A few things I need cleared up...

**dvk901** · October 16, 2011, 11:54 AM

As I noted elsewhere, I managed to fix the Celtic Hillfort settlement by re-adding the outer walls that Tone had intitially put in it. They actually don't look so bad, and they work as the game apparently must have them work.
Should I re-add this settlement? And if so, I'd like to make it look a bit less 'barren' by adding, if possible, a few farms inside the outer walls, some more trees and whatnot.

Second, I managed to separate, at one point, the Dacian starting settlements from the Hillforts in the set plans in the settlement plan file (so they will look like the old Barb settlements). Don't think Dacian towns and large towns should look like the hillforts. Is this OK? If they capture settlements, of course, they will look like whatever they are, but at least their OWN settlements won't.

Third, (and I don't have a picture right now, but will show one) I've done some work on Nomad settlements to make them look more 'nomad'....basically, it just involves replacing the normal RTW Barbarian buildings with tents, removing fences and stuff, to make them look more 'mobile' an temporary.

**Paedric** · October 16, 2011, 02:03 PM

I'm all for it.

**tone** · October 16, 2011, 02:28 PM

Yes that sounds ok though I wonder whether there is still some way to trick the game for the hill forts

**dvk901** · October 16, 2011, 04:37 PM

Well, there may be. First, you use the invisible wall which I've shown can be done by substituting 'none' for every model other than the gateways in the description of the wall you want used.

Second, you determine what the height is 'above '0', for a level wall around the settlement...to match the level of the gateways:

oppida_town_gateway, 107.531, 282.394, 135.555, 15.0
oppida_town_gateway, 45.8695, 316.441, 166.172, 14.99

oppida_town_gateway, -68.37, -306.221, 343.571, 15.0

The files themselves say not to use TWO gateways, so that may be a problem, but what I'm getting at is that if the outer boundary of the settlement were the 'sunken' gateways, we might be able to have an invisible wall that is actually underground and doesn't show anyway. The game may not object since there is nothing to place there anyway. I just have no way to test this.

**johnnieangel** · October 16, 2011, 07:47 PM

Im in.....

**Cartledge** · October 16, 2011, 11:33 PM

Im all for that one.

**tone** · October 16, 2011, 11:42 PM

The invisible wall also needs no collision to it

**dvk901** · October 17, 2011, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by tone

The invisible wall also needs no collision to it

That isn't possible, because the collision is apparently in these:

diagonal_link, 288, 288, 135, 0

external_left_link, 352, -288, 90, 0
external_left_link, 352, 32, 90, 0
external_left_link, 224, 352, 180, 0
external_left_link, -352, 32, -90, 0
external_left_link, -288, -352, 0, 0

external_right_link, 288, -352, 0, 0
external_right_link, 352, -224, 90, 0
external_right_link, 352, 224, 90, 0
external_right_link, -224, 352, 180, 0
external_right_link, -352, 224, -90, 0
external_right_link, -352, -288, -90, 0

gateway, -0, 352, 180, 0
gateway, -352, -192, -90, 0
gateway, 352, 128, 90, 0
gateway, 64, -352, 0, 0

internal_left_link, 288, -160, 90, 0
internal_left_link, -288, 288, 180, 0
internal_left_link, -288, 160, -90, 0

internal_right_link, 288, -32, 90, 0
internal_right_link, -288, 96, -90, 0

straight, -0, -352, 0, 0
straight, 256, -352, 0, 0
straight, 352, -256, 90, 0
straight, 288, -128, 90, 0
straight, 320, 0, 45, 0
straight, 352, 64, 90, 0
straight, 352, 192, 90, 0
straight, 256, 320, 135, 0
straight, 192, 352, 180, 0

And others like them. When I tested the 'invisible wall' the units could not go beyond the point where the wall 'should have' been.
Is that a problem? It would mean that the only way you could attack the settlement would be through the gateways at the two ends?

**Ybbon** · October 17, 2011, 01:24 PM

so there would be no wall just an embankment but you would not be able to attack through what appeared to be "nothing"/ You will get the same complaints as with "wooded areas" that have no tress on, but I guess so long as it is clear, they do look brilliant and it would be worth having in.

**Smokey Bacon** · October 19, 2011, 03:38 PM

Well I had a quick look and according to this word heritage site

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/906

the Dacians did use hillforts, they infact built outstanding ones. But I'm no expert on Dacia so I can look into it a bit more if you want.

**dvk901** · October 20, 2011, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by ybbon66

so there would be no wall just an embankment but you would not be able to attack through what appeared to be "nothing"/ You will get the same complaints as with "wooded areas" that have no tress on, but I guess so long as it is clear, they do look brilliant and it would be worth having in.

No, there would conceivably be a smaller wall in front of this on top of the bank....if it is possible to do this at all.

Originally Posted by Smokey Bacon

Well I had a quick look and according to this word heritage site

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/906

the Dacians did use hillforts, they infact built outstanding ones. But I'm no expert on Dacia so I can look into it a bit more if you want.

Yeah, I've seen that site and another that went into even more detail. The problem I have with this isn't that they did NOT use hillforts...it's just that they were very different.
The Dacians were....not to irritate any Celt fans.....a bit more advanced than their other Barbarian counterparts. They had a lot of contact with the Greeks, even hired Greek builders, and it is known that at least one of their temples, the main one in their capital, was modeled after a Greek temple...only built with wood. They had piped water into their settlements and other quite sophisticated enhancements that were much more like the so-called 'civilized' factions of RTW.
So this is an opportunity to separate them from the Celts and Nomads...even if it isn't entirely correct.

**dvk901** · October 21, 2011, 09:55 AM

Well, I have managed to break the Patch with this crazy Celtic settlement. If I remove it, everything is OK. It's weird, because it will work in a custom battle, but in campaign it crashes.
Gotta be something to do with the settlement plan...still working on it.

**dvk901** · October 21, 2011, 11:36 AM

Managed to get the 'plaza working:

For some reason, the game will not recognize the 'normal' code for these 'slots' as it does for the regular barbarian town, large towns, etc.
So I created a 'group' in the settlement plan, instead of a 'slot' entry, and it loads the group fine.

**dvk901** · October 21, 2011, 01:18 PM

The Hillfort settlement refuses to recognize the slots, as I mentioned, which I CAN get around quite nicely. BUT, the problem is that the settlement plan and the buildings that use the slots is meant to be 'dynamic'. In order to avoid CTD's in the town and large town levels, I have to make the buildings 'static' using 'groups' that load the correct files, and then disable the slots they used. However, if and when the large town becomes a city, the building and the slot it uses has to be carried over into the next 'plan'..the city plan....and it can't do that if the slots are disabled. The game will crash trying to load a slot it can't.

The only way around this, I think, would be to make ALL these buildings 'static'....a pretty monumental task.