Map Blog 3 - PSFs (8th Entry - PSF Script)

[Dago Red]

The psf's just get more overwhelming with each preview. I know you have methods for forcing some confrontations with them to be field battles, etc mixing it up, but I'm actually more concerned with capitulation... will there be such an option for resolution?

You may be technically correct about the crowded nature of fortifications and garrisoned places in the timeframe, but not every motte and bailey put up a fight.

[Resurrection]

The psf's just get more overwhelming with each preview. I know you have methods for forcing some confrontations with them to be field battles, etc mixing it up, but I'm actually more concerned with capitulation... will there be such an option for resolution?

You may be technically correct about the crowded nature of fortifications and garrisoned places in the timeframe, but not every motte and bailey put up a fight.

You can always bribe the garrison which was most common alternative to siege. We may yet cook up something like switching loyalty upon peace treaty but we'll see about that. I am thinking if you had claims on some of the places and won the war (the peace treaty was favourable for you) they would defect to your side via script but I don't know if that can be done even so don't count on it yet. :-)

And to repeat the main point of PSFs, they are there to discourage and prevent player from capturing half the map in 50 years. So far I am quite confident it won't be possible even in 250 but perhaps I'll be proven wrong. In any case it will be huge slow down at the very least. Not to mention the income from every one of them and strategic value of vast majority of them.

[Mighty_Matt]

Hate being the first post on a new page....

[Resurrection]

Hate being the first post on a new page....

Sorry for missing you Matt. :-) As for your questions we have found out that custom tile battle maps don't work for either settlemetns or PSF tiles so that is out of a game. Each PSF type can have its own battlemap assigned so if it is anything like the strat map appearances it will be as many battlemaps as strat map models or maybe more as we won't use all the slots for different looks. In worst case there will be just 7 battlemaps. In best case there will be unlimited number of battlemaps. I haven't looked into it in a detail yet but I think that battlemaps are assigned to PSF independently only by battlemap name avoiding the txt file which defines PSFs otherwise so I am hoping for the best case scenario in this. It will still mean we will need the actual battlemaps though so even if this was the case it is unlikely the PSF battles to be very varied in the first release.

[Dago Red]

You can always bribe the garrison which was most common alternative to siege. We may yet cook up something like switching loyalty upon peace treaty but we'll see about that. I am thinking if you had claims on some of the places and won the war (the peace treaty was favourable for you) they would defect to your side via script but I don't know if that can be done even so don't count on it yet. :-)

And to repeat the main point of PSFs, they are there to discourage and prevent player from capturing half the map in 50 years. So far I am quite confident it won't be possible even in 250 but perhaps I'll be proven wrong. In any case it will be huge slow down at the very least. Not to mention the income from every one of them and strategic value of vast majority of them.

Bribing is good too. In the ETW engine, there is the demand surrender option, which the AI often takes if there is no trained garrison present against large odds (rather than fighting it out with hastily armed peasants and townsfolk, they capitulate, which is extremely realistic).

I know your reasons for the psf's and slowing down the map take over... there are however drawbacks to relying heavily on a system of psf's so dense that you must confront one every turn during a war campaign -- mainly monotonous gameplay. Though you assuage that through field battles, other options like bribing, etc would go a long way.

I'm just not that kind of power gamer player in the first place that would rush the map all over and desire massive amounts of obstacles to give more challenge to the game. I thought Dominion was looking pretty neat and challenging before even knowing about the psf's. There are plenty of obstacles in say, Broken Crescent, to prevent a player from sweeping the map in 50 years without any psf's at all. High building costs, 3-turn recruitment time for elites, complicated pros and cons to various building lines, religious unrest, etc can all add layers of challenge and obstacles for taking over territories.

Another example, APE:TI (for etw) initiates very punishing unrest for any newly captured territory. Unless it's the same religion, and basic cultural type with a populace that was already friendly toward your nation, a rebellion will certainly take place. Then you have to contend with an organized rebel field army, bent on recapturing their city. It's very challenging, and dynamic.... I know the engine is different, but the unrest factors are still there to play with.

[Resurrection]

Well one of the key advantages of our PSF system is the income so that even if you took only PSFs in a war you will still gain income and territory and opponent will lose them. It will represent the medieval warfare far better than taking huge provinces which rarely took place during our timeframe. Also bribing PSFs during peace time won't start war same as bribing settlements does. And we might yet add more interesting stuff to it like inheritances, switching allegiance etc. DotS gameplay will be anything but monotonous. :-)

[Dago Red]

I like the bribing alot, that alone stands to represent all manner of political maneuvering and well, bribing. Hopefully it will work without being punishingly prohibitive in every case... such as my experience with bribing thus far in this engine. I only do it for role playing when swimming in tens of thousands of extra florins.

[Resurrection]

Entry 7 is up! This time: Scandinavia.

Check it out & enjoy!

[Dom Pedro II]

WOW! fantastic as usual

[delra]

Are you crazy with all the forts?

[slayer92]

For me ,more forts=more battles=long,realistic and interesting campaign..as long as the AI can handle them well..btw denmark looks so great.

[Mad Man]

Damn thats a nice map on Scandinavia! Best ever! And i think DOTS fps system is awsome. Cant understand all the complainers out there! Its pretty obvious, in vanilla you can conquer a whole nation very very quick...

[Dominick]

Are you crazy with all the forts?

NOTE: It's important to point out that every single one of these PSFs (permanent stone forts) are exact geographical locations of actual historical places. Currently these are all shown as default castles, but as you will see in the coming weeks- they are all fully researched and will vary between huge cities, massive fortresses to minor towns and simple villages. -Hross

Oh BTW, nice work! I cant wait to see the map with all the little towns and villages!

[Basil 11]

It's great to see that a lot of progress has been made since I've been away - well done !

[Walkman810i]

It is getting better and better

[Tureuki]

Lovely Europe is almost completed right ? can't wait for the eastern regions

[danny X]

just a word of warning with the psf's, something i've noticed anyway after adding between 400 - 500 psf's, is the ai will abandon most of them, i had them all with starting garrisons. But the worst thing was, the ai will constantly move in and out of a psf in their turn until their movement points are used up, extremely annoying and adds substantial turn time! It can also effect ai pathfinding on the strat map, i noticed alot of catholic armies going back and forth around hungary and turkey during crusades! The ai also wont bother to capture the psf unless there is an enemy army occupying it, so alot of them will just be left empty and not used.

[The Kybrothilian]

just a word of warning with the psf's, something i've noticed anyway after adding between 400 - 500 psf's, is the ai will abandon most of them, i had them all with starting garrisons. But the worst thing was, the ai will constantly move in and out of a psf in their turn until their movement points are used up, extremely annoying and adds substantial turn time! It can also effect ai pathfinding on the strat map, i noticed alot of catholic armies going back and forth around hungary and turkey during crusades! The ai also wont bother to capture the psf unless there is an enemy army occupying it, so alot of them will just be left empty and not used.

That's why the team is going to make use of the garrison script, that locks some of the AI units inside the fort permanently.

[danny X]

That's why the team is going to make use of the garrison script, that locks some of the AI units inside the fort permanently.

well, thats alot of scripting!

there's what, 2000 psf's?

[Resurrection]

It's actually done via traits and new garrison is locked in place using rather modest script upon conquer. We are debating some alternatives in this system yet.