Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 291

Thread: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

  1. #241
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    1,803

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Used2BRoz View Post
    I'll give this a rest now until the next patch is released.
    Too many CTDs
    Well, I've told you so in the past. The Titanium case you know very well. While I greatly appreciate the battle changes and units' modifications made by PB (and I'd wish it'd be included in the SSHIP, for instance), I think he'd underestimated the challenges for modding the campaign dimension of the game.
    Making it now 2 TPY will lead to even more un-stability, I believe. Not to mention the huge amount of work needed to bring the trait system in line (what's especially dear to me).
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; October 08, 2018 at 03:12 AM.

  2. #242

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    Well, I've told you so in the past. The Titanium case you know very well. While I greatly appreciate the battle changes and units' modifications made by PB (and I'd wish it'd be included in the SSHIP, for instance), I think he'd underestimated the challenges for modding the campaign dimension of the game.
    Making it now 2 TPY will lead to even more un-stability, I believe. Not to mention the huge amount of work needed to bring the trait system in line (what's especially dear to me).
    You seem to have the mistaken impression that I have just made a few stat changes to 6.4 then thrown a bunch of submods togther along with precipitous changes to the campaign. Er no. This mod has been evolving, including the campaign and included submods, since 2008. You know, about six years before Titanium came out. It used to be called RR/RC Compilation.

    What remaining campaign errors are there? I have hardly touched the campaign aspect since the previous release 8 years ago. Any campaign CTD's as reported here are a result of unusual circumstances such as faction destruction when a horde etc and have been addressed.
    CTD's on the battle map have zero to do with the campaign. They also probably have nothing to do with the core RC functions, which modify the stats and animations.

    It is possible they could be caused by the new animations though, given that there are a lot of them. If a unit tries to execute a mismatched animation there will be a CTD. These kinds of animation problems are only picked up at run-time. You can't really expect there to be zero errors when there are a very large number of hand-customized animations for every weapon type among 600 units, I am only one person, I can;t test all these in all circumstances. Name any other mod that attempts to do anything like this. Frankly, modding the campaign is pretty basic by comparison. On the whole I think the number of errors has been pretty low really.

    Roz can you send me through a save game please, plus a list of any submods you are using (though that will have nothing to do with any battlemap crash, its just so the campaign operates properly)?
    EDIT had a CTD loading a custom battle with Norway tonight, tracked it down to an animation, so that could be your problem Roz.
    Battle map CTD's may be being caused by ReallyBadAI, hopefully its an animation though.

    Adding in 2TPY only alters the EDB, EDU and maybe some economy factors. How will that cause more CTD's? But I do appreciate the issues with the trait system.

    Regarding 'I've told you so in the past',
    Some thoughts from my side:
    1. I think you significantly underestimate the amount of work needed to get most of your wishes into the mod. I think PB is the sole moder and I woulnd’t expect such sweeping changes. Creating factions out of thin air (eg Bohemia) seems very unrealistic to ask.
    2. I thought the PB work is about battles and units, and not about every feature of the game. Introducing 1370 era will be a great feat, if realized, even without all the demanded factions.
    3. I think PB underestimates the risks related to the inclusions various submods included in the base SS6.4. Having seen what happened to the Titanium I don’t think the mod will be stable. There's simply too much interaction between various parts. You make a change in one place but you’re unaware how many aspects of the game are related to this place. You simply don’t know them. The SSHIP coped with it through getting rid of all the submods and that made it stable.
    4. There’re many errors in the base SS6.4 (I may speak for parts of the EDCT file – I’ve found plenty of them as modders in the past would make changes without paying attention to the changes of the others – so there’re double traits, double triggers, contradicting triggers etc.). Additionally, there’re bugged commands identified over the years (eg NoGoingBack bug). Some parts were free of the risks (eg Byg in the BGR took very elegant and ingenious solutions) but some are bugged.
    5. I expect that the script will either be very simplified or will make constant crashes. As said, many errors and bugs were identified over the years and fixed either in the Bugfix compilation or in Titanium or in SSHIP. As the base for this submod is SS6.4, they’re likely to stay.


    I already replied to this:
    1. Adding new factions is a lot of work yes, but I can do it if I am provided with the units models and graphics, since that is not my area at all (I just found a whole bunch of Georgian models and remaining units can be handled bu using units from other factions, which I can do)
    2. Its about a lot more than just battles and units. Have a look at the old ‘FINAL SS RR/RC COMPILATION' thread for an idea of some of the other aspects, changes and successfully-integrated sub-mods
    3. No, I don't.
    (Note there are already about 20 integrated submods, see the above thread, and I am not seeing any issues with the newly-included submods in this version) This mod has been integrated with SS for around ten years and is pretty stable, partly because it had its own debug process (via all the previous users). Unless there is some kind of horrendous set of new interactions, I don't really see that changing (hopefully). As I said, see the above thread for what it adds beyond the base 6.4, there is a huge amount. The reason they don't get noticed much is because the mark of a successful integration is that it is largely transparent to the user
    4. There have been several sweeps through the traits etc file used in this mod. After 6.4 came out there was a succession of fixes released for those, plus as you point out Byg went right through them. No doubt there are still a few things but I don't really see some minor issues with traits as game-breaking
    5. As I said, this mod has been around for a long time. The script seems to generate very, very few errors without compromising any complexity and I hand-crafted and updated a lot of the code myself; it has not really been changed for this release. Not to mention that it has been played extensively by a wide user base for a long time, and the bulk of the bugs have probably been weeded out.

    RR/RC has been integrated into SS since 6.1.
    Last edited by Point Blank; October 08, 2018 at 10:12 PM.

  3. #243

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Hi Point Blank, finally I've got the chance to play a bit. Please see my findings below:
    1. Played alltogether 60-70 turns, 100+ battles in the High campaign. Had a few CTDs, but not more than I have with SS. Always able to continue after load game. Loading times are however slower.
    2. Unit cards missing for Portugal: Mounted Sergeant, Peasant Infantry
    3. Unit cards missing for Hungaryeasant Levy, Pesant Infantry, Spear Militia
    4. Settings are always reset upon load game to : Follow AI movement, Minimal UI, and Restricted buildings
    5. Command stars seems to not always apply in battle(?). For instance in the map my general has 7 stars, but on screen where you decide if you go for manual or auto combat it shows only 2 stars
    6. I was able to reproduce the loyalty losing bug I mentioned before. It seems it appears after combat. The general seemingly not gets any trait, but both the loyalty and the piety drops 3-7 points. I understand this is not your area, but would be nice if it could be addressed. I have got this with various submod combinations, even when I only switched the Dracul AI and the extended combat options. I can also confirm I have never seen this in normal SS.
    7. I believe the unit moral system is a bit broken. Not even noticed in a field battle, with a strong general, but in defending long siege or bridge battles it is quite ugly. Some of my troops became shaken after 30 s, without even being close to the. I had militia troops with 1-2 experience, but one of them broke without a single casualty. Also, fully rested units with minimal losses ran away. I found this happens when the AI has an uber. It is like it decreases the moral of my whole army. Next round, fighting similar battle against a captain AI, units had no moral issues whatsoever. Maybe this is a feature, not a bug, but I found the impact too drastic and unrealistic.
    8. Towers: this is a tricky question. Upon attacking my losses were much higher than usual, and I believe this is pretty nice, I support more difficult sieges. So I do not mind the increased frequency of shooting, but I did not tried walls with ballista towers, I hope those are not boosted. The only thing, assuming ballista and cannon towers are reasonable, that I will switch off the towers when there are no nearby troops. In my opinion it feels dumb that it is impossible to capture them. The latter is very bad for the AI as well, as defending a siege became even easier as it used to be.

    To sumarize, I would say the most important from the above would be to check/test the moral system and review the strength of towers. My personal request at last would be to look at the weird drops of loyalty&piety. But the game is playable, had some fun in the campaigns, so please keep up the good work!

  4. #244
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    1,803

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    I do appreciate your work, @PB. I think your impact on the SS and the other mods is immense - the RR/RC approach was followed in the various mods. Perhaps you're right that CTDs have nothing to do with the campaign of the mod. My - and perhaps Used2Broz - experience with playing the Titanium was that SS + various submods produced much of instability (making Used2Broz switching off the script, iirc). Maybe it's not the case of RR/RC 2.0 - this seems to confirmed by the number of the turns User2Broz have made in his campaign.

    On 2TPY - it's a question to all, not to PB ;-) - what is the purpose of introducing such a change other than making more time for role-playing the characters? you cannot introduce year seasons (a sensible one requires 4TPY), you don't change the pace of the game, so what's the reason?

    @Orkmann: I believe the drop of Loyalty and Piety is somehow related to the BGR centralization system.
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; October 09, 2018 at 11:44 AM.

  5. #245

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    @Orkmann: I believe the drop of Loyalty and Piety is somehow related to the BGR centralization system.
    Thanks for the input, but I did not activated BGR. Will further test without activating any submod.

  6. #246
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    1,803

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Orkmann View Post
    Thanks for the input, but I did not activated BGR. Will further test without activating any submod.
    It's already been noted that disabling BGR in the launcher actually doesn't disable it.

  7. #247

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    It's already been noted that disabling BGR in the launcher actually doesn't disable it.
    Yep. Fixed for the next patch, man that BGR is like a virus, once it gets into your files its damn hard to get all of it out!

  8. #248

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Orkmann View Post
    Hi Point Blank, finally I've got the chance to play a bit. Please see my findings below:
    1. Played alltogether 60-70 turns, 100+ battles in the High campaign. Had a few CTDs, but not more than I have with SS. Always able to continue after load game. Loading times are however slower.
    2. Unit cards missing for Portugal: Mounted Sergeant, Peasant Infantry
    Fixed already
    3. Unit cards missing for Hungaryeasant Levy, Pesant Infantry, Spear Militia
    Will be done thanks
    4. Settings are always reset upon load game to : Follow AI movement, Minimal UI, and Restricted buildings
    How do you mean Restricted Buildings? Otherwise not sure why that would be
    5. Command stars seems to not always apply in battle(?). For instance in the map my general has 7 stars, but on screen where you decide if you go for manual or auto combat it shows only 2 stars
    6. I was able to reproduce the loyalty losing bug I mentioned before. It seems it appears after combat. The general seemingly not gets any trait, but both the loyalty and the piety drops 3-7 points. I understand this is not your area, but would be nice if it could be addressed. I have got this with various submod combinations, even when I only switched the Dracul AI and the extended combat options. I can also confirm I have never seen this in normal SS.
    7. I believe the unit moral system is a bit broken. Not even noticed in a field battle, with a strong general, but in defending long siege or bridge battles it is quite ugly. Some of my troops became shaken after 30 s, without even being close to the. I had militia troops with 1-2 experience, but one of them broke without a single casualty. Also, fully rested units with minimal losses ran away. I found this happens when the AI has an uber. It is like it decreases the moral of my whole army. Next round, fighting similar battle against a captain AI, units had no moral issues whatsoever. Maybe this is a feature, not a bug, but I found the impact too drastic and unrealistic.
    The morale values have not changed drastically. A bit lower for Militia quality or less. Did the opposing force have much good-quality cavalry? A lot of those units have the frighten_foot attribute, and if I was a militiaman faced with an enemy army full of heavy cav I'd probably run away too. This is somewhat countered by frighten_mounted now also held by spears and polearms, not just pikes, and Elite units and Exceptional mercenaries having the 'command' attribute, improving morale on your own side. The fact that there was no issue facing an enemy captain leads me to believe that maybe the enemy general before had a high Dread rating, cutting your side's morale down?
    8. Towers: this is a tricky question. Upon attacking my losses were much higher than usual, and I believe this is pretty nice, I support more difficult sieges. So I do not mind the increased frequency of shooting, but I did not tried walls with ballista towers, I hope those are not boosted. The only thing, assuming ballista and cannon towers are reasonable, that I will switch off the towers when there are no nearby troops. In my opinion it feels dumb that it is impossible to capture them. The latter is very bad for the AI as well, as defending a siege became even easier as it used to be.
    Working on a fix, and shooting rate has been reduced. How fast are they shooting now? Assuming there are several guys inside (depending on tower size but I'd expect at least 2) with bows, and they can each shoot around 6-8x/minute, that can one arrow every 2 seconds, or more. They are classed as Superior shooters, and are probably more lethal because I assume they get the damage bonus for being higher than their targets
    To sumarize, I would say the most important from the above would be to check/test the moral system and review the strength of towers. My personal request at last would be to look at the weird drops of loyalty&piety. But the game is playable, had some fun in the campaigns, so please keep up the good work!
    Thanks for the feedback!
    Last edited by Point Blank; October 10, 2018 at 03:32 AM.

  9. #249

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    As posted in another thread, a few of the changes in the next patch:
    Missile weapon accuracy vs cavalry has been slightly improved, but overall combat rate has been reduced which probably penalizes archers etc more than melee units
    Cavalry armor is now a percentage combination of rider and mount armors, rather than simply additive
    All archer shields have been reduced by 1 to reflect not really being able to shoot and hold the shield as well
    All cavalry now have -1 to their secondary weapon attack value
    Foot units have +1 to shield value because it is easier to move the shield around on foot than on horseback
    Starting in the High Era, some heavier units now wear a light Gambeson under their heavier armor rather than just a simple padded jack
    Most Islamic factions/units now get the Improved/Advanced Metallurgy events somewhat later than before. They also suffer a -1 penalty on metal armors to reflect their generally lower standard of metallurgy
    Missile and skirmish units are now more likely to have lower discipline than previously. This extends to lower-quality units
    In general many such Islamic units now have lower discipline

    If it sems like I am punishing Islamic units in general that is not the case, the changes are not precipitous but rather quite specific, and also are more likely to take effect in the Early and High eras. All this has come about through quite a bit of further research - I don’t play favorites.

    So overall, all these changes combine to make missile units in general and HA in particular somewhat less effective.
    Last edited by Point Blank; October 10, 2018 at 03:33 AM.

  10. #250

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    PB, l like to approach on combat. I agree HA can be nerfed a bit. On the other side, I always considered the heavy microing and they underperformance in auto combat is somewhat balancing the strength of them. Regarding the feedback:
    4: Settings: Sorry, I meant the"Manage All Cities" option switched off. So the basic campaign preferences not loaded from my save game but always reset to this default.
    7. Moral: the General was 10 star with 3 chivalry, but he got 3 knights, and one more knight came in together with a small reinforcement. But I see it now, knights are frightening the infantry, so that must have been the reason. Still, for my taste the result is a bit extreme. All the cav were on the other side of the map, and even my reserve troops were already shaken. Not only the militias, but also Sergeant Swordsman and Lusitanian Javelins, who supposed to have Good moral. I think the idea is good, but the fear effect seems to be OP.
    8. Did a quick test. One tower shoots from three battlement, so it is hard to count, but one arrow is still in the air, and it already shoots the next one. Practically, using 1X speed, one tower killed cca 10 spear militia in one minute. When I put a maceman in front of a gatehouse (or two towers if you mean, not sure if there is difference btw normal and gate-towers), it lost 8-10 men per minute.

    JoC: thanks, I did not appreciated that post. I have also realized that my family members are getting the BGR traits at start. I would not say however, that switching off BGR doesnt do anything. Besides of those traits there is no visible sign of BGR, for instance I got the supply train but it doesnt do anything. (Apologies, if that was already clarified).

  11. #251

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    As far as I'm aware the frighten_foot thing has only a quite local effect, for example pikes have frighten_mounted and I havent really seen evidence that a bunch of pikemen cause fear in every cavalryman all over the map at once; there are quite a few units in the vanilla game that have it too. That would make it like some kind of Dread, especially if it stacked with increasing numbers of knights etc. Was it only when the knights were close to your troops, or it didn't matter where they were?
    You were saying that it didn't happen when you fought a similar battle vs their army led by just a captain?
    Well it definitely warrants further testing. Try removing the knights from that army and see what happens. Maybe it operates differently in the context of a campaign than in custom battles.

    That tower rate is definitely too fast, sounds like halving it would be about right yes. Used2bRoz posted some values that seemed pretty good.

    You wrote ‘I agree HA can be nerfed a bit.’ I kind of don’t really work that way, ie deciding on an outcome I want to see then achieving it by working backwards and making changes to bring it about. If I wanted to nerf HA I could do it just be changing one variable, eg reducing their archery attack value etc. The problem with that is it tends to introduce a range of other balancing issues - in this case it would be vs foot archers, or in circumstances where HA could actually be effective, then suddenly its underrated. Or we decide that mail is not effective enough against arrows, we boost mail against that threat but then suddenly its too good in melee. Rather I will change stats according to research, and if the combination of some of those small updates pushes things in a more historical direction in general, then great

    You also wrote about HA. ‘I always considered the heavy microing and they underperformance in auto combat is somewhat balancing the strength of them'
    They have been buffed a bit in auto resolve. I posted elsewhere that a good way to use them is to set them under AI control if you don't have the time to micro them, it does a reasonable job actually.
    I am investigating, in the ReallyBadAI Hardcore submod, some kind of way of the AI assuming control of units that would ordinarily have their order panel grayed out after a few commands, to simulate units that aren't getting commands from the general operating under their own control. I think it happens now at a greater distance from the general as well, so that would encourage keeping your army tighter instead of fragmenting and running off all over the place, which pretty much never happened. Impetuous units could be set to take matters into their own hands more often too, and disciplined units less. Not sure if its possible yet but I think that would be an excellent addition.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Point Blank; October 10, 2018 at 04:52 PM.

  12. #252

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    On the moral topic, I could not reproduce the issue in that extend. Maybe this particular battle was due to my crappy general. He got zero command, is a Duke of Cordoba, but he is also a poor logistician. I did not realized this, because he did received just after end-turn, and the battle took place during the AI turn. But anyway, I should have spotted it, sorry for that. So this way the total balance of his moral bonus is -1, if I am not mistaken. I am not sure how much difference -1 moral can mean, but I have redone the battle, and the army did significantly better with a simple captain. I will test other counries, keep an eye on moral, and report if I experience stg similar again.

    If this would be a backlog, I would suggest keep it still open, but lower the priority

  13. #253

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    -1 morale could have an effect on some Peasants and Peasant Militias, whose morale ranges between around 1-4 I think it is.

  14. #254

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Working hard on the next patch, its not far away. Kids are on holiday and they keep stealing the computer

  15. #255

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    Kids are on holiday and they keep stealing the computer
    i bet they were waiting for a cav nerf too and just want to try out the new changes
    You know you've played too much Stainless Steel when in every other mod you play you think cavalry is too weak.

  16. #256

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Haha. All being well it will be released shortly.
    Have a look at ‘The Next RR / RC Project’ thread too

    Oh, karaislam sent me a bunch of historical Turkish units, they look fantastic and am integrating them now; otherwise the patch is complete
    Last edited by Point Blank; October 12, 2018 at 01:37 AM.

  17. #257

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Sounds promising. Just send away the kids to a boot camp and focus on the *important* stuff

  18. #258

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Its crossed my mind...

  19. #259
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    1,803

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    Just two minor issues with Poland:
    - I don't know why the generals have those ugly vanilla faces. I think I recall playing SS6.4 with nicer ones (in helmets).
    - Spear Militias and Peasants don't have pic on the unit cards.

    I've got a question, PB, (I hope I haven't asked it already): I see Permanent Stone Forts, what do you think about their impact on the AI? (I have quite strong opinions on this)

    cheers
    JoC

  20. #260

    Default Re: RR/RC 2.0 Ultimate BETA Release

    I think the facex are the same as in 6.4, but I downloaded a set of six hi-res faces designed for use with vanilla units, they are really nice but have to figure out how to implement them.
    Unit cards etc are all fixed.
    Yeah forts are pretty broken, will remove the permanent ones. Maybe leave the buildable ones but BGR makes them insanely expensive, like 15000 or something, which is just silly, more than a damn citadel! That can be cut way back, any suggestions on price? Expensive enough to prevent general use anyway.

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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