Some minor ExRm tweaks (port to Alex, fix of the merc problem, etc.)

[Iskandar]

I have been making some minor tweaks on the current ExRm version (3.4.1). They are a lot less than what I originally intended, but now it's clear to me that I won't have time to work more on them. It seems in the next year I won't have time to play Rome, or anything else for that matter. So I decided to post them anyway.

In the attachment you'll find a 'changes.txt' which explains what and where was changed, but in short:

- ported the game to Alex.exe

- removed Italy-Epirus and Chalcis-Asia Minor landbridges
I found them disrupting the game balance, especially the Epirus one. Rome never once survived past the 250 BC mark (i play on H/H)

- halved the merc replenish rate and removed some units from the pools
That was one of my biggest sources of frustration - having to fight predominantly mercenary armies instead of units native to my opponent.

- allowed naval invasions for almost all civilized factions except Rome - Alex.exe handles them better, only roman AI seems to be less aggressive on land and Epirus has it too easy.

- couple of minor diplomacy fixes plus changed the army recruiting personalities of some factions (still can't get Egypt to make heavy cav, though, no matter which personality I use)

- reversed the building times of the Auxilia and reduced the barracks/royal barracks building times - I wanted to increase the time a faction needed to start recruiting from newly conquered territory and to prevent it from spewing lots of low quality units for a long time (which is what is available at Auxilia levels). Also reduced the shipyard/Dockyard building time, same reason.

When you extract the archive, read the changes.txt - I have written what exactly is changed and in which file did this occur. So, if only some of these tweaks are found useful, one can apply them piecemeal - overwrite only the relevant files.

One last remark - in my experience the AI recruits elite infantry units or heavy cavalry extremly rarely (less that it should, from my perspective) . I tried reducing the heavy cav costs (both upkeep and recruitment) by 10% and in some cases even more, which seemed to alleviate the situation. I did not get to the elite infantry though. Note that this is not implemented in the files in the attachment.

If anyone has questions - I'm still here, I'll just be mostly lurking.

Cheers.


EDIT:
I've missed one file when putting all the changes in the attachment. I don't have the game files on my computer anymore, but all you need to do is replace the ExRm\data\text\imperial_campaign_regions_and_settlements_names.txt content with that form ExRm\data\text\bi_regions_and_settlements_names.txt. Here is the reason why. Sorry for the inconvenience.

After that you have to delete the map.rwm file and run the cmapign map reset file. That's it.

EDIT 2:
The missing settlements_names file is now included in the attachment. Delete the map.rwm and/or run the campaign reset and have fun
Cheers.

[Ichon]

What affect does the Alex.exe port have if I only have BI version? Does it matter? Everything else sounds dandy. Especially the mercenaries as that was annoying to me as well to fight the same mercenary army repeatedly rather than enemy faction units.

[Iskandar]

Well, you need to have the Alexander expansion pack installed in order to use alex.exe for running the game.

Many people(me included) are of the opinion that the AI of alex is better than that of bi. For one, there are no more naval invasions with 2-3 units per stack. I'm not saying that the AI is genius at naval invasions, but it's definitely better than bi. Also, I think that the AI is a tad bit more aggressive and consequential, but again, it's in the eye of the beholder. There are some who wanted to try ExRm with alex.exe, so I ported it.

By the way, you can use the same files with BI, you just won't have shield wall and swimming (the former is almost non-existant in ExRm anyway).

[Ichon]

Ok... I might just copy paste files but if AI is better in Alexander, even if its only a tiny bit noticeable i might try to buy it as well. Until HoI3 comes out this is pretty much the only game I am playing. I feel sad I only came upon it so late but Shogun was fun but not replayable like this is and that tainted me against buying this until last month. While I've heard TW2 and 3 have many bugs, well 3 monstly. 2 I just not am as interested in medieval time period either.

[The Colonel]

cool, dont forget though that with the alex.exe the unit lmit is raised to over 500 i believe, another advantage of it

[despot_of_rhodes]

Sounds intriguing, Iskandar. The pity is i have no alex installed
The landbridges, especially the one between Greece and Italy, was a plague even for a human player, since one couldn´t end up in peace with Epirotes ( in a test game, "playing" britons, i´ve noticed, how they conquered all of Sicily, except Syracuse, after the Romans have thrown them out of Italy, but because of the landbridge, the Romans pushed into Greece and took Appolonia. And for a human player it was a waste to conquer Appolonia, only to take out the Epirotes, so they stop bothering you with their raids, only to face the Greeks and Macedons long before any roman soldier put his foot on the penninsula ( from the historical point of view ).

Btw: i´ve been thinking about, how to make the game challenging ( no medium campaign difficulty, since it´s "sim city" ), but at the same time not give the larger factions those huge advantages with the additional money. And i´ve got an idea: What if we make the family trees a bit smaller and put the upkeep costs for the bodyguards say... at 1000-2000 denari? This is one of the variables, wich expands only if your empire grows, so, if we start with a smaller family trees for the smaller factions, we might be able to "punish" the expansion in a way, wich doesn´t need any scripts or balancing ( wich AI seems to ignore, if it has enough money anyway ).
Since the distance to the capital doesn´t reflect the fact, that it were the gouverneurs, satrapes or praetors ( briefly: family members in RTW language ), wich were the real cause for corruption, we simply make them a huge cost factor in game.
I am going to change the upkeep costs of all general units in the game to see, how it would correspond with my idea, but the problem is, i don´t know how to change the family trees Anyway, i´ll keep you posted about the progress.

[AqD]

Btw: i´ve been thinking about, how to make the game challenging ( no medium campaign difficulty, since it´s "sim city" ), but at the same time not give the larger factions those huge advantages with the additional money. And i´ve got an idea: What if we make the family trees a bit smaller and put the upkeep costs for the bodyguards say... at 1000-2000 denari? This is one of the variables, wich expands only if your empire grows, so, if we start with a smaller family trees for the smaller factions, we might be able to "punish" the expansion in a way, wich doesn´t need any scripts or balancing ( wich AI seems to ignore, if it has enough money anyway ).

Oh I think it'd be terrible. Because family tree always expands faster than cities, and to small factions the ratio of family/regions is always higher than that of large factions.

Since the distance to the capital doesn´t reflect the fact, that it were the gouverneurs, satrapes or praetors ( briefly: family members in RTW language ), wich were the real cause for corruption, we simply make them a huge cost factor in game.
I am going to change the upkeep costs of all general units in the game to see, how it would correspond with my idea, but the problem is, i don´t know how to change the family trees Anyway, i´ll keep you posted about the progress.

You can change the initial trees by reducing their children in descr_strat.

How about changing the corruption degree by the number of regions you hold? I never tested it though (I removed corruption from my mod )



To keep faction balance the easiest way to give scripted money... A lot of them. Like $20,000 whenever one faction has treasury lower than $10,000. You can also use "defense" bonus trait for AI generals.

[despot_of_rhodes]

I haven´t observed it in case of AI, but playing a faction, my family members used to become children only if there were enough provinces i controlled. I´m talking about to use this on the "hard" and actually "very hard" campaign difficulty, where AI get´s 5000-10000 denari per turn. If i play middle, AI doesn´t get anything, and expands slowly, but it doesn´t goes bankrupt, does it? So, if a barbarian faction would start with only 2-3 family members without children, wich would come on age within at least 5 years, then there should not be any problem with it.
As i said: this measure, done properly, would control the army upkeep, and therefore the income of a faction, without any scripting. The point is not to let some small AI factions go bankrupt in the early phase and punish the large ones, but to become the same effect for the smaller factions, wich grow too fast, while they stay agressive and the rebells attack town with weak defence etc.
The script, wich is watching the number of the settlements would surly be usefull, but i thought, i would be nice to have a role play aspect concerning family members. And again: if one can use the game engine, why add scripts? ( of course, this must work and the general costs could be attached to each faction individually ).

[Arkaeyn]

I found that family trees tended to lag behind number of provinces, especially in EXRM, because there were 64 turns while children grew up and their parents could die, as opposed to the normal 32. I do think that's a pretty good, creative way to tax larger factions in the late game compared to medium, but it might be fairly crippling for smaller factions at the start of the game, unfortunately.

[Heptagenia]

Cant start playing this version, after i take new campange and take play Rome the game go back new campange again.

[Iskandar]

Ah, I know what's the problem. I thought I've included the necessary file but... anyway, here is the answer. Basically, you need to copy the contents form the bi version of campaign_regions_and_settlements_names.txt into the imperial campaign verrsion. It should do the trick.

I don't have the game files anymore, but I've updated the first post with the necessary information. If someone cares to send me the file I can include it in the archive and re-post it.

[Fridericus Rex]

Great, you removed the land bridges. That's why I left this Mod for RS.
I probably come back when this is officially changed.

Fridericus

[Heptagenia]

Ah, I know what's the problem. I thought I've included the necessary file but... anyway, here is the answer. Basically, you need to copy the contents form the bi version of campaign_regions_and_settlements_names.txt into the imperial campaign verrsion. It should do the trick.

I don't have the game files anymore, but I've updated the first post with the necessary information. If someone cares to send me the file I can include it in the archive and re-post it.

I do the things and still (in the sense that they return me to the previous menu and later I see the stringtable error)

[Iskandar]

From the other thread I assume you did this in the ExRm folder? Hmm..

Did you delete the map.rwm and run the campaign map reset afterwards?

Perhaps I wasn't clear - I replaced the contents of the imperial campaign version of the campaign regions and settlements names with that from the bi version in ExRM\Data\Text. IIRC that was all that was needed.

What exactly does it say in the error?

[Heptagenia]

From the other thread I assume you did this in the ExRm folder? Hmm..

Did you delete the map.rwm and run the campaign map reset afterwards?

Perhaps I wasn't clear - I replaced the contents of the imperial campaign version of the campaign regions and settlements names with that from the bi version in ExRM\Data\Text. IIRC that was all that was needed.

What exactly does it say in the error?

Did you delete the map.rwm and run the campaign map reset afterwards? ok now function thanks for helping im try this minimod now

[Caligula Caesar]

@Iskander: A while ago you tried putting up hte movement points to 120 or something like that. How did it work? Would you recommend it?

[Iskandar]

With more movement points you have bigger chance that a fleet will sink after a lost battle (though I didn't figure out how exactly does that work) and for me the possible distance that can be covered in a single turn (land or sea) seems more realistic. Also, I think it helps game balance in the east, where distances between cites are bigger. I'd say go for it.

[Ichon]

With more movement points you have bigger chance that a fleet will sink after a lost battle (though I didn't figure out how exactly does that work) and for me the possible distance that can be covered in a single turn (land or sea) seems more realistic. Also, I think it helps game balance in the east, where distances between cites are bigger. I'd say go for it.

I modded this separately because I'd already done it in vanilla as well and I agree, I feel it makes more realistic. No more taking 4 years to ship an army from Rome to Egypt. Even walking I doubt takes that long since how far did Alexander walk in only a few years? By ship is should be only 1 or 2 turns theoretically but 4 turns is not totally game breaking. Especially if you have the 4 turns a year script.

I hadn't noticed ships sinking more frequently after battles but now that I think about it... hard to say there though since ships sink so frequently once they are low in manpower anyway.

[Iskandar]

I hadn't noticed ships sinking more frequently after battles but now that I think about it... hard to say there though since ships sink so frequently once they are low in manpower anyway.

Well, I always wanted to have ship stats in which crew numbers represented more or less the actual number (on huge, that is) of marines on a ship of given class: ~20 for biremes, 20-40 for triremes, ~120 for quinqueremes. The problem with that is a ship with 120 crew takes at least 4-5 battles to sink. Put more than one in a fleet and it gets really boring chasing down enemy navies. Ideally, I'd want a fleet destroyed after 1 to 3 lost battles.

Increasing the movement points beyond 100-120 makes a fleet sink after a lost battle, no matter how many ships or crew are left alive, but not always. Still, this random (well, at least until somebody figures out the logic behind it) chance is better than nothing.

RS has movement of 260, IIRC, and I can't remember seeing a fleet survive a lost battle.

[Heptagenia]

Hi this ver is funny and i think play with alex is better, but were is ballistas and scorpions? thanks