Suggestions For Future Releases

[The Sweeper]

Yes. Good. An interesting observation. I think that's valid. The difficulty is in modding it in so it makes sense. Obviously an older general might through time have gained insight, though as a person getting older, it's no guarantee of wisdom. Just a lot more opportunity for making mistakes and having some insight into that phenomena. But of course, as someone getting older, I may huff and puff when I run, or lift a heavy box, hence an aging knight may have had more difficulty holding their lance for a charge. It was after all physically strenuous. Quite demanding if you have watched any documentaries where modern folks try to train like a knight. They are often surprised that they don't have the stamina.

Some folks lose motivation as they age. They stand on their past accomplishments, and stop trying to drive themselves into new ones. They slow down. Some don't and keep excelling, but shift their focus into more administrative ones.

So some merchants may lose their Finance rating for that reason related to aging, but perhaps not all. Merchants can be a little too powerful in the vanilla game. Based on basic settings, and lots of computer merchants attacking (there are statistical percentages that benefit attacks) they can control all trade pretty easily by the mid-game. They aren't risky either as usually the setting is pretty high ~75% or so of measuring whether they will chance it. But it wears you down.

So modding is about finding a balance for the players, and also for finding ways of continuing the challenge so that the game is interesting. Say you're riding roller coasters often, well the challenge and thrill fades, so that's why amusement parks find unique ways to boost them to be more exciting.

Nail on the head mate. The problem is that it could easily differ from person to person and how do you simulate that with the limited modding tools at your disposal? The answer is probably you can't, though I'm no expert.

I've always thought that AI princesses/diplomats playing the treat animation but not actually coming to negotiation is a bribe attempt as well. It's pretty common in M2 modded and unmodded I think.

[RubiconDecision]

Nail on the head mate. The problem is that it could easily differ from person to person and how do you simulate that with the limited modding tools at your disposal? The answer is probably you can't, though I'm no expert.

I've always thought that AI princesses/diplomats playing the treat animation but not actually coming to negotiation is a bribe attempt as well. It's pretty common in M2 modded and unmodded I think.

Here's some information, the modifiers within the spoiler tag for merchants...
This is a theoretical discussion so you folks playing get a peek inside the curtain (ala the Wizard of Oz), but if you decide to fiddle around with values, don't come crying to us if things get broken.

acquisition and merchants

<agents> <denounce_inquisitor_base_chance float="35.0"/> <denounce_priest_base_chance float="33.0"/> <denounce_attack_modifier float="1.0"/> <denounce_defence_modifier float="1.0"/> <denounce_chance_min int="5"/> <denounce_chance_max int="95"/> <denounce_heretic_attemp_modifier float="1.5"/> <denounce_character_attemp_modifier float="0.5"/> <assassinate_base_chance float="33"/> <assassinate_attack_modifier float="0.5"/> <assassinate_defence_modifier float="0.5"/> <assassinate_public_modifier float="1.0"/> <assassinate_personal_modifier float="1.0"/> <assassinate_counter_spy_modifier float="1.0"/> <assassinate_agent_modifier float="4.0"/> <assassinate_own_region_modifier float="1.0"/> <assassinate_assassinate_attr_modifier float="0.33"/> <assassinate_chance_min int="5"/> <assassinate_chance_max int="95"/> <acquisition_base_chance float="40.0"/> <acquisition_level_modifier float="5.0"/> <acquisition_attack_trade_rights_modifier float="1.3"/> <acquisition_defence_trade_rights_modifier float="0.7"/> <acquisition_chance_min int="5"/> <acquisition_chance_max int="95"/> <inquisitor_crt_heresy_divisor float="1.0"/> <inquisitor_crt_pfp_modifier float="0.5"/> <inquisitor_crt_pfp_modifier_min float="0.0"/> <inquisitor_crt_pfp_modifier_max float="1.0"/> <inquisitor_crt_chance_min float="0.0"/> <inquisitor_crt_chance_max float="0.1"/> <spy_base_chance float="40.0"/> <!-- base spying chance --> <spy_level_modifier float="0.15"/> <!-- modifies the amount the subterfuge rating of a spy affects chance of success --> <not_spy_level_modifier float="0.5"/> <!-- modifies the chance of success if spying object not a spy --> <spy_public_modifier float="1.0"/> <!-- inversely modifies the amount the public security aspects of the target affects chance of success --> <spy_counter_spy_modifier float="1.0"/> <!-- inversely modifies the amount the combined subterfuge rating with the target affects chance of success --> <spy_distance_modifier float="1.0"/> <!-- inversely modifies the amount the distance in movement points from the target affects chance of success --> <spy_secret_agent_target_modifier float="0.5"/> <!-- modifies the chance of success if an assassin or spy is travelling with a target army --> <spy_sedentary_turns_modifier float="0.2"/> <!-- modifies the amount of turns a target has been stationary affects chance of success --> <spy_alliance_modifier float="1.5"/> <!-- modifies the chance of success if the target is allied with spy faction --> <spy_target_engaged_modifier float="2.0"/> <!-- modifies the chance of success if target is in engagement, under siege or battle --> <spy_in_settlement_modifier float="5.0"/> <!-- modifies the chance of success if spy in settlement they are spying on --> <spy_watchtower_modifier float="2.5"/> <!-- modifies the chance of success if spying object is a watchtower --> <spy_in_own_region_modifier float="1.2"/> <!-- modifies the chance of success if spy in in their own factions region --> <spy_chance_min int="5"/> <!-- min clamp for spy chance --> <spy_chance_max int="95"/> <!-- max clamp for spy chance --> <spy_rescale_chance bool="false"/> <!-- flag to indicate if the final chance is non-linearly rescaled to improve spying chance of success --> </agents>

They are in bold green. As you can see, attacking is to the merchant's benefit. A lot of players, find merchant acquisition a nuisance, they get bogged down in micromanaging, and forget to attack them each turn based on the percentage chance of success via finance modifiers and traits and ancillaries which modify the acquisition chances further. As I said, a mini game.

A merchant starts with a base chance of 40%, that rises or lowers based on the above paragraph. Then when they increase in level, then get a 5% boost. Even at a minimum there's a 5% chance of success and a 95% cutoff. This adds a "luck" factor where you've got a 5% chance of taking on a Level 9 merchant making a small fortune each turn. I don't know, but for kicks, I'll waste a underling merchant for a chance to waste a high level merchant that's irritating me. It's not logical, you do it out of spite. At max, a high level merchant is not protected in acquisitions, so on occasion they backfire.

Similar factors are in there for assassins, and hence even a 5% chance of killing a king might be worth the attempt.

Likewise there is an overall risk limit for AI merchants too

AI Risk Limit

<ai> <att_str_modifier float="0.8"/> <!-- modifies the effective attackers strength when determining the priority of making attack decision (i.e. att_def_strength_ratio = ((att_str*att_str_modifier)/def_str) --> <siege_att_str_modifier float="0.30"/> <!-- modifies the effective sieging attackers strength when determining the priority of making attack decision --> <crusade_att_str_modifier float="1.0"/> <!-- modifies the effective crusading sieging attackers strength when determining the priority of making attack decision --> <sally_att_str_modifier float="1.0"/> <!-- modifies the effective sallying attackers strength when determining the priority of making attack decision --> <ambush_att_str_modifier float="1.0"/> <!-- modifies the effective ambushing attackers strength when determining the priority of making attack decision --> <str_limit_weak float="0.5"/> <!-- min ideal strength ratio modifier for determining when an army is far too weak for an attack ( att_def_strength_ratio < (ideal_str_ratio*str_limit_weak) ) --> <str_limit_strong float="99.0"/> <!-- max ideal strength ratio modifier for determining when an army is far too strong for a fair attack ( att_def_strength_ratio > (ideal_str_ratio*str_limit_strong) ) --> <merchant_min_survival_acquire int="75"/> <!-- the minimum survival chance for a merchant to consider attempting an acquisition -->

They won't "chance it" unless they have a 75% chance. A human takes risks based upon instinct and the desire to increase risk based on feeling lucky. The computer does not. It's the difference of the casino house knowing the odds and training the dealers how to play versus the average tourist playing for kicks and by whim.

These values are found within the descr_campaign_db.xml file.

[Lord Golog]

Another idea. Perhaps you could model some way for defeated factions that have been defeated to come back in the form of rebellions or exiled nobles come to reclaim their titles.

In history, we all know that the English suffered rebellions by the Irish and Welsh peoples they conquered for centuries. Then after the annexation of Scotland, an exiled royal came and started another rebellion.

I'm thinking that perhaps each faction could have a little island territory at the map's edge, which acts as their exile territory and prevents them from being completely destroyed, and they can receive spawned rebellion stacks in their homelands, so anyone who conquers one of the major nations' lands would have to contend with shadow factions trying to regain power. Family members could also retreat to these territories if their homelands are overrun, so they can return when a rebellion occurs.

[AJStoner]

For version 1.7 all factions will have the ability to horde so even if they lose all their territories they will remain in the game so long as they have at least one surviving family member.

[RubiconDecision]

YEAH!!! I love hording kingdoms. That makes them able to hang on. Better deal with them too given all the forts. They could come back with a vengeance.

[IrishHitman]

For version 1.7 all factions will have the ability to horde so even if they lose all their territories they will remain in the game so long as they have at least one surviving family member.

Jesus, that'll make eliminating them very hard.
But I suppose it's more realistic.

[IrishHitman]

Here's another suggestion.

Quite a few mods I've played in various Total War games have eliminated or significantly reduced the upkeep costs on militia units, on the basis that the feudal method of mustering armies was generally based on landowners mustering local men as part of their duty to their lord in return for their land. The armies were not generally professional until much later, save for the knights etc. Not sure if that's 100% correct, but that's what I've seen as a justification.

So, the suggestion is that all militia units would have their upkeep costs reduced to 25%. The remaining cash would simulate food and ammunition costs, etc. It would mean that more massive militia armies or smaller professional armies could be put into the field, which is all to the good in my opinion in terms of fun

[AJStoner]

Good points but, since RB is an all cities game, incomes are already much higher than usual. Militia use is already pretty high as well since they constitute the free upkeep units. I have been toying around with the idea of making it a requirement to build the militia barracks to an equal or higher level than the army barracks (city v castle barracks types) to help spert this very thing--I am just concerned that this would all but eliminate the professional units among the AI factions. Once the next release is out I will have time to devote to experimenting with this as see how it goes.

[Messremb]

Hi, guys.
One issue I would like to point out is the treasury. Meaning the truck-loads of money every faction seems to get to after a few turns.
In my install I've shaved off the construction times of most buildings (and rarely increased) and it helped a bit. Raising their cost and the recruitment and upkeep cost of professional units might also help.
Introduce some worry, please!
Those last ones need to be looked at for the next release since now armored swordsmen are cheaper to recruit than longbowmen, which are basically glorified peasants with a yew stick and a quiver of arrows (equipment-wise).
Don't lower the militia upkeep, raise all others. Or even better: merge the barracks, add free upkeep to the professional soldiers except the noble ones and gradually remove lower tier units as better ones are available (KGCM style).
Another thing is the CAI, mainly the pathfinding, which is atrocious. That rebel fort on the road at the english-welsh border is tripping the AI something unreal.
Cheers.
P.S. Stakes in cities should be removed (everything in the post I know how to do but this).

[IrishHitman]

The professional units are well costed in my opinion, and I'd know because I recruit and use them almost exclusively for my offensive armies. Which is probably why I never have massive paper stacks of cash at any point during a game of RB

[Gorrrrrn]

Had a quick look - plays OK on laptop.

Suggestions:
Welsh settlements - could you change St Davids for Haverfordwest; Pembroke for Carmarthen; Talgarth for Hereford (make last one a BA region?)

would you like to use the kingdoms castles as forts - you can have three extra designs that way for larger fortresses?

PSFs - if you really want to bring them into the game it helps if you put them on roads. They then have strategic importance.

[AJStoner]

The new map is going to address a lot of naming issues. The BA didn't get any territories in Wales, even though they historically did, because of balance issues; Wales starts the game in sort of a bad way. Again, this is something that will be corrected on the new map. I am refraining from making any map changes until then so that existing installations of RB can be easily patched until the radical changes of 2.0.

The fort issue needs a great deal of work, true. I am hoping to implement the currently unused castle settlement battle models in their place.

[Gorrrrrn]

I did the castles as forts thing for stainless steel so shouldn't be too difficult to do for this - if I can remember that is
I also did PSFs placements on the strat map, so would be happy to make suggestions there too.

[Eofor]

I haven't played this mod yet (my gaming rig went bust a few months ago and I haven't been able to replace it), but could the team perhaps:
a) Give some of the more "old-fashioned" units (IE, Viking Raiders and Huscarls, Highlanders, some of the Gaelic infantry units) javelins to throw before charging ala legionaries in Rome (AFAIK this tactic survived for quite some while in the British Isles)?
b) Give Gwent Raiders shields so that they become actually useful?

[Heathen Storm]

You should....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Allow Norway to convert back to paganism.

[IrishHitman]

You should....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Allow Norway to convert back to paganism.

[Asmodeus]

Maybe instead of Cymru (Wales/Welsh is an English(Anglo-Saxon...Waelisc/Wealas) word meaning foreigner/Land of) having to go to Ireland for some "better" units. Which I feel is somewhat wrong.
A) They would be more intested in going East and reclaiming Lloegyr(the Lost Lands, eg: England) back.
B) Ireland in the main was more military backward in it's style of warfare(ok they where learning fast from having to fight the Normans).(This is not said to insult any Irish etc)
C) The Brythoniaid by this time where fighting in allmost the same way as the English, with Knights(or mounted men-at-arms), men-at-arms and of course the bowmen , all had large amounts of the hoi polloi armed with spears/sharpened sticks etc, but with a large amount of raiding/guerilla style warfare added to the mix.
Hence why the English had to build so many castles to protect themselves(and so they could supply themselves from the sea(most are on the coast or on a river estuary).
You Would be hard pressed to see any differance between an English, Welsh or even an (Lowland) Scottish army by now (100 years or so before then yes, you could), only the heraldry (and if you got close enough then of course their language/accents)
So going the other way and into England to reclaim our (I am a Cornishman by blood ) lands back and get units from that roster( eg: Armoured Swordsmen , Fedual Knights(but then can't see why they don't get them (as in the Knights) from the get go, especially as they hold the southern countries of Cymru (like Pembroke..who was the 1st Earl of said place? and some(or parts of) of the other Marcher Lords lands) etc) whould be fairer than going the wrong way over to Ireland.
Oh dear one does go on abit..and more than likely makes no real sense...but hey-ho thats life.
And while I am going on about about stuff, what about as England has the Templars what about giving the Barons the Hospitallers?. might even things up a bit.

[Messremb]

My no1 issue I like to point out would be the availability of heavy billmen to the Welsh before England is out, as the current settings allow for a easier recruitment than for the English. Not sure if it's a bug or what.

I would like to ask everybody's opinion on the 'winning first'-'fair fighter' trait tree, as I think is such a cheat, bonus-wise, locking into either after the first battles. And don't really make much sense in terms of its mechanics because of the lock- the general can only advance in what he acquired, not decrease.

Not sure about the facts at the mod's start date, but Scotland had a heavy history of knight orders, including the Templars, even more so than England at some point. They had a lag compared to the English at adopting things, but also at letting them go, and they could use the leg up, cavalry-wise.

In my opinion the highland swordsmen, those guys from the start, should really not be put in. They might improve the balance at the start, but I really don't like them in so many ways beside redundancy. Better give the highlander unit two more upgrades, up to heavy mail. The same with clan swordsmen -> ostmen for the Irish.

I tried Battleaxe mod for a bit and its great concept was ruined for me by the uniformity of units. Everybody basically had the same things. My suggestion for RB is to avoid that as much as possible. Kinda in the same ballpark are the muire-noble swordsmen of different factions. Either give them 2hp and only 40 soldiers or 1hp and 60- as they are now with 2hp and 60 are a bit OP vs the other units of infantry and they can shrug off they first charge of cavalry.
P.S. Already twitching here to play the next patch. Out with it!

[y2day]

P.S. Already twitching here to play the next patch. Out with it!

We hope to get you a fix really reallly soon. Just stop the twitching man, you are freaking me out!

[AJStoner]

1.7 update is imminent; should only be a day or two.