IWTE - World editing - (General Discussion)

[RubiconDecision]

After unpacking, I see four different types of stakes in the ambient subfolder of the settlements. There are:
wooden_stakes_fortification_a
wooden_stakes_a
wooden_stakes_b
wooden_stakes_corner_a

It's likely that one of those four are the ones being called for use in the EDU for say longbowmen. The current ones not only act as a barrier which can be penetrated as well as kill units broaching them. However do you think it's possible to merely use IWTE to modify which one of the four stakes are called for use in the EDU? If so, that would be extremely helpful as it would merely cause stakes to be a barrier and so not hurt units by running into them but act as an obstacle instead.

[makanyane]

I don't think those are the ones used for the EDU based stakes. There's a stakes.mesh in one of the other folders which I think does that bit... not on main computer at moment so can't remember where... search for stakes and you should find that and also text file that references it...

So no, don't think IWTE can help.

[RubiconDecision]

I don't think those are the ones used for the EDU based stakes. There's a stakes.mesh in one of the other folders which I think does that bit... not on main computer at moment so can't remember where... search for stakes and you should find that and also text file that references it...

So no, don't think IWTE can help.

Thanks. I see where in the descr_misc it calls for the stakes' mesh i.e.:
bf_stake models/stakes.mesh
I was hoping it was calling one of those other four as that would have been like the Holy Grail of altering the stakes from units. Too bad. You are always so kind.

Re IWTE and the other stakes I found in the ambients, those still should be able to be used as props outside settlements to direct traffic from the attackers and reduce accessibility on certain walls or areas...right?

[wilddog]

I completed the geographyDB update process to help people more easily edit that file. I've still to add some copy functions in to copy one climate/season over another and some cross reference functions to highlight mistakes but its about there subject to testing by Mak. Plan to see about adding some of the vegetationDB items also into the tool to allow that to be more easily amended also.

I'm assuming at some stage the ability to load an updated version of a file will be available and working again (Mak told me it doesn't work). Once that's solved I'll load a newer version. There were some bugs that this version should of resolved particularly tied to amending paths and doors where the sequence sometimes got messed up.

For the animation amendments I still need to work out how to allow some of the types of animation to be editable in a milkshape environment so haven't really done much on that for a while. Adding in, deleting or repositioning the animation 'effects' (ie the dust, flames etc) should be straight forward as they are just positional. I'll probably return to looking at that after the vegetation bits.

Haven't really been following the discussion on stakes but to add stakes around a settlement you add as a structure like one of the stone forts has.

[leo.civil.uefs]

Got a strange bug here.

Settlement with 2 gates (2 perimeters).

If there is no animation/collision for the second gate, then everuthing is ok.
But when I edit the second gate to work, right when the first one is damaged and hits 100% damage, the game CTD.
Also, when my units are moving inside the settlement and they use the second gate, its animation works for opening but then the gate keeps opened forever, it does not close anymore.

Tryied everything I know.

[makanyane]

@ Leo - can you send me the files?

Also, when my units are moving inside the settlement and they use the second gate, its animation works for opening but then the gate keeps opened forever, it does not close anymore.

might be to do with the 'perimeter' set up - I think when the last unit exits a perimeter then the gate stays open (check on a vanilla fortress)
if the unit goes back through the gate does it shut behind them??

Re IWTE and the other stakes I found in the ambients, those still should be able to be used as props outside settlements to direct traffic from the attackers and reduce accessibility on certain walls or areas...right?

you'd need to add them to the settlement as a new structure and block the pathfinding, but yes that'd work - some of the forts already have similar stakes restricting access.

[RubiconDecision]

you'd need to add them to the settlement as a new structure and block the pathfinding, but yes that'd work - some of the forts already have similar stakes restricting access.

I sincerely thank you and wilddog for the fast replies. Use of barriers I think will add a lot to the game for the player as it will really increase the difficulty of attacking a structure if the defenders can run outside and use the barriers (like the stakes) to shoot at the attackers as they begin the assault and by using cavalry to harass the attackers allow the archers to escape back into the fort or settlements.

Yes, a few of the low level and stone forts have stakes outside but they are mostly decorative by being on corners. However there is also a scooped out region and that dry moat then serves to slow down the advance as well to allow more archer fire.

Likewise there is a great swamp that could be placed outside that would really funnel the attackers at a certain point, and if placed within archer or artillery range or tower range, then it could really make attacking more challenging.

Of course this has zero bearing on autoresolve so it doesn't hurt the AI at all there, but it does create a new level of challenge for the player.

I've been thinking about IWTE a lot for a year, and it seems like a short ramp and a stone platform could be created a little back from the walls and from that simple structure there would be sufficient room to place artillery. This solves having to alter the existing walls due to animations inside them, and so would more easily facilitate the defenders using their artillery if available. Since artillery is too slow to deploy outside and hurry back in without losing them, then an elevated platform will accomplish this nicely.

As long as the descr_cursor actions for artillery are no longer restricted on platforms, and there is sufficient room for both the artillery unit and crew, then the artillery unit should be able to deploy on it. It is likely several of the artillery crew will be lost, but at the same time it will cause the attackers to waste time on that endeavor and then allow the defenders more time to counterattack with ranged units.

Because there are built in smoke particle effects from the chimneys, then it seems like a smokescreen could even be emitted from areas inside the settlement and obscure vision for the attackers as they enter a section. It likely would have no effect but would be a great atmospheric as a unit in the region would essentially see something like limited fog in that area.

Are the Teutonic stone forts bugged? Is that why no one really seems to be using them as preplaced forts?

Because I'm interested in creating a new set of Japanese settlements, it seems like the simplest thing to do is leave most things intact, only apply a different texture to alter the appearance of walls, and then alter a few of the tech tree buildings with clay tile roofs and some pagodas, and essentially the settlements are the same.

[xHolyCrusader]

[...] Because I'm interested in creating a new set of Japanese settlements, [...]

If you are interested in something like that, you maybe could help the AuH team

[RubiconDecision]

If you are interested in something like that, you maybe could help the AuH team

Recruiting here instead of asking questions?

I'm wondering if you can graduate the elevations from one ring of the vanilla settlements to the next. In other words, the castles of Japan were usually not all one level in elevation but the outmost were at one, and then past the next ring the elevation went up, and so on to create tiers of a castle.

The wall height plus battlement is the same as the vanilla settlements, only the land slopes up to the next wall such that that new ring is at a higher elevation, with the Keep at the highest elevation.

[evenmov]

I want to ask a old question ..
how to make a wall that only can use ladder but can not attack by cannon and can't be destory
I made a wall that have no damage level so it could not be destory and I add ladder point so ladders can climb the wall
but the AI usually like to use cannon to attack the wall until have no ammo .. how to make the do not be stupid ...

[leo.civil.uefs]

I want to ask a old question ..
how to make a wall that only can use ladder but can not attack by cannon and can't be destory
I made a wall that have no damage level so it could not be destory and I add ladder point so ladders can climb the wall
but the AI usually like to use cannon to attack the wall until have no ammo .. how to make the do not be stupid ...

Do not set it as MAINOBJECT "WALL". Keep it as DEFAULT.

I dont know if the AI will then climb it with ladders or not, but they will not shoot on it anymore.

[intel]

@RubiconDeision
Oh, I am so glad to see someone "thinking outside of a box" about ITWE! I had my own share of more or less crazy ideas that could be possibly implemented using ITWE... That could possibly enhance gameplay or even in some aspects, change it!

For example (I haven't asked if these are even possible):

a) Singular towers in custom maps, RTS style


A tower that would be placed separately on a map, manned in much the same way M2TW towers are - by placing a unit close to it. This could bring a lot of tactical possibilities, creating a vital strategic advantage for its' owner.

If this is possible (I recall m2tw engine requires a functional wall for a tower to function - maybe this could be bypassed by creating collisionless wall, or even placing it underground?), besides the abovementioned application (funnier multiplayer maps, custom locations in certain campaigns), potentially a tower-defence mod could be made. How? By creating campaign map with two adjacent setlements (TATW Osgiliath style), with multi-tiered tower circles instead of walls, destructible buildings slots... and voila!
Ambient buildings could no more be an eye-candy, but points of vital importance, as firing slots could be placed on them.

Not to mention much more freedom in creating an interesting settlements.

b) Destructible campaign map resources (infrastructure)
Here, even crazier idea. I've been wrapping my mind around idea of upgradable towns and villages and other campaign map infrastructure (based on mines mechanism). But what would make it even more awesome? If we could actually see them on the battle map and then... fight over them or destroy them! Much like in ETW. This could give wars much needed depth, instead of a simple "capture enemy settlement and you're done". Well, we all do remember the ancient wonders from RTW - if this feature still works in M2TW, this could be a gateway for this innovation. Or maybe- just maybe, it's possible via stone forts mechanism? Don't know, I haven't read that much into it. Another thing is whether they could be destroyed in battle, with consequences of damaging the building on settlements building list.

Obvious application is making small villages and fortifications that actually are a part of regions economical and military entirety.

c) Non-artillery units that could destroy fortifications and buildings.

Does it need more explaination? More arcade-y gameplay or specific anti-fortification units that aren't artillery. Burning enemy cities while capturing them, just from pure shadenfreude.

e) Completly overhauled city rebellions
Another "what if". We all had these annoying and sad times when public order drops to zero and population revolts against its rightful owners (us). But what if we could place enemy deployment zone... Inside the settlement during rebellion? Imagine violent and ruthless fight for every corner, every street and a final struggle for a capture zone in the very center of a settlement.

e) Bringing back RTW "view settlement" feature
Enough said

f) My private obsession... Playable wagon forts!
This is an idea that I actually know is possible. And I know how it should be implemented.
Interlinked wagons that could constitute a single wagon-shaped wall/a ITWE object with adjusted collison, with tight, deployable space on the decks of all thes juicy wagons, making it possible (and important) to deploy troops in a right place on a right time. Coupled with c) feature, this could allow for more or less realistic depiction of wagon fort defence. I read a lot about central-eastern Europe's medieval/early modern warfare (especially Hussite Wars) and it fascinated me. Defender had to carefully watch and deploy his limited troops in the most endangered spots, fending off the attackers and preventing a breakthrough by a quickly closing in enemy, sailing forth whenever possible or to finish off the enemy. Attacker had to play cat and mouse with defender, either rusing him to sally and expose himself or faking attack in one place, just to quickly exploit a hole in defence and attempt to break in.


Yeah, thats enough for my wishful thinking and crazy ideas.

[RubiconDecision]

@RubiconDeision
Oh, I am so glad to see someone "thinking outside of a box" about ITWE! I had my own share of more or less crazy ideas that could be possibly implemented using ITWE... That could possibly enhance gameplay or even in some aspects, change it!

For example (I haven't asked if these are even possible):

a) Singular towers in custom maps, RTS style


A tower that would be placed separately on a map, manned in much the same way M2TW towers are - by placing a unit close to it. This could bring a lot of tactical possibilities, creating a vital strategic advantage for its' owner.

If this is possible (I recall m2tw engine requires a functional wall for a tower to function - maybe this could be bypassed by creating collisionless wall, or even placing it underground?), besides the abovementioned application (funnier multiplayer maps, custom locations in certain campaigns), potentially a tower-defence mod could be made. How? By creating campaign map with two adjacent setlements (TATW Osgiliath style), with multi-tiered tower circles instead of walls, destructible buildings slots... and voila!
Ambient buildings could no more be an eye-candy, but points of vital importance, as firing slots could be placed on them.

Not to mention much more freedom in creating an interesting settlements.

b) Destructible campaign map resources (infrastructure)
Here, even crazier idea. I've been wrapping my mind around idea of upgradable towns and villages and other campaign map infrastructure (based on mines mechanism). But what would make it even more awesome? If we could actually see them on the battle map and then... fight over them or destroy them! Much like in ETW. This could give wars much needed depth, instead of a simple "capture enemy settlement and you're done". Well, we all do remember the ancient wonders from RTW - if this feature still works in M2TW, this could be a gateway for this innovation. Or maybe- just maybe, it's possible via stone forts mechanism? Don't know, I haven't read that much into it. Another thing is whether they could be destroyed in battle, with consequences of damaging the building on settlements building list.

Obvious application is making small villages and fortifications that actually are a part of regions economical and military entirety.

c) Non-artillery units that could destroy fortifications and buildings.

Does it need more explaination? More arcade-y gameplay or specific anti-fortification units that aren't artillery. Burning enemy cities while capturing them, just from pure shadenfreude.

e) Completly overhauled city rebellions
Another "what if". We all had these annoying and sad times when public order drops to zero and population revolts against its rightful owners (us). But what if we could place enemy deployment zone... Inside the settlement during rebellion? Imagine violent and ruthless fight for every corner, every street and a final struggle for a capture zone in the very center of a settlement.

e) Bringing back RTW "view settlement" feature
Enough said

f) My private obsession... Playable wagon forts!
This is an idea that I actually know is possible. And I know how it should be implemented.
Interlinked wagons that could constitute a single wagon-shaped wall, making it possible (and important) to deploy troops in a right place on a right time. Coupled with c) feature, this could allow for more or less realistic depiction of wagon fort defence. I read a lot about central-eastern Europe's medieval/early modern warfare (especially Hussite Wars) and it fascinated me. Defender had to carefully watch and deploy his limited troops in the most endangered spots, fending off the attackers and preventing a breakthrough by a quickly closing in enemy, sailing forth whenever possible or to finish off the enemy. Attacker had to play cat and mouse with defender, either rusing him to sally and expose himself or faking attack in one place, just to quickly exploit a hole in defence and attempt to break in.


Yeah, thats enough for my wishful thinking and crazy ideas.

Some of your ideas can be done without IWTE, but I'd love to hear what wilddog and Ms. Mak think.

I personally believe that the easiest way to get artillery to launch over the walls is to alter the tga base that the settlement sits on and so have two little earth ramps where the artillery could sit in elevated positions (like little hills) and arc the trebuchet shot over that way. Then no Milkshape is needed. By altering the base then it would disappear when upgraded and so you'd have to add them to whichever upgraded settlement tga bases to get them to appear and stay upon upgrade or deal with a custom nonupgradable settlement which Third Age uses.

Likewise, altering the tga base would mean moats but again they would disappear upon upgrade and all nations that used that model would all have the same features. This is why some stone forts have them as nonapproachable sides.

a) don't know, but since you can have custom tiles and have custom battles then technically yes. In the Battle Editor you can pick and choose items to place and you can dramatically sculpt the landscape. It would mean building a watchtower in milkshape, bringing it into IWTE, saving it and then using it in the Battle Editor.

b) you can destroy farms, roads, and mines by removing the hinterland aspect of them. By doing so your armies could raze the countryside instead of trying to control cities. Ms. Mak wrote a good discussion of both of those things before in the text workshop section.

c)hard to do. Someone wrote about giving a named character trait "Can Sap" and then that character can destroy a portion of the wall as sapping was done in history. Look in the text section, I think under tutorials.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...e-Campaign-map

e) probably not possible, but you can raise the disorder of cities and make them rebel, even force one nation to give a whole town to another nation, and so something similar would be possible. See the text section or pm me.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ion-via-script

f) wagon forts have already been addressed and released in several mods as the Hussite. Realize that happened late in history. It's a released mod on its own, but incorporated in many mods and you have to have permission to use it. BUT IWTE could help us create a wagon fort that could be used as a BARRIER not to shoot ranged attacks but maybe to deploy to protect units. In Japan, a rolled up series on branches leaned against a simple structure was a kind of arrow barrier to prevent flanking horse archers from decimating the yumitori. So, IWTE could likely help us create a wagon fort that would do something similar.

You can pick the ambients that display in battlefields, and so, by specifying the ambients and working with these ambients in IWTE, then it should be entirely possible to have routine ones show up that could be used as barriers or even have the same kind of ambients show up outside of certain settlement models so you know that a north european fortress will have a swamp or a south european citadel will have a hamlet or monastery on the outskirt, or a lake or whatever. These simple changes would really create some fun by only minimally using IWTE for placement but would add a lot of flavor to give the defenders a place to sally and counter attack, or allow the attackers to inch their way across to the main castle instead of always beginning at the closest point nearest to the castle. This especially becomes relevant when attacking with multiple armies as reserves or as simultaneous attacks, and so one side of a settlement could have clear advantages by locating a swamp on one side or not.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...D-RELEASEEEEED!!!!!
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?82549-Enabling-War-Wagons-and-Wagon-Walls

[intel]

Some of your ideas can be done without IWTE, but I'd love to hear what wilddog and Ms. Mak think.

Well, I am eagerly waiting for it too

b) you can destroy farms, roads, and mines by removing the hinterland aspect of them. By doing so your armies could raze the countryside instead of trying to control cities. Ms. Mak wrote a good discussion of both of those things before in the text workshop section.

Well, I still wonder whether it is possible to represent resources that appear on campaign map on battle maps.

c)hard to do. Someone wrote about giving a named character trait "Can Sap" and then that character can destroy a portion of the wall as sapping was done in history. Look in the text section, I think under tutorials.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...e-Campaign-map

I'll check it out. But I think there's at least one way of achieving that - by editing descr_projectiles file. It seems that the same attribute that is reponsible for damage vs buildings in artillery projectiles is possible to apply for example for musket bullets.

e) probably not possible, but you can raise the disorder of cities and make them rebel, even force one nation to give a whole town to another nation, and so something similar would be possible. See the text section or pm me.

It's not as much about the very mechanism of settlement changing ownership (which we can witness in vanilla m2tw), but it's more about:
1) creating enemy deployment zone inside the settlement
2) making it a situational event (via script or other manipulation)

f) wagon forts have already been address and released in several mods as the Hussite. Realize that happened late in history. It's a released mod on its own, but incorporated in many mods and you have to have permission to use it. BUT IWTE could help us create a wagon fort that could be used as a BARRIER not to shoot ranged attacks but maybe to deploy to protect units. In Japan, a rolled up series on branches leaned against a simple structure was a kind of arrow barrier to prevent flanking horse archers from decimating the yumitori. So, IWTE could likely help us create a wagon fort that would do something similar.

I'm glad you uderstand me so well. This could be a reliable solution as well. Both could be great, but wagon fort as an actual fort could perhaps be more AI-friendly. The mods you mentioned aren't satysfying because of their ahistorical depiction of wagon fort tactics

Maybe some other points/ideas/questions:

g) How large can a capture zone in a settlement be? Does it always have to be a square? Can it be placed outside settlements deployment zone?

My idea was to make a "famous battlefield" settlement type. A custom, non-upgradable settlement with nothing but a capture zone placed in the center of a map, or other important place, effectively a "king of the hill" map type.

For example, we take a historical battlefield X. We model the geography after its historical look, and then we place a huge capture zone just where the actual fighting occured. Attacker Y rushes for the capture zone placed inbetween two armies, and because capture zone is placed closer to him, defender has to react accordingly before time runs out. Or it could be the other way, the defender rushes for his capture zone to defend it and attacker has to capture it in order to win.

h) Making a huge custom city, with buildings spanning to the horizon.

If you have seen King Kong's Rammas Ehor custom battlemap, you can see the wall that reaches the horizon. I wondered if I could take things further than that. I had an idea of representing a huge city, populated by millions by creating a battlemap with structures reaching far beyond the battlefield.

I am not entirely sure, but other than granting attack/defence modifiers, ground types do not do much more than that.

i) A terrain types that affect movement speed.


I am not entirely sure, but other than granting attack/defence modifiers, ground types do not do much more than that. I wonder if thats possible, and if it is, I wonder if it could be achieved via ITWE.

[RubiconDecision]

Well, I am eagerly waiting for it too
Well, I still wonder whether it is possible to represent resources that appear on campaign map on battle maps.
I'll check it out. But I think there's at least one way of achieving that - by editing descr_projectiles file. It seems that the same attribute that is reponsible for damage vs buildings in artillery projectiles is possible to apply for example for musket bullets.
It's not as much about the very mechanism of settlement changing ownership (which we can witness in vanilla m2tw), but it's more about:
1) creating enemy deployment zone inside the settlement
2) making it a situational event (via script or other manipulation)

I'm glad you uderstand me so well. This could be a reliable solution as well. Both could be great, but wagon fort as an actual fort could perhaps be more AI-friendly. The mods you mentioned aren't satysfying because of their ahistorical depiction of wagon fort tactics

Maybe some other points/ideas/questions:

g) How large can a capture zone in a settlement be? Does it always have to be a square? Can it be placed outside settlements deployment zone?

My idea was to make a "famous battlefield" settlement type. A custom, non-upgradable settlement with nothing but a capture zone placed in the center of a map, or other important place, effectively a "king of the hill" map type.

For example, we take a historical battlefield X. We model the geography after its historical look, and then we place a huge capture zone just where the actual fighting occured. Attacker Y rushes for the capture zone placed inbetween two armies, and because capture zone is placed closer to him, defender has to react accordingly before time runs out. Or it could be the other way, the defender rushes for his capture zone to defend it and attacker has to capture it in order to win.

h) Making a huge custom city, with buildings spanning to the horizon.

If you have seen King Kong's Rammas Ehor custom battlemap, you can see the wall that reaches the horizon. I wondered if I could take things further than that. I had an idea of representing a huge city, populated by millions by creating a battlemap with structures reaching far beyond the battlefield.

I am not entirely sure, but other than granting attack/defence modifiers, ground types do not do much more than that.

i) A terrain types that affect movement speed.


I am not entirely sure, but other than granting attack/defence modifiers, ground types do not do much more than that. I wonder if thats possible, and if it is, I wonder if it could be achieved via ITWE.

Any ambient could be made and then added randomly to the battlefields. I guess you could have a sheep farm if you wanted or a gold mine.

If you look at the descr_projectiles then the projectiles can do damage. So if the wall damage was low enough and you had enough crossbow bolts or flaming arrows then you could burn it down. It would take a lot yes? It would maybe be cool on the lowest level of settlements ONLY as that would be plausible, or maybe burn a door down. Realize that this will mess up rams and the damage they do and the time you want the boiling oil to drip upon the ram crew. Make the door too easy to breakdown and less damage and hostile fire from arrow towers. That's no good.

However it would be really cool to recreate the scene in The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc. In that film, the burning arrows are used to gain access to the Keep. That would be very very cool. I would love to only have the Keep battlements and the door to work and the flagged area inside there in the very back. Then burning down the Keep gate, and sending in ONLY INFANTRY since the others couldn't get within would be very historically accurate.

Note that I mentioned earlier that there is a seldom used text file that restricts placement of artillery on platforms. Likewise, there is a setting so you can damage your own walls with artillery, which would be quite hysterical and absolutely correct with mangonel! It would be a true face palm moment. It's either in one of the descr_cursor_actions or descr_cursor_tooltypes text files.

Battle movement rates are set in the descr_battle_map_movement_modifiers. You can alter how fast the units move over terrain and it makes a real difference in field battles.

I would like to increase the size of battle maps as they seem too small but I think it's hardcoded. However I think that the settlements areas can be defined to be quite large.

You know, you could define a "fort" by removing all of the fort and making a special battlefield with a flagged area. i don't see why not. In fact, it would be a very welcome idea as you could create a great battlefield with unusual rocks or cliffs, river crossings (dry in one place, wet and shallow or deep) and define the trees. Then instead of a fort you could always fight that whenever a fort is assigned in the desr_strat. Then make a series of truly custom battlefields as by removing the stone forts that you would never use, and then they are not fort battles at all, but encampments that are treated as level 3 stone forms for sieging, but then you fight diverse battlefields instead. They won't match up with the terrain on the campaign map though. You should mark them so the player knows what to expect. It won't matter for autoresolving. You can place an unused invisible princess agent into a fort, so you could name these special battlefields that appear as forts but would then have to tell the player that they were battlefields in some kind of pdf file.

[makanyane]

Sorry for gap in replies I've been having trouble getting onto TWC... anyway looks like you're getting things sorted between you


a few comments;

1). plaza (capture area) does have to be square - not sure on maximum size - you can place it outside the deployment area, you'll get a long pause on battle load as ai tries to work out where to deploy though and they might deploy in one large pile instead of doing anything sensible looking...

2). using open battlefields with a plaza instead of forts sounds like a good idea - you can make them 'match' surrounding terrain as well, just make the terrain larger and include a progressively merged area at the edges to blend it in. Problems; you and ai will get forced to build siege equipment, and in some cases ai can decide to hang onto things like ladders and not attack properly. You need to test all conceivable variations of ai attack and defence and sally, with/without ladders, artillery and cavalry. Have a look at Leo's recent posts and tutorial about ai behaviour, and do check the basic layout before spending a lot of time making pretty landscape.

3). wider than horizon stuff... There seems to be a hard coded (causes CTD) limit to the size of the terrain files somewhere between 501 and 531 nominal rows - that doesn't get you as far as the visible extent of the battlemap - it's quite a long way beyond the playable area though. I haven't tried extending buildings that far out. If you do do it I think you need to pay attention to the Complex positioning process (which most people ignore...) and also I wouldn't try giving anything on the far edges collisions.

4). to have a tower that fires, it has to be part of a settlement or fort (or maybe watchtower, worth trying that...), and not an ambient placed on a custom tile. You can place a castle as an ambient on a custom tile, but none of the functioning bits work, it just ends up as decoration ignored by the ai.

5). all ideas about giving troops strategic bits to hide behind or raised platforms to fire from are fine - unfortunately the ai tends not to use them, unless it's part of something it has another reason to stand on - like a 'Wall' which is part of a Perimeter of a settlement.

[intel]

Thanks for the reply! I will test it as soon as I get my copy of M2TW Could you please clarify whether it would be possible to place a tower as a part of a settlement's colissionless and ambient wall? Or could I bypass it by placing the wall underground - would placing a unit nearby still make it fire?

[leo.civil.uefs]

Lets say I want to limit rohan cities to look always like wooden cties (so the highest level would be large town), but they would still be able to be upgraded until large city (lke it is in vanilla TATW).
I guess its about some pkg changing, but it gets me confused. How should I proceed?

[makanyane]

Lets say I want to limit rohan cities to look always like wooden cties (so the highest level would be large town), but they would still be able to be upgraded until large city (lke it is in vanilla TATW).
I guess its about some pkg changing, but it gets me confused. How should I proceed?

use IWTE to "Edit worldpackage" on the .worldpkgdesc of the settlement you want to appear on the battlemap i.e. north_european_large_town_A etc...

leave the Pkg Path line the same i.e.
settlements/North_European/Settlements/Large_Town/north_european_large_town_A.world

change "Culture:" line to whatever culture your Rohan are
change "Faction:" line from unused to the internal (as used in descr_strat and sm_factions) faction name for your Rohan
change "Type:" from large_town to city

to get the large_town battlemodel to appear in campaign map battles for Rohan city level
do the same thing again with large_city in the "Type:" box to get it to appear for large_cities

you may want to check existing pkg's to confirm what is the correct "Type" line for each level
e.g. for motte-and-bailey you need "wooden_castle"

NOTE: this will only work for campaign map battles - it won't work on custom battles which would have to be changed for the entire culture - and as I'm sure you already know your ladder height will look too short when you fight at large_city level settlements.

Could you please clarify whether it would be possible to place a tower as a part of a settlement's colissionless and ambient wall? Or could I bypass it by placing the wall underground - would placing a unit nearby still make it fire?

had hoped to test that as I'm not actually sure... but haven't had time. I think if the tower has a deployment area on/by it it will fire anyway - but not 100% sure. The main issue is normally that if the tower isn't part of a 'perimeter' set up and part of a wall system (breachable or providing ladder docking) that gives access to the interior of the perimeter, then the ai won't try and defend that area, so won't stand in right place to activate it.

@RubiconDecision - I think the same applies to your camouflaged wall idea, but it's worth a try.

[wilddog]

@leo.civil.uefs - link to your tutorial page has been added to the front page as requested. Sorry for the delay. Didn't see the request till recently.