Suggestions.

[radsix]

Please keep your brilliant ideas on this page. Thanks!

[The Wandering Storyteller]

So ideas for scripted invasions/events? etc?

I'll want to see the idea of the Parthian invasion, and the year 192 AD. That is the year when the Roman Empire faced attacks on by Germanic tribes and incursions by the Parthians. I would love to do a re-enactment of Gladiator as I want this mod to narrate to me a story of the Roman World, or the Greek world or however.

I'd say that major factions shouldn't be swamped. There should be historical development mods that for Parthia for example(it was a threat to the Romans and the Selecuids) cannot be just swamped by the AI, it will historically expand and remove the Selecuids after their defeat at Magensia as it erupts into civil war.

Attila has plenty of moments where you can edit it to make your own story. Heck you could even create a story where you send an agent or champion to the deserts of Parthia, and event pop messages will appear to make you choose certain dilemas and events. That would be AWESOME. Europa Universalis 4 has many events like this. I hear Attila players like the ideas of events because it forces the player to choose what is in their empire, and what to do. The event messages must be faction specific as in, like if you play the Sassainds, the events are more geared towards the eastern culture. For Rome its easy as you have plenty of events(but its mostly a different world so will need changing in many areas).

Just some thoughts.

Can we merge this threads here?
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...m-events/page2

[Alfonzo over Innsmouths]

A quick one - Will we possibly see a modification that removes classical hoplitai and replaces them with theuros-like hoplitai that are, for all intents and purposes, levy spearmen, for historical accuracy?

[Petellius]

almost all hoplite infantry will be so. Classical hoplites were all but extinct at this time.

[Argive Strategos]

I got all the knowledge from wikipedia

[Argive Strategos]

I think the elite hoplites still had the aspis like the Hypaspistai, and the Bactrian elite hoplite, those are at the top of my head, although i honestly can't remember what the Achaean league had.
I just searched up achaean league army, it says that they used the traditional hoplite style of fighting, however after the 270's, they started using the thureos, and made troops lighter, the shield also gave them a disadvantage in close combat. The citizen infantry were thureophoroi, however the elite picked infantry were created by reforms. They were equipped in macedonian fashion in 208 BC. According to Plutarch, Philopoemen ‘persuaded them to adopt long pike and heavy shield instead of spear and buckler, to protect their bodies with helmets and breastplates and greaves, and to practice stationary and steadfast fighting instead of the nimble movements of light-armed troops’.

[Petellius]

That's fine, also that is almost precisely the kind of units we'll be making right now. Also in response to triumphs scripted event, AE ends at 100 AD. Which is still around 1200 turns of gameplay.

[Argive Strategos]

Wow, this is amazing, I can't imagine how much hard work you have put into this, I am so hyped for this mod, thank you.

[Argive Strategos]

Literally, the only reason i have total war attila is because I heard about this mod.

[Petellius]

Its the same for quite a few by the sounds of it. Im at least 95% sure we wont disappoint. In fact I hope to exceed the expectations and hype.

[Alfonzo over Innsmouths]

Possible Idea:

You know how the Eastern Romans have their interest bonus, which gives income based on a percentage of your treasury? Could we theoretically give everyone a starting boost to their money, reduce their income, and give them this interest? And then with increasing Imperium levels, have this interest reduce, until at maximum it's actually negative? That way you have to maintain a treasury properly, and if you end up eating your budget completely, your income stream is drastically reduced, so you have to get money other ways, the easiest being raiding and sacking.

I can forsee some issues with the AI, specifically it'll make them overpowered with their income bonuses, so it'll mean intense tweaking, but it could offer a unique playstyle.

[Alfonzo over Innsmouths]

Another Idea:

For the WRE, there were legacy techs that you lost if you researched other techs later in the tree. Could we use this with barbarians to simulate growing slowly towards civilization (Specifically Gallic and perhaps Arabian factions, maybe even Parthia?). So, for instance, at the beginning there's a lot of bonuses to raiding and replenishment and maluses for sanitation, industry etc. tied to those techs, and going up the tree deactivates these techs, causing the overall direction of the economy and military to change over time.

[ABH2]

I like both of those suggestions, and they are particularly useful to us as it's tough for me to find time to play Attila (or Rome 2) and get a feel for all the features and what works best in the game.

[Alfonzo over Innsmouths]

An idea:

Could we play with the unit sizes for the Greek and Eastern factions, specifically focusing on the entire army for Greeks and levies for the Easterners? I imagine that at this point the greeks (Not successors, but Greeks specifically) had issues with the whole citizen army thing, and thus their citizen units would be small and expenisve. As time goes on you could change this via a low tier technology, and increase the numbers in your units (specifically, having another unit that is exactly the same as the first one, but with bigger numbers, bigger upkeep and bigger recruitment cost), reflecting getting a better grasp on your manpower issues rather than getting better troops (As I often imagine would be the issue for low-tier Greeks, with better units only appearing much later in the tech-tree and focusing on how the Greeks tended to use mercenaries to do their fighting during this time). For the easterners, I was simply imagining having an 'Increased Noble Contribution' tech that increases the size of levy infantry units, as I often think that in a lot of cases the Easterners would prefer to contribute bigger infantry levies than better infantry (Which would be the perview of the royal monarch).

[AugustusRoman]

CORRUPTION

I would like to discuss a better way to represent corruption.
Firstly I want to remind you how corruption works. More cities => more corruption. You might have
a technology or an edict that lowers the corruption (or a building in AoC) but in most cases the corruption is the quite the
across the empire/kingdom.

It would be much better + more realistic (and I strongly believe it would be easy to implement) if the corruption was based on how much a person is corrupted. We have corruption because people are corrupted.

Corruption will be affected by 3 factors.

1) Base_corruption = (Number_of_Provinces)/2 . So if you have 60 provinces then the corruption is 60/2 = 30%. If you have 1 then the corruption is 1/2 = 0.5%

2)Court _corruption = [SUM(personal_corruption_of_each_member)]/number_of_people

personal_corruption = corruption_of_person * corruption_impact
court = family member + other people.
Each person will have 2 extra attributes. One will be how much corruption this person causes, with values from 1 to 10. The second will be how much impact his corruption has, with values from 1 to 10.

So if a person has 5 corruption_of_person and 5 corruption_impact then the corruption of this person is 25%

Lets say that we have 5 people in our court(other people) + family. The corruption for the first one is 40%, 35% for the second one, 100% third one, 64% fourth one, 81% fifth one. Then
Court_corruption = (40+35+100+64+81)/5 = 64%

3) Emperor. We assume that an Emperor/King always wants to reduce the corruption in his empire/kingdom. Even if he is corrupted he still wants the money for himself, therefore the Emperor tries to reduce the corruption for his own gain.
Emperor_corruption = reduce_corruption * corruption_impact (again with values from 1 to 10)

As you can understand, we want Emperor_corruption to be high and Court _corruption to be low.

Therefore the total corruption will be:
total_corruption = Base_corruption + (court_corruption/Emperor_corruption)*Static_Number
where static number = 5 (this number is picked for balance)

Now lets see few examples. We start as ERE. We have 13 provinces and 7 people as court+family members + the emperor.
Base_corruption = 13/2 = 6.5%
Court_corruption = 70% (put anything you like)
Emperor = 50% (put anything you like)
total_corruption = 6.5 + (70/50)*5 = 13.5%

Another example as ERE, where the court is corrupted and the emperor can not control them
Base_corruption = 13/2 = 6.5%
Court_corruption = 100%
Emperor = 10%
total_corruption = 6.5 + (100/10)*5 = 56.5%

So we have the same amount of provinces but now the difference is huge!!

Lets see as WRE. We have 24 provinces (if I recall right)
Base_corruption = 24/2 = 12%
Court_corruption = 90%
Emperor = 10%
total_corruption = 12 + (90/10)*5 = 57%

Another example as WRE:
Base_corruption = 24/2 = 12%
Court_corruption = 90%
Emperor = 90%
total_corruption = 12 + (90/90)*5 = 17%

What about governments??
We should make a change there too! Since an area has a government the corruption should be different.

corruption_of_province_with_government = base corruption + (government_corruption/Emperor_corruption)*5
If you dare put a corrupted person (100% corruption) as government!!

Something extra I would like to mention is extra traits or households that could reduce or increase corruption. Of course you can have these too, but I did not bother to talk about them. They are not so important in our case.

Finally, it is a super easy way to implement the above. Moreover it makes sense and it is realistic. Now all the people in your court can effect the empire. People with power causes corruption not cities.

More things for the future:
1) corruption affects loyalty
2) all cities should have a government
3) base_corruption = how_far_a_province_is_located


Let me know what do u think!!

[Petellius]

An interesting idea! Though I believe that corruption should be increased through a bad emperor also. Look at Nero. I want the player to suffer from bad generals, statesmen and leaders as much as in real life. It would create more diversity.

[AugustusRoman]

An interesting idea! Though I believe that corruption should be increased through a bad emperor also. Look at Nero. I want the player to suffer from bad generals, statesmen and leaders as much as in real life. It would create more diversity.

there is another way.
1) Base_corruption = (Number_of_Provinces)/2 . So if you have 60 provinces then the corruption is 60/2 = 30%. If you have 1 then the corruption is 1/2 = 0.5%

2)Court _corruption

personal_corruption = corruption_of_person * corruption_impact
court = family member + other people.
Each person will have 2 extra attributes. One will be how much corruption this person causes, with values from 1 to 10. The second will be how much impact his corruption has, with values from 1 to 10.
However, instead of adding the corruption of each person we can have the following code:

ArrayList(corruption_of_person); //of course you have to create the ArrayList and add all the elements
ArrayList(corruption_impact);
//code
int temp= 0;
int people_corrupted = 0;
for(int i =0; i<number_of_people; i++){
if(personal_corruption_of_person[i]>4){ //so people with corruption > 4 are corrupted otherwise they are not corrupted at all, so 1,2,3 and 4 are the same as 0
temp = temp + corruption_of_person[i] * corruption_impact[i] //add corruption only from the corrupted
people_corrupted = people_corrupted + 1; //count how many are corrupted
}
}

court_corruption = temp/people_corrupted;
//end of code

3)Emperor

Emperor_corruption = corruption * corruption_impact
//code
if(corruption>3){ // >3 because the emperor holds the absolute power, so if you are a barbarian king you could have that as >6 because they did not have the absolute power,
// or if you are a republic this value could be different
Emperor_corruption = corruption * corruption_impact


}
else
Emperor_corruption = 0;

total_corruption = (base_corruption + court_corruption + Emperor_corruption)/2.6;
//end of code

for instance WRE 24 provinces

Base_corruption = 24/2 = 12%
Court_corruption = 90%
Emperor = 100%
total_corruption = (12+100+90)/2.6 = 77.69%

Base_corruption = 24/2 = 12%
Court_corruption = 10%
Emperor = 100%
total_corruption = (12+100+10)/2.6 = 48.26%

Base_corruption = 24/2 = 12%
Court_corruption = 50%
Emperor = 40%
total_corruption = (12+50+40)/2.6 = 39.23%

Btw you can not have emperor corruption less than 40, expect if u add a new attribute to all people isCorrupted = true or false (boolean) and then you do the calculations
but obviously you do not have to check if he is >4 or not since you have check that with isCorrupted

But now you have to deal with ArrayList and loops. Your choice

[Petellius]

An interesting idea! Though I believe that corruption should be increased through a bad emperor also. Look at Nero. I want the player to suffer from bad generals, statesmen and leaders as much as in real life. It would create more diversity.

[AugustusRoman]

An interesting idea! Though I believe that corruption should be increased through a bad emperor also. Look at Nero. I want the player to suffer from bad generals, statesmen and leaders as much as in real life. It would create more diversity.

As I said it does not matter how corrupted the emperor is. The emperor tries to take the money for himself!!
Nero spent his money as he pleased. We can not represent 100% the real life. I strongly believe my suggestion is easy to implement and much much better than the vanilla's way of represent corruption.

[quaz601]

I'm hoping that Royal Scythia and the other nomad factions will not settle like the Huns in Atilla, one thing about razing is that the AI sometimes does this in Atilla TW and ends up ruining half the world map I thinking razing should be removed either by making a zero priority for the AI so at least the player can use it or remove it completely. An alternative is sacking has a lot more benefits for the aggressor like increased xp and lower upkeep for some turns and negatives for the victims like increased maintenance costs, unrest, higher chance of disease for a few turns just to make a nomad army sacking your lands almost as devastating as razing. Also Magnar has made a mod that brings war weariness to the Atilla Grand Campaign I haven't tried it yet trying to decide what new faction to play for it. This would make an interesting addition to AE.