Europa Perdita - Mod Goal and Current Features

[SharpEyed]

In theory it should be. There was some issue with modding the naval_units table a while ago, which I think was one way to do this. I'm not sure if that's still a problem.

Hmm I thought you already did some change.

Well the reason is obvious; transport ships are overused. And if the movement range of them wouldn't be such high, I believe they wouldn't be.
I know "Transport throu ports" stuff is possible but I don't like that much

[Jurand of Cracow]

Forced march is a good mechanic actually but sometimes causing ridiculous stuff

I'd like to support the first part of the sentence: Forced march is a good mechanics. It enables you to get quickly to a spot where danger emerge. Actually, quite historical. But it comes at a price: you cannot attack. I played as Sassanids with the White Huns: they were faster, but I could catch up with them thanks to Forced March. But I could not attack and if they would attack, my troops would be tired. The Huns could attack my stronger force or they would move away. Without this mechanics they would go from a settlement to settlement razing them with impunity.
What could have actually been done, is to switch off the ability of the armies in Force march to hire mercenaries.
And, btw, the AI is very competent at handlig the armies - after MTW2 and R2TW I'm positively shocked.

[SharpEyed]

Well Forced march mostly a problem when a faction has many regions and have enemies on many sides.

For example at the start; remove the fog of war for few turns (use "agents" table and increase line of sight values) and see how ERE&WRE acts with "Forced march"
You will see that many of their armies keep moving from one side to other, but not recruiting - cause you cant during Forced march

However when you remove it they act better.
Yes they can't defend all sides at once but still better than before imo.

[Junaidi83 de Bodemloze]

However when you remove it they act better.

Are you quote my chat with you Sharp ???

For example at the start; remove the fog of war for few turns (use "agents" table and increase line of sight values) and see how ERE&WRE acts with "Forced march"
You will see that many of their armies keep moving from one side to other, but not recruiting - cause you cant during Forced march

This problem getting magnified especially on The Last Roman Campaign, big map, less stack, dont this problem also already been told many times, transport through ports is good mechanic, but only if its combined with other element as well.

Never know you put your mind in CAI, i feel now you started left mechanic stuff and actually dive into core problem.Want to start Sharp Campaign AI on Warhammer my friend ??? I give you my blessing

[Jurand of Cracow]

Ok, I got it, thanks for the info. Actually, I suspected that Forced march has many drawbacks, given that DeI team has removed it. And if DeI did something, it was for a good reason.
Concerning Transport only through ports - actually I like this feature, the problem is with the Spies who cannot cross water, while it should be easy for them.

[SharpEyed]

Are you quote my chat with you Sharp ???

This problem getting magnified especially on The Last Roman Campaign, big map, less stack, dont this problem also already been told many times, transport through ports is good mechanic, but only if its combined with other element as well.

Never know you put your mind in CAI, i feel now you started left mechanic stuff and actually dive into core problem.Want to start Sharp Campaign AI on Warhammer my friend ??? I give you my blessing

Quoting you? Hmm well we both talk English so I don't think so

Well I've always been obsessed with AI and one of the biggest reasons why haven't play the game for a looong time.
However I haven't been into modding AI till lately -but noticed that effects of changing few things in few tables is very big, wish knew that long time ago.

Now our main problem is that AI's stance priorities are hard-coded so we can't tell which stances to use where.
Only indirectly. (Task management stuff)

But I still don't like "Transport through" ports idea.
Some movement cost increase for "land to sea" should be ok I think

[Augustusng]

Concerning Transport only through ports - actually I like this feature, the problem is with the Spies who cannot cross water, while it should be easy for them.

Well, the main goal of adding the transports only through ports feature is stopping hordes from going to sea (in most cases anyway ). I know there are issues with agents, and it's not the most elegant solution, but it's still better than having the Huns and Iazyges sailing around the Mediterranean.

[Bund weicher Birnen]

I agree to this. Annoying hordes attacking from the sea is frustrating.

[MajorTom]

I was thinking about forced march, and I agree it is more trouble than it is worth. At present there is no option to increase happiness, but, found the DeI patrol feature to be one of the brain-dead choices I would make (unless at war and in a frontier province). I had an idea of a stance of the army, which is somewhat based upon the Patrol Stance of DeI, representing having troops on 'furlough' which would have them leaving the army (major penalty to combat), but decreasing the cost of unit upkeep (as troops are on leave), but also increasing provincial food (as troops are on the farms), except here there would be no increase in happiness for the province.

I was also thinking that while a force is in a city, it costs the major upkeep, but, could also increase happiness (martial law). These options could allow the player freedoms to assist their provinces based upon need (if you need money and food, send your army on furlough, if your province is low on happiness have the force in the city, but, with a trade-off of a major financial cost).

Furlough:
Reduce Unit Upkeep
Increase Provincial Food
Reduce Stack preparadness for combat (easy to ambush, similar to patrol in DeI)
Reduce Stack replenishment rates

City Garrison
Add increased happiness (already increases unit upkeep, amongst other bonus')

[Jurand of Cracow]

I have been convinced by the forum users about the drawbacks of the forced march in vanilla. Therefore I'm using now SharpEyed "No forced march" submod, along with FotE-EP. The drawback is, the submod changes also the edicts - is suppose it overwrites the edicts provided by FotE (or EP, I'm not sure).
As far as martial law is concerned, I have the impression that it already is in the FotE-EP - look at the attitude data of a province, there're point for "Military presence", if you put your army into a city.

[Augustusng]

It is, but I did add a penalty, so smaller armies will actually cause a public order penalty instead of a bonus. I would consider reworking those effects though. I like that furlough idea; could be a good replacement for forced march.

[MajorTom]

Jurand of Cracow, I tried this from SharpEyed http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-Updated-17-12 and it did not seem to affect anything in regards to the other stances or edicts from EP or FotE.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Jurand of Cracow, I tried this from SharpEyed http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-Updated-17-12 and it did not seem to affect anything in regards to the other stances or edicts from EP or FotE.

You're right - no change. I mixed up Roman edicts (which are very beneficial) with Bani Lakhm onces (not so).

Besides, I would like report that the current garrisons for the Romans (town level I: 4 Lanciarii Limitanei, 3 Cohortes Limitanei, 3 Sagittari) make the defence against Eastern factions (Mazun, Makran, Bani Lakhm, sometimes even Sassanids) very easy. They attack with mainly ranged units and they have no chance to get into the town.
Of course, if you play the battles yourself, on autoresolve you lose. Which makes playing Romans tedious and boring - many similar town defence battles.

[Augustusng]

Besides, I would like report that the current garrisons for the Romans (town level I: 4 Lanciarii Limitanei, 3 Cohortes Limitanei, 3 Sagittari) make the defence against Eastern factions (Mazun, Makran, Bani Lakhm, sometimes even Sassanids) very easy. They attack with mainly ranged units and they have no chance to get into the town.
Of course, if you play the battles yourself, on autoresolve you lose. Which makes playing Romans tedious and boring - many similar town defence battles.

If you're using FotE, you should bring this up in their forum. EP does change garrisons, but if you're using both mods, FotE's garrisons overwrite EP's. FotE generally does have bigger garrsions, I think.

[Jurand of Cracow]

If you're using FotE, you should bring this up in their forum. EP does change garrisons, but if you're using both mods, FotE's garrisons overwrite EP's. FotE generally does have bigger garrsions, I think.

Ok, I will report on FotE. I'm using FotE 5.3 + EP 0.35 + Slower battles, No forced march.
Actually, the WRE situation is even worse - in 20 turns they have lost two provinces in Africa to Gaetulians, and two provinces in the north - but only to the Roman rebels. This is Attila Total Friendship (Hard campaign difficulty), i.e. despite everybody is in the state of war with WRE, nobody attacks.

[SharpEyed]

Not the right place again but keep seeing about it I'll go for it:

As I told in the mod's thread (No Forced March) it shouldn't conflict with any other mod unless there is a mod that includes whole Stance table or tables (there are 2 of them)
And for adding a new stance you don't need the whole table/s

However scripting stuff might. But as I also said before scripting isn't a must there and I've pointed out* which tables can be removed when needed.

*Both here and in the text file that mod's folder includes.

[Gusten Grodslukare]

Hello boys.

I noticed you have an official 12 TPY submod now and I thank you for that. I know that you also use some of Magnar's mods in your mod. It would've been great if you in the OP could give information on what other mods you are using in your mod so people don't download both your mod and then separately download the mods from, for example Magnar, or other mod creators that you've already added to EP. You for example thank Magnar and other modders for allowing you to use their mods. But you don't specifically say which mods you are using. Magnar has made a whole bunch of mods and I guess you're using only a few of them. I'm also glad to hear that you and FoTE are collaborating in making the Attila game better.

About possible conflicts

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

According to Mitch's Mod Manager there are conflicts with the Fall of The Eagles. I don't know if MMM is reporting this because it's out of date or of another reason. The list of conflicts according to MMM is as below:

db\building_level_armed_citizenry_junctions_tables\doctor_WRE_building_level_armed_citizenry_junctions
db\effect_bundles_to_effects_junctions_tables\pol_effect_bundles_to_effects_junctions
db\faction_rebellion_units_junctions_tables\faction_rebellion_units_junctions
db\technology_unit_upgrades_tables\FOTE_NEW_technology_unit_upgrades
variantmeshes\variantmeshdefinitions\att_frontend_faction_leader_alans.VariantMeshDefinition
variantmeshes\variantmeshdefinitions\att_frontend_faction_leader_alans_0.VariantMeshDefinition
variantmeshes\variantmeshdefinitions\att_frontend_faction_leader_ostrogoths_0.variantmeshdefinition
variantmeshes\variantmeshdefinitions\att_frontend_faction_leader_rome_east.variantmeshdefinition
variantmeshes\variantmeshdefinitions\att_frontend_faction_leader_rome_east_0.variantmeshdefinition
variantmeshes\variantmeshdefinitions\att_frontend_faction_leader_rome_west.variantmeshdefinition
variantmeshes\variantmeshdefinitions\att_frontend_faction_leader_rome_west_0.variantmeshdefinition
variantmeshes\variantmeshdefinitions\att_frontend_faction_leader_visigoths_0.variantmeshdefinition
variantmeshes\variantmeshdefinitions\att_general_huns_attila.variantmeshdefinition

[Augustusng]

The mod manager just reports those as conflicts because those are the parts of the mod that FotE will overwrite if you use it with EP, nothing to worry about.

As far as Magnar's mods, sure, I can add that information, but at the moment we're only using an edited version of his climate change mod. We used to have his war weariness mod as well, and we may again in the future, but it's currently not included. Also you probably shouldn't use something like Magnar's doubled garrisons mod alongside FotE and EP, since we already have our own garrison changes. I think most of Magnar's other mods are okay though.

[SargonTheDude]

Do you plan to have Settled Huns for the mod? (I can only settle as the White Huns using FotE)

[Augustusng]

We haven't decided, but probably not. The reason is that the Huns (as the AI) get scripted stack spawns anyway, so it would be weird to have them settled. Also, isn't there some sort of bug with settling as the White Huns currently? Or has that been fixed in FotE? We might add that feature to EP as well, if we can fix that bug.