Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 9242526272829303132333435 LastLast
Results 661 to 680 of 694

Thread: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

  1. #661
    Axalon's Avatar She-Hulk wills it!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sverige
    Posts
    1,273

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Alright, good...

    If you enjoy RXB1007, post up some screenshot here (from your RX-campaign) and tell us all what element you liked the most about it. I am probably not the only one that would like that. As for the included Redux bonus-materials, it is various stuff and some can be used directly in the game - applied and installed after Redux is already installed. Its all from promotional pictures, to design-documents, to backup files, and portraits or additional alternative textures. Here is a small guide on how you can change and use the extra portraits done for Redux (also included in the bonus materials)....

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon
    This little guide is an extended version on how to change the
    portraits in MTW-redux. To apply one of the redux bonus portraits in
    the game you apply and follow these steps:


    1. Determine what kind of unit it is that you want to change portrait
    on. Let’s say it is a general and he got the white number-tag “16”
    in the right upper corner.

    2. You locate the bonus-portrait you want to put in “general 16’s”
    place in the game. Let’s say it’s the one located in “RX Bonus
    Material\Portraits\Hero “–folder with the filename of “Hero20”/
    “Hero20.tga”.

    3. You make copy of “Hero20.tga” and put this copy on, let’s say,
    you’re desktop.

    4. Now you locate your reduxed MTW-install folder, either named
    “Redux - Total War” or “Medieval – Total War” and from there
    you go to “………-TotalWar\campmap\Portraits\Catholic\General”, when
    you found your way to that place, you locate the file which is
    named: “general16.tga”. Copy that file-name.

    5. Get back to your desktop and the “Hero20.tga”-file you earlier put
    there. Now, replace or change that filename with the one you copied
    at step 4. The “Hero20.tga” should thus now be named;
    “general16.tga” if you have followed the instructions and steps
    correctly.

    6. Now open up the “………-TotalWar\campmap\Portraits\Catholic\General”
    -folder again, make a copy of your renamed file placed on your
    desktop and paste it into the generals-folder and let it replace
    the existing file with the same name.

    7. Start up redux a locate the general you wanted to change portrait
    on, he now has the portrait of “Hero20” taken from the Hero-folder
    in the “bonus portraits”-folder which in turn is placed in the
    Redux Bonus Material-folder.


    Now, if you for some reason would want to reset one or all portraits
    the game-portraits to redux default again, you simply use copies of
    the files located in the Back-Up Files-folder. As in the same way you
    did on step 1-7. Also located in “Bonus portraits”. There are back-ups
    on both “kings” and “generals” there.

    This concludes “GUIDE 1A ON CHANGING PORTRAITS”.
    Btw folks - in 2018, I created "hotfix3" for RXB1007 and it is still available in this thread (see post:619). It will improve the camp-map AI-performance in general and it corrects various errors on costs for several buildings/tech. I recommend that anyone who is currently playing Redux to search out post:619 and grab that hotfix3 ASAP! After all, it will make your Redux-game better...

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; August 29, 2020 at 12:35 PM. Reason: Upgrade...

  2. #662

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Dear avalon , In the file "CRUSADER_BUILD_PROD13.TXT" there is an error : CASTLE 15 requires CASTLE14 and GUNSMITH, while GUNSMITH requires CASTLE15. It turns out interdependence, without the first you can not build the second, and the second without the first. This won't cause the game to crash, but i think it's not what you're up to.

  3. #663

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Sorry, not avalon, but Axalon )=

  4. #664
    Axalon's Avatar She-Hulk wills it!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sverige
    Posts
    1,273

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Hello Welder and thanks for posting,

    As for the matter in your post - it is deliberate... Why? It was the most reliable, robust and safe solution to get rid of the (hardcoded) cannons attached to “CASTLE15”. If I remember all this correctly - I could not remove them (the cannons) for some unknown reason and thus I decided to solve it accordingly – as in removing “CASTLE15” entirely from the game (via the Gunsmith-requisite). Making sure that there will be no “CASTLE15” in Redux means no cannons in castle sieges/battles - and I wanted that – as Redux is supposed to be free of all gunpowder-related stuff anyways. The only exceptions to that rule are perhaps the various naphtha-units included in Redux. At the end of the day, I just don’t like gunpowder in medieval war or battles. Redux designs reflects that idea both in terms of unit-designs and the set (default) time-frame 700-1260 AD. In fact Redux ends (by default) with the "discovery" of gunpoweder 1260 AD.

    Anything else folks, fire away…

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; December 20, 2020 at 04:52 PM. Reason: Clarity...

  5. #665

    Default Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta

    Thank you for your response, Avalon. I would like to thank you for your great mod and for extending the life of this interesting and exciting game. I noticed another small detail - the closing parenthesis") "is missing in the MERCHANT data:" {SHIPYARD(24), SHIPYARD2(24, WAREHOUSE(12)}, .

    Why can't I remove CASTLE15 and GUNSMITH from the file
    and not create similar schemes?)


    I wanted to thank you for your wonderful mod that extends
    the life of this incredible game.)=

    Missing closing parenthesis
    in the MERCHANT building data : SHIPYARD2(24, .
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; December 22, 2020 at 04:57 AM. Reason: Merged.

  6. #666

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Hi Axalon. It's been a while, but around the holidays, I often get a hankering to return to good ol' MTW and of course, fabulous Redux. I've been enjoying a campaign as the Germans, and well... I know that the rebels in Redux have always been beefy, but man, this is ridiculous. See the attached screenshot for reference. The year is 1043 and I've not been to war with a single major faction, but almost all major factions have been eliminated at least once (and some more than once) by the rebels. Any time I take a province, I must undergo at least 3 rebellions before the province is pacified (which is what I'd expect from Redux), but coupled with the rebels super-spamming navies and being uber-aggressive, it becomes very difficult to hold onto anything at all -- even with top tier troops! Sorry for the rant, but it's the first time I've ever wanted to rage-quit a Redux campaign. This is, of course, running 1007 with the latest hotfix.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Anyways, I will continue to refine my play strategies, but I'm not sure there's much I can do in my current campaign.

  7. #667

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    I remember how many times I started the campaign in Medieval 1
    and it took 10-20 moves when the message appeared that the
    Novgorodians were destroyed, they just drowned in the crowds
    of peasant riots. )= In Viking Invasion, of course, this has become
    much better, but for factions with only 1 province, this is still a big problem.

  8. #668

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Very true, Welder. But I feel it has always been the case that Redux amps up the rebels even more than vanilla. In the most recent version, even the major factions like England, Byzantines, Spain, and the Moors are having a hard time staying afloat. I think it comes down to the fact that only rebels seem to build ships right now, so the player must contend with them for control of the water. Of course, the rebels control many coastal regions, so they will always be able to out-produce the player and lead massive sea invasions. It makes for some exciting gameplay, but I don't think the balance is quite right if the only enemy worth fighting is the rebels. That said, I've been playing on Veteran, so I wonder if it would be different on a lower difficulty setting? Hopefully Ax will weigh in soon.

  9. #669

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Cyprian2, let's hope so. )= By the way, why do you play this game despite the fact that it is quite old? Other games in the Total War series are not so interesting? ) =

  10. #670

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Good question. I play it mostly for nostalgia (it was my first Total War), but also because it's still such a solid little game. The AI works very well within the parameters (which can rarely be said for the newer titles) and the atmosphere is still utterly engrossing to me. I love that each "character" in MTW has a story, whereas the later titles did away with individualized units. Finally, it's a great way to blow off steam without having to worry about overly complex UI and mechanics. Streamlined, simple, and satisfying. The newer games are okay, too. I've played hundreds of hours in (modded) Rome 1 and Medieval 2 (also nostalgia games for me), but I pretty much stopped with Shogun 2. I own Rome 2 and Attila but...I just can't be bothered. How about yourself?

    EDIT: I just wanted to throw out another question, Welder. You seem to have some knowledge of modding. Have you done much modding of MTW?
    Last edited by Cyprian2; December 26, 2020 at 09:55 PM.

  11. #671

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    I almost don't play games, I've lost interest. Medieval VI is one of the few things I'm still interested in. I didn't do any modding, but I had a research interest in this game, and I have a lot of exclusive knowledge about it. I know about how damage is calculated in battles(at least regarding the main characteristics), how the AI makes decisions about choosing buildings to build, how the AI chooses units for training, in the most General terms, how it makes decisions about attacking foreign provinces, sending agents, etc., how it evaluates the strength of armies, etc. Some I know thoroughly, some in General terms because it is difficult and I have not yet understood it. I know a few bugs, for example, one of them concerns the priorities of buildings for the construction of AI-this concerns "AI building influences for building combos". I will not go into details, but due to an error, only buildings of the 0th level of the upgrade receive priorities, taking the priorities specified for buildings above the 0th level. That is, for example, if you specify the file "CRUSADER_BUILD_PROD13.TXT" : 3 BOWYER ........ "{HORSE_BREEDER(50),SWORDSMITH(50)},{HORSE_BREEDER(100),HORSE_BREEDER2(100),HORSE_BREEDER3(100),PORT(50),MOSQUE(100)}, then we really get : "{HORSE_BREEDER(50),SWORDSMITH(50)},{HORSE_BREEDER(100),HORSE_BREEDER(100),HORSE_BREEDER(100),PORT(50),MOSQUE(100)}. . Regarding the modding of unit images, I can't say anything, it seems that this site had tools for it. Maybe our great Axalon can tell you something. As for modding the Map/Units/Buildings, there seems to be nothing complicated there. I have long wanted to release a patch for the game with the correction of some bugs, changes to some game mechanics( for example, the ability to disable the Civil War, make it possible for agents/soldiers to die of old age, a ban on the destruction of some buildings after the capture of the province, for example, castles, etc.) and change/strengthen the AI. Something has been done for a long time, something I am doing now, maybe in the near future I will release at least the 1st version of the patch, if I am not too lazy again )=

  12. #672

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    I played Rome and Medieval 2, but not much and it was a long time ago. With Medieval 1, I also have nostalgia, and with the new changes that I have already made on my computer (for example, I removed the civil War and even because of this alone it became much more difficult to play t to the factions now do not fall apart from each sneeze), the game began to play with new colors. It's not modding, it's changing the game mechanics. Do you want to mod the game?) =

  13. #673

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Cyprian2, you can change the probability of a riot in the file campmap/startpos/RX-Classic.txt , you need to change the "SetAttributes" value to "REBELLIOUS" , the larger it is, the higher the chance of rebellion. Values less than zero can also be assigned.
    Here for SILESIA, for example, it = 3( in the vanilla version it was = 0):
    SetAttributes:: ID_SILESIA "Silesia" 3 CATHOLIC_CULTURE LUSH AT_EASTERN_EUROPEAN -1 180 "Silesia Castle_xzy" INLAND FLAT NO_RIVER TRUE

  14. #674

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Quote Originally Posted by Welder View Post
    I almost don't play games, I've lost interest. Medieval VI is one of the few things I'm still interested in. I didn't do any modding, but I had a research interest in this game, and I have a lot of exclusive knowledge about it. I know about how damage is calculated in battles(at least regarding the main characteristics), how the AI makes decisions about choosing buildings to build, how the AI chooses units for training, in the most General terms, how it makes decisions about attacking foreign provinces, sending agents, etc., how it evaluates the strength of armies, etc. Some I know thoroughly, some in General terms because it is difficult and I have not yet understood it.
    It's amazing how many factors come into play, and how each factor (AI building and recruitment priorities, etc.) can really influence the campaign. I'm impressed at the scope of your knowledge. I'm curious about how Vanilla MTW-VI compares to Redux in terms of AI building and recruitment priorities. For example, I have a strong suspicion that AI naval recruitment in Redux has been increased (as I said in my previous post). Also, is the AI building upgrade error exclusive to Redux, or does it exist in vanilla? I can imagine Axalon would want to have a look at this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Welder View Post
    I have long wanted to release a patch for the game with the correction of some bugs, changes to some game mechanics( for example, the ability to disable the Civil War, make it possible for agents/soldiers to die of old age, a ban on the destruction of some buildings after the capture of the province, for example, castles, etc.) and change/strengthen the AI. Something has been done for a long time, something I am doing now, maybe in the near future I will release at least the 1st version of the patch, if I am not too lazy again )=
    Though small, the community always welcomes such efforts--us oldschool players, especially! Have you looked into some of the other fantastic mods for MTW-VI? One example is the elegant Caravel mod, which fixes myriad bugs but also maintains the feel of the vanilla campaign. Of course there's always XL and BKB, for the truly gargantuan campaigns. For me, Redux stands out as one of the best. I've been playing it on and off since Axalon's beta version was released over a decade ago (hard to believe!) and it's the mod I'll likely always come back to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Welder View Post
    I played Rome and Medieval 2, but not much and it was a long time ago. With Medieval 1, I also have nostalgia, and with the new changes that I have already made on my computer (for example, I removed the civil War and even because of this alone it became much more difficult to play t to the factions now do not fall apart from each sneeze), the game began to play with new colors. It's not modding, it's changing the game mechanics. Do you want to mod the game?) =
    Very interesting point about the civil wars. Personally, the civil wars don't bother me much, as long as the faction respawn rate remains high. One thing I've missed from the newer Total war entries is the ability for factions to re-emerge. I love the idea that distant relatives or escaped heirs can lead rebellions. Of course, this becomes much more relevant in the medieval period. A big reason I play this game is out of an appreciation for history, or at least the ability to write a new history. I always enjoy when complex political situations emerge. Eliminating civil wars certainly addressed the underlying fragility of some of the smaller factions, however, I wonder if there's a way to mitigate the effects of civil war without removing them completely? I also would like to see every faction get the ability to determine faction leader by highest ranking general in that faction. It would save so many of the headaches inherent in trying to ensure you have heirs. Currently, the Germans can do this, but as far as I know, other factions must depend on keeping those pesky princes alive.

    Sadly, I know next to nothing about modding. I do, however, have lots of ideas of how I'd like to see the campaign function and there are certainly changes I would make to my personal version of Redux.

  15. #675

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Quote Originally Posted by Welder View Post
    Cyprian2, you can change the probability of a riot in the file campmap/startpos/RX-Classic.txt , you need to change the "SetAttributes" value to "REBELLIOUS" , the larger it is, the higher the chance of rebellion. Values less than zero can also be assigned.
    Thanks for the rundown. This topic almost deserves its own thread! It's not so much the rate of rebellion that bothers me at the moment, but the overall aggressiveness of the rebels. For example, I might experience a rebellion in Saxony, only to have three additional stacks arrive from the other side of the world due to naval linkage. Personally, I feel that rebels should function as a less homogenous force to reflect the fact that they were independent kingdoms as opposed to a massive grey bloc! I suppose I can accept rebel reinforcements arriving in Saxony from neighbouring Frisia, but it becomes silly when they are being shipped from Tunisia.

    EDIT. Apologies for the double post.

  16. #676

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    For example, I have a strong suspicion that AI naval recruitment in Redux has been increased (as I said in my previous post).
    You can compare the preferences In both the vanilla version and Redux in files : "CRUSADER_BUILD_PROD13.TXT" "AI characters building production preferences" and "AI building influences for building combos" and "CRUSADERS_UNIT_PROD11.TXT" "Unit chices (AI)" POVERTY_STRICKEN(10) and etc.

    In the most General form, these preferences correspond to different styles of AI behavior that occur under certain conditions - when a faction is in poverty, when it defends itself against superior enemies or attacks itself, etc. These preferences are summed up and then a building or unit is selected using randomness.
    The moder can change these values, but the fact is that there are still actions that are hard-coded and strongly change preferences - for example, the AI will not build a building with the property of an observation tower if there are no foreign provinces next to the province, or, for example, in a province that is an island ( i.e. there are only seas in the neighborhood), it will first build a port and nothing more. Of course, I know all about it. )=
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    Also, is the AI building upgrade error exclusive to Redux, or does it exist in vanilla?
    No, no, this is a hard-coded bug, does not play the role of vanilla is a game or mod.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    Eliminating civil wars certainly addressed the underlying fragility of some of the smaller factions, however, I wonder if there's a way to mitigate the effects of civil war without removing them completely? I also would like to see every faction get the ability to determine faction leader by highest ranking general in that faction. It would save so many of the headaches inherent in trying to ensure you have heirs. Currently, the Germans can do this, but as far as I know, other factions must depend on keeping those pesky princes alive.
    I did this for myself because many times it happened that the factions that could resist simply fell apart and the game turned into a frenzied bribery and destruction of hordes of rebels which was very boring and insulting)= For me, disabling civil war made the game more difficult, so now you must destroy all the enemy's troops and not wait for it to fall apart )= Of course, you can do without a total shutdown, there are a number of ways to reduce the occurrence of civil wars - for example, getting the AI to assemble units after a turn so that the General with the greatest loyalty is chosen first, increasing the requirements for the emergence of a civil war, removing the negative impact on loyalty from the fall of the Crusades, and more, I've studied all this, it's not a big problem, of course it's all hard-coded.

    In General, the order of succession to the throne is as follows: first the princes, if there are no princes then for the factions Germans("FN_GERMAN_HRE"), Papacy("FN_PAPIST") and Vikings("FN_07") (these names are hard-coded in the program), the best General becomes the leader. If the faction is not one of these, then one of the Royal blood generals becomes the leader, but here, under certain conditions, civil war can happen. If there are no such, then the faction dies. I know how to make it so that not only for these but also for other factions, the king is chosen from the best generals, I have already tried this.)=
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    Have you looked into some of the other fantastic mods for MTW-VI? One example is the elegant Caravel mod, which fixes myriad bugs but also maintains the feel of the vanilla campaign. Of course there's always XL and BKB, for the truly gargantuan campaigns.
    I know about these mods, there are still others, but what is hard-coded will not fix any mod) = If there were 200 provinces then they would become absolutely huge) =
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    It's not so much the rate of rebellion that bothers me at the moment, but the overall aggressiveness of the rebels. For example, I might experience a rebellion in Saxony, only to have three additional stacks arrive from the other side of the world due to naval linkage. Personally, I feel that rebels should function as a less homogenous force to reflect the fact that they were independent kingdoms as opposed to a massive grey bloc! I suppose I can accept rebel reinforcements arriving in Saxony from neighbouring Frisia, but it becomes silly when they are being shipped from Tunisia.
    To be honest, I would forbid the rebels to attack at all, and at the same time the Papacy.) =
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; December 28, 2020 at 04:14 AM. Reason: Hard to read.

  17. #677
    Axalon's Avatar She-Hulk wills it!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sverige
    Posts
    1,273

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Hello everyone, and thanks for posting and the feedback... I see you guys have been quite busy here. I’ll start at the top and try to work myself down replying to stuff (the best I can)...

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by Welder View Post
    I noticed another small detail - the closing parenthesis") "is missing in the MERCHANT data:" {SHIPYARD(24), SHIPYARD2(24, WAREHOUSE(12)}, .
    Looks like you are right, and thus I can confirm the bug/error you spotted. If you keep this up and find me a few more bugs/errors somewhere – I will have little choice but to credit you as an official bughunter - in the next Redux-release. Regardless, thanks for reporting it in…

    Quote Originally Posted by Welder View Post
    Why can't I remove CASTLE15 and GUNSMITH from the file
    and not create similar schemes?)
    There are all sorts of reasons for this… It’s about limitations and the hardcoding of the engine at the heart of it. In short, its all from having stuff failing to show up on the strat-map, to failing to function in battle, loading textures and 3D-models, if not the game manages to crash long before that, and so on. It is a precarious path and the likeliness of proper functionality (as in success) is very small – if possible at all.





    I also have a tons of comments for Cyprian's many posts (and in general) - and its all in the spoiler folks!

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    I've been enjoying a campaign as the Germans, and well... I know that the rebels in Redux have always been beefy, but man, this is ridiculous. See the attached screenshot for reference. The year is 1043 and I've not been to war with a single major faction, but almost all major factions have been eliminated at least once (and some more than once) by the rebels.
    Haha! Well, each campaign can end up very different from the next! Obviously, each player and their play-style will be a major factor influencing how many things end up in each campaign. Anyways, in this given particular case - it does look like you are on your way to lose that entire campaign – it will probably be very hard to turn things around and escape defeat at this point, I imagine.

    I have more time on my hands on Tuesday (29th) - I think you should post up/attach the save of that screen (AD1043) - so I and others can then download and try out playing HRE from that specific AD1043-save. You could even include AD 1000-save as well, as a bonus. There are only some 217 turns left, and it’s doubtful if that will be enough for a win – all things considered here. It would probably be an interesting adventure/challenge to find out. Assuming that you are fine with all that. Regardless, the outcome in that HRE-scenario at that stage seems uncertain - even for someone like me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    Any time I take a province, I must undergo at least 3 rebellions before the province is pacified (which is what I'd expect from Redux), but coupled with the rebels super-spamming navies and being uber-aggressive, it becomes very difficult to hold onto anything at all -- even with top tier troops! Sorry for the rant, but it's the first time I've ever wanted to rage-quit a Redux campaign. This is, of course, running 1007 with the latest hotfix.
    Look, I do hear you… However, I think at least part of the problem here is your own play-style – if that screenshot is somehow representative of it. It’s true that the RX-rebels are much tougher and aggressive in redux then basically anything else. They are! That said, players like you do need to make sure to keep all your important territory secure, loyal and content in Redux – and for that you will need to build the necessary infrastructure/tech for it and its all there in Redux (see stability-values as per each relevant building). Once that infrastructure is in place, the problem of rebellions essentially disappears (and any garrison can be relocated). In short, it takes much longer and cost much more in Redux to make any province peaceful and loyal compared to the levels we have in raw MTW. It’s much easier, faster and cheaper to get there in the raw game. And you probably know all this already…



    However you must have serious armies to defend all your vital territories in the first place! Otherwise those front-provinces will eventually be lost – if not by raiding rebels, then by invading other factions. There is no way around that. You must make sure you have a standing army at all times! Plan and prepare for it! In that screenshot you don’t have any serious army anywhere - this on any front! One big attack (from anywhere) and the HRE are in deep trouble! That is unacceptable if you want to survive long term in Redux. You should even strive to have serious tactical reserves to easily plug the gaps (if any) in your fronts whenever necessary! Also, you should consider shortening your fronts on the map, otherwise your troops gets needlessly tied up in securing unfavorable and long borders. Also consider actively using buffer zones.

    Lastly, one should never leave the rebels to their own devices – that will in time punish you in the long run and make them very problematic eventually. Especially ports are priority targets – in your HRE-campaign that translates to especially Flanders, Venice, at a minimum (but also Prussia as well from what I can tell). The rebels should never ever be allowed to hold on to these long-term. If you can’t hold on to it - raze the port and withdraw - so they can’t build more pirate ships…

    If you apply these doctrines - you will probably be much more successful in Redux and dealing with rebels too...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    In the most recent version, even the major factions like England, Byzantines, Spain, and the Moors are having a hard time staying afloat.
    Agreed… It’s basically a matter of cash (and costs) - not having enough and the AI not being able to properly make the serious and hard decisions (despite my best efforts to force the AI back and forth) when there is not enough cash to fund it all. That’s why I seriously considering to either cutting down on the rebel cash-flow (a bit) or increasing the same for all ordinary factions. The unwanted bi-effect of all that is that Redux will obviously become more forgiving to the player as a result. However, that would even out somewhat if the AI end up performing better and build more and viable armies - thus making the game harder that way. It’s a difficult and fine balance to achieve with the crude parameters afforded by the game-engine. We’ll see what I end up in the next release of Redux. It’s a not ideal as it is and this to such extents that I want to change it somehow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    I'm curious about how Vanilla MTW-VI compares to Redux in terms of AI building and recruitment priorities. For example, I have a strong suspicion that AI naval recruitment in Redux has been increased (as I said in my previous post).
    They are vastly different. In short, it is two separate and distinct design-models. This disregarding all the altered and new content on top (creating yet again further differences, both in terms of designs, dynamics, function and generated experience and circumstances within the game).

    Naval recruitment is actually set to (MUCH) higher priority in raw MTW – it is just that the Redux ships are much more accessible, at times cheaper and always faster to build. All that combined creates perhaps the illusion that the AI is more keen to build ships in Redux… In fact it is not, not in theory anyways. Then again, the AI on all naval stuff is a mess all over (on practical terms)…

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    I do, however, have lots of ideas of how I'd like to see the campaign function and there are certainly changes I would make to my personal version of Redux.
    Feel free to post up those ideas - if I like them, and they are doable, I might include them in the future. Naturally, I would credit you for every such idea I did include in Redux. Other then that, I have always tried to be welcoming to folks considering doing sub-mods for Redux. That attitude has not changed...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    For example, I might experience a rebellion in Saxony, only to have three additional stacks arrive from the other side of the world due to naval linkage. Personally, I feel that rebels should function as a less homogenous force to reflect the fact that they were independent kingdoms as opposed to a massive grey bloc! I suppose I can accept rebel reinforcements arriving in Saxony from neighbouring Frisia, but it becomes silly when they are being shipped from Tunisia.
    I totally agree here… However, as it stands the MTW-engine and it existing mechanics and parameters does not afford any of what you wished for there. The rebels are - sadly - a large grey absurdly singular entity, as devised in this game. As a result, unholy and absurd alliances between - say - rebel Scotland and rebel Tunisia is possible – provided there is a rebel navy of sorts that connects them. It’s utterly ridiculous, I agree. Nevertheless the engine affords little else – assuming you want active and dynamic rebels somehow in the first place. This is what can happen in Redux – due to its designs (within the existing limits of the engine).

    The other alternative afforded by the engine we find in raw MTW (and most other mods btw). These (standard) rebels are (I think) hopelessly passive, toothless, predictable and are little else then a placeholder-entity that hardly can do or threaten anything, anywhere. It’s just a passive blob waiting to get conquered by regular factions. It adds little or no dynamic, danger or challenges to the game.

    Given those two options (by the engine) - it is an easy choice for me – and it is the RX-rebel model for the win, all the way. It is clearly more dynamic and challenging, so I obviously prefer that above the standard rebel-model. As usual, there are still folks that prefer the standard-alternative anyways despite all things. As for why, I have no idea.



    If I somehow missed some important stuff/question – its so many posts - you will have too
    remind me again. Anything else, fire away folks…

    - A
    ----------------------
    BTW, Welder check your formatting - in your last post - it seems to have screwed up somehow. Please see if you can
    clean it up - making things a bit more reader/user-friendly here? Otherwise, apply some spoilers on it, I think.…

  18. #678

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    This is becoming a serious discussion! Excellent.


    Welder:


    As always, you have some great points and explanations. It's unfortunate that so many things remain hardcoded in this game. Of course, CA is unlikely to ever budge on releasing the source code, so it's down to people like yourself who can figure out what changes are possible. I hear you about how civil wars make the campaign a mush safer bet, and the resulting "rebel frenzy" can be annoying as hell. I'd love to play a game without civil wars, just to experience the difficulty spike you've described. Like you, I'd like to see the rebels somewhat defanged, but I'll address that in my response to Axalon below. Another way I differ a bit from Axalon's vision of Redux is that I'd like to see more regular factions, which would potentially fill some of the grey vacuum that the rebels occupy. Anyway, keep up the good work, and don't hesitate to share any of your tweaks for the edification of the community. I know lots of us would be grateful!


    Axalon: Thanks for taking the time to answer all of my points. It's not often we get to interact with a working modder on a game of this vintage. Just goes to show that some of us still have taste!

    Anyway, I will attempt to clarify a few things you addressed in my post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    I have more time on my hands on Tuesday (29th) - I think you should post up/attach the save of that screen (AD1043) - so I and others can then download and try out playing HRE from that specific AD1043-save. You could even include AD 1000-save as well, as a bonus.
    Done and done! Hopefully my saves will load alright for you. I have changed most of my portraits to the custom heroes, so I hope this won't mess anything up on your end.

    There are only some 217 turns left, and it’s doubtful if that will be enough for a win – all things considered here. It would probably be an interesting adventure/challenge to find out. Assuming that you are fine with all that. Regardless, the outcome in that HRE-scenario at that stage seems uncertain - even for someone like me.
    Yeah, I had given up on world domination at this point, but I was in Glorious Achievements mode, and on my way to getting a pile of points. Sadly, the rebels intervened and now you see the state of things. I'm now thinking of starting the campaign anew with a different strategy, though I'm not sure what. I really don't feel that Redux lends itself to blitzing, though I could be wrong. Personally, having to stave off so many rebellions really slows down any plans I might have for conquest on a large scale.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Look, I do hear you… However, I think at least part of the problem here is your own play-style – if that screenshot is somehow representative of it. It’s true that the RX-rebels are much tougher and aggressive in redux then basically anything else. They are! That said, players like you do need to make sure to keep all your important territory secure, loyal and content in Redux – and for that you will need to build the necessary infrastructure/tech for it and its all there in Redux (see stability-values as per each relevant building). Once that infrastructure is in place, the problem of rebellions essentially disappears (and any garrison can be relocated). In short, it takes much longer and cost much more in Redux to make any province peaceful and loyal compared to the levels we have in raw MTW. It’s much easier, faster and cheaper to get there in the raw game. And you probably know all this alree/challenge to find out. Assuming that you are fine with all that. Regardless, the outcome in that HRE-scenario at that stage seems uncertain - even for someone like me.
    Yep, I'm well aware of the need to pacify regions by constructing the right balance of infrastructure and military capability. I should also explain that I had several large stacks (standing army) that went to quelling the massive rebel invasions of Frisia and Saxony. Normally, I would have kept strong garrisons in my border provinces. I owned both Prussia and Livonia just a couple years prior to this--both were stable and well-garrisoned, but massive rebel stacks from Novgorod and Lithuania ended all that. Finally, I was hampered by successive monarch deaths, which never helps.

    That said, you rightly noticed that my playstyle is not conducive to world domination. I am, in fact, rather "turtle-ish" in my campaigns. This is a personal preference. I am much more interested in a slow buildup of my forces, and ensuring a stable kingdom, than spamming units to blitz everyone around me. As a result, I rarely complete campaigns as the only power left on the map. Glorious achievements are much more to my taste than traditional domination. I just can't bring myself, for example, to conquer England as the Poles or Novgorod as the Spanish (though I have done both in the past). It's just not something that interests me anymore. I'd rather weave a good, yet believable, historical yarn.

    Finally, for me this campaign has been a total anomaly, and I'm not sure why. For one thing, I've never gone this long fighting only rebels. Usually by the year 800 or so, I've been involved in several wars with neighbouring kingdoms. The regular factions are just so passive right now. All of them accepted alliances with me that have lasted many turns with not breath of betrayal. Only the rebels have put up any kind of fight, while the major factions can hardly be bothered to defend their own provinces, let alone conquer new ones. That's not the Redux I know and love!

    I will start another campaign and see if this phenomenon repeats. I will play a different faction, maybe the Norse. I've always had a love/hate relationship with those guys. (Love to play as them, hate to fun them. Ha ha.)

    Anyway, thanks also for explaining about naval recruitment. I think it's just the number of rebel ports (especially in England and the Baltic) that threw things off. Normally, in the past, I've seen regular faction navies around, but strangely not this time.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Cyprian2; December 28, 2020 at 09:08 AM.

  19. #679

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    Quote Originally Posted by Leith1970 View Post
    I have been meaning to ask you about how armour is implemented in your mod. I noticed that some of your most powerful units have a max armour of 6. Does that mean armour is not that significant in comparison with defense? I had a little test in your mod; I gave your Feudal Knights an armour of 8 instead of 6 but didn't see much of difference on the battlefield. In contrast, I saw a real performance improvement when I upped their defense to 8. I'm beginning to think that armour is the least useful of all the units' stats. Am I wrong?

    You can give a unit armor much more than 8, you can even give it 100, but ...


    In melee combat the unit's original armor does not work, it is only used against arrows, but the upgrade armor works both in melee and against arrows. The shield works in melee combat if the unit can use it, and always works against arrows.


    But the shield does not work if the defender unit is strongly turned sideways
    or with its back to the striking unit.
    The shield protection value that is specified in the unit stats file is multiplied by a special value corresponding to different types of shield (then rounded down to the nearest integer for melee combat, so for "SMALL" and "CAV" values less than 1 will give 0 in melee combat, and for "LARGE" values < 0.5).


    These are melee values :


    "NONE" : 0
    "SMALL" : 1
    "LARGE" : 2
    "CAV" : 1
    "PAVISE" : 0 (useless for melee)


    The value against arrows :


    "NONE" : 0
    "SMALL" : 1
    "LARGE" : 2
    "CAV" : 1
    "PAVISE" : 3


    For example, Spearmen have a "LARGE" shield and a defense modifier of 1, in which case they get 2 defenses (1 * 2) in melee and the same amount against arrows.
    PaviseCrossbows have a "PAVISE" shield and a defense modifier of 1, in which case they will receive 0 defense (1 * 0) in melee, and 3 protection against arrows.
    TeutonicSergeants have a shield "CAV" and a defense modifier of 0.5, in which case they will receive 0 defense in melee (because 0.5 * 1 < 1), and 0.5 protection against arrows.


    The bonus against armor works like this :


    unit armor + armor upgrade - value (for foot soldiers 1, for cavalry 2) / 2 with rounding down,if < 0 it is equal to 0.


    The resulting value is subtracted from the defender's defense.


    For example, FeudalKnights have armor 4,


    4 - 2 / 2 = 1, FeudalKnights will lose an additional 1 defense against units that have a bonus against armor.


    Of course, the attack is still added, the attack bonus on the cavalry, the defense is subtracted, etc., but this is another matter.


    Maybe I'm chewing it up too much, but it's better than vague hints.)=


    ***




    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Looks like you are right, and thus I can confirm the bug/error you spotted. If you keep this up and find me a few more bugs/errors somewhere – I will have little choice but to credit you as an official bughunter - in the next Redux-release. Regardless, thanks for reporting it in…

    Ha-ha)= I'll look around sometime )=

  20. #680

    Default Re: Medieval Total War - Redux (Beta)

    I apologize for the double post, I forgot to put brackets here

    Quote Originally Posted by Welder View Post
    The bonus against armor works like this :


    unit armor + armor upgrade - value (for foot soldiers 1, for cavalry 2) / 2 with rounding down,if < 0 it is equal to 0.


    The resulting value is subtracted from the defender's defense.


    For example, FeudalKnights have armor 4,


    4 - 2 / 2 = 1, FeudalKnights will lose an additional 1 defense against units that have a bonus against armor.
    So it's more correct :
    The bonus against armor works like this :
    (unit armor + armor upgrade - value (for foot soldiers 1, for cavalry 2) ) / 2 with rounding down,if < 0 it is equal to 0.
    The resulting value is subtracted from the defender's defense.
    For example, FeudalKnights have armor 4, (4 - 2) / 2 = 1, FeudalKnights will lose an additional 1 defense against units that have a bonus against armor.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprian2 View Post
    As always, you have some great points and explanations. It's unfortunate that so many things remain hardcoded in this game. Of course, CA is unlikely to ever budge on releasing the source code, so I it's down to people like yourself who can figure out what changes are possible. I hear you about how civil wars make the campaign a mush safer bet, and the resulting "rebel frenzy" can be annoying as hell. I'd love to play a game without civil wars, just to experience the difficulty spike you've described. Like you, I'd like to see the rebels somewhat defanged, but I'll address that in my response to Axalon below. Another way I defer a bit from Axalon's vision of Redux is that I'd like to see more regular factions, which would potentially fill some of the grey vaccum that the rebels occupy. Anyway, keep up the good work, and don't hesitate to share any of your tweaks for the edification of the community. I know lots of us would be grateful!
    Thanks, Cyprian2, I will continue in the same direction )=

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
  •