Page 108 of 109 FirstFirst ... 858839899100101102103104105106107108109 LastLast
Results 2,141 to 2,160 of 2168

Thread: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

  1. #2141

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    TBH I'd slow down the population growth... If it's possible on the game engine. It's not taking very long for the one's major settlements to turn into the Rome or Alexandreia-rate behemoths.
    Last edited by Satapatiš; August 31, 2020 at 09:54 AM.
    Furthermore, I believe that Rome must be destroyed.


  2. #2142
    Gigantus's Avatar I am thinking more about running away now then I did as a kid, but by the time I put my teeth in, my glasses on and find my car keys I forget why I am going.
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Modding Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    48,833
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    The easiest way to slow down growth would be to reduce the 'fertility index' of the regions in descr_regions - but that's already set to the lowest.
    Next step would be to work on the multipliers in descr_settlement_mechanics, all the SPF values - again they are already way down.
    That leaves population bonuses applied via buildings and settlement level upgrade limits.




  3. #2143
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    4,178

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    The easiest way to slow down growth would be to reduce the 'fertility index' of the regions in descr_regions - but that's already set to the lowest.
    Next step would be to work on the multipliers in descr_settlement_mechanics, all the SPF values - again they are already way down.
    That leaves population bonuses applied via buildings and settlement level upgrade limits.
    There's also another easy way: lift the thresholds of the settlement upgrades.
    It's currently
    <!-- city --> <level name="village" base="400" upgrade="800" min="400" max="1500"/>
    <level name="town" base="800" upgrade="2000" min="400" max="3500"/>
    <level name="large_town" base="2000" upgrade="6000" min="400" max="9000"/>
    <level name="city" base="6000" upgrade="12000" min="400" max="18000"/>
    <level name="large_city" base="12000" upgrade="24000" min="400" max="36000"/>
    <level name="huge_city" base="24000" min="400" max="72000"/>
    while in the SSHIP it's:
    <!-- city --> <level name="village" base="100" upgrade="1500" min="400" max="2500"/>
    <level name="town" base="500" upgrade="6000" min="1000" max="8000"/>
    <level name="large_town" base="1000" upgrade="13000" min="2000" max="16000"/>
    <level name="city" base="6000" upgrade="33000" min="10000" max="40000"/>
    <level name="large_city" base="15000" upgrade="75000" min="20000" max="100000"/>
    <level name="huge_city" base="25000" min="30000" max="250000"/>

  4. #2144

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    I think the mechanics is a right one - the last tick should require more than only buildings (eg a trait of the governor). This is also a basic tenet in the SSHIP: you need to get a good governor to make the cities grow.
    However this should not require tearing any building, imo. This is gamey and the mod should not encourage it.
    I disagree. Compare this to upgrading camps to settlements: it’s supposed to be hard in game, but there’s a building chain tied to it such that it’s a somewhat linear process. Also, there’s a section in the guide that tells you “hey, camps can be upgraded to settlements but you have to do XYZ to do it”

    I don’t think that this was intended. Because upgrading large towns to cities is such an integral part of the game that there would have been something in the guide. Like with upgrading a camps, or factional reforms. Though, you’re more active on here than me so you might know better than I do.

    If it was intended to be difficult to upgrade large towns to cities, you could do something simple like making a structure that adds the +0.5% popcap boost necessary to reach 6k, and represents urban development or migration or something. Maybe it’s expensive and/or takes like 12 turns to build. Maybe there’s another resource like the colonists mechanic tied to it. Maybe it requires other buildings to be built as well. This way it’s a linear process that represents the role play elements of upgrading to cities.

    Edit: I don’t want to make it sound like I’m on the mod. It just seemed like this was a bug because I haven’t seen anything explicit indicating that it’s a feature, and bypassing it encourages gamey behavior.

    Compare to the colony and camp systems which I think were wonderfully fleshed out and well represented in-game. And yes, you can accelerate the process of camp conversations and colonization by having a governor with high influence, which allows you to min max by shuffling around your faction leader/heir/potential heirs to camps and uncolonized settlements. But you’re not reliant on gamey behavior to do this. The primary route of camp-conversion/colonization is still through flavorful building chains.
    Last edited by Krampus; August 31, 2020 at 12:53 PM.

  5. #2145

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Colos1987 View Post
    I agree, getting to city level should not be easy, as it opens up a lot of new building options (like grain doles). What I would change is to actually increase the pop limit for large and huge cities. Currently your settlements won't spend much time at city level, because all the available buildings boost population massively, even if you have a crappy governor. I'd go with a pop limit of 15-16k for large cities and somewhere around 30k for huge cities.
    Or just gets rid of food imports. Or reduce the population growth bonus of food imports.

  6. #2146

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    One slightly odd feature right now is that it is easier to bring settlements in pastoral regions to city size because of the parallel existence of agriculture and herds. That feels a bit funky.

    And regarding population growth in short amounts of time, some of the places founded by Alexander and the Successors grew from nothing to large cities within a few years/decades, such as obviously Alexandria (by Egypt, obviously), Antiocheia, Seleukeia, and various others from Thrace to India. In those cases, Greek settlers helped to build population, which raises the question ... should colonies provide some population growth (e.g. +0.5% while population < 6000 or so -- though I'm not sure if that sort of mechanic is possible to implement easily)?

    I think the fundamental limitation to finding the right balance is that there are no intermediate step sizes, like 0.25%. Maybe this could be simulated with a mechanic that adds population growth bonuses/maluses based on what season it is (e.g. +0.5% every summer, but not otherwise)? I suspect that would need to be implemented via the script though.

  7. #2147
    Gigantus's Avatar I am thinking more about running away now then I did as a kid, but by the time I put my teeth in, my glasses on and find my car keys I forget why I am going.
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Modding Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    48,833
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Krampus View Post
    Or just gets rid of food imports. Or reduce the population growth bonus of food imports.
    Food imports is created by the grain trading resource in the trading partner\settlement's region - that would be an option but I am guessing there is a reason why certain regions do have that resource.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    There's also another easy way: lift the thresholds of the settlement upgrades.
    Yup, that's what I meant with 'settlement level upgrade limits'




  8. #2148

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I'd like to see a political reform for the Arverni. Historically, after the defeat of their king Bituitos against Rome in 121 BC, the Arverni switched to an oligarchic government with annual magistracies (we know about some of them). So perhaps it could be done like the Romani election system. It would trigger after the death in battle of the faction leader, or several large defeats by him.

  9. #2149
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar I am your sovereign now
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    14,253

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    This request has been ignored repeatedly, but could someone PLEASE take like the five or ten measly minutes it would take to fix the user interface for the campaign map, where the last unit cards on the right-hand side are partially hidden/obscured by the decorative pillars? At least for Western Greek factions. It's really annoying having half of a unit card shaved off or hidden from view whenever you have a tenth or twentieth unit in a stack and you're trying to view the units in your army. I know it's a minor thing, but it's also something that should be fairly easy to fix, right?

  10. #2150

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    EB 2 is a great mod and all, but some of the scripted rebellions are down right infuriating: I've been playing as Rome (750 turns or so) and have had nonsensical rebellions, such as Iberian rebellions in Syria, Ptolemaic rebellions in west-Germania, Carthaginian rebellions in Anatolia, Epirote rebellions in Spain, and much more, too many to mention. These rebellions are unhistorical and completely immersion breaking. And more often than not these are unavoidable. I really do hope these broken scripts will be fixed in the future ....

  11. #2151
    Lusitanio's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,239

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Titus66 View Post
    EB 2 is a great mod and all, but some of the scripted rebellions are down right infuriating: I've been playing as Rome (750 turns or so) and have had nonsensical rebellions, such as Iberian rebellions in Syria, Ptolemaic rebellions in west-Germania, Carthaginian rebellions in Anatolia, Epirote rebellions in Spain, and much more, too many to mention. These rebellions are unhistorical and completely immersion breaking. And more often than not these are unavoidable. I really do hope these broken scripts will be fixed in the future ....
    That's related with the reemerging script. It's something hardcoded, the script has been reduce by Quintus but there isn't much we can do.

  12. #2152
    mAIOR's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,014

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Continuing the population request, I think this mod needs a scale factor both in campaign as well as in combat. Right now, Archers and slingers fire way too far and are a bit too effective imho. I like that I can make units break quite easily and then they can rejoin but a 1:5 scale would suit this mod quite well. That is each unit represents 5 irl. This would make full stacks around 20,000 troops strong which is quite fitting for most of the armies of the time. Another interesting scaling factor would be economy scaling in the strategic map so that we could have the same relative size of armies as the corresponding power had irl. Again, a 1:5 scale would mean that if a state could afford in total 100,000 troops between garrisons, field armies and reserves, we could field have 20,000 troops raised total keeping with the same ratio.

    Also, removing experience gain would be a plus as I don't think experience bonuses should play a role at this scale. I can have a body of troops raised from turn 1 for 200 years. What does the experience even represent?

    Maybe give troops starting XP based on tier (like Professional troops would get silver, elite professional would get gold, levy troops would have none and experienced levy troops get bronze) so that each body of men starts from the same point and the difference in effectiveness comes from equipment and experience.

    Anyway, just my 2cts.


  13. #2153
    Lusitanio's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,239

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by mAIOR View Post
    Continuing the population request, I think this mod needs a scale factor both in campaign as well as in combat. Right now, Archers and slingers fire way too far and are a bit too effective imho. I like that I can make units break quite easily and then they can rejoin but a 1:5 scale would suit this mod quite well. That is each unit represents 5 irl. This would make full stacks around 20,000 troops strong which is quite fitting for most of the armies of the time. Another interesting scaling factor would be economy scaling in the strategic map so that we could have the same relative size of armies as the corresponding power had irl. Again, a 1:5 scale would mean that if a state could afford in total 100,000 troops between garrisons, field armies and reserves, we could field have 20,000 troops raised total keeping with the same ratio.

    Also, removing experience gain would be a plus as I don't think experience bonuses should play a role at this scale. I can have a body of troops raised from turn 1 for 200 years. What does the experience even represent?

    Maybe give troops starting XP based on tier (like Professional troops would get silver, elite professional would get gold, levy troops would have none and experienced levy troops get bronze) so that each body of men starts from the same point and the difference in effectiveness comes from equipment and experience.
    What? You're complaining that the archers and slingers are too effective? I actually think they could be a bit more effective

    About the troops experience, it's much less then what it was with Rome Total War, now troops only increase their stats by 3 points with gold chevron which is much better since units will be better but not super heroes compared to unexperienced troops.

    You can have a body of troops for 200 years, that's true but that's something that's up to you to fix by either disband the unit at some point or use for some other purposes.
    I just roleplay and act like that unit means an army tradition and over time it just keeps getting replaced with younger soldiers with the older ones go to their homes, thus keeping the unit numbers and tradition intact.

  14. #2154
    mAIOR's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,014

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitanio View Post
    What? You're complaining that the archers and slingers are too effective? I actually think they could be a bit more effective

    About the troops experience, it's much less then what it was with Rome Total War, now troops only increase their stats by 3 points with gold chevron which is much better since units will be better but not super heroes compared to unexperienced troops.

    You can have a body of troops for 200 years, that's true but that's something that's up to you to fix by either disband the unit at some point or use for some other purposes.
    I just roleplay and act like that unit means an army tradition and over time it just keeps getting replaced with younger soldiers with the older ones go to their homes, thus keeping the unit numbers and tradition intact.
    Well, based on what we now know about historical archery (most of it medieval) it is fair to say that arrows were not very effective against armour. Based on comparisons of technology between medieval times and ancient times, it is also fair to assume that body armour was adequate against the missile weapons of the day. Which leaves the role of archers in direct fire as force multipliers and morale weapons (where arrow fire would decrease morale, break formation cohesion, etc). Also, if we consider that each soldier represents 5, the attrition rate is far too high. That is what I mean. And they fire at a ridiculous range. I know XP is less of an impact but it still feels off to me. Especially in factions that have big reforms.

    Anyway, loving my KH campaign... Might be a tad too fast ^^ I am not having problems with public order in greece and macedon has been eliminated from the game.


  15. #2155
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,773

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Titus66 View Post
    EB 2 is a great mod and all, but some of the scripted rebellions are down right infuriating: I've been playing as Rome (750 turns or so) and have had nonsensical rebellions, such as Iberian rebellions in Syria, Ptolemaic rebellions in west-Germania, Carthaginian rebellions in Anatolia, Epirote rebellions in Spain, and much more, too many to mention. These rebellions are unhistorical and completely immersion breaking. And more often than not these are unavoidable. I really do hope these broken scripts will be fixed in the future ....
    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitanio View Post
    That's related with the reemerging script. It's something hardcoded, the script has been reduce by Quintus but there isn't much we can do.
    As above, there is basically nothing we can do about this, other than disable the script altogether. It has hardcoded issues that can't be addressed. I'm hoping the simpler version in the patch is less annoying, but we're at the limits of what we can do with it.

  16. #2156
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    4,178

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitanio View Post
    You can have a body of troops for 200 years, that's true but that's something that's up to you to fix by either disband the unit at some point or use for some other purposes.
    In this respect I've got a home rule:

    13) Retrain the high-experience small units (only merge with the new ones)
    (The new recruits should not have the same experience as the veteran soldiers in the units. You cannot make 120-strength golden-chevron unit out of 10 golden-chevron veterans. They may get an initial training - but it's provided by some buildings. Then they should be merged, accepting the lower experience of the new unit. The soldiers in the units in the M2TW live forever anyway, what is not realistic. (Some other arguments are here)
    If you want to play a historical mod in the medieval setting the best IMO are:
    Stainless Steel Historical Improvement Project and Broken Crescent.
    Read my opinions on other mods here.
    ........................................................................................................................................
    Reviews of the mods (all made in 2018): SSHIP, Wrath of the Norsemen, Broken Crescent.
    Home rules for playing a game without exploiting the M2TW engine deficiencies.
    Hints for Medieval 2 moders: forts, merchants, AT-NGB bug.
    Thrones of Britannia: review, opinion on the battles, ideas for modding. No good mod yet, alas!
    Dominant strategy in Rome2, Attila, ToB and Troy: “Sniping groups of armies”. Still there, alas!
    .................................................................................................................................................................................
    Mod leader of the SSHIP: traits, ancillaries, script, historical improvements, fixes everywhere.

  17. #2157
    mAIOR's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,014

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    In this respect I've got a home rule:

    13) Retrain the high-experience small units (only merge with the new ones)
    (The new recruits should not have the same experience as the veteran soldiers in the units. You cannot make 120-strength golden-chevron unit out of 10 golden-chevron veterans. They may get an initial training - but it's provided by some buildings. Then they should be merged, accepting the lower experience of the new unit. The soldiers in the units in the M2TW live forever anyway, what is not realistic. (Some other arguments are here)
    Hence removing XP gain altogether and just have XP based on the troop type. That way that level of micro management would be abstracted away. But scale is more important atm I believe.


  18. #2158

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Thanks for the answer, I don't understand much about the script itself, but it would work a lot better if re-emerging factions only re-emerged in their historical native regions. Also a number of the rebellions I've experienced have not been avoidable, and it was scripted that one of my settlements would inevitably rebel, irrelevant of the initial public order, or garrison etc, ... I know it could work a lot better, that's all...

    Cheers.

  19. #2159

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Also perhaps, if the rebellions are going to be inevitable, then a bit of warning ahead would be good, like it is for the scripted rebellions in Liguria, or Asturias, you get a message saying that these regions are difficult to hold ...

  20. #2160

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    In this respect I've got a home rule:

    13) Retrain the high-experience small units (only merge with the new ones)
    (The new recruits should not have the same experience as the veteran soldiers in the units. You cannot make 120-strength golden-chevron unit out of 10 golden-chevron veterans. They may get an initial training - but it's provided by some buildings. Then they should be merged, accepting the lower experience of the new unit. The soldiers in the units in the M2TW live forever anyway, what is not realistic. (Some other arguments are here)
    This is almost necessary as the Romans, or as a Hellenistic faction if you're not in a source of phalangites. It's also historical because Scipio in his campaigns received reinforcements from Italy on a fairly regular basis, as did Hannibal from Spain at the times when Scipio was unable or unwilling to stop them (hence the battle of the Metaurus, where Gaius Claudius Nero proved himself the equal of Scipio in at least one regard.)
    I wish I were an intelligent man.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •