Page 3 of 91 FirstFirst 123456789101112132853 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1813

Thread: DEVELOPERS DIARY [Sharing Our Work with IS Supporters]

  1. #41

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Btw, is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that garrisoning in a building during a siege neutralizes the settlement fortification morale boost?
    Last edited by Navneeth Jay; July 10, 2011 at 02:50 PM.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by Navneeth Jay View Post
    Quote:
    But some problems with that:
    -It requires artillery. I often find myself leaving artillery behind since they can take ages to pass the campaign map. Perhaps they should increase the map speed of artillery?
    On very hard mode, I'm not sure how players are getting by without artillery pieces. There is too great a need for canister shot to deal with the AI's massive numbers and qualitative bonuses without resorting to Pyrrhic victories. I've had triple chevroned Prussian Regiment-Garde barely beat out militia in a shootout, etc.

    The mobility of field pieces on the campaign map is horrible but is usually fine for assaults neighboring territories since the majority of your army needs to stay in a conquered capital for a few turns until enough policing troops are recruited or arrive/buildings are built so one can usually afford to send the slower artillery pieces ahead or one can load the arty on ships. Once horse artillery opens, your mobility on the campaign maps is much better and I gladly sacrifice the lower shell weight for the extra mobility.

    I've noticed troops losing in garrisoned buildings with in the fort walls but I am not sure if i noticed them routing. I tend not to let the enemy actually assault garrisoned buildings because it is basically an auto-loss your garrisoned unit on very hard mode unless u are able hit the assaulting AI unit in the rear with cavalry or another infantry unit with bayonets.

  3. #43

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    That's precisely my point! Empire's issue is that it has a good deal of features; it is just that half of them don't have a real function (having troops duck behind a wall, for example. I think you would agree that the slight improvement in protection doesn't usually compensate for the reduced mobility and firepower).

    Garrisoning is even worse; reduced firepower, complete loss of mobility, and no considerable improvements in combat ability (as far as I know, but it may provide high ground morale boosts). It even somehow causes the garrisoned troops to suffer morale loss by attack from the rear when assaulted and function poorly in combat, like you pointed out. The one advantage is defence from cavalry charges and somewhat artillery (only until it takes 50% damage, which is unrealistic on it's own).


    You also mentioned canister shot's usefulness. I cant imagine it was THAT effective historically, else we'd not be as used to the concept of the round shot . Round shot is so pointless in this game for anything but buildings once canister and shrapnel become available... If CA had limited canisters or shrapnel rounds or made them reload slowly, then it may have been of purpose. But no, there is nothing.





    Wouldnt you agree? I'm not saying there is use in many of these feature's currently, I just mean there should be. After all, the mod is meant to promote realism whenever possible.

  4. #44
    Flikitos's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,661

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Well IS 2.1.4 is really accuracy on these points so it will not change, however this could be changed in a sub_mod.
    Last edited by Flikitos; September 07, 2011 at 03:57 AM.

  5. #45

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    I have a suggestion. Make all Hessian soilders stats better than others because they are the best soilders in the world. And also make them playable.

  6. #46
    Flikitos's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,661

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Hessians soldiers will be part of the British Regiment in North America, do not worry.

  7. #47

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    as for the Indian auxiliary in north America, maybe You could make them as smaller and limited units, that could prevent the ai to spam armies composed mainly with auxiliaries

  8. #48
    Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    36

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by Navneeth Jay View Post

    You also mentioned canister shot's usefulness. I cant imagine it was THAT effective historically, else we'd not be as used to the concept of the round shot . Round shot is so pointless in this game for anything but buildings once canister and shrapnel become available... If CA had limited canisters or shrapnel rounds or made them reload slowly, then it may have been of purpose. But no, there is nothing.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMILWzE9f0k this is a live fire test with a 18th century canister shot. While effective, it makes the effective range&accuracy and the number of pellets of an ETW canister shot seem rather exaggerated.

    One thing I dislike about IS II is the fact that it's practically impossible to sink fourth rate ships and up. I know historically the big line ships rarely sunk, but if one side of the hull is completely obliterated and a ship still floats, it becomes a bit stupid.

    I'd like to see the limit on the number of tradeships to be removed, maybe increasing their combat-effectiveness a bit to prevent the AI from feeble-fleet spam. It's not like it limited the player, since you can just capture them.

    I'd also prefer the grenade-less grenadiers to be optional. While having unlimited grenades is as unrealistic as it gets, without them grenadiers just become expensive cannon-fodder, which isn't very realistic either. Besides, I don't like a mod actually taking an actual gameplay functionality away without giving me a choice. If it took big burly men to be able to throw grenades far enough to stay outside the blast radius themselves, perhaps the vanilla range was just too high (enabling endless grenade-spamming while avoiding melee).

    The same goes for recruiting admirals on sea: at least make it optional. While a field general comes with a entire personal bodyguard (and historically speaking, an entire staff) it seems wrong to treat admirals in the same manner (they can just choose the biggest ship and its captain gets a bigger hat).

    IS 2 also makes admirals 'stuck' on ships that have to be specially built just for them (building admiral fifth rates, when having access to 4th rates is annoying). And when the admiral dies, you're stuck with admiral-less admiral ship. But I don't know if the gimped AI can cope with admiral ships removed.

    Some visual distinction for England between Askarri line infantry and west India black regiments, would be nice. Same with colonial line infantry and invalids. Just being a b&w version of normal English line infantry seems weird (perhaps tweak the vanilla militia model&card for them?). The English Yeoman cavalry is a bit weird as well, disappearing from the recruitment roster too quickly.

    And a major side-issue with ETW, something that keeps driving me back to MTW2 in disgust, is the fact that the AI can't retreat on the campaign map, even if a single unit faces a full stack. But I guess that can't be modded.

    Last but not least: 4TPY, while not many players like the long haul campaigns, there are enough that do. It's a shame it comes down to sub-modders to do all the extra legwork when the original mod could be done in a 2TPY and a 4TPY version with probably a lot less hassle.

  9. #49

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    I got something else. Make the Nation of Texas possible? It will be hard but it will be kinda awsome. Also Make some of the other smaller nations playable like Hessen is one of them ( Make it realistic also, like make the Hessiens soilders stats like 20-30% better than other nations and make their upkeep and recuritment cost more.)

    I'll think of more suggestions when they come to my mind.

  10. #50
    Flikitos's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,661

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bartolomeo XIII View Post
    as for the Indian auxiliary in north America, maybe You could make them as smaller and limited units, that could prevent the ai to spam armies composed mainly with auxiliaries
    Well I already have in my plan to limit the colonial troops so as to increase the transfert of troops from the home country.

    So if I limit the indians auxiliary it will be really, really difficult to play against Natives, but you are right we have to think about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Impsoft View Post
    I got something else. Make the Nation of Texas possible? It will be hard but it will be kinda awsome. Also Make some of the other smaller nations playable like Hessen is one of them ( Make it realistic also, like make the Hessiens soilders stats like 20-30% better than other nations and make their upkeep and recuritment cost more.)

    I'll think of more suggestions when they come to my mind.
    Well... Texas will come (in the early stage) to Spain, so no Nation of Texas. ABout Hessen's Regiment, they will only be an Elite Regiment for Britain in America (limited by two Regiments), and you said that they are the best Regiment. I have to disagree the best Regiment is still the Swiss Guard, Hessen will have correct stats for Elite troops but not as far as Swiss Guard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobz View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMILWzE9f0k this is a live fire test with a 18th century canister shot. While effective, it makes the effective range&accuracy and the number of pellets of an ETW canister shot seem rather exaggerated.

    One thing I dislike about IS II is the fact that it's practically impossible to sink fourth rate ships and up. I know historically the big line ships rarely sunk, but if one side of the hull is completely obliterated and a ship still floats, it becomes a bit stupid.

    I'd like to see the limit on the number of tradeships to be removed, maybe increasing their combat-effectiveness a bit to prevent the AI from feeble-fleet spam. It's not like it limited the player, since you can just capture them.

    I'd also prefer the grenade-less grenadiers to be optional. While having unlimited grenades is as unrealistic as it gets, without them grenadiers just become expensive cannon-fodder, which isn't very realistic either. Besides, I don't like a mod actually taking an actual gameplay functionality away without giving me a choice. If it took big burly men to be able to throw grenades far enough to stay outside the blast radius themselves, perhaps the vanilla range was just too high (enabling endless grenade-spamming while avoiding melee).

    The same goes for recruiting admirals on sea: at least make it optional. While a field general comes with a entire personal bodyguard (and historically speaking, an entire staff) it seems wrong to treat admirals in the same manner (they can just choose the biggest ship and its captain gets a bigger hat).

    IS 2 also makes admirals 'stuck' on ships that have to be specially built just for them (building admiral fifth rates, when having access to 4th rates is annoying). And when the admiral dies, you're stuck with admiral-less admiral ship. But I don't know if the gimped AI can cope with admiral ships removed.

    Some visual distinction for England between Askarri line infantry and west India black regiments, would be nice. Same with colonial line infantry and invalids. Just being a b&w version of normal English line infantry seems weird (perhaps tweak the vanilla militia model&card for them?). The English Yeoman cavalry is a bit weird as well, disappearing from the recruitment roster too quickly.

    And a major side-issue with ETW, something that keeps driving me back to MTW2 in disgust, is the fact that the AI can't retreat on the campaign map, even if a single unit faces a full stack. But I guess that can't be modded.

    Last but not least: 4TPY, while not many players like the long haul campaigns, there are enough that do. It's a shame it comes down to sub-modders to do all the extra legwork when the original mod could be done in a 2TPY and a 4TPY version with probably a lot less hassle.
    Well I am not really concerned by some of these ideas the best you can do, should to ask to Fortes.

    I will tell you about Cannister and Grenadiers:
    -I do not really understand what you want to see in IS III with Artillery, you want to decrease the cannons fire?
    -About Grenadiers IS II was right (as usual ). The thing is that you can not combine the ability "throw Grenades" and "Square formation" do you prefer to throw grenades which is not really accuracy (the Grenades were not almost used during the 18th century) or make a square formation (more accuracy)?

  11. #51

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by ⚓ Flikitos ⚓ View Post
    I will tell you about Cannister and Grenadiers:
    -I do not really understand what you want to see in IS III with Artillery, you want to decrease the cannons fire?
    -About Grenadiers IS II was right (as usual ). The thing is that you can not combine the ability "throw Grenades" and "Square formation" do you prefer to throw grenades which is not really accuracy (the Grenades were not almost used during the 18th century) or make a square formation (more accuracy)?

    I would agree with him that canister shot should only be effective at close range. I suppose the only way to do that is to decrease their fire. You can decrease JUST canister shot's firepower for a gun, right?

    Also, I figured out what might balance round shot. Is it possible to give roundshot some kind of very very minute explosiveness at impact? Ingame, roundshot only does damage if it explicitly hits an enemy unit, whereas the debris flung by a shot should stun or down nearby soldiers if not kill them IRL.

  12. #52

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by ⚓ Flikitos ⚓ View Post
    Well IS 1.5.4 is really accuracy on these points so it will not change, however this could be changed in a sub_mod.

    So it's accurate for garrisoned troops to be at a melee disadvantage to assaulting troops? I find that questionable... Would it be wrong to just change that aspect of the game? And possibly allow troops behind walls to fire along the whole line rather than just the front rank?




    And I've just seen the demonstration of the canister round fire at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMILWzE9f0k

    This explains why canister is OP... in real life, canister rounds don't contain fully sized musketballs... Most of the pellets wouldn't be fatal at a range and not many would be fired. Whereas in Imperial Splendour, every pellet is fatal at any range, and high-calibre shots can fire over a hundred of them.

    Demonstration of in-game canister shots OPness:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymFd923qnPc
    Skip to minute 7:45

    I'm QUITE certain that four real life canister rounds cannot wipe out 45 or so horse units from over 200 meters . This can only be compensated with a massive reduction in firepower.

  13. #53
    Flikitos's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,661

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Thank you Navneeth Jay for your help, I will speak of the artillery with the other members of the team. I did not really understand why you disagreed.

  14. #54

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    And that is not just any canister shot in the video, that is Shuvalov's secret howitzer. That is basicly russias most special unit!

    Also horses are quite large and easy target for a canister shot if they just run to the cannon. I do not really see an issue with this...


  15. #55

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Will America be playable in the 3.0 release? Like maybe you don't want to mess with RTI, but perhaps add America as a startpos in the Grand Campaign option?

  16. #56
    ErikBerg's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    338

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    I just remembered something! There's an Equipment Mod somewhere that adds spontoons for officers, removes the backpacks, and puts small cartridge boxes on everyone. Since cartridge boxes are already a part of the models, the no-backpack part of the mod and possibly officer's spontoons should be considered.
    Last edited by ErikBerg; August 16, 2011 at 06:06 AM.

  17. #57

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Is it possible to make submods for some of the more important conflicts of the period? (i.e, War of Spanish Succession, War of Austrian Succession, 7 years War, etc)

  18. #58

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy Knight View Post
    And that is not just any canister shot in the video, that is Shuvalov's secret howitzer. That is basicly russias most special unit!

    Also horses are quite large and easy target for a canister shot if they just run to the cannon. I do not really see an issue with this...


    That's true. Unfortunately, not many people (none, really ) post IS footage on Youtube so I couldn't show normal canister. Perhaps for promotion, someone could post up their battles?


    To address the size of horses thing, it is true that horses are easy to hit; just not kill at that range. Pellets are basically quite too small and the mechanic of canister shot gives them poor stopping power. Sadly, I doubt there's a method to circumvent this flaw in CA's design directly.








    How about this then; in general, reduce the firepower of canister and shrapnel (to lesser extent) but increase the firing rate of artillery to almost compensate; Artillery can fire as slowly as <1 round/minute. It makes them very undynamic. And the firepower of shrapnel and canister makes them usable as replacements to infantry and cavalry rather than support units.

    EDIT NEEDED

  19. #59

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Maybe put some bataljon flags for the regiments?
    And a flag bearer for the cavalry?

  20. #60
    ♔Oggie♔'s Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,471

    Default Re: Imperial Splendour III Suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by izzi View Post
    Maybe put some bataljon flags for the regiments?
    And a flag bearer for the cavalry?
    Yeah, look at what Kungfuserge accomplished in his Pirate mod thread.
    He has created a new way for a flag bearer in the cavalry. Further it's also possible to have different of these flags, so bataljon/regimental flags are possible for cavalry

Posting Permissions

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