Facts & Features

[napoleonic]

Probably force-scripted based on rough dates in most cases

with 100% chance of happening? if so, then it''s quite exactly what I dislike it, because for example with HRE you'll always have to deal with kalmar union or pole-lithuanian AI at some point of the game even after you 'controlled' the danes or poles (not allied but not at war either)

or does the AI need to meet the criteria too?

[sumskilz]

or does the AI need to meet the criteria too?

It will depend on the transition I think. The AI can't be taught to consider transitions as goals so it will depend on how important we think the transition is. In the case of the Kalmar Union, I personally don't think it's necessary for us to impose it so it would make sense for it to be force-scripted only if the AI achieves the conditions by chance. In other cases, we will probably want to force script the change (for the AI) during a particular date range so that for example we guarantee that the Mongol invasion happens. I think you can have some confidence that we’ll make things happen so that they feel like they developed organically rather than by a timeline based script.

[neha123]

just asking ... which are the factions to be allowed transitions ... plus will the flags change according to timeframe...???

[Jimmy-j]

Look at the first post of this thread
You will see them there, between the ()

[Horatius Flaccus]

About the flasgs changing: I believe that would require a faction slot per transition (which they don't have).

[Hengest]

Well Azim has found a way to do it up to three times during the game. But we still need to test so that we don't get crashes, mainly due to the script that enables them- so we don't go into a fourth flag which will cause CTD afaik

[Raied]

OMG, I will never play any other TW due to this Great Holy Mod

Just a question: what about crusader states?

[Hengest]

Good point, we tried hard to cover this but not very well I have to confess. Basically we have relegated three Crusader States to transitions or parts of other factions.

Kingdom of Jerusalem will be either an autonomy for the Euro player (not very good representation)
Or get an offer to psass it to the Papacy, where it will act more like the historical KoJ

The Ordenstaat will be represented as part of the HRE faction, mainly through a tech tree -it seems pretty good actually.

Lastly, we have the Kingdom of Cyprus which is linked to the KoJ and is usually counted as one of the Crusader States, this will be an optional transition for the Armenia faction.

We haven't included the Latin Empire, or any of the Byzantine successor states, although we discussed it at length. There just didn't seem any fair way to represent them all. If we come up with a solution in future we do have room.

KoJ and the Principality of Antioch continue to haunt us, it would have been a great addition but there just isn't room for them, and can't be realistically or nicely represented as part of another faction.

[mynameisowen]

So what if anything is being done about the 4th crusade and subsequent latin empire of Constantinople? Will a scripted horde of venetians and crusaders attack the great city? Will there be a pop-up asking a human controlled Venetian payer to take part? Will it even happen in game, I'ts one of those difficult questions of, to re-write history or to force it to be rwritten as it was...

[Resurrection]

So what if anything is being done about the 4th crusade and subsequent latin empire of Constantinople? Will a scripted horde of venetians and crusaders attack the great city? Will there be a pop-up asking a human controlled Venetian payer to take part? Will it even happen in game, I'ts one of those difficult questions of, to re-write history or to force it to be rwritten as it was...

It's hard to say. One thing which needs to be clear is that our systems and transitions are supposed to complement the gameplay in that you are developing your faction more or less along the historical lines. The problem of Russian factions and Romans are that they in fact declined during our period (they are not the only ones but we have transitions into successor states for other factions). Particularly Byzzies are one long story of decline and I doubt anyone would find it fun to constantly lose and then die after 750 turns just to mimic history. That's why we have opted not to go with transitions for Byzantines (we did manage to find a solution for Russians) successor states as they were direct product of this decline. Instead you will play one consistent Roman Empire and it's entirely up to you how it will develop. Same if the Romans are under control of the AI. There still will be consequences for losing Constantinople or what is left of Roman Anatolia but nothing as major as transition (more like losing core AORs, titles or so).

[Admiral Piett]

It's hard to say. One thing which needs to be clear is that our systems and transitions are supposed to complement the gameplay in that you are developing your faction more or less along the historical lines. The problem of Russian factions and Romans are that they in fact declined during our period (they are not the only ones but we have transitions into successor states for other factions). Particularly Byzzies are one long story of decline and I doubt anyone would find it fun to constantly lose and then die after 750 turns just to mimic history. That's why we have opted not to go with transitions for Byzantines (we did manage to find a solution for Russians) successor states as they were direct product of this decline. Instead you will play one consistent Roman Empire and it's entirely up to you how it will develop. Same if the Romans are under control of the AI. There still will be consequences for losing Constantinople or what is left of Roman Anatolia but nothing as major as transition (more like losing core AORs, titles or so).

I'm not sure if Byzantine history was one long decline, but rather in periods of contraction and expansion up until the Latin Crusade. It would be kind of cool if an Italian faction captured Constantinople and the general was crowned Emperor of the Latins or something to that regard or similarly if a rebel force captures it to the same effect.

[Resurrection]

Considering our timeframe (1080-1453) my point is quite valid. In our period Byzzies had seen only temporary regaining of lost lands including Constantinople and even according to you most of the timeframe covers their steady decline.

As for the Latin Emperor title it is likely to be in. Faction ruler title are made available for almost all factions with some notable exceptions (like Egypt not being able to gain titles of Christian Kings and vice versa).

[Raied]

Thanks for reply Hross, I wish at least KOJ will be presented in a good way some how. Wish you all the best.

[Basil 11]

I personally think that the Crusader states should definitely be owned by the Papacy as opposed to the parent faction partly because the Papacy cannot really do much else throughout the game - it will make their faction slot a lot more worthwhile!

[Hengest]

I agree with Resurrection.
If you see transitions as basically 'unlocks'- giving new buildings, titles, units etc- then the Byzantine successor states give us a problem since the options were really more limited than increased.
In the case of Armenia, we have given a 'get-out' clause, since they are such a small faction and are very likely to be crushed in Cilicia by any of the larger factions. So we allowed Armenia the Kingdom of Cyprus although in gameplay it represents a decline/contraction. But this is pretty much the only case where we did this, and it toook some debate from my part to convince the team to do it!
As Resurrection says, the natural consequences in-game of losing ground will create fairly historical situations for the Byzantines, limits in titles and units etc. The other thing you have to consider is that if Byzantium loses Constantinople it tends to be due to the Rum Turks moving west (in a typical M2TW game), but the successor states were mainly in Anatolia.

[mynameisowen]

I agree with future film maker and resurrection in that they went through many expansions and contractions. They regained a lot of land under the Komnemoi then lost it all (including Constantinople) under the Angeloi.

However, I doubt any human player would be such a poor ruler as to do the same, and in most cases when humans play as the Romans they just get bigger and bigger (which is obviously unrealistic). It's difficult because the main factor that attributed to Roman decline was that all their power was centred on their emperor, when he was good they prospered, when he was crap they flopped... However human players tend to be pretty unrealistically good emperors UNLESS enough challenging stuff is scripted into the game.

Uprising's are one thing, loosing AoR (which well represents the thematic structure of Roman armies) is a very good idea and historically accurate. A factor that IIRC cant be reconstructed though are the complex dynastic struggles and in-fighting the precedes anyone being crowned emperor. So how will the Romans be limited? Not so that they decline and eventually die, but so that they survive but are crucially challenging to play as.

[Hengest]

We have thought about dynastic competition within a faction, so we plan to implement dynastic traits that effect loyalty etc. However these are unlikely to get into the beta, but I'm working on it. We are in desperate need of more traits coders

[mynameisowen]

We have thought about dynastic competition within a faction, so we plan to implement dynastic traits that effect loyalty etc. However these are unlikely to get into the beta, but I'm working on it. We are in desperate need of more traits coders

Great news

I wish I could help, but I have no life atm as it is =/

[Hengest]

Heh, join the club mate

[Lord Minotaur]

will lithuania have historical family?