Experimental realistic victory condition

[Rob of the Julii]

Hi all

One of the things which has annoyed me about the recent TW games is how the AI factions go out to paint the map in their colour and exterminate everyone else. This has spoiled a lot of campaigns for me because I value both historical accuracy and a balanced campaign where factions struggle to gain advantage over their rivals. I hope to fix this in my SS 6.3 by changing the descr_win_conditions folder so that the AI factions aim to take a relatively small number of targeted provinces that are historically realistic, instead of conquering anything that moves .

So far what I've done is edit the hold_regions line so it's more realistic (eg Scotland simply has to hold it's starting settlements rather than conquer the whole UK, the Italian factions look more to the islands in the med to establish trading empire rather than fighting on the continent). I've also eliminated all of the 'outlive' lines, apart from a few exceptions, with the aim of stopping the AI factions going into wars of annihilation.

I'm also considering changing the take_regions line, either by bumping it up to 130, or putting it very low. I know this would result in the AI winning very quickly in a lot of cases, but you can always choose to play on and hopefully the AI will stop there. What would you guys reccommend? Would upping it to 130 make the factions chill out a bit?

After I've done everything and if it works I'll up the file on here

[Medkirtys]

Personally, i enjoy apocalypses, it mean AI is working, not broken

[newt]

The ai's behavior has more to do with the ai files. What you changed will have no effect on that.

[Praefectus praetorio]

You could use the cheats to stop AI expansion but it requires some extra work during game. Toggle_fow to remove fow, move_character to move AI armies, add_money to remove/add money to AI factions. Use diplomacy to buy settlements that have been conquered by other faction and then give them back to the original owner. I have saved HRE and many other faction from destruction by these methods.

[ninja51]

The total war games arent necissarily supposed to be the pinicle of historical accuracy. They are more of an alternate history, you have the tools of a faction that is usually at least historicly accurate in size from the start, then you can go wild. Its more of a tool to spark interest in history, give you some details about units, buildings, faction, ect... Then you can go out and reaserch futhur into things. Personally, I feel that if the AI didnt actually try and sucessfully expand even where they historicly didnt its not only cheap, seeing as you the player can and will, but also not as fun. Its entertaining to see England has made successful attacks on France and is beating them back. Its fun to see Scotland rising up and actually having some success against the English. The only problem I find with it is usually the same factions are the ones who win or lose out, IE the Turks rarely actually even holding back the Roman Empire. Crusader States being crushed back to holding one or two provinces with a ton of spear units and other crappy troops. Moors apsoultly crushing through Europe, stuff like that. The only thing I would suggest is making things more balenced, that may even fix your problem of factions seriously expanding. I like I said, love to see factions break history and start winning out, I just dont like to see it when its the same faction all the time

[Sanderlicious]

The total war games arent necissarily supposed to be the pinicle of historical accuracy. They are more of an alternate history, you have the tools of a faction that is usually at least historicly accurate in size from the start, then you can go wild....

THANK YOU!

As much as I like history, there are some modifications in SS 6.3 that already hinder this sort of "alternate history" that the player is obviously trying to create, so I don't see the need to limit the AI so much.

But best of luck to you if you want it in your game.

[Smokey Bacon]

"there are some modifications in SS 6.3 that already hinder this sort of "alternate history"

such as?

[Sanderlicious]

"there are some modifications in SS 6.3 that already hinder this sort of "alternate history"

such as?

One example being that certain units are only recruit-able in Constantinople whilst playing Byzantium. Does it not make at least some sense that these units could become recruit able in other major cities within a mythical new Roman Empire? At some point, historical accuracy in that regard becomes irrelevant.

[Paladin94610]

One example being that certain units are only recruit-able in Constantinople whilst playing Byzantium. Does it not make at least some sense that these units could become recruit able in other major cities within a mythical new Roman Empire? At some point, historical accuracy in that regard becomes irrelevant.

We can make it possible by adding the hidden resource "Constantinople" in Thessalonica, Athens, Nicaea, Caesarea, Antioch, Rome, Frankfurt, Paris, Arhus, Zaragoza, Palermo, Alexandria etc.

[ninja51]

One example being that certain units are only recruit-able in Constantinople whilst playing Byzantium. Does it not make at least some sense that these units could become recruit able in other major cities within a mythical new Roman Empire? At some point, historical accuracy in that regard becomes irrelevant.

I concur with that. When I make a mighty empire dominating the northern world as Poland thanks to in a great part my one mighty faction leader, I want that guy to be emporer not someone the nobles elect and have the power to remove. I understand alot of it is to have historical accuracy more in the beginning and the limitations of the engine are a problem, but hey, I can dream. I love me some good 'ol historical accuracy, but I liked Kingdom of Heaven's version of that bit of time more than history's. Kingdom of Heaven made me take interest in the period and research alot, thats what the Total War series does. If any restrictions or influence were put in place to follow what a faction historicly did then whats the point? Read history then. I agree with this guy in that once you change history, which in principle the Total War series prides yourself in taking control of a group and doing just that, then bam, historical accuracy is thrown out the window and once I completely crush Sicily and beat back the Turks, while making huge forays into Europe and the Baltic regions, the idea that the Romans are still using ancient tactics, poorer armour, no gunpowder units, all that jazz, is just silly. But I dont mean to sound angry or upset or anything, I love the total war series, love historical accuracy in most things and at the start of campaigns, love the balence my faction being great at the start but worse at the end adds, just saying it doesnt make any sense

[sbroadbent]

It's threads like this which make me (and undoubtedly many) wish CA had retained the Glorious Achievements mode from Medieval 1. A game mode where factions score points based on various factors like territory held, among other things, and then after the predefined period, the faction with the most points wins.

[Gorrrrrn]

Re O/P - it's an interesting approach.
the game is designed to make factions go out and conquer if they can.
there are some ways you can slow things down and a thorough dismantling and rebuild of the CAI files might cause different behaviour.

one can simulate the glorious achievements in a campaign script - one can set up counters for each faction, award points every time they build certain buildings etc.
ultimately the only goal is to survive - and with some factions that's getting to be really difficult with some Mods (incl RozMod!)
(I just got destroyed as Portugal in 30 turns!)

[sbroadbent]

one can simulate the glorious achievements in a campaign script - one can set up counters for each faction, award points every time they build certain buildings etc.
ultimately the only goal is to survive - and with some factions that's getting to be really difficult with some Mods (incl RozMod!)
(I just got destroyed as Portugal in 30 turns!)

How complicated would it be to implement it through scripts, and would it cause an increase in the end turn length which people often complain about?

Would be interesting to completely drop the forced expansionistic victory conditions.

[bɑne]

How complicated would it be to implement it through scripts, and would it cause an increase in the end turn length which people often complain about?

It would. Checks that run every turn automatically increase end turn lenght. The longer the campaign script gets the more the game has to parse on every end turn.

[Gorrrrrn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbroadbent
How complicated would it be to implement it through scripts, and would it cause an increase in the end turn length which people often complain about?

from bane_tw:
It would. Checks that run every turn automatically increase end turn lenght. The longer the campaign script gets the more the game has to parse on every end turn.

a lot depends on precisely what you are trying to do.
For example one could restrict it to human player (as the AI not is programmed to deal with it)
if you want an educational glorious achievement you could
simply increment a counter every time the human player completes a university building.
complete 5 of you get a glorious education achievement.

you could even use that achievement to unlock a building or units in the EDB.

(perhaps build 3 advanced iron mines to unlock steel plate armour or some such.)

Once the human player unlocks it it is available to all factions, but the human player gets a sense of achievement from doing so
and can decide what priorities to set - educational, religious, technological etc.

amount of code required is probably minimal and as it only concerns the human player wouldn't increase end turn times.

[newt]

That kind of goes against his original point that he wants the ai to chill out.