Historical accuracy

[JaM]

Quark: Instead of powerfull France, England and HRE you now have powerful Italians, Aragon and Ireland... I take first three anytime, because they provide more fun with their late units. But with current configuraition,those three factions most of time are killed off, or reduced to 1-3 provinces at best before even reaching Black Death... and at that time Italians have half of central europe... THIS is happening to me every game I play. Since last month (when i started to play M2TW again) same situation repeats over and over again... with small differences if I choose one of those nations... But AI plays terrible as France, HRE or England... (and same is true for Otomans...) I call it bad balance.

What is causing it? Answer is probably hard, we can say money script need tweaking, but i'm not sure about it - In my last campaign I altered King Purse for all factions and I gave KP 1000 to Italians and 6000-8000 to HRE and France. After 100 turns, half of France is occupied by Ireland and Venice, HRE is almost killed off by Sicilly, and England is gone because of Scottland and Ireland... (Their end came after they conguered Edinburg and William Wallace emerged...)
SO, It isnt caused by money....

What is causing it then? It is unit composition. All those powerhorse factions have some superunits that are wining against HRE,France, England, even if Player finds them weak. Problem is autocalc works differently than battle against AI... So Italians are always able to beat France easilly and they dont have any chance, even if they have more money.

For me its going to the point where this game is not providing enough of fun as it is too repetitious. Sometimes smaller scope of game is better than megalomaniac huge campaign with every faction possible. Unit slots are limited, we can't add enough units for every faction, removing some factions is necessary - It will allow to add new units that will balance game more - more Early Era units, so Early Era is not so cheap for example...

And regarding Templars, if they will be available to any faction that will conquer Jerusalem, instead of own faction, it will just add more fun - It will make you crusade more. Right now crusades are just a shadow of what they were intended to in vanila.

[Chappy4756]

Curious Jam, what difficulty level do you play on? And what faction are you playing?

[JaM]

Spain, VH/VH, but i also tried H/VH and H/H

[Fluttershy]

I honestly think you are just having bad luck JaM, FRance is strong in most of my games provided I the player dont border them, the balance is also dramatically changed by whatever faction the human takes, provided the human player is decent the factions bordering them are prolly gonna be weak

[Quark]

JaM
While I agree that Genoa has taken over the Milan spot as the spam cheap malita, and as such is a bit of a powerhouse, and that maybe Aragon can become powerful (although I have only seen it very rarely), I have to say that you must have an irish built machine, because in every game I have ever played they are useless (and not even a faction ). The most I have ever seen them do is invade england, not win, just invade.

Sicily was hugely powerful at the start (btw I am talking EE games and its just occured that you are proparly LE), and Venice, well it was rich.

Now as to LE, I could not say, never played one, but yes at least by then the Franks had actually captured a fair part of France and Sicily should be weaker (:hmmm: have to read up on my Sicilian Vespers again).

One of the basic issues imo is the rather generic catholic Ai. I would much rather have a Ai geared to each faction (or at the very least small catholic and large catholic), so some factions remain smaller but mantain decent armies to guard their borders, were as some are more expansive.

The other issue is boredom. For alot of people the most fun is had at the start, when you are conquering your neighbours, but there comes a stage, when your empire reaches a certain size, that fighting off enemies becomes easier, so what is also required is an extra 'kick up the pants' factor that comes in once you get to this size and new challenges appear. The question is whether you can do this without slowing down turn times, which is a big negative for alot of players.

[aduellist]

As usual, a lot of wisdom in what Quark says. I too play almost strictly EE. I tend to play on M/M because I think that's where the true "balance" of a mod can be seen. There are several things that I see over and over again in my campaigns.

Unless I play England, they will be destroyed within 100 turns by the Scots.

Unless I play HRE, they will be destroyed within 100 turns by France, Denmark, and the "Italian Mob".

Unless I play Novgorod, they will be destroyed within 100 turns by Lithuania and the Cumans.

Unless I play one of the Iberian factions (Portugal/Leon-Castille/Aragon), they will all be destroyed within 100 turns by the Moors.

Those are the most critical balance issues I see. Some of this, I think, is due to unit roster decisions made to give some of these factions a fighting chance. The unintended result is that, in the hands of the AI, they become monsters. I'm not conversant enough with AI tweaking to determine how to make that better, though.

[Sonny WiFiHr]

He he I m glad to see all diferent opinions. But what is the thing that you miss in early /late campaign?(or what you want to be incorporated in SS?)

[aduellist]

I don't know that I necessarily "miss" anything in either campaign (at least that can be done within the confines of the game). I'd just like to see the various factions behave in a more rational manner.

Scotland (such as it was) didn't want to invade England (or Norway, or France), but to preserve Scotland. The Irish (such as they were) didn't want to invade England (or France, or Spain), but to preserve Ireland. Same applies to Lithuania, who fought wars of preservation, not expansion. On the other hand, I don't think England would sit there saying "Oh, look, a squirrel!" while the Scots overrun the whole shooting match.

I haven't found any evidence that Leon-Castille wanted to invade England in the 12th century, but they will almost invariably land a small army and besiege Exeter within the first 100 turns (while being swallowed in large chunks by the Moors).

The Italian states (Venice and Genoa) were in reality primarily concerned with trade, not territorial expansion (unless, of course, such territorial expansion was a commercial necessity).

Of course, part of the problem is that the only way to "win" is to conquer large swathes of the map. And, at least to some extent, the AI plays to win.

I'm not saying I want an exact reproduction of history, what fun would that be? I would like to see factions like those above act in a more sane and rational manner, or at least get a sense that they're acting in their own interests rather than the disjointed behaviour we see now.

[spartan117]

I agree, I as many appreciate the unexpected ways a campaign will play out. However through many campaigns there are certain things to be expected. these include France, England, HRE becoming quite weak as a faction. Again a disclaimer must be provided as I appreciate the "randomness" from the game. I surely do not want hyper realistic things exactly corresponding to the various historical dates.

But it does grows tiresome to witness the same occurrences happen over and over again. These occurrences are that particular factions who historically were not too powerful but in the course of the campaign wipe out factions who were powerful historically. A much better outcome would be that certain "minor" factions may become powerful but more then likely they do not become powerhouses.

Now tornnight did try to create a historical balance by not just editing the money scripts given to factions but altering the auto resolve. He did this by altering the EDU. Now I am not too concern with the auto resolve done when the human chooses but the auto resolve that occurs between ai factions. Now I dont know what changes could be done to the EDU that could create a preferred balance in the auto resolve. Some problems could be is that it would ruin the realistic balance that Point blank is attempting for. Another solution would be considering the removal of certain units for these minor factions (or weaken the units) or change the EDB to limit certain types of units. (or increase the rate of recruitment for France,HRE, etc..)

However despite what ever does occur in the submods in the attempt to create a semblance of historical balance, the eastern factions should not be removed. As it is there are relatively few factions that cover the muslim world (surely not historically accurate but again besides the point) The relatively few factions are meant to create large muslim factions rather having a divided realm of many warring factions.

As Jam said regarding the current eastern factions do not threaten Europe as they supposedly did. Jam argues this is not accurately represented in the game they should be considered for removal. I disagree the current status of the muslim world in stainless steel provides another realm in which fighting could occur. although they might not be able to threaten Europe and do not really resemble the historical middle east and the steppes near the Ural mountains I would rather have the current status then less factions in the east. I do believe there is another mod in the works that concentrates on the European world. SS and submods should (in my opinion) paint with a wider brush of historical realism if you would. Less accurate in specific areas but includes a wider campaign map.

I still think Ireland should be considered for removal. I am less opinionated about other factions. Three factions in the Britannic isles is too much considering the relatively few factions slots available.

I also think that the RC mod could create more unit spots by removing some of the many unique units available to some of the factions. Then these slots can be used to create more generic units that could better portray the historical evolution of warfare. Long post.....

[saphira]

i have played alot of compain's..and in almost evry game.the knight's tmplar's/or koj are beijng whiped out by a super egyptians nation.;the concure evrything and even crusades can't stop them.if i'm not there offcouce ;-)

[JaM]

Otomans dont attack Europe, because they have no border with Europe - to change that we need a landbridge - currently they only send a ship sometimes to invade, but with Landbridge neac Constantinople, their attack will be more common (as they were in history)

[Point Blank]

Landbridge, definitely.

[Kavhan Isbul]

I only recenty installed the mod and am already 100+ turns into a Cuman VH/VH campaign, and having lots of fun. Just as anyone, I thought about how the mod could be changed, as fas as factions are concerned, and could not really come up with a good idea.
To me, the biggest hole in the map occurs where the Abassid Caliphate should be. This land in my campaign was taken by the Seljuks and the Khwarezmids. Considering however that the Mongols will appear and unleash their might upon the Khwarezmids, boosting the latter is not a bad idea. So I would not make a change, even though the Abassids would fit in nicely there.
In my campaign, the Top 5 consists of me and the four Muslim factions. The Templars are still around and reduced to Antioch and another small region, which is more than historically accurate. I personally would not remove them, besides they look like tons of fun to play with.
In my campaign, Norway was destroyed early and the Danes are quite strong. Removing Norway however will only worsen the situation and the Danes will be even stronger earlier. I think Norway needs a boost in terms of economy, and I am sure the issue has been covered in this forum before.
As for Ireland, I do not have an opinion. They are quite a unique faction which seems to be popular with many players, and this in itself is probably reason enough to keep them.

So based on some very limited experience from a campaign which is not finished yet, I personally like the faction mix and would not change it. Here are my only "gripes" about certain things occuring or not occuring in the mod:
- the Seljuks and the Romans (as in Eastern Roman Empire) simply do not fight, but live next to each other peacefully. On one hand this is good, as the Seljuks never really made an invasion in Europe in the 12th century, on the other I am so used to these two factions being sworn enemies that something is left missing here.
- the Teutons appeared, allied with me, skipped Lithuania and besieged Kiev, which I hold. Every turn I offer them ceasefire, which they accept and even pay me 2k florints for my "generous" proposal. While I like the idea of a cash cow, I feel this behaviour makes them useless and a poor use of a faction slot. They are a really cool faction though, so I hope this is just what I am experiencing and that usually they go after Lithuania.

[Oddball_E8]

just to add fuel to the fire, id like to mention that there have been at least one crusade against christians in europe. http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/albigens.htm

im sure theres been a few more, but this is the one i know about.

[Gorrrrrn]

for a few more crusades against christians, pagans and anyone else various rulers could get
a Pope to bless an armed attack upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

[Barser]

kavhan isbul: norway is already one of the riches factions along with denmark and ireland somehow always takes the cake :/.

[Musthavename]

Personally, with the Templars i'd just rather merge them with the KoJ into a "Crusader States" faction. Then the Templars can get some reinforcement scripts early on to represent any Crusades. The thing is, the area with the most imbalance is the middle east. In every single game i've played, the Templars are destroyed. I don't tend to play late campaigns so I can't comment on the KoJ. Thing is, with the Templars destroyed, theres huge gaping areas of rebel lands for the Turks, Kwarzemenians and Eygptians to take, which almost always results in Kwarz / Fatimids being two of the top three factions (the other generally being who I end up playing ). The spare faction slot could be used to add someone like the Abassids (I believe they were in Baghdad, someone correct me if i'm wrong). This would help to balance out those factions. I wouldn't worry about the Mongols appearing and annihilating the Kwarzemenians, because thats what actually happened!

The other thing is Ireland. Ireland don't do anything. In my games the best they've ever done is take Caernavon, and were soon driven off by the Scots. The rest of the time they just sit there in Ireland doing nothing. Thats the other problem. Scotland and England have a fascination with mainland Europe. Similarly, it seems eventually its always the Scots who win in Britain. It makes me want to disable the sea_invasion property, but that would probably cause whoever wins to just sit in Britain constantly. What I think needs to be done is to remo ve Ireland, but leave the settlements with beefed up rebels (Gallogliachs / Kerns are still merc units so they can be used even with Irish unit spaces going elsewhere). Then, move some of the Ports. Move the port in Inverness to the other side of Scotland, the port in York to the east, and the port in Exeter to the north-side of Cornwall. This might then encourage England / Scotland to attack the rebel Ireland more so than mainland Europe. If Ireland had to be kept, at least beef them up with some Ports and maybe an emergent army so they can do something.

After removing Ireland, i'd definetly add in Georgia instead. As the whole Georgian area tends to just stay Turkish the entire time, or even Cuman. I would definetly prefer them over Serbia / Bulgaria / Burgundy, simply because I think those areas are already fine. Add in Burgundy it will just cancel out Genoa with itself. Add in Serbia and you cancel out Venice. Add in Bulgaria and you cancel out Hungary. I wouldn't remove any other factions though. Just the KoJ Templar Merger and Ireland replaced by the Abassids & Georgia, as its the East of the map where the problems lie. Unless i'm playing a Catholic faction, it seems theres never a single Catholic in the top five. Its always the four Muslim factions / Byzantium.

I would however be for far more emergence scripts like William Wallace. Crusades could be added easily. If she could be represented, a Jean of Arc event would be nice, and a fourth Crusade for Venice would be nice (though I suppose that could really cripple Byzantium).

EDIT: Another thought. Would it be possible to start the Templars / Crusader states with a Templar Chapter House already in Tortosa and decent amount of money? Otherwise anyone playing the Eastern factions (that actually get to fight the Templars), will have to put up with more than just Sergeants and actually Knights.

[Kavhan Isbul]

kavhan isbul: norway is already one of the riches factions along with denmark and ireland somehow always takes the cake :/.

My experience is limited and based on one campaign only. I just noticed that Norway was quickly wiped out by the Danes and the Scots. Ireland in my campaign has taken over the Northern coast of France from Britanny to Flanders, and they also control Wales. The Templars are still alive, and taking full advantage of the Turks' having their hands full with the Khwarezmians and the Fatimids. I am allied to the Turks, so it is not me who is responsible for their problems - in other words the Templars managed to stay alive and turn the tables on the Turks entirely on their own, no help from me.

I noticed Portugal was destroyed and I am not quite sure if they deserve a faction slot, but they are too far away from me and it was hard for me to monitor their progress and demise in order to come up with a better grasp of their role in the mod.

[JaM]

I play as Spain most of the time, and Portugal conquers the west africa if I let them.

[Kavhan Isbul]

I play as Spain most of the time, and Portugal conquers the west africa if I let them.

Could that be because you destroy the Moors?
I am far from suggesting that a faction is removed just because it is weak though.