First of all guys, none of this is confirmed or accepted by Point Blank. Those are just mine suggestions on further improving and making ultimate mod.
As someone who spent years, thousands of hours in playing different mods for medieval 2, i think i have big experience and know how to exploit each pros and cons of each mod.
Here are couple of things.
1)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Religion/culture system. Similar to britania expansion.
Introduce deeper religion system. For example, currently there are Catholic, Orthodox, Islam and Pagan. Examples how to do it... Divide Islam between sunni and shia. Or you can go even with adding 'mongol islam'. Divide catholics into more groups. U can do romanesque and germanic catholic...etc etc.
THose are just examples, i used names just as X factor.
Point is to make deeper unrest system, harder to do blitzcrieg campaigns, to create realistic medieval world.
Another great thing is that this might solve 'crusade' problem. They are unrealisticly presented even for 12th century (its not needed as there is already crusader states faction), and not to mention for 14th century and so on..
2)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Reworking agents, EB2 mod did great regarding this.
What I have in mind? Ok, we have merchant. Whats his real function? His real function is economical. Why make it hard when you can make it easy? He just ruin balance, as it is very hard to make good balance on economy. Removing those agents could make it easier to improve economy. They are just micromenagment of economy side. Remeber, micromanagment can be frustrating when you play long campaigns. Another agent that can be removed is priest/imam/shaman. AI spam those guys too, its just cancerous. Better balance could be made by simply 'religious buildings'
Not sure about witch/heretic/inquisor spawnings.
3)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Not sure if there is land bridge between africa and spain in your mod. This is esential for making fucntioning almoravid/almohad/marinid dynastie. Especialy for Marinids in late era campaign. AI cant handle it good when his terriotires are too much spread out.
4)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Other things like improving campaign map textures, making better campaign map general/captain models etc.. This is candy eye. First need to be improved more important things like the ones i mentione above.
---Late era campaign--- 1370
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Not sure which factions to keep out.
Those are must:
1)Marinids
2)Castile
3)Aragon
4)France
5)English
6)Scots
7)Sweden
8)Denmark
9)HRE
10)Venice
11)Papal states
12)Poland
13)Lithuania
14)Novgorod
15)Teutonic order
16)Hungary
17)Serbia
18)ERE
19)Golden horde
20)Ottoman
21)Georgia
22)Mamluk
23)Jalairid
24)Timurid
As you can see i missed some factions like Portugal etc.. Its not that i think of portugal as non important, its just that i fill it in second group of factions, that should be in, but they cant be all in.
Factions that should be in, but cant be all included, obviously due to faction limit (30+rebel):
1)Burgundy, filling great into space between France and HRE.
2)Milan, very important faction
3)Genoa, another important faction. Problem is that there are lot of improtant citie factions at north of italy
4)Florence
5)Naples, southern italy feels empty
6)Granada - i would make it independed strong rebel citie, soon to be captured by marinids.
7)Portugal.
8)Hafsids. Lot of emptie space here. However i wouldnt go for this faction. Its copy paste of marinids, giving not much uniquness.
9)Swiss
10)Bohemia
11)Sarbadar - Lot of empty space in Iran between timurids and jalairids. However this faction can be kept out. As far as i know Timur didnt used his famous brutality on them, instead he 'incorporated' sarbards.
12)Eretna/Karamanids -- to make some opposition to ottomans in anatolia and vice versa. However, i think this
To conclude, what 6 factions would i go with?
Here it is: Swiss, Bohemia, Naples, Milan, Genoa, Burgundy.
That would make 4 north italy factions, probably way too much.. As i said, im not very sure about those factions.
Let me hear your thoughts?
EDIT:Need to do more research about north itaian factions of 1370ad.
EDIT1:How much work have you put in 1370ad? May i suggest considering other date, like 1400ad or something else
Last edited by achilles-91; September 10, 2018 at 03:23 PM.
Religion/culture system. Similar to britania expansion.
Introduce deeper religion system. For example, currently there are Catholic, Orthodox, Islam and Pagan. Examples how to do it... Divide Islam between sunni and shia. Or you can go even with adding 'mongol islam'. Divide catholics into more groups. U can do romanesque and germanic catholic...etc etc.
THose are just examples, i used names just as X factor.
Point is to make deeper unrest system, harder to do blitzcrieg campaigns, to create realistic medieval world.
Another great thing is that this might solve 'crusade' problem. They are unrealisticly presented even for 12th century (its not needed as there is already crusader states faction), and not to mention for 14th century and so on..
Culture is only a renamed religion, it only becomes valid game option in areas where everyone shares the same religion. So no to that.
I don't see much point in further complicating religion in the game either.
(many moons ago I did work out how to have multiple religious buildings from different religions in a settlement - but that has all been lost a long time ago )
Unrest is caused by suppressing religions not in having more than one in a settlement.
Crusades remain a valid option throughout the game, crusades took place in the Baltic and in the Iberian peninsular, Tunis etc.
Reworking agents, EB2 mod did great regarding this.
What I have in mind? Ok, we have merchant. Whats his real function? His real function is economical. Why make it hard when you can make it easy? He just ruin balance, as it is very hard to make good balance on economy. Removing those agents could make it easier to improve economy. They are just micromenagment of economy side. Remeber, micromanagment can be frustrating when you play long campaigns. Another agent that can be removed is priest/imam/shaman. AI spam those guys too, its just cancerous. Better balance could be made by simply 'religious buildings'
Not sure about witch/heretic/inquisor spawnings.
Merchants are a way of representing trade, not perfect but they're better than having no merchants.
There are issues with merchants in some mods where they become senile or otherwise lose their ability to generate income -that can be addressed in traits, ancillaries etc.
Some mods penalise long-standing merchants - I think they should be rewarded.
Same goes for govenors in cities with drinking establishments etc.
Without priests you can't spread your religion (or the AI can't) into regions you don't control.
Inquisitors, witches and heretics can be limited by adjusting the file that controls their production - you can determine the spawn rate, when inquisitors first appear etc.
Crusades are already presnted in palestine with crusader states faction. In baltic with teutonic order faction. Pope forbiden iberian kingdoms to go on crusades, as they have they're 'own' crusade to solve against almoravids/almohads. So they didnt participated in holy lands. As you can see crusade as already presnted more then good. "crusade" option is extremly exploited and ai cant use it properly. While faction x send its armies on crusades, faction y capture its terriotires duo to lack of armies of faction x.
If france captures region of poland, it dont get religion penalty, because they were both 'catholic' religion. However if poland is for exaple 'Slav_catholic" religion, france would have more problems with rebelions of polish people.
Problem is that there is way too much priests. They should be at least nerfed. For example not avalable at tier 1 churc, but for example tier 4-5.
Trade is already presented via other options, merchant agent is not necesity.
Crusades should still be present in the 1370 campaign. Crusades in this period occurred against the Ottomans, and were significant campaigns until the 16th century. However, the area where crusades can occur should be limited to South Eastern Europe (Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.) and Western Anatolia (for the Timurids) only if the Ottomans hold the settlement. Also doubling the time between crusades to 20 turns would lessen the amount of exploitation.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Last edited by Judeman266; September 10, 2018 at 07:17 PM.
Crusades should still be present in the 1370 campaign. Crusades in this period occurred against the Ottomans, and were significant campaigns until the 16th century. However, the area where crusades can occur should be limited to South Eastern Europe (Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.) and only if the Ottomans hold the settlement. Also doubling the time between crusades to 20 turns would lessen the amount of exploitation.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Thats the problem, because u cant limit crusade targets in m2 engine. And how realistic for you is to see scotland and denmark going on crusade against ottomans?
Thats the problem, because u cant limit crusade targets in m2 engine. And how realistic for you is to see scotland and denmark going on crusade against ottomans?
First of all guys, none of this is confirmed or accepted by Point Blank. Those are just mine suggestions on further improving and making ultimate mod.
As someone who spent years, thousands of hours in playing different mods for medieval 2, i think i have big experience and know how to exploit each pros and cons of each mod.
Here are couple of things.
1)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Religion/culture system. Similar to britania expansion.
Introduce deeper religion system. For example, currently there are Catholic, Orthodox, Islam and Pagan. Examples how to do it... Divide Islam between sunni and shia. Or you can go even with adding 'mongol islam'. Divide catholics into more groups. U can do romanesque and germanic catholic...etc etc.
THose are just examples, i used names just as X factor.
Point is to make deeper unrest system, harder to do blitzcrieg campaigns, to create realistic medieval world.
Another great thing is that this might solve 'crusade' problem. They are unrealisticly presented even for 12th century (its not needed as there is already crusader states faction), and not to mention for 14th century and so on..
2)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Reworking agents, EB2 mod did great regarding this.
What I have in mind? Ok, we have merchant. Whats his real function? His real function is economical. Why make it hard when you can make it easy? He just ruin balance, as it is very hard to make good balance on economy. Removing those agents could make it easier to improve economy. They are just micromenagment of economy side. Remeber, micromanagment can be frustrating when you play long campaigns. Another agent that can be removed is priest/imam/shaman. AI spam those guys too, its just cancerous. Better balance could be made by simply 'religious buildings'
Not sure about witch/heretic/inquisor spawnings.
3)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Not sure if there is land bridge between africa and spain in your mod. This is esential for making fucntioning almoravid/almohad/marinid dynastie. Especialy for Marinids in late era campaign. AI cant handle it good when his terriotires are too much spread out.
4)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Other things like improving campaign map textures, making better campaign map general/captain models etc.. This is candy eye. First need to be improved more important things like the ones i mentione above.
---Late era campaign--- 1370
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Not sure which factions to keep out.
Those are must:
1)Marinids
2)Castile
3)Aragon
4)France
5)English
6)Scots
7)Sweden
8)Denmark
9)HRE
10)Venice
11)Papal states
12)Poland
13)Lithuania
14)Novgorod
15)Teutonic order
16)Hungary
17)Serbia
18)ERE
19)Golden horde
20)Ottoman
21)Georgia
22)Mamluk
23)Jalairid
24)Timurid
As you can see i missed some factions like Portugal etc.. Its not that i think of portugal as non important, its just that i fill it in second group of factions, that should be in, but they cant be all in.
Factions that should be in, but cant be all included, obviously due to faction limit (30+rebel):
1)Burgundy, filling great into space between France and HRE.
2)Milan, very important faction
3)Genoa, another important faction. Problem is that there are lot of improtant citie factions at north of italy
4)Florence
5)Naples, southern italy feels empty
6)Granada - i would make it independed strong rebel citie, soon to be captured by marinids.
7)Portugal.
8)Hafsids. Lot of emptie space here. However i wouldnt go for this faction. Its copy paste of marinids, giving not much uniquness.
9)Swiss
10)Bohemia
11)Sarbadar - Lot of empty space in Iran between timurids and jalairids. However this faction can be kept out. As far as i know Timur didnt used his famous brutality on them, instead he 'incorporated' sarbards.
12)Eretna/Karamanids -- to make some opposition to ottomans in anatolia and vice versa. However, i think this
To conclude, what 6 factions would i go with?
Here it is: Swiss, Bohemia, Naples, Milan, Genoa, Burgundy.
That would make 4 north italy factions, probably way too much.. As i said, im not very sure about those factions.
Let me hear your thoughts?
EDIT:Need to do more research about north itaian factions of 1370ad.
EDIT1:How much work have you put in 1370ad? May i suggest considering other date, like 1400ad or something else
About the merchants and priests I tend to agree with Roz, would rather leave them in.
If the minimum time between crusades is increased and we perhaps update the list of targets we can leave them in.
One of the optional sub-mods is Longer Assimilation, which makes the process of conquering and integrating any new province more difficult.
The land bridge is a good idea.
The list of factions looks good, except maybe for the Swiss. I’m not aware (and correct me if I am wrong) that they did much in the way of mounting independent foreign expeditions, think its ok to leave them mostly as a source of mercenaries. In that case we could replace them with Florence, which was a perennial enemy of Venice in particular. Depicting Italy with as much fidelity as possible is a good thing since so much activity in the Late Era revolved around it. Another advantage is that the Italian factions share a lot of units so we don’t need to fill up the EDU with more unique units from new factions - we will need those slots for Georgia etc.
1370 is ok because of the Timurid invasion, but it could be later if we just set them up as they were on that date historically. If they have some settlements it would also be better with them being playable.
Hi Guys,
Some thoughts from my side:
1. I think you significantly underestimate the amount of work needed to get most of your wishes into the mod. I think PB is the sole moder and I woulnd’t expect such sweeping changes. Creating factions out of thin air (eg Bohemia) seems very unrealistic to ask.
2. I thought the PB work is about battles and units, and not about every feature of the game. Introducing 1370 era will be a great feat, if realized, even without all the demanded factions.
3. I think PB underestimates the risks related to the inclusions various submods included in the base SS6.4. Having seen what happened to the Titanium I don’t think the mod will be stable. There's simply too much interaction between various parts. You make a change in one place but you’re unaware how many aspects of the game are related to this place. You simply don’t know them. The SSHIP coped with it through getting rid of all the submods and that made it stable.
4. There’re many errors in the base SS6.4 (I may speak for parts of the EDCT file – I’ve found plenty of them as modders in the past would make changes without paying attention to the changes of the others – so there’re double traits, double triggers, contradicting triggers etc.). Additionally, there’re bugged commands identified over the years (eg NoGoingBack bug). Some parts were free of the risks (eg Byg in the BGR took very elegant and ingenious solutions) but some are bugged.
5. I expect that the script will either be very simplified or will make constant crashes. As said, many errors and bugs were identified over the years and fixed either in the Bugfix compilation or in Titanium or in SSHIP. As the base for this submod is SS6.4, they’re likely to stay.
6. Thought on particular issues:
6a. – my concepts about the merchants are here.
6b. – if you remove priests then you should remove witches and inquisitors. However, the AI seems to cope with the priests quite good and I find removing the priests a bad idea.
6c. – all agents have many problems with the triggers. I’ve recently spent like 20 hours fixing EDCT for the SSHIP. Those pointed at concerning the merchants is just a tip of the iceberg.
6d. – introduction more religions would break a plethora of triggers and traits. Already the pagan religion doesn't work, practically at all. For the SSHIP I’ve made a practically new set of triggers to have the existing traits working (even without adding new ones!)
Bottom line: KISS: keep it short and simple.
JoC
1. Adding new factions is a lot of work yes, but I can do it if I am provided with the units models and graphics, since that is not my area at all
2. Its about a lot more than just battles and units. Have a look at the old ‘FINAL SS RR/RC COMPILATION' thread for an idea of some of the other aspects, changes and successfully-integrated sub-mods
3. No, I don't. This mod has been integrated with SS for around ten years and is pretty stable, partly because it had its own debug process. Unless there is some kind of horrendous set of new interactions, I don't really see that changing (hopefully). As I said, see the above thread for what it adds beyond the base 6.4, there is a huge amount. The reason they don't get noticed much is because the mark of a successful integration is that it is largely transparent to the user
4. There have been several sweeps through the traits etc file used in this mod. After 6.4 came out there was a succession of fixes released for those, plus as you point out Byg went right through them. No doubt there are still a few things but I don't really see some minor issues with traits as game-breaking
5. As I said, this mod has been around for a long time. The script seems to generate very, very few errors without compromising any complexity and I hand-crafted and updated a lot of the code myself; it has not really been changed for this release. Not to mention that it has been played extensively by a wide user base for a long time, and the bulk of the bugs have probably been weeded out. But hey, you guys don’t mind being free beta testers for a bit do you?
Last edited by Point Blank; September 11, 2018 at 03:33 AM.
I would be happy to be one, at least with battles testing. I'll try to be as scientific as possible. I'll prioritize the common unit matchups, and should there be any absurd result (like how the Tabardariyya destroys Gothic Foot Knights in the old RC because of axe ap, although a not so common matchup), I'll report asap.
For this, I'll be needing the export_descr_units, descr_mount, the animations, and the units' files, yes?
Maybe Dekhatres will be prompted to change his post tagline ‘You know you've played too much Stainless Steel when in every other mod you play you think cavalry is too weak.’
dont remember to have complained about the charge (maybe a few years ago i did) my main issue has always been with their melee attack, that's still the case in ss6.4 so unless ss7.0 gets released i prob wont chage it
my two cents regarding arrows vs armor balance, i increased armor drastically on heavy units, reduced missile damage by about 30%, increase accuracy by 50%, boosted shield value by about 10-20%, overall increased the number of upgrades for most units
the result is that heavy units are quite resistant to missiles units which are still useful because they are more effective against low armored units, that said heavy units can still get overwhelmed by archers if they have the high ground and concentrate their fire
armor rating goes like: around 10-12 armor for mailed units, 14-16 partial plate, 18-20 full plate, 20+ only for some few units using the the highest quality armor
i didnt increase the total defence, only took away points from defence skill and added to armor and shield
I am very happy with cavalry now, will be interested to see what you think. About the armor, its a bit of a problem increasing it because it has to fit in with the armor upgrade system.
Will be released tonight
For missile weapons, this is the way to balance them, quick and easy, in the data/battle_config.xml file:
<!-- global combat balancing factors -->
<combat-balancing> <missile-target-accuracy> <infantry>1.0</infantry> <cavalry>1.6</cavalry> <elephants>2.2</elephants> </missile-target-accuracy>
<melee-hit-rate>1.50</melee-hit-rate>
</combat-balancing>
I used The Knight and the Blast Furnace extensively when formulating the attack and armor values in RC. It’s a great resource and a really interesting read, if you like that sort of thing
If there is one thing I would change about the M2TW combat model if I could, it would be how low-energy projectiles have a too-high chance to penetrate armors they undermatch, and a correspondingly too-low chance versus armors they overmatch. So, even though a weak simple bow might have an attack of just 2, it can still penetrate something like plate armor with a value of around maybe 12. Conversely, a steel crossbow with attack 12 will not reliably penetrate padded armor value 2.
The probability of penetration should be based on, under ideal conditions such as a straight-on hit at point blank range, the value 50% if the impact joules match the joules of resistance of the armor. It then either decreases with an under match, or increases with an overmatch, using some kind of sigmoid curve with a standard deviation of maybe 2-3. The entire function should then be shifted to represent the likelihood of a glancing shot ie less penetration, and then in the other direction to depict the chance of striking thinner armor such as the helmet. The energy of the shot should of course decrease with range. If it does penetrate, the approximate residual energy could be calculated and fed into the function that works out damage to the armor wearer.
Or something like that
Last edited by Point Blank; September 12, 2018 at 09:54 AM.
i remember reading about those modifiers a while back and ppl were saying they dont work except melee one, i guess i should have tested myself
yea i noticed that undermatch overmatch thing too, infact that's the problem i am trying to solve aswell, the best solution i see right now is to have high armor/shield values, i've run a test just now on grassy plain, foot feudal knights with 12 armor 6 shield and 3 upgrades against Heavy Archers with 4 damage, in total knights took 5 casualties, also considering most casualties from arrows often heal after battle in a campaign scenario they would have probably have taken none at all
it doesnt fully solve it but think it's a decent middle ground solution, balancing this would be a no brainer if we could change how much armor upgrades give, alas it's hardcoded iirc
You'll see it's not the missile fire or the cause of death whatsoever. It's the order of death (first casualties being the top priority to be healed), followed by the BattleSurgery stat.
You'll see it's not the missile fire or the cause of death whatsoever. It's the order of death (first casualties being the top priority to be healed), followed by the BattleSurgery stat.
Interesting thread thanks! I read this line: 'Given the state of battlefield surgery in Antiquity, you should be glad there are healed casualties at all.' This is not necessarily true. Research done on graves from the battle of Towton in England during the War of the Roses (horrendous casualties of tens of thousands, around half of those there from memory https://youtu.be/jvvhtIx2DRc) showed that many of them had suffered serious battlefield injuries in the past and had recovered from them, and that medieval surgery was surprisingly sophisticated.
Interesting thread thanks! I read this line: 'Given the state of battlefield surgery in Antiquity, you should be glad there are healed casualties at all.' This is not necessarily true. Research done on graves from the battle of Towton in England during the War of the Roses (horrendous casualties of tens of thousands, around half of those there from memory https://youtu.be/jvvhtIx2DRc) showed that many of them had suffered serious battlefield injuries in the past and had recovered from them, and that medieval surgery was surprisingly sophisticated.
Welcome and thanks! Although I would suspect only about half of their methods worked, while the rest are pure placebo and superstitions. I'll watch the vid later.
By the way, is there any way to tweak the probability of 1-on-1 uninterruptible killing animations during battle? It just kills the immersion for me. I guess I'm just sick of the Shogun2/Rome2 theatrical style. If there's anyway to conveniently remove this feature completely, that would be awesome.
Also, why does my account here keep on being logged out? Fortunately it's been my habit to copy-paste lengthy texts I type online on Notepad before submitting.
And lastly, is there anyone of you familiar of the Guild-lock bug? It's when during the mid-game, for some reason, there will be 1 or more guildhouses that will never ever give offers anymore, be it new guild houses construction or upgrades. For example, if it happens with the Horsebreeders Guild, even though there isn't any HQ anywhere (and sometimes not even a Masters Guild exists), no matter how many points you try to gain (I test this quickly by cheating: construct top-tier stables, destroy, repeat), there will never be any offer from that guild anywhere. This has happened to me 3 times already. First time was very unfortunate during my Turks campaign. Both the Archers/Woodmans Guild and Horsebreeders bugged out. On another game it's just the Archers (I forgot the faction, maybe Fatimids). In my last game (France) it's the Merchant's Guild that bugged out. I've been searching about this in vain every time it happens. What could be the cause?
For this reason, I usually try to get the guilds that are most important for my faction become HQ's asap.
You'll see it's not the missile fire or the cause of death whatsoever. It's the order of death (first casualties being the top priority to be healed), followed by the BattleSurgery stat.
Interesting thread thanks! I read this line: 'Given the state of battlefield surgery in Antiquity, you should be glad there are healed casualties at all.' This is not necessarily true. Research done on graves from the battle of Towton in England during the War of the Roses (horrendous casualties of tens of thousands, around half of those there from memory https://youtu.be/jvvhtIx2DRc) showed that many of them had suffered serious battlefield injuries in the past and had recovered from them, and that medieval surgery was surprisingly sophisticated.
Interesting thread thanks! I read this line: 'Given the state of battlefield surgery in Antiquity, you should be glad there are healed casualties at all.' This is not necessarily true. Research done on graves from the battle of Towton in England during the War of the Roses (horrendous casualties of tens of thousands, around half of those there from memory https://youtu.be/jvvhtIx2DRc) showed that many of them had suffered serious battlefield injuries in the past and had recovered from them, and that medieval surgery was surprisingly sophisticated.
Just finished watching the docu. Those were some horrendous wounds. It's really convincing that #16 had had surgeries on him before the battle. That pre-battle jaw cut is just gruesome.
And lastly, is there anyone of you familiar of the Guild-lock bug? It's when during the mid-game, for some reason, there will be 1 or more guildhouses that will never ever give offers anymore, be it new guild houses construction or upgrades. For example, if it happens with the Horsebreeders Guild, even though there isn't any HQ anywhere (and sometimes not even a Masters Guild exists), no matter how many points you try to gain (I test this quickly by cheating: construct top-tier stables, destroy, repeat), there will never be any offer from that guild anywhere. This has happened to me 3 times already. First time was very unfortunate during my Turks campaign. Both the Archers/Woodmans Guild and Horsebreeders bugged out. On another game it's just the Archers (I forgot the faction, maybe Fatimids). In my last game (France) it's the Merchant's Guild that bugged out. I've been searching about this in vain every time it happens. What could be the cause?
For this reason, I usually try to get the guilds that are most important for my faction become HQ's asap.
You'll see it's not the missile fire or the cause of death whatsoever. It's the order of death (first casualties being the top priority to be healed), followed by the BattleSurgery stat.
i made up that myth mate cause i had nothing better to do today, on a serious note i got it from the fact that in the overwhelming majority of the battles i played casualties healed were mostly units that took a lot of missile fire, it also happened at the start of the battle, what you said makes sense and the tests in that thread proves it so thanks for the correction
Re: RC 2.0 Ultimate Updates and Changes
Reply With Quote
)
Originally Posted by Judeman266
