Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Submod Request: Less money

  1. #1

    Default Submod Request: Less money

    Can we get a submod for Imperial Splendur to make the player and the AI get less income per turn? I mean, right now the AI get lots of gold even wit only 1 city and being sieged in easy mode (tested)

  2. #2
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,242

    Default Re: Submod Request: Less money

    I wonder if you are asking PikeStance for a version of the Campaign Overhaul mod in which factions have less income. If so, then I would love to try such a mod. Perhaps the Campaign Overhaul could be offered in both 'higher income' and 'lower income' versions? If it was possible to offer a version of the mod which would keep the more effective and aggressive behaviour of AI factions while turning down the income of factions, that would be (for me) an excellent development. I can easily imagine players enjoying trying both 'higher income' and 'lower income' versions of the Campaign Overhaul mod - it's a very enjoyable mod.
    Last edited by Alwyn; December 18, 2014 at 01:26 AM.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Submod Request: Less money

    Yeah, infinite gold for the AI is not realistic at all. And if you are forced to have big battles on every turn, then those battles wont be epic.. they will be just routine...

  4. #4

    Default Re: Submod Request: Less money

    Both is certainly possible.
    The point is not necessarily to have "epic" battles, but to reduce the silly small scale skirmishes that you must endure in order to fight more real battles. Moreover, the larger armies would make it more difficult to play an unrealistic "world domination" scenario. A more aggressive AI both in battle and campaign will also make this more difficult and battles far less routine. Furthermore, battles involving 60+ plus units are anything but routine. Additionally, in the future, line of sight will be reduced making much harder for the human player to cope. Also, the best thing you can do is to turn off the floating flags and the radar. (For naval battles I would recommend keeping the flags, as it is very difficult to tell one ship from another in large battles (20+ ships). However, this is not the only reason for the overall.

    The other reason, and perhaps more important reason, is to put greater emphasis on luxury trade goods, like spice, sugar, "ivory" (slaves), coffee, and tea. The trade of silver and gold were also invaluable; although this trade is poorly represented in the game. Enormous profit was made from the trade of luxury items. The current system puts it on par with "tax" revenues, which were not a great source of income. It would seem this would give maritime powers a huge advantage, but to protect the trade routes and colonial possessions would take greater revenue.

    Faction uniqueness is the last main goal of the overhaul and it more directly related to the emphasis of the mod. As we work through all of the beta testing, I will increase the uniqueness of different factions. Once this is done, we can look at an alternative for less income.

    On your last point. The AI does not deal with money efficiently. It also cannot think creatively. There is also randomness within the decision making. A quick look at the different factors reveals this. It would put the AI at a huge disadvantage to have it play by the same rules. The goal is have the game still challenging after 1750.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Submod Request: Less money

    Dont forget this please

  6. #6

    Default Re: Submod Request: Less money

    You have to understand this is the lowest of priorities. The current IS mod reduces your income (actually increase your expenditures). It is only when I am done making the changes then I will focus on less. For now, I want a more challenging total war game.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Submod Request: Less money

    yeah np, keep the hard work

  8. #8

    Default Re: Submod Request: Less money

    I actually love it because I am having a hard time figuring out what to do. Instead of spamming stacks of armies and auto resolving

  9. #9

    Default Re: Submod Request: Less money

    I do not get the "auto- resolve" comment. What does larger armies have to do with auto- resolving? More money doesn't mean less decisions. If you do not buy larger armies, then the AI will and you will lose. It is the same problem you have with less money, except you don't fight a bunch of skirmishes. There is nothing more fun where you fight a battle; your left flank and center is holding up, but your right flank has fallen apart. You must bring up your resolve and hope you can stop it. If not, in my battle mod, your army will be done for. In a 20 unit battle this is hardly a concern.

  10. #10
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,242

    Default Re: Submod Request: Less money

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I do not get the "auto- resolve" comment. What does larger armies have to do with auto- resolving? [...]
    Sometimes when playing long campaigns in vanilla, I wanted to know how the campaign would end (on a strategic level) more than I wanted to play every battle. Before discovering Total War games, I played quite a lot of Civilization II, III and IV. Playing Civilization, I didn't want to play every battle on a tactical level, but I wished that I could choose to play some battles on a tactical level. Playing Empire in the last couple of decades of a Grand Campaign - with lots of armies and fleets engaged in different wars simultaneously - can feel a bit like playing Civ, for me. So, if a mod causes factions to have large armies and fleets much earlier, then perhaps the temptation to start auto-resolving can happen earlier, at least for some players.

    This discussion reminds me that different players prefer different things. Some of us would like to see Empire working more like Napoleon: Total War, with more big battles and fewer skirmishes. I can see the attraction of that, both for the enjoyment of players and for historical realism (the campaign map in the early Grand Campaign sometimes seems oddly unpopulated with armies.) As for me, I enjoy variety (some big battles and some smaller ones) and I even like skirmishes. I found my first skirmish in Imperial Splendour to be hugely enjoyable: will my two infantry units be able to hold the line while my only cavalrymen rest so that they can regain cohesion and attempt another desperate charge? But would a campaign which included a fair number of skirmishes be historically realistic?

    I recently enjoyed reading Stephen Taylor's book "Commander: The Life and Exploits of Britain's Greatest Frigate Captain". This biography tells the story of the life of Sir Edward Pellew, famous in his time as captain of the frigate Indefatigable (and famous in our time as mentor to the fictional Horatio Hornblower). Some of Sir Edward's sea battles were one-to-one engagements, some involved small groups of ships and others involved fleets. Early in his career, Captain Pellew was given command of a 38-gun frigate, Nymphe, and paired with another frigate, the Venus. Both ships were ordered to hunt French frigates and privateers which were preying on British merchant ships in the Channel. After some inconclusive skirmishing, Nymphe's first proper battle under Captain Pellew's command was against a single French frigate, Cleopatre. Later on, Captain Pellew was assigned to the Western Squadron, a group of six frigates. Five frigates from the Western Squadron engaged three French frigates and a corvette off Guernsey in April 1794. The French squadron included the powerful 44-gun Pomone, one of the most powerful frigates of its day. For me, this shows that a campaign which includes skirmishes - even in the last decade of the Grand Campaign - would be historically realistic. Obviously, this book focuses on sea battles, but I believe that - even in the late 18th century, not every battle was a large battle.
    Last edited by Alwyn; January 11, 2015 at 06:31 AM.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Submod Request: Less money

    The only time I auto- resolved in an actual game is when I have at least a 75% likelihood of victory. I do sometime auto- resolve now with my modification of the CAI behavior because I am more concern with the AI's behavior than I am "winning" the game.

    On thing I did noticed is that I rarely engage or have an opportunity to fight large naval battles. In every game I have played I can count them on one hand easily. Most naval battles even with the increase number of units are still smaller scale battles. I have fought several one or one and with squadrons of less than 6 ships on either side. This is more ideal, because as you noted, this was the norm; not larg scale naval battles. In fact, the larger battles were often indecisive except if they involved battles in tight space.

    Thanks for the feedback....

  12. #12

    Default Re: Submod Request: Less money

    Quote Originally Posted by Alwyn View Post
    Sometimes when playing long campaigns in vanilla, I wanted to know how the campaign would end (on a strategic level) more than I wanted to play every battle. Before discovering Total War games, I played quite a lot of Civilization II, III and IV. Playing Civilization, I didn't want to play every battle on a tactical level, but I wished that I could choose to play some battles on a tactical level. Playing Empire in the last couple of decades of a Grand Campaign - with lots of armies and fleets engaged in different wars simultaneously - can feel a bit like playing Civ, for me. So, if a mod causes factions to have large armies and fleets much earlier, then perhaps the temptation to start auto-resolving can happen earlier, at least for some players.

    This discussion reminds me that different players prefer different things. Some of us would like to see Empire working more like Napoleon: Total War, with more big battles and fewer skirmishes. I can see the attraction of that, both for the enjoyment of players and for historical realism (the campaign map in the early Grand Campaign sometimes seems oddly unpopulated with armies.) As for me, I enjoy variety (some big battles and some smaller ones) and I even like skirmishes. I found my first skirmish in Imperial Splendour to be hugely enjoyable: will my two infantry units be able to hold the line while my only cavalrymen rest so that they can regain cohesion and attempt another desperate charge? But would a campaign which included a fair number of skirmishes be historically realistic?

    I recently enjoyed reading Stephen Taylor's book "Commander: The Life and Exploits of Britain's Greatest Frigate Captain". This biography tells the story of the life of Sir Edward Pellew, famous in his time as captain of the frigate Indefatigable (and famous in our time as mentor to the fictional Horatio Hornblower). Some of Sir Edward's sea battles were one-to-one engagements, some involved small groups of ships and others involved fleets. Early in his career, Captain Pellew was given command of a 38-gun frigate, Nymphe, and paired with another frigate, the Venus. Both ships were ordered to hunt French frigates and privateers which were preying on British merchant ships in the Channel. After some inconclusive skirmishing, Nymphe's first proper battle under Captain Pellew's command was against a single French frigate, Cleopatre. Later on, Captain Pellew was assigned to the Western Squadron, a group of six frigates. Five frigates from the Western Squadron engaged three French frigates and a corvette off Guernsey in April 1794. The French squadron included the powerful 44-gun Pomone, one of the most powerful frigates of its day. For me, this shows that a campaign which includes skirmishes - even in the last decade of the Grand Campaign - would be historically realistic. Obviously, this book focuses on sea battles, but I believe that - even in the late 18th century, not every battle was a large battle.

    this is pretty awesome since Pike acknowledge it and liked it the same way I do...

    Just wanna say thank you Pike and the crew for all the hard work... many are excited for the 3.0 release!!!!!!!!!

Posting Permissions

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