardly çualifies as "backwater". It does çualify as "more montanious and defensible than the rest", AND those regions were more politically stable in the original Kingdom of Hispania (Mostly Visigoths, with Suevs in the North-west and Cantabrians/Basçues in the Northern centre) than the volatile southern duchies (To be honest, the internecine wars between the different duchies played a role there as well), which is the reason why the original arab invasion in 7ll stopped where it stopped. Going into a terrain with strong local rulers with a taste for guerrilla warfare seemed like a Very Bad Idea for them, specially since their lands weren't specially fertile, were cold, and by that point they were rather content. Those same kingdoms were responsible for the defeat of Roland's army in Spain. I'd not call them military weak. As for Aragon: the origin is latter: it was originally "the Spanish Marçue" of Charlemagne's Empire, with the ruler being a Count. Nominally Charlemagne had come to "aid" them in their defense against the muslims. After one of his armies was massacred in the west (see above: Roland's army) and the original Caliphate massacred another in the south, he decided to beat it. It didn't take long for the "Count" of Aragon to begin styling himself "Count-King"
Another reason not to disregard the military strenght of the Northern Kingdoms is that, after the Caliphate broke up (some decades before the game's start date), the Taifas kingdoms started to pool their wealth into hiring them as mercs. This in turn meant that the formerly not-too-prosperous Christian Kingdoms found themselves with a lot of wealth to amuse themselves, and keep stronger armies, with better eçuipped and trained soldiers.
(A somewhat later, but still relevant event would be the Aragonese Crusade, where a pope was asked by the French permission to launch a crusade against the excommunicated Count-King of Aragon. Which ended up with a major defeat, and several members of the French Royal Family being massacred while trying to withdraw through the Pyrenees)
To make it brief: those lands were "poorer", but the rulers holding them were certainly not "weak". They would have been throughly annihilated by their neighbours otherwise.

The crusade against the almohads was waged mainly by Iberian Kingdoms. I'd almost say "solely", but I would not hazard that right now. The Pope didnt
ask "for all Christianity to stop the Almohads". Rather, he politely reçuested that the Iberian Christian Kingdoms stopped battering each other up for a bit and presented a common front to the Almohads. And it ended up in a major victory despite the joint Portuguese-Navarrean-Castilian-Aragonese army being half the numbers of the new Caliphate's. Of course we dont know the exact composition of each side's troops. But, as I said, by that point the Christian Kingdoms had been receiving cash from the Taifas kingdoms for years, and investing it mostly in military strenght.

I still disagree, because an English or French run Crusade to Cordoba would actually seize Cordoba for the English or French, and not for the Spanish or Aragonese. This puts them at a disadvantage. Rather than have the system your propose I would prefer to mod crusades out altogether. Also the Crusades in MTW are not based on history, they don't occur at the same dates that the true crusades occurred. The French may launch a Crusade for Arabia in 1100, is that any less ridiculous than the Spanish Crusading to Cordoba? Also as I state previously, the game doesn't follow historical events, so it is possible that Spanish empire controlling half of Europe should be able to launch crusades.

My point exactly. What if the king of Portugal/Navarre/Castile/Aragon had managed to beat up their rivals by that point and claim the rights to the crown of the old Visigoth kingdom? I doubt his ambitions would have ended up there. In fact, historically, those kings pursued territories both inside and outside of the Iberian Peninsula. In fact, both Castile and Aragon did that, seizing the Canary Islands, and the Balears/Naples/Sicily/Athens, respectively.

[Noir]

Thank you for a very informative post.

I quote from it:

I'd not call them military weak.

Neither did i - i said they were fragile in the sense that were were small political entities and that their future was uncertain at that point in history.

...specially since their lands weren't specially fertile, were cold, and by that point they were rather content

Essentially a backwater place? The fact that it wasn't fertile was the reason why the Muslims supposedly ignored it in the first place AFAIK.

The crusade against the almohads was waged mainly by Iberian Kingdoms. I'd almost say "solely", but I would not hazard that right now. The Pope didnt
ask "for all Christianity to stop the Almohads". Rather, he politely reçuested that the Iberian Christian Kingdoms stopped battering each other up for a bit and presented a common front to the Almohads. And it ended up in a major victory despite the joint Portuguese-Navarrean-Castilian-Aragonese army being half the numbers of the new Caliphate's.

It is not documented officially as a Crusade, but as the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa and it is not given a crusade No. AFAIK. As to the numbers of northeners i really need to research that more - it seems that i am wrong according to your post in my statements - apologies for that.

The battle ended in victory as "...after some disagreements among the members of the Christian coalition, Alfonso managed to cross the mountain range that defended the Almohad camp, sneaking through the Despeñaperros Pass, so that the Christian coalition caught by surprise and smashed the Moorish army that left some 100,000 casualties at the battleground."

That is in an open encounter it might have ended in defeat for the Christians much like the battle (or disaster) of Alarcos.

All i was trying to point is that the "Reconquista" was a tough affair that could have gone either way against a superior in numbers enemy, and it should be so in the game.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Martok]

This is just a gentle reminder to stay on topic, guys. Not that what you're discussing is completely irrelavent, but it *is* starting to stray a bit off-track. Please try and confine your comments here to discussion of the Pocket Mod. (If you like, I can also split this off into a separate thread and move it to the Monastery.)

[General Dazza]

I think this is on-topic (apologies Martok if it isn't )...

Cambysess, I understand your points re border forts. However I'd clarify what I was getting at. I don't see border forts in their literal sense - forts on the border stopping people getting into the province. I see them as the agents and informants within the population that work for the local ruler.

It makes sense that when enemies or instigators of disunity come into a province's city, they will have to be careful of what they say and do for fear of being noticed. That 'network' is what I see the border forts as representing.

True, spies and assassins can do the same thing, but I see them as being mobile and singular, whereas the local network is neither, and is something that would naturally be established, even in times of lawlessness.

I agree that they would be more realistic and better for gameplay if they were equal to a level 1 spy, and this would be a good improvement to any mod. And maybe they could be renamed to 'local spy network' or something.

[The Unknown Guy]

You could interpretate spies and assasins as the agent + their web of direct informants&provocateurs. Thus, when an assasin "catches" a spy, it´s more on the lines of one of his "singing birds" in the city which he uses to find a target's bodyguard weak spots, tells him that someone is acting very odd around. So he goes and slits his throat.

[caravel]

the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa and it is not given a crusade No. AFAIK.

It is not a good idea to pay too much heed to "crusade numbers", they are historically recognised crusades carried out by the western european kingdoms, probably named, chronicled and preserved by those kingdoms themselves. The Crusade numbering is entirely from an English/French/German perspective and just because other crusades don't have numbers it doesn't make them less important. A crusade in that period was any kind of military expedition to capture territory from pagans or other non christians. This was pretty much the criteria for the pope authorising one. There were man minor crusades, and not all crusades were to the holy land. In selecting the French, English and HRE you appear to be selecting only the "numbered" crusades of popular history that were aimed at the holy land. Another factor you have perhaps not considered is that when a faction becomes excommunicated and the pope requests a crusade against them, only those factions that participated in the numbered crusades to the holy land can respond.