[Submod]Jizya, Kafirs & Dhimmis; v2Released

[hameem123]

SImply add "temple_" in front of the Jisya building chain in the EDB. One possible problem (well two) is that the Sunni-Shi'a divide means that they are counted as separate religions, meaning the Sunnis will destroy a Shi'a mosque/Jizya and vice versa... also only one can be able to call Jihad a la vanilla Imams... did Hindus have an equivalent e.g. "repulse the invaders" thing? As in, perhaps the "Jihad" ability might be given to the pagans (like the invasion CB from CK2/EUIV?) or the Hindu factions, to help counterbalance things though IIRC they don't have priests..
Crusades/Jihad also have unique scripting for e.g. events, as well as the slew of "movement speed and upkeep) factor...
perhaps one could add the Coptic Pope in?

everything in this mod is in order to improve realism and accuracy as well as add more flavor to the mod,you are having a problem with Sunni-Shia thing when in reality this is the case during those times (even until today.) also you wanting to give everyone their own "Jihad/Crusade" will destroy the game realism.

[ArabianWarrior]

There were and nowadays different Tariqa's that's also a idea

[MIKE GOLF]

SImply add "temple_" in front of the Jisya building chain in the EDB. One possible problem (well two) is that the Sunni-Shi'a divide means that they are counted as separate religions, meaning the Sunnis will destroy a Shi'a mosque/Jizya and vice versa... also only one can be able to call Jihad a la vanilla Imams... did Hindus have an equivalent e.g. "repulse the invaders" thing? As in, perhaps the "Jihad" ability might be given to the pagans (like the invasion CB from CK2/EUIV?) or the Hindu factions, to help counterbalance things though IIRC they don't have priests..
Crusades/Jihad also have unique scripting for e.g. events, as well as the slew of "movement speed and upkeep) factor...
perhaps one could add the Coptic Pope in?

The solution which I have tested that works to destroy the Jizya Building using both Christian, Hindu as well as the Kipchaks is to add the following into the edb:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

}

building jizya
{
    religion islam
    levels jizya 
    {
        jizya city requires factions { egypt, moors, turks, russia, venice, milan, spain, denmark, hungary, } 
        {
            capability
            {

{

After adding "religion islam" this the building is automatically destroyed whenever a non-muslim faction captures a Muslim controlled province with the Jizya Building present.

[bilaleke]

where can we download the submod??

[Stath's]

1st post

[IZ-Master]

Anyone know if there a merge patch for this mod and real combat real recruitment RC/RR ?

[hameem123]

so are we still gonna expect some kind of update or improvement for this great sub-mod or this is the final?

[MIKE GOLF]

I believe that Byzantineboy is working on an updated version as we speak.

[hameem123]

I believe that Byzantineboy is working on an updated version as we speak.

wow,thanks! the possibilities is endless....would love to have more many event scripts and decision makings like allowing religious tolerance and etc. (like the one we have now.)

[fryslan]

Is it also posible to convert to Zaroism if you are playing the kwaz? or kypcachs to christianity, or for an Arab faction go from sunni to shia?

[Byzantineboy]

At the moment, it is only possible to switch from Shia to Sunni, for Sindh, like it was in history.

[RubiconDecision]

I really like your submod. I did however make a few changes, some of which you might like for future versions.

There really isn't any mining operating in the Levant in the current version of BC. As such, the jeweller ancillary doesn't really do anything but use up a spot in the ancillaries. So I changed the effect to trade instead of mining, but at a lower value.

While your ancillary additions are really great, have you considered that the eight ancillary limitation can easily be bypassed by having "ancillaries as traits"? Since traits are unlimited, then a named character could acquire "friendly to the local foreign merchants" trait and get increases in trade benefits without taking up an ancillary slot. Similarly for the holy books of religions, or esoteric books like the Kama Sutra, then these can be added in by traits instead.

Ancillaries could be very powerful and be used for permanent effects. It's not been done before, but it would make sense that a particularly bad wife could result in a "harpy wife" trait that would be an ancillary. Or it could be an especially great wife that adds significant changes to her general/governor husband. Or the same could be true of a trusted advisor, spiritual leader, etc. Titles make sense as ancillaries because potentially then could like holy relics be transferred, but chances are that most named characters will end up with titles at least by the player's interactions.

Currently, the faction heir gets no benefit, and worse he's unable to acquire a title to a province.

I increased the BodyguardSize for those commanders with the GoodCommander trait. It makes sense that a Legendary Commander level would have a large following of warriors protecting him (instead of carefully protecting him with another cavalry unit). Naturally based on other factors like leadership and personal security that bodyguard size increases too.

GoodCommanders get protected

Trait GoodCommander Characters family AntiTraits BadCommander Level Promising_Commander Description Promising_Commander_desc EffectsDescription Promising_Commander_effects_desc GainMessage Promising_Commander_gain_desc LoseMessage Promising_Commander_lose_desc Threshold 1 Effect Command 1 Effect BodyguardSize 8 Level Aspiring_Commander Description Aspiring_Commander_desc EffectsDescription Aspiring_Commander_effects_desc GainMessage Aspiring_Commander_gain_desc LoseMessage Aspiring_Commander_lose_desc Threshold 2 Effect Command 2 Effect BodyguardSize 12 Level Proven_Commander Description Proven_Commander_desc EffectsDescription Proven_Commander_effects_desc GainMessage Proven_Commander_gain_desc LoseMessage Proven_Commander_lose_desc Threshold 4 Effect Command 3 Effect BodyguardSize 16 Level Great_Commander Description Great_Commander_desc EffectsDescription Great_Commander_effects_desc GainMessage Great_Commander_gain_desc LoseMessage Great_Commander_lose_desc Threshold 8 Effect Command 4 Effect BodyguardSize 22 Level Legendary_Commander Description Legendary_Commander_desc EffectsDescription Legendary_Commander_effects_desc GainMessage Legendary_Commander_gain_desc LoseMessage Legendary_Commander_lose_desc Epithet Legendary_Commander_epithet_desc Threshold 16 Effect Command 5 Effect BodyguardSize 27

While you're not using it, historical figures have shown up as ancillaries. Instead since this is a history mod, you could fire up traits based upon achievements of the general or leadership, and therefore acquire an ancillary as a trait. This is superior to ancillaries since it's difficult to remove an ancillary unless you know the characters name and all of that would bog down in the campaign script.

Since marriages were largely political during this medieval period versus love matches, I felt that there should be some benefit to the arrangement. Because the princess traits fire so seldomly, instead I created a married a noblewoman trait. Therefore 75% of the time the named general or leader acquires WifeIsCharming, WifeIsNoble, WifeIsFertile, WifeIsWise. It would make sense given the higher amounts of education among Muslim people and access to real medicine that fertility and wisdom would be higher.

Married a Noblewomen (since Princesses are rare)

;------------------------------------------ Trigger marriesnoblewoman WhenToTest CharacterMarries Affects WifeIsCharming 1 Chance 100 Affects WifeIsFertile 1 Chance 75 Affects WifeIsWise 1 Chance 50 Affects WifeIsNoble 1 Chance 100 Affects WifeIsBarren 1 Chance 5 Affects WifeIsBitch 1 Chance 5 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger leadermarriesnoblewoman WhenToTest CharacterMarries Condition IsFactionLeader Affects WifeIsCharming 2 Chance 100 Affects WifeIsFertile 2 Chance 75 Affects WifeIsWise 2 Chance 50 Affects WifeIsNoble 2 Chance 100 Affects WifeIsBarren 1 Chance 5 Affects WifeIsBitch 1 Chance 5

I've never seen anyone automatically give these kinds of traits in the descr_strat to the leadership, but don't you think this would be one more way to help the starting factions as well as being historically correct? It also sets the tone for progeny since they're currently only getting traits from their father until the next generation who marries a princess. That doesn't seem correct.

I've fiddled around with the content general and discontent general based upon a variety of factors. Brothels and inns are very normal aspects of a medieval community and would be probably benefitting trade. Higher levels like taverns might actually result in content generals, but higher than that, then one would expect for there to be issues with acquiring bad traits. Given the historical need by armies, wouldn't you think that brothels in castles be the norm? A higher level of brothel in a castle town could result in serious loss of discipline though....

The general is more likely to be content by a tavern

;------------------------------------------ Trigger sitting_around_town_with_taverns WhenToTest CharacterTurnEnd Condition EndedInSettlement and RemainingMPPercentage = 100 and SettlementBuildingExists >= tavern Affects Drink 1 Chance 2 Affects Gambling 1 Chance 2 Affects Girls 1 Chance 4 Affects ContentGeneral 1 Chance 10 Affects Sobriety 1 Chance 10

All of that alcoholism and debaunchery might also make him sober up too.

Generals might be more content or discontent based upon political marriages versus love matches as well. A bad wife might influence her husband to be more rebellious, especially if titled with a juicy provice or at a higher level.

It makes sense that if a noble acquires "Duke" level that they would begin to recognize their own authority as a result of gaining more power. As such they should lose loyalty, but I offset this by adding in loyalty with "ancillaries as traits". Lower level nobles would make more sense and would have less of these "ancillaries as traits" (think a smaller entourage of followers). As such, they wouldn't have as much authority and would likely be more grateful (more loyalty) for being noticed by the King/Sultan and granted a title. Such lower nobility might have a doctor but not a foreign born physician much less a full blown educated physician. All of that could be done by traits. Likewise personal security would likely be higher with a "Duke" versus a "Knight".

A general with GoodCommander traits that doesn't have a title, might become increasingly rebellious if that persists. That might be especially true if they have increasing dread.

Some of your ancillaries don't use the ExcludeAncillaries. So if you do that, you could end up with multiple medical followers.

Excluding ancillaries

Ancillary assyrianphysician Type Academic Transferable 1 Image assyrianphysician.tga ExcludedAncillaries jewphysician, doctor, physician Description assyrianphysician_desc EffectsDescription assyrianphysician_effects_desc Effect HitPoints 1 Effect BattleSurgery 10 Effect Squalor -2 Effect Loyalty 1

If a tolerant general/governor allows diverse religious people to live in their region, then maybe if it's taken over by a new general, say the Kingdom of Jerusalem conquers Homs and there's a "Jizya" there, then maybe they allow this to continue and gain a positive (or negative) trait. The locals are largely foreign to him and so might think it a kindness to allow it to continue. His King might think otherwise based upon whether his inclination is tolerant as well. Since that can be "damaged" during a battle and might be repaired then that might cause a trait versus destroying it outright once conquered too.

I have considered giving "charm" to the named characters as a kind of charisma that would increase followers. It's one way that a lower level noble might end up with more followers, and not necessarily good ones. Again all of that would mean more traits acquired instead of using up ancillary spots. I would think some of the generals might end up with harem traits attracting all manner of lickspittle bringing down their attributes.

It would make sense that buildings being in provinces would influence true princesses to have better traits. Players don't like AI princesses gathering up their nobles, but really since you've added the possibility of creating generals then some of these might be acquired as their husbands instead.

Buildings that add charm to princesses

;------------------------------------------ Trigger birth_with_religious_catholicprincess WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists = cathedral Affects EducatedWoman 1 Chance 50 Affects HumbleWoman 1 Chance 50 Affects FaithfulWoman 1 Chance 50 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger birth_with_religious_catholic2princess WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists = huge_cathedral Affects EducatedWoman 2 Chance 75 Affects HumbleWoman 2 Chance 75 Affects FaithfulWoman 1 Chance 75 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger birth_with_religious_orthodoxprincess WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists = cathedral_o Affects EducatedWoman 1 Chance 50 Affects HumbleWoman 1 Chance 50 Affects FaithfulWoman 1 Chance 75 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger birth_with_religious_orthodox2princess WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists = huge_cathedral_o Affects EducatedWoman 2 Chance 75 Affects HumbleWoman 2 Chance 75 Affects FaithfulWoman 1 Chance 75 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger birth_with_religious_islamprincess WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists = jama Affects EducatedWoman 1 Chance 75 Affects HumbleWoman 1 Chance 75 Affects FaithfulWoman 1 Chance 75 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger birth_with_religious_islam2princess WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists = great_jama Affects EducatedWoman 2 Chance 50 Affects HumbleWoman 2 Chance 100 Affects FaithfulWoman 1 Chance 75 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger birth_with_jewelsandclothing1 WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists >= fairground Affects PrettyWoman 1 Chance 50 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger birth_with_jewelsandclothing2 WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists >= great_market Affects PrettyWoman 1 Chance 50 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger birth_with_jewelsandclothing3 WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists >= merchants_quarter Affects PrettyWoman 1 Chance 50 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger princessbirth_with_doctors1 WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists >= alchemists_lab Affects FertileWoman 1 Chance 50 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger princessbirth_with_doctors2 WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists >= alchemy_school Affects FertileWoman 1 Chance 50 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger princessbirth_with_doctors3 WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists = university Affects FertileWoman 1 Chance 50 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger princessbirth_with_doctors4 WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists >= bimaristan Affects FertileWoman 1 Chance 50 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger princessbirth_with_justice1 WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists >= town_hall Affects FairWoman 1 Chance 50 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger princessbirth_with_justice2 WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists >= council_chambers Affects FairWoman 1 Chance 75 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger princessbirth_with_justice3 WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists >= city_hall Affects FairWoman 1 Chance 85 ;------------------------------------------ Trigger princessbirth_with_justice4 WhenToTest CharacterComesOfAge Condition AgentType = princess and FactionBuildingExists = mayors_palace Affects FairWoman 1 Chance 100

Some tolerant leaders who have built up the local foreign community for trade purposes might be able to build buildings in the EDB that most of their other governors couldn't build. It would make sense to have the coffee houses in the vanilla Crusades mod be added in here for Muslim communities, and maintained or even created by tolerant poulain leadership. One would also expect for this to cause some negative traits as well, even their children being influenced by Xenophilia, and losing their cultural identity being so far from France, Germany, England and so forth that make up the KoJ.

One could have a trait, "originally from France" trait instead of being locally born, and perhaps less inclinded to be a poulain, more intolerant regarding religion, etc.

One can assign multiple ancillaries in the descr_strat, and this makes sense for certain powerful leaders like Sultan Yusuf bin_Ayyub. Like this:

Saladin i.e Sultan Yusuf bin Ayyub

character Yusuf bin_Ayyub, named character, male, leader, age 35, x 83, y 78, portrait salahuddin, label Saladin1 traits GoodCommander 3 , NaturalMilitarySkill 2 , PublicFaith 2 , MathematicsSkill 2 , ReligionStarter 1 , BattleChivalry 3 , StrategyChivalry 3 , GoodEngineer 1 , IslamHero , WifeIsNoble 3 , WifeIsCharming 3 , WifeIsFertile 3 , WifeIsWise 3 ancillaries physician , armour_custom

Since IslamHero and ChristianHero are still in the code but not utilized, then I added these traits to some in the campaign_script and descr_strat, but I also made them achievable:

ChristianHero example

;------------------------------------------ Trigger christianhero5 WhenToTest PostBattle Condition WonBattle and BattleSuccess >= crushing and PercentageEnemyKilled > 70 and GeneralFoughtInCombat and IsGeneral and BattleOdds < 0.75 and CharFactionType england and Attribute Chivalry >= 5 and Attribute Piety >= 5 and Attribute Command >= 5 Affects ChristianHero 1 Chance 100

It might make sense for some Muslim generals to have the Haj pilgrimage trait, especially some of the Ayyub (Egyptian) ones, and assign this in the descr_strat, for surely to have attained their high rank they would have made the essential Haj as an act of Piety. Likewise, I would think that several of the generals would have the "Pilgrim" trait in the KoJ, but not necessarily all of them...i.e. Raynald de Chatillon. Perhaps he's made that Pilgrimage and it resulted in a twisted sense of Piety?

Since tolerance and intolerance plays prominently in your submod, then a visit to Jerusalem or Mecca might result in a true sense of piety, a warped version, or no effect. It could actually result in deciding to not be religious since you didn't feel it in your heart and lower piety.

In fact, keeping the pilgrim road open was so important for trade as well as for the continuity of religion, that a whole scripting section could be created for "keeping the pilgrim road open". Since Muslims required a "tax" for outsiders entering (Jews and Christians), then likewise Christian rulers would get a "tax" for keeping Mecca open. This would be especially important for Mecca so that more named characters could acquire the Haj trait so far away. Likewise most of the Christian generals are not going to get the pilgrim trait, when in fact some would travel to Jerusalem towards that purpose.

Those entering into the Knights Templar or Knight Hospitallier chose to foresake marriage on purpose. As such, since you can't restrict marriages (except as the player), you might negate any WifeIsWise, WifeIsCharming, etc traits that they would acquire since they were supposed to maintain that celibacy as a holy vow.

Here's how I altered mining:

More mining

and resource silver or resource gold or resource iron or resource marble or resource tin or resource amber or resource coal

Here's how I altered brothels and their progressive buildings:

Increasing trade but lawlessness with brothels

For the Pleasure Palace happiness_bonus bonus 5 trade_base_income_bonus bonus 4 law_bonus bonus -4

[RubiconDecision]

Sorry to double post, but I felt it better to respond here than in a pm. It may be that those folks who enjoy this submod may have some thoughts about an idea I've been using while moddings. It certainly is appropriate for your submod given the lack of gunpowder troops.

It's always bothered me that it's too easy to assault a huge city, when in fact in history, barring tunneling/mining operations, the opposite was the case for medieval cities like Constantinople. As I see it, there are two major things to deal with. Let's start with what I know how to fix first.

1) The firing of roborarchers and cannon towers should significantly whittle down attackers. In most mods the wall strength of huge cities is too weak and/or the gates and boiling oil. This is pretty good from what I can tell from playing numerous defending battles trying to protect a huge city, as well as trying numerous times with a very strong force to assault a huge city. It seems like it takes three trebuchet to do this well...which is a good thing.

A smart attacker will choose to assault the sides and corners with their trebuchet, and in so doing avoid the trebuchet and some of the ballista fire. So it's not impossible to siege a huge city, but costly in terms of lost soldiers. In playing this way, the AI does seems to intially plant their soldiers TOOO CLOSE and so that results in them losing some soldiers while they relocate. In a perfect world, the Battle AI could be adjusted for the huge city with trebuchet/ballista towers and so deal with it better.

What I've done in the past is alter the desrc_walls file such that on the huge level the roboarchers are firing ballista shot from the main roboarcher towers, then I've altered the cannon towers to fire trebuchet shot. Now both of these are slower firing which helps the attackers, but does result in many of the rams and siege towers being annihilated by the defending artillery attack.

I would consider changing Jerusalem, Cairo, and Constantinople to much higher population cities in the descr_strat and with huge city walls. I know that Jerusalem was a city of at least 30,000 at the time period in question. The actual number is difficult to discern. There may have been as many as 2,000 sick sometimes. That may be hard to fathom for some who think squalor is too high, but that actually happened. Realize that not only the locals were sick, but any visitors because of trade or pilgrimage too.

Anyway, by increasing these cities, they should be more difficult to successfully take. I would think even with two full stack armies attacking Constantinople or Jerusalem that a good defender could successfully repel them, or like the film Kingdom of Heaven, make the attacking general think twice about losing so many soldiers to take it, that in turn the city could be retaken by another (that is without garrison scripts).

2) I've been trying unsuccessfully to alter the deployable area around settlements. I think it's possible to do this in IWTE. What this would mean is that the attacking army would be forced to deploy much further out with their trebuchet and catapults plus their siege towers and rams. All of that would bog down an attacking army, and they have to carefully use their cavaly especially cavalry archers in case the defenders sally to counterattack. Apparently one can alter the Battle AI and place the attacking AI much further back in this way as an alternative to changing the deployable region.

Doing both things would make for THRILLING siege battles. In vanilla games it's rather a foregone conclusion that the attackers will be able to defeat them. In your submod, it should be much more difficult.

Why does this matter? Well there shouldn't be big changeovers in the control of provinces. Instead each kingdom should have to struggle to gain territory. Otherwise a quick win plus sacking destroys other kingdoms...a problem seen way too soon with the Turks.

Though some people hate fortlitter, I've turned on fortification recently. I'm think the AI should be able to build at least wooden forts for pinchpoints, but intentially adding more stone forts in the descr_strat. This is especially important for Armenia as there are two places on the border that soldiers can spill across, but they can and should protect themselves.

Poking around in the data files, the settlements include stone fort a and the knightly order fort. So I'm thinking of creating some of those in the Levant. The most likely place is at the inside end of the bridge to Jerusalem. Surely it would be wisdom for a stone fort to be there. By doing so, the KoJ could choose to fight attackers coming across the bridge (which would surely kill the attackers), or they could retreat to the fort and wait for reinforcements.

While I'm not big on the idea of lots and lots of forts, I think a few are in order. Think how vast it is across the desert and the difficulty of getting troops from one water source to another without many soldiers perishing from dehydration. If you ever put in supply traits, then for sure you'll want those forts to resupply troops.

The reason I'm not big on too many forts is that open field battles are much more enjoyable and cerebral to win, for there the terrain, range of soldier's arrows and artillery, the speed of cavalry or lesser armoured troops are all significant factors. It's good to not put in too many forts, but some are needed in order to prevent the loss of Kingdoms.

I added in the alternative autoresolve and this makes it far more difficult to take cities.

One other thing you might like is a special but very weak garrison script. What happens is if the city is attacked, then every man who can bear arms seeks to protect it. This is good in two ways. For the attackers it means racking up lots of kills. For the defenders, all those human fodder blocks the entrance of troops and can surround cavalry and kill off generals if lucky. This is far more realistic than suddenly having 10 professional soldier units. One can also garrison script spawn troops immediately outside the city. Smart attacking generals may elect to fight a night battle of those spawned outside, but this still slows down the siege. If they don't do a sneak attack, then the spawned troops outside the city will attempt to run into the castle and now you can have more than twenty units within the settlement. See how that can be better? It's as though the locals see the advancing attacking army and have rushed to protect the city. The city being a capitol makes a lot of sense, I think.

It would certainly make sense to turn on hording in the sm_factions file, so that if a kingdom is eliminated, they spawn and relocate such that they can end up taking a weaker undefending settlement, and therefore stay in the game much longer. Doing this with some artillery means they might attack and siege a settlement in one turn and so have a new base of operations.

The siege of Damascus early on...I wonder if both armies shouldn't attack Damascus to minimize casualties for Yussuf bin Ayyub. Wouldn't that make more practical sense rather than the other army standing at the border and threatening Jerusalem? Why not use both armies? I can't think of a good tactical reason not to use the other army. So when Saladin is relocated with those troops, why not spawn and attack Damascus with the second army as well?

[MIKE GOLF]

Very interesting and thought provoking comments, I am sure some of these ideas should be implemented. I like the idea of cities starting off as huge that were historically huge at this time, Constantinople, Baghdad, Cairo, etc... I also like the possibility of having another resource or two being "mine" capable. +rep.

[baradona]

Sorry to double post, but I felt it better to respond here than in a pm. It may be that those folks who enjoy this submod may have some thoughts about an idea I've been using while moddings. It certainly is appropriate for your submod given the lack of gunpowder troops.

It's always bothered me that it's too easy to assault a huge city, when in fact in history, barring tunneling/mining operations, the opposite was the case for medieval cities like Constantinople. As I see it, there are two major things to deal with. Let's start with what I know how to fix first.

1) The firing of roborarchers and cannon towers should significantly whittle down attackers. In most mods the wall strength of huge cities is too weak and/or the gates and boiling oil. This is pretty good from what I can tell from playing numerous defending battles trying to protect a huge city, as well as trying numerous times with a very strong force to assault a huge city. It seems like it takes three trebuchet to do this well...which is a good thing.

A smart attacker will choose to assault the sides and corners with their trebuchet, and in so doing avoid the trebuchet and some of the ballista fire. So it's not impossible to siege a huge city, but costly in terms of lost soldiers. In playing this way, the AI does seems to intially plant their soldiers TOOO CLOSE and so that results in them losing some soldiers while they relocate. In a perfect world, the Battle AI could be adjusted for the huge city with trebuchet/ballista towers and so deal with it better.

What I've done in the past is alter the desrc_walls file such that on the huge level the roboarchers are firing ballista shot from the main roboarcher towers, then I've altered the cannon towers to fire trebuchet shot. Now both of these are slower firing which helps the attackers, but does result in many of the rams and siege towers being annihilated by the defending artillery attack.

I would consider changing Jerusalem, Cairo, and Constantinople to much higher population cities in the descr_strat and with huge city walls. I know that Jerusalem was a city of at least 30,000 at the time period in question. The actual number is difficult to discern. There may have been as many as 2,000 sick sometimes. That may be hard to fathom for some who think squalor is too high, but that actually happened. Realize that not only the locals were sick, but any visitors because of trade or pilgrimage too.

Anyway, by increasing these cities, they should be more difficult to successfully take. I would think even with two full stack armies attacking Constantinople or Jerusalem that a good defender could successfully repel them, or like the film Kingdom of Heaven, make the attacking general think twice about losing so many soldiers to take it, that in turn the city could be retaken by another (that is without garrison scripts).

2) I've been trying unsuccessfully to alter the deployable area around settlements. I think it's possible to do this in IWTE. What this would mean is that the attacking army would be forced to deploy much further out with their trebuchet and catapults plus their siege towers and rams. All of that would bog down an attacking army, and they have to carefully use their cavaly especially cavalry archers in case the defenders sally to counterattack. Apparently one can alter the Battle AI and place the attacking AI much further back in this way as an alternative to changing the deployable region.

Doing both things would make for THRILLING siege battles. In vanilla games it's rather a foregone conclusion that the attackers will be able to defeat them. In your submod, it should be much more difficult.

Why does this matter? Well there shouldn't be big changeovers in the control of provinces. Instead each kingdom should have to struggle to gain territory. Otherwise a quick win plus sacking destroys other kingdoms...a problem seen way too soon with the Turks.

Though some people hate fortlitter, I've turned on fortification recently. I'm think the AI should be able to build at least wooden forts for pinchpoints, but intentially adding more stone forts in the descr_strat. This is especially important for Armenia as there are two places on the border that soldiers can spill across, but they can and should protect themselves.

Poking around in the data files, the settlements include stone fort a and the knightly order fort. So I'm thinking of creating some of those in the Levant. The most likely place is at the inside end of the bridge to Jerusalem. Surely it would be wisdom for a stone fort to be there. By doing so, the KoJ could choose to fight attackers coming across the bridge (which would surely kill the attackers), or they could retreat to the fort and wait for reinforcements.

While I'm not big on the idea of lots and lots of forts, I think a few are in order. Think how vast it is across the desert and the difficulty of getting troops from one water source to another without many soldiers perishing from dehydration. If you ever put in supply traits, then for sure you'll want those forts to resupply troops.

The reason I'm not big on too many forts is that open field battles are much more enjoyable and cerebral to win, for there the terrain, range of soldier's arrows and artillery, the speed of cavalry or lesser armoured troops are all significant factors. It's good to not put in too many forts, but some are needed in order to prevent the loss of Kingdoms.

I added in the alternative autoresolve and this makes it far more difficult to take cities.

One other thing you might like is a special but very weak garrison script. What happens is if the city is attacked, then every man who can bear arms seeks to protect it. This is good in two ways. For the attackers it means racking up lots of kills. For the defenders, all those human fodder blocks the entrance of troops and can surround cavalry and kill off generals if lucky. This is far more realistic than suddenly having 10 professional soldier units. One can also garrison script spawn troops immediately outside the city. Smart attacking generals may elect to fight a night battle of those spawned outside, but this still slows down the siege. If they don't do a sneak attack, then the spawned troops outside the city will attempt to run into the castle and now you can have more than twenty units within the settlement. See how that can be better? It's as though the locals see the advancing attacking army and have rushed to protect the city. The city being a capitol makes a lot of sense, I think.

It would certainly make sense to turn on hording in the sm_factions file, so that if a kingdom is eliminated, they spawn and relocate such that they can end up taking a weaker undefending settlement, and therefore stay in the game much longer. Doing this with some artillery means they might attack and siege a settlement in one turn and so have a new base of operations.

The siege of Damascus early on...I wonder if both armies shouldn't attack Damascus to minimize casualties for Yussuf bin Ayyub. Wouldn't that make more practical sense rather than the other army standing at the border and threatening Jerusalem? Why not use both armies? I can't think of a good tactical reason not to use the other army. So when Saladin is relocated with those troops, why not spawn and attack Damascus with the second army as well?

I love the idea of Garrison script it is very realistic and it makes it easy for me and the Al to defend its settlements. If i know how to put that in my BC files that would be wonderful.

[MIKE GOLF]

It isn't too hard to do that actually, the script would be a part of the campaign script. The only issue with adding a lot of things to the campaign script is that it begins to slow down turn times a LOT especially with a script heavy mod like TATW MOS. That being said I would add the script to add garrisons to the major, historically important (a relative idea here since they are all important) cities to keep the lag time as minimal as possible.

[baradona]

I think adding garrisons will make it more real even though the campaign will be slowed because i will have the ability to keep very small armies in cities and castles without having to worry about them being taken easily. A good example is Rome 2 where you always have that garrison in there to protect the settlement.

[RubiconDecision]

It's very simple to create garrison scripts, but Mike Golf is correct concerning SLOWING down the campaign script. Every monitor that looks for conditions in which an AI settlement is being sieged will result in slowing down the campaign. I doubt people would be happy with that as BC runs very smoothly and resolves quickly. It would make sense for certain settlements like capitols to have spawned but very weak and no experience units within the capitol as if they were not really men-at-arms, but shopkeepers and serfs trying in vain to protect their homes and lives. Then spawn more experienced veterans i.e. former soldiers who see that the capitol is unprotected and undersiege and they spawn in immediately next to the capitol.

Why would this be helpful?
1) It doesn't harm the AI for combat as it's autoresolved, 1a)but the AI may correctly choose to do a night attack on the spawned veterans outside (since they're a higher threat) and once they've successfully dealt with them then do an actual siege on the capitol. 1b) Conversely, the AI might elect to attack the capitol with a night attack, then once they take it, then fight a battle either from within or by sallying out. This presumes that the AI has an attacking army with a general capable of night battles. 1c)Otherwise the lesser general without night capable attacks will be forced to autoresolve against BOTH. My guess is that this would be helpful for making the capitol much more difficult to take, though not impossible or implausible. The order of choosing the tactics is dependent upon the composition of the attacking army and amounts of cavalry...for cavalry is very important to BC and to this submod regarding the strength of them. The availability of the artillery to the attacking army is equally important, for if the attacker doesn't have artillery, then as it is autoresolved the walls of the capitol will be INTACT. That means that it might be smarter to siege the weakly protected capitol and fight the spawned local veterans who will be trying to take it back. If the attacking army does have artillery, then the walls might be breached and if so then allow those spawned veterans to pour into the capitol's walls and the new owners might find themselves homeless once again. All of which is dependent upon the order of the kingdoms attacking i.e. KoJ attacks the Ayyub (egyptian) capitol, takes it but harming the walls, but then it's the Ayyub's turn to enter the breach with those veterans and might then retake the capitol. Or if the Ayyub have already taken their turn, then those walls will be repaired most likely, and there will be less chance for the Ayyub to retake the capitol. This is a good reason for NOT allowing the new owners to create units or fix buildings for a set amount of time, which is much more realistic and allows for the new owners to be ejected.

2) Garrison scripting only adds to whatever existing units are inside the settlement. If the capitol is already quite full, then only a portion adding up to a potential twenty will happen. On the other hand, if the AI has been stupid and not adequately protected the capitol, then spawned but useless men inside and veterans spawned outside can significantly reduce the loss of the capitol.

3) I don't think you want garrison scripting for the human player. Part of the fun of being a human player is making mistakes and not providing adequate numbers of soldiers. On the other hand, the AI is quite stupid and will even do ridiculous things at times like leave a settlement totally UNDEFENDED. Haven't experienced players seen that happen on occasion?

4) A lot of players autoresolve combat because 4a)they don't know how to fight an actual battle, or 4b)they can't be bothered to fight a real battle, or 4c) fighting an actual battle will result in too many deaths of their soldiers. In that case, it might be interesting to make an easy level in which autoresolving was turned OFF for the player, but did have garrison scripts for both the human and AI, and so it would be a teaching level that would assist players in learning HOW to fight battles to best effect as well as to reduce casualties as much as possible.

5) Lest you're concerned about the expense of all of these spawned defensive units, a tag label can be added to them. Post-battle they can be automatically destroyed with a command within the campaign script. Therefore the defenders are not now superpowered nor broke.

[baradona]

Can't disagree at all with this. I think you have really great points that would add more realism and fun to the game.

[hameem123]

WOW! the expansion/extension of this sub-mod and more features is unthinkable.....we hope you too cooperate and add those ideas that further improves realism and flavor content!