MTW Pocket Mod: General

[Belisario]

I have noticed your problems editing Lukupmap, perhaps this post of VikingHorde provides you some useful information.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=38121

I have finally made working lbm unit icons without black dots using CA_BIF_BUF tools. This package is also very useful to make other MTW graphics (flags, shields, infopics...), I mean, to make correct bifs and lbms. The key issue is how to use CA_BIF_BUF tools; I found the proper way in this post:

This is an alternative way to save a bif using a tga, without relying on an lbm file saved through Grafx2. #(I used the version of paint-shop-pro avaliable in the tools download area to do this.)

First, take a bmp extracted from the original bif and save it as both a tga and lbm in a program like paint-shop- pro. #The tga file will need to be saved as “10001,” for simplicity sake I named the accompanying lbm 10001 also.
Second, open the program called Seqgrab, and set the information as follows:
– In “path to images” write the location of the 10001.lbm file, e.g., for mine it was “C:\Program Files\Total War\CA_BIF_BUF_Utils”
– In “filename stub” type “1”
– Type in the location of your new lbm file, the one saved as 10001.lbm, where it says "lbm to import from...", #e.g., for mine it was “C:\Program Files\Total War\CA_BIF_BUF_Utils\10001.lbm”
– Check the square that says “whole frame grab”
– Check-off the square that says “purple as transparent”
Choose OK and a bif named "1" should appear.

Whole thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=32556

I have hopes CA_BIF_BUF is able to save correct Lukupmaps but I don't test it with maps for the moment (I suspect it's a very hard task).

Cheers

[caravel]

That's good news and the Mithel Image Converter does work. I have created a working lukupmap using that program in conjunction with ultimate paint, so we can start a new "changes to the map" thread whenever.

[ULC]

Whoohoo! Come on and Celebrate! I shall find the Village People and we will dance the YMCA!

Ahhmm...Really though, I would make a suggestion on the Campaign map. Could you please break apart the Sahara into Barbary, Sub-sahara, and turn the rest into parts of Algeria and Tunisia? Sure, the motivation comes from wanting the Mali Empire, but why not? And can you split Ireland, Hungary, and possibly Austria (giving the Lower part to the Italians or Venetians, if we ever include the latter)?

[caravel]

Ahhmm...Really though, I would make a suggestion on the Campaign map. Could you please break apart the Sahara into Barbary, Sub-sahara, and turn the rest into parts of Algeria and Tunisia? Sure, the motivation comes from wanting the Mali Empire, but why not? And can you split Ireland, Hungary, and possibly Austria (giving the Lower part to the Italians or Venetians, if we ever include the latter)?

Probably won't be enough provinces to do all of that. If you can provide me with sources and preferably maps regarding the Sahara issue I'll be interested, as that area does need some attention.

[ULC]

On titles, have you decided on any, and do you have any stats on them yet?

[caravel]

I haven't been able to work out where the titles for buildings are defined.

[ULC]

It's in the start position files, around the provincial titles I believe.

[caravel]

It's in the start position files, around the provincial titles I believe.

*slaps self* Of course. I see them now, below the governor's titles. Thanks!

[The Unknown Guy]

Following Noir's and Omanes's suggestion, I increased the rebellion risk of all provinces to 1, except those which are "non-factions" (AKA: Navarre, Portugal, Khazar, Ireland...) which I put up at 5. Observations:

- Expansion is FAR MORE DIFFICULT. Starting as Castile-Leon, I had two rebellions in Leon (Risk:1), which required extensive putting down, and mass executions. Valencia (also 1) gave me problems too, despite having managed (at least, after several attempts) how to use Jinetes.
I conquered Navarre (Rebellion Risk: 5) and I've put down five rebellions, with mass executions, and the loyalty is still only around 65% (despite a four javelinmen-one Jinete garrison). So the "Keep-non-factions seems to work.

-Loyalty: Apparently having a low loyalty province producing troops begets low loyalty generals: many of my jinetes in my Low-Loyalty Leon were born with 2 and 3 loyalty (My king starts with 4 influence). Did anyone else notice that? It might allow making "troop homelands" less general, as it will take a while to "pacify&assimilate" a province anyway.

[caravel]

Following Noir's and Omanes's suggestion, I increased the rebellion risk of all provinces to 1, except those which are "non-factions" (AKA: Navarre, Portugal, Khazar, Ireland...) which I put up at 5. Observations:

The problem with a province of 5 rebelliousness is that the AI will find it almost impossible to hold down. Especially if it is a valour bonus province as the AI may try to tech up to the valour bonus, and not get the happy buildings in there.

- Expansion is FAR MORE DIFFICULT. Starting as Castile-Leon, I had two rebellions in Leon (Risk:1), which required extensive putting down, and mass executions. Valencia (also 1) gave me problems too, despite having managed (at least, after several attempts) how to use Jinetes.
I conquered Navarre (Rebellion Risk: 5) and I've put down five rebellions, with mass executions, and the loyalty is still only around 65% (despite a four javelinmen-one Jinete garrison). So the "Keep-non-factions seems to work.

I am currently running on a default of 2 with the other rebellious provinces still at 3 or 4. Even 4 is still difficult for the AI to deal with. You find that when a province has been razed that it becomes impossible for any faction except the player to hold it down.

-Loyalty: Apparently having a low loyalty province producing troops begets low loyalty generals: many of my jinetes in my Low-Loyalty Leon were born with 2 and 3 loyalty (My king starts with 4 influence). Did anyone else notice that? It might allow making "troop homelands" less general, as it will take a while to "pacify&assimilate" a province anyway.

I've never noticed that, interesting though as it would represent the recruitment of the locals into the army who would be less than loyal and need titles to keep them in line.

Speaking of titles I need some ideas for titles for the highest level barracks. The barracks are no longer purely "Town Watches" so "Sheriff" type titles would not be suitable.

[ULC]

I have been using the same setup as Caravel. It appears the AI THINKS more when it has to deal with a rebellious province then when it doesn't. The thing you need to do is also increase the amount of income per province, to 15-30% so that the AI will use it more effectively. It garrisons better, troop quality is better (the rebellions quckly weed out the weak units), the AI will actually seek ceasefires and peace, Territorial boundries are signifigantly more robust, and with a little tweaking in the UNIT_BUILDPRODUCTION file, it will concentrate on it's economy more by making income buildings with a happiness bonus. I've heard complaints also of the AI poor management of Trade. An Idea would be to reduce the overall sea regions to 10-14.

[caravel]

I haven't been tweaking provincial incomes as yet as I intend to add incomes to troop equipment buildings, and perhaps some incomes to others (not too many as I don;t want to crash the thing!). Swordsmiths and Armourers perhaps could produce an income. I already have Abbeys and Monasteries producing a small income and churches and cathedrals incurring support costs (a negative income).

[ULC]

On provincial rebelliousness, should the German provinces have 2 for a rebellion factor? It appears the HRE can hold on to them better that way (wierd, huh?) and I think that it historically reflects the natural indepence these areas had. Also, places that were independent or were rather pragmatic about thier rulers (bulgaria comes to mind) should have high rebellion rates.

Umm, Caravel, where should we discuss Titles and control of provinces? Here, the factions thread, or the maps and provinces?

Although this is a long time coming, I disagree with a complete wipe of command stars from titles. Things such as Universities, the Barracks buildings and Military Academies should give a command bonus (ONE STAR!) to reflect higher learning, familiarity with the troops, or strategic and tactical training, respectively.

[caravel]

On provincial rebelliousness, should the German provinces have 2 for a rebellion factor? It appears the HRE can hold on to them better that way (wierd, huh?) and I think that it historically reflects the natural indepence these areas had. Also, places that were independent or were rather pragmatic about thier rulers (bulgaria comes to mind) should have high rebellion rates.

It is ok to give persistently rebel provinces the high rebellion rates, but for factions anything over 2 is hurts the AI.

Umm, Caravel, where should we discuss Titles and control of provinces? Here, the factions thread, or the maps and provinces?

You can either make a new thread, which would probably be the best idea, or go to the maps and provinces, but that thread is in danger of getting very clogged.

Although this is a long time coming, I disagree with a complete wipe of command stars from titles. Things such as Universities, the Barracks buildings and Military Academies should give a command bonus (ONE STAR!) to reflect higher learning, familiarity with the troops, or strategic and tactical training, respectively.

One star I think we can live with as it's not going to have a massive effect. We just need to decide on some titles for the buildings for all cultures and factions. I have given a title to the Turks for the Sultan's Harem building. This title down bestows "The Aga of the Girls". This was only a test and is strictly an Ottoman title but unlike units we cannot restrict titles or buildings to eras.

[axel]

Hi all i have a question wich one of the downloads most i install becose i got 8 of them i got :1.0 and 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 and 1.0.3 and 1.0.4. and 1.0.5. and 1.0.6 and 1.0.6.b i guess i should be the last one or most i install them all from 1 to 6b ??

[caravel]

Hi all i have a question wich one of the downloads most i install becose i got 8 of them i got :1.0 and 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 and 1.0.3 and 1.0.4. and 1.0.5. and 1.0.6 and 1.0.6.b i guess i should be the last one or most i install them all from 1 to 6b ??

Download the last one and install that. 1.0.6b supercedes all older versions. It is the same as 1.0.6 but fixes a rather silly error that slipped through unnoticed.

Be aware that this is an unfinished mod that is still in development and is not anywhere near finished, though versions 1.0 to 1.06b are relatively playable. 1.0.7 will be a big diversion from previous versions and is not scheduled for release for an indefinite period.

Many thanks for trying it out, let us know your comments and observations.

[axel]

Thx Caravel,
I will play and let you know

[axel]

Hi mate
wot exact is changed in this mod compare to the normal MTW ?? is there a list of it ?

[Martok]

Hi mate
wot exact is changed in this mod compare to the normal MTW ?? is there a list of it ?

Link.

[The Unknown Guy]

So far the AI seems to be doing better (as a general rule), with the increased rebelliousness factor. Superpowers don't bloat-collapse as often, at least by themselves (destroying a chapterhouse can throw them into Civil war, but that's usual anyway), and the Golden Horde lasted a long while, and made a decent infrastructure, before having problems (with the polish, which were also doing rather well. I might have increased the lifespan of the GH unwittingly, however, as I made a fast raid and cut Poland in two. To be tested further)
Concerning the GH: increasing it's starting cash might make it last longer...

[ULC]

On the Golden Horde, do you think it would be possible to add an "Anti-Halberd" unit? Me thinks it would enable the Golden Horde a better chance against the human player. On monetary matters, I think the main problem is the support costs. The Horde goes bankrupt withn a few years after appearing, so lowering the support costs and increasing the starting treasury may help. Also, a well developed Khazar (thier favored province) could help them too, although a pragmatic player would simply raze it prior to the invasion .

[caravel]

I have valour bonuses in Khazar for the mongol units, developing it won't help much, and as armour and weapon bonuses wont exist in the next PoM, that won't be an issue.

The best counter to halberds is a Stronger Infantry or for the human player only good missile units, as the former would not be very historical for the Mongols and the latter would not help the AI at all then a Stronger Cavalry would be in order. The MHA and MHC could be improved slightly, to make them more of a threat. I always find that I can melt MHC and that MHA rarely commit to the offensive anyway, and it is usually a combination of Benny Hill code and a being flanked, shot up and/or charged that gets them routing.

The Mongol Auxilliary Cavalry unit may also make a difference. These will be almost AHC class cavalry and not armed with bows, which means the AI won't turn them on to skirmish and have them sitting there at the foot of a hill getting shot up by foot archers or crossbows/arbalests. At present the GH have the too extremes of cavalry, Horse Archers and Heavies. The HAs are great in most situations, but when they could be chasing routers and flanking the simply hang back. The MHC are also good for their role but fall victim to spear walls and concentrated missile fire. I always find that in battles where the GH bring along some Steppe Cavalry, they do much better, simply because it takes away the predictability. The SHC will attack and the HA's are there to harass and cover their backs. The MHC can hang back and come in for the kill later. What the SC lack is some guts and this is where the new MAC come in. They will be the cav to surprise the player, balance the roster, and have him looking for a suitable counter. instead of the old formula of arrows and loose formation for the MHAs and spears, anti cav and bolts for the MHCs the player will have to start thinking again. This would also involved the removal of the hordes of Mongol Warriors which I find easy pickings and a huge exploit. They will be either a dismount only unit (though I'm thinking strongly of removing dismounts as the AI can't use this feature at all) or a steppe unit (the steppe equivalent of archers).

[ULC]

When I was talking about a well developed Khazar, what I meant was to jump start the Horde so that they don't end up crippled unit wise. They eventually run out of MHC (never seem to run out of MHA or arrows for that matter) and lack any form of support for their forces. The idea was to give them adequate facilities to more easily replenish their units, and possibly make them more aggressive.

Originally Posted by Caravel
The Mongol Auxilliary Cavalry unit may also make a difference. These will be almost AHC class cavalry and not armed with bows, which means the AI won't turn them on to skirmish and have them sitting there at the foot of a hill getting shot up by foot archers or crossbows/arbalests. At present the GH have the too extremes of cavalry, Horse Archers and Heavies. The HAs are great in most situations, but when they could be chasing routers and flanking the simply hang back. The MHC are also good for their role but fall victim to spear walls and concentrated missile fire. I always find that in battles where the GH bring along some Steppe Cavalry, they do much better, simply because it takes away the predictability. The SHC will attack and the HA's are there to harass and cover their backs. The MHC can hang back and come in for the kill later. What the SC lack is some guts and this is where the new MAC come in. They will be the cav to surprise the player, balance the roster, and have him looking for a suitable counter. instead of the old formula of arrows and loose formation for the MHAs and spears, anti cav and bolts for the MHCs the player will have to start thinking again. This would also involved the removal of the hordes of Mongol Warriors which I find easy pickings and a huge exploit. They will be either a dismount only unit (though I'm thinking strongly of removing dismounts as the AI can't use this feature at all) or a steppe unit (the steppe equivalent of archers).

Now that sounds great, I'm drooling over it already. Are you perhaps going to make the GH playable in late? I would love to utilize the Hordes units, as I can easily rout just about any army with them. Also, would it be possible (and historical) to give a "fear" bonus to some Mongol units? I definitely like the idea of making the Mongol Warriors "Steppe Archers" or some such unit, and the "possible" Volga-Bulgarian and Cuman factions could easily make use of it.

[UltraWar]

Will the Glorious Achievements be fixed in a later patch?

[caravel]

Ultrawar,

GA functionality is very likely to be removed from the mod due to incompatibilities. This is not abnormal as most mods, especially those covering different periods, have seen the removal of GA. So far I have tried to keep GA function intact, but as the mod advances and more changes are made with more provinces being moved, removed and added, GA will become more of a problem and may end up being a restrictive factor.

From my own point of view this is not a problem. I find the GA game restrictive and predictable, and it seems that the AI is inept at it. I understand perfectly however that many players do like the GA game, and I consider it a sad loss that it was not included in later TW games. This is why I have strived to keep it in the mod thus far.

[The Unknown Guy]

Some experiments I am messing around with, as an approach to what has been styled in this forum, plus some other of my own concoction:

-Removed armoury. All armoury dependences have been switched. For instance, now Feudal Knights need a swordsmith as well as a (decent) spearmaker

-Removed spearmaker's and bowyer's dependences on town watch. Now they're independent military buildings. The swordsmith, however, DOES depend on the spearmaker (as an approach to the blacksmith thing)

-Spanish factions (Castile&Aragon): Now they lack access to Town Watch buildings. Their basic unit is the Almugharav(Spanish javelinmen), with a reduced support cost

plus some messings with Byzantium
-Found the standard Prononai Kavalliory (regular Prononai Allaegion) a bit lacking in stats. Improved their charge and attack, left their defense and armor as it is (I think I reduced defense). So now they're a half-breed between Feudal and Chivalric Knights, being somewhat better overall than the former, with equal charge, and a bit better general stats, albeit with a higher upkeep. They are now a good charger cavalry unit, able to hold themselves against FKs, but in a fight against Chivs, if left by themselves, they will get torn to shreds. I tried to alter their cosmetic looks, to make them look different from Stratioi. I was pondering removing them, and making an all-around PKT with Feudal-knight charge stats, 5 armor (as it is now), and horse-archer capabilities, with high upkeep, but thought it might turn too uber (either that or with a big requirement stepping stone bridge, which would make their arrival late. And as it is now the reqs are rather steep)

Psiloi: Made them "Fast" as well as their standing stats (to make it more viable to make hit and runs.
Skulkatoi: Now they have "Normal" morale instead of "poor".
Note about All byzantine units: Some did receive an upgrade as I stated, but I increased the building requirements for all of them, following this rule-of-thumb:
Byzantine armies were professional/mercenaries. So now, ALL STANDARD BYZANTINE UNITS require a certain level of the town watch to be built, to reflect their reliance on cities.
So now, for instance, my Psiloi need Bowyer level 2, and Town Watch level 2. I´m pondering switching this to bowyer level 1, swordsmith level 1, Town watch level 2.
Skulkatoi need Swordsmith level 2 plus Town Watch.
Prononai Kavs require, as well as their "swordsmith" and a high-rate horse-breeder (standard for all heavy cav), town watch 3. So do PKT, which also require bowyer level 3, and swordsmith (I put them as a crossbreed of horse archers and heavycav)

As for mounted sergeants: Horse-breeder2 and Spearmaker 2. ByzLancers(PrononaiStratioi) the same + Town Watch

Also: some ways I thought of removing the "swords vs spears" problem without removing the spears category: Two possible ways, to be precise

- Lowering the men at arm's defense drastically. This would make them decent assault forces, able to withstand arrow rains (thanks to armor), but would likely suffer heavy casualties, and would stand no chance against a cavalry charge. Even light cavalry would be deadly to them

-Increasing their support cost: In the sense of "them being the higher ranks of the gendry, and thus being costly". They'd be as deadly as they are now, only far more scarce. The historical reasoning is sound. In Spain, for instance, "hidalgos" were the lowest nobility rank, and yet they did not pay any taxes. Their bloating eventually brought the state to bankrupt. I understand in Turkey something akin happened with the nominally slaves but actually equivalent to a gendry class Janissaries.

[ULC]

I like the idea of lowering thier defense. They would end up being used much like no-dachi from STW, and they would finally stop beating cavalry. On anoher note though, any english only MAA we make should have cavalry defense bonuses, in my opinion at least, to better reflect english fighting style.

[ULC]

I've been working over a few things, and have come to discover that to my delight, Spies and Assassins have gained much with the spreading of heresy. For instance, we know that one spy is enough to start a rebellion and you need no more (except as fodder). But with the spread of heresy comes the ability to forment rebellion overtime. As such, although only one spy may be working at a time, any other spies in the region are spreading heresy. This means that spies, working in groups, can make otherwise loyal provinces that would normally be out of reach revolt eventually. Also, the spy has another power (along with the assassin) to be a "crusade caller". In effect, if the heresy in a province is high enough, you may call a crusade on provinces that would not normally be able to crusade against, and quite cheaply too (my experience any way).

[Third spearman from the left]

Wow I really have been playing RTW for too long

So do I get a mention in the credits for starting this topic and bringing all these hard working modders together?

[Noir]

A suggestion for minimising rushing openings:

In many guides of the vanilla games you see that people tend to write out their future problems by a nice quick rush. For example say the Turks in vanilla can take out Constantinople in two turns almost that deals a deadly blow in the Byzantines; the Byzantines from their part can do the same with Rum. Planty of other similar strategies exist all over the board, say also in the Iberian peninsula or by raising mercenary armies.

This in large is made possible by the starting treasury; 6000 flrs at hard level are more than enough to support such moves (the other reasons are the low rebelliousness and fast religion conversions but the PoM is dealing with those already).

My suggestion is to keep the starting treasury column empty in the starpos.txt that will render all treasuries for all levels 2000 flrs. That will cut down on prolonged opening rushes/offensives that will guarantee a large sizze state to begin with in 10 turns. Its more difficult to consolidate provinces with 1.0 or 2.0 province rebeliousness with fewer starting money.

Noir