Thread: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

  1. #3761
    Sir_Aggelos_GR's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Halkida,Greece
    Posts
    866

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    Completed my campaign with Morocco(lost of course).
    It was a 30/15 unit campaign.I can say its a little OP because AI masses the army stacks and you have no chance.
    Playing with small nations is almost impossible to win,due to financial limitations,even if you play agressive.
    The two pillars that make campaigns unplayable are 1)the very limited amount of money you get that is caused from political stability,VDM bad options,large navy upkeep,and limited trade profit.
    The only amount of money you can get is mainly from sellings techs.Completing VDM missions gives you some money but generally this is very limited.
    2)the second problem is stubborn foolishly war declarations from ai.Its ok ai to be agressive but sometimes even if you pound them and they lose the war they dont agree in peace.Wars continue for ever ,even if their attitude towards you has become indifferent and friendly.Game mechanics needs a way to counterbalance this.
    As we all now diplomacy is somehow broken in this game.The only way to fix ai stubborness is to improve their opinion towards you.The only way is to BRIBE THEM using the GIFT SYSTEM!But because gifts are expensive, human player must get more funds from giftsystem,coinage, mission system, and trade.
    So to sum up i suggest
    1)Huge boost in financial system for human,its absolutely crucial if you play minor singe-regioned nations.
    Trade, and vdm mechanics should provide more money
    2)Find a way to persuade the agressive AI to join you or stop being agressive.gift system should be used alongside with some bonuses from completing proposals with human andgenerally having attained agrements with you.
    3)Prestige system is off.Can we find something to reactivate it.EXAMPLE GETTING SOME money or bonuses when you climb higher the prestige ladder
    4)Somehow human allies must be more helping in wars.
    5)Solve the problem of ai not guarding its ports
    6)Ammo should be increased depending of unit training level
    7)No suicide cavalty charges when ai defends
    8)ambush mode could be reactivated,some units may get stealth capabilities
    9)deployable land defences should be back
    10)more casualities from shooting aboard in naval battles.Maybe naval upkeep must be reconsidered
    11)rakes should get sabotage army abilities,hope can be done
    12)more lenient diplomacy,more proposals,ai doesnt accept when you offer him a region!

  2. #3762

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    Quote Originally Posted by Lordsith View Post
    Was any faction destroyed by the corruption moment?
    yes.. mughals and maratha empire was annexed by me as GB...

  3. #3763
    Lordsith's Avatar Artifex
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Bishkek
    Posts
    1,125

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    Quote Originally Posted by abhiroy61 View Post
    yes.. mughals and maratha empire was annexed by me as GB...
    Try to keep Mughals faction alive, it cause crashes after conquering them while load the game save.

  4. #3764

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    Quote Originally Posted by Lordsith View Post
    Try to keep Mughals faction alive, it cause crashes after conquering them while load the game save.

    ok thanks I will try that and let you know the result..

  5. #3765
    Lordsith's Avatar Artifex
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Bishkek
    Posts
    1,125

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    Hello there,
    I have a plan, to create a campaign of Seven year war on Napoleon total war game. Recreate the situation of main campaign by 1756 and transfer units from here. What do you think people?

  6. #3766

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    That definitely sounds interesting, especially since Napoleon is more polished than Empire. I probably wouldn't spend time on it since The Great War mod and Darthmod take up all my time on Napoleon, but I'm sure there are people who would like to see that.

    Quick side question since you're here: Do you plan to update and expand on the Imperial Destroyer mod in the future? I'd love to see updates like adding regions to the other 3 trade theatres like the Banjar Sultanate is in the East Indies, a little more ammo for musket units, and not starting with 0 money. Just wondering since Imperial Destroyer is basically the best Empire mod ever made imo.

  7. #3767

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    Hmm, I think it would be better to just add the campaign to this one but I'd try it if you make it.

    Any chance you can give Portugal some better units? Right now all they have is certain Line Infantry and Grenadiers, and the basic Cavalry & Cannons. At least give them some superior Skirmisher units and Light Infantry like they have in Napoleon Total War. I know Guards and good cavalry is unhistorical. Their roster is not that good right now. Maybe an Iberian unification that allows them to recruit Spanish units in Spain would be good, but I'm not sure you want to do that.

    Also you might want to change some of the economic buildings to be more like Napoleon Total War. For example upgrading Roads and Theatres only add +1 wealth per turn, +4 from Napoleon is better. Mines upgrades are useless, the extra +200 to Town Wealth is not worth -2 public order, so they could use better bonuses. Industrialization should add tons of money, not peanuts. These problems are from the base game.

  8. #3768

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    Lordsith, the 7 Years War is one of 2 cases of "World War Zero", where from about 2/3rds to almost all of the world was involved in said war, and Empire does a really good job showcasing that with its many theatres. The Napoleonic Wars were the other case of " WW0" and I SOO wish CA had kept the many theatres to emphasise that. I have no doubt many people would play the mod you're thinking of manking, but using NTW for the 7 Years War robs it of that global feeling, since CA for some reason limits NTW to Europe.


    Also yes, Steward Denethor II, I forgot about public order. I did a Punjab late campaign and it took me from 1783 to 1821 to conquer most of India (before my game crashed) because of public order being insanely low. I would say Imperial Destroyer would be pretty much complete if a region was added to the other 3 trade theatres, a wee more musket ammo, starting campaigns with a little money, and public order buffed a little (and maybe fix late game crashes if the campaign doesn't let you go past 1821 if that's the mod and not just my game corrupting).

  9. #3769

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    ^ I like all your ideas except I happen to kind of like 0 money at the start. Need a lot more musket ammo, at least 10 shots, with Logistics tech to increase it by 50% to 15.

    World War 0, great analogy. The global nature of the Conflict is a good reason to keep it in Empire.

  10. #3770

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    10 volleys for muskets sounds solid to me. I like limiting musket ammo so you can't just steamroll the game with musket spam, but they need more than just a few volleys before they're rendered worthless. I don't mind tech where it is, tbh. I'd like at least 1,500 or 2,000 money at start to use for diplomacy on turn 1.

  11. #3771
    Sir_Aggelos_GR's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Halkida,Greece
    Posts
    866

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    At the start of each campaign i add 10k for each individual region
    I can xray your mod in napoleon
    and im starting a new campaign in empire very soon.Any suggestions?

  12. #3772

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    Quote Originally Posted by prototype952 View Post
    Lordsith, the 7 Years War is one of 2 cases of "World War Zero", where from about 2/3rds to almost all of the world was involved in said war, and Empire does a really good job showcasing that with its many theatres. The Napoleonic Wars were the other case of " WW0" and I SOO wish CA had kept the many theatres to emphasise that. I have no doubt many people would play the mod you're thinking of manking, but using NTW for the 7 Years War robs it of that global feeling, since CA for some reason limits NTW to Europe.


    Also yes, Steward Denethor II, I forgot about public order. I did a Punjab late campaign and it took me from 1783 to 1821 to conquer most of India (before my game crashed) because of public order being insanely low. I would say Imperial Destroyer would be pretty much complete if a region was added to the other 3 trade theatres, a wee more musket ammo, starting campaigns with a little money, and public order buffed a little (and maybe fix late game crashes if the campaign doesn't let you go past 1821 if that's the mod and not just my game corrupting).
    I must agree, the 7 Years Wars is the first war fought simultaneously in Europe, Asia, Africa and America. In fact the problem of this war is the scope and different styles of combat, Indians or Asians don't fought like Europeans. A 7 Years War focused in Europe is feasible, but you will end not playing Spain, Portugal, United Provinces, France or Britain. Best British and French troops are frequently seen overseas, and the income was relative to gains or loses in scenarios like the strategic sugar Caribbean islands. In fact you can see the problem when playing Portugal as Brazil is not present in Empire.

  13. #3773

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    Greetings to everyone.


    First of all I would like to thank Lordsith and all the content creators for the great contributions they make to the game.


    This is my first post on TWC even though I’ve been following it for many years, and I do it in the hopes of providing useful data.


    Imperial Destroyer is probably the Empire mod I like the most and before writing these lines I tried vanilla version 6.3 and some of the options offered in the Gameplay Options section. Unfortunately my old laptop doesn't like VDM at all.


    The first observation that I want to emphasize and that I consider crucial is the moral system. Some players won’t find anything out of the ordinary, but I have to say that annihilating a unit to force it to retire in disarray is unrealistic, to put it mildly. With 10% casualties (decimated) morale begins to weaken, with 50% casualties only elite or veteran units resist, and not always. In that sense DarthMod was more consistent with a more realistic pace of retreats, groupings and counterattacks, I would venture to say it even fell short. Morale should be drastically reduced, only the most veteran units should be able to withstand 50% casualties.


    This brings us to the second observation, in reducing morale we must also do so in the ability to cause casualties. I've tried the Less Accurate Shots option, but it doesn't solve anything because it overly favors melee units. The melee, of course, was a key part of any confrontation, but there would be no firearms if they were not also fundamental. The attempt to reproduce linear battles is quite good, but it is unrealistic because many clashes in the eighteenth century were not. Clashes in the American colonies, for example Monongahela in 1755, were not linear battles at all. Limiting ammunition to two or three shots and then assaulting with the bayonet should be optional for the player, this is especially detrimental in terms of light and irregular units, but also in the case of buildings or fortifications being used. As for the behavior of AI I can't say anything, since I don't know if it can be conditioned via code, but I suspect not.


    So reducing morale, accuracy and melee stats, but especially the first, brings us a little closer to what we might call realism. I would do it myself, but my knowledge in modding is nil reason why I don’t contribute with the modified files. And it is important to note that auxiliary, irregular, or light units should have twice as much ammunition as line units. Pandours, Freikorps, Rangers et alli were used to harass the enemy, not for the purpose of frontal bayonet attacks.


    Speaking of forts and fortifications, I like the fact that they can be chosen as an option, they existed and were used a lot, especially at the turn of the century. The only downside I find is the fact that a single battery can breach in a matter of minutes, I think the solution to this problem is by tripling the hitpoints of the buildings or alternatively reducing the damage done by the guns to the buildings. I understand this prolongs the sieges, but we are talking about realism, not 5 minute arcade battles. In return, it allows buildings to be occupied in cities without being immediately demolished.


    As for cities, I like the fact that they don’t have walls. Empire fortifications do not serve at all for the purpose of representing them, with a few exceptions. As for the garrisons, they are ahistorical, but they add a plus of difficulty which is welcome. No more blitzkrieg in Paris, London or Moscow which is historically unconvincing. Nothing more to comment on here.

  14. #3774

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    Quote Originally Posted by Steward Denethor II View Post
    ^ I like all your ideas except I happen to kind of like 0 money at the start. Need a lot more musket ammo, at least 10 shots, with Logistics tech to increase it by 50% to 15.

    World War 0, great analogy. The global nature of the Conflict is a good reason to keep it in Empire.
    I understand the interest of Lordsith in realistic linear battles because they where the biggest in the European theatre, but that low ammo kills the role of skirmishers like pandours, rifles, freikorps or grenzers to mention some. So is harassing the enemy and causing casualties by firearms and rarely involving in melee fights. The solution adopted increasing firearms damage only worsens the matter, because in a pair of minutes you can annihilate an enemy army just with regular line musket fire.

    I've tried the Less Accurate Shots option, but it doesn't solve anything because it overly favours melee units. The melee, of course, was a key part of any confrontation, but there would be no firearms if they were not also fundamental. The attempt to reproduce linear battles is quite good, but it is unrealistic because many clashes in the eighteenth century were not. Clashes in the American colonies, for example Monongahela in 1755, were not linear battles at all. Limiting ammunition to two or three shots and then assaulting with the bayonet should be optional for the player, this is especially detrimental in terms of light and irregular units, but also in the case of buildings or fortifications being used. As for the behaviour of AI I can't say anything, since I don't know if it can be conditioned via code, but I suspect not.

  15. #3775

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    Exactly. Also you have to heavily micro your troops when they only have 4 shots. I prefer the Unlimited Ammo over the low shot, although that is not perfect either. Skirmishers especially need the shots, I'm sure they carried more than regulars.

    Good point about melee. They are tricky to balance, but when playing as Europeans I often wish I could have a couple of Swordsmen. I guess that is the point of Grenadiers, but right now, Swordsmen are a lot less outdated than they should be.
    Spain mostly stopped using Rodeleroes in the 1530's.

  16. #3776

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    should be cool

  17. #3777

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    I love this mod really. Compared with Darthmod have better sounds, maps, graphics and units. The campaign looks also better. But my problem is with the battles, unbalanced and unrealistic. The morale stats are not bearable, an unit with morale 4 should break with 10% casualties, that's why damage output must be also carefully revised. XVIII century battles where won by superior morale mainly, and the casualties where caused on routed units or more rarely in pitched battles. I'm sure Lordsith knows the battles of the 7 Years War. Kunersdorf 1759, Russians and Austrians defeated Frederick the Great, was bloody battle with great loses on both sides. Prussians lost about 20.000 from about 50.000, but that includes wounded, killed or prisoners, so no more than 10.000 killed. You must note Prussia in that year can be still considered the best army in the world and thus their morale was to be high in any regard. So, 10.000 deaths is 20% kills in battle and obviously only veteran units can bear this.
    The problem with morale is that is not a static value, after a defeat must be lower than normal, specially if the specific unit suffered much losses. And I bet the presence of Frederick was not a minor stimulus in moral.

  18. #3778

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carole...%20the%20enemy.

    'Gå–På (literally "Go-On") method was based on shock tactics and was the standard combat technique used in the Swedish army at the time. This very aggressive tactic often resulted in short-lived successful battles against superior numbers of the enemy'.

    This is the scenario where you can consider right the limitation to 2 or 3 shots and assault. British tactics used assault, of course, but like prussians they relied in superior firepower through intensive training (at least for line and elite units). In Fontenoy 1745 the British caused high casualties in elite french lines simply shooting, forcing french cavalry to engage melée to stop the carnage.

    I repeat, 2-3 shots should be entirely an option for the player. That represents Gå–På which was not universal at all.

    That brings another issue, mentioned in the document linked. Gå–På is only viable for experienced and high morale troops, I doubt the average morale you put for Swedish troops: 7 vs 8 for the Russians. I can concede equal numbers with the 7 Years War in mind, but nothing more. The Swedes lost because manpower and resources, not lack of morale.

    I note you did a great work with American French colonies, with very low revenues. It's absolutely right reflecting the tiny population present. So I guess you can reduce the resources for the Swedes, reflecting their weak manpower.

  19. #3779

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    Hey there, I just discovered this mod the other day and I really like it, especially the fact that you were able to add in more regions. One question I have though is that is it possible to unlock all the nations for custom battles?

  20. #3780

    Default Re: IMPERIAL DESTROYER SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, QUESTIONS & DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION

    My 1783 game crashed on me around 1826 when the end date is 1850
    Last edited by prototype952; May 07, 2022 at 03:00 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •