Suggestions for new content for RR/RC?

[Point Blank]

Already included

[k/t]

Is there any way to separate the "harder assimilation" script from the "can't build or destroy anything in the settlement as soon as you capture it" script? I don't mind longer assimilation, but I resent not being able to destroy buildings in the settlement once I conquer it. It defeats the purpose of raiding. I keep deleting it every time there's a new patch because of this. Can't the restriction on building anything remain while the one on destroying something is removed? Actually, I'd like to see them both removed anyway, since they'll likely contribute to longer AI turn times and they can be bypassed by exiting and reloading. The player will have to control himself and not build anything on the first turn. That's what I've been doing and it works fine.

Edit: That rebellion mod looks cool, but until its effect on AI turn times can be determined, it should be optional in the installer.

[smitty]

Already included

Woohoo!

[Ichon]

Actually, I'd like to see them both removed anyway, since they'll likely contribute to longer AI turn times and they can be bypassed by exiting and reloading. The player will have to control himself and not build anything on the first turn. That's what I've been doing and it works fine.

Really? Exit and reload bypasses that script? Never noticed that. I don't mind the wait for raids... if you can't hold it for one turn then it seems fair you shouldn't be able to raze the place to the ground. You still get the sack money if you can't hold it which seems about right for a quick looting.

[napoleonic]

it does not even requires exiting the game, simply save after you capture it and load that save.

[smitty]

it does not even requires exiting the game, simply save after you capture it and load that save.

That, or you if you commence with a battle after taking a town it is affected. When you are returned to the campaign map that earlier sacked town can now be built in/razed. Although that's just another exploit to avoid a script built for a very functional and reasonable purpose.

Speaking of sacking/exterminating populations, the current build of this mod is that extermination reduces most buildings down to tier 2 or tier 1 versions. I don't totally see the reason in this. When the mongols more or less 'exterminated' the people of Baghdad they didn't also bust down every useful building in sight and then immediately start rebuilding them from the ground up a while later. A better representation of extermination (if building destruction is somehow justfiable) would be to reduce every building's health to 0% so that everything must be repaired, not rebuilt from tier 1. This would also add an interesting dynamic to civil unrest as all of their law and entertainment buildings wouldn't be fully operable upon takeover, simulating the need for the new government to establish themselves in their place and actually make an effort on their own part to manage the newly conquered peoples, e.g. by restoring the former entertainment/law buildings.

[Point Blank]

Edit: That rebellion mod looks cool, but until its effect on AI turn times can be determined, it should be optional in the installer.

Its optional

That, or you if you commence with a battle after taking a town it is affected. When you are returned to the campaign map that earlier sacked town can now be built in/razed. Although that's just another exploit to avoid a script built for a very functional and reasonable purpose.

Speaking of sacking/exterminating populations, the current build of this mod is that extermination reduces most buildings down to tier 2 or tier 1 versions. I don't totally see the reason in this. When the mongols more or less 'exterminated' the people of Baghdad they didn't also bust down every useful building in sight and then immediately start rebuilding them from the ground up a while later. A better representation of extermination (if building destruction is somehow justfiable) would be to reduce every building's health to 0% so that everything must be repaired, not rebuilt from tier 1. This would also add an interesting dynamic to civil unrest as all of their law and entertainment buildings wouldn't be fully operable upon takeover, simulating the need for the new government to establish themselves in their place and actually make an effort on their own part to manage the newly conquered peoples, e.g. by restoring the former entertainment/law buildings.

OK sounds good thanks will take a look.

[k/t]

"if you can't hold it for one turn then it seems fair you shouldn't be able to raze the place to the ground."

How long do you need to burn the place to the ground? You're not gonna sit there and remove the bricks one by one.

[Ichon]

"if you can't hold it for one turn then it seems fair you shouldn't be able to raze the place to the ground."

How long do you need to burn the place to the ground? You're not gonna sit there and remove the bricks one by one.

You are if you want to gain money from it. You're selling the stones to other people to use to build or something. Why do you gain money from burning it?

[smitty]

How long do you need to burn the place to the ground? You're not gonna sit there and remove the bricks one by one.

Furthermore, a fire in a city wouldn't be a guaranteed way of totally destroying it either. If you look at pictures of fire-started disasters many buildings often keep their substructure in tact or at least the foundations are still functional with mostly burned wood/debris that needs to be removed.

I think the selling/deconstruction option of buildings should require more than one or two turns to simulate the tedious process of actually demolishing and removing a massive building with medieval equipment. It would probably be more fair to remove that feature altogether (I'm guessing its hardcoded) and make it so you can damage every building to 0% health but not actually bust it down to tier 1 and eliminate it. Forcing the AI to start over with tier 1 armory in 1450 just because you sacked the city just doesn't make sense... There's no reason a recovering city wouldn't be able to start over with the technology where they left off. It doesn't take 50 years just to build a building that can forge metal plate...

I'm rather opposed to the whole "reducing building tiers" function in this game...

[RollingWave]

Furthermore, a fire in a city wouldn't be a guaranteed way of totally destroying it either. If you look at pictures of fire-started disasters many buildings often keep their substructure in tact or at least the foundations are still functional with mostly burned wood/debris that needs to be removed.

I think the selling/deconstruction option of buildings should require more than one or two turns to simulate the tedious process of actually demolishing and removing a massive building with medieval equipment. It would probably be more fair to remove that feature altogether (I'm guessing its hardcoded) and make it so you can damage every building to 0% health but not actually bust it down to tier 1 and eliminate it. Forcing the AI to start over with tier 1 armory in 1450 just because you sacked the city just doesn't make sense... There's no reason a recovering city wouldn't be able to start over with the technology where they left off. It doesn't take 50 years just to build a building that can forge metal plate...

I'm rather opposed to the whole "reducing building tiers" function in this game...

Yeah... but the facts are that during history MOST settlements was NOT a one way up trend, MANY went from great to modest (or even to dust, as in the case of Merv). Rome was basically a town inside the ruins of a huge city by 1100, Bengazhi was a village in magnificent ruins, Constantinople went from one of the greatest city on earth to being somehing like Rome from 1100-1260 (and never really recovered much until it became Istanbul). Cordoba also went from great to nothing in the 300 year span of 1100-1400.


In fact, the majority of the great cities during this period saw epic setbacks either directly or indirectly due to war. The largest cities in 1100 amongst the represented areas / factions represented were...

(huge)
Cordoba
Constatinople
Baghdad

(really large, possibly huge)
Merv
Samarkand
Urgench
Ray
Herat
Nisaphur

(Large)
Cairo
Damascus
Kiev
Venice
Palermo
Seville

Of these city... the only once that didn't suffer catastrophic non-plague related demise period were Seville and Venice, and to a lesser extend Cairo and Damscus. 3 of them basically was no longer inhabitated by the 1500s. (Merv, Nisahpur and Urgench ). Ray became fairly irrelvant (giving the rise to Tehran), Kiev / Samarkand / Baghdad were all completely leveled at least once during ths period, and in Kiev's case it didn't regain anything close to it's former glory untill.. um... the 1800s(!!)

Palermo was completely screwed by the merger of the Kingdom of Sicily with the HRE and later the back and forth trasnfer of Sicily between various power (mostly Aragon but also France / Spain etc..) Sicily went from rivalling the Po River valley in 1100 to having it's main industry being .... HUNTING by the 1400s.

The fact is, most buildlings are not simply representing the actual building itself, it only worked because of the personals attached to the buildings also existed. many of Rome's magnificent buildings were still there as the empire declined (and later blew up) but the fact was that they were obviously no longer functioning because the adminsitrative system required to make them work simply never existed again.

Thus, building really should go down when towns are taken over... if anything, the rate in the current game is too low.

[smitty]

I'm just going to defer to your clearly superior knowledge of history and accept your strong points. That was informative and fun to read actually.

My logic was more on a basis of gameplay and the trends that occur. Due to the fact there are restricted status on huge city walls now, I don't feel like we'll see the ebb and flow of the rise and fall of these enormous cities like history did. As we play the game, we're inevitably going to have to develop the cities we take over in a one-way-up trend unless we abandon them to the rebels.

To me, I just feel like if I'm the huge Ottoman empire and I exterminate the populace of Rome, it would never be realistic for my empire to be stuck restarting from the ground up an armory progression. Being a thriving empire, I would clearly have the funds to build from scratch the latest and greatest armory, barracks, market etc. and not be stuck in some 80 year progression just to catch that one city up. Or another example, if I were the Fatimids and Catholics exterminate my city but my burgeoning income-heavy territories allow me to retake and rebuild it, it just doesn't make sense for me to have the worst barracks-units available, the worst armors, etc. If the faction has the economic means, it seems fair to allow them to keep their tiered buildings contemporary even if the whole city was destroyed.

That, and I really do hate to see the AI get gimped due to stagnating cities, although I do really enjoy seeing border cities underpopulated and underdeveloped with a small populace; that is a fun roleplaying element that does better reflect the historical trends you pointed out above. This forces the AI and the player to have strong 'homeland' areas that they have protected where quality income/troops can be made, then have weaker, underdeveloped borders that are much more subject to destruction, siege and enemy takeover.

I suppose it's all a matter of balancing gameplay trends, progression habits of the AI and the player, and taking into consideration what actually did occur historically and what best represents a growing faction's ability to rebuild a destroyed city.

Again, I still want to advocate the introduction of reducing building health to 0% rather than putting them back to tier 1.

[RollingWave]

I'm just going to defer to your clearly superior knowledge of history and accept your strong points. That was informative and fun to read actually.

My logic was more on a basis of gameplay and the trends that occur. Due to the fact there are restricted status on huge city walls now, I don't feel like we'll see the ebb and flow of the rise and fall of these enormous cities like history did. As we play the game, we're inevitably going to have to develop the cities we take over in a one-way-up trend unless we abandon them to the rebels.

To me, I just feel like if I'm the huge Ottoman empire and I exterminate the populace of Rome, it would never be realistic for my empire to be stuck restarting from the ground up an armory progression. Being a thriving empire, I would clearly have the funds to build from scratch the latest and greatest armory, barracks, market etc. and not be stuck in some 80 year progression just to catch that one city up. Or another example, if I were the Fatimids and Catholics exterminate my city but my burgeoning income-heavy territories allow me to retake and rebuild it, it just doesn't make sense for me to have the worst barracks-units available, the worst armors, etc. If the faction has the economic means, it seems fair to allow them to keep their tiered buildings contemporary even if the whole city was destroyed.

That, and I really do hate to see the AI get gimped due to stagnating cities, although I do really enjoy seeing border cities underpopulated and underdeveloped with a small populace; that is a fun roleplaying element that does better reflect the historical trends you pointed out above. This forces the AI and the player to have strong 'homeland' areas that they have protected where quality income/troops can be made, then have weaker, underdeveloped borders that are much more subject to destruction, siege and enemy takeover.

I suppose it's all a matter of balancing gameplay trends, progression habits of the AI and the player, and taking into consideration what actually did occur historically and what best represents a growing faction's ability to rebuild a destroyed city.

Again, I still want to advocate the introduction of reducing building health to 0% rather than putting them back to tier 1.

Yeah, there are obvious limitation problems to the EDB setup, and annoyance that the building construction time can not be lower. by partial solution is using the building_present tag combined with some event_counter tag and then generally lowering the building time. if you start from scartch eraly on you need a complex array of building before you can build the higher onces. while if you have certain building in your faction or meet other requirements you can skip over the other req buildings... it's complicated to put together though to say the least. and i'm really just starting .

(for example you can set event monitors in the script to monitor any building from existing in your faction, and set it as a event counter, thus if that building exist or not exist can dramatically effect the building restriction of other buildings etc...)

[Polycarpe]

Yeah, there are obvious limitation problems to the EDB setup, and annoyance that the building construction time can not be lower. by partial solution is using the building_present tag combined with some event_counter tag and then generally lowering the building time. if you start from scartch eraly on you need a complex array of building before you can build the higher onces. while if you have certain building in your faction or meet other requirements you can skip over the other req buildings... it's complicated to put together though to say the least. and i'm really just starting .

(for example you can set event monitors in the script to monitor any building from existing in your faction, and set it as a event counter, thus if that building exist or not exist can dramatically effect the building restriction of other buildings etc...)

Building_present entry can make wonders and make the game more realistic. The AI won't have problem to follow that but linking them to units screwed up the AI. It's a lot of work but if people prefer that, it should be better to link to generic buildings.

Still, on the other hand, I think some building shouldn't be destroyed when a settlement is captured. For example, bimastarian are hospital and European learns a lot from these medicine technique when they went in Crusades. Ports shouldn't be destroy too, I mean, it's a source of revenue and trade, they won't be that stupid to destroy it but farms should be destroy instead. (which reflect the pillage of food of the foreigners, think about the Mongols).

[Ichon]

Well some things are much more difficult to destroy than others. How do you destroy a port? In history ships were sunk to block the entrance, quays were torn down but to really destroy it takes longer than to build it and for less reason. Most ports were destroyed due to natural reasons combined with neglect over 100s of years. Rivers silted up or changed course, the land the city was on rose or fell... etc.

Roads are already in the game as impossible to destroy- a few more buildings could be added to that, namely- ports for sure though hard to think of other things. The fact that walls can't be destroyed once built are the biggest obstacle to reflecting changes in city size and importance. Once Large walls are reached cities can recover quite quickly unless totally razed to the ground. So in that sense allowing many buildings to be razed is accurate.

If more than ports are going to be permanent then it should be buildings which reflect knowledge not physical importance which are permanent, or buildings which reflect natural resources.

Hospitals(the basic level of the era were low and only in some areas of Spain and later in Renaissance did actual book knowledge come to be important), some level of armorer, the one just below heavy armorer as above that level its knowledge combined with industrial practices which allow the armors to be made. Maybe a very few others- not libraries or schools as there the knowledge is tied into physical things- books/scrolls, buildings etc.

Wood camps, quarries, local industries require basic infrastructure as the resources are basically just sitting around.

Churchs, walls, other large buildings were frequently torn down and their building materials sold off or re-used by nearby locals once a city lost importance. If the Pope hadn't been seated in Rome likely many more old buildings there would have been torn down rather than simply left to neglect.

If RW's way of having certain buildings able to be rebuilt more quickly albeit with a heavy investment would also be great and probably quite realistic. Considering that many empires built entirely new capitol cities on the basis of small towns in less than a generation. Not all buildings though as despite being able to construct a large downtown civic area in a short time the length to forge trade links and build up population to support various industries usually took considerably longer.

Farms and aqueducts make sense to be destroyed as farms suffer quickly through neglect and aqueducts require central planning to build in maintain in any large way. Once key sections are destroyed its almost impossible for just locals inhabitants to rebuild as that means sending the water to somewhere else.

[Polycarpe]

On another note, PB, remember that trait "is_peasant"? I think I've found the meaning of this. Unit with this attribute is considered half the unit number in term of controlling Public Order in settlements. It might be interesting to use.

[Point Blank]

Yes at the moment Peasant and Peasant Militia quality units have this attribute.

[smitty]

Timurids need some sort of scripted help. I've seen them stagnate for 40+ years occasionally besieging cities until they turn rebel but never claiming a capitol or actually making a decent push west. They tend to just roam around the Khwarezm area traversing their own paths over and over.

Also, Ghulams become unavailable after 1370. This hurts the Fatimids as they no longer have a decent heavy infantry unit recruitable from castles after this point; they rely solely on Al-Haqa. Not a terrible thing, but just wanted to make sure this is intentional.

[Gorrrrrn]

can we give ports the "hinterland" prefix so they don't get destroyed?

[Polycarpe]

can we give ports the "hinterland" prefix so they don't get destroyed?

So that's what it means . So you have to add hinterland in the building to make it undestroyable? But farms has it. (Hinterland_farm)