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

[AntonisTheGreek]

Some more ideas and suggestions:

Could we make some naval units unable to carry troops? (Essentially differentiating warships from transport ships)

Could we limit or disable marriage proposals?

According to the following post in this thread:

Just in case someone is wondering about this, the winter music is bugged and will never play, or better the game just reads the summer music doesn't matter if is summer or winter I think.

In theory, we can assign some strat map music tracks to play in summer, and others in winter, but apparently the winter tracks don't play. Can this be fixed?

The game has only 2 seasons: winter and summer. Could autumn and spring be added as well?

There are some projectiles, like the rotten cow that the trebuchet throws, or the hornet nest from Americas, which, when thrown, make the units adjacent to them nauseous(banners flashing green). Can the nausea effect be modified to kill affected soldiers?

- It has always been also bugging, that with a ballista you can somehow take even huge cities if you are lucky, so perhaps if it could be somehow limited, so for example that if you had only ballista, the game wouldnt let you asault stone settlements?

IIRC in SS the wall-taking capabilities of the ballista are disabled entirely

[leo.civil.uefs]

makes an unit able to hit buildings
Is it possile to create a new type of unit or make normal unit using siege animations and hit wall and Buildings via memory editing?
Like a troll that throw rocks and after attack as a normal unit?

Rome had this feature. Using a unit of elephants, you could attack a gate so one of the elephants would walk alone to it and start hitting it.

It would be awesome to have trolls doing this in tatw.

As for trolls throwing rocks and then attacking as a normal unit, this is already possible with the vanilla engine, there is units that throw javelins before going melee.

I've tested this with trolls throwing rocks and then attacking melee and it works perfectly, but unfortunatelly we need to resize the throwing animations otherwise it will result in weird slender trolls (but still works)

[youneuoy]

Some more ideas and suggestions:

Could we make some naval units unable to carry troops? (Essentially differentiating warships from transport ships)

Could we limit or disable marriage proposals?

According to the following post in this thread:


In theory, we can assign some strat map music tracks to play in summer, and others in winter, but apparently the winter tracks don't play. Can this be fixed?

The game has only 2 seasons: winter and summer. Could autumn and spring be added as well?

There are some projectiles, like the rotten cow that the trebuchet throws, or the hornet nest from Americas, which, when thrown, make the units adjacent to them nauseous(banners flashing green). Can the nausea effect be modified to kill affected soldiers?


IIRC in SS the wall-taking capabilities of the ballista are disabled entirely

The idea with the fleet is very interesting. Just think it will greatly complicate its use for AI.

As for marriage proposals:
I’ll probably look later, it doesn’t look very difficult.
about music:
I almost did not delve into the work of the game with sound, but after what I saw, I would prefer to turn off the system in the game with music (but not with the rest of the sounds) and make a new one. But this task seems to me a very very low priority.
With the addition of seasons, everything is probably the same as with the addition of factions.
I am not familiar with the effects of shells and similar things, maybe I'll do it later. Now my main area of ​​interest is a strategic map, not a tactical one.

[youneuoy]

Something I wanted to do now change the guard for the generals during the game, probably the next update will be with this function, the rest will come later. Most likely I’ll finish in a couple of days, I decided not to rush much and make the code more optimized.


From the conditions I decided to use:
trait
ancillary
name
number of turn(if>= of this then condition is true)
Each entry can be assigned priority. The entry consists of:
condition type
condition
old unit type
new unit type
priority


Write now if this is not enough for you.


It seems to have gone pretty well. Maybe I'll finish it by night.

[Link12]

This is really impressive! Thank you!
I already have plans to use the increased religion limit. The berserker fix also looks amazing!
I think the reason why this page has not gotten more traffic is a lack of advertisement- I only found out as someone told me. Now that the community is moving from large forums (Such as TWC) to individual discord severs, it is harder to communicate news I feel.

I had two major questions:
1. The possibility of the regions and cultures limits being removed is really exciting! I saw that regions are still heavily experimental, but the cultures are almost complete? Does that mean that the culture component has a realistic chance of being released? The ability to have more cultures would be really cool, especially for fantasy mods such as Lord of the Rings, so we could have more custom UIs and building sets!
2. My other question is if I just want to remove limits and apply bugfixes, that is what the BAT file is for, right? I don't need to use the exe unless I want to use the hotseat thingy, right?

[youneuoy]

This is really impressive! Thank you!
I already have plans to use the increased religion limit. The berserker fix also looks amazing!
I think the reason why this page has not gotten more traffic is a lack of advertisement- I only found out as someone told me. Now that the community is moving from large forums (Such as TWC) to individual discord severs, it is harder to communicate news I feel.

I had two major questions:
1. The possibility of the regions and cultures limits being removed is really exciting! I saw that regions are still heavily experimental, but the cultures are almost complete? Does that mean that the culture component has a realistic chance of being released? The ability to have more cultures would be really cool, especially for fantasy mods such as Lord of the Rings, so we could have more custom UIs and building sets!
2. My other question is if I just want to remove limits and apply bugfixes, that is what the BAT file is for, right? I don't need to use the exe unless I want to use the hotseat thingy, right?

Little by little, I began to work on the distribution of this program. In fact, the first part of HotSeatTool I started to develop only recently, less than a month has passed since the start of its development. Prior to this, there was no particular need to advertise it.


1 - with the removal of many limits, you will probably have to wait, maybe a very long time. Or maybe it will never happen. Removing limits is far from the main goal of this project, rather a side effect.
2 - this is written in the instructions, spoiler "How to do it:". Everything under it concerns only the first part of the program.
In any case, you will need all the files from the archive with the program.

[Lusitanio]

Yes, this is an implementation of one of the ideas that modders wrote to me on another forum (imtw.ru).
In general, this was conceived as an improvement of generals in certain historical periods. I am glad that so quickly found another application.

My idea would be something like the Faction Leader and the Heir could have the bodyguard composed of the Royal army while the others would have a normal BG.

Another idea that many have always talked about is the ability change the "Legio" on the units. This is an old harcoded thing that was left on M2TW from RTW and basically allows us to add it to the units so that when they are recruited they get something like Legio II Italic and things like that keeps increasing as more units get recruited. It's great to follow your units since they are first recruited but the fact that we can't change the "Legio" part is quite annoying.

[Erken]

I have tested the change of guard with the different conditions, and by varying the priority, and all works great.

For the compatibility between classes:

- Heavy cavalry replaced by infantry: CTD (at the start of the battle)

- Heavy cavalry replaced by light cavalry: the general is a silver surfer

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

- Heavy infantry replaced by heavy cavalry: how to say...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

- Infantry (light or heavy) replaced by missile units: the general is ok, but the rest of the unit is constituted of silver surfers

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But of course replacement with the same classe works without problem.

[+Mr.Crow+]

Thanks for the feedback!


Yes, I can do that. This has already been implemented in the second part of the program, but sometimes it leads to some funny situations, so this feature needs refinement.


I have several ideas on this subject and I was going to start checking them for the next update (since I will update, including the ability to edit armies on a strategic map).

Thank you for your answer.

I want to further explain what i have in mind because maybe it can give you some practical ideas.

As you probably already know, the game itself has a kill command: https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...-do-I-kill-him

The problem is that the command require you to know the label of the character: this means that you can't kill any non scripted character because it is not possible to assign a label to a character created by the game.

So maybe something like that would work:
1) in a certain moment i give through script a specific trait named "killme" to the character that i want to kill
2) after some time, when your tool scan the memory at the end of rebels turn, it intercept the character with this trait and add to him a specific label called "chartokill"
3) in the subsequent turn, again through script, i can check if a character with that label exists using the condition I_CharacterExists. If so, i kill it using the kill_character command

[Jadli]

To expand, Imagine if you could for example repurpose marrying princess function, and give it to for example generals or priests, so they would be able to convert other general somehow? Or some evil general could spread their revil religion themselves? Or for example the inquisition function could be perhaps used widely, if it was not tied just to papacy... seems a lot of options could come from

And if we could increase the limit, we could make some special types of general perhaps, godly and so on....


BTW, a list of all actions

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

type            named character


actions            moving_normal, moving_quickmarch, garrison, assault, attack, besiege, entrench, ambush, diplomacy, bribe, exchange, building_fort, building_watchtower


type            general


actions    moving_normal, moving_quickmarch, garrison, assault, attack, besiege, entrench, ambush, exchange




type            spy


actions            moving_normal, spying


type            assassin


actions            moving_normal, assassinate, sabotage


type            diplomat


actions            moving_normal, diplomacy, bribe


type            admiral


actions            moving_normal, quick_sail, blockade, disembark, exchange


type            princess


actions            moving_normal, diplomacy, bribe, marry


type            merchant


actions            moving_normal, acquire


type            priest


actions            moving_normal, denounce


type            heretic


actions            moving_normal


type            witch


actions            moving_normal

[AntonisTheGreek]

In TATW (and possibly in other mods too) there is this annoying thing: When you try to besiege settlements without walls or gates, like Rivendell or Erebor, you still need to build siege equipment, although it is not needed. Could something be done for this?

Also, could we bring back from RTW the possibility to set the heir manually?

[Araval]

About fixing your problem:
probably instead of fixing it will be easier to duplicate this system, though perhaps instead of religions it will be easier to use separation by factions.

That could be good for some cases indeed but let's suppose you don't have enogh different portraits (I don't actually know how large are vanilla portrait pools) to create different pools for let's say two factions who share the same religion. If the pool was religion specific the generals of these two factions should look unique until the pool runs out but if the pools were faction specific and the files were the same in this pool, I think there would be chances the factions would get some identical-looking generals much earlier. Mind you, I don't of course know the algorytms that choose the portraits, just trying to think about the practical result for modders.

Not sure if a doable thing but if it is, then it should be simple to do.

Custom settlement campaign map models sometimes change to vanilla models when the fog is over them, thats an immersion breaker.
It would be fine if this was fixed.

It's possible to fix it via script already. You need to "auto-reveal-and-hide-again all relevant tiles upon a game reload". I quoted Withwnar here.

[youneuoy]

So:
I postponed until later the development of general unit upgrades between different classes of troops, until everything remains as it is (upgrade within the same class).


In the next update, there will most likely be a change in the "Legio" prefix for units.


The next update will focus on things already listed in the list for implementation.


character kills:
in the plans, engaged in the search for the most optimal implementation options.


portraits:
I’ll look, I want to make their settings as flexible as possible


The idea of ​​having an assault right away for different cities is a good one; the catch here is how to explain this to AI or how to get around this limitation. I will deal with this later.


I like the idea of ​​limiting the number of units for transportation on certain ships, I'll try to do it later. It also gave me the idea of ​​a different garrison limit for cities of different levels.


About factions I will watch later, there are already some great ideas.




female generals:
I was a little concerned with the issue of completely unique generals, this is not a very simple question, it is better to postpone it.


family trees, etc .:
we'll see later.


by agents:
they are unlikely to be on the battle map, although later it will be possible to try to make something like “heroes” from the new parts of the total war series. Only if this is introduced, then it will be the heroes, and not some agents there)
I’ll also look with agent imps later.


about city models have already answered above

[R.P. Gryphus]

I have a suggestion for an issue that is as old as the game and that annoys, I'm sure, most of the modders : the adoption mechanics. It would be damn awesome if you could just remove it entirely or make so that we can disable it!

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Conversely, it would be nice to hunt down and eliminate the function that 'enforces' a balanced general selection in the base game, ie, "oh he just died because we notice you have 4 settlements and you should only have 4 generals". I, for one, like to be able to pick and choose without the mechanics interfering, and I know this is something the game does, even if the how is unclear given there are mods that still blast past this soft limit.

They could be on the same basic config option, but to show what I mean I should get back to the UI layout I was looking at for this project.

[Erken]

A few ideas:

- An ancillary could be associated with a trait in a cfg file, so that if a character has this trait, then he loses the ancillary (and maybe the trait). Currently the only way to do this is to use remove_ancillary, but it requires the name of the character or the e_select_character method, so the use is very limited. It would also allow to exploit all the potential of I_WorldwideAncillaryExists, which has no equivalent for traits. Unique offices could thus be done, and particular situations easily tested.

- On the same way, some labels could be determined in a cfg file, and the tool would check if they are used or not by a character. If not, then this labels would be reset, so that they could be used more than once as currently. It would have the advantage of not requiring a scripting faction for certain things.

- The possibility to change the default number of turns until surrender for settlements and forts would be useful too (alter it with the traits of the governor would be ideal, but far less simple i guess ?)

[leo.civil.uefs]

Just in case one of the members of this project is interested...

The has_mine line in descr_resources file seem to have no effect. no matter if you keep it or remove it from the resource entry, as soon as you build a mine in a province, the 3d mine model shows up over the ore resources in the strat map in that provice.


seems like there is a hardcoded link between all ore resources (gold, silver etc) and the 3d model of the mine that shows up over them.

Im not sure if this could be changed via this mem patch you guys are proposing, but I can see some possibilities regarding this.

We could have, for example, different 3d models that would show up over each kind of resource in the strat map.
So for example, in a fantasy mod, a province has a "source of magical energy" or something like this, then you can build a tower to drain this energy in that province via building tree in the settlement, and a tower 3d model would show up over the "source of magical energy" thing.

The possibilities are many.

The mines are the only 3d models that can appear in the strat map after you take some action (you build a mine in the settlement).

If we could extend this feature, we could have things like building the great wall in a China mod.

[youneuoy]

A few ideas:

- An ancillary could be associated with a trait in a cfg file, so that if a character has this trait, then he loses the ancillary (and maybe the trait). Currently the only way to do this is to use remove_ancillary, but it requires the name of the character or the e_select_character method, so the use is very limited. It would also allow to exploit all the potential of I_WorldwideAncillaryExists, which has no equivalent for traits. Unique offices could thus be done, and particular situations easily tested.

- On the same way, some labels could be determined in a cfg file, and the tool would check if they are used or not by a character. If not, then this labels would be reset, so that they could be used more than once as currently. It would have the advantage of not requiring a scripting faction for certain things.

- The possibility to change the default number of turns until surrender for settlements and forts would be useful too (alter it with the traits of the governor would be ideal, but far less simple i guess ?)

I will later see what is happening with the settlements. I constantly encounter traits and anchillaries, but I probably can’t do this now (I mean right now) with a guarantee of 100% stability. In the course of development, I’ll figure it out better and I can come up with something.

Just in case one of the members of this project is interested...

The has_mine line in descr_resources file seem to have no effect. no matter if you keep it or remove it from the resource entry, as soon as you build a mine in a province, the 3d mine model shows up over the ore resources in the strat map in that provice.


seems like there is a hardcoded link between all ore resources (gold, silver etc) and the 3d model of the mine that shows up over them.

Im not sure if this could be changed via this mem patch you guys are proposing, but I can see some possibilities regarding this.

We could have, for example, different 3d models that would show up over each kind of resource in the strat map.
So for example, in a fantasy mod, a province has a "source of magical energy" or something like this, then you can build a tower to drain this energy in that province via building tree in the settlement, and a tower 3d model would show up over the "source of magical energy" thing.

The possibilities are many.

Yes, that sounds very interesting. I will see what can be done with this after several updates.

I have a suggestion for an issue that is as old as the game and that annoys, I'm sure, most of the modders : the adoption mechanics. It would be damn awesome if you could just remove it entirely or make so that we can disable it!

And the dynasty will not die out without it?

[Gigantus]

The has_mine line in descr_resources file seem to have no effect. no matter if you keep it or remove it from the resource entry, as soon as you build a mine in a province, the 3d mine model shows up over the ore resources in the strat map in that provice.

Have to check that one, I vaguely recall we disabled it in 1648.

Edit: looks like we ran into the same issue - I had changed the path for the mine model to the invisible model that is used to anchor the faction symbol over strat settlements\forts (data/models_strat/residences/symbol.CAS).
"has_mine" is originally used in RTW and it would be of interest if it worked there as intended.

[Jadli]

And the dynasty will not die out without it?

You can minimalize adoptions by starting with larger families, possibly several of them, I believe than you get it less often.

In case the adoptions would be removed, having larger family trees would be a must to avoid issues.

However, from my experience, the AI sometimes doesnt do adoptions anyway, at least in my mod, where I had issues with a faction not adopting anyone for like a 100 turns and dying out when 4 original members of the dynasty were assassinated.