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

[Amilius Brutus]

I have seen a lot of speculation over this but are we even sure that it is even " possible " to increase the faction limit?

[youneuoy]

I have seen a lot of speculation over this but are we even sure that it is even " possible " to increase the faction limit?

Read the first few posts in the topic, I painted everything in detail there.

Everything is possible, the question is how much time and other things like that. Now it is not practical to do this, but there is the opportunity to do many other things. Gradually, it will be possible to get to this.

But this is not the goal of this project, and I would not want to do this at all.

[youneuoy]

In the next update there will be a new system for automatic editing of armies (usually used after online battles) on the strategic map

[youneuoy]

Regarding armor upgrades:
No, it will not be easy. But I have a few better ideas about units. It will be harder to do, but the result should justify the costs. True, I’ll take care of them after several updates of the program, otherwise I have a lot of started things and too few of them I bring to the release.

[bitterhowl]

As for ships capacity - there are 3 types in descr_ship: flag, transport, war. Never seen "transport" in mods, so maybe it's possible to limit transport ability only to those type of ships.

[Gigantus]

There is a 'carrying_capacity' entry in there - but I am guessing that was supposed to be crew related, akin to what we see now in the later game versions. The passenger number for ships must be somewhere in the exe code, but I doubt you will be able to divide it by type, I am expecting an 'agent' (descr_characters) related linking.
On the other hand the 'boarding' capability (sea_faring) is set individually in EDU, even for ships.

Edit: while removing the attribute from land units stops them from boarding a ship, removing it from ships has no such effect, eg units can still board.

Removing the disembark and exchange actions from the admiral in descr_characters has no effect either - but then actions are all hard coded to the agents.

[youneuoy]

There is a 'carrying_capacity' entry in there - but I am guessing that was supposed to be crew related, akin to what we see now in the later game versions. The passenger number for ships must be somewhere in the exe code, but I doubt you will be able to divide it by type, I am expecting an 'agent' (descr_characters) related linking.
On the other hand the 'boarding' capability (sea_faring) is set individually in EDU, even for ships.

Edit: while removing the attribute from land units stops them from boarding a ship, removing it from ships has no such effect, eg units can still board.

Removing the disembark and exchange actions from the admiral in descr_characters has no effect either - but then actions are all hard coded to the agents.

one of the ways to make such a restriction is to set the flag of the unavailability of landing on a unit ship if there is no place for it in the target ship. After that, return the flag back.
Although I think it is possible to make it easier.


Regarding the immortal generals in rtw:
When using the .exe file of Alexander, it is possible to make the character immortal through trait. In mtw2, I did not even try to look for such an opportunity and did it in a different way (and there are now more opportunities for this)

[youneuoy]

In the next update, it will be possible to label the character according to certain conditions. A new condition will also be added (they are common to all similar HotSeatTool settings, except for the age settings) - the coordinates of the strategic map (specified by several points).

[youneuoy]

In this topic, we express our Wishlist and understand what makes sense to implement at the moment, and what is not.

If possible, please write the most detailed offers. It is also desirable that their be at least slightly related to already implemented functions or development plans. You must also be sure that there is no way to implement your idea with the help of game scripts, or it is very difficult. A discussion of your suggestions is welcome.

[nadalio]

Hi Youneuoy,
Congratulations for the thread!
It's possible to simulate naval battle in M2tw:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCFHdd32zlg
It's requires work, but improve how they work and the limitations seems worth, the mod is Hyrule total war.

[youneuoy]

I decided to add to the project a list of modifications with which it will be forbidden to use the M2TW Engine Overhaul Project.
There is already one modification in this list:
Bulat Steel L.Y.N.V.O. Edition (all versions, 2.1.5, 2.1.4, etc.). The reason is that in this mod there is paid additional content, which, moreover, developers are actively imposing on players.

Hi Youneuoy,
It's possible to simulate naval battle in M2tw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCFHdd32zlg
It's requires work, but improve how they work and the limitations seems worth, the mod is Hyrule total war.

It looks very interesting. And how can I help, what suggestions?

[z3n]

I do not see a way personally for naval battles to be done easily. This would be a very complex feature, far beyond the spell feature, 10 times as difficult I would estimate.

Those are faked sea battles, (they are really land battles similar to the mod which first implemented this in RTW). Mechanically, even if a way was found to upgrade the simulation, there would be problems with which units can traverse actual water on the campaign map and how they could be represented.

CA solved this by implementing transport ships as the default for units, however the problem then is that unit strength would not be represented correctly. In my opinion, it may be too complicated a change for memory modification or at least time that could be better spent on many more features.

[nadalio]

I decided to add to the project a list of modifications with which it will be forbidden to use the M2TW Engine Overhaul Project.
There is already one modification in this list:
Bulat Steel L.Y.N.V.O. Edition (all versions, 2.1.5, 2.1.4, etc.). The reason is that in this mod there is paid additional content, which, moreover, developers are actively imposing on players.
It looks very interesting. And how can I help, what suggestions?

I do not see a way personally for naval battles to be done easily. This would be a very complex feature, far beyond the spell feature, 10 times as difficult I would estimate.

Those are faked sea battles, (they are really land battles similar to the mod which first implemented this in RTW). Mechanically, even if a way was found to upgrade the simulation, there would be problems with which units can traverse actual water on the campaign map and how they could be represented.


CA solved this by implementing transport ships as the default for units, however the problem then is that unit strength would not be represented correctly. In my opinion, it may be too complicated a change for memory modification or at least time that could be better spent on many more features.

Sure, it will be difficult but it's already partially possible. I agreed that there are much more features and interesting things to add before, but still an amazing goal that could be done in the future when we will have much experience on the memory modification.
In historical and custom battle it will work in the meantime, in campaign could be set condition for the movement of the unit? Naval unit could be limited only to siege equipment of coastline settlements for the attacker and a garrison unit for the defender.

So the idea is:
If attacker on a coastline settlement has siege equipment ships
Spawn garrison ships near the settlement.
We can use custom tile to have the right battlemap with water on coordinate (X;Y), if the attacker are in a normal tile, the siege will be normal.

In the first project of memory editing they were able to use ships but the pictures are lost:

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...=1#post6530917

[leo.civil.uefs]

I know I already commented on this before but I'll do it again here for the sake of record.

It would be very interesting if we could activate the wall_level line in export_descr_buildings.txt

Its currently not working in med2 engine but the guess is that it relates to the entries in descr_walls.txt, there is a "level" line there for each wall type.

Currently, changing it in EDB has no effect.

The reason why making this work would be a good addition is because of the custom settlements.

Some of them are, for example, set as large castles, wich means the engine will assume ithey have 2 lines of gates, but they actually dont have even a single gate (As example, Dol Guldur).

This causes the AI to build siege towers and ladders during the siege while they should actually build nothing and be able to attack the settlement without the necessity of sieging, like when attacking a village with no gates. So the ideal would be to set Dol Guldur to have the village level of walls.

Another example is Barad Dur, wich is a citadel but actually has no walls, but still has a gate. So it should be set with the level of walls of a town. This way the attacking AI would build nothing but rams while sieging it.

Its really a bummer that armies build lots of towers and ladders that they will not use. Not only it causes sieges to last longer than what they should, but its also a immersion breaker to see the armies abandoning the siege engines built as soon as the battle starts, because they have no walls to use them on.

As a side note, in the .worldpkgdesc file of each settlement we can set the "type" of the settlement to define its level (town, large town, city etc), but there is also two other boxes that I never found out what they are for, and I guess that they are not working in med2 engine. They are "Size" and "fortificationlevel".

The"fortificationlevel" looks specially appealing for me, though this is just a guess.

[Gebilde]

This a pipedream i know but a dedicate culturemeter simliare to religionmeter so you could have both.
A culture meter could be used similare effekt than religion but also for example for unit, wihle religion for puplic order.
Don´t thing it will be worth the effort but still

[tedster1995]

This is lookimg incredible, do ypu think adding additional culture might be a possibilty, would be great to have more flexibility with tech trees and ui

[Emperor of The Great Unknown]

Reasonable wishlist.

-Editing the value of the battlemap general's stats (HP, armor, attack) Also editing the cap of the + hitpoints a general can get from traits
-Editing the effects of XP, armour and attack upgrades to fit with any mod's stat system.
-Editing the threshold for xp upgrades for units
-Editing the effects of general/agent attributes (Example, remove morale effects of dread/chivalry to repurpose them to a different system)
-Editing the ideal ratio of family members to settlements.
-Disabling man of hour/adoption for AI
-Making AI only create armies led by family members instead of captains
-More than 4 children showing on the family tree
-Ability to click the portrait of the spouse of one of your princesses to show the foreign family tree
-Allow non king/prince daughters to become princesses
-Allow underage children to become faction heir/leader
-Allow changing of CURRENT faction heir/leader with a trait
-Allow family members to switch agent type with trait (son goes from general to priest example)
-Make functional the city -> fortress and large city/huge city -> citadel settlement conversion
-Allow net negative effects in the EDB (for example a build with -1 to pop_growth now subtracts from pop growth properly)
-Make the non functioning effects in the EDB work.
-Adjust the increments of the effects (growth rate at something other than 0.5%, happiness at something other than 5%)
-Adjust the deadliness of plagues, natural disasters and riots

[(:Baktra:)]

Would it be possible to allow M2TW to be run using a mulit core processor?

The game is hard coded to run on a single processor. So even if you had the fastest computer, large mods would still run with a lot of lag.

If this feature could be fixed then you possibly never have to worry about lad again.

[makanyane]

I know I already commented on this before but I'll do it again here for the sake of record.

It would be very interesting if we could activate the wall_level line in export_descr_buildings.txt

Its currently not working in med2 engine but the guess is that it relates to the entries in descr_walls.txt, there is a "level" line there for each wall type.

Currently, changing it in EDB has no effect.

The reason why making this work would be a good addition is because of the custom settlements.

Some of them are, for example, set as large castles, wich means the engine will assume ithey have 2 lines of gates, but they actually dont have even a single gate (As example, Dol Guldur).

This causes the AI to build siege towers and ladders during the siege while they should actually build nothing and be able to attack the settlement without the necessity of sieging, like when attacking a village with no gates. So the ideal would be to set Dol Guldur to have the village level of walls.

Another example is Barad Dur, wich is a citadel but actually has no walls, but still has a gate. So it should be set with the level of walls of a town. This way the attacking AI would build nothing but rams while sieging it.

Its really a bummer that armies build lots of towers and ladders that they will not use. Not only it causes sieges to last longer than what they should, but its also a immersion breaker to see the armies abandoning the siege engines built as soon as the battle starts, because they have no walls to use them on.

As a side note, in the .worldpkgdesc file of each settlement we can set the "type" of the settlement to define its level (town, large town, city etc), but there is also two other boxes that I never found out what they are for, and I guess that they are not working in med2 engine. They are "Size" and "fortificationlevel".

The"fortificationlevel" looks specially appealing for me, though this is just a guess.

Agree with leo that would be VERY useful if the "wall level X" that's already used in vanilla EDB (but seems ignored) actually worked to refer to a chosen level in descr_walls.txt, which sets the strength of walls and type of siege equipment required.

There's a complication... the 'village' (city tree) level doesn't have an entry in EDB it's just the default for nothing being built yet - and it's the only thing the game expects to have no walls. Wall level 0 in descr_walls.txt is set for "siege_tower_size too_small" which triggers the 'only build a ram' level attack, but I'm not sure if you can tell it that level 0 actually means no wall - that would be an interesting experiment for someone *cough* leo!

.worldpkgdesc - the size - is the 32x64 type, not really a size but a text field - that's used to match up techtree slots with the correct available pkg for techtree models - I don't recommend trying to hi-jack that one!


"fortificationlevel" - didn't we decide that did work to an extent? Only the extent of the stone forts using fortification_level 3, and that differentiating the siege equipment from the ram only setting used on the default timber fort??? Though I might be dreaming that, and had just hoped it did... It definitely doesn't work at present to affect the settlements/level/versus seige equipment issue.

________________________________________________________

There's an obscure one from me on walls - there's an attribute against walls in the .world file for settlements - IWTE reads it as type '96' (which is probably a misread bit indicator!) for standard walls, which have a breach that can be accessed by destroying the wall and they can also be assailed by ladder/tower, that's standard setting and works fine. An attribute '32' gives a wall where the breach is blocked (destroying the wall isn't designed to give walk through access to the interior) - this is lovely, if you have a wall with a big rock behind it you can use that to tell the AI not to use all its ammo destroying the wall - trouble is it also stops it recognising that it can still use the ladder docking points Human player can use ladders/towers fine. (The other indicators in that field read as 111 = default object and first level of arrow-towers, and 79 for subsequent levels of arrow-towers that are built via EDB upgrades with the tower_level 2 and tower_level 3 capabilities)

Can you tell if there is anything that can be set as "this can be targetted with ladders" for AI purposes?

[Jadli]

Seems the anoucement worked

Anyway, yea. The naval battles would likely be insane to do. Tho, for those interested in Dagor Silmarillion they did it too somehow as well

In the next update, it will be possible to label the character according to certain conditions. A new condition will also be added (they are common to all similar HotSeatTool settings, except for the age settings) - the coordinates of the strategic map (specified by several points).

Nice, what conditions will it be I eagerly wonder?

I can think of some other missing/bugged commands/conditions....

- "I_CharacterTypeNearTile "faction" "character_type" "distance" "x, y" (for example: I_CharacterTypeNearTile saxons general, 0 228,152) works for all character types no matter if they are inside or outside. But it doesnt work captains, if they are inside settlements/forts, so the use of the condition is very limited, in case you wanted to use it to check if an army is nearby something, if they for example took a fort, and so on. (I_FactionNearTile has the same bug).

- There is also no conditions like "GeneralIsInFort".... there are conditions for settlements, but there is no way for conditioning whether a general (or anyone) is inside forts.. If we had such commands, it would expand the possibilites greatly. You could use the forts better for various things, even scripting some income to make it similar as settlements. They have managed something similar in Dominion of Sword, but through insane scripting and always having generals inside somehow (as the game will not see captains) , through the commands above.

- "restrict_clickable_area "regions...." " is bugged and especially works the other way than you want, which is shame, as it would be very useful in some mods. It works that way that only the regions listed in the command will be accessible, and the rest will not. And it also makes the sea inaccessible and nobody has ever managed to figure out what name the sea region has, so its pretty useless. They for example wanted to use it in LOTR mods to "destroy" Mordor lands after destroying the ring and so on, but it doesnt work well. Some more discussion here.

There is also other command which works a bit better. "restrict_clickable_rect xmin ymin xmax ymax". Similary as the one above, the area inside the coordinates is accessible, not inaccessible. This has some use, I saw it used in Dagor Silmarillion for example - a part of the map outside of the area can be made inaccessible for various reasons, for exampe because it was inhabited till some point etc. (and later you could lift the limitations I suppose)

However, both of these have a problem that you can use the command only once at a time, mixing them doesnt seem to work as well. So if you for example wanted to have several regions restricted to acess, and "open" them for a player one by one, after he fullfils some requirements, you cant.

- Based on this there are no conditions for simply "BattleWasPlayedManually" and "BattleWasAutoresolved" which would have some use for sure..

- May I re-request (I believe it was already mentioned) that it would be possible to remove ancillaries similarily as traits? Or being able to do it through script more easily, without having to know the label/name of characters (as there is no other way without knowing itm except). Currently it is possible just through the console commnad : "remove_ancillary "name" "ancillary". It would be very useful, imagine you for example have an alchemy potion and ingredients for it or something similar that you want to disappear after a few turns and having it as a trait to do it is not that nice as having a picture of it... Would make for nice crafting

And I agree with everything mak and Emperor wrote