Side effects of changing time scale

[Foz]

That's a flawed analogy because in real baseball there are 9 innings so it's expected that there will be... 9 innings. Most people who would play a baseball game would not be looking to change the number of innings. If you play a baseball game, you do expect the same number of innings as in the real sport. Same as in Hockey, football, etc. Medieval 2 doesn't necessarily have those same comparisons. CA could've made the time flow at 1 turn per year, or used the RTW time flow. Essentially there is nothing other than the developers decision that the default time flow was 2 years per turn.

Ahh, but it does have those same comparisons, which you just proved for me. Did you read what you wrote? What you described about M2TW is exactly what was done by the person who laid out the rules for the first baseball game: he picked an otherwise arbitrary length for the game, which was then the rule for the game. There's no sublime reason for a baseball game to be 9 innings - it simply is, which should be good enough for M2TW as well.

As for the rest of your comments, they all stem from this perceived difference between baseball and M2TW, which is really naught but shadow. They are both games, with rules - rules that you play by, rules that determine whether you win or lose, rules made by men. Your comments do not account for that most basic truth, and therefore are largely irrelevant to what I said.

If the rules were not meant to be changed, the number of turns would be hard coded. Clearly it was not, and was intended to be changed, and fairly easy as it were. CA makes the game easy to be modded compared to many other games out there, so that each player can play according to their own "rules", rather than the rules that the devs decided before hand.

Hah! That's laughable. If the number of turns were MEANT to be changed, it would be an option in the game, and not require editing of a file that the game reads to get its settings. CA makes the game easy to modify so that MODS can be released: you know, those vastly different games that just happen to run off the base M2TW engine? Not so players like you and I can change 2 settings. Don't suggest that ease of modding indicates CA intended each player to have control over a given setting: it doesn't. It only indicates that they know modders may need to control that setting for the purposes of their mods. Settings intended to be controlled by players are, of course, in the options menus provided with the game, and require no such editing of any game files.

[_Tristan_]

The main discrepancy I see in the 2-year turn is the character aging.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but at the start of my french campaign, my two sons were one or two year olds and reached their useful age only thirty years later (15 turns).

Seems strange...

Is there any way to make sure they age correctly ?

[Skyline Pete]

From my understanding family members/agents age at the end of every winter turn. So running at .5 will be fine but running at 1 might cause problems.

I have modded my game enough to run at .5 and am currently (when I get free time *sigh*) testing it. I've not adjusted building times or cash income at all, purely altered population growth levels and the caps required to upgrade cities/castles in the hope that it will stop citadels/very large cities from appearing too early. Unit speed has also been left untouched as I feel it is reasonable that an army can only march so far in 6 months.

I'm still testing it out so we'll so how I go.

The whole reason for my modding the game was that I wanted to run at a 6 month set, plus it just looked weird only having winter every 4 years.

[Agent Smith]

Back on topic

I have modded my game enough to run at .5 and am currently (when I get free time *sigh*) testing it. I've not adjusted building times or cash income at all, purely altered population growth levels and the caps required to upgrade cities/castles in the hope that it will stop citadels/very large cities from appearing too early. Unit speed has also been left untouched as I feel it is reasonable that an army can only march so far in 6 months.

I'm still testing it out so we'll so how I go.

The whole reason for my modding the game was that I wanted to run at a 6 month set, plus it just looked weird only having winter every 4 years.

I never thought about population growth. Altering build times without altering population growth could lead to very bad things, namely huge amounts of squalor with long waiting periods to get law buildings.

What file did you mod to change population growth rate?

Anyway, here is a list of things I think should be modded to make a 0.5 years/turn game really run well in a long term pace:

1.) Change all building times to 4x their original length.
2.) Cut population growth by 1/4.
3.) Cut unit upkeep by 1/4.
4.) Cut city/castle income by 1/4.

With those changes implemented, it should make the game the same as the vanilla game, but simply longer. Also, this will make sure that players don't have 1500 era armies when the Mongols invade. It will also force a player to fight with low level troops early and, because their is less income per turn, taking losses will mean a whole lot more because the cost of retraining will remain the same.

I agree that 6 months to train a unit makes sense. I also think that the actual unit/building costs shouldn't need to be changed. The buildings should cost the same, and the increased length of time needed to build them should offset the longer campaign time. If dirt roads takes 2 years (1 turn) to build and 400 florins, it should still cost 400 florins, but just take longer (4 turns) in a slower campaign.

Also, I was thinking about the fact that making the campaign slower paced actually makes agents more useful. In my vanilla campaigns, assassins, and often times priests and spies, were virtually useless. Why assassinate a king or family member when you can jsut roll in with your army and take him out? Why bother sending priests in when you can just roll in with your army, take the city, and build some churches? Extended time will greatly improve agent warfare because you can't jsut build an uber army right away, nor can you march in and build a church in one turn.

[Foz]

You're simply wrong here, Smith. Modding has never been a function of keeping individual players happy. The primary reason any company includes the ability to mod their game is in the hopes that people will release vast amounts of mods that will get other players on board and thus sell more copies of their game. It also serves to significantly lengthen the lifespan of the game by keeping things fresh from new mod-injected content, again motivated by the hope that this causes more sales and gains the game/series more acclaim (which causes more sales next installment). I'm not saying companies specifically do not intend players to mod the game, I'm simply saying it's not the reason the ability to mod the game is there.

I fail to see how wanting to make a campaign longer is cheating, which is basically what you are accusing everyone of doing who makes the campaign last longer. It's no more cheating than adding your own unit to the game.

Precisely right - they both are, because they fundamentally change how the game plays. More on this below - "cheating" is NOT what I'm getting at.

I agree that 6 months to train a unit makes sense. I also think that the actual unit/building costs shouldn't need to be changed. The buildings should cost the same, and the increased length of time needed to build them should offset the longer campaign time. If dirt roads takes 2 years (1 turn) to build and 400 florins, it should still cost 400 florins, but just take longer (4 turns) in a slower campaign.

Also, I was thinking about the fact that making the campaign slower paced actually makes agents more useful. In my vanilla campaigns, assassins, and often times priests and spies, were virtually useless. Why assassinate a king or family member when you can jsut roll in with your army and take him out? Why bother sending priests in when you can just roll in with your army, take the city, and build some churches? Extended time will greatly improve agent warfare because you can't jsut build an uber army right away, nor can you march in and build a church in one turn.

It's ideas like this that are exactly why I have commented as I have, Smith. You've actually endorsed making most things operate at the same per-year rate, but allowing units to be recruited 4 times faster than usual, and for everything in game to move 4 times further than usual in a given amount of time (not to mention that religious conversion which no one mentioned will happen at a per-year rate 4 times faster than it used to). I don't care at all what you do to your game honestly - I have no personal stake in that. What I do have, though, is a concern about people using a mod like this and then contributing to discussions on this forum. Any one of those 3 changes I just mentioned is enough to make any discussions about gameplay with users of this mod entirely worthless. My comments have not been motivated by some overdeveloped sense of what is cheating, but rather by the fact that doing this to the game fundamentally changes it, and people should at least know that if they consistently play the game with this modification, they pretty much can't comment in the regular gameplay threads because they aren't playing the same game anymore.

In order to possibly avoid that, you'd have to at least add:

5) 1/4 movement speed for all units/agents
6) 1/4 recruit speed for agents/units
7) 1/4 religious conversion rates

So I guess the pertinent point is, do you want this to change the gameplay, or to try to stay as parallel to it as possible? If the case turns out to be the former, I'd request you move your discussion to the modding threads since as I said it would not be sufficiently close to the base game to be discussed alongside it.

[Agent Smith]

You're simply wrong here, Smith. Modding has never been a function of keeping individual players happy.

Am I? You are seemingly agreeing with me.

The primary reason any company includes the ability to mod their game is in the hopes that people will release vast amounts of mods that will get other players on board and thus sell more copies of their game.

And why weren't those other players "on board" to start with? It's because they weren't happy with the finished product. I agree modding gets other people on board, but it is for the reason I stated. Allowing people to tweak their game allows for a more customizable experience and happy gamers. And happy gamers = more copies sold = more money for CA.

It also serves to significantly lengthen the lifespan of the game by keeping things fresh from new mod-injected content, again motivated by the hope that this causes more sales and gains the game/series more acclaim (which causes more sales next installment).

And why is the lifespan increased? Because gamers can tweak the game to make it more enjoyable and add new content if they didn't like it in the first place. That increases longevity because players are happier with the way their personal game is working.

I don't know, perhaps we should just agree to disagree, but modding has always been a function of making individual players happy. The more people you satisfy, the more games you sell. And you can make a greater number of individuals happy by allowing easy access to game files so they can change things up every now and then.

Precisely right - they both are, because they fundamentally change how the game plays. More on this below - "cheating" is NOT what I'm getting at.

Ok, that's a clearer way of putting it.

It's ideas like this that are exactly why I have commented as I have, Smith. You've actually endorsed making most things operate at the same per-year rate, but allowing units to be recruited 4 times faster than usual, and for everything in game to move 4 times further than usual in a given amount of time (not to mention that religious conversion which no one mentioned will happen at a per-year rate 4 times faster than it used to).

Geez oh Pete, they are just suggestions! There seems to be some like minded people here that want to extend the game, and I was suggesting some things that could be done to do that. These same people discussing it could easily modify the movement rates, conversion rates, etc. if they wanted to, I was just suggesting that they stay the same.

I don't care at all what you do to your game honestly - I have no personal stake in that. What I do have, though, is a concern about people using a mod like this and then contributing to discussions on this forum. Any one of those 3 changes I just mentioned is enough to make any discussions about gameplay with users of this mod entirely worthless. My comments have not been motivated by some overdeveloped sense of what is cheating, but rather by the fact that doing this to the game fundamentally changes it, and people should at least know that if they consistently play the game with this modification, they pretty much can't comment in the regular gameplay threads because they aren't playing the same game anymore.

So some of us can't comment on gameplay if we use a mod?

Look, there will always be some players who aren't as "advanced" in game mechanics departments as others, but I think the people that understand how the game works are usually best qualified to comment on how the game is played. The modders on these forums probably use their own mods constantly, and I'd trust some of their advice on the game more than others. Not to mention that modding something like the turns/year has nothing to do at all with the vast majority of other aspects to the game, like, say, the entire battle system.

I've played the game plenty using vanilla, so I'm no less qualified to discuss gameplay than anyone else here. And, actually, when people use a mod I usually see them preface a comment by saying that they are using a modded game. I don't see any problem with that.

I don't see why there has to be such a purist attitude about generally discussing the game.

So I guess the pertinent point is, do you want this to change the gameplay, or to try to stay as parallel to it as possible? If the case turns out to be the former, I'd request you move your discussion to the modding threads since as I said it would not be sufficiently close to the base game to be discussed alongside it.

If it really irks you that much I wouldn't mind the thread being moved. It's no big deal to me. The general concept of slowing the pace down, though, seems to be of more "general interest" to me since it is in line with RTW, which many of us are used to. But, to each his own.

No hard feelings. I don't want to start a fight or anything.

[Bob the Insane]

Back on topic

What file did you mod to change population growth rate?

descr_regions.txt

\data\world\maps\base


Example entry:

Inverness_Province
	Inverness
	scotland
	English_Rebels
	20 25 225
	atlantic, explorers_guild
	5
	4
	religions { catholic 90 orthodox 0 islam 0 pagan 5 heretic 5 }

Where the 4 second from the bottom is the argicultural output, I simple reduced by a faction of four...

One nice unintentional effect was that in a lot of provinces they noo longer grew at Very High tax rates unless you had a really good governer which lead ot interesting choices..

[Agent Smith]

descr_regions.txt

\data\world\maps\base


Example entry:

Inverness_Province
	Inverness
	scotland
	English_Rebels
	20 25 225
	atlantic, explorers_guild
	5
	4
	religions { catholic 90 orthodox 0 islam 0 pagan 5 heretic 5 }

Where the 4 second from the bottom is the argicultural output, I simple reduced by a faction of four...

One nice unintentional effect was that in a lot of provinces they noo longer grew at Very High tax rates unless you had a really good governer which lead ot interesting choices..

Thanks! I think I have all of the pieces to try and make a few modifications.

On a side note, one of the reasons I wanted to keep the movement/recruitment rate the way it is without reducing it by a factor of four is because it at least seems more "historically accurate." I know that term gets thrown around a lot, so sorry for using it again.

I was trying to find some good examples of medieval battles that would represent what I mean, and I think a good example may be found in the battle of Bannockburn. The Scots laid siege at Sterling around the beginning of lent (early March) and Edward raised his army at Berwick-upon-Tweed. Edward was able to gather his army and get 15 miles short of Stirling at Falkirk by June 22nd. That is between three and a half and four month's time. However, the actual traveling portion took very little from Berwick to Falkirk. The English force left Berwick on June 17th, so they basically reached their objective in 5 days time. The distance wasn't too great, but one can see actual marching times were not too long. It seems that actually gathering an army took the vast majority of the time.

Anyway, that's just one example. If anyone has any other medieval battles to share for perspective on the issue, let me know!

[Carl]

Just to throw My own oar in here.

First I'df like to point out that data gathered from people who have modified their game to 0.5 years a turn is no diffrent than data gathered from those who have chosen to play beyond 1530. It's also no diffrent than data gathered inside a normal 2 turns per year game anyway. What matter is what happens on a turn by turn basis, NOT a year by year basis, HEll, by defualt you don't even know what year it actually IS. Most of the things that are discussed are about how many turns it takes to do somthing. For example I went on about how many turns it takes to get Merchants established in vanillia, now TB I played exactly 1 hour of 2 years a turn before going to 0.5. But changing the number of years changes nothing I was talking about. Characters age at 0.5 years per turn regardless of how many years the turn counts as.

A few other important considerations:

1. A poll a while back showed a very large percentage of the responders did not use the defualt time scale, that implies a fairly big part of the online community in fact is giving results at somthing other than the defualt timescale.

2. It takes a fairly LONG time, (in my V1.14 beta which has big AI improvments it's still a good 100-150 turns for most factions, I never played defualt long enough to see how long that took), for the AI to get upto speed, playing with more turns actually gives the AI a chance if you take your time.

3. Some people actually like to be at peace with all their neighbours for prolonged periods of time, i see no reason they should be unable to win just because they don't want to be fighting on 3 fronts all a once. Total War DOES NOT mean littrial total War, it just means your primary means of acomplishing your objective is war. If diplomacy didn't mean anything it wouldn't be in.

I myself modified it orgionally to make the years and charater ages match up. However furthar modding for my V1.14 beta to cut down blitzing speeds as well as other littile tweaks means it's fairly likliy now that I could never finish a slow campaign in 225 turns, I'd expect the 30 turns blitzer to struggle to manage under 150 turns now.

Not everyone changes the timescale to get an advantage, they often change it because of other in game changes or because they want a diffrent style of gamplay, or as in my case just to make the game make sense.

[alex9337]

I have played campaigns with the vanilla timescale (1 turn = 2 years), modified (1 turn = 1 year) and also modified (1 turn = 6 months).

While the drawback does exist where I win before I see the Timurids, etc has been stated and is acknowledged, the modified option where my generals age at a rate = to the game turns (1 turn = 6 months) I find to be the most enjoyable option for me

[Moah]

I have played campaigns with the vanilla timescale (1 turn = 2 years), modified (1 turn = 1 year) and also modified (1 turn = 6 months).

While the drawback does exist where I win before I see the Timurids, etc has been stated and is acknowledged, the modified option where my generals age at a rate = to the game turns (1 turn = 6 months) I find to be the most enjoyable option for me

At 2 turns/year I never see the Timurids or the New World. I have to keep playing past victory to see the Mongols if I'm any faction other than Russia or the Turks. Not to mention being unbeatable by the time I get gunpowder.

The game is too easy to win in basic timescale. At 2 turns a year it would be impossible not to win before anything above happens - if you're trying to win.

I know people on these baords are saying "well don't attack, stay put, turtle etc) but that just means handicapping yourself and playing "badly" (i.e. not to win). If you wait too long and are beaten you haven't really lost you've just handicapped yourself too much.

Having said that I have just started a campaign as the Turks and am trying not to blitz, but it's just sooo hard! What level do I stay at? 4 cities? 10? Asia Minor? Middle East? Balkans? Do you never attack an enemy city? Attack one city per invasion? Also what do you do each turn? Deliberately nothing except build? Is it not dull?

Not saying anyone is wrong to play like that, just hard for me given my personal style. My fingers just itch when I have a full stack doing nothing except sitting in my border city for defense...I have never imposed limits before, so I don't know what to set...

In case anyone cares I have decided to stick at Constantinople until the Mongols (so wait for them before my european invasion can start). i may allow myself raids - i.e. wipe out Byzantines in greece, sack, strip and abandon. I am allowing myself the Middle East - I will stop at Egypt. Whether I can do it or my natural instincts will win out I don't know...

[gardibolt]

I wonder how the VH difficulty would play out if the AI were given a timeline about 30 turns ahead of the player---the AI gets gunpowder faster, etc. Not realistic of course, but it would help keep the AI more competitive. Maybe even when a new campaign begins have the AI take 30 turns instantly so that it can develop and all those tasty rebel territories that the player gets fat on are no longer so easy to get.

[Agent Smith]

CA makes the game easy to modify so that MODS can be released: you know, those vastly different games that just happen to run off the base M2TW engine? Not so players like you and I can change 2 settings. Don't suggest that ease of modding indicates CA intended each player to have control over a given setting: it doesn't. It only indicates that they know modders may need to control that setting for the purposes of their mods. Settings intended to be controlled by players are, of course, in the options menus provided with the game, and require no such editing of any game files.

That's rubbish.

The reason for making a game easy to mod is simply so players can get the most out of their game. To suggest that they only did it for those hard-core people that can make their own 3d units and basically make a whole new game is just silly.

Also, the reason these weren't options in game is also simple. If they turned everything into options, the game would never be released because they'd be too busy making things options and balancing the game for each. CA makes the game, makes the ideal settings, and then gives people easy access to the files so they can play with them whenever they want.

This is exactly what happened with Civ IV. Players simply wanted to be able to fiddle with the things in the game. It's for fun, not such a serious "game creation/modding" reason. From making all new factions to simply changing a banner or two because you don't like how they look, these are all reasons for making the files easily accessible.

I fail to see how wanting to make a campaign longer is cheating, which is basically what you are accusing everyone of doing who makes the campaign last longer. It's no more cheating than adding your own unit to the game.