IWTE - World editing - (General Discussion)

[Mr.Jox]

Thank you, wd!

[wilddog]

new version uploaded

with version 14_03_C
1) Bug Fix to assign complex to TB1 block process. Fixed loop/crash if new assignment left a parent entry without a child.

[Mr.Jox]

@mak, My settlement stays on both lake and land. But it doesn't metter because I have to make Hill on Lake. But i can't even reach this lake... I was trying to make my terrain bigger and bigger, it's 351x351 already! But no progress if terrain size is 105x105 or 351x351 I still have same 'moveable' area.

[Falconwatch]

Hey Mak, I've passed the message along, thank u so much for the help!!!

[makanyane]

@Jox can you send me the files for it as it is now? and also instructions about how to find it on TATW campaign map...

[Mr.Jox]

https://mega.co.nz/#!XRkV2AyS!dNz8ZG...d1Pqiop92UqSC0
It's Annuminas in campaign. P.S. the settlement was implemented on DaC map 2.1 but this must work for vanilla map too, isn't it?

[makanyane]

hmmm - are you sure you can't change the map????

if you look at the spot Annuminas is on (I'm assuming my TATW map is the same) it's at 101,264 - set up a custom battle on that location (add it to custom_locations.txt)
without a settlement, and you'll find that you can't actually even see the lake from there...

anyway if you do need to get water in you needed to be a lot lower I've resized the terrain and veg up to 501, and dropped that edge to -250 and the 'hill' to about -100
that does get you water - files are here;
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k293kiflav...nnuminas_a.zip

[Mr.Jox]

We have different maps but it doesn't affect things too much.

EDIT: Okay, this really works for my map too, thank you very much! btw how did u move it -200?
And how can I make it lower than 0 0 0 (RGB)? Blue?

[makanyane]

We have different maps but it doesn't affect things too much.

EDIT: Okay, this really works for my map too, thank you very much! btw how did u move it -200?
And how can I make it lower than 0 0 0 (RGB)? Blue?

the move was mainly by the 'specials' tab, terrain vector change thingy - as I was trying to move all of it...

now you've got lower version - to alter it by tga you need to change the create/replace settings

by default I think they're 150/0/3 which is;
greyscale value of 150 is set at 0m height and there are 3 greyscale increments per meter.


to get values of -250 > -100 to work with some leeway you need settings like
200/-100/1
which sticks RGB 200,200,200 at your -100 height and allows a range of values from -45 to -300


if you get to the stage where you want to fine tune certain bits you can alter the settings so that the out of range stuff prints as red/blue and doesn't get altered - or use the 2d option to change the file.

[Dusan Silni]

It would be good to make a custom battle map of Constantinople , too bad that no body knows how to use ITWE

[wilddog]

It would be good to make a custom battle map of Constantinople , too bad that no body knows how to use ITWE

ITWE?

I think its just that people who know how to use IWTE have other mods they are working on and no real interest in Constantinople.

[RubiconDecision]

Does IWTE version 14_03_C need a different version of Python? My previous version was 14_01_F and didn't cause this issue. See the attached pic. Running Vista-64 if it matters.

[makanyane]

It's not meant to need Python - that's the point of the .exe

wilddog will look at that

thanks for the report.

[wilddog]

Does IWTE version 14_03_C need a different version of Python? My previous version was 14_01_F and didn't cause this issue. See the attached pic. Running Vista-64 if it matters.

Its my fault I was trying to exclude some packages from the exe. Try version 14_04_A. Its the same as 13_03_C but with nothing excluded.
Note you don't actually need a version of python to run IWTE.

[RubiconDecision]

No worries. I'm glad to have been helpful for a change. I've mostly been using IWTE to examine things I'd like to do, versus making small changes.

Hopefully at some point, I'd like to do things like adjust the basic castles and cities such that I could move the square, or in a perfect world, replace the square with a stone fort on huge cities. I'd like to have something analagous to a stone keep or have a portcullis protected extra zone in the interior such that this is where the defenders made their final stand.

Fighting in the square literally makes zero sense. It's almost as if CA just decided, "Well since we can't make the Keep work, let's just release it anyway..."

[wilddog]

@RubiconDecision - Understand where you are coming from but the issue is what happens if the attacker is mostly mounted. Also the size of the central bit. Other thing is even if the central keep is hollow you need enough flat area around it for the ladder animation to work correctly and Ram.

Its something I was toying about with for PKH but its been so long since I did anything there.

[RubiconDecision]

@RubiconDecision - Understand where you are coming from but the issue is what happens if the attacker is mostly mounted. Also the size of the central bit. Other thing is even if the central keep is hollow you need enough flat area around it for the ladder animation to work correctly and Ram.

Its something I was toying about with for PKH but its been so long since I did anything there.

I think it's a fine balancing act that mostly will affect the player and not the AI. Most of the battles played out are the player attacking the defending AI and not the other way around. The only time there would be a fort (the same stone forts currently being used on the map) as a keep would be in the case of a huge city. It's really not any different than a final portcullis protected section like in the citadels.

In both cases, you need some infantry to gain access to the interior. One doesn't bring too many cavalry for a siege. Mostly these are heavy infantry battles with spearmen as placeholders to defend archers and crossbows once the heavy infantry have scaled the walls. Only when the artillery has breached a wall, and then cavalry come streaming in, or the spearmen take the boiling oil gateway, is it safe for them to play havoc with the defenders. And cavalry are poorly used even then, unless the heavy infantry and spearmen inch up while the cavalry flank or pin.

It's true that any "keep" which is multileveled won't work well. That would negate cavalry altogether.

It might mean changing the ambient town and stripping out some of it to make room for the keep in the square. Alternatively pushing some things around such that the "fort-keep" has three scalable walls while a fourth is far enough away that it's not accessible from the main outer walls.

Sadly, one of the Keep areas in one of the towns has dual arched gates that lead into it, with a final spot beyond accessible while would be ideal for a square. I forget which one, perhaps the level just under huge. I can provide a screencap now in a bit to update this so reader understand what I'm discussing.

The limits of what I'd do with IWTE would be mostly adjusting the approach to settlements such that the battle map terrain was larger, and so the attackers would have to inch up and face artillery from the defenders. Now that I figured out a simple way to place ballista, catapults, or trebuchet shot in the descr_walls, the defenders have a much easier time protecting themselves. Since the towers might fire any of those kinds of shot from an elevated position, then some approaches are more dangerous for the attackers now. All of which generally helps the AI. There wasn't a true need to build a platform to actually move created artillery on to, when all you have to do is reconfigure what's fired from the cannon tower or the roboarchers instead. With the arc of the shot, it exceed the level firing of artillery by attackers just as it did in history.

I see where you're coming from about cavalry not taking the final level, but that's no different than a citadel. Anyway, most of the time it's autoresolvings for all factions but the AI attacking the player (rarely) or the player attacking the AI. Honestly I think it'll be better.

Almost any configuration with IWTE will make attacking a settlement more difficult, not easier. Something as simple as a lake covering much of the approach will funnel the attackers into a line of fire from the better settlements. That's likely what I'll do with IWTE. Or, I'd like to place some ambient stakes out in some custom tiles or in the fronts of forts or settlements such that the defenders could sally behind a screen barrier. It just negates some of the power of cavalry and means a learning curve for players used to fighting in an old established pattern.

That all will likely mean coordinated dual attacks, something that happened in history versus ever thinking that an equal attacking force in soldiers would ever take an equal defending force inside. That's terrible odds unless you use a mixed attack with artillery controlled by the primary forces and an all secondary cavalry force with pinning heavy infantry.

I have mixed feelings about stripping out the pathways inside with the buildings, but they're really in the way and only slow the entrance. It's not like any defending ranged units are using the rooftops. It almost would be better to strip them out and place some parapets for ranged defenders to sweep around and drive the attackers crazy and skip the pathways altogether as Mak has done.

Something as simple as a scaleable wall behind the final square would annihilate lots of attackers as they're trying to fight to the square. Really it would be a big deal to do this little thing to help the AI. Or a single parapet cutting across the midline of settlements with arches for ground level troops to use ordinarily, for this would mean a second line of ranged attacks beyond the primary approach walls.

The standard settlement has four walls that go the full length of the settlement. Make a break and attackers have to go down to the main level then go back up to the parapets for the back half of the settlement, and those ranged units standing there have a fighting chance if they can run to a back parapet overlooking the square. Little simple things that make the attackers run around in circles trying to get to the square, especially if the pathways are removed and they can move quickly up unhindered.

[Falconwatch]

Hey just some questions with some errors we're having



This problem occurs when we're trying to import models, where is the problem at?

Also importantly, when using terrain MS3D as reference to place the models, why does IWTE show errors when trying to import those models?

[wilddog]

@Falconwatch -
Which version of IWTE are you using?
Which version of Milkshape are you using?
The objects part should handle different milkshape versions but the terrain bit isn't.
Is there any comments in the milkshape file?

Otherwise I need an example of a milkshape file that when attempting to load creates the error.

Edit: I think it is likely the model comment in milkshape. IWTE still adds the bounding sphere info there. If that is not the same format in the read back it will likely cause the issue you show. Suggest you simply remove the comment. Its a redundant bit of coding as IWTE recaculates it anyway. I will look to remove both the creation and readback of that in a future version of IWTE.

[Mr.Jox]

Hey guys!
Interesting thing I noticed: Campaign water height higher than Custom Battles one.
What would it affect and how make custom battle water height same to campaign's one?