LATEST SS RR/RC VERSION - 2010 Version - ***APRIL 11***

[Black_Rider]

Is this update contains 2yday's EyeCandy mod?

[Byg]

Hi PB, finally got round to installing the latest stuff and I see a few problems with the traits file. Some non-bgr things I normally tweak so as they dont negate BGR stuff have reappeared. You may have done it intentionally, but if not then

The ai boost traits and triggers should be removed from the bgr versions as BGR has a different system for this. With both systems the ai boost is OTT.

Trigger Agents24 and Trigger Agents23 I usually remove as I strongly suspect them of causing a ctd

The royal blood movement bonuses some factions get for being in large territories isn't really fair, because they still have the bonus when they move in smaller territories and vice versa for other factions. I normally have these at 2, they are currently 5, which is large enough, for example to negate the effects of carrying supplies. Rather unfair, particularly in hotseat.

In the campaign db the <siege_att_str_modifier float="0.55"/> (normally 0.27 in BGR) change will effectively reduce the ai's strength when sieging as it wont send enough men. The ai does not account for defending troops that may be within reach of the attacked settlement, which puts them at a significant disadvantage.

[soulson]

Any idea at all as to how I can fix the mini map bug? I noticed the the left-most vertical bar is to thick and it covers ireland and protugal. Tried reinstalling but didnt work.

[gracul]

This means your campaign script file is not loaded correctly. You had to miss-install some files.

[soulson]

what would you suggest i do?

[Caesar Clivus]

what would you suggest i do?

Reinstall RR/RC would be your best bet.

[Germanicu5]

(...)
In the campaign db the <siege_att_str_modifier float="0.55"/> (normally 0.27 in BGR) change will effectively reduce the ai's strength when sieging as it wont send enough men. The ai does not account for defending troops that may be within reach of the attacked settlement, which puts them at a significant disadvantage.

Low settings cause AI not to attack at all in most of sieges (and just sit there until you sally out, occasianally breaking the siege after siege timer is up and besieging a settlement again soon), there's no universal setting here. Most battles are fought without reinforcements, so imo we should focus on such situations, 0.27 means AI would need to be 3.7x player's strength to assault, which is nearly impossible to fulfill.

In case it didn't look so - 0.55 means AI's power needs to be minimally 1.8x player's strength, given bugged sally-out code this gives AI higher chances of actually surviving than doing nothing.

Regards

[szelbisz]

Hi guys,
How can i alter the movement speed of armies ? As the speed of units keeps bugging me all the time.

[Point Blank]

Update List:
-Updated character movement speeds on campaign map. If you find too slow, backup data/descr_character.txt and rename data/descr_character_FASTER.txt to data/descr_character.txt

[szelbisz]

goddamit i knew i've seen it somewhere thanks a lot

[Byg]

Low settings cause AI not to attack at all in most of sieges (and just sit there until you sally out, occasianally breaking the siege after siege timer is up and besieging a settlement again soon), there's no universal setting here. Most battles are fought without reinforcements, so imo we should focus on such situations, 0.27 means AI would need to be 3.7x player's strength to assault, which is nearly impossible to fulfill.

In case it didn't look so - 0.55 means AI's power needs to be minimally 1.8x player's strength, given bugged sally-out code this gives AI higher chances of actually surviving than doing nothing.

Regards

I have never had the ai breaking a siege after the siege timer is up and besieging again soon and I have played with that setting for months. With 0.27 I get good ai attacks on my settlements which are capable of taking them and frequently do.

0.55 is way too low even if a human is unclever enough to have no reinforcements and has no idea of the ai's approach. However we are talking about the BGRIV version here which is intended for experts, players who are readily capable of beating off a 2:1 attack from a defended position and more than capable of anticipating ai attacks and reinforcing against them.

BGR has code to put off most large sallying armies in favour of awaiting reinforcements, but for those that are considering a sally, which is more likely to put you off, a small opposing army or a large one?

[Supercargo]

PB,

I'm playing Early Era Campaign, H/VH, with Moors.

Game crashes to desktop after ending Turn 86, as soon as it reaches the Teutonic Order with the Unspecified error... message.

System log is attached.

Is this a known bug, as you have mentioned working on some siege bug with TO.

[Point Blank]

Yep that's the bug. Damn bugs. Safer to play late campaign for the moment, I'll have the TO bug sorted by the end of the weekend. I've re-written the code, just needs testing.

[soulson]

Would it be possible for someone to PM me a copy of their campaign script? Id rather try that than downloading everything all over again.

[Pleiades]

I have never had the ai breaking a siege after the siege timer is up and besieging again soon and I have played with that setting for months. With 0.27 I get good ai attacks on my settlements which are capable of taking them and frequently do.

0.55 is way too low even if a human is unclever enough to have no reinforcements and has no idea of the ai's approach. However we are talking about the BGRIV version here which is intended for experts, players who are readily capable of beating off a 2:1 attack from a defended position and more than capable of anticipating ai attacks and reinforcing against them.

BGR has code to put off most large sallying armies in favour of awaiting reinforcements, but for those that are considering a sally, which is more likely to put you off, a small opposing army or a large one?

G5, with my best intents genuinely - if you have time you can try yourself 3 quick different campaigns played until turn 30 or so with 0.27 and then 0.55 and then 0.75 (like was in TATW RR/RC IIRC).

Within my subjective experience, I am in total agreement with Byg's proposition (with or without BGRIV, it doesn't matter for now in my perception and yes - I was also having in mind bugged sally-outs as part of overall campaign experience)

In G5 style - Regards

[Point Blank]

So what's the recommended value, about 0.33 or 0.27? 0.33 = 3-1 odds right? That has always been classical recommended attacker/defender ratio.

[Germanicu5]

@byg and Pleiades
Either I'm wrong (which is happens sometimes I guess) or maybe you're missing a part of AI behaviour.

With TATW 0.27 was causing AI never to attack a garrison and sieging it for maximum amount of turns first even with all gear built (which lets any player bring reinforcements etc), imo the 0.27 (aka 3.6x player power requirement) is the exact cause for this behaviour.
According to my experience a typical scenario with AI laying an unsuccessful siege looks like that: it sieges you with a small stack, stands there for several turns, goes away for a few, then sieges you with it again etc. Alternative version looks like that - a full stack lays siege and tries to starve you to death.

Another question is: does that setting directly influence size of stack AI sends when making LTGD calculations? What if you have 1/2 stack in a city - will AI send 1.8 stacks? Or will it send one stack, sit there for god-knows-how-many turns waiting for another stack to arrive (which happens sometimes ofc)? These are just some thoughts based on observations made some time ago, I haven't started CAI modding yet, so I won't be that stubborn in discussion.

0.55 itself is maybe a bit low ofc, I think anything giving 2.0-2.5 ratio is reasonable (although 1.8 is somehow coherent with sally script). Personally I think that 5x ratio for some players wouldn't be enough (not mentioning the cases with use of mangonel exploit), but I don't think AI is capable of handling such settings.

Since AI can't really infliltrate settlements, would anyone agree to have a minimal chance of gatehouse being damaged?

Regards

[Point Blank]

I like about 3-1, though good medieval fortifications were reckoned to multiply combat power of defender by 10x - obviously not practical.

In my latest game I'm using 0.55, the AI is attacking quite well, and the battles are close. I think a bit more bias to the AI, like set the value to 0.5 or 0.45, could do the job. In any case the AI is wearing down the defenders well at 0.55 so assaults on successive turns are mostly successful.

[Pleiades]

@byg and Pleiades
Either I'm wrong (which is happens sometimes I guess) or maybe you're missing a part of AI behaviour.

Germanicu5, go kill some Orcs or Mongols! (My deep apologizes for forum members who live in Mordor or Mongolia, nothing personal here )

No one is wrong, I just gave you my subjective experience (and I even said that!) with values which you gave me to play with (in one of your own threads).

As for missing part of AI behavior, if we (all of us or some of us) are so knowledgeable of AI behavior, then what is the goal of AI modding? Game is perfect, no need for modding, right? But that 'no modding' thing won't going to happen, cause it's not about the goal, but about path to the goal.

So, ahem, there are some missing parts of AI behavior, I think...

Respect

[algorath]

AI in TW games, or any game for that matter, will never be as good as our brain so thats that. Besides its challenging enough if u a) dont cheat, b) play somewhat historical/realistic and c)dont exploid the ai weaknessessessess