Stainless Steel 6.3 & 6.4 Suggestions

[danielrech]

In another well-known MOD they have made a script that lifts the FOW during the AI's turn, and it supposedly helps the CAI.

Has anyone tried experimenting with anything similar in SS?

[Ishan]

In another well-known MOD they have made a script that lifts the FOW during the AI's turn, and it supposedly helps the CAI.

That would be DLV and it's useless feature a semi cheat i would say not useful unless it does affects the CAI which i seriously doubt.

[Ferdiad]

That would be DLV and it's useless feature a semi cheat i would say not useful unless it does affects the CAI which i seriously doubt.

If it can see the enemys units and cities it would change it's strategy to account for that?

[Makrell]

nonono
it makes it so that the AI has no fog of war and can see all of your units, not the other way around

[Ferdiad]

nonono
it makes it so that the AI has no fog of war and can see all of your units, not the other way around

So the Ai can only see the player?Thats kinda pointless.

[TwinBird]

So the Ai can only see the player?Thats kinda pointless.

I've always assumed that happens, so i always play with fow off. They see me, i see them, were square.

[danielrech]

That's the point, we all know that the AI path-finding is worse than a headless cockroach. IF (and only if) it is helped by disabling the FOW only during its turn and then the script enables it again at the start of the player's turn, it might improve the CAI.

Maybe there would be less AI stacks going back and forth, stuck in loops. Maybe the AI would not waste movement points with its agents and stacks because of an enemy stack it did not see before. I just don't know how to properly test if it works indeed.

Personally, I always play with FOW on, since it gives the AI more chances to surprise me.

[bojan811]

maby in next patch byz should not be in possession of sett in south italy. I see that some people had the same problem as I.
Papa is vassal of byz and when i attack the byz as guenova my relations with pope are degrading and i can not make them to break the aliance because in the dipl screen in option attack a faction papaci do not have a byz so it is somethig to thik about no.

[Ferdiad]

maby in next patch byz should not be in possession of sett in south italy. I see that some people had the same problem as I.
Papa is vassal of byz and when i attack the byz as guenova my relations with pope are degrading and i can not make them to break the aliance because in the dipl screen in option attack a faction papaci do not have a byz so it is somethig to thik about no.

They dont own southern Italy ay the start.Alas the rest of your post is illedgable.

[bojan811]

sorry i was writing via mob.
I meant that now when the papal stataes are vassals of byzanitnes now when am in war with byz i lose favor with the Pope.
And ther is nothing i can do.
ok

[Ferdiad]

sorry i was writing via mob.
I meant that now when the papal stataes are vassals of byzanitnes now when am in war with byz i lose favor with the Pope.
And ther is nothing i can do.
ok

Its k. Try giving the Pope lots of money and try to get an alliance, that always seems to work.

[bojan811]

I tried that but when i attack byzan. they break the alliance with me.

[Pyru]

sorry i was writing via mob.
I meant that now when the papal stataes are vassals of byzanitnes now when am in war with byz i lose favor with the Pope.
And ther is nothing i can do.
ok

The vassal country should actually declare war on you immediately, since that is the point of having a vassal. But SS missed realism on this one. A vassal is more than an ally, it's a state under your protection but also under your power, their efforts, enemies, friends should be the same as yours. The difference should have been made in the game also - when you attack a state, his vassals respond with war, his allies respond with honoring the alliance(war also) or breaking it in shame and distrust. This was the REAL way and should make the game a lot better if installed on an update.

Since I am here....

I am an historian (yes, quite good one I like to say ^^, it's a job like any other and you can actually make a nice living of it) and a gamer (since the 90's) and the TW series are a thrill to play, even with only some historical truth in them. But if on the world map the historical truth is not much of a deal, because your goal is to alter history to your state's benefit, on the battle map i find unfortunately some disappointment. I wish to share some fact that would definitely add realism to the way the battles went, even if I do not know if any of the developers actually reads this. Seen the "Suggestions" title but most of the recent posts are off topic or flaming.
Here goes nothing :
- for those that I saw arguing about cavalry charges being to strong : no army's first line EVER resisted to heavy cavalry charges except PIKE formations and even these with heavy losses (Alexander the Great, Swiss Royal Pike&Halberd). A hit from a horse's full charge can kill or knock a man unconscious and do the same for the next 3-4 rows of infantry before being halted. Fully armored horses, Cataphract-like could even go further, and separate entire armies in one charge (that's going through 50 lines of infantry using triangle "wedge"). Adding long spears and lances (even javelin throw) to a heavy cavalry horse's charge made it the most terrifying and deadliest anti-infantry tactic.
There was a drawback, horses knew when sharp objects were pointed at them and running into them was more painful than spikes on the rider's heals. Heavy cavalry horses were trained for the charge and their eyesight was also blocked by metal visors so that they could only see 15-20 feet in front when charging.
History has record of charges failing because of horses seeing the wall of shining spikes, spears or bayonets pointed at them. Horses like all herding animals move in high numbers at high speeds without trampling each other, reading body/movement language of the individuals next to them. You stop the first row, they all stop.
Light cavalry on the other hand war rarely used for charges, even if their weaponry and training was the same as the heavy cavalry. The fact that their horses&riders lacked heavy armor made them faster but unreliable for a charge or fight against trained troops. They were just as important though, as a screening, reconnaissance force, raiding poorly defended objectives (villages, militia outposts) and during battles they were going after archers, weak infantry, missile cavalry and the supplies carts (also siege weapons and town square in the game). After the battle they'd hunt down retreating forces. They are a little overpowered in the game, regarding the charge, even against well organized spear units.
SUGGESTION : Leave heavy cavalry as it but lower just a little the light infantry's charging power.

- Siege units : They were the so-called "war machines". No well defended town/fort was attackable without them. Catapults, onagers, mangonels (same working principle) and especially trebuchets were effective in countering enemy defenses. The fact that the projectiles were not so fast buy relied more on weight or incendiary capabilities made them not so practical against troops, as they could just move away. Heavy war machines (large catapults, trebuchets) were extremely expensive to make and very expensive to maintain. They constantly needed repairs, ammo of specific weight and size, special ammo for incendiary, well trained workers for assembling and dismantling, engineers for running them during battles. They were however highly accurate machines, who's price was well covered by their capabilities.
Ballistas and their kind were used as antipersonnel war-machines. Fast projectiles were fired accurately and in rapid succession with devastating power against tight formations. Against building they were rather useless ( SS made it better than vanilla, removing the vs building damage).
SUGGESTIONS : In SS trebuchets and catapults are no more than wooden toys, being horrible at hitting targets or dealing damage even to a wooden wall. A byzantine trebuchet defending Constantinople could fire 500-800kg stones (1100-1700 pounds). Ingame they look like they are throwing cows only !!! The range of a trebuchet was over 3 times that of a catapult-type machine, yet in game they are almost equal. The accuracy was good enough to hit a tower or a wall almost every time. Catapults had shorter range and about the same accuracy, but the projectiles were way lighter. The catapults in game are mid-sized and should use projectiles up to 50 kg (110 lbs) in weight.
Conclusion for a realistic game :
Trebuchet - 2x range of catapult(vanilla was ok), 3x damage of catapult, high recruit price (maybe 2500), high upkeep (close to 1000), damage increased(vanilla was ok), accuracy heavily increased against buildings (vanilla was ok), same low accuracy on troops, ammo heavily decreased(SS and vanilla got way to much-10 to 12 would do).
Catapult - lower range(vanilla was ok), damage unchanged, higher recruit price (1500 or so), higher upkeep (close to 700), increased accuracy against buildings(vanilla was ok), same low accuracy on troops, ammo decreased (20 or so)
Mangonel - lower range a little so they can just beat that of a catapult (maybe x1.2), damage unchanged, recruit price and upkeep same/close to catapult, increased accuracy on troops and buildings, same ammo.
Ballista - only increase in accuracy(vanilla was ok).
Final thought : right now, in 6.4 siege machines act like useless huge wooden toys maneuvered by mentally retarded folk who couldn't aim at the ground with a sack of cement. They are a waste of an army's unit slot and a joke to play with/against. They are as cheap and hard to maintain as a one-horsed trade cart.

I have a lot of other remarks to make this game closer to the way medieval warfare was like but this is my first post, hopefully not my last like this, and I figure I shouldn't waste time writing all the "far from realistic stuff in the game" since no developer is reading this 40-50'ish page. I just got carried away and had like an hour to burn.

Also if anyone can help me set these things on my own (change how factions react when you attack their allies or vassals, change the unit ratings for damage, charge bonus, accuracy, range, ammo, price, upkeep), please let me know how, I can do it on my own game for a more realistic warfare.

Thanks !

[Point Blank]

Hi Pyru,

Welcome to the SS boards I'm somewhat responsible (in a good or bad way!) for developing the combat/stats/unit costs etc used by SS, though 6.4 uses a slightly old version, the lastest in-game version is used by the RR/RC (Real Recruitment/Real Combat) mod in the submods forum.

I'm glad to hear your comments on the effectiveness of heavy cavalry charges, I strongly agree. This is a discussion that is repeated over and over in pretty much every Rome and Medieval mod.

Regarding siege machines, we are somewhat limited by the size of the battlemaps regarding ranges (relative to other machines) - the same applies to missile weapons - giving them more realistic ranges would mean armies starting well within range of each other in most cases.

I'll see if I can change some siege engine stats in line with your suggestions, though the trebuchets in the game are on the small side and can get moved around the battlemap. I'd also be interested in that case in comments you might have on bombards vs buildings etc.

I'd definitely be interested in further comments you might have, as I said the way we are constrained by the game engine is sometimes a significant factor (eg cavalry can simply withdraw and charge again endlessly, lances are not broken etc).

Most unit stats are found in data/export_descr_units, descr_mounts, descr_projectile. Diplomacy etc and campaign AI is mostly in descr_campaign_ai_db and descr_diplomacy.

I've attached the files for the next version of Real Combat below, which will be released soon, including the guide (WIP) which shows the basis on which most stats are generated, comments welcome.

Cheers,
PB

[petertel123]

don't know if it's a bug but enemy generals always seem to have more than 7 loyalty mostly 9 or 10
perhaps something to look into?

[Pyru]

Hi Pyru,

Welcome to the SS boards I'm somewhat responsible (in a good or bad way!) for developing the combat/stats/unit costs etc used by SS, though 6.4 uses a slightly old version, the lastest in-game version is used by the RR/RC (Real Recruitment/Real Combat) mod in the submods forum.

I'm glad to hear your comments on the effectiveness of heavy cavalry charges, I strongly agree. This is a discussion that is repeated over and over in pretty much every Rome and Medieval mod.

Regarding siege machines, we are somewhat limited by the size of the battlemaps regarding ranges (relative to other machines) - the same applies to missile weapons - giving them more realistic ranges would mean armies starting well within range of each other in most cases.

I'll see if I can change some siege engine stats in line with your suggestions, though the trebuchets in the game are on the small side and can get moved around the battlemap. I'd also be interested in that case in comments you might have on bombards vs buildings etc.

I'd definitely be interested in further comments you might have, as I said the way we are constrained by the game engine is sometimes a significant factor (eg cavalry can simply withdraw and charge again endlessly, lances are not broken etc).

Most unit stats are found in data/export_descr_units, descr_mounts, descr_projectile. Diplomacy etc and campaign AI is mostly in descr_campaign_ai_db and descr_diplomacy.

I've attached the files for the next version of Real Combat below, which will be released soon, including the guide (WIP) which shows the basis on which most stats are generated, comments welcome.

Cheers,
PB

Hi Point Blank,

First of all the battle maps are big enough, I was comparing the siege weapons between them (real range and real use in real medieval times, the range in SS is TO BIG for some of them) not to the size of the map. Second, heavy cavalry, especially knight and high ranked citizens had shield bearer, stewards, servants, bellboys, acolytes, call them as you like, even on the battlefield. So losing his lance in some poor infantry's chest was sometimes just another reason to curse, because now he has to make a short way back to his flag holder, where his servants await, and get a recently cleaned and sharpened lance, or spear,or maybe the battle is going so great for his side he has no reason to return. Many knights treated battles like a popular kid going to "The Prom". To show off, to be seen there and remembered as part of it, to make his way through "regulars", since compared to them they were tanks. The only danger for a knight on the battlefield was another knight, since war horses were really expensive, heavy advanced armor even more, and a thrust of a sword or spear, if not perfectly aimed in the very few weak spots, would only attract his attention .... and the knight-killer crossbow was to big, heavy and hard to use or reload to be carried by infantry in close battle.

I started editing my siege units stats and factions AI regarding diplomacy and it's going great. The catapult was badly written, it had a range superior to the trebuchet (I think 300 to 280). Made trebuchet 280 range and catapult 220, reduced their shots and increased their accuracy (0.027 on catapult and 0.033 on trebuchet on buildings and both have 0.04 on units, up form 0.08 where they made NO SUCCESSFUL hits) and damage(about triple). Now I had only a few shots to use, so planning where to hit walls/towers became more entertaining. I am sure you made a little mistake considering projectiles from the siege machines. They have the same accuracy as arrows and bolts but think about it, arrows fly 100 at a time and rarely hit a target unit at maximum range, unit's visual size (say 100 infantry in a square) larger than that of a tower even in packed formation and siege projectiles fly 2-4 at a time towards a smaller target(tower) so...never hit. The damage was not helping either, the trebuchet was doing 6-7% damage on a wooden wall... a 100kg stone traveling at 90-100 km/h? That's about 300.000 N on the area that a 100kg stone would hit = wall turned to scrap even in just 1 hit. However the damage dealt with fire projectile was about 4-5%, and that's ok, the projectile being mostly flammable stuff wrapped around a smaller stone or a big jar of oil. Basically : stone - 25 % , fire - 5% on the 2'nd tier wooden wall (not the palisade), but with reduced ammo (10) stone walls/towers become a tactical challenge, unless you have 4-5 trebuchets. This I countered with recruit price 2700 and upkeep 1250. In medieval times though, the trebuchet/catapult was just as powerful defensive weapon, shooting down siege towers or other siege machines with ease, forcing enemies to use ladders or hooks, in the range of arrows and boiling oil. This is why i also made them "militia like", their upkeep is free where they are produced. Once they are on the move, 1250/1000 upkeep. Mangonel's new 700 upkeep also supported by settlement where it can be produced, ballista's unchanged 150 upkeep not supported.
Made city towers hit accurately because I was repeatedly charging gaps in walls defended by at least 2 active ballista towers with no losses in spread formation(and my infantrymen were not all named Neo or Morpheus).

Regarding diplomacy I made alliance member react properly to attack on his ally or vassal of his ally. Don't know how to make them lose the alliance and a lot of reputation if they cower.

Turned some civilization's "secrets" into clearer battle advantages (Greek fire, spinning arrow tip, superior sharpening technique, superior smelting&blacksmithing, secret ingredient added to gun powder). Not all had the same quality Man-at-Arms or Feudal Knights, some had better armories, some better sharpening tech, some had nation tradition in a certain weapon of fighting style and some had a "pimped" gun powder or taller horses.

That's about all I could do & think in the after work hours I had today and I couldn't have done it without a "beginner's guide" from St.Polycarpe. Thanks man !
Point Blank, thank you also, I will take a look intro the bombards/cannons issue, maybe I can come up with something...

HaveANiceDay !!!

[Polycarpe]

It seems I'm not that bad in Middle Age's accuracy .

It seems I'm not that bad in Middle Age's accuracy but I mostly agreed with Pyru about siege weapons mostly, what's the use in fact in SS

[RollingWave]

Hi Point Blank,

First of all the battle maps are big enough, I was comparing the siege weapons between them (real range and real use in real medieval times, the range in SS is TO BIG for some of them) not to the size of the map. Second, heavy cavalry, especially knight and high ranked citizens had shield bearer, stewards, servants, bellboys, acolytes, call them as you like, even on the battlefield. So losing his lance in some poor infantry's chest was sometimes just another reason to curse, because now he has to make a short way back to his flag holder, where his servants await, and get a recently cleaned and sharpened lance, or spear,or maybe the battle is going so great for his side he has no reason to return. Many knights treated battles like a popular kid going to "The Prom". To show off, to be seen there and remembered as part of it, to make his way through "regulars", since compared to them they were tanks. The only danger for a knight on the battlefield was another knight, since war horses were really expensive, heavy advanced armor even more, and a thrust of a sword or spear, if not perfectly aimed in the very few weak spots, would only attract his attention .... and the knight-killer crossbow was to big, heavy and hard to use or reload to be carried by infantry in close battle.

From what I've read, isn't this mostly true only from the later 13th C onward? and also only mostly true when the battle were short ranged campaigns (aka fighting with your next door neighbors)? The Knights in the various Crusades certainly didn't appear to have that sort of luxury, and the casualties taken by Knights in the major national scale battles were often quite horrific even after plate armor began to start showing up.

Some examples I can think of where knights took horrific casualties were Alacros (1195) Legnano (1176) Adrianople (1205) Dyrrhachium (1085) etc...

Even some later battles had knights taking horrific casualties, and it's not just the hundred years war, for example the Portugese Knights that attempted to fight back the first relief army of the Marinids in the battle of Tangier in 1438 were soundly beaten and took very heavy casaulties (they were horriblly outnumbered but stilll), and then of course the more famous example of the battle of Ksar El Kebir where the Portugese King himself, undoubtablly in fully plate armor, lead a charge and was never seen again (along with just about the every single major portugese noblemen), an event that nearly caused the end of the existence of the Portugese statehood.

[Point Blank]

Hi Pyru,

I'd agree with RW that 'the gloves were off' regarding knightly casualties on many occasions, especially when confronting opponents who didn't play by the same rules (eg Mongols).

I like your siege engine changes, its definitely an area that has received less attention than it deserves.

Some of the aspects you mention such as blacksmithing/metallurgy advantages, taller horses, gunpowder introduction dates are in already, but its always good to have more of this kind of 'flavor'. Send through any ideas you may have.

Cheers,
PB

[Pyru]

From what I've read, isn't this mostly true only from the later 13th C onward? and also only mostly true when the battle were short ranged campaigns (aka fighting with your next door neighbors)? The Knights in the various Crusades certainly didn't appear to have that sort of luxury, and the casualties taken by Knights in the major national scale battles were often quite horrific even after plate armor began to start showing up.

Some examples I can think of where knights took horrific casualties were Alacros (1195) Legnano (1176) Adrianople (1205) Dyrrhachium (1085) etc...

Even some later battles had knights taking horrific casualties, and it's not just the hundred years war, for example the Portugese Knights that attempted to fight back the first relief army of the Marinids in the battle of Tangier in 1438 were soundly beaten and took very heavy casaulties (they were horriblly outnumbered but stilll), and then of course the more famous example of the battle of Ksar El Kebir where the Portugese King himself, undoubtablly in fully plate armor, lead a charge and was never seen again (along with just about the every single major portugese noblemen), an event that nearly caused the end of the existence of the Portugese statehood.

Hi !

You may have a point but...maybe half true at most. Knighthood was a relatively rare practice until their use proved to be most important by Frankish kings. "Knights" were already existing in the Byzantine army, but had different names, according to their social status. Western Europe copied the Eastern's heavy cavalry, but the idea of "social superiority" was not entirely necessary. So, even if the first knights were from the upper class, the need for heavy cavalry forced in Western Europe the mixing of the social status with the cavalier style of battle. "Knight" means servant, cavalier - warrior or mount. The social background of knights was after 10th century just in the way of building great armies, so even if there were TRUE KNIGHTS, that had castles, titles, vast lands and legendary family names, most of them came from the middle-to-rich class, servants of lords or just lived in the king's castle's a his always-ready knight force.

There was basically no other heavy cavalry in the West but the knights. Their strength was so well known that the name of "knight" became synonym with "great warrior, empowered by the king". Fighting as top warriors in the kings armies made them his messengers so a code of honor was needed - the Chivalry way of knighthood. A king could have tens of thousands of knights, but not all of them were "chivalry" followers. Those that were had exceptional manners, participated in politics, king's counseling and protocol duties. The others were well payed, well armed, well respected, trustful heavy cavalry.

What I was referring to in my other post was the knight as lord not only as warrior servant, or as you would find in the game, Chivalric Knights/Feudal Knights/Noble Knights/Imperial compared to Mailed Knights and specialized knights(like Lancers or Gothic Knights). The 15'th century warfare made them obsolete, and they became just an inspiring figure on the battlefield. The game does have A LOT of heavy cavalry with many names but historically, there were knights and there was light infantry.

About Alacros, the knights there had no option but to fight to the death, there was no battle, it was a Jihad led by the unbeaten el-Mansur against them, the almohad alliance wouldn't have stopped 'till they were exterminated.

Legnano - another display of Barbarossa's overconfidence in German heavy cavalry and wanting to travel fast into Italy, his knights, supported by a small infantry force, were stolen the victory by being attacked from the back&surrounded by light cavalry that arrived from Brescia. Another "no way to run" for most of the knights, even Barbarossa's escape was a miracle, since all his staff and bodyguards had been killed.

Adrianople - again, overconfident, overzealous French knights decided to run down their attackers, horse masters Cumans, and fell into a trap, surrounded, outnumbered and with no way to make a quick getaway even on horseback. The Cumans were just faster.

Dyrrhachium (Durazzo in game) - Norman Knights, best heavy cavalry in Europe at the time, strongest force in Robert Guiscard's army (Sicilian unit in game) made a reckless charge on Byzantine highly experienced Varangians in an attempt to deprive the Byzantine general of his most powerful unit. They failed obviously and got hacked into pieces. The Norman army eventually won because the rest of the charges, directed at the rest of the Byzantines, even if made by light cavalry met little opposition. It's considered the FIRST battle to show the real power of a charging cavalry(the one that did not attack the Varangians obviously) and the first to show that if not well timed&directed, against hardened soldiers like the Varangians, it's an absolute fail.
Final word: western knights were respected and were distinctive on the battlefield, often arrogant and way to overconfident, but they did their job almost every time. The "chivalric touched" also chose to die next to the king than flee a clear defeat. They were not all worthy of being called knights, many were knighted by other knights with titles (like the Knight Orders) and worked as noble knight's guards or entourage. This is why they were in thousands or tens of thousands even, even if only hundreds were landlords or noble.

Todays "knights" spit on what the medieval ones represented. Elton John - a Knight of England. Bet his amour has no protection at the rear and he uses a round-tip metal mace to attack (himself).