Anabasis Realistic Campaign Movement for DeI

[LevinS89]

load after or before DEI?

[Black9]

load after or before DEI?

Before, but it will if you use the default mod manager because it loads alphabetically.

[LevinS89]

Before, but it will if you use the default mod manager because it loads alphabetically.

Thank you again Black9! How does one know when to load something before or after something? Excuse my phrasing haha, but I'm pretty new to modding.

[Deathchant]

Looks good, ive been enjoying this mod yet found the movements somewhat odd. Ill be trying this out. Thanks loads!

[Black9]

Thank you again Black9! How does one know when to load something before or after something? Excuse my phrasing haha, but I'm pretty new to modding.

When 2 mods change the same values in the tables, they conflict. Most of the time one will load before the other and "overwrite" the other, so you won't see the effects. That's where load order comes in. You choose which one takes precedence.

Occasionally two mods are very incompatible and will crash the game.

[Kurisu Paifuaa]

It's always interesting in TW games to see the implications of greater movement range. In this case, I'm seeing (early on)...

1) The AI will attack (because it can) from maximum range rather than sit and muster a larger force. I think that it may not calculate all of the reinforcement possibilities available to it's opponent (or the downside of involving it's own). I've seen it make really bad offensive moves and engage in battles where it's clearly outnumbered. It is certainly more decisive though... less waffling.

2) Due to the extended garrison reinforcement range, AI settlements are left defenseless when the AI makes such an ill conceived attack. As Rome, I had all of Italia by the end of turn 2 because of 2 field battles (one of which I lost... forgot to change battle difficulty from vh ). This was achieved with a minimal force.

3) With the extended ship range, early cascading war becomes much more likely as you're exposed to more factions. At higher campaign difficulty, someone will always declare war for very minor negative relations, and then the dogpile begins. This solidifies the diplomacy game early, as your only friends are going to be whoever hates those factions.


This is a completely different dynamic that (IMHO) requires some substantial re-balance to other aspects of the game. I think keeping garrisons local should be a priority (if possible)... or perhaps replenishment could be adjusted. I also wonder about spotting distance/awareness not being adequate for the AI to make more conservative choices. And factional relations may need to be nudged northwards and/or priorities adjusted to keep all hell from breaking loose too soon.

It is very refreshing to have to think differently about the game, so certainly keep going. I need to play further into a campaign to see how the trends I noticed develop. For the record, I'm using DeI with Yarkis' economy, agent and naval mods... vh(campaign) - normal(battle).

[Vardano]

Does anybodey tested no forced marches for more than 50 or 80 turns. Initial idea is worth of mod but what the outcome of it?

[LevinS89]

When 2 mods change the same values in the tables, they conflict. Most of the time one will load before the other and "overwrite" the other, so you won't see the effects. That's where load order comes in. You choose which one takes precedence.

Thank you one again Black9! I sort of figured it out last night looking at the conflicts each mod caused with other mods.. when I want an effect from a submod to overwrite values from the original DEI, i simply put them before(above) DEI so the submod overwrites the original DEI values.... damn, hope I'm right.. haha

I got kind of confused when I noticed that the attack values on units from RRA were all significantly higher (40-60) compared to other units from DEI. Ran a few custom battles and it seems balanced however.

1) The AI will attack (because it can) from maximum range rather than sit and muster a larger force.

Really? I'm playing a Roman campaign on VH, battles on H and I haven't noticed the AI moving out of their settlements before they have at least 12-14 units. I still get the 1 or 2 unit fleets though

Sometimes I miss the Shogun 2 battles, where you had a small army where every unit counted as well as the enemy. It doesn't always have to be 20v20 or larger, save that for the memorable epic battles.

[freelancerX]

In the turns that I've played with the latest update of no forced marches, I actually have not seen an army force march yet which normally you would see all the time. So at least in my experience this mod seems to be working well. I would say that since we longer have the extra movement of forced march maybe an addition extension to the movement range would be nice. since we have effectively lost that extra movement range. I'm having a blast playing my campagin with this mod, and it truly does change the dynamics of army placement, one nice side effect of armies basically being able to march into the fog of war, along with the larger zones of engagement is that using the ambush stance is actually pretty useful now. The only thing i would say is that perhaps you could lower the range of reinforcement of settlements. I think the range for armies is great but if you could significantly lower it for garrison armies in settlements i think it would be more realistic. As much as we would like to think that a town garrison would leave its own town totally unprotected to try to help out a neighboring town is nice but its probably not what happened. the issue is that if a garrison is destroyed it makes it incredibly easy for the winning army to basically go from town to town destroying the garrisons in their weakened state.

[LevinS89]

Updated 13th January? Just noticed I downloaded an update, any chance on some notes for those changes?

[krunsh]

While this looks like a great mod (I have been using the No Force March one already.), I feel like it would turn the problem of being unable to refuse to re-reinforce with garrison armies even worse.

It is too easy to trick the AI into an open field battle against a single general unit close to a city just to destroy most of the garrison and then easily take over the town. There should be a way to say NO to reinforcement.

[Anabasis]

Excellent discussion. I will reply as soon as possible.

As for the latest update: Adjusted movement range to address the lack of force march, and tweaked seasonal effects. Still exploring that. Expect tweaks in the next few days.

[LevinS89]

As for the latest update: Adjusted movement range to address the lack of force march, and tweaked seasonal effects. Still exploring that. Expect tweaks in the next few days.

Excellent work! Can't wait for the updates

[est Dudus]

You can all thank "the dude" for the no forced March. I showed all these " modders" how its done.lol all joking aside this mod is shaping up nicely. I do not want to mod anymore, it took me forever just to figure out that no force March . I will leave the modding to you guys....May the force be with you.

[freelancerX]

Well as far is tricking the AI there are lots of things that you can do to trick the AI just because you have the option of exploiting something doesn't mean that you should do it. Sure you could attack a lone general to flush out the garrison but that's on you if you want to cheat you're the one that's doing it just because the mod enables you to be able to do it doesn't mean that you have to.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

[krunsh]

Well as far is tricking the AI there are lots of things that you can do to trick the AI just because you have the option of exploiting something doesn't mean that you should do it. Sure you could attack a lone general to flush out the garrison but that's on you if you want to cheat you're the one that's doing it just because the mod enables you to be able to do it doesn't mean that you have to.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

The question was rather regarding the possibility of adding the option to not send a garrison army to join a battle. Or maybe simply making it so that a garrison army NEVER joins a battle outside of its own city (Unless you choose to sally forth, to break a siege in defense.). It is just as annoying when the AI or another player does it online, and it occurs on vanilla as well. It just so happen to be brought to light because it occurs more often using this mod.

Removing the feature all together would prevent the problem mentioned above where two cities could siege each others using garrison armies, and possibly could reduce the amount of massive ''more than 20 units'' battles that are so frequent at the moment. Just my opinion.

[Anabasis]

It's always interesting in TW games to see the implications of greater movement range. In this case, I'm seeing (early on)...

1) The AI will attack (because it can) from maximum range rather than sit and muster a larger force. I think that it may not calculate all of the reinforcement possibilities available to it's opponent (or the downside of involving it's own). I've seen it make really bad offensive moves and engage in battles where it's clearly outnumbered. It is certainly more decisive though... less waffling.

The flip side is that the AI is now quite capable of surprising the player (and presumably other AI). It takes risks that sometimes pay-off. The player faces the same decision. When recon is not available, do you play conservative, or do you go for it? In conjunction with my agent cost mod, it makes for some interesting operational situations.

2) Due to the extended garrison reinforcement range, AI settlements are left defenseless when the AI makes such an ill conceived attack. As Rome, I had all of Italia by the end of turn 2 because of 2 field battles (one of which I lost... forgot to change battle difficulty from vh ). This was achieved with a minimal force.

The extended reinforcement range also benefits the AI. The player now essentially has to plan for attacking an entire region or even an entire province, which makes sense for a 3 month turn. It very much depends on the situation.

3) With the extended ship range, early cascading war becomes much more likely as you're exposed to more factions. At higher campaign difficulty, someone will always declare war for very minor negative relations, and then the dogpile begins. This solidifies the diplomacy game early, as your only friends are going to be whoever hates those factions.

You do have to be very careful about diplomacy in a world with effectively reduced distances. I find that my diplomacy mod helps a great deal with this by creating a more realistic diplomatic environment.

This is a completely different dynamic that (IMHO) requires some substantial re-balance to other aspects of the game. I think keeping garrisons local should be a priority (if possible)... or perhaps replenishment could be adjusted. I also wonder about spotting distance/awareness not being adequate for the AI to make more conservative choices. And factional relations may need to be nudged northwards and/or priorities adjusted to keep all hell from breaking loose too soon.

I agree. I am developing other mods in concert with this one for just that reason.

Diplomacy: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=206461648
Recruitment and agents: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=215550178

[Kurisu Paifuaa]

Exploiting the AI's ignorance isn't the whole concern. Multiple garrisons getting involved in nearby field battles leaves all surrounding regions vulnerable (no matter who wins). Either the player or a 3rd party can easily snatch up territory when the opportunity presents itself.

In my game (which is only 25 turns old) I see factions already beginning to dominate contiguous territory (i.e. blobbing). It's a very interesting dynamic to watch and be aware of as you play, but it may not be desirable if the goal is to create a more historically plausible scenario. At least, not to this magnitude.

One suggestion would be to return the global reinforcement variable to normal (or thereabout) and instead add a base effect to all general led armies that increases their reinforcement range... as with some stance effects.

edit: Whoops, ninja-ed

[Anabasis]

The only thing i would say is that perhaps you could lower the range of reinforcement of settlements. I think the range for armies is great but if you could significantly lower it for garrison armies in settlements i think it would be more realistic. As much as we would like to think that a town garrison would leave its own town totally unprotected to try to help out a neighboring town is nice but its probably not what happened. the issue is that if a garrison is destroyed it makes it incredibly easy for the winning army to basically go from town to town destroying the garrisons in their weakened state.

It would be ideal, but unfortunately, I don't think it is possible to set different reinforcement ranges for armies and for settlements. Reinforcement radius is a single value for the whole engine.

[Anabasis]

and possibly could reduce the amount of massive ''more than 20 units'' battles that are so frequent at the moment. Just my opinion.

See my recruitment mod. There is a return of the small stack battle thanks to increased upkeep costs.