is not easy play CTW

**pajomife** · May 30, 2006, 06:06 PM

I trie to play the the campaing , its not hard becuse the AI is to soft , you use the same unit cost to creat and to maintain the army , for the player and for AI , is ts bad idea , for us ,is frustating creat a army , fight , and have to disbabnd this army because he have no money,after they gainned exprienced points..., for the AI its impossible to lead with it . the only real armies i faced are the Rebels armies.The upekeep are to high,they gain to much money,another strange thing is build a barracks only to militia and the town Haall for all the others?
Im a bit disapointed with this mod , the changes between 0.27 and 0.34 are to few ...one year later.
Sugestions :
Return to a one man General ,capitan ;diplomat , and assasin.
Slow down the units , and make battles longer ( 80% of one of my armies flee)
Make the buildings card wiht same look,
Use another map or improve yours.
Lower the units salary or we can have a good army ,creating and disbanding never let the units gain experienc points,and AI never creat a big army.
Change the colors of the diferents armies , or we cant see the enemies , two feudal man at arms of diferents armies look the same.

**Ilias** · May 30, 2006, 06:39 PM

dr fraud pretty much gave what your looking for in his mini mod thing, added more money to income. its in downloads as for the rest they will change next version

**militiaman** · May 31, 2006, 01:30 AM

Ok, since this is basically the same post you made in the closed thread I will keep an eye on this. I'm not having a go at you, just warning everyone to only make constructive criticism relevant to the discussion on hand in this topic.

@ your first paragraph, I'm not getting all of the message, could you please try your best at being a little clearer on exactly what you are suggesting. From what I can see I will just say that campaign will probably be balanced, though more testing is required. From what I have played it's not as serious as you make it out to be, but some points that you make will have to be looked at.

@ your next statement, personally I think we have come a long way. Completely new graphics everywhere. A somewhat supported campaign. Reskinned units as well as lots of new additions. A lot of coding that wasn't in the last beta as well. To be honest though not a lot of progress had been made over the past 6 or 7 months, so it was ever let the mod grow stale and slowly die out, or release it in its current state and hoped people like it. I believe we've made the right decision in most cases.

I don't think your last comment to this was necessary either, so please refrain from making similar remarks.

@ your suggestions,
1. A matter of personal preference I guess. Adherbal just didn't like seeing those huge RTW giants, and much prefered the smaller, more realistic mini-armies. It seems we're not the only ones who like representing them this way, I have heard that LOTR:TW is deciding to do something similar, not to mention BFME doing it (admittedly before us) as well.
2. Yes, this is mostly a bug, we didn't intend for this and are already experimenting with them being slowed down.
3. Simply didn't have the man power to get this done, hopefully someone will get it done soon.
4. Improve ours in what way? It would be way too much of a task to convert our current one, and I really think it suits us in all ways.
5. At the moment I think the current system again isn't as bad as you say. I've explained out ideas for why we have such a high upkeep cost, and no offence but I don't feel like explaining it once more for now. I'm sure you'll find dozens of posts on this already.
6. Armies aren't a fashion parade, and we tried not to follow RTW's example of how every army's units must have their corresponding colours. Highly unrealistic, I think more people would be upset if we did make them this way.

And finally, as Ilias mentioned, you can play daud's unofficial patch that fixes alot of problems for now, though most of them will be fixed in the next official patch anyway.

**SicilianVespers** · May 31, 2006, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by pajomife@iol.pt

I trie to play the the campaing , its not hard becuse the AI is to soft , you use the same unit cost to creat and to maintain the army , for the player and for AI , is ts bad idea , for us ,is frustating creat a army , fight , and have to disbabnd this army because he have no money,after they gainned exprienced points...,

Actually, this is quite realistic. Few European early Medieval kingdoms had standing armies, Sicily and Byzantium are the exceptions rather than the rule. Byzantium had the Roman legacy, and a huge economy by western standards. Sicily was also in a special situation, extremely wealthy, and with a home grown group of Muslims that fought for religious protection.

The rest of Europe had to rely on feudal levies that would only fight for limited periods of time.

**DaVinci** · May 31, 2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by SicilianVespers

Actually, this is quite realistic. Few European early Medieval kingdoms had standing armies, Sicily and Byzantium are the exceptions rather than the rule. Byzantium had the Roman legacy, and a huge economy by western standards. Sicily was also in a special situation, extremely wealthy, and with a home grown group of Muslims that fought for religious protection.

The rest of Europe had to rely on feudal levies that would only fight for limited periods of time.

This 100 % correct, and CTW is an historical mod to reflect those relations as far as possible, imo.

People, i propose, try to see this as an interesting challenge and not as a bad design.

The planned ammendments will balance the cash-flow anew, though. We will need quite good playtesting to keep the ability above and though provide abilities for the AI to survive ...

**pajomife** · May 31, 2006, 06:29 PM

I mean that , i play sevral turns , and i didnt find any naction with strong armies ,if the upkeep cost is hard to a human player the AI cant deal with it. I play with France and i conquer 5 germans cities with no dificult , thw Ai dont creat a rasonable army,the rebel armys ,pre made, are the only who cause me troubles , because they are exprence points, if you insist in this upkeep the game lose much interesse, see SPQR ,in this game the AI can build large armies ,and use the same 0 turn build time.

**DaVinci** · June 01, 2006, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by pajomife@iol.pt

I mean that , i play sevral turns , and i didnt find any naction with strong armies ,if the upkeep cost is hard to a human player the AI cant deal with it. I play with France and i conquer 5 germans cities with no dificult , thw Ai dont creat a rasonable army,the rebel armys ,pre made, are the only who cause me troubles , because they are exprence points, if you insist in this upkeep the game lose much interesse, see SPQR ,in this game the AI can build large armies ,and use the same 0 turn build time.

Hey, please consider that CTW is v0.34. This says much, i think.

For example, CTW 0.34 hasn't any resources implemented for a continuing cash-flow, as well other things will be improved to grant a better economy ... hope this helps to see that a next patch will have consideration to solve your point above. And actually, i'm not certain about your game pre-settings, ie. i playtesting always with VH/VH, and in my campaigns, the AI is quite good able to provide armies, i have always to take a bit care about my borders. (VH campaign setting gives AI 10.000 florins extra per turn, but often the AI uses this amount of money not well, we have to look into AI characters, perhaps to rework the AI faction's behaviour).

**militiaman** · June 01, 2006, 01:56 AM

Yes, I definitely wouldn't suggest playing it on easy or normal. Again I think your experiences aren't 100% accurate, I've seen alot of people saying that the AI can be very difficult to handle in some cases (such as the recent French Empire topic). We also hope that a new edb should help out the AI with its financial problems without changing any of our core gameplay.