SSHIP - General Discussion

[Lifthrasir]

Many rosters need to be reviewed. They're not accurate. Serbia is just one of them

[Nemesis2345]

Almost certainly not worth the work, but when/if a later era campaign is implemented maybe it would make sense to swap the early era to Bulgaria and the later era to Serbia. Bulgaria is the larger and more relevant state in the 12th and 13th centuries, but appears to be overtaken in prominence by Serbia by the 14th century.

Either Balkan faction could use more fleshing out at some point, the mix of Hungarian and Roman is not the best.

Well the Late Era is not going to be adressed any further (the developer for late era is inactive for more than a year) so they cant have all those factions in there because of the game's limtiations (faction limit is reached). I think Serbia is alright there, there is no ingame mechanic to transform a faction mid-game into another faction, so we have to do with what we get. That said, they could just replace Serbia with Bulgaria, but as Lifth said, the roosters need to be adressed anyway, they are not that accurate. I prefer the game as it is, there is no reason to change factions now since it looks like a royal pain in the butt and there are other things that needs to be adressed, and Lifth surely focuses on those.

[Lifthrasir]

The main problem when we start talking about factions' changes is that it is impossible to reach a general agreement because some people wants faction A, some others faction B and some faction C. I mean, that's a human thing: we all have our preference on that matter.
However, people are free to discuss it. I honestly don't mind. But keep in mind that I won't change/replace any faction for now, mostly for the reasons mentioned above by Nemesis2345

[Tripledot]

How come Serbia's Dismounted Vlastela has such a low unit count? If it's a dismounted version of the Vlastela, then it should have double their numbers.

[Lifthrasir]

Will check that

[P4GY]

Guys, does anybody know how much "The Dome On The Rock" building inside Jerusalem, affects the religiousness of the settlement? like if your the crusaders, is it better to demolish the dome on the rock and build the holy Seplecar or whatever the fack?

[toteking93]

I would like to propose some historical contributions:


1- Rise Of Heroes: Bellum Crucis had "heroes" that appeared as script / event in campaign mode William Wallace style in this. They could add more of these, because in my view they give a historical touch and very entertaining to the game. Saladino, Ricardo Corazon de Leon, Felipe II Augusto, Balduino IV, etc.


2- Extinction of "Dynasties": I have seen that in this mod there are no dynasties, with Bellum Crucis had the "Dynasties" in the section of "ancillaries" of each general with noble blood and provide a very good historical touch.


Nothing else, I think the mod is very complete and that the best thing that could be done for the next versions is to improve the historical aspect.

[Jurand of Cracow]

2- Extinction of "Dynasties": I have seen that in this mod there are no dynasties, with Bellum Crucis had the "Dynasties" in the section of "ancillaries" of each general with noble blood and provide a very good historical touch.

In the SSHIP there're "Bloods" (traits, not ancillaries) transmitted from father to children. There's a mechanism of re-creation of a "blood" if extinct.

[Lifthrasir]

While starting to work on the next version, I'm wondering if it is worth to keep the 'Next Heir' feature or not. To be short, in the current version, if a player choose that option, then the JoC's minimod GTCS - Generals' Traits' Common Sense fix is becoming irrelevant.
As I'm planning to include it to the next version, I'd like to get opinion to know if it is worth to keep the 'Next Heir' or not.
Thanks in advance for your feedback

[kostic]

Personally, I did not find much interest in choosing the heir. And it does not always work well.

[Jurand of Cracow]

'Next Heir' feature ... in the current version, if a player choose that option, then the JoC's minimod GTCS - Generals' Traits' Common Sense fix is becoming irrelevant.

To be precise: it makes the Loyalty engine irrelevant - something that is present in the SSHIP now, but at the same what is somehow broken, as VineFynn elaborated in that thread.

My opinion: it's worth keeping the feature for the players that don't want to have problems with the loyalty. If it's already there, it costs nothing to keep it.

[Lifthrasir]

As long as it doesn't create conflict with your stuff JoC. If it doesn't, then I can just amend the text (in game) for that feature to inform the player about the consequence if he chooses it. If it does, then I'll need to find out or to remove it

[cecxla]

if the aim of this mod is historical accuracy shouldn't swordsmen be lot more rare and polearms lot more common? or was sword still not uncommon during the period?

[Dekhatres]

afaik they were reasonably common, good/high quality ones ? maybe not so much, professional soldiers would generally be able to afford low/medium quality swords

[cecxla]

were they common as primary weapons?

[Lifthrasir]

For the period covered by SSHIP and for most of the factions represented (to not say all), sword was pretty common among those who could afford a minimum of equipment as Deskhatres said. Of course, levies and militias were probably excluded somehow.
Sword became slowly a secondary weapon when armours evolved (partial plate armours and later full plate one) because becoming less efficient against these. It was replaced by weapons able to pierce or at least to damage them in order to remove the hability to fight such as maces, hammers, polearms, etc...
Note that I'm just giving the main lines here, to stay short

[kostic]

SSHIP essentially covers a historical period without firearms. It is only at the end of the campaign that the first examples will arrive, such as arquebuses in the 15th century (previously, the first firearms were poorly developed and were mainly used for artillery).




What bothers me most is these two-handed sword units that we see in the first part of the campaign. First, the uniformity of such a unit is not credible. Then, the big sword like "the swordfish" does not appear until the very end of the Middle Ages. It is absurd, for example, to see the knights of the Holy Sepulcher equipped in the 12th / 13th century in this way. Two-handed swords at that time were rarer and less noble. They were however much smaller (up to 120 cm in the 12th century) than those used, for example the Lansquenets in the 15th / 16th century.
Towards the end of the 13th century, a long two-handed sword is suspended from the saddle of the horse called the "pommel sword". It was used to repel opponents with reels, but the knights then used their one-handed sword and their shield to fight ...


sorry for my bad English

[Lifthrasir]

Actually, I can't find any record of a 2 handed sword use before the 15th century

[kostic]

I find the Canons of the Holy Sepulcher for Jerusalem and Swabian swordsmen mercenaries. They seemed recruitable before the thirteenth century ... but you have perhaps corrected this aspect with your latest version?


Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958

Problem. Bug with the forum. I can't post pictures or smiley !

[toteking93]

I have an economic problem with my Byzantium campaign (it's the first one I play). I have expenses of 22,000 per shift for corruption and others. How can I solve it or reduce it?