Difficulty Settings ...

[DaVinci]

... which settings do you play with SV 2.0 as yet preferred?
Do you have different settings for different factions?
And ... do you like to have a real hard game-design, especially battle/strategy mode wise?

I ask due to pure interest, and 'cause we have to warn you a bit ... the 2.1 version will be a lot harder game, especially in every siege-battle (if you as player sieges the AI) ... normally i don't loose a battle, and i play mainly (also in other RTW-mods) on VH/VH or H/VH. Now in some test siege battles i lost if the ratio is ca. 1:1 on H/H ... recently King Alfonso (Castile) died heroic as the last man in Lissabon vs. the Moors

[notger]

I always play in M/M because I do not like giving the AI any bonuses I do not receive. It feels cheap and artificial.
To make up for the easier game, I always donate money to friends and foes and make peace-deals that are quite generous. Of course, I apply to house rules and do not conquer settlements unless they are needed. Instead, I let them rebel.

If v2.1 will become harder, it will be fine with me. I would appreciate the challenge, as long as it does not feel made-up, meaning that the AI has means and bonuses that the player cannot use. Garrison scripts should be ok, though. I am looking forward to it.

[|Lorre|]

I play often M/M or H/H. I rarely play battles, only if them have an uncertain ending (when my army is larger and more powerful, I let AI plays them)

I don't think to be a pro-player to play VH/VH, I don't want to start a campaign and lose all, and getting angry .

My strategy is to conquer 1 or 2 settlements within 3-4 turns, So it's easy to have the Pope unhappy, and 1 or 2 factions who declare me war.

If 2.1 will be more difficult, I will stay H/H and see.
Hope to see the release soon

[Konstantin Alexander]

I always play on VH/VH regardless of the faction i use. I am a slow player, that means, i never start a war in order to wipe out an entire faction and instead prefer to donate money and even provinces to my enemies, after i conquered some territory from them, mostly to keep a weak buffer between me and the factions that border to my enemy. I also never break an agreement, especially if my family members married are married to an ally.

Internationally i prefer the balance of power and always support the weaker faction in a conflict, because i hate it, when factions are wiped out before their time. (The Byzantines before 1453 for instance)

I never let the AI take control over settlements or even battles. I love micro-managing.

So, generally speaking im a slow player, that tries to emulate history as accuratedly as possible and often acts "stupid" in regard to diplomacy, especially to achieve cease-fires with enemies, that stand no chance against me.

I would prefer, though, when the AI would not need artifical bonuses and poses a problem because of it´s cunning instead. So, yes, please make it harder. Significantly harder.

[Ermeni]

I always play on VH/VH regardless of the faction i use. I am a slow player, that means, i never start a war in order to wipe out an entire faction and instead prefer to donate money and even provinces to my enemies, after i conquered some territory from them, mostly to keep a weak buffer between me and the factions that border to my enemy. I also never break an agreement, especially if my family members married are married to an ally.

Internationally i prefer the balance of power and always support the weaker faction in a conflict, because i hate it, when factions are wiped out before their time. (The Byzantines before 1453 for instance)

I never let the AI take control over settlements or even battles. I love micro-managing.

So, generally speaking im a slow player, that tries to emulate history as accuratedly as possible and often acts "stupid" in regard to diplomacy, especially to achieve cease-fires with enemies, that stand no chance against me.

I would prefer, though, when the AI would not need artifical bonuses and poses a problem because of it´s cunning instead. So, yes, please make it harder. Significantly harder.

lo....this is exactly how i play.....!!!

[DaVinci]

Well alright.

SV 2.1 (and further versions) will be something merely for the hardcore-players who search for a challenge (as SV said recently in a pm, and he is right!), and will underline the possibility of a historical play ... both is what i like.

--

Some little news, but really only a few examples, as pre-info for the SV fans:

- General garrison script plus special garrison scripts for certain settlements.
- The campaign against Muslim or Steppe factions will be harder, as these factions will always have a unit number and costs advantage, while often, they lack the armour of European units and the heavy charge of Knights ... as well their composite bows can be a pain in the ass.
- The number of projectiles is pretty limited (a bit more realistic), the effect is, that these range units will engage in melee far earlier.
- You'll have to achieve now a certain list of settlements/regions to win the game, not longer there is the senseless number of 50 regions. These goals are based on historical ownerships or campaigns.
- Paved roads construction is removed from the tech-tree, as they are completely ahistorical (eventually we'll have some new buildings 2.1, if not, then in later versions).
- Slight alterations in the traits file.
More details and news with the soon upcoming release post by SicilianVespers.
... don't ask when the release is ... it is just then, if it is finished to our liking

For the further future SV versions we have some interesting intentions/ideas still in store.

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

Can't wait! I usually play on H/H. I've only played small factions likes the Byzantines, Genoa, etc, and it's a fun and challenging game. I prefer games when I lose, everything is so much more focused on staying alive and getting that next building rather than just cruising around attacking people.

For example in my current campaign as Genoa, I spent years getting out of debt and building a army to take Candia and Negroponte, and now I'm back to rebuilding for a decade.

So yeah I can't wait!

[Konstantin Alexander]

For example in my current campaign as Genoa, I spent years getting out of debt...

Is that with the Sub-Mod Sicilian Combat or without?
In the first case this is not unusual. Currently we are waiting for the new starting position of SV 2.1, which will probably have some advanced buildings and then we are going to take care of the money problem in the early stages of a campaign.

Without Sicilian Combat...uhm...too many ships perhaps?

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

Hehe, yeah all these ships everywhere, plus I lost Genoa off the bat, plus I'm rubbish...

[Ermeni]

damn i love those paved roads they are so refreshing for the campaign map.....I'll probably force myself to mod them back in even though it's horribly inaccurate

[SicilianVespers]

damn i love those paved roads they are so refreshing for the campaign map.....I'll probably force myself to mod them back in even though it's horribly inaccurate

The plan is to keep some paved roads. These will probably be the Via Appia (Rome - Brindisi), Via Egnatia (Dyrrhachium - Constantinople), but they won't be buildable.

[Ermeni]

The plan is to keep some paved roads. These will probably be the Via Appia (Rome - Brindisi), Via Egnatia (Dyrrhachium - Constantinople), but they won't be buildable.

nice move

[DaVinci]

Yes, if somebody has a reliable source which old Roman roads were intact at the timeframe of the SV campaigns, please give us the link or whatever.

[|Lorre|]

I found myself agreeing with Konstantin: Why don't allow them to be built at a very higher cost? Like a Cathedral cost or something?

[DaVinci]

I'm not a fan of mix up any topic with new themes, but that always happens in the most threads, even also in dev forums ... however i'll give only a pretty short hint to the well argumented (and long) thread of Konstantin:

It is just a question of what the goals/aims of modification shall be. There existing a lot completely different mods, some with a focus on gameplay, soem with a focus on realism often again with a focus on units appearence, or on the map or both, or on historical realism and so on.

As SV and me come mainly from the mod-side of RTR (RTW realism mod), and then from ChivTW (the try to realise RTW as medieval historical-realism plus necessary gameplay elements), we discuss just what would fit to the SicilianVespers campaigns at best ... i guess, i'm a bit more on the historical-realism side than SV, but however that's our internal discussion thing, and mainly we come quick to the same idea, and agree, there is the same kind of mod soul available

Roads:
So for now, we decided just to realise the old Roman ways on the map (as wip), and a non-ability for paved roads to reflect the history, as we also try to reflect the history with the start situation plus also some historical reflections for the whole possible campaign (i call this historical-realism mod design) plus some gameplay decisions due to the TW engine (i call this just the necessary gameplay elements, but together i call this historical-realism gameplay, which goes not too far or 'serious' with the history or realism, but gives just a red line for a mod design), and just not what would have been possible in the middleage, sure there were a lot possible, but in my view this a another history-discussion in the whole, which can fill more than 1000 books.

The TW engines always are designed to give pleasure to the mass consuments, and there is no vanilla TW game with more less than about 60% fantasy (imo, or much more). As a so to say history buff, it is just annoying, or better said, it can be annoying, to play a vanilla game ... so we mod it to more realism and historical reflection ... so it is as well with the roads.

Short answer? Well, not really, but i hope you understand ... if somebody wants to realise paved roads for higher tiers, then why not doing it as possible add-on/optional installation, it is very easy to realise this, and everybody who ever modded (and understand) the edb file can realise this in some minutes.

... if somebody needs this special roads-edb-help, pm me.

[Konstantin Alexander]

Perhaps i expressed myself a bit clumsy. I won´t go more into the discussion about modding-concept, mainly, because i strongly agree with you. I am an advocate of sticking as close to history as is conductive to gameplay, as well. My point was, that, given the right prerquistites, build-able paved roads would not be ahistorical.
To the contrary, they could even serve to enhance the special feeling, reflecting the changes of importance of certain regions (the rise of importance of the northern coast of the black sea comes to my mind, in which the asia minor trade routes lost importance) and the changes in society. Especially with SV´s era system that could help to differentiate the campaigns in other terms as in factions and units.

Finding the right prerequisties is another matter, of course. And ideally they would be tuned in a way to enable the player to exactly build those road-networks, that were in constant development in the era in question, if nothing freaky is going on in the campaign, like the Timurids loosing all their possesions but conquering England. (For instance in the late era the Damascus-Alexandrette connection, completed in 1402, or that part of the silk-road that connected Edessa and Koros)

As an alternative to prerequisites like they were mentioned above (city size and money) that could, in theory, lead to paved roads anywhere on the map (of course not every settlement has the ability to grow to a metropolis, but i think, you catch my drift) one could think about a method of enabling certain regions to build them in certain eras.

Perhaps i´ve given the impression, that i -demand- certain changes of this mod. This is not the case, and should it be so, i apologize. Of course you can handle things like paved roads as you wish. What i wanted to stress, is, that to give the player the ability during an ongoing campaign to reenact the advancement and fall of certain areas, which, in the case of roads, is clearly evident visually as well, could enhance the immersion.

Example: A player of an eastern/persian faction playing a late era campaign might notice, that it is impractical to use the northern route instead of the Baghdad/Mossul route, like he was used to in the early stages of his campaign (or in the early era), when he wants to invade Armenia, because there is no way that Trebizond etc can ever develop as fast as Baghdad. When he found that out, or even planned it beforehand with demanding less taxes and/or good rulers and sees the result of his long-term strategy unfold he will be quite happy and understand, why this part of the east was so hotly contested.

[DaVinci]

... discussions and suggestions are always welcome, so no problem at all here

We'll see as a kind of "replacement" in SV for the paved roads, ie.:
- silk road
- eventually a incenses road (sp?)
- toll roads
- toll offices
- other are possible
(lol, telling secrets now)

... but as said, at least, i personally don't want to have paved roads, where they didn't exist.

[notger]

DaVinci, that sounds great!
I always disliked the ahistorical-every-paved-roads-after-20-turns-maps. Giving additional road types dependend on regions or whatever sounds great!
Do you also plan to tie the roads to events, so that a certain road type is not buildable before 13xx?

[Konstantin Alexander]

Your concept of representing the differences between rural und urban areas in terms of infrastructure sounds very promising and is another possible way to do that without the more asbtract feature of build-able paved roads. I´m looking forward to it!

(And i think sooner or later every secret will be found out by us nosy community members. Secrecy is futile! )

[DaVinci]

...some day we have to create a plausible economy system, where ie. also trade resources will have a senseful reflection.
SV 2.1 will have first a light start in this area with some new buildings (infrastructure).
The tech-tree in the whole needs a lot work still.

One thing comes now to my mind: If somebody can research ie. also salt-roads would be a great help. I now for example that many northern german settlements grew big and rich due to salt (little example is Lüneburg).

I guess i'll open a new topic for that matter (soon).