Page 32 of 39 FirstFirst ... 7222324252627282930313233343536373839 LastLast
Results 621 to 640 of 774

Thread: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

  1. #621

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    Why are the christian knights so underpower like oh my god they were supposed to be better equiped and all well trained, templars were supposed to be extreme well quiped battle monks, why do they have less men then other attacks units of other factions and stats of medium unit like wtf they had the best armor they could buy and the best training, absolute elites

  2. #622

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    They had the same armor as the noblemen on the other side (Outremer soldiers tended to go lighter than their European counterparts due to the heat), and it's doubtful European knights were better-trained than the knights of Syria or Egypt.

  3. #623

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    all the religious orders but especialy templars were extremely well trained battlemonks with the ability to afford the best equipment

  4. #624

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    Is there a faction with a more eclectic roster than the Zengids? Great foot archers on tier one, relies on regional units or ghulams for >light lancers, better light horse archers than the Seljuk remnants? Also, why do the Salghurids share their roster?

  5. #625
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,837

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more


    FACTIONS in the
    Broken Crescent + Buff & Shine 1.9 + Vsivak fix

    Quote Originally Posted by WeekendGeneral View Post
    Hi Donny,

    I'd strongly recommend that you (and everyone) download and install this patch: https://www.mediafire.com/file/8bbzq...0Buff%20Fix.7z it addresses most of the bugs that are apparent as well as some balancing.

    The 3 factions that have the most difficult starts arguably are:
    The Ghaznavids - historically they lasted only 10 years after the start date, prevouisly they were one of the great powers but a host of bad decisions has found them at war with the Ghorids in the west who have already taken their core provinces, the Rajuputs in the East who have in the past long suffered from Ghanzi raids and the Malikate of Sindh to the south. They are the wrong religion for their cities, their armies are stretched thin and the troops readily available are sub-par indian levies. If you can overcome the initial difficult position you have the foundations of a strong economy, elephants to recruit and a chance to fight the mongols earlier than most.
    The Volga Bulgars - They're on the northern most part of the step, previously they were one one of the great trade hubs of the world but following years of Rus aggression their homelands have been devastated. Surrounded by enemies on the steppes with enemies that arguably can produce better troops then they can at a faster pace.
    Then I'd say its a tie between The Bavandids and The Kievan Principality.

    The European favorites of ERE, Armenia, KOJ, Georgia and Makuria all work as good late game opponents to the mongols. Other options I'd recommend are either of the Rus factions, any of the three atabeg factions or three factions in arabia for a very different playstyle.

    Each faction may most of their faction specific units in every region of the map. However, to do so you must construct faction specific recruitment buildings that can be expensive and time consuming to be built at higher levels to offset the loss of BC's traditional AOR.
    Hi WeekendGeneral & vsivak,
    first of all - again many thanks for developing this mod. With the new mechanics (siege constraints, longer assimilation, governors' requirements etc.) and your fixes and improvements, the Broken Crescent - Buff and Shine has grown from mod to dragon-mod!

    Second - following the above-mentioned post, maybe it'd be reasonable that you'd review the descriptions of the difficulties of the faction in the initial screen? Eg. Ayyubids should probably be downgraded from "Hard" (I doubt they are), or KaraKitai could be described similarly to the Khwaresmshahs (Hard/later VeryHard); or Volga Bulgars and Bavanids could be tipped off as Very Hard (as the Ghaznavids are).
    BTW, on the initial map Kiev and Bavanids are not shown (their territories are highlighted only if you chose them).

    Third, a few questions,
    Q1: why not to start with the war between ERE and Rum? I was a kind of such state at that time, it was just 2 years before Myriokefalon. I think this would prevent an alliance between ERE and Rum - what happened to me in my Rum game. (however, in my Vladimir game the war between ERE and Rum started soon, so maybe this is not an issue).
    Q2: the difference in the starting position between Kiev and Vladimir is meant to make the game historical, right? Vladimir starts with a slightly larger army (26 units vs. 18), is positioned to take Tver instantly, has a big initial purse, has more agents (5 vs 1, lack of a spy for Kiev is crippling this faction), more FMs (3 vs 1). Kiev is also neighboring a dangerous strong power - ERE. Admittedly, Vladimir is at war with Volga Bulghars, but in my game it proved not to be a problem (it's rather the power of the Kypchaks what's the problem...).

    Fourth, I have a suggestion concerning the victory conditions. I think that for most players the 25-provinces bar for the Short VCs is difficult to attain because you get bored after something like 15th province. This is true at least for me, and I rarely get past 20th. For myself, I usually change the VCs from 25 into a reasonable 20. I know there're people going for big empires but then they may choose Long VCs.

    Fifth, I think that the FAQ/manual is a very useful thing. A new player may learn the mechanisms. I'd be useful if you'd make explanations also for the other scripts in the current B&S, in particular:
    - education - what should you do with your new general? There's a window popping out that he "starts education", but what the player should do? (or may nothing? I've checked the EDCT and I cannot see any triggers related to the CharacterAge?)
    - siege script - as described below.
    - religion issues - perhaps developed from the webpage text, but with more details.
    - more detailed description of supply - as I see in the EDCT, this is quite complicated and it'd be good for everybody to know the details.

    cheers
    JoC

    ----------

    RUS factions review
    : VLADIMIR-SUZDAL and KIEV

    General comments on early-era units:
    - the distinction between Rus units (for Vladimir faction) and Slavic units (for Kiev faction) is much ahistorical. You could have described it like this in 10th century, but not in 12th. Now everywhere were "slavic" troops. I think the re-naming is needed, in particular getting rid of the "Rus" (ie: Skandinavian) adjective.
    - I also think that distinctions in rosters between Vladimir and Kiev is a kind of artificial. Both factions should have access to the same units, maybe Kiev should have slightly better cavalry (due to the contacts with the steppes), while Vladimir better infantry (woodsmens they're).
    - the names of the units may be improved. There're immersive names (Mladshi Opolchenye) but also drab ones (Rus Footmen). Why not to name every unit with a Ruthenian name? Eg. Rus Footmen should be "Toporshchiki" ("Axemen"), Boyar Axemen "Berdishniki" ("Bardiche Axemen"), Rus Mercenaries "Nayemniki" ("Mercenaries"), Rus Kopeyshchiki - maybe more precise pronunciation "Kopyeyshchiki"? /(later a unit "Berdiche Druzhina" comes, so these changes would create no problems) / I think you, @vsivak, can do much here given your experience and involvement in the Rus2 TW translation ;-)
    - well, an AoR system would be welcome, but I imagine it requires a lot of work. However, as we've got Levy Spearmen and Levy Archers available from the barracks for everybody, maybe AoR would prove not so difficult?
    - I really like that the Rus factions have a simple roster. I hated 4 types of spearmen playing Cilicia (most of which were similar) or 5 types of horse archers playing Rum (most of which were similar, almost identical).

    Comments on the Vladimir faction.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Initial settings:

    ** Characters:
    1) FL Vsevolod - is very young (20) but has very high stats, esp. on Chivalry. I think it could be toned down - he's got whole life ahead of him):
    character rus-Vsevolod rus-Baba, named character, male, leader, age 20, x 42, y 279
    traits ReligionChristian 1 , Factionleader 1 , GoodCommander 3 , PublicFaith 3 , ReligionStarter 1 , Brave 1 , BattleChivalry 4
    2) FH Mikhail - he lacks any initial traits (I guess it's an error: the line just got lost at some point of modding), what makes him really bad (eg. on Loyalty):
    character rus-Mikhail rus-Baba, named character, male, heir, age 18, x 23, y 275

    ** There's something strange about the agents' limit. Initially, you've got a spy, merchant, diplomat, and princess. You can build only a diplomat (Council Chambers) and a priest (Great Church), fair play. The game doesn't allow you to recruit a second priest - as it should. However, as I look at the EDB, the Council Chambers shouldn't allow you to recruit a diplomat... I don't know how to interpret it. Furthermore, the game actually allows you to recruit a second diplomat!

    ** I find this faction too easy for the player, so I've deleted 8 units to make the initial game harder. I think it can be easily done for everybody: there's one army (with Fedor Suzdalski) given by script. Why not limit the appearance of this army only to the AI? This would nicely balance the historical evolution on the map (rise of Vladimir, the demise of Kiev) if this is an AI faction, while would provide a challenge for any player.
    However, with the siege script - and without any initial general with the Good_Engineer trait - this change turns the faction into very, very difficult one. I've actually lost my game being unable to take new settlements.

    Other issues:

    * The pic for the "Boyar" ancillary is the KoJ coat of arms. It's not particularly immersive for the Orthodox Rus faction. Any pic of Saint George (or similar) would be better.


    Comments on the Kiev faction.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Buildings:
    - Uyezd - I see no logic or reason for the experience provided to Slavic cavalry and Spearmen: +4? In the "Principality" level also to the Swordsmen.
    - In general, the "Feudalism" buildings often give +experience twice. Eg. I trained a unit of Starshy Opolchenye in Tver (just 4 buildings: Castle, Pogost, Orthodox Chapel, Dirt Roads) and it got 2 chevrons. I think it's +1 from Pogost (a feature of the building), but then +1 from the feature that Pogost provide "Starshy Opolchenye (Experience 1). I'd think it's an oversight.
    - Garrisoned Stronghold - provides Karakalpak Nobles or Kypchak Tribal Cavalry in Kiev. Maybe it's to give a flavor for the Kiev faction having access to the steppe units, but I'd rather think it's a bug. There's access to so many of these units that Kiev turns into a steppe faction per se.
    - Town Hall - gives access to Karakalpak Nobles. Why?

    Units:
    - Slavic Spearmen, Swordsmen - are very cheap in upkeep (or expensive in price). It's 1/6 of the price, while for most other units in the game it's 1/4. I wonder why - a strange price (1563, while all other prices are in hundreds) hints that's a leftover from something.
    - Nomad Lancers - have no unit picture on the card.
    - Slavic Swordsmen and Rus Mercenaries have the same unit card. They are a very similar unit, but still, they differ in prices (rightly). I think a small distinction would be useful.
    - overall, as described above: the access to the elite steppe units gives this faction a very powerful roster - once it survives to have enough money to afford recruitment. But this roster is completely at odds with the description of the faction (and history).

    Characters:
    - the leader of the faction should be "Sviatoslav" - and there's a text describing his challenges in-game, with his picture. But then on the map, he's named Vsevolod. It's just copy of the other Russian faction, unfortunately. Besides the unit card is really bad. It's 13th. century western European barrel helmet. No!!! (I think it's just an accident).

    Gameplay:
    - lack of a spy at the beginning of the game (and not being able to recruit it for a long time - three levels of inns have to be built) makes life very difficult for this faction. Given that it's such an underdog, I think it wouldn't be bad if a spy would be added. And perhaps a merchant and a princess as well.


    ----------

    BYZANTIUM

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Units:
    * Mercenary Latin Knights - no pics on either unit card or unit icon,
    * Nomad Lancers - no pic on the unit card
    * there's a mistake in the name of "- there's "Stratatoi Heavy Cavalry" - it should be "Stratiotai,
    * I'm not sure if the name Aqmesqit is more historically correct than "Chersonesos"

    Initial generals:
    * a few Roman generals have very strange bodyguards (normally it's Romanoi Bodyguards): Thomas Chrysoloras: Hippotoxotai, Konstantinos Dalassinos & Tiverios Laskaris & Markos Kantakouzinos: Akolouthoi Light Spearmen, Aleksios Palaiologos: Stratiotai Heavy Cavalry, Kallinikos Kalekas: Royal Kataphractoi.

    Buildings:
    * many units get +6 experience from the feudal building (what I deem unreasonable, but it's not a bug)
    * why the Pelekyphoroi Axemen are recruited at the Greek Orthodox Basilica?


    VOLGA BULGARIA
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Settlements' and map issues:
    * an old settlement, faction capital of Bilyar, has only Nomadic Migration (level 1 government), while the much less important Quashan has Nomadic Settlements (level 3 government). I'd guess it should be otherwise.
    * according to the map in my Osprey book on the Volga Bulgars, the settlement of Quashan should be in a different place, definitely not on the Don river, but much to the east, actually very close to Bilyar. I would call this settlement with the old Chazar name "Sarkel".
    * there's no Ural river (and this is big, big river...)

    Units' issues:
    * in the names of the units we've got both "Bolghar" (Bolghar Nobles etc.), and "Bulgar" (Bulgar Cavalry). I think it should be adjusted.

    Traits issues:
    * the generals get "Firmy Orthodox" trait - despite the religion is Muslim (?!)
    * playing this faction is not possible with Siege script on - after the first siege and assault you don't have enough troops anymore to conduct another siege (due to the losses), you're deep in the red, and disbanding is also not an option - you won't get enough money. A Good_Engineer trait for any general (there're 2) is required.



    MAKURIA
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    * the Omoro/Oromo spelling mistake is still there,
    - the change from Soba to Meroe is historically wrong: Meroe was abandoned in 4th century, while in the Middle Ages there's the Kingdom of Alwa with it's capital of Soba. Please change it back.
    - the Nubian name of Old Dongola is Tungul. The arabic one was Dunqula al-Ajuz
    * I wonder if it's possible to play with Makuria using the Siege script - they may have too little units for an effective siege unless one of the generals gets Good_Engineer trait (similar situation as with Kiev). The choice of welcoming the Banu Kain tribe at the beginning might provide enough units, but then it'll turn into no-option option (option that you cannot decline), so what would be the point of it
    * the strategic problem of Makuria I've pointed at is still there (unless there're changes in the script). The more I learn about history, the more I think that the relations between Ayyubids and Makuria should be much sourer. Makuria had very good relations with the Fatimids - and they're brought down just 5 years ago. Afaik, Makuria intervened on the side of the Fatimid before. My guess would be: Makuria was pretty angry with the Ayyubids and would rather attack it quickly. As I had already hinted: this would also be good for the gameplay


    ELDEGUZIDS
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    * the pic for Ilgaazi is awful!
    * why so many units (the whole Ilgaazi army) have two silver chevrons at the beginning?
    * Daylami Heavy Infantry has not pic
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; April 21, 2018 at 07:00 AM.
    If you want to play a historical mod in the medieval setting the best are:
    the Stainless Steel Historical Improvement Project,
    and the Broken Crescent + Buff and Shine.
    ........................................................................................................................................
    Reviews of the mods (all made in 2018): SSHIP, Wrath of the Norsemen, Broken Crescent.
    Pros and cons of having merchants in an M2TW mod. Arguments against the forts in M2TW.
    Home rules for playing a game without exploiting the M2TW engine deficiencies.
    Thrones of Britannia: review, opinion on the battles, ideas for modding. No good mod yet, alas!
    Dominant strategy in Rome 2 TW and Attila TW: “Sniping groups of armies”. Still there, alas!
    .................................................................................................................................................................................
    Developer of the SSHIP: traits, ancillaries, script fixing, guides, historical improvements

  6. #626
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,837

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more


    Observations on the current shape of the Broken Crescent + Buff & Shine 1.9 +
    Vsivak fix


    The marvels of the mod:

    * the historical scenery: factions, units, religions, map, events - very unique, different from the other medieval-period mods.
    * the gameplay: providing for a difficult and immersive game, that is conducive for historical role-playing;
    * aesthetics: units, buildings, map, music.

    In particular:
    * the variety of factions that are not to be seen in the other mods. The Muslim and Indian factions are obviously very unique, but some other as well. An example: Makuria: interesting, unique, and feels to be finished (to such details as names of the settlements in Egypt change into Nubian ones after the conquest).
    * vast array religions with mechanics related to their uniqueness (to be sure, the Byzantineboy's submod added much to it, its integration in the B&S is essential).
    * units: numerous new ones, with immersive pics and stories, precise and unique - ideal for historical immersion; number and diversity is amazing (even if still some work is needed to polish them).
    * the variety of buildings provides with immersion as well;
    * the recruitment system of the units mainly from the factional feudal buildings, with stables, ranges and other similar providing different benefits to the units. The recruitment system consisting of 7 parameters (buildings, pools regeneration times, pools maxima, population, recruitment slots, the presence of a governor, with money as the main factor) is reasonable and well-balanced.
    * the economy balance seems to be right to me. I do like very small differences between castles and cities in income. What I'd slightly adjust is the scaling of income to the size of the settlements: I prefer slightly more "financially tall" settlements.
    * music for this faction absolutely fantastic (esp. for Makuria)!
    * interactive events - almsgiving, tolerance - many choice and opportunities to develop the traits of the generals or new buildings; they give both flavor and something to the gameplay; also the historical events - crusades, baht etc. - give much flavor;
    * scripts and mechanisms - they're very new and I value them a lot: civil war, mechanism limited sieging, captains and generals, governors, recruitment and disbanding, assimilation etc.) - these are ingenious and make the gameplay really interesting;
    * I reckon that many parameters are set in the right way (ransom money, occupying/sacking/razing consequences, movement points etc.);
    * battles and BAI - seem ok to me, no qualms (I'm not so interested in the aesthetic appearance of the units, but people say that's one of the strongest sides of the mod);
    * the map: this part of the world doesn't feature in many mods so this is something the BC stands out the most. It has beautiful colors, it's comparatively precise; and the provinces at the right granularity (I find this level much better than vanilla and the mods which followed: they usually have too big provinces). I think it copes well with the problem of the map projection, something that is very difficult. There're some imperfections, to be sure (eg. the course of rivers in current Ukraine and Russia).

    The recent changes I'm very happy with:
    I'm quite impressed that many of my previous concerns and observations have been taken into account :-). In particular:
    - the movement points limited (this is really important: no more blitzing, it's a crucial fix).
    - I've seen now rebellions occurring reasonably often.
    - the assimilation script provides with some initial religious unrest. It's not enough to my taste but still something. Given that this is an optional script, this shouldn't be a problem to slightly amplify its effects.
    - the number of the agents (esp. merchants) has been very reasonably lowered. This positively impacts also the economic balance and the religious assimilation pace; it also limits the unnecessary micromanagement of the agents.
    - filling-the-pools times were reasonably lengthen (7 turns for the basic units, 10 turns for the better, 15 turns for some others, and 20 turns for the super-elites (ie Varangians). This is absolutely crucial change to fix the money-military balance and to avoid stack-spam and endless battles. I still need to test if this is enough, how the AI copes etc. but initial assessment is very positive.
    - I really like the (high) prices of the buildings, and the economic balance in general (well, I still need to play with a bigger faction, so this opinion may change).
    - the adjustments in ancillaries and traits, eg. the benefits of the provincial titles don't trump the other traits (+1 law, not +3, and no +2Authority that might be abused).
    - I appreciate the changes to Makuria (from details as the name of Phrs, to much more important stuff as the lowered armor values), even if some things have been left untouched (the Omoro spelling mistake) or curiously made into worse (Soba turned Meroe).

    Some issue where I still have qualms:
    - easy diplomacy: AI is still very soft on alliances. Getting a princess married to your FL/FH is very easy, with no money needed. Furthermore, his opinions on you tend to move towards positive - that makes the game much easier, especially coupled with the passive CAI (it's quite different from the SSHIP).
    - in particular, diplomatic relations don't move as the should. As Vladimir I've attacked Kiev, fought a number of battles, was at war for 60 turns, took their settlement, but our relations were "Amiable" and after all that even improved to "Good"!. I was at war with Volga-Bulghar from the beginning of the game, plus we're of different religions, but our relations stayed "Reasonable"...
    - CAI is too passive - I was sieging a Kiev's settlement, Kiev AI had an army equal to my army within one movement and for 10 turns it did nothing. Very disappointing (and different from, say, EBII). Then it took 20 years for the enemy factions to make any reasonable expedition against me (to be sure: these were very effective, I've lost two cities). On the other hand, I've observed that the AI is going to conquer the neutral settlements quite quickly so it's not a completely lame AI.
    - it seems the AI doesn't cope well with the loyalty issues. In 6 turns I've seen 2 AI Kiev armies (without FM) turned turncoat. Later on, I was miraculously saved from disaster when two non-FM 20-unit armies defected from the Bulghars knocking on my doors. I guess the relevant coefficient is somehow wrong - too many defections (there's a discussion on this issue on the EBII forum, also Gigantus know much about it)
    - I like when the provinces have different names than their capitals... but I understand that you've decided to give up naming the provinces altogether and name them after the capital cities. This approach is, however, not without a problem. Namely, the names of the cities change due to the change of the owner of the settlement. But the names of the provinces don't, do they? So there'll be inevitable discrepancie.


    Observations on ancillaries and traits:
    - Master Archer - all my FMs got it within 25 turns. I doubt it was related to any particular behavior, I think there's a simple trigger.
    - some office titles are not transferable (I thought they should): Master of Horse. To be sure - this is also the issue in the SSHIP.
    - Arc of Covenant - it's just been improved, but I'm still not sure it should provide +4Dread. Imagine a chivalrous general - does the Ark negate his chivalry? I'd prefer that +4 Dread turned into +4 Morale - it would have made the general a great motivator of his troops.
    - some traits are still too powerful. For instance, Scars give so many HitPoints, that it's not possible to kill the general (what is game-changing, see my comments in the WotN). In this respect, I've modded Scars for the SSHIP, what may be re-used. (well, I've already hinted at it one year ago ;-)
    - Overseer - as Rus factions I haven't received any (while one year ago it was given to everybody in Makuria). It seems it has been fixed then.


    Bug spotting:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    EDCT - Supply system:
    - description of the effects of the "Starving" level are different in FAQ, EDCT-text (what's shown in-game) and in EDCT (real effects): morale 3 vs. 5 (Forager description) vs. 4.
    - level 6: Abundance: in EDCT is Move -1 (ie -5%), while in the description: -10%.
    - I think that the harsher effects are ok (-4 morale and -20% is something to take into account). For myself, I add also Loyalty effects: Starvation: -2 Loyalty, Desperate: additional -1 Loyalty.
    - something is wrong with the triggers as I always jump in one turn from Starving to Supply-Excessive (it should be only to level 5 in one turn, not to 6).
    - constant information on achieving normal supply ("gain" message, levels 4 and 5) is redundant. I think it's worth to get info on Excessive, Desperate/Starvation/Foraging, but not on Full supply.
    - the supply system concerns also the AI factions. As the AI is unaware of this, it turns to be crippling for its armies: they very often have "Starving" level, with -4 Morale and -20% Movement. To be sure, the triggers for the AI have lower probabilities than for the player, but it's not enough.

    EDU:
    -- esthetic: no additional line signifying where the Rus units are described (for the other factions - there are)
    -- "attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, very_hardy, can_withdraw. frighten_foot" - full stop instead of comma;
    -- "attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, is_peasant, can_run_amok, garrison, no_custom" - what is "garrison"? Actually, this attribute is in many places, but I don't know what it does.

    EB
    - I think the name should be "Edict of Religious Tolerance" (not "Toleration")

    Map
    - I'm quite disappointed with the course of the rivers in current Ukraine and Russia. The big Dnieper is flowing short and the Desna river is not there, there's no Dniester (but the settlement Belgorod is there - it should be on the river!), the Doniec is such a long river that it on the border between Vladimir province and Tver province.... this is a bad depiction of the Ruthenian territories. (I do understand the difficulty related to the perspective, but still).
    /see also my take on Volga Bulghars/



    A few proposals for the future modifications

    What small changes I'd welcome:
    - I think there are too many bonuses providing the units with experience chevrons. It's normal to recruit and infantry unit with 3, and even with 6. That's not right - I think fighting should be decisive, or maybe the presence of the other, non-feudal buildings. Therefore I think all the experience bonuses form the "Feudalism" buildings should be removed as they're already very valuable as they provide troops and trade. Then stables or barracks may provide 1 or, with the highest levels, 2 experience, but no more (see also my notes on the Kiev faction).
    - I think the "Feudalism" buildings provide too much Free_Upkeep: second tier 3, fourth tier 4. I think it should simply scale back: second: 1, third: 2, fourth: 3, or just 1,2,3,4. Or maybe give this "Free_upkeep" ability to the other buildings - just to make them valuable for the player to build them up? Also, maybe the numbers should be larger for the step factions - that would add diversity for such factions a Volga Bulghars?
    - I think that making forts buildable (but not permanent) is a very good decision (despite all the associated problems). However, I'd make them even more expensive: 10k instead of 5k - to make them very, very rare, built at a great need.
    - I think that fog-of-war should be a major issue for the gameplay. The watchtowers get away with the fog. If they're cheap, this part of the gameplay goes. In this spirit, I'd raise the costs of the watchtowers to 1000 florins.

    Changes to the scripts:
    - charity should scale with the size of the empire. It should be less (ie current 4k) for small, say up to 6 settlements, but more for larger ones (almsgiving in 14-province Byzantium should be costly!).
    - there should be a script integrated with the siege-script that makes operating with full-stacks very costly. This "exponential costs of the armies" script could perhaps be a bit harsher than that one made by tmodelsk for SSHIP. If an army grows beyond 10 units, there's a surcharge, beyond 15 it's getting very costly. This would make a general with sieging skills (Good_Engineer) very useful and would prevent the player of using only 20-units armies.


    The needed big changes

    - a major overhaul of the diplomacy and AI behavior: make it more aggressive. The AI should not sit like a lame duck, it should attack. It's possible to achieve, as I may witness from my games with the SSHIP and EBII.

    - making the settlements a bit more "tall" financially: small settlement would provide less money, while big settlement - more money. Now there's too little difference: a small town provides 1-2k, a minor city 2-3k, (I simplify here to make understanding what I mean easier). I'd prefer if a small town provides 0,5-1k and a minor city 3-4k. It would have meant that the strategy of developing settlements (call it "intensive expansion") would be equally beneficial to the conquests of new settlements ("extensive expansion"). Now the "rush for new lands" is the trumping strategy, limited by some factors (eg. availability of the agent, availability of the faction Feudalism buildings).

    - increase the natural unrest in the settlements - I feel (but I don't have that much experience with the new version) that there's still little unrest besides the initial one. Also, the religious unrest is surprisingly small. You conquer a city, leave cheap infantry units there, and go further for the conquest. This makes things extremely easy for the player. I'd prefer to have problems here. This should also add to the economic balance (if you need to leave many units behind, you need to bear costs of upkeep - this limits the snowball effect of the conquests).

    - providing for more diversification in the prices of the units, especially making elite units more expensive in upkeep in relation to the lower-tier units. Now the difference in upkeep is between 1,5 and 2 times (lower: 225-275, average 300-350, higher 375-450, Varangian Guards 500), in recruitment slightly more. I think it should be at least between 2 and 3, with the elites 4 times, and superelites 4-5 times more expensive.
    [for reference: the upkeep in the SSHIP: Spear Militia 250, Lithuanian Archers 200, Crossbow Militia 250, Axemen 200-300, good Spearmen around 400, Heavy feudal infantry 630-800, Horse Archers / Mounted Crossbows 600-700 (but elite Spanish mounted javelinmen 1300), Heavy feudal knights 1250-1500]

    - in general: a thorough trait overhaul would provide for more role-playing (well, this is my specialty what is dear to me...). Both for the existing aspects, but also some systems that are known from the other mods could be introduced as well. For example:
    -- bloodlines - for the moment there's little gameplay benefit (only strengthening of an alliance) from marrying your FL/FH to the princesses of the other factions. If you marry a character of another religion, this may be very bad for the general (Rus prince married to the Cuman princess got -3 popularity and lower fertility). I think that the bloodlines (in the SS style) would be beneficial.
    -- educational system - young generals learning in madrasas or universities. The system may be simple but I'd just like to make those buildings productive. It provides much for immersion.

    - a map overhaul, eg. of the rivers in the Ukrainian and Russian lands (I haven't checked other parts of the map). As said, I wouldn't also mind coming back to the previous system of the separate names for the provinces.

    Besides:
    - a better AoR system should be developed. I feel that there're too little province-related units available (eg. very few units available as mercenaries - in the Ruthenian lands just one unit of sword-wielding Rus Mercenaries).
    - I also think that a review of faction rosters taking into account the historical realities should be done at some point. (eg. the Rus factions should share more of their units, with only some exclusive to their factions)
    - I also think that the recruitment prices should be slightly lowered. This is because the player has always the following trade-off in mind: should he keep a unit in ranks and pay upkeep, or should he disband and recruit this unit after some turns. The historic behavior was to disband - there're no standing armies in the Middle Ages. However, if the recruitment price is high and the upkeep low, there's a strong incentive to not disband. To limit this incentive I prefer to have lower recruitment prices. However, I'm not sure about this piece of advice of mine because:
    -- This issue is related to the disbandment script: if you get much money back, then the reasoning here loses its weight.
    -- The EBII team stated that the price/upkeep ratio should be 5,3 (or 16/3) - the reason given by Quintus Sertorius was that with this figure the AI reacted in the best way in the EBII tests. This conclusion would rather hint at increasing the prices of the lower-tier units (they're at 3,5 -4,5, while the elites are 5-6).
    -- Obviously, it should be done with utter care in order not to break the current financial balance in the game (I always have a rule: if it's not broke, don't fix it).
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; March 29, 2018 at 03:41 AM.

  7. #627
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,837

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    Disclaimer: I know that multiple entries on the TWC webpage are unwelcome, but each of my entries concerns something different, there's no other thread for Buff&Shine, and nobody seems to be online to make his entry. I hope it's ok.

    SCRIPTS AND MECHANISMS included in the Broken Crescent - Buff & Shine 1.9 + Vsivak fix


    ASSIMILATION SCRIPT

    Quote Originally Posted by vsivak View Post
    6. Assimilation script - only for the human player - After conquering the settlement it decreases the public order for few turns depending on religious difference and random chance.
    In the Stainless Steel the assimilation script was about something different: the speed of the religious change (script made it much slower).
    I think this script here should be called "Initial unrest script". I like the script - it adds something to difficulty. However, I'd really like the true assimilation script as well - it was a rather tedious process to change the religion of a region, and in the M2TW it's rather gamey - very fast. I liked that script from the SS and I'd welcome it in the BC ;-)

    RECRUITMENT AND DISBANDMENT effects on POPULATION

    Quote Originally Posted by vsivak View Post
    1. Population recruitment and disband script system - only for human player
    If you recruit units you loose population from the corresponding settlement.
    If you disband units in the settlement where there are no retrainable units at the moment (to prevent cheating with disbanding not fully replenished units - that means at first retrain units you want to disband and move out of settlement all units you dont want to disband that can be retrained) you receive back some money, the population increases and units return back to recruit pools (if they can be recruited from the corresponding settlement).
    To reflect this change you can have maximum 5 units in all recruit pools and I also deleted freeze_recruit_pool command from my Governor script so you never loose these units (I also came to conclusion that this script makes the player to use more faster regenerating units at the expense of elite units).
    I've noticed an interesting mechanism in this respect.
    The barracks provide Levy Archers and Levy Spearmen - you recruit units as usual. However, they're considered by the game as "mercenaries". When you're in debt, the mercenaries are getting disbanded. If this happens in a settlement with those barracks, they're added to the pool, as described.

    My opinion on the script: from the gameplay perspective this is a very good script. It sets up another constraint on the strategy of endless conquests, it prevents an exploit (endless recruitment from small provinces) and forces the player to concentrate more on the development of the provinces. It's all I praise in the M2TW mods.
    (however, I'm not sure where the conclusion that the player is more likely to use the non-elite units come from).

    From the historicity point of view, I find some questions. I've always considered the number of population in a
    M2TW settlement to be a token one. This is the number of citizens of the capital of a province, but not of the province itself. It contains also women and children. Therefore this is an abstract number: the province has more citizens, and the number doesn't deal only with full-abled, recruitable men. Therefore one may question how realistic it is to subtract of 100 from the population when a 100-strong unit is set up. I still think it is realistic.

    On the money received after a disbandment: this is a two-fold issue. On one hand, I don't see the reason to get money back after disbandment (what a ruler got?), on the other hand, it prompts a historical behavior (in the Middle Ages after a campaign the troops would be released). So it's good for the gameplay historical, but it's not so historical.

    On the 5-unit-maximum: apparently, it doesn't matter for the disbandment of the units (you may have more). However, it does matter for gathering the fresh recruits and thus it's useful.

    Anyway, my overall assessment is positive: this historical game is better with the mechanism than without.



    CAPTAIN SCRIPT: attacking only with a general

    This is one of the scripts I was looking for for years (vsivak, if you can PM me how did you do it, I'd grateful). This is a major change for the players who would use the armies without generals (I had home rule not to do it). Great thing.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The code as kindly provided by vsivak, should work with any mod:
    ;;;;CAPTAIN SCRIPT;;;;
    Code:
    monitor_event ScrollOpened ScrollOpened siege_scroll
    and I_AgentSelected general
    and I_EventCounter captain_accepted = 1
    campaign_wait 0.1
    disable_cursor
    campaign_wait 0.1
    select_ui_element siege_end_button
    simulate_mouse_click lclick_down
    simulate_mouse_click lclick_up
    enable_cursor
     
    end_monitor
     
    monitor_event ScrollOpened ScrollOpened prebattle_scroll
    and I_AgentSelected general
    and I_EventCounter captain_accepted = 1
    campaign_wait 0.1
    disable_cursor
    campaign_wait 0.1
    select_ui_element prebattle_withdraw_button
    simulate_mouse_click lclick_down
    simulate_mouse_click lclick_up
    enable_cursor
     
    end_monitor

    GOVERNOR SCRIPT: recruitment issues

    This script is intended to make the player using more generals as governors. I really do like the concept. It was already included in the BGR submod for the SS (I really wish it would have been kept in the SSHIP...). It's very welcome for the BC given that the governors (IMO) don't provide as many other benefits as in the other mods.
    In the beginning, I was not very happy with the implementation but after a second thought and analysis how it interacts with the other parts of recruitment mechanism, I find the implementation to be the right one. Perhaps, with the one exception: pools for the elite units should be lower than the other ones. I also think that the regeneration times - how fast the pools fill in - should be slower for the better units: 7 turns for the basic units, 10 turns for the average, 14 turns for the elites, and 20 turns for the super-elites - this is implemented as well, but I'm not sure if in all 4 aspects.

    Now the recruitment system consists of 7 parameters:
    - buildings;
    - pools regeneration times,
    - pools maxima,
    - population,
    - recruitment slots,
    - governor,
    - money.
    Political system (feudal building, local barracks) provides for the possible recruitable units. An advanced political system allows recruitment of the advanced units. Time has to pass for more and more boys grow to be fighting-able men (pools regeneration). For the elite units, more training is needed and only some guys may afford the gear (slower pools regeneration for the elites). There're always economic limits of how much the land can support (pools maxima), but they can be pretty large (up to 5). To recruit and train a unit a lot of money and a general are needed, and the province should also be populated with enough people. You cannot make the recruitment instantly for all - there're real-life bottlenecks (recruitment slots).

    If peace reigns in the kingdom, no recruitment is needed and the pools regenerate. The ruler is filling in his coffer with silver and gold. Once a war breaks out, recruitment must take place. The reserves are large thus many units can be recruited - provided money and a general is there. It's not done overnight, there are bottlenecks (recruitment slots). However, if the war drags one, it might become difficult to find more people to fill in the ranks as the new potential recruits come slowly (pools might get empty, regeneration takes place slowly). However, disbandment of a unit regenerates both the population numbers and the pools of possible recruits.

    An idea for the future: strip the feudal buildings of the of recruitment slots and make another (existing) building setting this parameter. At the moment the feudal buildings provide the highest number of the slots. This means they define this number as in the game mechanics recruitment slots are not additive but the building with the highest number defines it. I think it would be both historical and good for the gameplay if stables would provide recruitment slots for cavalry and barracks for infantry (maybe depending of the faction, maybe defined somehow differently). Just think about it: there are enough fit people in the province (pools and population) but a general needs to have facilities to get them together, to equip them, give a bit training, create a fighting force. If he's got developed facilities, he can do it faster than otherwise.

    Another idea for the future: add one additional step in the "Feudalism" buildings: the "zero" one: "Autonomous administration", that would provide only AoR troops, no factional, but also much of happiness (this is actually the idea from the EBII).


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Information provided by vsivak on how to make it in the other mods:
    "You need Script Replicator 1.0 from GrnEyedDvl's Mod Tools and the txt file with the names of all settlements and replicate this script"
    Code:
    monitor_event SettlementTurnStart SettlementName Tyre
    and ! GovernorInResidence
    and not IsFactionAIControlled
    and I_EventCounter govenor_accepted = 1
        
        filter_settlement_commands off Tyre
    end_monitor
     
    monitor_event SettlementTurnStart SettlementName Tyre
    and GovernorInResidence
    and not IsFactionAIControlled
    and I_EventCounter govenor_accepted = 1
        
        filter_settlement_commands on Tyre
    end_monitor


    CHARITY (almsgiving)
    A very good mechanism, Byg would be proud of you. This takes away significant money (4k) quite often. You may afford to decline, but then the growth of the cities is really crippled. It was an important factor in my gameplay, very good trade-off.

    RAID AND PILLAGE
    A very good mechanism that I know from the EBII. However, here I don't know how does it work (my general got the trait from time to time) and how much money raiding provides. More information, pls! (eg. only after some time I've discovered that a general with Dread is needed).

    CIVIL WAR
    I've got no insight at the moment but the overall one: very good concept! I've described in the past how did it work in B&S 1.6. It was not perfect, but still it a very important script: historically the greatest challenge for the survival of a medium-to-big country has always come from the internal competitors for power. I think lack of such a mechanism in the M2TW engine has been one of the biggest loopholes - and this script closes it.

    AUTOMATIC GARRISON
    It's included in the submods but apparently only for the capitals (or maybe more? I don't know). I deem it a very good script, compensating for the inability of the AI to keep proper garrisons to defend its settlements. I think it should be applied to all settlements.

    HEALTH SYSTEM
    It is included in the mod and seems working, although I have no further insights.

    THE MONGOLS
    I haven't experienced them yet, but what I have in my notes from the discussions on this webpage, seems to be fine:
    - The Mongols arrive in stacks of 6-8 that come in waves 10-20 turns. They are less threatening than they were in BC 2.3 and 2.4.
    - Size of the invasion in respect to your distance from the invasion - west of Z
    enghids 4/4 invasion, - west of the Seljuk of Iraq 3/4 invasion, Ghorids 1/2 invasion, khitan, kwarez and bulgar 1/4 invasion.


    LIMITED SIEGE SYSTEM

    Quote Originally Posted by A_B View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vsivak View Post
    I decided to use -290 siege points because you get 15 siege points for each full unit so for the whole full stack army you get 300 siege points. If you halved it then you need just 12 full units (180 siege points) to attack the settlement with 2 ladders next turn you started the siege. So you wont notice the effect of this change. I would stay with -290 because this way you still have 10 siege points every turn with full stack army and you give AI time to return with their armies and attack you.
    But the best idea is to make the number of - siege points optional via I_EventCounter in EDCT. So the player could choose how tough he wants to make the game.
    Can you explain how you implemented this? To add to another mod?
    Hi A_B,
    I think my conceptual work in SSHIP (you may read it here) may help you a bit.

    @vsivak: could you indeed have a look at my post there and tell what else should be done? This would help both A_B and me.

    A few issues for consideration:

    A) The mechanism constraints early expansion of the player. You've got to have at least 17-units for any siege, you need to pay for this army and you need to keep the units. If there're loses - you must fill up back to 17-full-strength. And pay upkeep. This obviously limits the directions of expansion - no two 10-unit corpses expanding in two directions, just one full stack on one front. Given an average upkeep of a unit of 350 florins it means something like 6000+ for an army. And you've got to pay for the other things as well (garrisons, agents: 200 each, FMs). The even a faction with 5 settlements struggles to expand. Very good effect.
    B) However, my problem with this system is that it encourages the use of the full-stack armies. I think it's detrimental to the gameplay - see my entry on the "sniping groups of armies" in the newer TW games. Additionally, the passivity of the CAI in the BC makes this strategy even more effective: as you're forced to have 20-unit armies, you'll be enticed to snipe the AI armies as well. I think the player should be prevented from doing this.

    C) To limit this effect and to prompt the player to use smaller armies (10-15 seem reasonable) I think there should be a system of the exponential costs of the big armies, perhaps a bit harsher than that one made by tmodelsk for SSHIP. If an army grows beyond 10 units, there's a surcharge, beyond 15 it should be very costly, avoided by the player.
    The result would be as follows:
    - if you don't have a skilled general, you need to bring a lot of troops, what is very costly;
    - you may bring two generals and have two armies (but there're side costs: generals not employed elsewhere, sometimes there's no right general etc.)
    - if you do have a general with "Good_Engineer" skills, then bringing 10-units army would be feasible;
    The Good_Engineer skills of a general would be then priceless.

    D) Additionally, there should be a way for any faction to have a general able to siege at any point. This might be a trait of the FM, or FM and FL (eg they'd always have +120 siege points, actually this solution the easiest to implement and it's very good for the small factions). One may also think in of the BGR "War Councilor / Professional Training Staff" system: having additional ancillaries providing with siege points. Or one may simply add these bonus siege points to one of the court offices (eg. Lord Marshall). Therefore the big issue of initial armies (see point F) is easy to fix.

    E) I think it should be somewhere described how to recognize a general who is able to make an effective siege or how many units is enough to a siege. This info could be included also in the initial screen in-game so that the new players get their bearings easily (even me, I've made an expedition with 17 units, and this was a flop - somewhere not full-strength...).

    F) There's a problem with the initial armies and generals for many factions. The small ones are actually unable to take new settlements with this siege system: even if they have more than 17 units at the beginning (including initial recruitment), the battle losses deplete them and there are not enough troops for a siege (you need full-strength units!), while there's not enough money to raise new. You may sit-out the siege, but it takes time and might be not an option if there're enemies at your gates (it's how I've lost my Vladimir game).
    Therefore to prevent the small factions falling into a vicious circle, they should have least one general with a Good_Engineer trait so that the player could use also a small army for taking more settlements. Or any FL should have that additional siege points.

    G) Concerning what you've written:
    - I've just experienced the situation that the AI didn't attack my forces sieging his city despite being stronger (in the following battle 4-3, numerically 2500 to 1500) and standing 1 tile away from me and the sieged city - so the reasoning has its limits.
    - I don't think there's a need to make the siege points optional via I_EventCounter. The current situation (on/off decision at the beginning) is ok. It's better to spend the modding time on something different.

    H) Traits and ancillaries: it's bad that Siege Expert trait doesn't provide siege points, only the command stars. I also think that the traits and ancillaries should be much revamped in this respect - to be able to get them.

    cheers
    JoC
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; August 23, 2018 at 04:16 AM.

  8. #628

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    ASSIMILATION SCRIPT

    Quote Originally Posted by vsivak View Post
    6. Assimilation script - only for human player - After conquering the settlement it decreases the public order for few turns depending on religious difference and random chance.descr_settlement_mechanics

    Rather than script, slow the conversion, edite the -<factor name="SOF_RELIGIOUS_UNREST"> in descr_settlement_mechanics. Raise it to 1.5 or two. Also, reduce the amount of Priests a faction can produce to just a few - through city size, etc. or script if necessary. Finally, reduce the Religious influence of churches slightly. I've done all of this myself, and it makes the direction of your conquests take on a different flavor...easier to conquer regions of own religion, etc. It's also more historic to have various regions rebel now and again, even if you've owned them for twenty years in game, because of religious reason. I gave the AI some help with this, but they should suffer from this as well.
    This seems to be quite a racist comment. The Guals did a lot more than "wonder around pillaging";
    It's not as if they were a bunch of dirty, stinking, fatherless Huns.

  9. #629
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,837

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    Quote Originally Posted by A_B View Post
    ASSIMILATION SCRIPT

    Quote Originally Posted by vsivak View Post
    6. Assimilation script - only for human player - After conquering the settlement it decreases the public order for few turns depending on religious difference and random chance.descr_settlement_mechanics

    Rather than script, slow the conversion, edite the -<factor name="SOF_RELIGIOUS_UNREST"> in descr_settlement_mechanics. Raise it to 1.5 or two. Also, reduce the amount of Priests a faction can produce to just a few - through city size, etc. or script if necessary. Finally, reduce the Religious influence of churches slightly. I've done all of this myself, and it makes the direction of your conquests take on a different flavor...easier to conquer regions of own religion, etc. It's also more historic to have various regions rebel now and again, even if you've owned them for twenty years in game, because of religious reason. I gave the AI some help with this, but they should suffer from this as well.
    Yes, indeed I'm in your way of thinking: the direction of your conquests should also be conditioned by the religion issues, indeed. It's why I like the assimilation script by Byg

    On your advice:
    - I think "SOF_RELIGIOUS_UNREST" concerns the effects of religious differences, not the speed of the religious change (ie assimilation). But indeed it adds to those considerations of conquest, you're right.
    - The number of priests is indeed much lowered in the current BC: you get one from only from Fortress / Minor City. I don't have much insights if it's enough or not.

  10. #630

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    Hi dear creator, thank u for this good work.

    The mod crashes when I wanna run campaign during loading

    The log:logs.rar

    Edit: The prob was (mypatch) I ran campaign without it properly.
    Last edited by asadyan; March 20, 2018 at 06:36 AM.

  11. #631

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    I have studied quite alot of materials on the crusades and I still firmly believe the crusader forces are extremely underpowered compared to how it was in reality. I read about the muslim knights and elite soldiers and even if they trained for more time or were better equiped then most other soldiers, when it comes to standart crusaders they fought in quite different way then the muslims, much more defensively and often implemented the shield wall strategy where if it were combined with their mail armor it made them very resistant to arrow fire and all were overall much better at holding the line. When it comes to the religious orders there is really no reason why shouldnt their highest ranks be the most elite units of the game, you could still make them weaker in some way compared to the muslim elites but even then they should be definetly shinning much more then they are now.

    This is just a shame because the mod is set in very interesting enviroment and with very interesting factions but the way the crusader forces are balanced stats wise must come from either historic misconception or bad implementation of the stat mechanics.

  12. #632

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    When you have 3 generals in army, only main one get traits from battles right? EB2 using fix for this, so that all of them can get traits. I suggest using it too in sship, as it is great addition.

  13. #633

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    Hello dear creator
    So good submod, Im ready to assist u in modding & new ideas, keep up the great work!

    One of the ideas is the cities & castles accumulation & exuberance in Iraq, Palestine & Syria! The story of Christians Crusades & Muslims Jihads is centralized in these important places which included important castles, I think we should add some castles & settlements in those places & remove unnecessary ones in far east (for regions limitation 199 if necessary)
    Last edited by asadyan; March 30, 2018 at 07:17 AM.

  14. #634

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    I get crashes with mypatch (Part3) too. Part's 1 and 2 run fine.

  15. #635

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    Hello all, Thanks for the feedback it is very useful and I will use it to guide my development of this submod. In that regard I've made some progress but am still some way off from releasing the next edition. Life is suuuper busy for me right now so have limited time I'm aiming though once I get back from my trip abroad I will have a few weeks of sanity and be able to publish something stable.

    Until the Cheers

    WC
    Buff and Shine: Submod for Broken Crescent - New Factions, New Mechanics and more. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...tment-and-more

  16. #636

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    Quote Originally Posted by WeekendGeneral View Post
    Hello all, Thanks for the feedback it is very useful and I will use it to guide my development of this submod. In that regard I've made some progress but am still some way off from releasing the next edition. Life is suuuper busy for me right now so have limited time I'm aiming though once I get back from my trip abroad I will have a few weeks of sanity and be able to publish something stable.

    Until the Cheers

    WC
    Weekend General, glad to see you're still working on this great MOD and Submod! The changes and updates will just make it that much better.
    This seems to be quite a racist comment. The Guals did a lot more than "wonder around pillaging";
    It's not as if they were a bunch of dirty, stinking, fatherless Huns.

  17. #637

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    A little question,

    why aren't the Rus factions given horse archers to recruit in native roster?

    The Torkil were settled and drafted in large numbers by Rus princes by the late 11th century and especially in the 12th century.

    There should be one horse archer unit for them to recruit for their starting armies.

  18. #638

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    Graet news WG.

  19. #639
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    3,837

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    WG,
    I've got a technical question: how have you (or vsivak) implemented the "Governor script" - that you cannot recruit / build unless there's a governor in the settlement.
    Have a look at a discussion in the EBII forum - due to QS, it's not possible to distinguish between the player and the AI in this respect. As the answer goes, it's possible if the ancillaries (or perhaps rather traits) are used.
    My question is: have you used the traits or you've done it otherwise?
    JoC

  20. #640

    Default Re: Buff and Shine 1.9: New Factions, Changed Recruitment and more

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    -
    I raised this concern with vsivak but he assured me that it only affects the player.
    Have you looked at the campaign_script file? You will see if you do this was achieved through scripts, lots of scripts. If you
    run buff and shine on a old pc you will really notice them but newer ones not so much.

    I'm stupidly bust right now - -covering three wards by myself at the hospital its all a bit ed. Needless to say progress is slow on an update, if anyone wanted to earn my undying love and affection they could update the battle models file and address all of the silver surfers there .
    In the meantime what I'm working on:
    *Slight buff to Knight's attack and defence.
    *Change in recruit priority AI should produce more elite and heavy units in the late game.
    *20% Increase to Unit Size
    *Fixed Mongol behaviour bug where the mongols would become passive and not attack anyone
    *Balancing the unit pools.
    *Fixing missing icons.
    *Balancing recruitment costs.
    *Fixing Tolerance building chain (bugged out so it wasn't making any money).
    *Fixing Traits effects.
    *Tweaking recruitment system. Barracks = available at initial levels of settlement, in castles needs village or town. Produces: garrison levy units, law bonus, infantry and archer exp bonus for lvl 2 and 3 barracks and free upkeep for 1-3 units depending on barracks level . ? working name =
    available at level 4 settlement. Produces = Bodyguard, cav experience and increased recruitment slots (recruitment centres now capped at 3). Recruitment centres (feudal or jund system) = available at level 1 settlement, towns require military infrastructure to produce. 1st level, Local rule - Bonus to Happiness and quick production of AOR troops. 2nd level Settlement same as basic recruitment now but produces half rate of AOR troops. 3rd and 4th level same as now but unlocks 3 recruitments slots only and no free upkeep. level 5 same as present but can only be built in home region. Recruitment slots changed town's limited to one initially - building military infrastructure (previously the settlement building) increases it to two. Castles start at two.
    Buff and Shine: Submod for Broken Crescent - New Factions, New Mechanics and more. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...tment-and-more

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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