SSHIP - General Discussion

[Lifthrasir]

I am so happy and excited about the update, but why is the watchtower price raised? The watchtower is just a nice convenience for the player, correct me if I'm wrong but the AI sees everything anyway(that is not in ambush state).

The price was ridiculously too low. On the other hand, we may replace them in the future as they're absolutely not accurate. No one used them during Middle Ages.

Ah. Even a little disappointment: in my test runs with France, I have a general immobilized. I find it weird as a concept.

Usurper? If he had the trait, that's why. That's another thing we need to re-view.

First time I try SSHIP...and I had a blast ! Such a good work, I cannot do the list, but I'm impressed.

I have just a suggestion : Pope should not be able to attack non-excommunicated catholic factions (unless he is Julius II of course). There is something in the papal-state ai script in the vanilla descr_campaign_ai_db which prevent it to happen. I don't know which line exactly is doing that effect, I'm not so skilled to tell that, but it would be a nice addition.

Thanks for your kind words
The Papal States is another point to be re-viewed as well.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Even a little disappointment: in my test runs with France, I have a general immobilized. I find it weird as a concept.

afaik, this is because of the historical political situation in France at that time. gameplaywise, it creates some interesting choices for the players, I believe.
I think this situation should be extended also to Kiev Russia (there's a crisis in 1132 concering next grand duke, and for the following decades the situation deteriorated - if we go historical, there should be much more internal problems for Kiev), and also to Poland (in 1138 the crown lands were divided among the sons and the divisions reigned there for slightly less than 200 years).
Both changes would alleviate the very difficult starting situation of Lithuania and Cumania.
Besides, I know MWY was working on making the HRR initial situation very difficult given that in the game it's so powerful. But we don't have his system, alas.

I am so happy and excited about the update, but why is the watchtower price raised? The watchtower is just a nice convenience for the player, correct me if I'm wrong but the AI sees everything anyway(that is not in ambush state).

It's for the player to create more need for build-up of the realm. Choices if to recruit a unit of heavy cavalry or to build a tower is slightly more meaningfull. At least at the beginning there'll some fog of war and some surprises are possible. later, with watchtowers everywhere, the player is in a situation of perfect knowledge what's going on in the realm - which was not the case in the MA.
My concern is actually different: some factions have so little income and so little initial money that it may be very difficult for them to build those towers.
I actually don't know if the AI sees everything... The AI does set up the watchtowers as well, but I don't know for whatever reason.

[Lifthrasir]

I still think that having a general stuck
on the map because getting the usurper trait doesn't make sens. We should think about another option IMO.

[kostic]

Here is the immobilized general. He does not even have the usurper trait; above, it is said that it is disloyal ...
Personally, that a character is disloyal, usurper or other, I find the idea to block it questionable.
If it is to show disobedience to the player, then it should be possible to send an assassin against him to get rid of him.

[Lifthrasir]

I'll check that guy. Thanks for pointing it/him

[Jurand of Cracow]

Here is the immobilized general. He does not even have the usurper trait; above, it is said that it is disloyal ...
Personally, that a character is disloyal, usurper or other, I find the idea to block it questionable.
If it is to show disobedience to the player, then it should be possible to send an assassin against him to get rid of him.

If sending an assassin would be a solution for the problems of the unloyal aristocrats, then we'd have strong, large countries in the Middle Ages. And it was not the case: the countries broke very, very often. The internal strifes were more serious for the rulers than the external threats. And a death of a ruler was very often a mortal threat for a larger country.

I think the main fault of the Medieval 2 is a limited possibility to reflect this issue. The usurper system in the SSHIP is alleviating this problem, within the engine limitations. The best would be that such a noble just rebells and takes the city for himself what is not possible afaik (to rebell he needs to be outside a settlement). So the usurper system would function somewhat like this:

1. a noble is angry with the rulers - he gets disloyal
2. a noble is disloyal and refuses to fulfill his senior orders: immobilization
3. a noble is rebellious and he draws rebellion in the city (Unrest +10)
4. the city rebells, the noble is kicked out of the city, and perhaps he would rebell outside the city (with 0 loyalty).

So immobilization is a very good mechanics, one of the middle steps in the process.

BTW, the same systems works in the Broken Crescent - playing Makuria I had at some point half of my nobles immobilized (the king was a really bad guy) what halted any expansion. The rebellion last for many turns.

The immobilization system is even better in the Titanium - the only way for to get an immobilized noble out of the city is to get him on a boat (but then the rest of the system is botched up in the Titaniu, saddly - you can just disregard it).

The system should prompt the player to do things the kings in the Middle Ages: gain authority, win battles, build jousting fields, give titles, care for being crowned etc.
Sending assassins (or executing nobles) could work at times, but was not widespread in Europe at that times.

[Nemesis2345]

Me: ,, Damn , it's been a while since i played Medieval , let me check the forums before i play it, maybe ....maybe a new release is out''

Gentlemen, that's with a great pleasure that I have officially release SSHIP v0.9.6.

Me: ,, Yes , Mein Kaiser, marching to bettel!''

[Lifthrasir]

@ JoC, if I got you right, for a general to become rebel, he needs to be outside of the settlement? Could it be possible then to "kick him out" of the settlement by script when he gets that trait? Add him some units, empty the settlement army et voilà: you have a rebel general with an army, ready to take a riotting settlement

@ Nemesis2345,

[Jurand of Cracow]

@ JoC, if I got you right, for a general to become rebel, he needs to be outside of the settlement? Could it be possible then to "kick him out" of the settlement by script when he gets that trait? Add him some units, empty the settlement army et voilà: you have a rebel general with an army, ready to take a riotting settlement

I don't think it's possible either to kick him out of the settlement or/and to add him units by script.
Furthermoe, from the point of view of the gameplay, it's more important to make the settlement rebel than to make him rebel. Ie. we want to split a part of the realm, not just to get rid of one general. This idea is implemented in the newer TW - both Rome 2 TW and Thrones of Brittani have it. If you don't treat well the political parties in the R2TW (I played it in the Divide et Impera, but I believe it exists also in the base game), one will take part of the territories (eg. 4 out of 10) and create a new faction. Similarly, in ToB a rebellious general will take the settlement he's in, there's a new army created, and he will conquer territories around. Very dangerous. But such a mechanism doesn't exist in the Medieval 2, and the system we have is the best possible, I think.

Frankly speaking, as I've mentioned, we need to review the starting situation of Poland and Kiev Rus to make some generals also immobile to make imminent turmoils in those countries likely. I don't know the situation of other factions, but it's also possible some need it (as mentioned, I remember MWY working on changes in the HRR).

[Lifthrasir]

The best similar system for M2 engine is the public order. That's why settlements regularly rebel if you (or the AI) can't keep the population happy. But it doesn't solve the character issue. Honestly, what's the point to keep him unable to move? It doesn't make sens to me

[Jurand of Cracow]

The best similar system for M2 engine is the public order. That's why settlements regularly rebel if you (or the AI) can't keep the population happy. But it doesn't solve the character issue. Honestly, what's the point to keep him unable to move? It doesn't make sens to me

Yes, it's public order - and it's exactly why a rebellious noble should be immobilized. It's because in the MA (and in general as well, with a few exceptions, like the French Revolution) a source of a rebellion is an unhappy powerful person. But in the game, if we see an unloyal character, we (a player) send him into the battle to die. Or pack on a boat to die by the pirates. So to have him sparking a riot, we need to immobilize him.

Besides, the nobles are a resource for the player (it's why their numbers are limited, the game engine doesn't give you 100 nobles if you've got 1 settlement). So immobilizing a noble strips a player from a resource. If the player doesn't have nobles (as it happened to me in the Makuria game), he cannot take more lands.

All in all, imo we badly need immobilization. M2TW provides it up to a point (you still can get with such a noble into a ship, if the city is a port), so my first home rule forbides it.

[kostic]

I understand your point of view, Jurand of Cracow. By immobilizing a general, you try to reproduce the rivalries of power that existed between the noble rulers and the king. Why not...


Personally, I find it just painful because the player has no choice against this type of rebellion. In the middle ages, internal conflicts were often settled by wars between the sovereign and his barons, out there, with this system, the sovereign has no means of pressure since he can attack or put the siege in front of a city ​​of his own faction !

I find this principle of immobilization quite questionable.

[Jurand of Cracow]

In the middle ages, internal conflicts were often settled by wars between the sovereign and his barons, out there, with this system, the sovereign has no means of pressure since he can attack or put the siege in front of a city ​​of his own faction !

Precisely!
"often" = not always. I'd even say "rather rarely" - but these cases feature well in the chronicles. How much more interesting is for a chronicler to write about (succesful) military actions of his sovereign than on the event when he would turn a blind eye or negotiate something with a vassal. No honor, no legitimacy. So exceptions seem to be the rule.
You may find writings of Gerd Althoff on political culture in the Ottonid empire (admittedely, 100 years earlier, but this culture was present later on as well) to learn how important "clementia" for the HRR was and often conflicts were settled by pacts, manifestations or neglect.

So in the SSHistoricalIimprovementP you are not free to attack your vassals any time. You need to muddle through. Only when your vassal rebel, you can attack him, put a siege etc.

[Lifthrasir]

Accuracy is one thing, gameplay is another
I still share kostic feeling about immobilizing such character.

[The Despondent Mind]

The price was ridiculously too low. On the other hand, we may replace them in the future as they're absolutely not accurate. No one used them during Middle Ages.

But the mtw2 game cannot accurately reflect everything about the middle ages, the developers obviously made them as nice convenience, so the player is not blind on the map, especially to rebels.

[Lifthrasir]

The developers actually just re-used what was already existing in RTW as both games basically share the same engine
That's just my opinion but I'd rather get ride of them and leave only the forts. That would be more accurate actually.

[Jurand of Cracow]

@Lifht - there're no forts in the SSHIP.

@TDM:
It's for the player to create more need for build-up of the realm. Choices if to recruit a unit of heavy cavalry or to build a tower is slightly more meaningfull. At least at the beginning there'll some fog of war and some surprises are possible. later, with watchtowers everywhere, the player is in a situation of perfect knowledge what's going on in the realm - which was not the case in the MA.

[Lifthrasir]

@Lifht - there're no forts in the SSHIP.

I know... hopefully
But form my opinion, watchtowers should go (inaccurate) and be replaced by forts, themselves brought back to the mod. My main issue with forts is just that that bloody AI unable to handle them correctly. Even if their price is set quite high, the AI will try to build them everywhere

[Jurand of Cracow]

I've expressed my opinion in the past:

I see five major gameplay problems concerning both the permanent and the buildable (temporary) forts that justify the decision of the removal:
1. CAI is absolutely broken on the choice what to defend. Usually, it leaves the main settlement empty, concentrating troops in a fort present in the province. Or it moves it between them. A player can easily exploit this behavior.
2. However, the AI doesn’t know how to use forts strategically in the way the player does. It doesn't use the forts to block the player's advances to buy time for the reserves to come. It also leaves forts from time to time (it doesn't stay in a fort, it moves out and in - if it's a temporary fort then it disappears).
3. While on the offensive, the AI sieges a fort instead of the settlement, furthermore it breaks these sieges very often. The result is: a player can dupe the AI easily into endless sieges.
4. The number of siege battles is high with the permanent forts. The chrome of the forts is nice, but it's a nightmare to play with: you're bogged down in dozens of irrelevant sieges.
5. Western Europe is already full of settlements close to one another, so any forts would limit the tactical movements even more, with the player blocking passes through the mountains or woods. The result would be a restricted tactical movement, detrimental to the AI as it's not really capable of assessing the situation and sending troops around, or not sending them.
x) If the buildable forts are additionally related with the free_upkeep then an exploit is possible: you farm the forts to keep your whole army without paying upkeep (it was the case of the HURB, but also in the DLV).

I think possible exploits were known long before and Byg, one of the most deep-thinking M2TWmoder of all times, has introduced a simple solution that on hand left the possibility of building forts, but on the other making that so unappealing to the player that it would happen very rarely. Namely, in the BGR IV_E he made the price of a fort to 15000 florins (it was an additional patch, I recall). Any player would think many times before splashing 15k for a fort but we would be able to do it in a grave need (or in the late game when you’ve got hundred thousands of florins spared – but who besides Alavaria gets to that stage…).

In future, I’d see theoretically just two possibilities of re-introduction of the forts.
a. permanent forts on lone islands (like Rodos)
b. buildable forts with the extreme price of 20000 florins or more.
However, for the moment I don’t see a real need for such a re-introduction.

I don't discuss here either historicality of buildable forts or their uses because it’s not worth doing at the moment since they’re not in the game.

[Lifthrasir]

I agree with your analyse

What about replacing the watchtowers by villages, like +Marius+ and Melooo182 did (see here for details)? Both seem inactive nowadays but Melooo182 has posted a link to the villages models (post#16) saying that it is a modder resource.