KOTF mod

[AussieGiant]

The age mod seems like a good idea.

As for the ongoing discussion, then any trial run would be excellent as it will more than likely allow me to get a copy of Kingdoms before we start.

Anything modification that we can do once and then leave the game to it's own devices is highly preferred in my opinion.

Anything that reduces admin work or artificial modification of the game also reduces the chance of errors. That's a must.

[econ21]

I vote we give it a trial run (maybe one Chancellowship period) without any additional funds. We'll see how well we're doing and adjust accordingly.

We can only edit the descr_strat before the game starts, so any adjustment later would have to be via the console. That's fine, it's just that editing the file saves a bit of donkey work for Zim.

Is the general consensus that LTC already helps the AI enough? Adding a couple (or more) thousand to the King's Purse is easy enough.

I think it is your call, but personally I dont see any downside to giving the AI cash. AFAIK, we've only lost one PBM to the AI in the throne room and I would be happy to see that increase. In KotR, I ended up giving about 10k to the AI each turn and I don't think we noticed it. I suspect it just stopped the AI lands being barren of units. It was the console spawned AI stacks that people noticed and even then, we mowed them down. Personally, I'd give an extra 5k or whatever to the King's Purse, so you can forget about it for a bit. Then adjust up (or down) via the console as you see fit. If our dozen or so extra RBGs feel like cornered rats at the beginning the game, it would be a plus in my view, but I doubt it will happen. Lusted's good at game balancing, but his mod was not balanced for the player to start off with lots of free RBGs.

[Zim]

5,000 sounds reasonable enough, and this is one of those rare bits of modding I can do on my own.

[_Tristan_]

Zim, once you've edited the descr_strat file, could you send it over to me so that I can make the necessary adjustments to the names of the starting characters ?

So that we don't end up with two mismatched files...

[GeneralHankerchief]

All right, 5,000 seems like a good compromise. If we need more, we'll just add it later on via the consule. As has already been said, it'll be nice to be challenged by the AI for a while.

[AussieGiant]

All right, 5,000 seems like a good compromise. If we need more, we'll just add it later on via the consule. As has already been said, it'll be nice to be challenged by the AI for a while.

hmph!!

5 grand. Come on guy's, have we forgotten already just how ridiculous we had to assist the AI in KotR's? I haven't played this mod, but I'd love to be struggling until even mid game with this PBM.

Giving the AI a nice fat 10k right from the beginning would be a little more concerning no?

I'd love for "us" as a playing group to be "concerned" about the AI. It would add an element of fear in something we have no control over...if it all gets too much then we can drop it back.

I just think we are trying to play it safe. Which we shouldn't do in my opinion.

[_Tristan_]

Tristan, this guide seems to have everything you need, also check out the utility linked at the bottom.

names.txt from LTC Gold, you don't need the .bin, game creates it automatically from names.txt

How did you find the LTC names.txt ? All I can find is the names.txt.strings.bin

I'm encountering some slight problems... While doing everything the guide asks me to, I can't seem to have the files match up in the utility...

[_Tristan_]

I just think we are trying to play it safe. Which we shouldn't do in my opinion.

Seconded... better be sorry than safe (at least when it concerns M2TW)...

Most players have proven themselves highly above average when fighting the AI in previous games and I think the AI will need all the help we can give it... Money is a good start

[AussieGiant]

Seconded... better be sorry than safe (at least when it concerns M2TW)...

Most players have proven themselves highly above average when fighting the AI in previous games and I think the AI will need all the help we can give it... Money is a good start

HIGHLY above average is perhaps even being too modest. It's amazing what you can accomplish when the pressure is on. I did things in KotR that I never dreamed of doing in normal game play.

I shocked the hell out of myself a few times.

It's an advanced group of players...and if some can't cut the standard then it creates a good level of differentiation between players.

[ULC]

HIGHLY above average is perhaps even being too modest. It's amazing what you can accomplish when the pressure is on. I did things in KotR that I never dreamed of doing in normal game play.

I shocked the hell out of myself a few times.

It's an advanced group of players...and if some can't cut the standard then it creates a good level of differentiation between players.

I have no idea where I stand really - maybe somewhere in the middle. I've beaten well over 2000 soldiers with 240 horse archers, I've beaten back well over 8000 mongol troops with a thousand poorly equipped militia in several sieges, yet I've had entire armies crumple under the weight of massed infantry charges, from being outnumbered with little in the way of support, and losing to superior ranged fire, always when I have a deficit in medium cavalry.

If the AI is able to catch me with superior troops, troops that have an inherent advantage over mine, and in superior numbers, and I have little in the way of cavalry or swordsmen, then the battle will either be Pyrrhic or will result in a devastating loss if I do not have terrain advantage.

Maybe thats the norm , but I don't think it is.

[AussieGiant]

I have no idea where I stand really - maybe somewhere in the middle. I've beaten well over 2000 soldiers with 240 horse archers, I've beaten back well over 8000 mongol troops with a thousand poorly equipped militia in several sieges, yet I've had entire armies crumple under the weight of massed infantry charges, from being outnumbered with little in the way of support, and losing to superior ranged fire, always when I have a deficit in medium cavalry.

If the AI is able to catch me with superior troops, troops that have an inherent advantage over mine, and in superior numbers, and I have little in the way of cavalry or swordsmen, then the battle will either be Pyrrhic or will result in a devastating loss if I do not have terrain advantage.

Maybe thats the norm , but I don't think it is.

No need to worry. You're in the highly advanced category YLC!!

What I want though, is for us to worry about the AI. That would make a nice change.

[TinCow]

Thanks, TinCow, that will help a lot.

Will you need to wait util you get Kingdoms to be able to modify the file?

If someone gives me the files I can modify them now, but I won't have the files myself until the game arrives, nor will I be able to test it to see if it works.

Regarding giving the AI money, it might be worth looking for a mod. SS 4.1 used a system that gave the AI money based on the number of provinces it owned. 5,000 extra is a huge amount for a single province faction, but it's not much at all for a faction with 10 provinces. SS 4.1 scaled the AI bonus, so that the AI was always receiving enough to keep its armies strong, regardless of what size it was. I was hoping that LTC included that script as well, but if it doesn't perhaps there's a way for us to add that on as well.

[ULC]

No need to worry. You're in the highly advanced category YLC!!

What I want though, is for us to worry about the AI. That would make a nice change.

If troop quality is equal, and terrain isn't hugely favorable to one side or the other, and the Lusted AI has 2 to 1 ratio in numbers, it can be a flip of the coin sometimes for who wins.

[ULC]

If someone gives me the files I can modify them now, but I won't have the files myself until the game arrives, nor will I be able to test it to see if it works.

Regarding giving the AI money, it might be worth looking for a mod. SS 4.1 used a system that gave the AI money based on the number of provinces it owned. 5,000 extra is a huge amount for a single province faction, but it's not much at all for a faction with 10 provinces. SS 4.1 scaled the AI bonus, so that the AI was always receiving enough to keep its armies strong, regardless of what size it was. I was hoping that LTC included that script as well, but if it doesn't perhaps there's a way for us to add that on as well.

Campaign Map:
-1.5 Year per turn, and dates shown on campaign map again
-Building construction times and cost increased so as to fit in best with 1.5 year per turn campaign.
-Unit recruitment changed. Units now replenish slower and elite units have smaller recruitment pools. Also units no longer recruited from walls or from castle upgrade buildings.
-AI money script added in that scales according to difficulty. Ai only gets money boosts on H and VH difficulties, and then more on VH than on H. The money boost is also subtle and helps make the ai more challenging.
-Tweaks to Guilds which result in more varied Guilds in the campaign. There will no longer be the Thieves Guild spam the ai does in vanilla.
-English Armoured Sergeants, Dismounted Broken Lances, Dismounted Gothic Knights and Dismounted Mongol cavalry units added into the campaign
-AI recruits better armies. They are more balanced and have more higher tier units in them.
-More variance in the date at which the Mongols and Timurids appear.
-Merchants make more money.
-Inquisitors made less powerful.
-Increased movement distance for armies and agents.
-More recruitment slots in castles.
-More free upkeep slots in cities.
-Recruitable generals(including dismounted generals for some western factions).
-Some unused dismounted merc units added into the campaigns
-Pirate and Rebel spawn rates reduced.
-New population levels required for each level of settlement.
-Distance to captial penalty increased slightly.
-Religious Unrest increased.
-Corruption increased.
-Income from trade increased, and population growth from trade decreased.
-Population growth from farms increased.

I suggest we play on VH then

[TinCow]

Based on that, if we play on VH I don't think we need to modify the King's Purse at all.

[AussieGiant]

excellent

[_Tristan_]

Based on that, if we play on VH I don't think we need to modify the King's Purse at all.

I fear that would not be enough considering SS had the same system IIRc and we steamrolled it all the same.

Perhaps giving the AI a boost of 5000 fl. (or whatever sum we deem reasonable) should be enough now that this has been brought to light.

Antoher solution if the GM is up to it is for him to manage all (or France neighbours' factions through the hotseat commands) so as to give the AI some good starting positions/ balanced stacks.

And why can't the GM even effectively take control of AI enemy factions once war is declared ?

The problem being that when on the offense, battles would have to be autoresolved on our part with the risks that entails.

Maybe limit the GM control to agents/cities/recruitment management, leaving the moves up the AI, thus mimicking the possible lack of communication between the governors and their generals in the field.

Just a thought.

The ball is in Zim's camp.

If we chose such a system, I may even offer Zim to be Assistant GM to help him manage the work load this would create.

[ULC]

I fear that would not be enough considering SS had the same system IIRc and we steamrolled it all the same.

Perhaps giving the AI a boost of 5000 fl. (or whatever sum we deem reasonable) should be enough now that this has been brought to light.

LTC Gold uses a more modified and newer version of Lusted's AI - not sure if this applies.

solution if the GM is up to it is for him to manage all (or France neighbours' factions through the hotseat commands) so as to give the AI some good starting positions/ balanced stacks.

And why can't the GM even effectively take control of AI enemy factions once war is declared ?

The problem being that when on the offense, battles would have to be autoresolved on our part with the risks that entails.

Maybe limit the GM control to agents/cities/recruitment management, leaving the moves up the AI, thus mimicking the possible lack of communication between the governors and their generals in the field.

Just a thought.

The ball is in Zim's camp.

If we chose such a system, I may even offer Zim to be Assistant GM to help him manage the work load this would create.

Due to how the game is coded, by taking control of a faction, and then giving it back, the AI resets, and then reorganizes it's priorities as if the game started.

LTC Gold's AI is also very competent at producing balanced stacks, and usually only a lack of a training facility prevents it from producing a unit.

[TinCow]

I fear that would not be enough considering SS had the same system IIRc and we steamrolled it all the same.

I actually think the expansion rate in LotR was fine. It slowed down of its own accord after a while, and there were regular defeats and deaths to the AI right through to the end of the game. The AI problems aren't erased by money alone. If triple gold chevron armies could be killed in the Cataclysm, there's really nothing that the AI can throw at us that can't be overcome. IMO, the solution to the problem is internalizing conflict, not endlessly pumping the AI.

[_Tristan_]

The real first stop to expansion we witnessed was the creation of the rebel stacks in Anatolia and near Zagreb in LotR... Those gave me the creeps...

Otherwise, expansion was quite fast throughout the game in my opinion even if it was at a higher cost than in KotR.

I fully understand that pumping the AI full of cash is not the best of solutions but at least it provides it with the means to face us on a more equal footing.

[econ21]

The current draft rules specify hard campaign rather than very hard. (I would agree with this, if the aim is to stop diplomacy going sour so quick). I don't know the mod well enough to quantify the effects of this on AI money, but presumably it strengthens the case for increasing the payout to the AI. I'd be inclined to go for 10k per turn extra.

[Cecil XIX]

The current draft rules specify hard campaign rather than very hard. (I would agree with this, if the aim is to stop diplomacy going sour so quick). I don't know the mod well enough to quantify the effects of this on AI money, but presumably it strengthens the case for increasing the payout to the AI. I'd be inclined to go for 10k per turn extra.

Now that you mention it, I just realized Lusted's probably improved the Campaign AI enough that we *can* boost the Campaign Difficult up to very hard without eliminating diplomacy. And looking at the release info for LTC Gold:

Campaign AI
-Stronger alliances, and allies which help each other more. This results in alliance blocs forming which also change over the course of the game.
-More logical changes to faction standings. So you and the AI will no longer always end up terrible and untrustworthy.
-More logical diplomacy, so it is now a more useful tool in the campaign.
-Rarer Catholic - Islamic alliances.
-Better AI sense of survivability. AI factions are more likely to want peace/vassal if being beaten/beaten badly.
-Better AI garrisoning settlements, and use of forces to guard it's borders.
-More aggressive AI v Independent Factions(eg the rebels from vanilla), so the AI expands much better early on and so the AI can create powerful nations.
-Better AI invasions. It will now build up more before attacking, and attack with more stacks, and stacks which have more units in them.
-Catholic factions less likely to attack each other, but still plenty of wars going on to give that Total War and Medieval experience.

I say we should definitely play on VH/VH.

[KnightnDay]

I think VH/VH is fine, but I agree with TC, under those conditions we don't need to up the AI's purse. If your concern is the AI will still be disadvantaged, we can always operate with smaller stacks and weaker units.

[econ21]

... we can always operate with smaller stacks and weaker units.

I think that would be really hard to pull off in the game. In KotR, players tended not to like my proposals for half stack or "historical" armies - such restrictions are tedious to enforce and it's human nature not to be want to be handicapped. With a gamesmaster and events, there is a little more scope - the cataclysm made some people fight with awful armies, but the cataclysm was a major effort.

[Cecil XIX]

I think that would be really hard to pull off in the game. In KotR, players tended not to like my proposals for half stack or "historical" armies - such restrictions are tedious to enforce and it's human nature not to be want to be handicapped. With a gamesmaster and events, there is a little more scope - the cataclysm made some people fight with awful armies, but the cataclysm was a major effort.

Hey now, I hope you're not referring to Becker's Bohemian Militia.

[Zim]

I actually meant to have the game played at VH/VH...

I don't mind taking control of enemy factions during war but am wary about the supposed problems of turning them back to AI control.

[econ21]

Hey now, I hope you're not referring to Becker's Bohemian Militia.

Yeah, TC was really mean to poor old Becker. But at least he survived to leave the game in style.

[Cecil XIX]

Yeah, TC was really mean to poor old Becker. But at least he survived to leave the game in style.

Not that mean, at least he gave me a guy who could turn one of my spear militia into armored sergeants each turn.

[econ21]

One very minor issue I have been thinking of is how we describe the game turns in character.

Apparently, the mod has 1.5 years per turn but saying "next 1.5 years, I will attack X" sounds weird.

We had a similar issue in KotR - I ended up using the word "turn", so an edict might say "for five turns" - but "turn" is a very OOC and immersion breaking term.

I don't think we can use year as synonymous with turn, as in the bottom right hand corner of the interface, we will have the year shown and it will not increment with turns.

I am wondering about "season" as a more in character term. "Next season, I will attack X" or "Edict: the Chancellor will tread water for 10 seasons" etc. It does not sound too bad. I know a "season" may be more literally a quarter of a year, but I am thinking about a "campaign season", which is how you could regard a total war turn.

For some purposes, we could use years - "Dietrich built watch towers for 15 years" when we mean 10 turns. But often it will be more convenient to count in turns and when we do that season might be as a good a term as any.

What do people think? Turns? Seasons? Anyone got any better ideas?

BTW: I guess characters are still aging two years a turn in this mod? so our ages increment in a way that is out of sync with the game year but we can live with that.

[Vladimir]

Following the discussion in this forum reminds me of a couple forest and tree metaphors. Many players here may have more refined tastes but this is looking really convoluted. The only immersion I'm concerned about is how the interaction in the forum affects the play in the game. Turns, years, what does it matter? I'm happy if it's kept simple.