making battles more crucial

[Javolenus]

Hi There,

I've done a bit of modding (loading screens, faction symbols, music etc.) but have no expertise in scripting. I'd like to ask the following question:

Is it possible to make it so that defeats in battle and/or big losses of troops will cause major unrest in a faction's settlements? I would like this to affect all factions - not just the human player.

The idea is to make battles a bigger deal, in that they will have serious consequences. I would like to achieve this in order ro make battles really serious affairs and not something to be treated lightly. Also, conserving troops will become more important.

But is this possible? Is it possible to make battle losses and troop losses impact on settlements, increasing the chances of a revolt?

I think this would be a cool idea to try out. But I haven't got a clue how to do it! If someone could help that would be great.

Many thanks in advance for replies - any help or advice greatly appreciated.

[RantingHeretic]

"The idea is to make battles a bigger deal, in that they will have serious consequences."

I have long felt that that was Total War's biggest failing point. Battles in vanilla have no importance- if you lose one, raise another army, if the computer loses one, they'll have it back in a second. Sure, there are some battles that matter- some sieges, bridge defenses vs the mongols- but for the most part there is very little in the way of negative consequences.


"Is it possible to make it so that defeats in battle and/or big losses of troops will cause major unrest in a faction's settlements? I would like this to affect all factions - not just the human player."
I've only been modding for a very little bit, and have a loooot to learn, but in all my looking through the files and reading tutorials so far, I dont think this is possible.

I started playing Stainless Steel a few weeks ago, with the Real Recuitment mod installed, and while it is impossible to make battles important from the AI's point of view, the recruitment limitations imposed in that submod fix this exact problem. By limiting access to high, and even mid-level units, and giving armies a supply script, its makes deploying an army a 'serious' thing, and losing one potentially very, very bad.

If you haven't tried that, I would give that mod and submod a try and see if it gives battles importance for you. Its not exactly what your after, but it does solve the root problem, in my opionon.

[Thoragoros]

Here's the thing. I felt this way as well, that battles weren't important. However, I found that many mods that claim to make battles important do this simply by limiting player and AI access to units.

This doesn't necessarily make battles more important, it just makes them smaller, since they AI still deploys as if it were playing with full stacks, meaning you get hordes of 2 and 3 unit armies on the side of AI.

So, I think the answer is simply to accept Total War for what it is and hope that this problem is addressed in Empires Total War, since the AI was built for spamable armies.

[SigniferOne]

I think the best way to make battles crucial, is to give to factions a large starting pool of units, and then also have a very low replenishment rate. That way -- sure, they can raise a huge army quickly, but that will be it; once it gets destroyed, that's it, you've got no armies left.

That I think is the best solution. The current approach to armies is the very opposite one -- you get a small pool initially, but have high rates replenishing your pools all the time. That way if you lose, you just have to wait a few turns, and you can raise another army right away.

[Thoragoros]

Signifier, that plays into exactly what I said....

I just said, that making replenishment rates lower doesn't make battles more crucial, it just makes them smaller, at least with the current mods, because the AI treats their armies the same as if they could simply keeping spamming units. Also, on the other hand, I don't want to have to sit around twenty turns while me and the AI rebuild after a big battle, cause that's just plain boring.

No?

Frankly, Total War in its current form is about lots of big battles, and I'd prefer lots of big battles as opposed to many small ones.

[RantingHeretic]

"I just said, that making replenishment rates lower doesn't make battles more crucial, it just makes them smaller, at least with the current mods, because the AI treats their armies the same as if they could simply keeping spamming units. Also, on the other hand, I don't want to have to sit around twenty turns while me and the AI rebuild after a big battle, cause that's just plain boring."

I haven't played very many mods, but I haven't had that exact experience so far. Like you say, the AI behavior is not conductive towards making wars feel more realistic, but it is possible to make them important for the player. Not all players want the same thing however- I for one found the limitations of Real Recruitment a lot of fun, though the most common thread title over the Stainless Steel forums is 'how can I turn this off?".
You can only make battles important for the player, and the easiest way I can think of to do that is to limit recruitment options- either access to high tier units, or the replenishment rate.

[SigniferOne]

Signifier, that plays into exactly what I said....

I just said, that making replenishment rates lower doesn't make battles more crucial, it just makes them smaller, at least with the current mods, because the AI treats their armies the same as if they could simply keeping spamming units. Also, on the other hand, I don't want to have to sit around twenty turns while me and the AI rebuild after a big battle, cause that's just plain boring.

Wait, but I don't understand why you think it's boring. If you want your army, you'll have to take care of it, and turn out some pretty genius victories, am I wrong? Isn't that the whole aim?

And I mean yes, if you lose it you'll have to sit on your hands and wait a while for your new army to arrive. Isn't that so completely realistic? If you run out of armies, your provinces can be ravaged by the enemy with impunity.

[Javolenus]

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the replies - it's good to get different opinions on this.

I wanted to make battles crucially important, not just a matter of routine. With the help of J@mes, I came up with the idea of punishing battle losses by taking money away from the loser and giving money to the victor. J@mes took this basic idea and wrote a mini script, which I have added to the campaign script.

Now battles are more crucial - a fortune literally rests on their outcome. Losing a whole pile of cash means a faction cannot easily recover. I decided to make losing a battle more significant than winning one by having a big financial punishment. Winning a battle will earn you some cash - but nothing mega (I guess it equates to a bit of post-battle looting for the victors).

I have tested this script through a couple of campaigns and can report the following:

1. In the early campaign this script is really effective: defeat an enemy two or three times and they will be begging for peace.

2. Again, in the early campaign, there is a topsy-turvy, fairly random element, as the fortunes of all factions literally turn on the outcome of battles.

3. Early battles cannot be treated casually - you need to win to keep your faction afloat.

4. A negative effect is that some factions can be destroyed quite early.

5. As the campaign continues, and economies grow exponentially, the script has less significance.

OK, well, if anyone is interested, I have pasted J@mes's script below. Note that you would have to repeat the script for all factions. Also note that you might have to change the values to match your own eco set-up. The following script is based on my own preferences.

Finally, many thanks to J@mes for invaluable help on this.

J@mes's battle cash script:

;---------------------- J@mes' battle cash script ----------------------


monitor_event PostBattle FactionType byzantium
and not WonBattle
console_command add_money byzantium, -10000
end_monitor
monitor_event PostBattle FactionType byzantium
and not FactionIsLocal
and not WonBattle
console_command add_money byzantium, -10000
end_monitor
monitor_event PostBattle FactionType byzantium
and WonBattle
console_command add_money byzantium, 5000
end_monitor
monitor_event PostBattle FactionType byzantium
and not FactionIsLocal
and WonBattle
console_command add_money byzantium, 5000
end_monitor

[TheFirstONeill]

You can also tie traits into the number of battles won, I have traits that help generals if they win and impact them if they lose

[Javolenus]

Hi FirstONeill,

That sounds great! How did you do it? I have no experience at scripting, so wouldn't know where to begin. But I really like the sound your idea.

[TheFirstONeill]

Hi FirstONeill,

That sounds great! How did you do it? I have no experience at scripting, so wouldn't know where to begin. But I really like the sound your idea.

here is a really simple example

;------------------------------------------
Trait BattlesWon
Characters family

Level 1BattlesWon ; level 1
Description 1BattlesWon_desc
EffectsDescription 1BattlesWon_effects_desc
Threshold 1

Effect LineOfSight 1

Level 2BattlesWon ; level 2
Description 2BattlesWon_desc
EffectsDescription 2BattlesWon_effects_desc
Threshold 2
Effect LineOfSight 1
Effect MovementPoints 1

Level 3BattlesWon ; level 3
Description 3BattlesWon_desc
EffectsDescription 3BattlesWon_effects_desc
Threshold 3
Effect LineOfSight 2
Effect MovementPoints 1

Level 5BattlesWon ; level 4
Description 5BattlesWon_desc
EffectsDescription 5BattlesWon_effects_desc
Threshold 5
Effect LineOfSight 2
Effect TroopMorale 1
Effect MovementPoints 1

Level 10BattlesWon ; level 5
Description 10BattlesWon_desc
EffectsDescription 10BattlesWon_effects_desc
Threshold 10
Effect LineOfSight 2
Effect TroopMorale 1
Effect MovementPoints 1
Effect HitPoints 1

trigger

Trigger BattlesWon
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle
Affects BattlesWon 1 Chance 100

Trigger BattlesNotWon
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition IsGeneral
and Not WonBattle
Affects BattlesWon -1 Chance 100

you can cross link it to other traits too

cheers
Jason

[Javolenus]

HI Jason,

That's really great. I've copied and pasted your traits stuff into a txt file and will experiment with it. A really nice idea - many thanks indeed and + rep for you.

[TheFirstONeill]

you need to add entries into the traits file in the text folder to give the descriptions, if you have any problesm PM me and I can send some stuff along to you



cheers
Jason

[daxter]

stainless steel 6.1 has that i don`t now where the files are located but you could send a pm to a mod member.

This mod makes negative aspects such as lost friends, comand points are lost, when you lose a battle, there is one thing, suply, this mod has it too, for example you spend more than 3 turns seajing a stlement your army loses it`s moral and figthes porly, and more 2 turns it revolts, generals gain diseases and some more negative traits.