Page 16 of 37 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314151617181920212223242526 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 730

Thread: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

  1. #301

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Harith, Jizya comes from the first days of Islam. So before and after the timeframe of the mod, Jizya is historical. But how to implement that to the game, I don't know...

    Maybe, building mosques or town halls may also increase the tax?

  2. #302
    Harith's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    On The Road
    Posts
    1,786

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Quote Originally Posted by Farwest View Post
    Harith, Jizya comes from the first days of Islam. So before and after the timeframe of the mod, Jizya is historical. But how to implement that to the game, I don't know...

    Maybe, building mosques or town halls may also increase the tax?
    of course, it was first implemented in Medina by the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him). But, what I am sayin is by our timeframe.... few non-muslims existed in the Middle East and generally empires were busy fighting religious segments within Islam as well as not to forget that they were in a weak position. But, for the turks and egyptians who dominated the scene, it was profitable

  3. #303

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Well I've just downloaded it yesterday and thought I'd give some feed back.

    Now god help me for criticising because I can only imagine the effort that get's put in but .......

    My initial gripes are that:

    1. The Rebels, they seem excessively strong in 2.3 to the point they seem like they're their own faction and empire, now I don't mind a challenge but it seems unrealistic because Rebels are supposed to be an unorganised force not top tier warriors.

    2. I don't know if it's a one off but I was using Kwareziem Catapracts and they would not do as they were told at all, they attacked random targets and even when I simply asked them to move positions they went off in other directions, now I know this happens a bit in other versions but it seemed out of control for highly trained cavalry just to completely ignore my orders.

    3. Lastly one thing that should definitely be addressed is the amount of arrows the foot archers have, when I put them against Horse Archers the Foot archers run out of arrows way to quickly in comparison.
    When my persian archers ran out of arrows the horse archers were still firing for almost 5mins longer?? foot archers need more arrows for sure or Horse archers need it reduced one or the other.

    Other than that I need to play it more to come to a complete conclusion and please note that these gripes are only comparing between 2.3 to BC 2.02 which is my favourite game of all time and I consider it godlike lol so very high standards.

    Also wrong thread but I swear I read somewhere that you were going to omit blood from BC 3.0?? if that was true pleeeeeease don't, I just got my PC hooked up to my HD flatscreen and the detail is amazing and the blood looks absolutely awesome and heightens the game imo.


    Anyway this is just my humble feedback as I know different people like different ways of playing and I still have BC 2.02 if I don't get on with 2.3 so thanks on the great work.
    Last edited by Ansar Warrior; February 17, 2012 at 01:42 PM.

  4. #304

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Ok I just played a bit more and am getting accustomed to it 1. isn't so bad after all and 2. is still there but not as bad as yesterday's incident.

    But 3. is a definite for me, more arrows for the foot archers, a lot more really.

    Great game, great work.

  5. #305
    wudang_clown's Avatar Fire Is Inspirational
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    7,357

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Thanks for feedback!

    My answers to your suggestions are:

    1. It depends how do you perceive rebellions. In history there were many different, and not all were incited by bands of peasants. Besides, calling someone a rebel is pretty much a political gesture, and to bring an example, we could say that the Mamluks revolted against the Ayyubids, the Khwarezmshahs at least two times rebelled against the Great Seljuks, Turkomans rebelled against Sultan Sanjar, etc. etc. Those were not disorganized bands (well, Turkomans were not that organized). In BC most rebels act as a kind of placeholders for factions that will be included and for those that will not be included, because of M2TW limits. In fact, all those regions were under control of some political and military power, thus the situation.

    2. Can't really comment this one, as I haven't got similar impression.

    3. Yeah, but EDU-related issues will addressed in BC 2.4.

    Thanks again!

    Under the patronage of m_1512

  6. #306

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Yeah that will be good if the archers arrow count get's sorted because it messes up my tactics for defeating horse archers lol.

    On another note I just got done having a go on B2 CONQVESTVS BRITANNIAE and urrhmm let's just say I appreciate the BC team more than ever now.

    Cheers Wudang & co, best Mod on the planet.

  7. #307

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    I've just played briefly as the Rajputs (the pink ones lol) and the Makurians (no battles with them yet) and overall it seems like the best mod for M2TW i've tried so far, these are a few things i've noticed:
    -In the diplomacy menu suggestions seem to always show up as being "Balanced" so it's kind of hard to get a gauge on their real opinion
    -No unit responses on campaign map for these two factions? The Rajputs have the Mongol voice in battle.
    -There is a lot of seemingly open space inside of the Indian cities i've fought in so far that is marked as unpassable for some reason.
    -These Rajputs have a really terrible economy and don't start out with a large enough army to conquer enough and make up for it. The Makurians seem to have a similar problem but their units are really cheap.
    -The Makurian faction leader at the beginning looks like bald Samuel L. Jackson xD

  8. #308
    Dago Red's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~John Adams
    Posts
    3,095

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansar Warrior View Post
    3. Lastly one thing that should definitely be addressed is the amount of arrows the foot archers have, when I put them against Horse Archers the Foot archers run out of arrows way to quickly in comparison
    Think about why you're asking for this though. At first glance I might agree with this, but one of the big reasons BC is so awesome, is that there is a high level of detailed thought put into how the units work beyond vanilla rock-paper-scissors conventions.

    Your suggestion seemingly makes good sense at first: "Let's give regular dedicated archers more arrows, and give mounted archers less arrows since they have the benefit of being mobile."

    But in BC mounted archers usually get more arrows (but not always) but also have less accuracy. So depending on the class difference a horse archer with a ton of arrows may inflict far less casualties than a skilled foot archer who carries fewer.

    Quote Originally Posted by wudang_clown View Post

    3. Yeah, but EDU-related issues will addressed in BC 2.4.
    I thought the rationale for this was settled already -- that most horse archers could carry more arrows, being that they are riding atop their very own mobile quiver holder (the horse).

    The deficit to foot archers is made up for by the fact that they are much more accurate shooters, in general. There are rules laid out which make good sense. ie:

    ~ A man on a horse can carry more.
    ~ A man standing on the ground can shoot more accurately.
    ~ A highly skilled and trained man on a horse can shoot just as accurately (even more so in some cases) than that man standing on the ground, etc.


    I prefer BC's approach which has a more nuanced and highly detailed unit theory. The inaccurate but high capacity HA has many uses over the precision foot archer, not least of which long term harassment. Also, generally better to be used to engage lighter armored foes where they will still get good kills, and not waste the arrows of high end archers on that.

  9. #309

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Quote Originally Posted by Dago Red View Post
    Think about why you're asking for this though. At first glance I might agree with this, but one of the big reasons BC is so awesome, is that there is a high level of detailed thought put into how the units work beyond vanilla rock-paper-scissors conventions.

    Your suggestion seemingly makes good sense at first: "Let's give regular dedicated archers more arrows, and give mounted archers less arrows since they have the benefit of being mobile."

    But in BC mounted archers usually get more arrows (but not always) but also have less accuracy. So depending on the class difference a horse archer with a ton of arrows may inflict far less casualties than a skilled foot archer who carries fewer.



    I thought the rationale for this was settled already -- that most horse archers could carry more arrows, being that they are riding atop their very own mobile quiver holder (the horse).

    The deficit to foot archers is made up for by the fact that they are much more accurate shooters, in general. There are rules laid out which make good sense. ie:

    ~ A man on a horse can carry more.
    ~ A man standing on the ground can shoot more accurately.
    ~ A highly skilled and trained man on a horse can shoot just as accurately (even more so in some cases) than that man standing on the ground, etc.


    I prefer BC's approach which has a more nuanced and highly detailed unit theory. The inaccurate but high capacity HA has many uses over the precision foot archer, not least of which long term harassment. Also, generally better to be used to engage lighter armored foes where they will still get good kills, and not waste the arrows of high end archers on that.

    I would settle happily for historical accuracy, If Wudang and co (or us helpers with input) read up on how many arrows a foot soldier would carry compared to Horse Archers I'd settle for that.

    The accuracy of shooting issue is neither here nor there unless your deliberately trying to give horse archers the edge which I don't think we should be, as you say they have mobility and add to that they turn into mounted cavalry capable of charges and melee so overall they have more capabilities anyway.

    The Persian military is based on this premise because from the start of their civilisation they were the first super power who had to constantly prepare for this problem, whether it was Medes, Scythians, Turkic and then Mongols the Persian Army was always geared towards this threat.

    The evolution was that massed foot archers protected by a line of spear men could out shoot bands of Horse Archers, if you look at the weapons of the Immortals they typify this approach, Immortals standard arms were Bow, Shield, Spear and side arm either an axe or short sword/dagger, always numbered at 10,000 strong to make sure they had enough numbers for the solution I mentioned earlier.

    The Ottoman Turks also knowing how to deal with their own kin adopted a similar approach, the janissaries first task as a unit were as highly trained Archers this was the Sultans approach to controlling the atabegs and clan leaders of Turk horsemen from trying to rebel.

    Sorry for going into a rather long explanation but basically I'm saying my archers don't have enough arrows lol.

    But as I said whatever is "historically accurate" I'd settle for without complaint.

  10. #310
    Dago Red's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~John Adams
    Posts
    3,095

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansar Warrior View Post
    But as I said whatever is "historically accurate" I'd settle for without complaint.

    I agree that's the most important factor. But a close second is how it all a fits together in a playable game, and sometimes that may have to trump 100% realism.

    In this case, I don't think it's an issue though, given the way BC handles missile units. It's a simple fact that a man on a horse can carry more weight with him than a man without a horse, so the general basis for HA's having lots of arrows makes sense. But the real strength of BC's missile unit's fighting properties are their hit accuracy and there are I believe 4 or so tiers for this value (low, medium, high, ultra_high). If you take a horse archer and a foot archer in the same unit class and match them up, the foot archer has the better hit accuracy. The most highly trained elite horse archer will shoot better than an untrained militia foot archer, but otherwise the differences are much closer in accuracy between tiers, with foot archers always shooting better if they are close in training.

    If a unit's hit accuracy is low, that deficit can't be made up for by simply having more arrows. If the battle were 2 hours long, they might start to make up for it, but battles are rarely a fraction of that time. There are sometimes long battles though, and in those you'll find your horse archers to be still of some use. Your foot archers might be out of arrows, but they already racked up 200 kills! And they are probably better melee fighters than your horse archers (unless lowest tier).


    There are units that do not fit this mold at all though, which is good, because BC also tries to depict historical details of some units. There are also some Horse archers which are basically chargers in stats, who happen to have a bow and some arrows.

  11. #311
    wudang_clown's Avatar Fire Is Inspirational
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    7,357

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    I just want to say that things will be only settled when a new EDU is released. Until then, we can discuss as long as we want, and it doesn't have to be considered as valid by EDU designer. That is his job and his creation, so, there is always some room for a surprise (although don't expect any silly solutions).

    As for how many arrows can man bring to a battlefield, then I think there wasn't any limitation for foot archers, because arrows were usually transported in baggage anyway, and then line troops were just supplied with them.
    Last edited by wudang_clown; February 19, 2012 at 04:51 PM. Reason: Corrected few stupid mistakes.

    Under the patronage of m_1512

  12. #312
    Dago Red's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~John Adams
    Posts
    3,095

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    I'll put my voice out there to say that BC's EDU is pretty good as is then. The major problem with BC was the swordsmen not working properly, which was an animation issue really not an EDU issue. And it's fixed. I prefer RBBR's EDU but the changes made are all very detail oriented, more like tune ups (weapon speeds, unit abilities, soldier numbers, etc) not that many major redesigns of the basic concepts that I can gauge (aside from the way missile units which are actually changed considerably, though I don't like how crossbows perform in it at all).


    Quote Originally Posted by wudang_clown View Post
    As for how many arrows can man bring to a battlefield, then I think there wasn't any limitation for foot archers, because arrows were usually transported in baggage anyway, and then line troops were just supplied with them.
    That's true but then that would make a difference for the horse archers too. In my view, that is something to take into account in building the unit stats in the beginning (Turkoman had many horses, give them higher stamina, etc) but once battle begins, the baggage train is too far off to help concretely. So the man on the horse rides into the battle loaded up, and the man on foot walks to his line loaded up, and that's that.

  13. #313

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Quote Originally Posted by Dago Red View Post
    but once battle begins, the baggage train is too far off to help concretely. So the man on the horse rides into the battle loaded up, and the man on foot walks to his line loaded up, and that's that.
    If we follow that reasoning knights should charge with lance once- then lances are broken, baggage train is too far.
    Unfortunately, cavalry can charge with lances over a dozen times. I don't think that It can be changed but giving lancers longer charge distance may limit number of charges.

  14. #314

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    How do I start the mod ? Sorry, I'm new to playing mods
    Downloaded it and installed it. The files are in the mtw2 folder.
    Thanks

  15. #315

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Hey guys! Can someone give me a quick installation guide? I installed all 3 parts M2TW mod folder. is that the correct one? I´ve tried follow the instructions but i´m doing something wrong.

    it says that the kingdoms exe is missing, but it is installled and working.
    Last edited by The dead one; February 21, 2012 at 08:10 AM.

  16. #316

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    I don't know, I followed the instructions to the letter and it worked for me first time round.

    See below answer.
    Last edited by Ansar Warrior; February 23, 2012 at 03:33 PM.

  17. #317

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Quote Originally Posted by The dead one View Post
    Hey guys! Can someone give me a quick installation guide? I installed all 3 parts M2TW mod folder. is that the correct one? I´ve tried follow the instructions but i´m doing something wrong.

    it says that the kingdoms exe is missing, but it is installled and working.
    Dude as I said "to the letter".

    If your path to install was to M2TW mod folder then that is wrong, as the instructions state it has to be directed to the M2TW Folder only not the mod folder.

    The path you need for installing the 3 parts should reads like this ........ C:\SEGA\Medieval II Total War

    It will "automatically" seed itself in the mod folder on its own.

  18. #318
    Shadibadoo's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    203

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    i'm playing the newest edition and I'm loving it, but i have some suggestions:

    1) increase the number of heretic priests walking around, not only is this historically accurate (the muslim world was covered with Shi'a/Ismaelia/Druuz/Nizari who tried to convert people) but it also would make it easier to increase the piety of imams, thereby making them more useful (nothing is more annoying than recruiting an atheist imam that just won't get better)

    2) Why not replace all of the portraits from M2TW with those from M1TW? Medieval 1 had hundreds and hundreds of interesting and unique portraits for everything: imams, generals, sultans, admirals, diplomats. This would GREATLY improve the RPG element of BC, since there are so many Muslim factions and only around 20 portraits for them to share.
    You've already done this with the Kypchaks, I don't know why you can't do it for the rest of the factions.

    3) I love the soundtrack with all my heart, but I think the campaign would be improved with the addition of a muffled Meccan adhan which could play occasionally behind some of the music in certain regions or when you click on a city or something. you wouldn't have to play the entire thing, maybe just a few seconds to really immerse the player- I don't know if you've ever been to the middle east, but the adhan is CONSTANTLY playing from multiple corners of every city. This is probably a bad suggestion for multiple reasons.

    4) Is it Ghorids or Ghurids? You should stick to one spelling in the game.

    5) I'm not sure if the current faction names are temporary or what, but I suggest you change Seljuks of Rum to Rum Turks, because having two factions with the word "Seljuk" in their names is awkward. And if you're going to describe the system of government in the title for one faction then you should do it for all of them (makes it more legitimate). So why not go back to Ayyubid Sultanate, rather than just The Ayyubids as you have it with 2.3

    there are a few more that i'll come back with but this is all i've got for now.

    Peace yo.
    Last edited by Shadibadoo; March 04, 2012 at 11:45 PM.

  19. #319
    wudang_clown's Avatar Fire Is Inspirational
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    7,357

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    Thanks for suggestions, and here are answers:

    Ad 1, 2 and 3 - that's all possible, especially soundtrack changes.

    Ad 4 - it's "Ghurids" I think, but "Ghorids" are also in use.

    Ad 5 - it's just as awkward as having a cousin (say it's grandson of your grandfather's brother) in another country who has just the same name as you. In BC, there are two branches of the same dynasty, and I see no reason for not using their actual name. As for why BC's Ayyubids are not "Ayyubid Sultanate", then that's because we will be improving dynamic changes in BC campaign, such as succession issues - it won't be always clear whether or not your heir will automatically became Sultan.

    Under the patronage of m_1512

  20. #320

    Default Re: BROKEN CRESCENT 2.3: QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS

    What is BC policy on other mods borrowing any units, buildings? I am working on a 1390 submod for Stainless Steel and Point Blank mentioned he had received permission for some units to fill out very poorly implemented rosters of eastern SS factions.

    There are some lovely light cavalry and heavy cavalry units I would love to use for some of the Turkic factions and possibly even borrow some infantry models though I am primarily interested in cavalry to get more diverse look.

    Currently I have Karamanids, Jalayrids, Ak Koyunlu that really need some help. Also of course I have Mameluks and Ottomans but I am not as worried for these factions.

    I did put Safavid in although its completely too early mostly because I hate horde factions and don't think they implement well but it seems very wrong to have Timurids ruling unchallenged until 1650. Safavids will be behind rebels hopefully until early 1400s and then expand very slowly into Shirvan/Caucuses first before conflicting in mid-late 1400s with Timurids at least that is the hope. Eventually maybe some events to help disrupt Timurids and help Safavids as it is quite difficult in MTW2 to change over a faction politically.

Posting Permissions

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