Imperial Splendour 2.04 Feedback

[tarvu]

Re: 2.04, religious buildings all levels offer just +1 to happiness?

Stronger conversion rate/resistance to conversion.

 

[Slaists]

2.04, Naval cannon range, which screen to trust?

In 2.04, the unit cards on the campaign map suggest different cannon ranges for different ship types. However, on the battle map level, all types seem to offer the same 850 for round shots. Which display should I trust? The campaign map level which suggest differentiation or the battle-map level, which suggests uniform range?

 

[The Vicar]

Re: 2.04, religious buildings all levels offer just +1 to happiness?

Actually, I'm not even positive about the stronger conversion rate. To be honest, the only benefit currently that I'm aware of is an increased cap for Priests/Missionaries.

The high costs for religious buildings were a measure that Quixote came up with back in the day to try to stop the AI from spamming them.

Which is of course a vanilla bug, because the AI sees that it needs happiness, so it either builds religious buildings or happiness buildings (probably due to the insane rates of initial resistance to foreign occupation). That's great and all, but what the AI fails to do is demolish those buildings and build new industry once it no longer needs the happiness bonus. So instead you're stuck with a bunch of happiness buildings dotting the map.

Hooray for Pleasure Palaces.

 

[tarvu]

Re: 2.04, religious buildings all levels offer just +1 to happiness?

I was pretty positive they did as I was building them in Austria as the Ottomans to deal with religious unrest, and noticed a bonus from upgrading.


Of course this might not be evident if you don't keep track of it as you get diminished returns on conversion rates the higher your religion raises in that region, so you might see it as not doing anything because you aren't taking that into account. But if you look at it a turn before the upgrade takes place I am pretty sure I remembered it giving a bigger bonus.

 

[The Vicar]

Re: 2.04, religious buildings all levels offer just +1 to happiness?

I just looked in the tables, and it turns out you're right. There is an increase in conversion rate.

Sorry about the confusion.

 

[Dogmeat]

Re: 2.04, religious buildings all levels offer just +1 to happiness?

i think the happines spamming bug was an old 1.2 patch error, so limiting churches bonus's wouldnt really matter now.

But vanilla unrest is so weak low happiness bonus doesn't really matter either.

 

[Dogmeat]

Re: 2.04, Naval cannon range, which screen to trust?

at the moment it seems all fire arcs always show the same in battle, probably the max range.

One day pple may work out how to show the different arcs for different calibres.

 

[Slaists]

2.04 land artillery range rage...

Please pardon my French, but I feel, 2.04 land artillery range is complete BS... given the current map size. On most maps, even camping by the very far red line edge exposes one to the FIXED enemy artillery fire right on battle open...

That's just

 

[Friedrich's Moustache]

Re: 2.04 land artillery range rage...

Do you think Arthur Wellesley cried about big bad Napoleon's artillery? Nope, he got stuck in and won the battle. You should do the same.

I understand your frustration; I've always tried in TW to win battles with as few casualties as possible, but with firearms casualty rates are just higher, it's that simple. Work your strategy around this, and be grateful you're not facing up to Mughals with Royal Cannons and percussions shells.

 

[Disaray]

Re: 2.04, Naval cannon range, which screen to trust?

The range for a ship in the game is determend by it's "main batery." For a lot of ships the main batery of guns is the same so you will see the range for ships being generaly the same. It would be nice, as Dogmeat aluded too, if one day it was set up so each diferant gun set could fire indipendent of all the other guns on the ship, thus allowing for multipul ranges for ships that have various calibar guns.

As a general rule, however, always use the battle map stats on the unit cards no matter what kind of unit you are looking at. For some reason, unbeknownst to me, the campain map stats for units aren't accurate.

 

[jo the greek]

Re: 2.04 land artillery range rage...

Actually napoleons art couldnt hit Duke Wellighton

 

[Lazy Knight]

Re: 2.04 land artillery range rage...

regardless of Napolean, what would be the alternative?

The alternative would be being out of reach of the enemies fixed artillery. With the current BAI charging you no matter what you do, this means the enemies cannons may as well not exist.
I don't think it is needed to do that. I think it is agreed on that the game is easy enough if you can not totally exploit the BAI.

 

[Dogmeat]

Re: 2.04 land artillery range rage...

ive tried removing ai arty fortifications, so at least ai foot arty can redeploy after initial setup in any siege games.

Also prevents the annoying bug when the ai sets up and faces there batteries 90 degrees in the wrong direction.

One side effect of long arty ranges is it makes going into any buildings in los of a battery not a very healthy alternative. Perhaps some scaling of ranges could be tweaked.

 

[The Vicar]

Re: 2.04 land artillery range rage...

No, I'm sorry but it's just not going to happen.

The ranges in this game are as perfect as they can be. That goes for everything from muskets to rifles to cannons. It's part of what makes IS's battles such fun, and it's not going to change.

And as far as scaling goes, you guys know that there is a hell of a large scale in place already, right? No two calibres have the same range, and there are quite a few variations based on faction.

 

[Slaists]

Re: 2.04 land artillery range rage...

I'm still not convinced. It's utterly unrealistic when you stand in the middle of the field setting up your army as far away from the enemy as possible. Then, "click" the "start battle button" and you're showered with cannon balls from across the map.

In a real life situation, I would not have walked my army right into the cannon range in the first place (without trying to find some cover); rather, I would have evaluated the situation (where the enemies artillery is, where possible covered routes exist if any, etc.) and THEN made the move. With the current artillery range, manouvering loses any value. It's just "CHARGE!".

I guess, it would not be such a problem if the AI did not spam artillery as it does in 2.04. For example, attacking one of the pirate cities, I encountered an army of 14(!!) batteries + townsfolk...

 

[Slaists]

Re: 2.04, Naval cannon range, which screen to trust?

at the moment it seems all fire arcs always show the same in battle, probably the max range.

One day pple may work out how to show the different arcs for different calibres.

Not sure it's the case that the max range is displayed in the battle. Example, 5th rates display 1000+ range on unit cards on the strat map. On the battle map level, they display only 850 (for round shots), same as sloops that have considerably smaller range suggested by the unit cards on the strat. map level.

 

[Slaists]

2.04, early dragoons, no police bonus?

In 2.04, Americas (and probably other regions) offer many kinds of early cavalry named "dragoons". However, none of them offer policing bonus despite their unit descriptions suggesting they were used for "policing". I wonder if that's intentional.

 

[Lazy Knight]

Re: 2.04, early dragoons, no police bonus?

The american dragoons are a special case. They do not have a Garrison Bonus while most europeans do. The reason why the description does not reflect it is the fact that we have not written one for each unit.

btw, we have a feedback thread.

 

[cherryfunk]

Re: 2.04 land artillery range rage...

I'm still not convinced. It's utterly unrealistic when you stand in the middle of the field setting up your army as far away from the enemy as possible. Then, "click" the "start battle button" and you're showered with cannon balls from across the map.

Use the terrain as cover, as the Brits learned to do vs. Napoleon. Examine the battlefield carefully before you deploy and find safe areas for your men if you're facing an enemy strong with artillery

 

[Notees]

Slaists, what's unrealistic is the damage cannons do. I think that cannons should be able to roll and wipe out infantry left and right as they did. They're fine versus cavalry but versus infantry it's not a particularly frightening thing. So that "unrealistic range" should compensate for artillery's inability to properly do decent damage versus infantry.

 

[The Vicar]

Re: 2.04 land artillery range rage...

I guess, it would not be such a problem if the AI did not spam artillery as it does in 2.04. For example, attacking one of the pirate cities, I encountered an army of 14(!!) batteries + townsfolk...

Yes, this is true that the Pirates spam artillery. It's one of the things that we're fixing for the next update.

However, you're taking your experiences against one faction/one battle (and an incredibly minor faction at that) and applying them to the entire game and all factions.

 

[Slaists]

Re: 2.04 land artillery range rage...

Use the terrain as cover, as the Brits learned to do vs. Napoleon. Examine the battlefield carefully before you deploy and find safe areas for your men if you're facing an enemy strong with artillery

On flat maps, the only cover one can have is distance. Artillery being able to shoot across the whole map negates that. On the flat maps, the only two options are: charge or run away...

 

[Lazy Knight]

I don't think any map is that flat that there is neither a hill nor a stone wall on it.

Either way, the AI is handicapped enough by being AI.

 

[Slaists]

I don't think any map is that flat that there is neither a hill nor a stone wall on it.

Either way, the AI is handicapped enough by being AI.

Hehe, the place where I encountered the "problem" was the Leeward Islands. Map that opened was completely flat with the AI having the city on its side, 14 batteries spread out in a line across the whole map.

Anyway, a couple questions.

1. Why does the militia (I observed this on the South American ones) tend to "bunch" up before starting to shoot? First, it makes them an easier target for the enemy. Second, for a unit that cannot learn any fire drills bunching up would just make aiming more difficult (in real life).

2. What's the intended use of the "light infantry behavior" formation for melee types? Movement in "light infantry behavior" mode is highly bugged + would not really allow for proper charges.

 

[Lazy Knight]

I do not know about militias bunching up for shooting. gonna check any inconsistencies in that units spacing though.

Melee types? Is there a melee unit having light infantry behaviour?
The point in light infantry behaviour is more cover, it is harder to hit a crouching unit than to hit a standing unit. But still no Melee units should have it, but on the other hand there are hardly any melee units so i don't know what you are intending here.

 

[Slaists]

I do not know about militias bunching up for shooting. gonna check any inconsistencies in that units spacing though.

Melee types? Is there a melee unit having light infantry behaviour?
The point in light infantry behaviour is more cover, it is harder to hit a crouching unit than to hit a standing unit. But still no Melee units should have it, but on the other hand there are hardly any melee units so i don't know what you are intending here.

The melee type that I noticed having "light infantry behavior" was native American axemen available to the French in Canada.

The militia that "bunches up" before starting shooting is the militia available to the French in Guyana. Put 3 of them together and drag them out into a line (using formation # 1). All is fine until the enemy comes into their firing range. Then, rather than starting to shoot, these militias "bunch up" and start shooting only once they have gone into a much tighter formation than the original. After the shooting ends (or if ordered to move), they spread out again.

 

[Hellenikon]

Movement in "light infantry behavior" mode is highly bugged

I had an idea about that some time ago, but would require a lot of work. The idea was to change the animation of all irregular units (mostly those who go in mob formation) so they automatically always fire kneeling, and then make the light infantry doctrine give some troops (trained ones mostly) the ability to prone.

I remember that the prone ability was possible to use ingame, but changing all those animations so they work nicely would indeed require a lot of work.

 

[Slaists]

Re: Imperial Splendour 2.03 Feedback

I've looked ahead to this option and it basically comes down to who you are prepared to fight against to gain it back. Not much is made off of selling it, but is valuable to who is easiest to take it back from at the cheapest cost.

I once even gave it to Mysore knowing they would be easier to fight against early on than with Maratha.

Sell it to a European faction Indians will take it anyway, why make the job easier for them?

 

[Salem1]

Finland is a special case. It was possessed of its own military establishment, that, while nominally following the regulations laid out by the Swedish establishment, was nonetheless its own animal. Saying that there wasn't a quality difference is like saying that German and Hungarian units in the Austro-Hungarian army weren't different, when in reality, as judged by peers at the time, they very much were. I am sorry, and I know that anything that we do will stir some sort of debate, but the simple fact of the matter is that Finland was different than Sweden. Now, should I entirely copy over the Swedish roster onto Finland's AOR? You know, maybe I should. But I won't. Not now, at any rate.

It's true that Finland's regiments were different to Sweden's regiments but only before Karl XI, and then only in things like uniforms etc. Otherwise Finnish and Swedish rgiments were exactly the same, that was part of the point of Karl XI's improvements - to standardise everything.

Something different to the regular Swedish (that is, including Finnish ones) would be Hakkapeliitta. They were the same as the rest of the Swedish cavalry at the time, the only difference was that they were Finnish. But still they became infamous for being particularily good at what they were doing, however they were otherwise not different from Swedish units. In this case a separation is justified, since they were different from the rest of the Swedish cavalry.

Same thing with mercenary and foreign units. They're different because they're not national standard regiments.

But justifying the separation of standard regiments just can't be done. There was no difference between Finnish and Swedish units other than the natural differences from human to human when it came to standard regiments. Indelta Infanteri are Finnish infantry, Sweden didn't recruit ''Finnish'' infantry from Finland, Sweden recruited the same infantry that it recruited everywhere else. Finland had no authority other than a bishop in Åbo, that was it.

Finns weren't some kind of warrior people that Sweden had conquered, nor was there any difference between the standard regiments other than ethical makeup. I can't find an article on this however, but I would like to know where you've got the idea that Finns were different from Swedes when recruited into the military.

The simple fact of the matter is quite the opposite, Finland was not different from Sweden, especially not after Karl XI. If you want difference, then implement stuff like the Savolax Brigade (Sweden's first rifle-unit) which would be a good candidate (and I think you might already have added this unit, but under a different name which I can't remember). Now that was a unique unit of Finland, like the Black Watch or something like that. But difference in standard regiments? none. Just like there is no Scottish line infantry, English line infantry and so on there imo exists no justification for making a distinction between ''Finnish'' infantry (which already are around 30% of Sweden's total Indelta Infanteri by the 1700 recruitment quota - thus making a quite silly distinction between a Finn and a Finn) and ''Swedish'' infantry.

I don't know what more to do to convince you other than get someone like Adar here, but it's your mod of course and you're free to do what you like. I'm just trying to tell you that if it's historical accuracy that you want, then you shouldn't make a distinction between standard Swedish regiments, especially not as long as there exists units that aren't specifically mentioned to be part of Finland or Sweden (again, like Indelta since they contained both Finnish and Swedish regiments).



But then again none of this currently matters, not because of IS but because of ETW's engine. Thanks to the facedeskingly slow run speed of infantry, their ''let's wait for billy to finish sleeping before we aim and shoot these muskets'' nature and the breaks between their actions... let me just describe the basic sequence of events:

- Russians shoot, Swedes start running
- Swedes are ordered to stop, Russians are reloading
- Swedes are firing at will
- Russians fire again
- The first Swedish rank fires, the second Russian rank fires and so on

Irl the event sequence would go like this:

- Russians shoot, Swedes walk
- Swedes shoot
- Swedes shoot again at almost point blank range
- Swedes charge and reach close combat

Can nothing be done about this? ...

 

[Lazy Knight]

hmm, it works pretty well for me most of the time. Try to make sure your path is free of anything that could stop it, walls, fences, rocks...

I will leave the Finnish Issue to the Vicar as i really have no idea about this. They can be removed if you ask me