SSHIP - General Discussion

[vovery]

Yes VH/VH. Now that I came to think of it, the Protector of his people trait that the initial Lithuanian FL has plays probably a very big part in the strong early economy of Lithuania, even without the financial aid on. One more free upkeep Lithuanian spearmen unit (152 men per unit on large unit scale) in each settlement helps a lot in battles. On this campaign the first FL even got a Tidy and clean trait from building a well, and lived on to 82 or 83 even though he never rode into battle. On previous Lithuania campaigns I've had him die due to natural causes after just a few turns.

[Sllhouette]

Some interval thoughts from an ongoing Lithuania campaign without financial aid (I'll post saves later). Bear in mind that these are made from an early game perspective, under 100 turns so far. I'll stick with this campaign, and give an update on thoughts when posting saves.

1. On population growth in early game: IMO chivalry seems a bit too strong as a growth adding factor. It looks like the first level of chivalry adds a +1%, but the more chivalrous a general is, the curve slows down. My general with four chivalry gives a +3% currently according to the settlement details scroll. But when taking into account farming knowledge from the second level onwards, Good Farmer is it, the combination of chivalry + farming knowledge makes populations grow very quickly. Then again, Lithuania starts with a lowly-populated capital + all the rebel settlements around have low populations too, so with the current build from a player perspective I don't mind keeping up with the very effectively growing AI settlements.
   
   Indeed, the quickest way to grow let's say Kolyvan, a motte & bailey with a very low initial population, into a wooden castle or even a castle is currently to let Novgorod take it and let the AI grow it, and conquer it only after it's a castle. The AI generals grow the populations of small settlements very quickly so that the infrastructure of the settlements doesn't keep up with the population growth in order for the AI to be able to upgrade the settlement levels as quickly.
   
   I wouldn't mind it either, if all settlements, be it AI or player, would grow slower. E.g. if the first level of chivalry gave a +0,5% to population growth instead of a +1%, and the curve would be similar to what it's now, a general with four chivalry would give a +2% or +2,5% at max? Then if they have farming knowledge, the squalor-reducing effects would still help. But I understand the effectiveness of chivalry might be needed in mid to late game to maintain larger populations, so it might be hard to try to find a balance.
2. On religious conversion speed: I can confirm the remarks made by other players, and if I'm not mistaken, something is to be tried in the upcoming version? Currently even the pagan Lithuania with less effective shamans compared to catholic/orthodox priests can convert well over half of the population into paganism in just around 20 turns or so after conquering a settlement from a ~10-12% initial paganism state.
3. On Lithuanian family tree: when a Lithuanian male comes of age, there's no new general cost of 1000 florins like there is for other factions. I wonder, if this is intentional? Also a small detail, but the starting wife of the Lithuanian heir is so young that she would've had their firstborn by the age of 10. I have to admit that I haven't looked into it, if this was most likely truly the case. By a quick search there seem to be modern examples of girls giving birth as young as at around 11- or 12-years-old, so I guess 10 shouldn't be impossible either. The world record seems to be a sadly amazing one with Lina Medina giving birth at a bit under 5 years and 8 months.
4. On enemy army composition: for some reason the Polish and Novgorodian armies seem to be lacking archers. I mean yes, their very early game (turns ~16-40) attacking forces come with approximately two archer units per army, but once the player deals with those armies, the AI doesn't seem to either recruit or be able to recruit archers that much. And even when they recruit mercenaries, they seem to prefer spearmen and cavalry, but not that much archers. And Novgorod recruits a lot of slavic javelinmen. Even if there are no archers, their armies usually have at least two or three javelinmen units. Just a few turns ago their attacking army of ~10 units consisted of five javelinmen, a druzhina cavalry, maybe two woodsmen, and two spearmen units. The lack of AI archers makes the battles strongly in favour of the player, who usually wields at least one archer unit into a battle.
5. On watchtowers: I don't know if other players share the thought, but IMO watchtowers might cost too little. I have a watchtower in every strategic position, which makes it easy to shuffle troops between settlements in advance when the enemy armies appear close to the borders or come into my territory. And I never had a problem building the towers even with no financial aid. If they cost 3000 or even 4000 a piece, perhaps the money would've been tighter to invest into watchtowers that much early on. But this could also be just a "problem" with factions/areas with long distances in-between settlements. And it's not really a problem at all, more like a strong advance for the player to not be surprised by enemy armies. Perhaps the hard times are yet to come, even though my reputation is immaculate, and even the relations with the pope are so-so.

On general this version of SSHIP has so far been the best experience I've had, very good job! A really enjoyable campaign now that I've finally grown a thicker skin and play a no reload campaign + avoid abusing the battle AI.

1. almost all of my citadels have been foreign and captured, i dont think i grew any of my own except my starting castle capital of Edinburgh in Scotland. i don't have enough nobles to govern and grow settlements, if i want to conquer the known world, every single one must be made into a general and sent out into the field. i've seen cities in crappy places, regularly have close to 100,000 population under the AI. i never change citadels into cities because they're so hard to create myself, even if its a good coastal area that could bring in tons of money. how else can you make the AI strong though? all anyone can do is boost them unfairly for a challenge. but there should not be a million citadels dotted throughout europe, theyre supposed to be rare, valuable, and powerful

5. i actually wish there were forts in SSHIP. pretty cool feature, its better than having my armies stand threateningly out in the open

i wish you luck against the hordes of christ-worshippers west and east who would have you betray your old ways

[vovery]

i wish you luck against the hordes of christ-worshippers west and east who would have you betray your old ways

Thank you! Based on an earlier Lithuania campaign I made a limitation to not ally any Christians - it's a challenge I have to admit! If the situation comes upon, the Lithuanians have decided uniting forces with the Cumans might come into question - even if they practice a foreign religion, they too share the respect for nature, and they too are threatened by others trying to alter their ways of living.

Siege defenses are by far my favourite type of battle. After beating their resistance army, the Kievan Rus came to reclaim Volodymyr with a stronger one: a general, four and a half Druzhina cavalry units, one and a half Druzhina infantry, a couple units of Eastern Spearmen, and some archers and javelinmen. But the Gods smiled on the Lithuanian heir, who led his men to victory, albeit with a great cost. This must've been narrowest fight I've ever fought in SSHIP with only 6% of my men surviving the fight. Let's see how on Earth I'll muster up a new garrison before the Rus come again, as they refused my ceasefire offer after releasing their injured troops. Elsewhere Poland tried to reclaim Plock at the very same end of turn, and Novgorod has repeatedly refused to end the war they started, so currently the Lithuanians face enemies on every frontier. Unfortunately Aliminas received more grave news from the capital only moments after his renowned victory - his father, the Grand Duke - had passed away out of old age.

SSHIP has so much of what I miss in most modern games, a historical approach and a real challenge, where the player isn't guaranteed to win easily

[linky_uk]

Excuse me, does anybody know when Genoese Crossbowmen appear in the game?
I am with Pisa on turn 120, is it like about like turn 180 when the crossbow reforms come?


- Regarding Forts... their usability was indeed quite ugly the way it was though... Maybe could have forts without walls, that are actually just villages perhaps so at least there are some buildings, corners and not so narrow paths to mess around.


P.S. This mod is total love..... omg....

[DynastyOfBlood]

I have a couple of questions.

First, in medieval 2 I'm aware that to organize your army on the campaign map you need to move your general out of the settlement first and then add your troops in the order you want them (really annoying but I understand this game is old). I wish they were sorted by type like cav, inf, etc. I'm assuming this is hard wired in the game that can't be changed? Now my question is that, if I am moving my individual units into my generals army alone to just organize it. Will I get the money penalty for not having them accompanied by a general? Even if the distance is extremely short?

My second question is if I have multiple generals in an army, Who is leading it? Will they share good traits if they win a hard fought battle? I have my heir to the crown leading the army (want to) and I have a trash general that i'm using just for his generals body guard. I want my heir to lead the army obviously. Will they share the glory or do I have to appoint one over the other? Not too familiar with how medi 2 mechanics work. Mostly an Attila player.

[kostic]

The penalty only takes effect if the player spends the turn with one or more armies without a general remaining outside the cities.
I've never played Attila, but it's quite easy to take a complete army out of your city with the "select all" command, or to choose the units you want to put in the army with the general with the recruitment menu... in fact, I don't really understand what the problem is.


I think that only one general, when there are several in an army, commands and wins the traits resulting from the battle. The others can nevertheless obtain stripes if they fought well.

[Sllhouette]

vovery, great survival. i've had so many of those kinds of fights as scotland for hundreds of turns, i was England's dog, they beat me down so much at my castle. so many 1% survivals, so many kings and princes dying for the country, always more bad news around the corner. i love it, this is SSHIP as it is meant to be. those days are long gone since im at the end of my campaign and i hold much of the world. but i have to say, surviving by a thread as a small country was the most fun i had with SSHIP, not the world-conquering. everybody wants to conquer a huge empire; nobody wants to RULE a huge empire. it is a giant chore to manage every city

[DynastyOfBlood]

The penalty only takes effect if the player spends the turn with one or more armies without a general remaining outside the cities.
I've never played Attila, but it's quite easy to take a complete army out of your city with the "select all" command, or to choose the units you want to put in the army with the general with the recruitment menu... in fact, I don't really understand what the problem is.


I think that only one general, when there are several in an army, commands and wins the traits resulting from the battle. The others can nevertheless obtain stripes if they fought well.

Thanks for answering my questions Kostic. Do you possibly know how medi 2 chooses which general is selected to be the main general? It might be by who has the most command stars? Not sure.

[vovery]

vovery, great survival. i've had so many of those kinds of fights as scotland for hundreds of turns, i was England's dog, they beat me down so much at my castle. so many 1% survivals, so many kings and princes dying for the country, always more bad news around the corner. i love it, this is SSHIP as it is meant to be. those days are long gone since im at the end of my campaign and i hold much of the world. but i have to say, surviving by a thread as a small country was the most fun i had with SSHIP, not the world-conquering. everybody wants to conquer a huge empire; nobody wants to RULE a huge empire. it is a giant chore to manage every city

1% survival rate, doesn't get closer than that! Read from your post to the bug thread about that 1½ hours per turn it takes for you to just go through everything across the map, now that's something not many would indeed want to go through But your campaign of going for the full turns available and conquering as much of the world as possible is of course unique, and something no one would hardly think of when designing things for such a mod. Yet your review after you're done will surely offer great insight on different aspects, I'll happily read it when the time comes even as just another player!

[j.a.luna]

Question for sship developers and players, have you ever completely destroyed a city/castle? I mean demolishing the buildings and getting the money, in addition to abandoning the city, increasing taxes very high so that finally its inhabitants rebel.I do this in the event that I cannot control a city due to an upcoming enemy attack or it is not relevant to hold it...
In my Kievan Rus campaign I just did it with the city of Derbent, because the Selyuks wanted to take it and provoke a war, that added to the remoteness and little public order that I had, I had to do it, thanks to that I obtained benefits of about 30,000 florins.
I have also done it in cities like Merv or Gorganch when I knew that the Mongols would attack my cities and I couldn't do anything with them, instead of resisting and losing troops, I abandoned them, demolished all the buildings and raised taxes to very high, everything to obtain benefits and leave the cities with the least possible infrastructure...
Do you see these actions well? Are they historical and ethical to do so?
It would be like a scorched earth strategy that I think other peoples like the Russians already did...

[adeperry]

Yes, in SSR though, not SSHIP. Like you against the Mongols. Long, long time ago, but I realised that it was the only way I could possibly hope to make a stand. Much more effective in SSR as there is no financial aid for them.
I don't know if this was actually done in Medieval times (I'm guessing some cities were raised - but a whole scorched earth policy, cannot recall any. WW2 and Russia is the best example that I can think of - although mainly farmland and small towns. Effective, though.

However, I've also done this as a sort of thought experiment, rather than reflect any reality. I started an England campaign and T1 demolished, vacated and raised taxes in the two continental dwellings. Just to have a nice quiet relaxing start devloping England ! So, I got a huge Florin hit for my first round of building, pretty much build anything you want, plus I kept some of my most of my more expensive units (except for anything circa 1K). Everybody who was in France relocated to Ireland . Took that easily, then the Welsh castle. Sat back build up my economy (which, given it's massive kick start, was doing pretty good). Then build two stacks and took out the Scots (actually badly miscalculated the cost and tanked my economy - very bad management on my part).
But recovered quickly as I could safely disband almost everything and build back up.
Of course, the major downside (apart from lack of realism and huge lowering of jeopardy) was France took all the continental coast and a really hard invasion beckoned.
It was fun for a relaxing mini game - but I doubt that I'd do it again.

[adeperry]

Should we invite the Saxons ? Apologies if this has been answered before (I did search) - but what is this all about ? Especially, as it seems to pop up for pretty much all factions. ("My Sultan, should we invite the Saxons ?", "What are you on about? What are `Saxons` ?"). And where are Erdely and Felfold ?

[Sllhouette]

Should we invite the Saxons ? Apologies if this has been answered before (I did search) - but what is this all about ? Especially, as it seems to pop up for pretty much all factions. ("My Sultan, should we invite the Saxons ?", "What are you on about? What are `Saxons` ?"). And where are Erdely and Felfold ?

jurand has mentioned this is a bug, and should be fixed in the next version

[kostic]

@Jurand, @Macaras or @Belovèse... Am I the only one to find the very difficult level unplayable? Am I the only one to complain about a blatant imbalance in favor of AI and - what is worse - a discouragement to continue my campaigns?


The example here concerns my campaign with the Franks. I am in 1183 and I saved the kingdom by ceding the county of Toulouse to the Germans in exchange for peace while returning the city of Rouen to the English for the same reason. They attacked me on 2 fronts at the same time and it was the only way to survive.


After that, I was finally able to revive my economy over several years until the English king was excommunicated. As Angers and Poitiers were weakly defended and this English traitor had broken an alliance with marriage to attack me while I was trying to resist the invasions of the Holy Roman Empire, I had no scruples in taking these two territories.



Although enjoying a good reputation, despite friendly relations with the Moors, they sent a large army to Bordeaux and declared war on me.
I barely manage to push them back and save Bordeaux... but they come back... and oh! Now the Holy Roman Empire is taking the opportunity to attack me... with 3 large armies besieging 3 cities at the same time!!!...



How can we accept such imbalances?


1 - The Holy Roman Empire is capable, from the beginning, of fielding an impressive number of well-equipped armies, of having them roam outside the cities, the majority of the time without generals while only one army of the player in the field cost him a fortune


2 - I had to earn several thousand florins by passing the round before HRE besieged my cities. At the end of the tour I find myself with several thousand guilders in debt! I'm fine with a siege reducing revenue, but losing everything during the turn isn't fair or realistic

3 - Is it modifiable that after a big defeat, an opponent immediately returns with other armies? I would like the opponent to take time to recover before returning to the attack... in short, to be a bit like the player who does not have the means to send several armies one after the other. behind the others


I hope that the next version will take my comments into account, otherwise I think I will go back to playing in "normal" mode, at least for the campaign.


As a challenge, I suggest you test my campaign starting in 1183, just after the attack of the Moors on Bordeaux: France 1183


Will you be able to save the kingdom of France?

[Macaras]

I agree Kostic, I think there are some improvements that needs to be done indeed. I would propose this:
1. Lower the amount of money in the hands of ai- trade, merchants, it seems there is too much money, ai has too many armies etc.
2. Lower the growth in the cities/castles, there are too many citadels/large cities too quick, maybe better if some discoveries raise the benefits from the buildings, so there is control of when the cities may grow really big.
3. Raise the recruit price for landowner units to be equal with their upkeep cost. We could try to modify priority offset, but I think better way is to raise the recruitment cost, ai is kind of blind, doesn't see the upkeep at all, so the landowner units are unrealistically attractive to buy, and lead to some financial problems when too many. I noticed that later game armies in Christendom are basically only knights.
4. I also think that the idea of having big money after grand victories is very good, just to make sure that it works correctly.

AI will behave less aggressive when is weaker, so that will also influence general feeling of the campaign in this sense.

[vovery]

I see Kostic the same in my Lithuania campaign. Immaculate reputation and Reasonable to Amiable relations don't matter much, when the AI decides it has enough heavy troops and it's time to attack someone. I don't know if with Lithuania the religious differences make the neighbours more aggressive, but I'm in a cycle where I can't keep peace with Poland, Novgorod and Kievan Rus for more than ~10 turns at a time per faction. Or actually the Kievan Rus haven't agreed to a ceasefire at all after I took Volodymyr, but then again I haven't tried offering them any money in exchange and they only just reject my offers currently.

Poland and Novgorod agree to a peace quite easily after beating their army back and releasing the prisoners. But still they always come again, and so far in 125 turns or so Poland and Novgorod haven't waged war against anyone else except me, with the exception of Poland taking part in crusades. It must be some of the settlements that weigh heavy in the scales of AI: Plock for Poland, and Volodymyr for Kievan Rus. For Novgorod I don't know, as I only possess the three core settlements of Lithuania + Twangste, Plock and Volodymyr. I'm guessing they're just the nemesis of Lithuania, and war with them is inevitable.

Most of the time I'm at war with at least two of them, and sometimes even the third attacks at that point too. But I've noticed it's easier to get a ceasefire when at war with multiple factions. I don't mind the situation that much, as it lets me roleplay everyone trying to force the Cross to the Baltics, but I can see how it would be a problem with other factions, especially those surrounded with many factions and some very strong neighbours (HRE, ERE, Moors). But I admit for the moment I've grown a bit tired of the almost constant warring with all three, and play a more peaceful Norwegian campaign for some time now. Of course rushing let's say Novgorod to their demise would make it a lot easier, but I dislike the idea of snowballing a neighbour.

[j.a.luna]

I agree Kostic, I think there are some improvements that needs to be done indeed. I would propose this:
1. Lower the amount of money in the hands of ai- trade, merchants, it seems there is too much money, ai has too many armies etc.
2. Lower the growth in the cities/castles, there are too many citadels/large cities too quick, maybe better if some discoveries raise the benefits from the buildings, so there is control of when the cities may grow really big.
3. Raise the recruit price for landowner units to be equal with their upkeep cost. We could try to modify priority offset, but I think better way is to raise the recruitment cost, ai is kind of blind, doesn't see the upkeep at all, so the landowner units are unrealistically attractive to buy, and lead to some financial problems when too many. I noticed that later game armies in Christendom are basically only knights.
4. I also think that the idea of having big money after grand victories is very good, just to make sure that it works correctly.

AI will behave less aggressive when is weaker, so that will also influence general feeling of the campaign in this sense.

I agree with Kostic and you Macaras, I think you have had good ideas in your proposals, we must restrict so much money to the AI, or at least "normalize" it and be more similar to the player, since it is not normal that they can amassing such a large number of powerful armies in a short time, when it costs the player a lot of money to maintain a full army stack...

-I also see it as good to limit the growth of cities/castles more and especially for the AI, I would like to see more strategic points on the map, in plan to have citadels/huge cities in a scarce way and that are more valuable, so I would have more discretion strategic to conquer a citadel or huge city since there would be few and they would offer good units and benefits...


-In addition, you have to limit the landowner units more for the AI, the player sometimes only has 1-3 units when the AI has 5-6 in each army...


If it were possible to do all this for the next version it would be fabulous!

[kostic]

@Macaras: I completely agree with points 1,2 and 4; however, I have my doubts about point 3 :
- First, the low cost of recruiting knights is an interesting simulation of the feudal system, since they owe this service in exchange for their land, not for a salary.
- Secondly, if you look at my screenshots below of the 4 Hre armies that are attacking me, you can see that there aren't that many knights being recruited.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't know if this problem - perhaps seen on a later date - is really due to the cost of recruitment.


On the other hand, do you think it's possible to work on a script for my point 3?

[Macaras]

I was thinking about the later era - chivalric knights etc, then it becomes very visible:



Regarding the point number 3 I think ai will recalculate if losing a lot of soldiers, it would focus on defense. I think the problem is too many armies/money. If it has let's say 4 armies, and the player just one, ai will send them one after another, as long as it thinks that has advantage in strength.

[umbracatervae777]

In the late era, assuming most settlements have high tier landowners building, have a unit pool for at least 3. Perhaps reducing them into 1 can be a solution. Also to reflect the declining times of chivalry