What do you think is missing in MTW2? Here we make update plans.

[youneuoy]

If it could be simply coded as a label that displays over the coordinates? Then we could potentially use it for some other features in mods, to label certain landmarks or what not.

And that sounds pretty interesting)) I'll try to do this.

[Jadli]

Very true, the current method forces sacrifice of a faction slot, not to mention that each fort requires a script and agent for the name.

If it could be simply coded as a label that displays over the coordinates? Then we could potentially use it for some other features in mods, to label certain landmarks or what not.

Indeed or simply for "semi" settlements, which permanent forts could serve for

[youneuoy]

I just thought - what if I make the forts the functionality of something resembling a city or a castle?


The essence of the idea:
the fort will have some of the properties of the city - the ability to build buildings, hire some troops, there may be no population, etc.
It will not look at all like what the settlements have now - the entire interface and everything else will be created anew. An existing scroll of forts can also be removed.
Also, there probably won't be any building models on the tactical map.
I think the final appearance may somewhat resemble what is in europa univarsalis 4 or ck2.


How do you like this thought? How it should look in your opinion? (taking into account the restrictions indicated above).

[Erken]

It looks great. When you say "buildings", would they be ordinary buildings or a custom type with similar effects on the main settlement? And how would the AI deal with them?

[youneuoy]

It looks great. When you say "buildings", would they be ordinary buildings or a custom type with similar effects on the main settlement? And how would the AI deal with them?

I can do hiring and income, as well as some other effects. I can make an impact on different parameters of the settlement in the same province as the fort.
But the buildings and everything else will be registered in the files differently from now - everything will have to be done from scratch.

[Lord Baal]

It would be neat indeed.

In fact, I know is very daunting, but you could write a new engine for a total war like game, or at least start in github or something, Im sure it would become pretty popular pretty fast.

[youneuoy]

It would be neat indeed.

In fact, I know is very daunting, but you could write a new engine for a total war like game, or at least start in github or something, Im sure it would become pretty popular pretty fast.

I don’t think it’s possible to make such a game on our own now. Although some of its elements can be implemented quite simply, some will take an incredibly long time, and this all needs to be multiplied by a large number of different mechanics and situations - sieges, field battles, normal systems of government and inheritance, modding ability, etc.




Later I'll figure out more precisely what I can do with the forts and describe how it might look. Perhaps this feature will be devoted to update 1.20.

[Lord Baal]

Oh well Rome was not build in a day. The thing is getting enough people interested and pitching in. Look at Julius and Augustus engines, both clones of Caesar III. With enough interest and people you could get very far in retively few years. This of course is only a mental excersise.

I have devoted a few minutes per day for the last weeks to a very flimsy and perhaps way too big game design. Also found in github some very barebones TW battle simulator (more of a crowd and multi entities simulator/example).

I believe the way to go would be to first work on the turn based strategic layer.

[youneuoy]

Oh well Rome was not build in a day. The thing is getting enough people interested and pitching in. Look at Julius and Augustus engines, both clones of Caesar III. With enough interest and people you could get very far in retively few years. This of course is only a mental excersise.

I have devoted a few minutes per day for the last weeks to a very flimsy and perhaps way too big game design. Also found in github some very barebones TW battle simulator (more of a crowd and multi entities simulator/example).

I believe the way to go would be to first work on the turn based strategic layer.

I did not know about these projects - they look interesting)
But I don't think it's worth doing something like that - it would also take a lot of time, and in the end it would be exactly what we have now. Not to mention the fact that M2TW is technically much more advanced than Caesar.


Yes, you are right - it would be easier to make the strategic mode, but this is a very serious amount of work and I do not have as much free time as is necessary for its full implementation. (but it will still ultimately be extremely difficult, because unlike games like civilization, it doesn't matter, even at this stage it would be necessary to think over a large number of combat parameters for units, etc) . There are also a large number of similar games, and almost all of them are of terrible quality.
It seems to me that at least for now it is better to continue developing M2TWEOP.

[jdofo]

I just thought - what if I make the forts the functionality of something resembling a city or a castle?


The essence of the idea:
the fort will have some of the properties of the city - the ability to build buildings, hire some troops, there may be no population, etc.
It will not look at all like what the settlements have now - the entire interface and everything else will be created anew. An existing scroll of forts can also be removed.
Also, there probably won't be any building models on the tactical map.
I think the final appearance may somewhat resemble what is in europa univarsalis 4 or ck2.


How do you like this thought? How it should look in your opinion? (taking into account the restrictions indicated above).

This sounds extremely interesting! I guess it could be a quicker way to overcome the limitation of the maximum number of settlements.

As Erken said, it would be nice to know how the AI copes with these new permanent forts as well, given the previous issues of forts messing up AI. EBII team could provide some valuable feedback, as far as I understood.

Fantastic work!

[youneuoy]

About ai:
I seem to have to do a simulation of his building and recruiting decisions for this fort-settlements. That is, this part of the AI will not depend on the rest in any way.

[Lord Baal]

Interesting, hes talking about a complete plugin, ai, building system, all. Would you then also ban or allow specifc factions to build forts? IE let the romans build them but not the huns?

[Jojo00182]

Got a suggestion to add to the list: Make a faction not get destroyed when the Leader and Heir die in the same battle.

[Hungrykitten]

Got a suggestion to add to the list: Make a faction not get destroyed when the Leader and Heir die in the same battle.

As long as there are family members still alive- I don't think the faction would be destroyed- the faction leader would simply be one of the surviving family members.

[Gebilde]

A way to label troops
for example many mods use garnission scripts when a settlement is under siege, wich spawns units with a defender attribute, wich then get auto destroyed when the siege ends.
this units take up space in the EDU
maybe ad a way to spawn units with custom label garrnision(settlementname) and allow the units to be destroyed when the siege ends without destoying other defender units in other settlement
conditions could be
settlement
turn
building
ownership
......

[Vladyvid]

I just thought - what if I make the forts the functionality of something resembling a city or a castle?


The essence of the idea:
the fort will have some of the properties of the city - the ability to build buildings, hire some troops, there may be no population, etc.
It will not look at all like what the settlements have now - the entire interface and everything else will be created anew. An existing scroll of forts can also be removed.
Also, there probably won't be any building models on the tactical map.
I think the final appearance may somewhat resemble what is in europa univarsalis 4 or ck2.


How do you like this thought? How it should look in your opinion? (taking into account the restrictions indicated above).

That sounds like a big improvement to what the forts currently offer. Would the forts naming labels be also possible then?

[leo.civil.uefs]

I just thought - what if I make the forts the functionality of something resembling a city or a castle?


The essence of the idea:
the fort will have some of the properties of the city - the ability to build buildings, hire some troops, there may be no population, etc.
It will not look at all like what the settlements have now - the entire interface and everything else will be created anew. An existing scroll of forts can also be removed.
Also, there probably won't be any building models on the tactical map.
I think the final appearance may somewhat resemble what is in europa univarsalis 4 or ck2.


How do you like this thought? How it should look in your opinion? (taking into account the restrictions indicated above).

Fantastic idea. I totally support this.

Though please start giving us the ability to name forts.. Thats would be more simple and a good start.

[Razor]

I was curious if surnames could be made to display before given names, as in East Asian naming?

Let me second this. It's a bit annoying to read about characters like Nobunaga Oda, or Harunobu/Shingen Takeda, Kagetora/Kenshin Uesugi, Hideyoshi Toyotomi etc. while you know them as Oda Nobunaga, Takeda Harunobu/Shingen, Uesugi Kagetora/Kenshin, Toyotomi Hideyoshi.

Cant you just swith first name and surnames in descr_strat for those factions? I mean adding surnames to first names, and first names to surnames

You can, which is fine for game start, but after turn 1 you then run into the issue of children not having their father’s surname (and getting completely random names), which is why I brought up the question.

To explain it a bit further, if you switch the first names and surnames around then, every child will get the same first name (because it's actually a surname) and the surname wil be random (because it's actually a first name), which isn't what you want. Also, if in desc_strat the father is called Oda Nobuhide and the son is called Oda Nobunaga, then the son in the game will be turned into Oda Nobuhide, because it treats Nobuhide as a surname and surnames automatically get passed on from father to child, no matter what surname you entered in descr_strat to be used as first name for the son.

[Erken]

Could it be possible to change the faction of a character depending on a trait? For example, a general become a rebel during a civil war, and go back to it's original faction once this war ended (if his side is victorious). Thus we would not need to use a faction slot for this kind of things.

[youneuoy]

Could it be possible to change the faction of a character depending on a trait? For example, a general become a rebel during a civil war, and go back to it's original faction once this war ended (if his side is victorious). Thus we would not need to use a faction slot for this kind of things.

I think yes, it is possible to do this.