General discussion (use of already implemented functions, etc.)

[Erken]

the only thing I can’t make of it yet is to check if the stack is in my province or in someone else’s. Those. I can do a lot of things with stacks, something with the provinces, but I haven’t been looking for a connection between them yet.

Maybe you can test the distance between the character and his faction? There is a condition working a vaguely similar way (I_FactionNearTile). It would require to determine the position of the character though. Also, if he's besieging, he's necessarily in enemy lands.

Well, as an option, you can also take into account the experience of soldiers (reduce losses in units with extensive experience)

The experience is an interesting thing because it can be interpreted from several perspectives: the soldiers are experienced, so more disciplined/ loyal/ enduring /etc...

[youneuoy]

Maybe you can test the distance between the character and his faction? There is a condition working a vaguely similar way (I_FactionNearTile). It would require to determine the position of the character though. Also, if he's besieging, he's necessarily in enemy lands.

character position is very easy to determine.
Thanks for the tip! I will see what happens in the game code during the execution of this command.
I didn’t mean that it was impossible to define my own territory or someone else’s, but I meant that I had no need to do this before. Now I have to figure this out.

About the siege regime:
including because of such nuances, I also need the opinion of modders and other users. That is, what do you think I need to do in this situation?


About the experience:
We can take into account not only him, but also almost any other parameters. We only need to decide how to use it.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

What I'd say as a general rule is to have the least amount of specific intents applied to things as possible and rather have them open, with documentation for how to fill in or omit things as they like. Less 'here's a feature for you to use this way', more 'here's a feature for you to configure any which way'. Just a small tidbit for philosophy.

[Erken]

About the siege regime:
including because of such nuances, I also need the opinion of modders and other users. That is, what do you think I need to do in this situation?

For sieges, in my opinion, it's not really necessary to add something for captains. If the attrition is linked to a trait/attribute/etc... it would be largely sufficient to let scripters and codders do all what they want by adding conditions.

If you want to know what will be really useful to add to the game, peoples like Gigantus or Withwnar, for example, would be more indicated than me to lead your efforts (but of course i have some other ideas if really you are bored ).

About the experience:
We can take into account not only him, but also almost any other parameters. We only need to decide how to use it.

This is very impressive, but right now i must admit that i really don't see what other parameter could be used^^'...

[Lusitanio]

Indeed, it would be really interesting to see the desertion mechanic be applied to sieges and movements on enemy territory.

Apart from that, it could be great to have a fix for the units that use both spear and sword and the increase in provinces or even to be able to have multiple cities in the same province.

[Aura]

@CommodusIV

I agree, more customization the better.

@Lusitanio

More provinces/regions is in my schedule, I especially work in the hardcoded stuff apart from some quality of life improvements (like the ui). Any ideas on how we can implement the multiple settlements in the same province from a design point of view?

[Lusitanio]

More provinces/regions is in my schedule, I especially work in the hardcoded stuff apart from some quality of life improvements (like the ui). Any ideas on how we can implement the multiple settlements in the same province from a design point of view?

I always had the idea of doing something like Mount and Blade where you would have one main city and other minor villages around the province, something like what Rome Total Realism VII had or maybe just make ports work as if they were actual settlements, with the player being able to conquer them, altought they could be somehow done with forts on ports but we could have the advantage of being able to construct there something.

[youneuoy]

I always had the idea of doing something like Mount and Blade where you would have one main city and other minor villages around the province, something like what Rome Total Realism VII had or maybe just make ports work as if they were actual settlements, with the player being able to conquer them, altought they could be somehow done with forts on ports but we could have the advantage of being able to construct there something.

I don’t think it’s possible to make the change planned by @Aura now. At first it would be nice to make things simpler. As an option, small changes in the interface, etc.

[Lusitanio]

I don’t think it’s possible to make the change planned by @Aura now. At first it would be nice to make things simpler. As an option, small changes in the interface, etc.

Honestly, if we could add 5 more factions or 20 more provinces it would already be awesome.

About the interface, it would be nice to see if we could adapt the papal system to use a system of offices for the factions.

[youneuoy]

Honestly, if we could add 5 more factions or 20 more provinces it would already be awesome.

About the interface, it would be nice to see if we could adapt the papal system to use a system of offices for the factions.

I think that increasing the limit of fractions by 5 and by 5000 represents the same difficulty. This is long and tedious, you also have to catch a bunch of mistakes. It is better to do things first, which in the shortest possible time will bring the greatest effect.

It would be nice to start with simple goals (or better yet, discuss how best to implement the functionality described in the third message of this topic. There I update the to-do list for the next updates and I need to know how others want to see it.)

[youneuoy]

I think that increasing the limit of fractions by 5 and by 5000 represents the same difficulty. This is long and tedious, you also have to catch a bunch of mistakes. It is better to do things first, which in the shortest possible time will bring the greatest effect.

It would be nice to start with simple goals (or better yet, discuss how best to implement the functionality described in the third message of this topic. There I update the to-do list for the next updates and I need to know how others want to see it.)

The development of many things(I mean very small changes that are included in each function.) from HotSeatTool took 5-10 (happened and more) hours for each of them. I wrote it precisely because it is really difficult. I did a bit of unit type limits in EDU, and in the end I decided to postpone this matter until later (I did it for a reason and I’m very happy with this decision. Otherwise, perhaps HotSeatTool would still not have seen the light of day)

[Aura]

I don’t think it’s possible to make the change planned by @Aura now. At first it would be nice to make things simpler. As an option, small changes in the interface, etc.

Not planned, just wanted to know how @Lusitanio's minor settlements might act in the game

[Erken]

About the experience:
We can take into account not only him, but also almost any other parameters. We only need to decide how to use it.

The climate is a parameter that could be also be taken into consideration. Currently if you want to apply a penalty related to it, you can only test the region, which is not necessarily homogeneous: the character can be in the middle of a desert or just near a settlement, no way to determine this.

Apart from that, it could be great to have a fix for the units that use both spear and sword

This would indeed benefit all mods. If units with the phalanx attribute could also be forced to use only their secondary weapon during siege battle, it would even be perfect.

[youneuoy]

Fix for berserkers ready update soon.

[youneuoy]

Update 1.13
Fixed crash when using berserkers in the game.
Added the ability to quickly modify an additional file.


It would be nice if all interested people supported the project in an accessible way (for example, you can test various changes, participate in planning new game mechanics or discuss them, sponsor development with money, etc.).
With the help of this program, it will probably be possible someday to give modders the opportunity to change the MTW2 gameplay beyond recognition.

[youneuoy]

Well, after 4 months of development, I can proudly say that this program uses as many as 1 modder. This is a success, I believe.

[youneuoy]

I thought about it and decided to add something like mod starter functionality to the program so that it would not be necessary to run everything through .bat files. Those. it will be enough to write the necessary parameters in the config file (most likely it will only be the name of the mod’s config file, the program can get the rest and do it itrself), after which it will be possible to deliver the modification along with HotSeatTool. Only one executable file will remain in the mod folder and this will help to avoid confusion.

[Erken]

Well, after 4 months of development, I can proudly say that this program uses as many as 1 modder. This is a success, I believe.

It must be me . The EBII team is discussing how to use the new religion limit at least, so don't think that the work on this tool is unnoticed.

I have tested with the maximum size of the tactical map and it's really gigantic. For the berserker, there are no more CTD indeed, but i wonder if the feature itself works correctly. If the unit attacks by itself i have seen no problem, but with the button it doesn't seem always reactive. I don't remember how it was on RTW, so it's maybe just me who don't know how to use it.

[youneuoy]

About ctd with berserkers:
I checked and that instruction only works in hand-to-hand combat(At the start of hand-to-hand combat and while warriors fight in close combat). I wrote above the way that I was going to solve it (I used it) and the arguments in favor of this decision.

If you find any problems, then write. I chose not the easiest, but not the most difficult way to solve the problem, it seems to me enough.

[Crociato78]

Hi youneuoy!

In your opinion, will it be possible to reactivate testudo formation as in RTW?