MTW-Redux Beta Released!

[Stazi]

Could you explain what was wrong? I've downloaded C version, installed it and the game started as usual. I didn't have time to play so I haven't noticed any bugs.

[Axalon]

Could you explain what was wrong? I've downloaded C version, installed it and the game started as usual. I didn't have time to play so I haven't noticed any bugs.

In short, whenever you had a Muslim rebellion (not the nobles/peasants-kind, but the general kind) it was made up by spies (yeah, it looked real weird) – you can’t fight spies, if you tried the game crashed. All you could do was to autoresolve. It was all created by the VI-engine as nowhere in my designs were spies listed or even suggested as potential Muslim rebels. The designs and instructions were ignored by the engine while instead generating a bug that could crash the game. Totally unacceptable - and I found that out after I had already released the C-version. Anyway, I had a hunch on what it might be, and if that was right, one could then bypass the whole damn thing. Turned out I was right. The solution (without getting bogged down in details) is now included in the “RXB1004e”-release, and it no longer appears in the game (and troops you CAN fight, appear instead).

- A

[daigaku]

Hi @Axalon,

...and Russia are the toughest among the optional factions...

Interesting you mention them - after my English expedition they were the next ones in my plans ;-)) The Boyars still have their bows, I hope?!? I love multifunctional cavalry...

btw, only the Norse I played on "hard", and this only after the first few trial-campaigns. New factions I always give a start with "casual" - just to get to know their specific mechanics a.s.o.

The point is every faction have their strengths and weaknesses somehow, the Norse is no exception to that. The fact that you like the Norse and that they seem to suit your playing style - is a different matter altogether.

The only thing they are missing, for my taste, are enough (armour piercing)bows. Therefor in Vanilla, I bought always a few mercenary longbows to get that sorted out. In REDUX, till now I never used mercs, for the warning in their description about not fighting to the end. Better to have less bowmen, but some you can trust never ever to run (like pathfinders), than some nice looking bastards with good weapons but no guts to stand and take a fight....did you give the mercenaries a morale penalty or how does this "not fighting to the end" thingy work?!?

In this English campaign I am playing, as written before, a third of every army is longbows and foresters - with horrible effect on every enemy army trying to get at me. Even standing in a forest, some feudal footknights learned, in one of my recent battles, the hard way of dying by projectiles in the belly. Next to the forest was a small hill....you guess the rest ;-)) Good luck , when I played the Norse and took the British Islands, they hadn´t produced longbows in the amount I do. Would possibly have been a quite different result...

A compliment to you is here at place; you crafted those two factions I tried till now in a way they fit me like an old leather glove - no pains, no biting, but welcoming comfortable. Where Vanilla always was some compromise, here everything is straightforward, even monolithic in it´s appearence. And after my experiments with other games during my time-off this is as well challenging as relaxing.

1004-VI: Hadn´t installed yet, so no problem at all. Will download the "e"-version before the Russians are to be tested...

Fleet spamming: Not only the Saracenes, with just 2 or 3 regions of their own, are throwing out tens of fully stacked fleets - they even don´t keep some at their coasts, castrating their trading potential to a mere joke. Painfully stupid behavior, that. Did you find any solution for that in 1004-VI?

Retraining: For the first time, now in my actual campaign, I see a faction, the Norse, retraining their units. If they do after every relevant building or only after Armourer/Weaponsmith upgrade I´m not sure, but after those two they do for sure (their numbers hardly increase, they do not fight anybody those last years, but everytime I take a look some units are improved). So I stand corrected with my idea

The AI hardly ever takes the "effort" to build and train in such a manner

.

Had it been multiplayer - the Norse would likely be almost destroyed even before the battle had actually started

..are there no forests in multiplayer?!?

greetings, and have a good time,

daigaku

[Axalon]

btw, only the Norse I played on "hard", and this only after the first few trial-campaigns. New factions I always give a start with "casual" - just to get to know their specific mechanics a.s.o.

You mean “standard”-difficulty - as in what is considered as the normal-setting for Redux… Redux don’t have “hard”… It got “veteran”, “standard”, “casual”, “cakewalk/easy” – it always was intended to be played on "standard" (or higher) for a full game-experience. On the other hand, Redux assumes that you do know the game before you play it. The only way to get there is to do test-runs.…

In this English campaign I am playing, as written before, a third of every army is longbows and foresters - with horrible effect on every enemy army trying to get at me. Even standing in a forest, some feudal footknights learned, in one of my recent battles, the hard way of dying by projectiles in the belly. Next to the forest was a small hill....you guess the rest ;-)) Good luck , when I played the Norse and took the British Islands, they hadn´t produced longbows in the amount I do. Would possibly have been a quite different result...

It’s your game, but it sounds like you are "overusing" the longbow-units. There is not much the AI can do about that, it does not have what it takes to successfully challenge that and so it takes little talent to mow down units from a hill with that kind of range and firepower. If you actually want some adventure, then limit yourself to max 3-4 units in total per army and you will get a more exiting game as a result. Of course, its your call...

A compliment to you is here at place; you crafted those two factions I tried till now in a way they fit me like an old leather glove - no pains, no biting, but welcoming comfortable. Where Vanilla always was some compromise, here everything is straightforward, even monolithic in it´s appearence. And after my experiments with other games during my time-off this is as well challenging as relaxing.

Many thanks, I appreciate the remark. I certainly try to make the best and most solid game I can. It’s a lot harder then it looks....

Fleet spamming: Not only the Saracenes, with just 2 or 3 regions of their own, are throwing out tens of fully stacked fleets - they even don´t keep some at their coasts, castrating their trading potential to a mere joke. Painfully stupid behavior, that. Did you find any solution for that in 1004-VI?

As I said elsewhere, it is extremely hard to make the AI handle fleets and ships somehow sensibly, or even project the illusion of that - usually we will have to settle for much less. I certainly tried. There are no parameters that somehow control this aspect of the game properly, and both engines are extremely unreliable when it comes to ships. The Saracens and Byzantines often fall apart due to building too many ships somehow, and to few troops. In short, the 1004e does not spam fleets as much as any version before it and it never was a real problem on the v.1.1-version of RXB1004 to begin with. Basically, less faction-ships = better and healthier game overall. RXB1004(e) has typically less faction-ships and probably is a better and healthier game because of it...

- A

[daigaku]

Hi @Axalon,

but it sounds like you are "overusing" the longbow-units

Now, I try to adapt to the possibilitiey and strengths of every faction. As Norse, the increadible infantry was the way to go for winning every single battle(and worked for some 95%), with the English it´s the mix of Longbow/Forester, Claymore and mainly Saxon/Irish units to break the foe. Starting Russia, it will be the multipurpose Cavalry to "make my day" (hopefully there is a "fast moving" unit with bow and sword, with some melee ability)....And, for my taste, it "pulls even" if having Foresters with those few men, peppering units of 60-100 men, and if necessary taking up the melee with the reminding foes. Due to this, my army is always some 200-400 men less than the enemy. btw, it seems you gave the Foresters the same range as the Longbows. Did I see that right?

It’s a lot harder then it looks....

I do not even dare to try to imagine what work is necessary to create "REDUX". Having fuddled around with a few things myself (for example, changing the danish to pagans in vanilla), remembering the work it was to stop the game giving me already at startup some nasty messages.... well, herefor the compliment ;-)

Fleet: Had the same stuff in Vanilla. Sometimes it was necessary to have full-stack fleets from the Strait of Gibraltar up to Finland just to keep my trade going. So from the experience, I know the problem and can handle it. It was just surprising that they didn´t even keep some ship at their coast for trade. Would have made some difference, those regions along the Eastern Mediterranean giving quite some income.

so far for now,
greetings daigaku

[Axalon]

Now, I try to adapt to the possibilitiey and strengths of every faction. As Norse, the increadible infantry was the way to go for winning every single battle(and worked for some 95%), with the English it´s the mix of Longbow/Forester, Claymore and mainly Saxon/Irish units to break the foe. Starting Russia, it will be the multipurpose Cavalry to "make my day" (hopefully there is a "fast moving" unit with bow and sword, with some melee ability)....And, for my taste, it "pulls even" if having Foresters with those few men, peppering units of 60-100 men, and if necessary taking up the melee with the reminding foes. Due to this, my army is always some 200-400 men less than the enemy.

Ok, fair enough, its a valid argument.

btw, it seems you gave the Foresters the same range as the Longbows. Did I see that right?

Yup, you did...

Fleet: Had the same stuff in Vanilla. Sometimes it was necessary to have full-stack fleets from the Strait of Gibraltar up to Finland just to keep my trade going. So from the experience, I know the problem and can handle it. It was just surprising that they didn´t even keep some ship at their coast for trade. Would have made some difference, those regions along the Eastern Mediterranean giving quite some income.

The problem is not if the player can handle it or not - but the AI - and how it screws up with ships. Building too many (when it should not), placing and using them all wrong etc. etc. That stuff is the problem and I as a designer have almost zero means/parameters to fix that. That circumstance is the real problem here. Anyway, the RXB1004e makes trade a bit tougher in general. Ships cost more, even to support, overall making it somewhat harder to set up and maintain trade-routs. All that stuff will probably eventually find its way to the v.1.1-version as well, somehow I would imagine. As I typically strive sync both versions as much as possible.

- A

[daigaku]

Hi @Axalon,

but if caught standing in front of Frankish and heavy crossbows-formations - they will get slaughtered

.....gave those HeavyCrossbows a try - in my eyes, they are completely useless. They got off some 3 - 5 volleys before the Inf was on them and they got slaughtered. I was horribly outnumbered (about 4:1), seas blocked due to one of those usual surprise-attacks from a "friend", didn´t have enough heavy spears to cover them well. With those 40men units of FeudalLongbows or the "ordinary" 60Longbows the outcome would have been surely completely different (had already comparable circumstances, but with bows - and won!). Okay, defending a castle may be different, but in open field, and not real NUMBERS to cover them, I won´t use them again. Got to stick to what works ;-))

greetings, daigaku