SSHIP - General Discussion

[kostic]

I regret that Gigantus did the work on the SSHIP battle_models.battledb and not on the KCC 0.9.5 battle_models.battledb that I linked to it above.
I don't see the point of reviewing all my work for the moment. I don't think battle_models.battledb is responsible for CTDs.

[Gigantus]

I don't know where to change the navy's, but for the land units it's in the descr_campaign_db.xml, you should increase the values here:
<siege_movement_points_modifier float="0.5"/>
<infantry_movement_points_modifier float="1.00"/>
<cavalry_movement_points_modifier float="1.4"/>

This set of entries is meant to modify a stack's movement points, which in turn is based on the movement point value in descr_characters.
siege = If a siege engine is in the stack - 0.5 = 50% reduction
cavalry = If it's only cavalry (aka generals only) - 1.4 = 40% acceleration
infantry = If there is no siege engine in a mixed stack it's the same value as in descr_characters - 1.0 = no change over base value

Summary of long ramble: you need to change the movement points in descr_characters, that's also where the navy and allow agents have their movement points.

I regret that Gigantus did the work on the SSHIP battle_models.battledb and not on the KCC 0.9.5 battle_models.battledb that I linked to it above.
I don't see the point of reviewing all my work for the moment. I don't think battle_models.battledb is responsible for CTDs.

Working on the file would have required installation of KCC as a standalone check is not possible with Bovi's checker. There are actually a good number of line count errors. Why they do not lead to a crash is beyond me, possibly because there also TAB entries instead of SPACE. One sprite entry is missing the final 'r' in the name, possibly leading to an issue when calling the file. The very last line had a triple zero instead of 'spaced' zeros - it's an impressive list of formatting and typo errors that somehow defy the odds of crashing the game.
Being aware now of the pitfalls I can substitute SSHIP's file with yours and put it through it's paces, knowing now which log messages I can ignore. Give me day or two.

[j.a.luna]

In my campaign with Norway, i conquest danish faction and also put my capital on Lund( town), after 50 turns still this city have 60-90% of unrest( because this was the old danish capital), but now is mine and my capital...
Is it possible that after a while and even more so if your capital is this unrest it will go down to a minimum? I always have the risk of Danish revolts there and well after so many years being occupied by me and having transferred my political and cultural center there, in addition to having improved the city ... I think it would be logical that having the same religion should decrease this to a minimum unrest.
what do you think sship team?

[Belovèse]

Working on the file would have required installation of KCC as a standalone check is not possible with Bovi's checker. There are actually a good number of line count errors. Why they do not lead to a crash is beyond me, possibly because there also TAB entries instead of SPACE. One sprite entry is missing the final 'r' in the name, possibly leading to an issue when calling the file. The very last line had a triple zero instead of 'spaced' zeros - it's an impressive list of formatting and typo errors that somehow defy the odds of crashing the game.
Being aware now of the pitfalls I can substitute SSHIP's file with yours and put it through it's paces, knowing now which log messages I can ignore. Give me day or two.

Thank you so much, if you will I can make work the stuff you listed above (mising r, 00000 and EOL stuff) before sending you the file?

[Belovèse]

In my campaign with Norway, i conquest danish faction and also put my capital on Lund( town), after 50 turns still this city have 60-90% of unrest( because this was the old danish capital), but now is mine and my capital...
Is it possible that after a while and even more so if your capital is this unrest it will go down to a minimum? I always have the risk of Danish revolts there and well after so many years being occupied by me and having transferred my political and cultural center there, in addition to having improved the city ... I think it would be logical that having the same religion should decrease this to a minimum unrest.
what do you think sship team?

Well it is intended that conquered territories would be vary hard to keep, to avoid the played steamrolling the AI. The idea about moving you capital countering the unrest is very interesting, I personally don't work on this area on the mod but maybe it'll be implemented later?

[Gigantus]

Thank you so much, if you will I can make work the stuff you listed above (mising r, 00000 and EOL stuff) before sending you the file?

That would be much appreciated as it will cut down on the time I will have to spend on the file.

The idea about moving you capital countering the unrest is very interesting.

'Distance from capital' is a main multiplier for unrest (and trade resource prices), quite a nifty move.
Could be that a scripted, limited turn unrest 'refresher', isn't terminating.

[Jurand of Cracow]

In the SSHIP there's a scripted additional constant unrest of 40% for the conquered enemy capitals. This is meant to be a historical mod, Norwegians are meant to be Norwegians, not Polish or whatever. Plus the distance to capital. See eg. here from SSHIP092:

[Nemesis2345]

In the SSHIP there's a scripted additional constant unrest of 40% for the conquered enemy capitals. This is meant to be a historical mod, Norwegians are meant to be Norwegians, not Polish or whatever. Plus the distance to capital. See eg. here from SSHIP092:

Explains why i had to Exterminate Edinburgh twice in order to calm them down.

[kostic]

Working on the file would have required installation of KCC as a standalone check is not possible with Bovi's checker. There are actually a good number of line count errors. Why they do not lead to a crash is beyond me, possibly because there also TAB entries instead of SPACE. One sprite entry is missing the final 'r' in the name, possibly leading to an issue when calling the file. The very last line had a triple zero instead of 'spaced' zeros - it's an impressive list of formatting and typo errors that somehow defy the odds of crashing the game.
Being aware now of the pitfalls I can substitute SSHIP's file with yours and put it through it's paces, knowing now which log messages I can ignore. Give me day or two.

Thanks Gigantus, I really appreciate your skills and help with SSHIP.
It turns out that the next version of the mod will be a version that contains my KCC 0.9.5 mod.
My mod works fine with version 0.9.7 + patch E without changing the quality of the original mod. Apart from the modified aspect of the units to better respect the costumes of the 12th and 13th century, you will benefit - with a new campaign - from the kings and heirs present on the battlefield. Small adjustments in the EDB for the construction time of gunsmiths, horses for the generals of Denmark, a reduced list of rebel units to avoid certain anachronisms ...
You should install it. So you can help us to release a very stable 0.9.8 SSHIP !

[Jurand of Cracow]

KCC works also perfectly with patch F that I've uploaded yesterday.

[kostic]

You're wrong Jurand, if, as his presentation says, patch F contains the battle_models.modeldb corrections made by Gigantus, the application of my KCC mod will replace this file with my file which has not been corrected...


That said, the mod still works without this fix, but it is important to note that KCC 0.9.5 has its own "battle_models.modeldb" which is essential for proper viewing of my modified unit models.

[Jurand of Cracow]

This is very much inteded: if one want use KCC, then this file will be overwritten. What's the problem?

[removeduser_28376423423]

This is very much inteded: if one want use KCC, then this file will be overwritten. What's the problem?

I think Kostic may just being rigorous, perhaps he intends to get a similar correction applied to his version of the battle_models.modeldb to say it would work perfectly?

[j.a.luna]

Jurand what do you think about the Kingdom of Navarre and its independence in the game? I think it is the most appropriate and historically correct, I don't know why you put it that it belonged to the Crown of Aragon when they were independent until the 16th century ... You don't know the Basque people, even today they are still very stubborn and eager independence from Spain, which is why this region is currently a Spanish autonomous community called "País Vasco" or Basque Country in English.


In the Iberian PTFs that I sent you, the Pamplona PTF briefly explains about the capital of the Kingdom of Navarra.


https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...?801634-ARAGON

[Jurand of Cracow]

j.a. - I've started the work with PTs but still need to devote time.
For Navarre there's no faction slot, sorry. And Spain is already overcrowded, I'd rather see a third Rus faction...

[j.a.luna]

j.a. - I've started the work with PTs but still need to devote time.
For Navarre there's no faction slot, sorry. And Spain is already overcrowded, I'd rather see a third Rus faction...

Ook Jurand, but i want to say that Pamplona should be a independence kingdom( rebels) same as kingdom of Bohemia in the game, with a PTF put "rex Navarrae and Pamplonorum", with a full garrison of rebels for be difficult conquest them... Not is necessary a new faction, only that Aragon crown should not have this region at the beginning of the game, should be a independence region (basques/ kingdom of Navarra) i hope that you understand me

Here is the reason in Aragon thread

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...?801634-ARAGON

[removeduser_28376423423]

Hey; a suggestion, I'll write it down for the record, perhaps knights should be less, I've been fighting the HRE as Denmark and I've killed like 3 2/3 stacks with 2 units of them each in succession. I've been looking for historical army compositions, wikipedia cites a book that says that, for example, at Falkirk (1298), English knights would had been around 200; 1200 and 2400 for each side at Agincourt (Around 10% of the army). So I suggest an increase in replenishment (after all, there wouldn't be 100 armed knights coming out of an average town in the high period, and definitely not in every couple years), so the town in which you recruit a unit would just represent a mustering point (which would add up perfectly with the new 0 recruitment cost!).

I played a 4TPY game back in 0.9.5 using some TM tweaks, and set the replenishment to 50(!) turns, I didn't miss knights in battles, instead I applied another TM tweak which increased Generals availability (specially for the AI, which always had a general in field armies, often many, maybe up to 4 for big factions like HRE, ERE, Arabs).

By the way, the recruitable "Generals" could be changed to "Minor nobles" (or just noble), General seems like a term for the commander of a large army, but I'm not sure on this, I'd like to know what you all think though.

If anything it resulted in 3 things:

(1) I had to use my knights tactically and with patience (no more sacrificing them in a charge right away to kill half stack of the enemy, and always kept track of their location in the campaign). Every single loss was felt, if there were few remaining, sometimes meant I would had not been able to refill the unit, like a generational loss.
(2) Less annoying AI spam. (IMO overcoming knights with foot troops is epic and desperate, repeating it right away it's not).
(3) It increased a whole lot the importance of the Orders!

The rest of the cavalry should probably be sergeants, right now I'd say their numbers seem to be from on par with the knights to 3:1, I think it should be even larger (less knights). Lastly, for the late period, with the introduction of the men-at-arms type unit, their replenishment could be doubled or tripled, representing commoners being able to afford heavier armor, horses, more widespread use of mercenaries in larger armies, etc.

[j.a.luna]

Hey; a suggestion, I'll write it down for the record, perhaps knights should be less, I've been fighting the HRE as Denmark and I've killed like 3 2/3 stacks with 2 units of them each in succession. I've been looking for historical army compositions, wikipedia cites a book that says that, for example, at Falkirk (1298), English knights would had been around 200; 1200 and 2400 for each side at Agincourt (Around 10% of the army). So I suggest an increase in replenishment (after all, there wouldn't be 100 armed knights coming out of an average town in the high period, and definitely not in every couple years), so the town in which you recruit a unit would just represent a mustering point (which would add up perfectly with the new 0 recruitment cost!).

I played a 4TPY game back in 0.9.5 using some TM tweaks, and set the replenishment to 50(!) turns, I didn't miss knights in battles, instead I applied another TM tweak which increased Generals availability (specially for the AI, which always had a general in field armies, often many, maybe up to 4 for big factions like HRE, ERE, Arabs).

By the way, the recruitable "Generals" could be changed to "Minor nobles" (or just noble), General seems like a term for the commander of a large army, but I'm not sure on this, I'd like to know what you all think though.

If anything it resulted in 3 things:

(1) I had to use my knights tactically and with patience (no more sacrificing them in a charge right away to kill half stack of the enemy, and always kept track of their location in the campaign). Every single loss was felt, if there were few remaining, sometimes meant I would had not been able to refill the unit, like a generational loss.
(2) Less annoying AI spam. (IMO overcoming knights with foot troops is epic and desperate, repeating it right away it's not).
(3) It increased a whole lot the importance of the Orders!

The rest of the cavalry should probably be sergeants, right now I'd say their numbers seem to be from on par with the knights to 3:1, I think it should be even larger (less knights). Lastly, for the late period, with the introduction of the men-at-arms type unit, their replenishment could be doubled or tripled, representing commoners being able to afford heavier armor, horses, more widespread use of mercenaries in larger armies, etc.

Personally, I really like your idea about knights, and I think that with that modification they would become even more valuable on the battlefield and only powerful factions could have a decent amount of them (HRE, Byzantium ...), I think that It should also be applicable to the Orthodox (boyars) and Muslim (Faris) factions.
Although currently in the game I see that the great majority of the composition of the armies are militiamen, mercenaries and local troops, not many knights. If it is true that heavy cavalry charges sweep the battlefield (as it should be) and make a difference with respect to armies that do not have knights. In my departure with Norwegians as soon as I could, I recruited them in foreign lands.

About the Orders, YES! this would make them even more important to the factions, and count on them to obtain valuable knights (although I would also like the sship team to add class sergeants to the Teutonic, Hospitaller and Santiago military orders ..)


I would add little things on this subject.


1. That the super heavy cavalry is very expensive and with a very high charge attack, I say this because of the Byzantine cataphracts, their bodyguards and perhaps some more eastern cavalry that has armor (Corasmian cavalry, heavy boyars, and other types of cataphracts) . I believe that this type of cavalry should make a huge difference on the battlefield and that their enemies would fear them ...


2.Add mercenary knights to be able to recruit them, I do not know if currently in the game they are subject to the activation of some year or event, but it would be good to hire them (with low availability and high cost) in parts of Europe such as Germany, France, north of Europe, Italy and Iberia) Perhaps in some places later and with less capacity, according to the tradition in the use of knights of the area and its orography.

[removeduser_28376423423]

@j.a.luna Agree with you on the merc. Knights, hell I could even give them French or German voices (officer), and mix all western european languages for the individual soldiers! Imagine recruiting a unit of merc. Frankish knights in Aragón or Basque countries, the officer yells "A l'attaaaque!" and the, when in melee, the angry individual soldiers shout the battle_screams.mp3 (Currently almost inaudible in large battles) in Italian, English, Dutch; Polish!

You wouldn't ignore such a unit in a Castilian army, would you?

I totally agree on charges sweeping, I just think that with current availability that also means that you can repeat it and lose only 1 unit to kill an enemy stack of foot troops, I mean SSHIP is currently great on this, I don't say I find current mechanics unrealistic, rather that there may be room for more if wanted, that's what I seek to discover when playing and recording (Specially battles, campaign is very well covered IMO, all matter of time).

[j.a.luna]

@j.a.luna Agree with you on the merc. Knights, hell I could even give them French or German voices (officer), and mix all western european languages for the individual soldiers! Imagine recruiting a unit of merc. Frankish knights in Aragón or Basque countries, the officer yells "A l'attaaaque!" and the, when in melee, the angry individual soldiers shout the battle_screams.mp3 (Currently almost inaudible in large battles) in Italian, English, Dutch; Polish!

You wouldn't ignore such a unit in a Castilian army, would you?

I totally agree on charges sweeping, I just think that with current availability that also means that you can repeat it and lose only 1 unit to kill an enemy stack of foot troops, I mean SSHIP is currently great on this, I don't say I find current mechanics unrealistic, rather that there may be room for more if wanted, that's what I seek to discover when playing and recording (Specially battles, campaign is very well covered IMO, all matter of time).

It would be a great idea, I think that currently in the game there are 2 mercenary knights units, "german knights" and "french knights", I think it could be unified into a single mercenary unit called simply "mercenary knights" or "mercenary latin knights" simulating a mixture of mercenary knights from many countries, such as Germans, French, Italians, Spanish ... in addition to giving him some chord unit models (different models of armor and clothing, shields and combined heraldry)
We would have slot more to create another new unit.


On the other hand and what we talked about previously about the knights, in the Muslim world they are the so-called "Faris", currently I see many units of this type in the Muslim armies of the Rum Turks, Fatimids, Seljuks ...
I think they should also be tight as they are supposedly the "equivalent to Muslim knights"