Page 1 of 12 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 240

Thread: IS 2.0 Preview

  1. #1

    Default IS 2.0 Preview

    Imperial Splendour version Two point Zero

    This is going to be a complete rework of unit rosters, recruitment costs, unit stats, and recruitment times. I'm going to maintain a Lite Imperial Splendour which will remain 1.X, that includes only my general changes and the AI. Keep in mind that the below is entirely preliminary, and it's going to take me a good bit of time to implement. Also keep in mind that balance is up in the air, so please don't post a rant saying "Russia should be superior to everything else because of XXXXXX". This is a gameplay mod first and a realism mod second. It has to be balanced. I'm trying to both create unique playstyles for every faction and to make sure each faction has the feel that matches it's 18th century military doctrines.

    Imperial Splendour v2.0 will also include a complete integration of Ahiga's Unit Irregularization minimod and the_vicar's Ultimate Artillery minimod.

    Here's what I'm currently planning

    1) Line infantry and Elite line infantry have their stats increased, and recruitment time increased. A "Levy" line infantry is created that has low or no recruiting time, and stats slightly worse than standard line infantry now. Only recruit able from military buildings.

    2) Regiments Estrangers have very good line infantry stats, slightly lower than the regular line infantry, but they recruit as fast as levy units. They are hard capped.

    3) I'm removing the technology requirement for Light Infantry, and instead I'm going to restrict their recruitment to barrackses equal or higher to the tier the technology comes available, for most factions.

    Without further ado, here's a breakdown by faction -

    New!
    United Provinces - They are defensive in nature. They reload and shoot very well (at the turn of the century Platoon Fire was known as the "Dutch Way", and no, they will not start with platoon fire), and they prize professionalism and efficiency over glory. To that end, they have high melee defense, but poor melee charge and melee attack. Their status as a republic, with a relatively large middle class, also hampers their line infantry. It's harder to press gang a rich man to fight and die. They have access to levy line infantry and professional line infantry, but it's more expensive and slightly less effective than it's counterparts in other nations. To compensate, the Dutch have a superior number of elite regiments. They can recruit Highland Infantry (though not of the same caliber as the home grown variety) and superior Expatriate Infantry from displaced Scottish and German populations. They also can recruit a larger number of unique elites, like the Frisian Guard and the Swiss Guard, than other nations. Finally, given their status as a maritime nation, they are more efficient at building ships, resulting in lower costs and in some cases faster recruitment. Their cavalry is poor, and primarily armed with muskets. They do not have access to heavy cavalry. Their artillery is only average, as well.

    Great Britain - Their line infantry has average melee stats, but has the second best reload. They have heavy cavalry, but it's more expensive pound for pound then factions who specialize in cavalry. They have standard artillery. They pay for the overall strength of their army with higher costs. Pound for pound can hold their own, but will not be as economically efficient, as other factions.

    France - Their levy line infantry is cheaper, and slightly more effective in melee than other nations. It's more cost effective than their superior line infantry. They have superior mobile artillery and cavalry, though they pay a premium for their cavalry. Their doctrine revolves around expendable infantry used to give the artillery and cavalry a chance to do the real damage, with their infantry focused on the bayonet over the bullet, slightly.

    Spain - They have standard costs for levy infantry, and their superior line infantry is more expensive than other nations, but not superior statistically. To compensate, they have early access to light infantry. They get "regular" light infantry one barracks earlier than the technology. Their heavy infantry is used to support the light infantry. They do not have access to heavy cavalry. Their artillery is standard. They focus on utilizing terrain and outshooting the enemy.

    Poland - They do not have access to levy infantry, they get access to superior line infantry at tier 3 (one higher than the game starts the player at). We'll show in their description that they arn't really polish, but rather mercenary regiments that were popular at the time. Their superior line infantry is slightly worse statistically in every regard to other nations. They do not have access to elite line infantry. They also lack access to "regular" light infantry, instead they only have access to pandours. Instead, they have a 40% cost reduction in cavalry across the board, with access to some (if not the) best cavalry in the game. Their artillery follows the_vicars paradigm for them.

    Russia - Their line infantry across the board (excepting cossacks) is inferior at shooting and superior at charging and melee. Their levy infantry has inferior morale. Strong artillery, easy access to cheap light cavalry, overly expensive heavy cavalry. Strong artillery, as the_vicar has it. Cossacks are the "regiment estranger" for Russia, with a cap, but fast recruiting and overall strong stats.

    Sweden - Sweden has smaller unit sizes across the board for every unit. They also have slightly higher costs for every unit. To compensate, they have some of the highest stats across the board as well. They do not have access to Levy line infantry, only professionals. They have a balanced army of artillery, light infantry, heavy infantry, light cavalry, and heavy cavalry. Slightly favoring infantry and cavalry. Their artillery is quick shooting, but it has a poor range. Their cavalry is some of the best (It was historically, as I recall, at least in their tactical capabilities), but also slightly more expensive. Their line infantry shoot above average, but not as well as the British or Prussians, but their melee capabilities on a man for man basis are unmatched. On a unit for unit basis, they are slightly stronger than any other unit of line infantry, to compensate for their increased vulnerability to ranged fire (each man lost hurts them more than a regular sized unit).

    Prussia - Strong heavy infantry, backed with average/slightly above average artillery. Their Levy infantry is superior to other nations, and their superior line infantry are the fastest reloaders. Their infantry has standard costs, despite their superior stats. They do not have access to heavy cavalry, and expensive access to medium cavalry. Their artillery is likewise more expensive. Their light infantry is equal in quality to the average, but more expensive than other nations.

    Austria - Slightly above average levy infantry with a slightly large unit size, no access to superior line infantry (just to be clear, when I talk about superior infantry I don't mean the elites we have now, just the above average longer recruiting infantry). Easy and readily available irregular light infantry with slightly larger unit size, early access to regular light infantry with regular unit size. Superior light infantry available at later tiers. Access to heavy cavalry, with average costs, but they have access to superior and slightly cheaper medium cavalry through Hussars and Uhlans. Artillery is average, and according to the_vicar

    Ottomans - Idiosyncratic infantry style, with an emphasis on light infantry (azzars, most Janissaries, Kurds) and Irregulars (bashi Bashouks, Desert warriors) with shoddy cavalry and heavy artillery. European reforms put them in line with other factions.

    Marathas - Irregular infantry, with access to quality melee units. Based on what Ahiga said, I think Sikhs will be their superior light infantry, with Hindu musketeers as their strong irregulars, and Bargir as European style superior line infantry with slightly higher costs than their stats dictate. Strong but inflexible artillery and some of the best light cavalry in the game, with limited access to good lancers.

    Mughals - Some of the weakest infantry, but powerful artillery and some of the best heavy lancers in the game.
    Last edited by Quixote07; May 09, 2009 at 04:52 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    Quote Originally Posted by Quixote07 View Post
    Imperial Splendour version Two point Zero
    Sounds great. I'm more interested in stats and game balance than re-texturing efforts. Take your time.

  3. #3

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    Just wanted to say, sounds like a great thing, and appropriate for the future iterations of IS.

    I quite like the idea of using recruitment time as a method of balancing units, this also adds weight to the value of high-tier barracks.

    Do you plan on adding more specific naval doctrines for each faction as well, not that you don't have your hands full.

    IS has always been good at providing documentation, but 2.0 may be the first IS version to really require a comprehensive changelog.

  4. #4

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    If someone could give me examples of different naval doctrines, then I can look into adding them. I just couldn't think of an effective way to differentiate between twelve factions, considering that navies back then were very similar in form and ship function, at least in Europe.

  5. #5
    Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oregon, United States of America
    Posts
    1,220

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    I was reading over on the TROM thread about Prusian infantry guns. Apearantly they were biult for high rate of fire, but at the cost of acuracy. Apearantly they were not shown how to aim beacouse it cuts down on rate of fire. I forget the exact technical reason for the gun not being that acurate, I think it was the wider than 18th century windage on the guns to allow the solder to get the ball down the barel as fast as posible. May be you would like to add this in to give them a little more flavor and a little less super soldier shine? Just a though.

  6. #6

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    That's a good idea.

  7. #7

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    Wohoo, sounds awsome!

    Can't wait.

  8. #8

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    Quote Originally Posted by Quixote07 View Post
    If someone could give me examples of different naval doctrines, then I can look into adding them. I just couldn't think of an effective way to differentiate between twelve factions, considering that navies back then were very similar in form and ship function, at least in Europe.
    Sure. I could. I've been doing quite a bit of research into this, because I was thinking about adding ships to my artillery mod.

    Boats got big guns too, natch

  9. #9

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    Quote Originally Posted by Disaray View Post
    I was reading over on the TROM thread about Prusian infantry guns. Apearantly they were biult for high rate of fire, but at the cost of acuracy. Apearantly they were not shown how to aim beacouse it cuts down on rate of fire. I forget the exact technical reason for the gun not being that acurate, I think it was the wider than 18th century windage on the guns to allow the solder to get the ball down the barel as fast as posible. May be you would like to add this in to give them a little more flavor and a little less super soldier shine? Just a though.
    This was true for most, if not all musket armed line infantry, ofc light infantry were good marksmen but the actual muskets they used were pretty bad. They had no sights and because it was a smooth bore gun the ball was pretty inaccurate. When rifles were made they were built the other way around with the focus on accuracy not rate of fire.

    One thing you could change is for rifles to be very slow at reloading for the long ranges and very accurate, even at these ranges (it usually took up to a minute to reload as the ball had to be wrapped up in a leather patch to grip the rifling so was hard to ram down) but you could have a button to make them slightly less accurate than normal muskets when they don't bother to grease the ball.

  10. #10
    Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oregon, United States of America
    Posts
    1,220

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    With the Prusian guns it was more than just the inhearant inacturacy of the wepon system and balistics. The way they biult their guns made them easyer to load but harder to hit a target. They made the baral bigger than the ball it was ment ot fire intentanaly so that ball could roll down the baral easely, where as the other Euro muskets had a smaller gap, or windage, between the baral of the gun and the ball in was intended for fire. Check out the TROM thred in the mods section, page 12 or 13 I think, for a more indepth description

  11. #11

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    Quote Originally Posted by Quixote07 View Post
    If someone could give me examples of different naval doctrines, then I can look into adding them. I just couldn't think of an effective way to differentiate between twelve factions, considering that navies back then were very similar in form and ship function, at least in Europe.
    cant you just snaffle Sage2's from TROM... bet he'd let you if you ask nicely?

    I know he has already factored in variations by faction for many of the ships.

  12. #12

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    any plans for United Provinces?

  13. #13

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    Take your time, been playing IS for a few days now, and it's pretty good

  14. #14

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    +1 for UP and also Portugal? I would love to see them included as well as I enjoy playing that faction...

  15. #15

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    Sounds like a good mod. Will it include the AI changes currently made by the mod?

  16. #16

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    looking forward to it.

    please remember special forces and pre-order units

    tyvm for making ETW better

  17. #17
    Ducenarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Detroit - Northern Suburbs.
    Posts
    914

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    The Dutch need some naval advantages beyond the Fluyt to start with.

    All looks promising though.

    EDIT - + rep to jaggedx for the modified imp splendour banner.

    "Stoney, all you ever cared about was nugs, chillin and grindin!"

  18. #18
    notger's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    585

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    Q, that sounds absolutely awesome!
    I am very much looking forward to your spicing up things and differentiating and I approve your gameplay > realism mindset.

    Having written that, I am immediately contradicting myself: You do not allow heavy cavalry access to Prussians, which makes sense in a balancing way but is grossly ahistorical. Frederick the Greats cavalry consisted of Hussars and Curassiers in about equal strength and one of his most valuable generals was the cavalry leader von Seydlitz.
    In fact, he rather underused artillery than cavalry, though there was no real renowned guard cavalry in Prussia (as far as I know).

    (I assume, heavy cavalry includes Curassiers. If I am wrong, feel free to ignore me. )

  19. #19
    Eusebius86's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    394

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    Quote Originally Posted by Quixote07 View Post
    If someone could give me examples of different naval doctrines, then I can look into adding them. I just couldn't think of an effective way to differentiate between twelve factions, considering that navies back then were very similar in form and ship function, at least in Europe.
    Command of the Ocean, War of the Oceans, and Six Frigates specifically bring attention to several facts about France and GB. France generally was very fond of chain shot, focusing on bringing down masts and rigging, so that they were able to escape and outmaneuver the enemy vessel. GB generally did not care for chainshot, and focussed heavily on regular shot, and grape, wanting to cause maximum damage to the enemy vessel and maximum causalities. Their was often a huge discrepancy in casualty counts after battles between GB and France as a result of this (as much as 4 or 5 to 1). GB generally liked to get close, and fire as quickly as possible. It wasn't uncommon for their vessels to fire 2 shots for every 1 that a French got off toward the late 18th century. To be fair though, French ships towards the end of the century were terribly undermanned and poorly officered...

  20. #20
    Eusebius86's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    394

    Default Re: IS 2.0 Preview

    Quote Originally Posted by notger View Post
    Q, that sounds absolutely awesome!
    I am very much looking forward to your spicing up things and differentiating and I approve your gameplay > realism mindset.

    Having written that, I am immediately contradicting myself: You do not allow heavy cavalry access to Prussians, which makes sense in a balancing way but is grossly ahistorical. Frederick the Greats cavalry consisted of Hussars and Curassiers in about equal strength and one of his most valuable generals was the cavalry leader von Seydlitz.
    In fact, he rather underused artillery than cavalry, though there was no real renowned guard cavalry in Prussia (as far as I know).

    (I assume, heavy cavalry includes Curassiers. If I am wrong, feel free to ignore me. )
    True. Historically speaking, Prussia had amazing cavalry, and awful artillery, if only because it wasn't used. Maybe Prussia should just be given economic and trade penalties, to reflect the economic difficulties of their time?

Page 1 of 12 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •