MTW Pocket Mod: Units, Buildings and Unit Stats

[Martok]

Indeed, though if I am to go with having the smith buildings as not being required to train units then I will probably re-think the costs and incomes of the upgrades anyway. Especially if they are to depend on resources in the province.

True. Should we then increase the cost/income so that they'd be more equivalent to the Mine/Forester buildings, do you think? Or is that too much?

Well "Shoppe" is equated to old english (e.g. "ye olde shoppe") but is in fact a fanciful term and not really old or middle english. The other factor is that we're not only dealing with the english but many european catholic kingdoms, eastern kingdom's and muslim sultanates.

Gah. Yeah, that's a good point, especially regarding the non-Catholic factions. I suppose we could try and find appropriate names/terms for the Orthodox and Muslim factions, but that'd probably be more trouble than it's worth.

I'm thinking that for, now leave the names as they are and edit the descriptions. Anyone who is wondering why these buildings don't train any units can check these. Plus them not being available in every province - with none at all available in some provinces, this should clarify that they're not a necessity.

Fair enough. I would still strongly suggest that we rename them at some point, but you're right in that it's not really a priority.

To expand on this, I already have another building of this type in existence, namely the forester. I have looked through the available review panel icons and have found many move unused buildings of the "Workshop, Guild, Master" types including:

Glassmaker
Leatherworker
Mason
Potter
Salter
Vintner
Weaver

I may include some of these also (dependent on resources).

Yeah, that would work. I'd love to see most of these structures in the game (except the Salter, obviously, since we've already got Salt Mines). In fact, I wish I'd thought of some of them myself.

I'm thinking that the Muster field line should be short, only two buildings. It is only for low level levies and some special province specific units anyway.

Ah, okay. Muster Field --> Levy Field/Levy Grounds?

I could go with all of those except the stables line. You see I'm thinking that the stables will not be required for Knights, but Knights will depend on the Royal Court line of buildings and not the Horse Farmer line. Perhaps something less related to nobility?

Crap; I'd forgotten that. Let's see:

Stables, Constables' Stables, Gendarmes' Stables, Master Stables

Again, probably not my greatest effort. I'll see if I can't come up with something better later on here.

Perhaps then units should not depend on the smith buildings, this would remove the problem.

Yeah. Probably best to just keep it simple for now.

[caravel]

True. Should we then increase the cost/income so that they'd be more equivalent to the Mine/Forester buildings, do you think? Or is that too much?

It's have to be balanced out, perhaps lowering both cost and income across the board, but to achieve and end result of a higher income per province than there is currently.

Gah. Yeah, that's a good point, especially regarding the non-Catholic factions. I suppose we could try and find appropriate names/terms for the Orthodox and Muslim factions, but that'd probably be more trouble than it's worth.

The problem with that is that they would need to be separate buildings as you cannot have different names per culture for the same building.

Fair enough. I would still strongly suggest that we rename them at some point, but you're right in that it's not really a priority.

Well when some better names can be though of then yes, though in my opinion the names as they are make more sense than anything else I can think. They imply weapons manufacture and not weapons training.

Yeah, that would work. I'd love to see most of these structures in the game (except the Salter, obviously, since we've already got Salt Mines). In fact, I wish I'd thought of some of them myself.

The Salter can still be added, and dependent on the salt mine, which in turn would depend on the Salt resource. Some other interdependency examples would include:

Leatherworker [Tanner?] <- Hides (resource), Improved Farmland ??%
Mason <- No dependency* -> Keep and above??
Vintner <- Wine (resource), Improved Farmland ??%

*I don't want to introduce quarries but it might be an idea?

To summarise the above: The Tanner would depend on the Hides resource and Improved Farmland of a particular level. Perhaps each level of Tanner (Workshop, Guild, Master) could be tied to each level of Farmland upgrade. The exact same would go for the Vintner except that it would depend on the Wine resource. The Mason could just be another low income generating building, perhaps present in most developed provinces at the start of the campaign. (I now have the "capitals" with at least a keep for every faction). As the castle needs upgrading the mason would also need it. It would also be, indirectly, the prerequisite for buildings such as Cathedrals, Grand Mosques, Military Academies etc etc. The masons would also be a way of ensuring that the AI reaches a certain income level before upgrading the castle (Re: YLC's idea earlier).

Examples:

Keep <- Mason
Castle <- Masons' Workshop
Citadel <- Masons' Guild
Fortress <- Master Mason

Ah, okay. Muster Field --> Levy Field/Levy Grounds?

Well as I've said before, Muster Field and Inn, or Inn and Muster Field?? (I'm assuming, as was usually the case that all local troops were effectively mercenaries at that time requiring pay either in land, loot, wenches, ale or titles. The Inn would be the first step, the muster field would be the later step for levying better troops OR the muster field would be the first step for low class militias and the Inn would be the next for meeting with the local leaders of various militias, clans etc.

Crap; I'd forgotten that. Let's see:

Stables, Constables' Stables, Gendarmes' Stables, Master Stables

Again, probably not my greatest effort. I'll see if I can't come up with something better later on here.

First and last are ok by me, but the second and third are too restrictive culturally.

Yeah. Probably best to just keep it simple for now.

[Martok]

It's have to be balanced out, perhaps lowering both cost and income across the board, but to achieve and end result of a higher income per province than there is currently.

Ah, so you mean lower the build cost & income for mines, while raising the build cost & income for the Smith buildings (so that they're closer to being equal)?

Well when some better names can be though of then yes, though in my opinion the names as they are make more sense than anything else I can think. They imply weapons manufacture and not weapons training.

To you and me they do, yes. What I'm wondering, however, is whether other players will make that same distinction. Sorry, I know I'm probably just making a mountain out of a molehill....

The Salter can still be added, and dependent on the salt mine, which in turn would depend on the Salt resource. Some other interdependency examples would include:

Leatherworker [Tanner?] <- Hides (resource), Improved Farmland ??%
Mason <- No dependency* -> Keep and above??
Vintner <- Wine (resource), Improved Farmland ??%

Yeah, I like that. For the Leatherworker/Tanner, I'd say go with just the 20% Improved Farmland -- I don't think the requirements should be super-high for that. I'd say the Mason should depend on either the Keep or *maybe* the Castle, depending on how much income it'll bring in (a mere Fort is definitely too low). With the Vintner, I'd suggest the 40% farmland, maybe even 60% (again, depending on how lucrative it would be).

*I don't want to introduce quarries but it might be an idea?

That, I'm not sure of. I guess it would probably depend on how common they were during the time period: Were there quarries all over the place, or were they relatively rare? If it's the latter, then I'd say it could be worth looking at adding them in. If it's the former and quarries were a dime a dozen, then I'd say we shouldn't bother with them.

To summarise the above: The Tanner would depend on the Hides resource and Improved Farmland of a particular level. Perhaps each level of Tanner (Workshop, Guild, Master) could be tied to each level of Farmland upgrade. The exact same would go for the Vintner except that it would depend on the Wine resource.

Agreed.

The Mason could just be another low income generating building, perhaps present in most developed provinces at the start of the campaign. (I now have the "capitals" with at least a keep for every faction). As the castle needs upgrading the mason would also need it.

Well since I'd already guessed that that's how we'd do it anyway, I'm definitely all for it.

It would also be, indirectly, the prerequisite for buildings such as Cathedrals, Grand Mosques, Military Academies etc etc. The masons would also be a way of ensuring that the AI reaches a certain income level before upgrading the castle (Re: YLC's idea earlier).

Examples:

Keep <- Mason
Castle <- Masons' Workshop
Citadel <- Masons' Guild
Fortress <- Master Mason

Excellent idea. With any luck, doing so could also help prevent the AI from upgrading castles for which it can't justify the cost (i.e., upgrading to a Citadel in Scotland before upgrading to a Citadel in Aquitaine).

Well as I've said before, Muster Field and Inn, or Inn and Muster Field?? (I'm assuming, as was usually the case that all local troops were effectively mercenaries at that time requiring pay either in land, loot, wenches, ale or titles. The Inn would be the first step, the muster field would be the later step for levying better troops OR the muster field would be the first step for low class militias and the Inn would be the next for meeting with the local leaders of various militias, clans etc.

I would say put the Muster Field first, and then upgrade to the Inn. I couldn't say why exactly, except that it just "feels" right.

First and last are ok by me, but the second and third are too restrictive culturally.

Yeah, I'm not keen on the 2nd and 3rd ones either, but I've been stuck on finding better names for them.

The only alternatives I can think of right now would be Yeomenry Stables and Guard Stables, but I'm not wild about those either -- aside from those names not making a whole lot of sense IMO, I'm also trying to avoid copying too much from the Barracks & Range buildings. I briefly considered Militia Stables, but I think that could really only be applied to the 1st-tier stables anyway, and is therefore a moot point.

Out of curiosity, do you have a rough idea as to which cavalry units will be dependent on which Stables? That might help me with coming up with ideas.

[western]

Caravel

In past modding I've added a number of the buildings that you mention. It's a good move I think because they give more depth to build choices and allow you to give a bit more character to different provinces. However, when you talk about a wine or hides "resource", I'm sure you realise that these are actually trade goods and not resources, and my understanding is that you can't restrict buildings with them. I'd love to hear different, but in my experience, the only way to stifle growth of a norwegian wine industry is to make crafty use of the 5 actual resources (maybe in combination with religion) and say you can only have a vintner in a catholic owned province where there is salt, for example. Not ideal, and if anyone could show other ways of regionalising buildings, it would add a lot to the richness of the map. (The only other one I've used is to make certain buildings dependent on a merchant or a port, which of course can't be built where there are no trade goods or coasts.}

I'm sure none of this is news, but I thought I'd join the debate to show there are more people who'd be interested to see the pocket mod make progress again.

[caravel]

Ah, so you mean lower the build cost & income for mines, while raising the build cost & income for the Smith buildings (so that they're closer to being equal)?

Yes possibly.

To you and me they do, yes. What I'm wondering, however, is whether other players will make that same distinction. Sorry, I know I'm probably just making a mountain out of a molehill....

Well I'm pretty sure that those that try this mod will have sense enough to know. Also it can be in the summary if needed.

Yeah, I like that. For the Leatherworker/Tanner, I'd say go with just the 20% Improved Farmland -- I don't think the requirements should be super-high for that. I'd say the Mason should depend on either the Keep or *maybe* the Castle, depending on how much income it'll bring in (a mere Fort is definitely too low). With the Vintner, I'd suggest the 40% farmland, maybe even 60% (again, depending on how lucrative it would be).

Yes those are all good. except the Mason. You see the Mason is what I would use as a prerequisite to the Keep and upwards. That is, you would need to build the Mason in order to upgrade from a Fort to a Keep. Also high level Mason buildings would be needed in order to upgrade the castle further.

That, I'm not sure of. I guess it would probably depend on how common they were during the time period: Were there quarries all over the place, or were they relatively rare? If it's the latter, then I'd say it could be worth looking at adding them in. If it's the former and quarries were a dime a dozen, then I'd say we shouldn't bother with them.

Well quarrying for stone is pre medieval. The stones for all of those temples, pyramids, coliseums, etc etc had to come from somewhere. Personally though I just don't want to include them.

I would say put the Muster Field first, and then upgrade to the Inn. I couldn't say why exactly, except that it just "feels" right.

Yes I'm thinking the same. Low level "peasant" units: Muster field. Higher levels such as Vikings: Inn. Their requirements might need some more tweaking however. I'm thinking that the Inn would need to depend on the keep or maybe even the castle?

For the Muslim units, the Ribat can replace the Inn. The muster field will have to stay as is until we can replace it with a more eastern looking review panel icon.

The only alternatives I can think of right now would be Yeomenry Stables and Guard Stables, but I'm not wild about those either -- aside from those names not making a whole lot of sense IMO, I'm also trying to avoid copying too much from the Barracks & Range buildings. I briefly considered Militia Stables, but I think that could really only be applied to the 1st-tier stables anyway, and is therefore a moot point.

Well RTW has Cavarly Stables and Elite Cavalry Stables. Perhaps "Militia Stables", Town Stables", "County Stables", "Cavarly Stables"?

Out of curiosity, do you have a rough idea as to which cavalry units will be dependent on which Stables? That might help me with coming up with ideas.

Not yet, though for example:

English

Stables1: Hobilar
Stables2: Mounted Sergeant
Stables3:
Stables4:

HRE

Stables1: Mounted Crossbows
Stables2: Mounted Sergeant
Stables3:
Stables4:

Turks

Stables1: Steppe Horse Archers / Arab Horse Archers
Stables2: Turcoman Horse
Stables3: Armenian Heavy Cavalry / Ottoman Sipahi (or Royal Court with the Sipahis of the Porte etc?)
Stables4: Khwarazmian Cavalry

French

Barracks1: Men at Arms / Sergeants (Early)
Barracks2: Men at Arms / Sergeants (High)
Barracks3: Sergeants (Late)
Barracks4:

Some factions would use all levels of buildings and some would not. This is often the case in vanilla MTW and RTW anyway. We will get around this because the upgrades themselves will be cheap, so if the AI does upgrade needlessly it won't be a big issue. Also the Master level valour bonuses are presently still intact.

[caravel]

However, when you talk about a wine or hides "resource", I'm sure you realise that these are actually trade goods and not resources, and my understanding is that you can't restrict buildings with them. I'd love to hear different, but in my experience, the only way to stifle growth of a norwegian wine industry is to make crafty use of the 5 actual resources

Yes I do understand the difference between trade goods and resources. I've added a wood resource for the forester, so I'm sure I can add a few more resources, even if they are copies of the trade goods. Good to see you around western.

[Martok]

Hey western! Good to see you 'round these parts again.

Well I'm pretty sure that those that try this mod will have sense enough to know. Also it can be in the summary if needed.

Good point. Sorry, I'll stop harping on this (very minor issue) now.

Yes those are all good. except the Mason. You see the Mason is what I would use as a prerequisite to the Keep and upwards. That is, you would need to build the Mason in order to upgrade from a Fort to a Keep. Also high level Mason buildings would be needed in order to upgrade the castle further.

Ah, okay. I didn't completely follow what you were saying before. Yeah, that looks good, Caravel. Will the Mason be dependent on a resource then, or will it be a structure that can be built pretty much anywhere?

Well quarrying for stone is pre medieval. The stones for all of those temples, pyramids, coliseums, etc etc had to come from somewhere. Personally though I just don't want to include them.

Well then let's not. I don't have a particular hankering for them either, truth be told. I was only interested (and barely, at that) if "rocks" were rare enough to be considered a resource.

Yes I'm thinking the same. Low level "peasant" units: Muster field. Higher levels such as Vikings: Inn. Their requirements might need some more tweaking however. I'm thinking that the Inn would need to depend on the keep or maybe even the castle?

I'd say the make the Inn dependent on the Keep instead of the Castle, as I think the latter would be a bit much. Unless you were intending to use the Inn to recruit some of the higher-level units as well?

I guess it depends on exactly which troop types will require the Inn: If it's going to be used for mostly lower-tier units, I'd say make the Inn dependent on the Keep. If it's going to be used for more mid-level units, then I'd say the Castle would probably be more appropriate.

For the Muslim units, the Ribat can replace the Inn. The muster field will have to stay as is until we can replace it with a more eastern looking review panel icon.

Were you wanting to re-designate the Muster Field to something else for the Muslim factions as well, or just replace the icon? (I'm just wondering if I need to come up with more names. )

Well RTW has Cavarly Stables and Elite Cavalry Stables. Perhaps "Militia Stables", Town Stables", "County Stables", "Cavarly Stables"?

The first 3 sound good. However, I think Master Stables would be better for the top stable building, as Cavalry Stables strikes me as being a redundant term. I suppose we could replace Town Stables with Sergeant Stables, but that might not fit very well with the Orthodox and (especially) Muslim factions.

Not yet, though for example:

English

Stables1: Hobilar
Stables2: Mounted Sergeant
Stables3:
Stables4:

Oops; I'd thought MS were going to be dependent on the Stables1 just like Hobilars. No matter, though. Looks good.

HRE

Stables1: Mounted Crossbows
Stables2: Mounted Sergeant
Stables3:
Stables4:

Will Mounted X-bows require *only* Stables1, or will it be dependent on the Missile1 building as well?

Turks

Stables1: Steppe Horse Archers / Arab Horse Archers
Stables2: Turcoman Horse
Stables3: Armenian Heavy Cavalry / Ottoman Sipahi (or Royal Court with the Sipahis of the Porte etc?)
Stables4: Khwarazmian Cavalry

In regards to the Ottoman Sipahi: I'd recommend just leaving their dependency at Stables3. Or is there a concern the Turks might spam them?

French

Barracks1: Men at Arms / Sergeants (Early)
Barracks2: Men at Arms / Sergeants (High)
Barracks3: Sergeants (Late)
Barracks4:

Some factions would use all levels of buildings and some would not. This is often the case in vanilla MTW and RTW anyway. We will get around this because the upgrades themselves will be cheap, so if the AI does upgrade needlessly it won't be a big issue. Also the Master level valour bonuses are presently still intact.

Excellent.

I do have one question: With upgrades being cheaper, are we going to be enabling players (human & AI alike) to just race up the tech/unit tree? Or are the build times going to still be long enough that that shouldn't be much of an issue?

[naut]

I'll have a mess around this week, see if I can come up with anything. I like the current route your taking though.

[western]

Caravel

Hmm - everything I've read and tried says you can only have the 5 resources of MTW + Forest from VI. I'm intrigued to see what you have in mind re "adding a few more resources". This would be either a breakthrough or an epic piece of craftiness (of the pub games with matches variety).

[caravel]

You're right it's hard coded. I'd completely forgotten. Well now I don't have to waste time doing that. It's a bit silly that new trade goods can be added with ease yet resources are completely hardcoded!

Well maybe I will have to tie the smiths buildings to only Iron producing provinces? Or perhaps provinces that have Iron and Copper?

The other alternative would be to rename some of the existing resources and change the icons (this is possible) so that they represent something else:

@{"Copper"}
@{"Gold"}
@{"Silver"}
@{"Iron"}
@{"Forest"}
@{"Salt"}

I'm thinking that because this is so very limited that perhaps we need to be much more generic:

@{"Precious Metals"}
@{"Mineral Ore"}
@{"Forest"}
@{"FREE"}
@{"FREE"}
@{"FREE"}

This would then leave the resources open for other uses such as "exceptional swords", "high quality armour", "legendary bows" etc. Mineral ore would be the dependency for the salt, copper and iron mines. Precious metals would be the dependency for Gold and Silver mines (multiple mines per province).

[caravel]

Ah, okay. I didn't completely follow what you were saying before. Yeah, that looks good, Caravel. Will the Mason be dependent on a resource then, or will it be a structure that can be built pretty much anywhere?

Well then let's not. I don't have a particular hankering for them either, truth be told. I was only interested (and barely, at that) if "rocks" were rare enough to be considered a resource.

That's why I was thinking of a quarry, that could be built anywhere in any province. The mason would depend on it and it would bring in an income. Castle upgrades would then depend on the mason. Is it too complex or worth doing? I was thinking perhaps forget the quarry and have the mason only and have this as an income generating building that is required for anything from the keep upgrade and above.

I'd say the make the Inn dependent on the Keep instead of the Castle, as I think the latter would be a bit much. Unless you were intending to use the Inn to recruit some of the higher-level units as well?

I guess it depends on exactly which troop types will require the Inn: If it's going to be used for mostly lower-tier units, I'd say make the Inn dependent on the Keep. If it's going to be used for more mid-level units, then I'd say the Castle would probably be more appropriate.

I was thinking the Keep as well, so that settles that. The muster field would be for low level cultural units, e.g. kerns and clansmen and the Inn would be for better class cultural units and mercenary types such as Gallowglasses. There is no rule as to Infantry/cavalry with this either, so some cavalry types could be recruited here (i.e. Alan Mercenary cavalry).

Were you wanting to re-designate the Muster Field to something else for the Muslim factions as well, or just replace the icon? (I'm just wondering if I need to come up with more names. )

It would need replacing with something else entirely.

The first 3 sound good. However, I think Master Stables would be better for the top stable building, as Cavalry Stables strikes me as being a redundant term. I suppose we could replace Town Stables with Sergeant Stables, but that might not fit very well with the Orthodox and (especially) Muslim factions.

Yes Master stables would be better.

Oops; I'd thought MS were going to be dependent on the Stables1 just like Hobilars. No matter, though. Looks good.

Stats:

Hobilar:

Charge: 6
Attack: 1
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 0

MS:

Charge: 8
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 2

In all other respects these units are the same. MS cost a little more to raise and support. Once MS are available there is no reason to use Hobilars any more as MS are a superior unit. If the dependencies I have proposed aren't suitable then I am thinking perhaps, remove Hobilars from the stables line altogether and have them depend on the Muster field or Inn.

Will Mounted X-bows require *only* Stables1, or will it be dependent on the Missile1 building as well?

MC:

Charge: 2
Attack: 0
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 2

This would be a multiple dependency for a low class unit. Also if I do change the resources around so that the bowyer can only build in certain provinces then it would restrict them too much. There is also the point that crossbows are not really bows, the craft of the fletcher and bowyer is not that of the crossbow maker. I would have crossbow units depend on the barracks or stables line only, and bow units depend on the range/butts only.

In regards to the Ottoman Sipahi: I'd recommend just leaving their dependency at Stables3. Or is there a concern the Turks might spam them?

Well if you remember, the Ottoman Sipahi are now known as the Timarli Sipahi and are much stronger, plus horse archers. I need to either place them under the correct level of Stables (I'm thinking Stables 3 or 4) or under the Royal Court (remember there is only one level of Royal Court for Muslim and Orthodox factions). Note the Sipahi are only available in the Late Era.

I do have one question: With upgrades being cheaper, are we going to be enabling players (human & AI alike) to just race up the tech/unit tree? Or are the build times going to still be long enough that that shouldn't be much of an issue?

Upgrades won't be cheaper as we're redoing the V1.7 tech tree. The smith buildings will need to be tweaked to produce a decent income and the stables, barracks, butts and royal court lines will need to take over as the main training facilities. Upgrades should cost quite a bit and depend on castle levels to stop the player or AI from teching up too quickly.

[ULC]

Actually Caravel, their are in fact Infopics and Review Panel icons for the full Royal Court buildings for Islamic factions, they are simply disabled. I enabled them and they work perfectly fine.

Although this may not be the place to delve into it, but you mention that crossbowmen units will be tied to the barracks line. Just a quick question, but will certain factions have an edge in both the ability and production of their crossbowmen, Italians and Germans for example? And will we see a variance in Islamic crossbowmen versus Catholic? Will the Byzantine(Roman) Empire have the ability to hire Crossbowmen? Will other units also be available at the same level as well? Also, kinda off the train of thought, but will units on lower levels of the barracks line become obsolete at certain points? I modded my file once so that as each era based, the previous era's became obsolete, but the requirements for the next generation went down one level. It meant I had some duplicate units, but it controlled the AI's unit production very effectively, so I didn't see Spearmen after 1321, which was really annoying.

For example - Feudal Sergeants at 1st level barracks for Era's Early and High, gone by late, have Chivalric Sergeants at 2nd level for High, 1st level for late.

This avoids the nasty problem of militia armies in late period, as well as having to deal with teching up suddenly when you hit an era and you having nothing to produce at lower levels.

[caravel]

Actually Caravel, their are in fact Infopics and Review Panel icons for the full Royal Court buildings for Islamic factions, they are simply disabled. I enabled them and they work perfectly fine.

Yes I see them now...

Still there are no Orthodox Royal Courts at all.

Although this may not be the place to delve into it, but you mention that crossbowmen units will be tied to the barracks line. Just a quick question, but will certain factions have an edge in both the ability and production of their crossbowmen, Italians and Germans for example? And will we see a variance in Islamic crossbowmen versus Catholic? Will the Byzantine(Roman) Empire have the ability to hire Crossbowmen? Will other units also be available at the same level as well? Also, kinda off the train of thought, but will units on lower levels of the barracks line become obsolete at certain points? I modded my file once so that as each era based, the previous era's became obsolete, but the requirements for the next generation went down one level. It meant I had some duplicate units, but it controlled the AI's unit production very effectively, so I didn't see Spearmen after 1321, which was really annoying.

For example - Feudal Sergeants at 1st level barracks for Era's Early and High, gone by late, have Chivalric Sergeants at 2nd level for High, 1st level for late.

This avoids the nasty problem of militia armies in late period, as well as having to deal with teching up suddenly when you hit an era and you having nothing to produce at lower levels.

I have adjusted it so that there is a "Sergeant" unit for each era. Vanilla Spearmen are early Sergeants, Feudal Sergeants for high and Chivalric for late. Each unit type disappears per era. I haven't decided on the building dependencies as yet, but it may be that each will depend on the same level building. Good or bad?

[ULC]

Yes I see them now...

Still there are no Orthodox Royal Courts at all.

Which makes perfect sense, I mean it's not like the Roman Empire ever improved how it managed it's holdings

I have adjusted it so that there is a "Sergeant" unit for each era. Vanilla Spearmen are early Sergeants, Feudal Sergeants for high and Chivalric for late. Each unit type disappears per era. I haven't decided on the building dependencies as yet, but it may be that each will depend on the same level building. Good or bad?

That seems fine, a bit less convoluted then mine. In fact, it makes sense - each level of barracks would signify the overall capability for it to produce units. Thus, at first level, we have the basic infantryman, supplied with that Eras arms and armor. Next step, we have that Eras specialized infantryman, maybe even a ranged unit. Then we have the heavy hitting infantry, followed by the peak of that Eras footmen (whatever it may be).

The only problem is the sudden inability to retrain the old units, but realistically speaking such a logistical feat would have been a bit above Medieval world.

[caravel]

Which makes perfect sense, I mean it's not like the Roman Empire ever improved how it managed it's holdings

Indeed, though I was thinking more of the Kieven Rus/Russians and Novgorod. I have already settled on giving the Byzantine no Royal Courts at all.

That seems fine, a bit less convoluted then mine. In fact, it makes sense - each level of barracks would signify the overall capability for it to produce units. Thus, at first level, we have the basic infantryman, supplied with that Eras arms and armor. Next step, we have that Eras specialized infantryman, maybe even a ranged unit. Then we have the heavy hitting infantry, followed by the peak of that Eras footmen (whatever it may be).

That's pretty much what I'm trying to achieve. I don't want a situation where your lowest level barracks becomes entirely useless in the High era. Especially in MTW where buildings tend to get razed a lot.

The only problem is the sudden inability to retrain the old units, but realistically speaking such a logistical feat would have been a bit above Medieval world.

Well I think this is a worthwhile sacrifice, also consider that the AI cannot retrain at all - it's a bit of an exploit anyway. Much better for the AI if they can start producing the latest era units straight off.

[naut]

@{"Precious Metals"}
@{"Mineral Ore"}
@{"Forest"}
@{"FREE"}
@{"FREE"}
@{"FREE"}

I like the look of that, much more compact.

[Martok]

That's why I was thinking of a quarry, that could be built anywhere in any province. The mason would depend on it and it would bring in an income. Castle upgrades would then depend on the mason. Is it too complex or worth doing? I was thinking perhaps forget the quarry and have the mason only and have this as an income generating building that is required for anything from the keep upgrade and above.

I was actually going to propose dropping the Quarry altogether, so it sounds like we're in agreement on this. As long as the Mason is already a prerequisite for castle upgrades, I see the Quarry as being largely superfluous.

I was thinking the Keep as well, so that settles that. The muster field would be for low level cultural units, e.g. kerns and clansmen and the Inn would be for better class cultural units and mercenary types such as Gallowglasses. There is no rule as to Infantry/cavalry with this either, so some cavalry types could be recruited here (i.e. Alan Mercenary cavalry).

Perfect. I'd not even considered that the Inn could be used for some of the cultural/regional cavalry units as well, but I like it.

Hobilar:

Charge: 6
Attack: 1
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 0

MS:

Charge: 8
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 2

In all other respects these units are the same. MS cost a little more to raise and support. Once MS are available there is no reason to use Hobilars any more as MS are a superior unit. If the dependencies I have proposed aren't suitable then I am thinking perhaps, remove Hobilars from the stables line altogether and have them depend on the Muster field or Inn.

Well that's kind of what I was wondering (whether the dependency for the Hobilars should be lowered). Not the Muster Field -- I don't think you should be able to recruit cavalry from it -- but the Inn might be a little more appropriate.

However (now that I think about it), aren't the Inn and the Stables1 building (Militia Stables) both going to be dependent on the Keep anyway? If that's the case, then it really shouldn't make much difference.

MC:

Charge: 2
Attack: 0
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 2

This would be a multiple dependency for a low class unit. Also if I do change the resources around so that the bowyer can only build in certain provinces then it would restrict them too much. There is also the point that crossbows are not really bows, the craft of the fletcher and bowyer is not that of the crossbow maker. I would have crossbow units depend on the barracks or stables line only, and bow units depend on the range/butts only.

Sounds fine to me. (To be honest, I'd asked more out of curiosity than anything else. )

Well if you remember, the Ottoman Sipahi are now known as the Timarli Sipahi and are much stronger, plus horse archers. I need to either place them under the correct level of Stables (I'm thinking Stables 3 or 4) or under the Royal Court (remember there is only one level of Royal Court for Muslim and Orthodox factions). Note the Sipahi are only available in the Late Era.

Actually, I had forgotten that. (After all, I don't play into the Late period that often, to say nothing of the infrequency with which I play as the Turks.)

I would say make the Sipahi dependent on Stables 3 to start out with and see how that works. If it turns out the Ottomans train them a little too frequently, we can always then restrict the Sipahi to the Royal Court or Stables 4 to limit their numbers.

Upgrades won't be cheaper as we're redoing the V1.7 tech tree. The smith buildings will need to be tweaked to produce a decent income and the stables, barracks, butts and royal court lines will need to take over as the main training facilities. Upgrades should cost quite a bit and depend on castle levels to stop the player or AI from teching up too quickly.

Yeah, I realized that afterward, but was too lazy to edit my post. Consider the question withdrawn.

[caravel]

Well that's kind of what I was wondering (whether the dependency for the Hobilars should be lowered). Not the Muster Field -- I don't think you should be able to recruit cavalry from it -- but the Inn might be a little more appropriate.

This is a bit of a balancing issue. If Hobilars are available from the muster field, there is the danger that the English and French may spam them. In all honesty I'm seeing these as a redundant unit that fill no gap nor suit no purpose unless modified to fit a role. I'm still thinking that second level stables for Mounted Sergeants will put them at the castle level which will be out of reach for most factions and provinces for most of the early era. The solution perhaps is one of the following:

Scenario A

1) Remove MS from the English roster.
2) Make Hobilars an English specific (historical I believe) version of MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages and disadvantages over MS.

i.e:

Hobilar:

Charge: 8
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Armour: 2
Morale: 0

4) Recruit with first level Stables


Scenario B

1) Make Hobilars rectuitable only in Britain. Perhaps limited to only Northumbria.
2) Make Hobilars an English specific (historical I believe) version of MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages over MS.

Hobilar:

Charge: 8
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 4

4) Recruit from Inn

However (now that I think about it), aren't the Inn and the Stables1 building (Militia Stables) both going to be dependent on the Keep anyway? If that's the case, then it really shouldn't make much difference.

Yes the muster field will depend on a fort, but the Inn, Ribat and all of the other recruiting buildings (stables, barracks, butts, royal court etc) will require the Keep and above. For the Muslim faction's muster field equivalent, I'm thinking something like "Nomad Camp", this would then be upgradable to the Ribat.

I would say make the Sipahi dependent on Stables 3 to start out with and see how that works. If it turns out the Ottomans train them a little too frequently, we can always then restrict the Sipahi to the Royal Court or Stables 4 to limit their numbers.

I was thinking Third level stables as well as that would still allow the valour bonus at the fourth level.

Also as regards the Inn due to homelands etc there are going to be a lot of cases where this building is useless to certain factions in certain areas. So it would need to have a secondary function. I'm thinking small income plus happiness boost?

[Martok]

This is a bit of a balancing issue. If Hobilars are available from the muster field, there is the danger that the English and French may spam them. In all honesty I'm seeing these as a redundant unit that fill no gap nor suit no purpose unless modified to fit a role. I'm still thinking that second level stables for Mounted Sergeants will put them at the castle level which will be out of reach for most factions and provinces for most of the early era. The solution perhaps is one of the following:

Scenario A

1) Remove MS from the English roster.
2) Make Hobilars an English specific (historical I believe) version of MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages and disadvantages over MS.

i.e:

Hobilar:

Charge: 8
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Armour: 2
Morale: 0

4) Recruit with first level Stables


Scenario B

1) Make Hobilars rectuitable only in Britain. Perhaps limited to only Northumbria.
2) Make Hobilars an English specific (historical I believe) version of MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages over MS.

Hobilar:

Charge: 8
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Armour: 3
Morale: 4

4) Recruit from Inn

I'd probably go with Scenario A: For one thing, the stats seem a little more realistic, whereas I think the stats from Scenario B would make them a little too "uber". Also, by removing MS, it keeps Hobilars even more useful/relevant, as well as making the English roster a little more unique.

For the Muslim faction's muster field equivalent, I'm thinking something like "Nomad Camp", this would then be upgradable to the Ribat.

"Tribal Proving Grounds", perhaps? Although I like "Nomad Camp" too.

I was thinking Third level stables as well as that would still allow the valour bonus at the fourth level.

Another very good point. (By the way, I have to admit that all this talk about them has rather suddenly caused me to want to actually try out the Turks once the next version is released.)

Also as regards the Inn due to homelands etc there are going to be a lot of cases where this building is useless to certain factions in certain areas. So it would need to have a secondary function. I'm thinking small income plus happiness boost?

Great idea, especially with the happiness boost. I always felt that Inns should improve a province's loyalty.

[naut]

In regards to Hobilars I prefer part 1 from Scenario B, but parts 2,3,4 from Scenario A.

[caravel]

I'd probably go with Scenario A: For one thing, the stats seem a little more realistic, whereas I think the stats from Scenario B would make them a little too "uber". Also, by removing MS, it keeps Hobilars even more useful/relevant, as well as making the English roster a little more unique.

In regards to Hobilars I prefer part 1 from Scenario B, but parts 2,3,4 from Scenario A.

I present you with:

Scenario C

1) Make Hobilars rectuitable only in Britain. Perhaps limited to only Northumbria.
2) Make Hobilars an English specific (historical I believe) version of MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages and disadvantages over MS.

i.e:

Hobilar:

Charge: 8
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Armour: 2
Morale: 0

4) Recruit with first level Stables




I'm thinking more:

Scenario D

1) Make Hobilars recruitable only in Britain.
2) MS removed from the English roster, Hobilars replace MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages and disadvantages over MS.
4) Recruit with first level Stables

Stats are not set in stone, we can work on those. I think the Hobilars need to have some pros and cons vs the MS. Perhaps horse archer like speed? This is also why I gave them the 4 morale to offset the overall weakness of their stats vs the MS.

"Tribal Proving Grounds", perhaps? Although I like "Nomad Camp" too.

That sounds a little too native American. Nomad Camp or "encampment" would reflect Bedouin or Berber camps etc. Gentlemen, we are talking camel recruitment facilities...

Great idea, especially with the happiness boost. I always felt that Inns should improve a province's loyalty.

[Martok]

I present you with:

Scenario C

1) Make Hobilars rectuitable only in Britain. Perhaps limited to only Northumbria.
2) Make Hobilars an English specific (historical I believe) version of MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages and disadvantages over MS.

i.e:

Hobilar:

Charge: 8
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Armour: 2
Morale: 0

4) Recruit with first level Stables




I'm thinking more:

Scenario D

1) Make Hobilars recruitable only in Britain.
2) MS removed from the English roster, Hobilars replace MS.
3) Modify stats of Hobilars in some way to give them advantages and disadvantages over MS.
4) Recruit with first level Stables

Yeah, Scenario D sounds a lot better. Perhaps they should be recruitable in Ireland as well, though (I thought they were quite common in Eire during the early medieval period)? Not a big deal to me either way, though -- so long as they're restricted to the Isles one way or the other.

Otherwise, looks good to me.

Stats are not set in stone, we can work on those. I think the Hobilars need to have some pros and cons vs the MS. Perhaps horse archer like speed? This is also why I gave them the 4 morale to offset the overall weakness of their stats vs the MS.

Yeah, I was thinking they should be faster than MS. Better morale to help offset their lesser melee stats would be good too.

That sounds a little too native American. Nomad Camp or "encampment" would reflect Bedouin or Berber camps etc. Gentlemen, we are talking camel recruitment facilities...

Heh. That's true. I guess I don't automatically think Native Americans when I hear "tribe/tribal", but perhaps that comes from living in a state with (relatively) significant Ojibway and Sioux populations.

But I digress. Nomad Camp works perfectly fine for me.

[naut]

Yeh Scenario D seems to make the most sense.

Better morale to help offset their lesser melee stats would be good too.

Yeh, I agree with that, maybe something like:

Charge 6, Melee 3, Defence 0, Armour 2, Morale 3

I like Nomad Encampment, has the right sort of ring to it.

[caravel]

Sounds good to me, I'll try those stats as those are near enough to what I was thinking and I'll also make them available in Ireland (as I was going to do that anyway).

I've renamed most of the buildings that need it and I've done the Muster Field/Inn and Nomad Camp/Ribat line.




*****************
V1.0.8 Beta released
*****************

[Martok]

I see that with the exception of Aleppo, all the Fatamid (Egyptian) provinces start with a Keep. I'm guessing it's supposed to be like that, but I didn't wish to assume.


Also: Love the description of the Nomad Camp. That was definitely a laugh-out-loud moment when I first noticed that.

[caravel]

I see that with the exception of Aleppo, all the Fatamid (Egyptian) provinces start with a Keep. I'm guessing it's supposed to be like that, but I didn't wish to assume.


Also: Love the description of the Nomad Camp. That was definitely a laugh-out-loud moment when I first noticed that.

The Keep is the base level castle. Forts serve as temporary structures and not castles. You can build some basic buildings under a fort and you can do some farming and mining but that's about it. I was thinking that most of the provinces in that region (Antioch, Tripoli, Jerusalem, Damascus) warranted more than just a Fort. Aleppo drew the short straw in ending up without one. So this is really a feature and not a bug as such (which is why I've moved these posts to the other thread).

[Martok]

The Keep is the base level castle. Forts serve as temporary structures and not castles. You can build some basic buildings under a fort and you can do some farming and mining but that's about it. I was thinking that most of the provinces in that region (Antioch, Tripoli, Jerusalem, Damascus) warranted more than just a Fort. Aleppo drew the short straw in ending up without one. So this is really a feature and not a bug as such (which is why I've moved these posts to the other thread).

I figured as much, but I wasn't sure. I agree that most of the provinces in the Levant should start with at least a Keep, so I'm not complaining.

[caravel]

Suggested change: Desert Archers cost 500 to recruit and 75 to support. Lowering support to 60 would be a wise move, otherwise there is not much point in training Desert Archers early on as you have Futuwwa which cost 600 to recruit and 75 to support.

[Martok]

Suggested change: Desert Archers cost 500 to recruit and 75 to support. Lowering support to 60 would be a wise move, otherwise there is not much point in training Desert Archers early on as you have Futuwwa which cost 600 to recruit and 75 to support.

Agreed. DA should probably a little cheaper.

[caravel]

Up to date with unit changes suggested so far. Most notably the suggested changes to Desert Archers and Hobilars have been added to v1.0.9.

Keep the ideas coming.