Facts & Features

[Hengest]

So I take it that if you control Genoa as the Communi Liberi and have Milan as your capital, Genoa rebels? Does this mean it will never be possible to conquer Genoa as Milan? Or is this only something that happens in the first few turns and after that you can conquer the other?

Well it's complicated, and we have to run tests. But the major workround is through the tech tree. We use autonomies lockdown scripts for most factions but the simple homeland, autonomy, colony categories don't apply to the Italian factions. One of the buildings in the tech tree will be 'capital' which represents the settlement being a city-state, which for your faction will make it very rich and of a very high level of recruitment etc but if it is not your faction capital the settlement with a 'capital' building will be likely to rebel since it represents a rival within your faction. lol, I can't really explain it very well but I have tried to do this in earlier previews. I might just be tired, it's 2AM here and I've been mixing wine with White Russian.

[sumskilz]

I've been mixing wine with White Russian.

You make one hell of a Caucasian, Jackie...

[napoleonic]

capitals now requires buildings? what would happen if the building get deconstructed?

[sumskilz]

capitals now requires buildings? what would happen if the building get deconstructed?

It would still function as the capital for the purposes of the vanilla engine but it would no longer function as the capital with regard to DotS features.

[betto]

Not all units will be generals, only the ones of lower nobility and upwards. Basically any unit from a class that could produce a notable leader- so even professional units and mercenaries would fall under that category. Yes they would regnerate, I haven't discussed it with the EDU coders but I think it's possible to change that, if we wanted to.

if this is possible it would be very good to cover the dummy AI that dont retrain its units especialy AOR

[RaduAlexandru]

Quote

The irony: you said "I respect you guys work" and then only criticise it. Without even backing up any of you statements? At least read the topic you posted on: Genoa is represented as: "Comuni Liberi (Free Communes: Milan, Genoa)" KoJ (non-existent at the start date!) is represented by the Papal faction, and I hope you know Salahuddin was a Syrian noble, right? And please, please, don't post your opinions as if they are facts. The thing about MedIII is just ridiculous.

REPLY

Let's start with "do I know that Salad ad-Din was Syrian". Very funny it's like saying hey Napoleon was Corsican so let's put Corsica as a faction in ETW and NTW. Very funny indeed. The short term presence of a LIMITED number of nobles from the regions of Aleppo and Damascus who gained fame and status is not reason enough to cut out other factions for these regional nobles to be represented. In the balance of things did anybody ever hear about say ... Burgundy? It is my opinion that when it came down to actual choices of factions the dev. of this mod chose mostly based on personal taste. And there is NOTHING wrong with that but please don't speak about historical accuracy. Syria might actually be very fun to play with but in my opinion it doesn't have enough merit to be included in a major mod. Now let's speak a bit about Genoa, Milan and the other Italian factions. Is Genoa really represented as it should when you placed it in the same bundle with Milan. I sort of doubt it. Forget starting positions think accurate unit rouster etc. So yes Genoa might be there but in my opinion Genoa like most Italian city states haven't been given as much importance as I would have liked (again a question of taste). History tells us quite frankly and directly that in medieval times the Italian Pen. was more or less an oasis of development and civilization and it's a mistake not to give it it's role. However the game has limitations and it's a question of personal taste. If it were me I would choose to cut as many regions as possible from africa and siberia and give more to Italy. But that's just me. Speaking about KoJ well it's one of those factions that are fun and played by most of us. Why? Because it's unique and fun. Does anybody really give a dam about historical accuracy when it comes to the teutons and koj. Not really and not really because we all love to have them to play with their unique units and starting from their unique positions. As for my opinions they are just opinions and I presented them as such. If when you read you think they are facts only then to realize these are just op. then you have a major problem .... And yes I do respect the work done by this team of modders and I will for sure play this mod when it comes out. It doesn't prevent me from expressing critical opinions and making observations. This isn't an ass kissing contest and it isn't communism so that we all bow down to the superior ideas of the one true ruler. Once this mod went public in it's dev stage it took it upon itself to be criticized by those who think that some things might have been done better. We are not all brainless monkeys who accept that the ideas of others are the absolute truth - as far as I know for myself I am still free and able to make observations and I will whenever I think I should. In short - I would have liked to see the mod be a bit more focused on unique factions like koj or the italian factions as they are ... more fun. But it's a question of taste yes. And no I still see no real reason for Syria being in the mod and if the developers actually want some feedback they might consider providing an alternative to Syria ... either a new Italian faction or another faction and then see what people would like to see....

_______________________
A question - will there be a population based recruitment limitation system? I think one based on the actual pop. of the settlement of the region would actually be great. And speaking on this issue is there any chance we could see realistic populations for cities like Constantinople or Baghdad? Is there any way in which repression and discontent could be represented in another manner so as to allow for huge populations?

And one idea [out of many ]. Would it be possible to link the cost of infrastructure buildings [let's say something as sewers] dependent on the population of the towns? And would it be possible to have a system of levels for such infrastructure to allow upgrades as the population goes up ... it's way more complex than 3 lines written here I know and I will make a separate post about it later but just as an off-shoot...

[Resurrection]

The short term presence of a LIMITED number of nobles from the regions of Aleppo and Damascus who gained fame and status is not reason enough to cut out other factions for these regional nobles to be represented.

The reasoning behind the Syria is a little more complex than an attempt to represent some significant nobles at the time the mod starts. The faction through transitions will in fact include factions and dynasties which reined in the area in our timeframe, mainly Uqaylid Dynasty, Zenghid Dynasty and in the late period should the faction be battered by the Monogls or Timurids (or both) also Koyunlu Empire. The European Middle Ages times in Middle East were extremely turbulent and it is very hard to come up with the feasible representation. We considered many concepts from the just few factions made into "superpowers" over more European-like static states. Eventually we have adopted more or less territorial approach where the faction slot is dedicated to represent the given territory (defined usually culturally or otherwise so it's NOT just artificially made up) and we represent the struggle of its peoples through history.

Such gameplay will be a lot different to the European one where you usually have just one dynasty attempting to survive and forge its destiny in expense of other factions. In ME case the player is in charge of more abstract idea of the culturally/ethnically/otherwise distinct faction which will experience a lot of huge changes throughout the game. If playing as Persia you might even be able to take charge of the Mongol invaders and turn into Il-Khanate! (so even THAT kind of change). In comparison the European transitions and gameplay is just static comprising just cosmetic changes.

But that's how things actually were in the High and Late Middle Ages. ME was extremely turbulent place seeing changes well comparable to European Migration Period and Dark Ages while Europe itself was already largely set up. And we tried our best to represent it.

In the balance of things did anybody ever hear about say ... Burgundy?

Of course, same as Bulgaria, Serbia and dozens of others. We dropped all those factions because we wanted the DotS to be as playable as possible and except for Rebels and Pope you can play all factions. Many of the dropped factions were in fact included as transition options but some had to be made just into rebels.

As for the 14th century factions (Burgundy, Switzerland, Moldova or Wallachia) they gained power under very specific circumstances and it is almost guaranteed such circumstances would not happen in majority of the DotS games. That is the reason why we are very reserved when considering their appearance at all. There are of course some exceptions to that rule such as the Hussites but they are included simply because they were the only successful catholic reformists (aka heretics) before the actual Reformation (plus they could be put in as a transition for Bohemia which cannot be done with other afore mentioned factions).

It is my opinion that when it came down to actual choices of factions the dev. of this mod chose mostly based on personal taste. And there is NOTHING wrong with that but please don't speak about historical accuracy. Syria might actually be very fun to play with but in my opinion it doesn't have enough merit to be included in a major mod.

This is so untrue mate. You may consider the mod's choice to be that of personal flavour but the DotS has started almost 5 years ago and for first 3 years it was basically ONLY debate about these exact things. What factions and other choices to make within the limits of the game. And the discussion was not done by handful of people, it was contributed to by literally hundreds, in all but one cases the ones making the final call were different guys to those who started the discussions or made the propositions. I am confident to say that if any mod out there (including those for EU3 or other games) is the most historical in its choices and considerations, then it is the DotS. Seriously, this project received insane amount of energy from hundreds of people and is still not finished after almost 5 years ALL BECAUSE WE WANT (and always wanted) IT TO BE THE MOST HISTORICAL GAME EVER. Saying that it's just some arbitrary choices made on a whim of personal taste is just plain insult.

Now let's speak a bit about Genoa, Milan and the other Italian factions. Is Genoa really represented as it should when you placed it in the same bundle with Milan. I sort of doubt it. Forget starting positions think accurate unit rouster etc. So yes Genoa might be there but in my opinion Genoa like most Italian city states haven't been given as much importance as I would have liked (again a question of taste). History tells us quite frankly and directly that in medieval times the Italian Pen. was more or less an oasis of development and civilization and it's a mistake not to give it it's role.

The debate on Italy was probably the longest and toughest in the mod seconded perhaps only by the factions debate. In fact it was not finished until recently so it was continually going on for 5 years. The solution for this unsolvable problem was partially already presented. If you don't think it is a good one (despite the fact you know little about it) it's your choice. But it was the choice made after half a decade of the debate so I really believe it's a good one.

However the game has limitations and it's a question of personal taste. If it were me I would choose to cut as many regions as possible from africa and siberia and give more to Italy. But that's just me.

Euro-centric region layout we had until quite recently (well not so recently anymore) and it proved game-wise VERY problematic. The Siberai, Africa and East in general were huge areas populated with just handful of settlements. While it might have made sense from the perspective of the settlements importance it was unsustainable in the actual game. So we adopted the regional approach meaning we wanted to represent the actual historical region with each of the 199 slots. And the layout is way more balanced. However that did not led to actual diminishing of cities etc. in Europe or anywhere. Introducing the huge amount of PSFs it turned out that you can barely move in places like Northern Italy or Lower Countries/Flanders. And we still had to drop many places simply because the map despite being biggest possible is too rough to include all of the important settlements. So again, this is the result of the years of development and debate - personal taste? Perhaps. But I am 99% sure it cannot be done much better.

Speaking about KoJ well it's one of those factions that are fun and played by most of us. Why? Because it's unique and fun. Does anybody really give a dam about historical accuracy when it comes to the teutons and koj. Not really and not really because we all love to have them to play with their unique units and starting from their unique positions.

Now these are obviously just your personal tastes. While it might be more fun to play as KoJ forging all-ME-Empire it is nor historically feasible nor interesting from our perspective. We wanted to give player the choice to create alternate yet believable history but also within the historical framework. That means that as Portugal you are destined to struggle in Reconquista to trigger the transitions and the actual content we created. You may of course opt to go rampage in British Isles or whatnot but that will give you little in DotS unless you enjoy playing without much of a clear purpose.

The result of this approach (and since we can hardly predict all possible unhistorical approaches player might select it is the only one feasible) is that the KoJ and Teutons (and almost two dozen other Monastic orders) are either unplayable (KoJ is under Pope) or with limited gameplay options (Teutons under HRE) or via tech-tree, units etc. (the rest of Monastic orders).


Nobody is blaming you for criticism but I believe that your criticism is largely unfounded. It is not expected from the fans to just acclaim us but when you wish to offer criticism you might want to do it in slightly more sophisticated manner and primarily on smaller scale. Pick something you see as not fitting and make your case (preferably backed by sources etc.) as it is the only way how the criticism can do anything about DotS. Otherwise chances are high you just get wall-texted like now from someone who have been through countless discussions on these exact things and who can beat you with countless arguments picked from there (and believe me, I have just scratched the surface of all the matters discussed in this post :-)). If you however made you point strong and backed chances are also high we would take it into consideration and did something about it!

Sorry for the mentoring though. :-)

_______________________
A question - will there be a population based recruitment limitation system? I think one based on the actual pop. of the settlement of the region would actually be great.

That was in RTW and was removed in M2TW so no besides the basic settlement level, AOR or other (tech-tree) requirements.

And speaking on this issue is there any chance we could see realistic populations for cities like Constantinople or Baghdad? Is there any way in which repression and discontent could be represented in another manner so as to allow for huge populations?

The mechanics are the same regardless of the population. We have however found out the real numbers work if the modifiers are adjusted to it but the biggest problem comes from the fact that we have tiny settlements as well as huge settlements. No work-around is feasible enough (like via tech-tree bonuses) to alleviate this problem since all settlements share the same mechanic. And any change to the vanilla mechanics would require extreme amount of balancing.

Therefore we have opted for the semi-realistic RTW style. We do include the realistic populations but the number represents only the fighting-able men (just like in RTW). That way the relative difference between the settlements is preserved as is the historical accuracy but the absolute numbers are closer together and manageable with the M2TW settlements mechanics.

And one idea [out of many ]. Would it be possible to link the cost of infrastructure buildings [let's say something as sewers] dependent on the population of the towns? And would it be possible to have a system of levels for such infrastructure to allow upgrades as the population goes up ... it's way more complex than 3 lines written here I know and I will make a separate post about it later but just as an off-shoot...

No, the costs in tech-tree are fixed in the files (EDB) and cannot be altered in the game. The population based upgrades however are standard hard-coded thing represented by the wall level.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well it's complicated, and we have to run tests. But the major workround is through the tech tree. We use autonomies lockdown scripts for most factions but the simple homeland, autonomy, colony categories don't apply to the Italian factions. One of the buildings in the tech tree will be 'capital' which represents the settlement being a city-state, which for your faction will make it very rich and of a very high level of recruitment etc but if it is not your faction capital the settlement with a 'capital' building will be likely to rebel since it represents a rival within your faction. lol, I can't really explain it very well but I have tried to do this in earlier previews. I might just be tired, it's 2AM here and I've been mixing wine with White Russian.

No worries, thanks for the response. So, I take it that both Milan and Genoa will already have the "Capitulo" building (as shown in the Italian government preview) built at the beginning of the game (and it will not be a destroyable building I'm guessing). Thus, the city which is not your capital will likely rebel in the first few turns due to the public order penalties of the Capitulo, and you will lack the garrison troops to prevent this early on. However, once you have built up a large enough army you will likely be able to hold the other city despite the negative public order effects of the Capitulo, although you will probably need to maintain a hefty garrison there to prevent revolt.

Am I getting this more or less right?

[KIHEV]

Well it's complicated, and we have to run tests. But the major workround is through the tech tree. We use autonomies lockdown scripts for most factions but the simple homeland, autonomy, colony categories don't apply to the Italian factions. One of the buildings in the tech tree will be 'capital' which represents the settlement being a city-state, which for your faction will make it very rich and of a very high level of recruitment etc but if it is not your faction capital the settlement with a 'capital' building will be likely to rebel since it represents a rival within your faction.

Oops, didnt read WinsingtonIII's post yet -> Edit.
Will it be possible to build a specific building to counter the negative effects of the capital building in a non-capital city?

Concerning politics:
Will there be minor factions (not civil war) that may spawn when their sovereign is too busy somewhere else?
Example:
- France vs. England (100 Years war), Flanders is a rich province under French control but chooses not to obey the French (surplus: they even choose English side in the war).

[Hengest]

A Capitulo building will unlock a lot of powerful buildings so it may be possible to have more than one capitulo in one faction, but it will also be under AI lockdown, so there is a risk. The only way you can 100% influence that rival city state within your faction is to make sure you have enough money and units and place the right generals in the settlement.

[zekic]

Err couldnt lithuania later transit to Kingdom of Lithuania? i mean it never happened in history but they had one king and almost crowned another but polish stoped the crown from arriving and he died(at least that what my history teachers say) could we change that? i mean MTW2 is about changing history.It can happen with 2 conditions first lithuania turns to christianity(if its possible in this mod,if not forget this idea then) second you got high papal standing/Realitations with papal states so they give you the crown.Also i think christening if lithuania should be expanded by chosing who will christen you,this will improve reputation,you will have to pay to that faction,etc.

[Hax]

What does your team think is the ideal mix? For example, in 1307, the Kingdom of Jerusalem is all but gone, and the Principality of Antioch is too. They're holing up on Cyprus, having irked the Byzantines who had been Antioch's biggest defender in 1180. They even consider using Mongol support from the Ilkhanate branch. If you follow history, you let the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Antioch fade away. Otherwise you bolster them, and don't worry about historical events being exact.

Being a member of EB as well, I've always thought that representing the historical situation as it was at the start of the game is the most important, and from there on, let it roll whichever way it wants to.

[Lуra]

On the conditteri armies. Will they be linked to only a certain general once during your campaign? Or will several generals be able to aquire it at diferent times.

And will La Companyia Catalana d'Orient will have somthing to do with Roger de Flor? Will you be able to recruit special almogavers with that trait?

Sorry for all the questions

[Marty(in)]

Will you include personal unions in some way? For example when czech king Wenceslaus III became also a king of Poland and Hungary

[spanish_emperor]

That was in RTW and was removed in M2TW so no besides the basic settlement level, AOR or other (tech-tree) requirements.

Actually i remember an SS mini mod that placed it back in. If your interested i can look it up?

All units generals Making all units generals with traits, loyalty and other stats, strengths and weaknesses

How will this work? It is a bit puzzling.

A general's rise in titles or command can easily upset that balance and lead to toppling your faction leader and breaking your kingdom apart.

What exactly does command do? I've never known what it does; some say it affects your troops morale, some say it affects your ability to regroup and follow orders. Does it have a campaign map affect?

PS: will the player be able to recruit princesses?

[Lуra]

PS: will the player be able to recruit princesses?

Not, recruit. You'll get them the same as in M2TW.

[spanish_emperor]

Not, recruit. You'll get them the same as in M2TW.

Well i was wondering because i am never satisfied with the amount of princesses in the game and Hross said that diplomats will be less valuable.

I also like having princesses and stealing the generals of other factions

[Lуra]

Well i was wondering because i am never satisfied with the amount of princesses in the game and Hross said that diplomats will be less valuable.

I also like having princesses and stealing the generals of other factions

Many things change in DotS. Take a looks at these previews: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=431115

[Haertelius Magnus]

A Capitulo building will unlock a lot of powerful buildings so it may be possible to have more than one capitulo in one faction, but it will also be under AI lockdown, so there is a risk. The only way you can 100% influence that rival city state within your faction is to make sure you have enough money and units and place the right generals in the settlement.

How will you represent this with the HRE since they did not have a real capital. The emperor moved around from palatinate to palatinat to hold court ... ?

[Hengest]

Well the game forces the player to choose a capital. We naturally have to choose one for you at the start date. Although what you say is true, the truth is a bit of a grey area. Although there was no formal capital at several points in the dates covered by the mod, there were a few cities that were de facto capitals. Now, the fact that there were several also proves your point. But we still can't ignore that somewhere there needed to be an administrative centre. The actual government and officials were not nomads!

So all that we can do is represent this in the tech tree. I am actually working on that now, like other trees there will be 9 buildings in the tree (hardcode limit) and in this you will be able to 'fortify' your settlement with administration. This tree will be quite separate from the tree that lets you decide whether a settlement is going to be
1 Reichsunmittelbarkeit Imperial Control
2 Reichsfreiheit Imperial Freedom
3a Reichsstadt Requires autonomy
3b Freie Stadt Requires Prince-Bishopric (locks -as autonomy)
3c Freie Reichsstadt Democratic assembly
Bonus Stadtbund city league'

My current tree which is more precisely what you were asking about will probably start with "Reichskreis" and at the top levels lead to
Königspfalz
Officium Palatinum
Pfalzgrafschaft