Poll about the mod's time settings

**repman** · January 29, 2007, 02:39 PM

@to all
I will ask you players for your wishes regarding the time settings in the campaign: you have 4 possibilities to anser the poll:

1. current status: 2 turns per year, seasons correct, character aging correct 6 month/turn + more event triggered recruiting of units (more events as e.g. in the realistic building tree mod): 2tpy + event

2. current status: 2 turns per year, seasons correct, character aging correct 6 month/turn + unit recruiting as in vanilla (building dependent + not event triggered = faster): 2tpy + no_event

3. 1 turn per 1 year: summer, winter changing each year, character aging uncorrect 6 month per year/turn + event triggered recruiting of units (more events as e.g. in the realistic building tree mod): 1tpy + event

4. 1 turn per 1 year: summer, winter changing each year, character aging uncorrect 6 month per year/turn + unit recruiting as in vanilla (building dependent + not event triggered = faster):
1tpy + no_event

Vote !!

repman

**Overkill** · January 29, 2007, 04:13 PM

I notification that I can not vote. Maybe it has something to do with low post count...anyway I vote for first option

**Lord_Calidor** · January 29, 2007, 05:12 PM

3. option.
I like the idea of better units being available only after some playing time, or else one can shoot straight to top units with specialized castles/cities and enough pop.growth.
However, I don't like playing for an eternity to get past basic spearman/milita/DFK's and get to the cool stuff, so if it stays with current Mongols/Timurid triggers, it would take cca 300 turns to see them. Therefore, 1yr = 1 turn.

**derdrakken** · January 29, 2007, 08:41 PM

Two turns per year but new units tied to events (other than just mongrels & timis), and more/earlier events.

I get to vote don't I?

dd

P.S. I can't bear it when my characters die, for the love of the children, vote for #1 (actually with 1tpy they live just as many "turns", they just live to be 130 years old...bogus!). I can campaign can't I?

**Henri** · January 29, 2007, 10:23 PM

Hmmm I like the 2tpy but would need to have a better idea of how the events triggered units were going to work before I voted.

Any ideas as to what sort of timeframe it would take to get 'new' units available?

**Rog** · January 30, 2007, 03:44 AM

I´ve read DerDrakken´s answer over at the other topic... If the prequisites are such...I can live with 2tpy.

But what I´d really like to see is a 1tpy campaign WITH correct aging AND development tied to various events. I know I´m asking for too much... If that means a complett overhaul of almost every script...

Anyone else?

**brunneriusgreyna** · January 30, 2007, 04:39 AM

Voted 1 (2 turns per year + event triggered recruitement)... Why? Cuz there is time to sqeez juice from diplomacy, asassins training, priests and bishops training... Enought time to "feel the game" with glorious DLV mod!!!
Thank you Master Repman and Master DerDrakken!!

**Immanuel** · January 31, 2007, 08:53 AM

Why does everyone like the event triggered units? Seems weird to have a super-advanced Constantinople, crossroads of the world, stuck with dark age units until some arbitrary event comes along and inspires the entire world to upgrade their armies at the same time. No one else thinks that's weird? Where's the satisfaction of becoming the most advanced civilization?

I haven't voted yet, please somebody convince me. Haven't played enough M2TW to understand it fully.

**Odie the King** · January 31, 2007, 11:36 AM

Immanuel,

I see your point.. I guess I voted for the event triggered.

My reason is that I am still not convinced that there is a mod I cant beat... this one so far is giving me a run for the money... but until I complete a campaign or get defeated I am not convinced. therefore, I think the AI still needs as much help as possible.. so if I am able to expand my Kingdom to be the best (no event control) then I will probably conquer the world in half of the campaign time... then I am back to square one.. bored!!!!

For me, I find this game a challenge to be always chasing the superior faction.. once I am the best... its so easy to manage it and stay there... othere factions at that point are nothing..not even a challenge. Now I am not even close to that point with my new campaign with Deus's mod, but I am hoping that I am all wrong.. I am hoping that for every province I conquer.. the game will get even more challenging.. I will find out soon enough....

Another way I look at it is, event trigger helps keep the game more balanced and its 1 more challenge I face with becoming the best faction. .... knowing that I dont have the best troops ... makes more challenge...

**repman** · January 31, 2007, 03:44 PM

I think DLV is a gameplay mod, that means the player designs his own future. Developments triggered by historical events (even with a random bandwith) are repetitive and boring if you repeat campaigns. Thinking: oh i have to wait 20 more years to get the next troops level access is quite.....
So the gameplay should be dynamic,.. no events triggered recruitment....should be slowed down by other variable correlation parameters.
Compare EU II with EU III....
You follow history or you write history.....

Maybe instead associate the large, huge building level with events, an idea from snipafist ?

But lets go on with the discussion...

repman

**xxax** · January 31, 2007, 03:56 PM

i agree with you...

**crossev** · January 31, 2007, 09:37 PM

I am for not having the event triggers. It already takes enough time for the AI to build up an army that would give me some type of challenge. Additionally I prefer to fight a civs more advance units than putting my amoured sergeants vs their armoured sergeants.

**Immanuel** · February 01, 2007, 09:24 AM

I agree with Repman. Seems the main argument for event triggers is to keep everyone at the same level, within stages, and so the player doesn't run away with development and become the uber civ too early. Fair enough.

Me, I like my handicaps voluntary and/or too realistic to resist (like the field cost script!). Don't like the idea of waiting around for the same event to happen every game at roughly the same year so I can move on.

SOME event triggers make some sense - say... invention of gunpowder? But the rest should be up to the development of individual civs, a la vanilla. I vote number 2!

**derdrakken** · February 01, 2007, 11:32 AM

I'm converted! I change my vote to #2

Cheers! dd

**Tokus*Maximus** · February 02, 2007, 02:56 PM

I hope one day someone does the script ch-ch-changes for four seasons. Spring, Summer, Autumn & Winter...

**repman** · February 02, 2007, 04:17 PM

@Tokus
i think there is no problem to change it to 4tpy with wintereffects on the troops as in BBW. But then we have to focus on one time era, or do you want to play 2000 turns ?

repman

**Tokus*Maximus** · February 02, 2007, 05:48 PM

I know it must sound crazy to most Deus lo Vulters but I *sadly* love the idea of 2000 turns. Heck! I wish my games lasted forever come to mention it! But, I guess you're right Repman, many folk would find it waaaay to long unless a 4 turns per year seasonal system was early/medium or high era span only.