Which Scripts and Why?

[Taiji]

I need some info on what scripts people use and why.

Please state DLV or history campaign.


Campaign Type: 'DLV' or 'History'


1 AI Garrison



2 AI money



3 Settlement Costs



4 Field Costs



5 Recruit Restriction



6 Points System



7 General needed for cavalry



8 Faction standings


9 AI playstyle

Please just state what you choose and why, thankyou (+rep for answers)

[Coeur de Lion]

Most often play historical campaign, just find it stupid starting with just London...plus, I prefer the 12th century armies to simple spearmen and peasant bowmen.

1. Yes
I like the idea that the townspeople are equipped to defend their city...militia is relatively weak but it means that the player must prepare well for a campaign involving a seige...it prevents complete steam-rolling of factions and encourages planning for long campaigns.

I would like to see the feature extended to AI vs. AI battles if possible.

2. Yes
They just need it....lots and lots of it

3. Yes
I don't know why, to make it a little harder to raise money...it makes sense that cities would cost the crown money, not to mention the region as a whole.

4. Yes
There were more costs than simply paying the men whilst on campaign, this reflects everything from gathering intelligence to buying stores from the local populace.

5. No
There are already enough restrictions on what can be recruited when and where.

6. ..

7. Yes
The feudal system of the time period meant that knights would be asked to fight for their lord and by noone else. Foot soldiers are somewhat similar, however a completely character-based recruitment system would not be workable.
The ranks do need to be extended to the royal family though as the king and prince are incapable of recruiting knights which is just plain silly.

8. Yes
Greater realism, particularly in the historical campaign.

9. Undecided
I have been trying both to see how they affect the game, at the moment I am preferring the Total War option (so Yes) as it is more historically accurate.

[_Tartaros_]

1 AI Garrison - YES (AI is stupid + local levy support)

2 AI money - No (they don´t need it)

3 Settlement Costs - YES (i like this, this is totally realistic, every city needs to be repaired or refreshed and this costs money)

4 Field Costs - YES (i like this too, war is expensive)

5 Recruit Restriction - YES (make sence to me, adds realism)

6 Points System - YES (i like this idea)

7 General needed for cavalry - YES (i like roleplay - so a higher noble could teach there knappen)

8 Faction standings - YES (standard dlv) - i don´t know why, maybe because i don´t like "normal"

9 AI playstyle - mostly NO total war - i like playing turtle

i use it for all my vh/vh campaigns: historical and standard dlv

hahaha I note I forgot the points system

me too - haha

[Agis Tournas]

IMPERIAL CAMPAIGN
1. AI Garrison - YES (the AI won't have many units in a settlement, which is unrealistic)
2. AI money - YES (I feel that the AI needs the extra money)
3. Settlement Costs - YES (I like it - adds realism)
4. Field Costs - YES (I like it - adds realism)
5. Recruit Restriction - YES (it makes sense - more difficult)
6. Points System - YES (very nice feature - extra goals for the player)
7. General needed for cavalry - YES (it makes sense - more difficult)
8. Faction standings - YES (standard DLV)
9. AI playstyle - NO total war (I like to be the... sleeping giant)

[Taiji]

Announcement from the OP:

hahaha I note I forgot the points system

I have inserted it in the correct place (they are in the order that the questions appear) and adjusted everyone's responses. Please fill in '6', thanks

If anyone somehow feels violated that I edited their post, then I prostrate myself before you and beg your forgiveness, I was only trying to minimise the effect my mistake would have on your post. Given the circumstances I don't see how it can be considered offensive, but please let me know if I have offended you in any way by editing your post. So I can apologise properly, thankyou.

[Kjertesvein]

Campaign Type: 'DLV' or 'History'

It's actually Imperial Campaign Vs. Historical Campaign. I personally prefere Historical campaign, since I like to be dropped right in the turmoil, rather then shape the world around me to my likling.

1 AI Garrison

This script is mandatory. Without it, I would be facing acouple of militias and generals.

2 AI money

The same, and the same reason. Without this bailout package, my opponent would vapourize and the field would be way to easy to conquer. A strong A.I. must have this script to survive. The option of a even better support system would be even better. *dreams*

3 Settlement Costs

Not mandatory, but I love the concept of expanding may be a negative part. It gives you the doubts - "Should I expand here, or fortify it with troops from far away, hmmm... ".

4 Field Costs

Unless I play an RPG with norwegians/crusaders, this is manifest of a seasoned player. Allways.

5 Recruit Restriction

I do have a sceptic eye on this script. The reason lie behind the fact that, if you loose your army in a bribe or if you simply combine 2 damaged units, the script wont recognize it, but still have those in the count. On the other hand: If you recruit mercenarys, and loose them, then the script wont recognze the negative effect of looseing the mercenary unit in combat. This is atleast what I observed from a conversation long back, so it could be updated. IDK, but I'm sceptic until someone say other wise, ergo, I always decline it. The idà have good intentions which would make me use it if it was not for the doubt.

6 Points System

No, sorry. I heard it had some inconsistency and I would be let down if there where some technical difficultys with registrating points and my RPG would stall. Ergo, I usually decline this script.

7 General needed for cavalry

The same reason here. I hear the General need to be present in the castle for a long time, and even then, the cavalry may or may not be recruitable. Usually decline.

8 Faction standings

This is one of the more interesting scripts. If I play as Teutonic Order, then I would decline the Normal standings and make a good alliance with HRE. The other factions would fight me as normal, but HRE would stay calm as I want somewhat of an Historical predictability.
While if I play as the Byzantines or Jerusalem, I normally go for the Traditional standings, inorder for the opponent to act aggresivly on the already good position I have.

9 AI playstyle

This is also an interesting script, eventhough I usually play with the Civic style. Total War on the other hand is awsome if I want a real struggle and it can be one helluva struggle also

If anyone somehow feels violated that I edited their post, then I prostrate myself before you and beg your forgiveness, I was only trying to minimise the effect my mistake would have on your post. Given the circumstances I don't see how it can be considered offensive, but please let me know if I have offended you in any way by editing your post. So I can apologise properly, thankyou.

I'm offended on behalf already

Regards,

~Leaf, Black Leaf. Shaken, not sturd.

[Alatar98]

DLV campaign, like to start of small and build large empires


1 AI Garrison, Yes, makes sense the peasants would take arms, also assist the ai since it has a tendency to leave its city's undefended.

2 AI money Usually, The player gets bonuses from the council or pope so its only fair. Only don't use it if playing tutons, thats hard enough as is

3 Settlement Costs, yes adds realism and difficulty

4 Field Costs, yes, realism and difficulty

5 Recruit Restriction, yes, it just makes sense not to have unlimited armies.

6 Points System, yes, gives me some extra goals to strive for

7 General needed for cavalry, no find this feature annoying and usually don't have generals on the field long enough to obtain proper rank, the field cost and starvation even when in forts make it hard to leave generals on the field.

8 Faction standings, yes For every faction except tutons. It adds to realism but makes it everyone around you hate you if you are tutons.


9 AI playstyle, im a turtle and like to build up slowly.

[Klierowski]

I use all scripts exept building points becuse they are stupid for me... also i play civ style not total war;].

[TheKenoshaKid]

I've been playing mostly historical so far.

1 AI Garrison - Yes (More realistic and challenging)

2 AI money - Yes (Same as above)

3 Settlement Costs - Yes (It makes a lot of sense, it almost feels like cheating without it)

4 Field Costs - Yes (Ditto)

5 Recruit Restriction - Yes (One of my biggest problems with Vanilla was the overly massive amount of troops I could recruit later in the game. This way I actually have to be smart about battles instead of just throwing tons of cheap units at my enemy.)

6 Points System - Yes (This is probably my favorite feature of DLV so far. Again, I'd almost consider it cheating without it)

7 General needed for cavalry - No (I try to keep adoptions to a minumum, so I don't want to be penalized for not having a lot of sons/leaders)

8 Faction standings - Yes (I like it as realistic as possible, and this is essential)

9 AI playstyle - No total war (There's plenty of fighting to do at the beginning, and I like to have some time to get my forts re-captured)

[Tomik]

Hi, I am playing imperial english campaign - VH/VH. I didn't play DLV before, that is why I choosed quite strong faction.
1. Yes - more historically and also helpful for stupid AI
2. Yes - stupid AI, again...
3. Yes - very nice addition to gameplay realism
4. Yes - the same
5. Yes - though I didn't encounter any problems with this script (still have a reserve)
6. Yes - it forces you to build and fight, not just to be a sitting duck...
7. Yes - good, but it didn't hurt me much yet. I almost use my generals cavalry. Also joined some crusades (yummy crusader knights) and got 3 feudal knights from assassination mission...
8. Yes - because of historically accuracy
9. No TW - as I said, I am on my first gameplay, so didn't want to get rushed over during first turns...

I also wanted to compliment economics - inflation, money depot and so on. I do not have any financial problems at this time (full depot and many gifts to pope), but the starting was really challenging...

Good work, Taiji

[LaMuerte]

Campaign Type : DLV

1 - Yes : AI needs every help it can get to make it challenging for us
2 - Yes : I like my enemies to be strong!No fun sieging almost empty towns.
3 - Yes : Hate being über-rich . Still am , even with this option selected.
4 - Yes : I like this one very much. Once had to abbandon a siege , cause I couldn't afford it anymore , just like in some of the stories you read in history books.
5 - Yes : I can't afford to spam armies anymore. More realistic.Need to be careful when and how you use armies.
6 - Yes : Gone are the days I maxed out settlements within 50 turns . More realistic.
7 - Yes : If i may quote Coeur de Lion : 'the ranks do need to be extended to the royal family though as the king and prince are incapable of recruiting knights which is just plain silly.'
8 - No : To make each campaign more unique.
9 - No : I don't want to be rushed at the beginning of the game , especially since I'm playing a tiny faction.

As for inflation : Perhaps I'm doing it wrong , but inflation doesn't hurt me at all.. Though I read somewhere someone is thinking about making the penalties harder(Not sure who , IIRC Repman or Furin)

[Taiji]

Thankyou very much to those that responded, it helps me to understand what the options I don't like are for.

Here's mine:

DLV Campaign

1 - Yes, being able to snipe an important province from an enemy is game breaking.

2 - Yes, it helps prevent the AI going into debt, it does not make the AI produce 'big armies'.

3 - Absolute necessity, the game is balanced for it. And it combines with 4 to provide the basis for inflation, which is a script that prevents me from making the game too boring for myself by being good at the financial side.

4 - Yes, same as 3.

5 - Yes. Brilliant script, makes me think about exactly what troops I want to use. Bad decisions mean serious but manageable problems, great gameplay addition that also adds a lot of realism. ...'War Draft!'

6 - Yes. This script looks a bit clumsy and in some ways it is, but the function it provides is interesting and fun. If I am unable to advance then so are my enemies, but if I advance too fast the AI is more likely to have the funds to capitalise on it. Also periods where I am slow to advance force the AI to build every building available.

But I wouldn't be without it for the gameplay it offers or contributes to. And to be completely honest I suspect my unit balancing would ruin the game for me if it weren't for this option. I have a very diverse spread of ability amongst the units. If there is nothing like this preventing the player from blitzing to top tier troops then they only have to be good at the game to ruin it. Or new players that are slow to develop from getting really horribly destroyed.

7 - I have to admit a 'No' here. I can see the appeal for others but personally I have better things to do with my generals.

8 - Yes. Starting with neutral fs ratings is just too easy to manage. But I like La Muerte's point about replayability.

9 - No. If the AI attacks me in the first 40 turns then it isn't expanding.

[Alatar98]

for 6, instead of points have you tried time periods? say every #of turns or a year.