v1.7x Feedback and suggestions

[gogopher]

oh okay i didnt realize it was intended that is very cool if only some factions can use heavy cav...

[Johan217]

@Derbiber: Try adding the attached pack file on top of TROM (enable with ModManager)
It changes all references to the old skins with the new ones. Should do the trick.

[tomsin]

Regarding the Russians, a case could be made, but I don't think they were really widespread. Tomsin?

Russia created cuirassiers in 1731, although there were troubles with lack of mounts in the 1st half of 18th century (had to buy horses in Germany). But to the time of 7 Years' War Russian Goverment already had good horsebreeding and enough heavy mounts for cuirassiers. So Russian cuirassier regiments became quite cool, establishing tradition that allowed them later to fight on equal terms with Napoleon's elite cavalry)

(BTW I am happy that I've just bought newly published 3rd volume of History of the Cavalry - it is a reprint of a book from the end of XIX century, written by colonel Markov, commander of the 1st (His Majesty's) Dragoon Guards (Leib-Dragoons in Russian) Moscow Regiment. This volume covers cavalry from the time of 7 years' war to 1800, and I already have 2nd volume which begins from XVI century. Amazing work, most of all because Markov was not only a historian but also a fighting cavalry commander. He did no mistakes, which are made by historians that are unfamiliar with war or horsemanship)

[derbiber]

@Derbiber: Try adding the attached pack file on top of TROM (enable with ModManager)
It changes all references to the old skins with the new ones. Should do the trick.

TRY IT OUT.... be back in 5 minutes.


thank you m8!


First of ALL: you guys rock!

The fix did it for me! Now I have all units in correct skins showing up!

It is also a miracle to me what went wrong, since I´m experienced with modmanger and packeditor... So, my conclusio would be: kick the old aor units out of the pack. maybe it needs a careful rework of the unittextures section.

wow, it was really worth it to stick around and troubleshoot this issue with u guys! Again: you rock!


Finally off, continuing and enjoying my UP campaign! u saved my weekend! ;-)



greetz

[Beastro]

In regard to the Hannoverian Grenadiers.

Can the Dutch recruit them or does it require a military barracks and not the civilian line of governors buildings which I captured Hannover already with?

[grbo]

Two questions:

- about AOR: when someone has conquered another foreign region... it seems good to be able to recruit their specific "named" infantry, but shouldn't stats and at least unit cap be somewhat lower ? As a foreign power would have more difficulties in recruiting troops with as high motivation and numbers...

- I see from the pack file that morale bonus becomes zero with very high experience... why ? This has probably been explained somewhere else already, but I'm lazy to search

[Beastro]

- when someone has conquered another foreign region... it seems good to be able to recruit their specific "named" infantry, but shouldn't stats and at least unit cap be somewhat lower ? As a foreign power would have more difficulties in recruiting troops with as high motivation and numbers...

ETW is too limited to allow changes to this.

If it did it would drastically change warfare at sea because Spanish ships were highly regarded as well built and strong but were put to poor use by the Spanish themselves due to their small pool of able seamen and their tendency to fill in the gaps in crew requirements by adding soldiers which were nothing but landsmens and had experience as sailing men.

British captains and crew coveted Spanish ships for their basic qualities and the disadvantages the Spanish fought under made them even more of a juicy target.

Thomas Cochrane's great raids on the French and Spanish coasts were while he commanded the Frigate HMS Imperieuse, ex-HMS Iphigenia, ex-Medea of the ArmadaEspanola, built in Ferrol.

If the feature your asking for (and believe me, we ALL are) was in we could have alternate stats for each unit weather it be Prussian Linemen of poorer quality fighting under a historical archenemy or a "poor" Spanish ship being captured by the RN and made "better" use of.

[grbo]

I think it's doable for land units, as you never "capture" a foreign unit - you'd recruit it only once the region is captured.

You could make two versions of each "named" regiment, one for the native country, one as "foreign" troops.
Then, use the unit_to_groupings_military_permissions_tables to allow the national version to its faction only, and the "foreign" version to any other group.
The only downside, compared to the current system, would be that these two units would be on separated caps... IMHO, not such a big deal as the recruiting province would still be the same (and foreign units would come in smaller quantities).

For the capture of naval units, I doubt this would be possible, there doesn't seem to be any conversion involved when ships are captured, so they'd retain their former stats...

[ibigscarymonster]

1.22 is awesome, TROM gets better with every update
I do have some questions/thoughts on 1.22
- Ottoman's are a bit better with the new patch but they probably still need more buff's. You are going to be fighting a two-front war within a few turns no matter what. You have limited funds and your starting army is crappy and dispersed. Maybe a larger starting treasury would help. It just seems weird that they start out in such desperate state.
- The new Circassian units don't seem recruitable initially. I figured the Ottoman's should be able to recruit them in Amenia? Could you tell me which regions and which factions?
Tomsin can probably way in here for historical accuracy
- Desert Warrior stats seem too low. They are supposed to be tough men who live in a desert and are excellent shots. I'm guessing they are supposed to represent Bedouin warriors. Instead they are essentially equivalent to city rabble which seems wrong.
- Afghan Hillmen should probably be recruitable by Persia/Mughals and Kurdish Hillmen should probably be recruitable by Georgia/Dagestan. They could fill a needed role as light infantry.
- The Crimean/Georgian/Dagestani's can't recruit the Irregular Cavalry until they learn Carbine but only Georgia has a school. Any thoughts on just gifting them the tech at campaign start so they can build cavalry as well as infantry?

Thanks again, for all the great work you guys do!

[Johan217]

Two questions:

- about AOR: when someone has conquered another foreign region... it seems good to be able to recruit their specific "named" infantry, but shouldn't stats and at least unit cap be somewhat lower ? As a foreign power would have more difficulties in recruiting troops with as high motivation and numbers...

Possible, but it means making yet another version of line infantry... for every nation. Now the good news is... I'll need to do this anyway if I want to resolve the inconsistencies in Custom Battles unit selection. As for giving them different stats... That's Sage's department

- The new Circassian units don't seem recruitable initially. I figured the Ottoman's should be able to recruit them in Amenia? Could you tell me which regions and which factions?
Tomsin can probably way in here for historical accuracy

I believe Circassian cavalry has the same requirements as Sipahis, Circ Infantry the same as Isareylis. This may be too high in the campaign (I don't remember what building lines these provinces have). If this is the case, it can be addressed.

As for historical accuracy, I think we can afford a little licence here for the time being. It's not perfect, but already a lot better than what CA did to these regions. When I find better solutions I'll try to get them in.

- Afghan Hillmen should probably be recruitable by Persia/Mughals and Kurdish Hillmen should probably be recruitable by Georgia/Dagestan. They could fill a needed role as light infantry.
- The Crimean/Georgian/Dagestani's can't recruit the Irregular Cavalry until they learn Carbine but only Georgia has a school. Any thoughts on just gifting them the tech at campaign start so they can build cavalry as well as infantry?

All good suggestions, many thanks!

[sage2]

@Derbiber: Try adding the attached pack file on top of TROM (enable with ModManager)
It changes all references to the old skins with the new ones. Should do the trick.

I pulled this fix into 1.23. If you are just texfix.pack, be sure to disable it when you begin using 1.23!

[derbiber]

I pulled this fix into 1.23. If you are just texfix.pack, be sure to disable it when you begin using 1.23!

nice!

OMG, I love the AOR system!

In my UP province I specialised as mercenary nation. I have wurttemberg, hannover, westpahlian, saxon, swedish, dutch, hessian, troops fighting side by side (in the same stack) all over the world!

It somehow reminds me of the Legion system in Roma Surrectum. I hope you guys will further improve it and add new units!


keep up the great work!

[sage2]

nice!

OMG, I love the AOR system!

In my UP province I specialised as mercenary nation. I have wurttemberg, hannover, westpahlian, saxon, swedish, dutch, hessian, troops fighting side by side (in the same stack) all over the world!

It somehow reminds me of the Legion system in Roma Surrectum. I hope you guys will further improve it and add new units!


keep up the great work!

Hey, post some screen shots to the stickied AOR thread above!

[sage2]

Preview of 1.23 changes:


v1.23.0
v1.23.0 (Please re-download Part 2 as well)
* Dragoons are slightly more expensive to purchase. Colonial dragoons sligtly poorer quality.
* Polish Uhlans are slightly more expensive to purchase and upkeep.
* Pulled in Johan's texture fix for the obsolete line units.
* Change to startpos.esf in Part 2: Starting wealth increased for some factions. Mughals 9k -> 12k; Dutch 7.5k -> 12.5k; French 8k -> 15k; Ottomans 7.5k -> 12.5k. In each case there is a sound argument to be made for game balance reasons (these factions need help) and history (these were not poor nation-states in the beginning of the 18th century). This will only have an impact on a NEW campaign; old campaigns will not be affected by this change at all.
* Re-purposed the unusued generic "Eastern Hillmen Musketerers" to a be a light infantry for the caucas regions. Renamed Caucasian Hillmen. Recruitable by Russian, Poland, and the minors of that region.
* Irregular Infantry slightly cheaper, and has a shorter range (i.e. no longer light infantry, since the role has been filled by hillmen).
* There is a new unit of cavalry that is identical to "Irregular Cavalry", however, it is only recruitable by the minor powers of the cossack regions, and it does not require the Carbine technology to build. Georgia, Dagestan and the Crimea should now have a selection of troops that includes Irregular Infantry, Hillmen Light Infantry and musket-armed Irregular Cavalry.
* Circassian Cav and Inf recruitment expanded to a few more government building types.
* Desert Warriors are slightly tougher and slightly more expensive.
* Carabineers are tougher and more expensive; they are an unarmored heavy cavalry.
* Two highest level of roads offer slightly lower movement bonus (still higher than vanilla). This should reduce the delay when selecting high movement units France of Spain.

[sage2]

Possible, but it means making yet another version of line infantry... for every nation. Now the good news is... I'll need to do this anyway if I want to resolve the inconsistencies in Custom Battles unit selection. As for giving them different stats... That's Sage's department



I believe Circassian cavalry has the same requirements as Sipahis, Circ Infantry the same as Isareylis. This may be too high in the campaign (I don't remember what building lines these provinces have). If this is the case, it can be addressed.

As for historical accuracy, I think we can afford a little licence here for the time being. It's not perfect, but already a lot better than what CA did to these regions. When I find better solutions I'll try to get them in.


All good suggestions, many thanks!

I would actually really like to remove the carbine requirement for Irregular Cav, but there's no way to do this, since there's no 'null' value allow, and this is an entry in patch.pack. LAME. The solution is to create a whole new type of cavalry, that doesn't have a corresponding entry. Johan -- I think we should do this for the next major verison -- it could just be a copy of the current cossack_cavalry.

EDIT: I don't really want to add any units right now... but I'm inclined to do this, as this a fairly important issue.

EDIT: did it. It will be int he next patch.

[sage2]

- Afghan Hillmen should probably be recruitable by Persia/Mughals and Kurdish Hillmen should probably be recruitable by Georgia/Dagestan. They could fill a needed role as light infantry.

Afghans: already can be
Kurds: unchanged
Caucas HIllmen: now recruitable by Russia, Poland, Chechneya, Dagestan, Crimea and Georgia.

[sage2]

Two questions:

- about AOR: when someone has conquered another foreign region... it seems good to be able to recruit their specific "named" infantry, but shouldn't stats and at least unit cap be somewhat lower ? As a foreign power would have more difficulties in recruiting troops with as high motivation and numbers...

- I see from the pack file that morale bonus becomes zero with very high experience... why ? This has probably been explained somewhere else already, but I'm lazy to search

1) AOR: yes. At some point in the more distant future, we might do this. Stats would likely be identical except for morale -- which might be a -1.

2) It has indeed.

[sage2]

I played through about 15 turns of a new 1.23 game. The Ottomans and French were doing significantly more infrastructure building then they usually do (which is usually pretty close to none), taking advantage of the larger initial treasurey and bonus income through the first 10 turns. This initial investment may be sufficient to put them on a better footing in the later game -- we'll see.

[grbo]

1) AOR: yes. At some point in the more distant future, we might do this. Stats would likely be identical except for morale -- which might be a -1.

I don't know if this shouldn't be a higher penalty than -1... most "auxiliary" troops weren't very motivated, and would even change allegiance rather quickly if things would turn sour.

2) It has indeed.

Yes, I've found it...
Though I'm not entirely agreeing with the explanation.

"Combat fatigue" is a real issue for long, intense and continuous fighting... but considering the somewhat large timescale in Empire (a few years, with rather infrequent combat) I'm not sure it would play as much a role as, say, WWI or WWII (where combat action would occur everyday).

As for "survivor" behaviour, I really think it depends. About the given example: actually, Napoleon did not send the Old Guard in this famous Waterloo assault, but units from the Middle Guard - these got broken and fled, with disastrous effects to the rest of the French army (confusion arising due to some of them having uniforms ressembling Old Guard's grenadiers). The "real" Old Guard actually did not break and flee, it fought heroically to cover the retreat of the remainder of the army.

IMHO, the most experienced units are more "pragmatic" than mid-experienced ones (and know what situation is sustainable, what situation is not), nonetheless they'd still hold much firmer than "fresh" troops in "difficult" (but not impossible) situations. So, maybe a non-zero bonus (like +2, vs. the peaking +4) would be better. Or maybe decrease base morale, and make +6 the peak, +3 the "final" bonus for experienced troops.

[sage2]

I don't know if this shouldn't be a higher penalty than -1... most "auxiliary" troops weren't very motivated, and would even change allegiance rather quickly if things would turn sour.


Yes, I've found it...
Though I'm not entirely agreeing with the explanation.

"Combat fatigue" is a real issue for long, intense and continuous fighting... but considering the somewhat large timescale in Empire (a few years, with rather infrequent combat) I'm not sure it would play as much a role as, say, WWI or WWII (where combat action would occur everyday).

As for "survivor" behaviour, I really think it depends. About the given example: actually, Napoleon did not send the Old Guard in this famous Waterloo assault, but units from the Middle Guard - these got broken and fled, with disastrous effects to the rest of the French army (confusion arising due to some of them having uniforms ressembling Old Guard's grenadiers). The "real" Old Guard actually did not break and flee, it fought heroically to cover the retreat of the remainder of the army.

IMHO, the most experienced units are more "pragmatic" than mid-experienced ones (and know what situation is sustainable, what situation is not), nonetheless they'd still hold much firmer than "fresh" troops in "difficult" (but not impossible) situations. So, maybe a non-zero bonus (like +2, vs. the peaking +4) would be better. Or maybe decrease base morale, and make +6 the peak, +3 the "final" bonus for experienced troops.

Regarding the -1 to morale: that's actually a pretty significant penalty. It could be larger for units with a higher morale (say 10 or above).

Regarding your idea for morale -- I did play with that. But, IME, very high level of experience 5 and 6 are almost never reached, and even 4 is very rare. (At least playing on VH / VH). Additionally, the much higher unit stats that veteran units receives create a much strong unit on a whole -- just one that, thorugh its pragmatism (that's a good word to describe this), may prefer to retreat from a difficult or impossible situation a little sooner. I'm by no means religiously against this, however, and would value the feedback provides by other folks as well.