AD: Bugs Thread

[Erioluk]

double post

[Erioluk]

Which is your global reputation? (You can see it from the diplomacy panel)

Despicable

And how's going the loyalty of your generals?

Pretty good, no turncoats so far

Did he try to siege Valencia though?

He TOOK it from me :

----

went to open the above-mentioned campaign and both the auto-save and the quick-save CTD...

here's the system log

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

I'll be able to install it an a few hours, then play all day..we'll see how it goes

Edit; Turn 30-something as Scots, love the changes...nice to see the rebel generals as well. I also like how my standing is mediocre because I'm taking rebel settlements...how it should be The names are good as well. I like this much more than .91 as it's more historic. You don't see Milan owning half of Europe. I like how if you choose to expand it's very difficult, as it should be.

Will keep you posted

[Treesmasha]

Turn 21 saved game is CTD'd so no continuing.

But info from up to that point. First declared war was on turn 21, Hauteville vs al-Fatimiyyun (me). They decided to blockade my port, seemed pointless.

In 21 turns ONLY Spain, of the AI opponents, had move to take a settlement. The Moors had lost Timbuktu to rebellion and Byzantine had lost 2 to rebellion. I had captured Dongola, Amman, and al-Kafuh, and was sieging Jeddah.

The port to Qahirah does not connect to the city via roads. I resuggest moving the port to the north at Clysma along the King's Highway trade route. I would also suggest adding the castle of Karak to Jordan with a port at Aqaba, or in the very least, assigning Aqaba as a port to Amman.

So far, I would say the game is much less active than the .91 version.

[Yuri Zhivago]

I have to agree with Treemasha. The game is much less active, and the reputation system is quite cumbersome.

Started as the Sicilians. Almost went into debt within 2 turns, army upkeep + costs from the beginning (without any construction) puts you into a deficit, and increasing tax above high doesn't help because Salerno and Palermo then begin to lose population. I had to work my economy carefully, high in Salerno and normal in Palermo, extort the Byzantines and Pope for money in return for trade rights and map information (some diplomatic missions helped also).

By 1083 my reputation was dubious, simply for keeping my spy inside Napoli and causing unrest. (How would any find out that I had a spy in the city, and thus see me as dubious?... unless the spy was discovered and kicked out of the city or executed, this fortunately did not occur) In 1084, I sieged Napoli with Robert and Roger and their army. Reputation now untrustworthy. Pulled out of debt now clearing land at Palermo, no construction elsewhere.

1085, I've taken Napoli. Sacked it. 1086, Robert dies, reputation static. Toggled fog of war, the Turks and Byzantines are at war, the Turks have taken Antioch, jihad declared on Constantinople.

Skip to 1090, grain exchange now at Palermo, but instead of 1% population growth it has now /decreased!/ to 0.5%, this is with normal tax, governor, farming and a trade building completed. Irrational to say the least. Toggled fow, the Portuguese and Moors allied around turn 5, Portuguese fort near Santiago de Campostela border, 2 huge Spanish armies nearby... one composed of a mixed full stack, another compused of a full stack of town militias only. 20 town militias in one stack.

1091, I've attacked and taken Durazzo (Ochrida) with Tancred, from Bari. Reputation now Very untrustworthy, Byzantines will not accept even a very generous ceasefire.


Toggled fog of war: map unchanged. No AI faction has moved to take territory, the Scots are camped on the border of Durham with 2 forts. The English are camped outside of London and Philippe Capet is outside of Limoges, Emperor Heinreich of the HRE is outside Parma, unmoved for 10 turns.


Not sure if any of this helps, but as it is so far, here's what I've seen, roughly 30 turns into the game now:

- No CTD's as yet.
- Campaign AI is passive and unwilling to take settlements.
- Blitzkrieg impossible, but neither is it possible to play a realistically expansionist game. Taking rebel settlements gives a reputation hit as does taking foreign settlements. Spying gives a rep hit where it should not, or this hit should be decreased and the hit for the discovery of your spy increased.
-Population growth is still somewhat out of whack. The fact that my growth declined in Palermo after I had actually built buildings which should increase it , didn't quite make sense.
-Prosecuting a war of any kind is now impossible, even if it's realistic. The Normans did seige Durazzo in 1081 under Robert and Tancred in reality, but now that I've done it, if I attempt to take another settlement, I'll be invaded by several AI factions.
-

So the reputation system might need to be revised and toned down a tad, not as much as to replicate vanilla, but just enough so that you can prosecute a war, but only become less trustworthy if you war on fellow Catholics or break alliances. Wars against so-called "neutrals" should be less troublesome, especially if they're of another religion. The population growth still needs a bit of fiddling.

On the technical side, it also seems my generals aren't accumulating any stats while staying in settlements. In 30 turns I haven't had one trait increase due to taxes, construction, etc, except for Roger and Simon, who are family members. Bohemond and Tancred, despite governing various settlements and participating in battles, have had no stat changes.

I'll keep playing and see if anything else comes up, no proper "bugs" so far.

[outlander]

I liked much stronger field rebels, but I think they should be able to attack cities. This means they should be less powerfull at start because at start they would be able to conquer any nation. Also if it is possible they shouldn't be able to keep sieges for more then one turn and attack as soon as possible. This means if they don't have artillery they can build siege equipment in one turn and then attack.

And this decreasing reputation with onquering is very debatable. I prefer droping reltionships with nation of the same religion as conquered city.

[Erioluk]

1094 Playing as England... Conquered all of Britain and Ireland apart from the 2 Scottish starting regions plus Bruges and Brittany. Crusaded to Jerusalem and also took Acre.

Nice surprises in Wales and Ireland, didn't put much of a challenge against my 5 generals and 4 spearmen units though.

Got alliances with 6 factions, but rep is despicable and pretty much every general I have would betray me (0-2 loyalty points)... Guess i'm gonna pile them all in one unimportant region and wait for my rep to rise...

As mentioned above AI is slow, but I reckon that with such an enormous number of turns it's quite alright...

In my opinion dividing the game into 3 epochs and the .91 AI would make for a more fun mod... But for those of us who want re-enactments of history this is the best mod out.

[Bobo]

PLayde with venice. The Rus were down in 1090. I took some town (Urbino, Split, Spoleto) and my rep decreased a lot.
In 1096 I have a CTD and don't know why.

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

So far no troubles with anything, Moors seem to like southern Iberia and the Turks and Byz like to fight it out.

Suggestions:

-make rebels less passive, if the main factions are going to be more defensive there should be balance imo
-add a faction to take away some from HRE. Maybe Bohemia? I think HRE just has too much power and it needs a counter. The new faction should be HRE's vassal though.

All for now.

Comment: I've now played briefly all the major mods, and AD has the best map by far.

[Treesmasha]

Questions: why do the Moors not start with holdings in Iberia? Please forgive this question after a lot more careful research, I have found our fearless leader's set up for the year 1080 to be a great representation of the time in Iberia.

Suggestion: add city of Barca to eastern Tripoli to break up that long god-forsaken country, and historical reasons as well.

[Yuri Zhivago]

Check the rebels in Iberia, they're all strong Moorish rebels, it's only the Almorhavids as the playable dynasty that don't own any holdings yet. But perhaps giving them Sevilla might be an idea, so that they have a toehold. Or whichever is accurate.

Edit - rather than double posting, I'm just going to add my next feedback here:

1093, still on my Sicilian campaign. Moors have finally taken Sevilla, Jihad on Constantinople, Turks and Byzantines have fought it out several times.

I made peace with the Byzantines and then an alliance (they refused to accept for 5 turns) and am still very untrustworthy.

Ended turn 1093, winter, King Roger dies (and picks up an adultress trait on the same turn?) Another storm hits Salerno, killing one of my admirals (again)...

The occurance of storms at Salerno and over my ships has been a nuisance. 8 storms in about 20 turns, damaging my port at Salerno, killing admirals and damaging ships. Might need to tone the storms and events down a bit.


1094, not only did Roger die, but the Papal States and the Turks made an alliance. The Papal States now have an "untrustworthy" reputation.

The AI in most cases is still sitting in its own territory. Scots still on the border to Durham in a fort; the English have an army outside London and Stafford, doesn't look like they're doing anything.

I reloaded my game, 1093 Winter (because of the Turkish-Papal alliance) to see if it would happen again, reloaded, ended turn and now I have a CTD. Everytime I reload the game I get a CTD as soon as the loading time finishes. No idea what's happening there, including sys log.

[PAX ROMANA]

umm...

I new start..
but, happen CTD, 28 turn. rebel turn.

I think, Darth Mod 1.1 and collides,

[Yuri Zhivago]

Started a Scotland campaign (it appears every one of my Sicily saves is now corrupted and CTD's as soon as I load it up), Pope called a crusade on Jerusalem in 1088, now 1090, only faction to join so far is Germany (Emperor Heinreich joined with their main army on the map .. and since joining in 1088 Winter, has sat outside Parma for 4 turns, not moving toward the target.)

I was given a mission to take Whithorn in 1081, waited til 1085, sieged it, reputation still mixed, everything fine. Rebels sallied in 1086 winter, I captured Whithorn and occupied it. No sacking, no extermination, simple occupation. And my reputation became dubious.

Also, there have been no intra-Catholic alliances so far, but in both games Portugal and the Moors allied around 1083. And there was a Turkish diplomat heading to Rome when my Scottish diplomat was there, probably about to ally again.

0.92 is good, but compared to 0.91, it's not the same game. So far, it's extremely passive, the reputation hits are massive, and considering I only occupied Whithorn, which was already rebel held, slightly too massive.

There is a bit of an upside however, this is for everyone who has been asking:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...rebelsiege.jpg

Rebels besieging Adrianople.

[Re Berengario I]

Sorry for not replying before but I was a tad busy with job out town (and far from any pc ).

Ok, let's start.

1) CTDs

Some are caused form an incorrect script I discovered. BTW I changed all the system of historical scripts for the next version (0.92b) which I will upload later this night. But I continue also to have some strange CTDs I'm not able to replicate. I mean I have CTD, I reload the autosave and it doesn't CTD anymore. I fear it is something stupid like a mistyped name or a lost bracket somewhere otherway it should be some incompatibility with DarthMod or Orientis stuff. Still it won't so easy to find but probably the fix will be trivial and quick. That's why playtesting is useful, sorry for the inconvenient and thanks for the help guys


2) SLOW GAME

This was a design decision. We don't want blitzkrieg. Usually medieval wars meant spending years just to get a couple of castles. Napoleonic wars or Guderian tanks heading for Paris aren't realistic.
Aside from the historic perspective there's also a gameplay one. You have 4 times the vanilla quantity of turns. So you'll have plenty of time to conquer your little empire without dominating the map in 1150.
About the reputation hit, the main problem is a psicological one. I'll give you one example. If you'd read "Duchy of Britanny" instead than "Rebels" in Rennes probably you would be less willing to make war to another, even small, catholic faction playing as France. Same thing with "Duchy of Moravia" in Olomouc, etc.
Unluckily MTW2 has very little factions allowed, we are planning to add some in future but the others will have to be simulated by rebels. So if you occupy a "rebel" settlement you just had a war against another faction, maybe of the same religion as yours, that's why the same reputation hit. Occupy settlements of "rival" religions give you half a reputation hit though so move on crusade (or jihad) a bit more. We'll try to link the reputation hit looking at the religion of the settlement in the next release, as it will be more realistic. The implementation of titles will help us too because occupy a settlement linked to a title your faction leader already posses will result in a halved reputation hit (for example you are King of Croatia because you own Zagreb, occupy Split won't cost a great reputation hit because they'd be "real" rebels).

3) PASSIVE REBELS

Unluckily the passivity of the rebel faction is hardcoded and unless they swim in gold (which would lead to other greater problems) they don't attack. What some of you already witnessed were some script made to create little invasions, minor factions and other historical important events come to life. It's a work which just started and a lot more is planned in the future. For example we're planning to bring to life the "Welf" HRE faction so we'll have 2 factions battling for the imperial crown without resorting to the hardcoded rebels. But this also will mean replicate HRE units (and textures, and banners, etc etc) for another faction which won't be the work for 1-2 days. That's why we want to start this kind of modifications AFTER we settled down a satisfactory gameplay.

EDIT:
I forgot about the reputation hit because someone used a spy. I didn't change anything from vanilla about it so this is the same reputation hit you would get in Vanilla and if I remember correctly it happened only if the spy was discovered.

[Bobo]

On the other habd big rebels invasions were quite are for lonely provinces. Making factions will resolve the problem I think. (The rebels on Dongola would become ruler of the world lol)

[Treesmasha]

Regarding the CTD: I was using Orientiss's mod in AD.91 just fine. You mentioned you made a slight correction/change to it. You might look there first. Just a thought.

A thought on rebels: You might consider using one of the available factions to represent the "rebels" at the start of the game. These would not be true rebels but the smaller independent countries of which you speak. And then use another faction for any "rebels" that spawn after the start representing true rebellions and uprisings.


A treatise:

As far as game speed/campaign play style, I believe the issue may be deeper and this is not directed just at you, Re Berengario I, but rather to all mod'ers. This will be a bit long so bare with me.

The nature of this game is flawed as soon as we assign a definitive win/lose condition. Why? Because its very nature isn't about winning or losing, rather about an evaluation of your progression along the time line. Example, we say that England wins when it has 20 territories and Jerusalem BUT England would lose if it had all of Great Britain, Iberia, France, western Africa, and all of the New World territories. Which one is actually a greater achievement? Which one would actually lead to a better empire in the post medieval years? Or would anyone care to admit that playing as England in a game such as we presently have that the elimination of Scotland is NOT the highest priority on your mind? Or as Spain the elimination of Portugal? This also leads to the question of WHY did it not happen in real life.

What I propose is a more Civ-series like "win". Granted I do not know if it's a possible mod. But in this version of winning the idea is to play the game throughout the time line, in our case 900 turns. Sure, a player could win sooner by taking all the world, but that isn't the real point. At the end of 900 turns, the game would evaluate your accomplishments and rate you. Ideally, it would be nice for the game to record your top ten victories or even the top ten per faction played.

Now, what would this kind of victory system do for us? It would change the dynamic of game play. As the game is in its present form, a player must play the conqueror to win. So, we have to design game mechanics that prevent certain styles of play, ie blitzkrieg. Given the suggested format for winning, we would instead be able to create a game in which constant war wasn't the only source of victory. Where times of peace have a true meaning. Where more logical wars could take place (I know, there is some irony in the phrase "logical wars").

If the desired affect is to decrease blitzkrieg like rushes, why not reward the player for peace? For example, when at peace with other factions (not including rebels), you receive double your income. This would promote periods of civilization build up, and of army build up. It is the ebb and flow of the countries across the map that make it interesting.

Another example: make it so trade with another country is somewhat better than trade within your own country. This would affect the economics of going to war to gain resources. It could in fact cause you to go to war if the opponent denied you access to the resources (no trade access).

I guess, to me, I am trying to find other reasons to go to war than just "winning" the game. Things like population growth leading to a "need" for expansion; religion leading to strife, zealotry, crusades/jihads; grudges and vendettas; sometimes pure expansionism; natural disasters (famine) causing you to "need" to take from another to feed your own; invasions where you cannot beat the new comer so you move away and invade your weaker neighbor and migrate so to speak.

And yet, at the same time, there need to be benefits to peace. Something that makes war not allows the desired outcome nor the most beneficial.

Sorry for the long post. It was a thought that had been bothering me for some time and I felt it needed saying.

[Bobo]

Treesmasha did you try to play with Venice?
Tip: send all your merchants to constantinople and sign trade accords

[Treesmasha]

I continue to test Egypt. But I use merchants a great deal. But I thought you received the same amount from a country with trade access as you do within your own country. I could be mistaken.

I normally monopolize all the silk trade near Constantinople and Baghdad for starters. The gold and silver resources are too far off for me to easily get a merchant to and then to keep him alive from attacks in the early game.

[Bobo]

Indeed you get the same amount. Only defying byzance in early game with Venice semms to be a rather bad idea. And being at war is very expensive with such a faction.

[Munkpetersen]

So this new version is of course going to be public right?