Ideas for TATW HS Patch

[Gallus]

Well that explains insane movement in Rhun. I'd say leave normal roads in all regions but paved roads should be constructed by the player.

[The Norseman]

Alright I have tested a lot of stuff and have tested out the new changes and they seem good! There are some region names like Harlindon which do not exist in the files and instead has other names not mentioned in the city description or the region name, but I have found all of them now! I will upload the changes after I have tested some more, but to do these changes I had to edit other files so I guess I must upload them as well and not in the same attatchment.

[Incomitatus]

Patch for TATW
- Cities such as Grasgard and Riverrun should be able to construct ports. Income for those cities are greatly needed. Rhun`s cities can earn up to 1000 - 1700 the first turns while Grasgard and Riverrun struggles to make more than 500-600.

They already can, can't they? They're just too small at the start. Have, at least, Grasgard start with enough population to upgrade to large town, and then it can build a port. I wouldn't start it as a large town, but give it the necessary population and make the player invest in the upgrade.

- Araw should be able to build a market. The region borders to SEVEN other regions and can potentially trade with all of them. Such an important key region should thus be able to recruit a market. We are not sure if this is possible for a castle, but we will have to check that out later.

Markets don't do that much. Paved roads are the biggest trade booster on land. But... it should be possible to have Araw start with a market, it just wouldn't be possible to upgrade it or rebuild it if it gets destroyed. I haven't tried to give a castle a city building in the descr_strat, but I imagine it would work.

All of Dale`s cities have poor harvest making population growth and recruiting more difficult.

'Poor harvest' 'Average harvest' and 'Good harvest' are modifiers that are rolled every turn. The only static modifier for a region is the 'base farming level', which TATW sets as 1 for every region on the map and shows up as one pip.

- Should not Dale be able to construct mines when they are so close to mountains both in the north and the west?

No. Dale makes more than enough money with farming and trade. Mines cost so much in time and money to set up that, even though they have a good RoI, Dale should be spending that money on something else, either troops or cheaper econ investments. By the time Dale could afford to invest in mines, there wouldn't be a pressing need.

Dale will have Araw as one of its starting regions. Rhun has 9 cities and all of them are far more wealthy then Dale`s 4 cities. Where 1 of them is a village.

Maybe. Or give Dale a few more starting troops in Grasgard, so Araw can be taken quickly. As a Dale player, I'd like to have the choice between taking Araw or moving toward Kugavod on the first turn. Troops would give me that choice.

- The Rhun general in Rhomen can in turn 1 capture the city of Kugaovd, thus receiving a city without having to fight a single battle. The general must start in another city so he is not able to reach the city in the first turn.

Or give Kugavod a stronger garrison?

- Gondor should receive 1 other settlement in the east or the west. Gondor is fighting Mordor and Harad on his own and winning can be really hard if the opposing players are just ok. A city like Cair Andros would be the ideal city.

What Gondor really needs is more starting population and starting development in the settlements it already has. The starting situation is disgraceful for an empire that's been around for centuries. When I play Gondor I feel like I'm playing either TotalRush or TotalFiveYearPlan. Starting with Cair Andros would be nice, but it can also just end up being one more place that needs to be developed with money that the player just doesn't have.

The Breeland Militia should have their stats improved. Their attack is 6 and their defence 8. Their defence is alright, but their attack should be minimum 7 or 8 as not only does OOTMM have double their size in one unit, but their units can also beat Eriador easily.

The combat stats are fine. Breeland Militia are the strongest militia unit in the game. Perhaps increase the unit size to 200.

Eriador could have a small economy boost. OOTMM and OOG can easily earn twice as much as Eriador and every other faction really.

For myself, I gave trade bonuses to the woodcamps. It helped a little. I'm thinking of doing the same for the livestock buildings for all the factions that build them.

- Population in several cities increased
- Population requirement from Town to Large Town changed from 4000 to 2500
- Population requirement from Wooden Castle to Castle changed from 8000 to 4000
- Population requirement from Large Town to Minor City changed from 12 000 to 6000
- Population requirement from Castle to Fortress changed from 14 000 to 7000

YES. Maybe not quite so drastic a reduction. When I modified this for myself, I drastically increased the cost of castle upgrades, and the time it takes to build them. Building/upgrading a castle should be a major strategic decision, but it shouldn't have to wait so long on babies.

- Disband some rebel units in different rebel cities.

Why?

Also, I'm working on a revised 4tpy and ageing script, so that seasons and ageing work correctly in hotseat. If I get it working, I'll give it to you and let you use it.

[The Norseman]

No. Dale makes more than enough money with farming and trade. Mines cost so much in time and money to set up that, even though they have a good RoI, Dale should be spending that money on something else, either troops or cheaper econ investments. By the time Dale could afford to invest in mines, there wouldn't be a pressing need.

Yeah as we decided earlier we are not going to give Dale mines. The rebel city they are bordering to the west already has one.

Or give Kugavod a stronger garrison?

No it is not that. The rebel army itself has not yet entered the city and no one is garrisoned there. Rebels do not enter the cities before turn 2, atleast in most of the rebel cities and with Rhun`s great movement points the Rhun general can walk straight in without having to fight.

What Gondor really needs is more starting population and starting development in the settlements it already has. The starting situation is disgraceful for an empire that's been around for centuries. When I play Gondor I feel like I'm playing either TotalRush or TotalFiveYearPlan. Starting with Cair Andros would be nice, but it can also just end up being one more place that needs to be developed with money that the player just doesn't have.

Many of Gondor`s cities already have a pretty decent population number, but yeah we have discussed this earlier and we plan to increase the inhabitants in not only Gondor, but in the rest of Middle Earth as well. Cair Andros will be given to give Gondor a better opportunity to recruit more troops and since it is a castle the player will be able to recruit a good deal of troops early on, balancing the war.

The combat stats are fine. Breeland Militia are the strongest militia unit in the game. Perhaps increase the unit size to 200.

I would not say fine at all, because of them being outnumbered against OOTMM troops with the same combat stats or better makes it extremely hard for Eriador to beat the enemy. Increasing the unit size is just another oppertunity, but 200 sounds a bit excessive.

For myself, I gave trade bonuses to the woodcamps. It helped a little. I'm thinking of doing the same for the livestock buildings for all the factions that build them.

How much trade bonus did you give the woodcamps and what do you estimate Eriador earned compared to when it did not have this trade bonus? Another idea could be having more of the cities starts with dirt roads. That should help a bit.

Why?

Some cities like in Mirkwood, have orc rebels with each unit having 121 troops and very decent combat stats. I had to use 1000 men and a 10 star general to win against a city with 400 soldiers.

Also, I'm working on a revised 4tpy and ageing script, so that seasons and ageing work correctly in hotseat. If I get it working, I'll give it to you and let you use it.

Sounds great! Let me know when you make it work! We have had some aging problems, or atleast that is what is most likely. Spies tend to die very young for some reason... Any idea why? Is it an error in the script?

If you respond to my reply then I will probably not answer you back before tomorrow because I am going to bed! Tomorrow I am going to raise 100 000 dollars for a school in Africa.

[Incomitatus]

Sounds great! Let me know when you make it work! We have had some aging problems, or atleast that is what is most likely. Spies tend to die very young for some reason... Any idea why? Is it an error in the script?

Not an error, per se, it's just that the script TATW uses (which looks like the one GreenEyedDevil first devised) increments the counter at turn start for every LocalFaction, four increments = winter = characters age. It works fine in single player, but in a hotseat every faction (except slave and Dark Lord of Mordor) is Local, so the counter gets incremented once for each player per turn. So, for instance, in my game with ten factions being played Local, 2.5 years were passing EVERY TURN*. More players makes the problem worse. Your spies were probably dying of old age.

(*Not entirely true, something goofy was going on and it wasn't counting every winter as a winter IF I didn't save and load during that turn, so my people were really only ageing about twice as fast as they should have instead of five times as quickly. Still bloody annoying. And if you're saving the game and passing the file, you'd be experiencing the full force of the 'bug': # of players / 4 = years/turn instead of 4 turns / year.)

I asked StealthFox if there's anyway to fix it and he very helpfully said there probably wasn't. I say 'very helpfully' because when someone tells me something can't be done it motivates me to find a way to do it.

First I thought to just change the number of counter increments needed to advance to season to fit the number of LocalFactions, but when a faction dies, it would get out of sync. So back to the drawing board, reading up on scripting, studying the existing script and then EUREKA, it hit me...

And voila!

declare_counter season_counter 
set_counter season_counter 1  

monitor_event FactionTurnEnd FactionType slave          
     inc_counter season_counter 1  

     if I_CompareCounter season_counter == 4          
          set_counter season_counter 0          
     end_if 
end_monitor  

monitor_event PreFactionTurnStart FactionIsLocal  
     if I_CompareCounter season_counter == 0         
          console_command season winter  
     end_if 

     if I_CompareCounter season_counter > 0         
          console_command season summer  
     end_if 
end_monitor

New 4tpy script that is compatible with hotseat, and frankly more elegant than the current script in my humble opinion! It only increments the counter at the end of the slave faction turn, so it doesn't matter how many LocalFactions there are, and since the slave faction can't be killed it can't get screwed up. And since the slave faction is always the last faction to go, and a LocalFaction is always first in the turn, the counter effectively increments just before the end of the turn and the season changes, when it needs to change, at the beginning of the turn, which means it plays just like the old script, only it works correctly in hotseat!

I've tested it through four turns, just clicking through, and it seems to work just fine. Winter didn't come until turn four and characters didn't age until the start of turn five. It obviously needs more testing to be 100% certain it works as intended, but I can't see any reason why it wouldn't if it worked through the first five turns correctly, which it did.

Now, bear in mind, I'm playing a real hotseat, not a save-and-pass-the-file. Someone who knows more than I do would have to judge if this will work for you, but if simple scripts are working okay, I think this should.

If you respond to my reply then I will probably not answer you back before tomorrow because I am going to bed! Tomorrow I am going to raise 100 000 dollars for a school in Africa.

Good luck with that, then!

[Aldor]

- I wouldn't lower the requirements for settlement upgrades that drastically. Maybe don't lower at all, to maintain the importance of some cities. Besides this would overpower factions with alot of money and regions that are underdeveloped.

- Optional assissin requitment, so they can be turned off at start.

- Optional bribe, idem

- Usable plantir (without side-effects)

- Enable a good-evil campaign at start (Allied, Military access)

- Enable/disable heroic victories

- Enable/disable spies in settlement

- Easy changeable victory conditions: classic / specified number of regions / eleminate faction / own city X, Y, Z

Just some basic ideas to complement the front page.

[The Norseman]

- I wouldn't lower the requirements for settlement upgrades that drastically. Maybe don't lower at all, to maintain the importance of some cities. Besides this would overpower factions with alot of money and regions that are underdeveloped.

Most of us want to increase the population because the game is going so slow with a low population! We will still try to maintain the city inhabitant ratio between the different cities.

- Usable plantir (without side-effects)

We can not make a usable palantir because the garrison script is disabled and it will thus not work.

- Enable a good-evil campaign at start (Allied, Military access)

Can be done by simply changing some files, but I do not think everyone want to be restrained to have to remain an evil or good faction, people like to switch sides sometimes.

Or do you just mean that Evil factions start with millitary access and alliance with other evil factions? As long as all of them do not start with trade agreements I am good, but military access and alliance sounds good.

- Enable/disable heroic victories

Yeah I wanted to bring this up as well. Heroic Victories are very over powered and will result in extermination of the enemy army so that is a bit unfair because you are not even playing the battle yourself, but there is no way of prooving they had a clear victory besides posting pictures, and to be honest I think a lot of the people here are too lazy to upload pictures for every battle like we do in the hotseat forum.

- Enable/disable spies in settlement

I prefer having spies in the game and allowing them to open gates... I don`t know about you guys though.

- Easy changeable victory conditions: classic / specified number of regions / eleminate faction / own city X, Y, Z

Good good. Continue contributing with your ideas and I will add them to the OP if the community is ok with them!

[FC Groningen]

I thought heroic victories would automatically leave a "famous battleside". So that would make it possible to prove.

[Aldor]

Most of us want to increase the population because the game is going so slow with a low population! We will still try to maintain the city inhabitant ratio between the different cities.

I think that by making governors more important this could be done. Maybe add two to three (mutually exclusive) traits which enable the owning characters to boost growth for the settlements they are governing. This way, you still have to decide which cities you want to boost.

Or do you just mean that Evil factions start with millitary access and alliance with other evil factions? As long as all of them do not start with trade agreements I am good, but military access and alliance sounds good.

Yes something like that. But if possible, it would be great to have it as a choice at campaign start.
We could make two seperate versions for the appropriate files, so you can switch for different HS's.

I prefer having spies in the game and allowing them to open gates... I don`t know about you guys though.

The main problem is that you can reload. You can reload to get the spies in and you can reload until they open the gates. In other words, walls have become absolutely useless.


Some other ideas:

- Switch High Elven capital at start to Mithlond (Lore-friendly) and give Imladris (and Eregion) a "Thorin's Halls"-like building that increases public order. This gives the HE a financial reason to keep Imladris en capture Eregion.

Maybe give the HE the coastal city directly under their coastal line, it also has a "forest" resource.

- Give Arraw a unique building with a bonus to trade, if markets are impossible.

- I think we need a way to reduce corruption in general. A building? Some character traits? (I'm thinking about this thread http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ght=corruption)

- Make governors more important in general, as now they are used almost solely to fight.


Solution for no-spies:

Just give siege engines a movement boost, so they don't slow the army down by a large margin.

[*Ranger*]

Lets vote for spies, because I am against it. An example would be 2 full stacks, the attacking army would open the settlement with a spy, destroy the defending army and take the settlement. If the spy didn't open the city up the defending army would have a chance to defeat the attacker. Totally unfair in my opinion.

[The Norseman]

But then again if we do not allow spies, people will just camp in their cities and wait for the enemy to attack...

[Gallus]

Yeah make a poll. I personally like them because they add a new dimension to the tactics. Without spies a city garrisoned with a full stack and a "night commander" general can never be taken. Where's the fun in that?

[Emperor of Hell]

Against spies because they can open gates

[The Norseman]

Some other ideas:

- Switch High Elven capital at start to Mithlond (Lore-friendly) and give Imladris (and Eregion) a "Thorin's Halls"-like building that increases public order. This gives the HE a financial reason to keep Imladris en capture Eregion.

Maybe give the HE the coastal city directly under their coastal line, it also has a "forest" resource.

- Give Arraw a unique building with a bonus to trade, if markets are impossible.

- I think we need a way to reduce corruption in general. A building? Some character traits? (I'm thinking about this thread http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ght=corruption)

- Make governors more important in general, as now they are used almost solely to fight.

The player can change it himself for free, but sure, I guess we could do that.

Yes we have already planned to give HE the coastal city.

Hmmm, I am not certain yet if it is possible building markets in Araw, atleast not without changing the entire building tree...

That patch changes the garrison script does it not? if so then it is no use because garrison script is disabled in all hotseats.

There already lots of ways of making generals excellent governors, you just have to learn how to gain the traits. I do not want people to start with great traits when they have done nothing to deserve them. It is a risky and long process, gaining these traits and I do not want to take that away from the players who have taken a long time learning these things. If you are wondering how to gain these traits then just PM me and I will tell you one or two ways.

I will make a poll with the spy-debate.

[Aldor]

It is a risky and long process, gaining these traits and I do not want to take that away from the players who have taken a long time learning these things. If you are wondering how to gain these traits then just PM me and I will tell you one or two ways.

No, old man. Thought my generals were having troubles with their adding. It's all right now.

[Hopelessly Hopeless]

I suggest only two things for this hotseat patch:

1. Cut corruption completely. Seriously, what's the point of it? It is supposed to weaken factions that get too large, but the truth is, corruption only screws factions with settlements distant from one another, like HE and Dwarves.
2. Use secondary hitpoints in the EDU in order to make cavalry (and maybe archers as well) better in autoresolve.

I could do both things if needed

[Aldor]

Cut corruption completely. Seriously, what's the point of it? It is supposed to weaken factions that get too large, but the truth is, corruption only screws factions with settlements distant from one another, like HE and Dwarves.

I'm not against the idea, but then we should realise that the outcomes will change enormously as currently attacking a far away faction isn't really useful.

[Gallus]

Something needs to be done about auto resolve as well. Orc factions and Dwarves are so OP it's unreal.

[StealthFox]

I had an idea today: I wonder if it's possible to increase the number of free upkeep units, perhaps by one for each settlement level. That helps player economy and keeps settlements a bit more secure from players sneaking around with spies and hiding armies.

[Incomitatus]

I had an idea today: I wonder if it's possible to increase the number of free upkeep units, perhaps by one for each settlement level. That helps player economy and keeps settlements a bit more secure from players sneaking around with spies and hiding armies.

Yes. It can be done in the EDB. Every entry for a wall level has a line that says something like:

free_upkeep bonus 1

Find them all and increase the number by one in each of them.