+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 21 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 20 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 416

Thread: Omnium Contra Omnes a Multiplayer Modification

  1. #181
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Lama43 View Post
    One question: does being a free trade TL make sense? Is it possible to have comparable income to a free trader as a mercantilist?
    I won't answer the second question now, it'd be a very long reply. I could try to update the third post with relative information. The short answer is that it depends on trade centres fragmentation: how large are the centres of trade you can reach. The bigger they are, the better you will be able to put free trade's "compete chances abroad" to use. A second variable is how many provinces you own and what average goods price and population level they have: the larger the three, the better mercantilism. We're exclusively talking about "income".

    The first question is more easily answered: being a "free trade" league does make sense (there is only one in 1400, Novgorod). The determining factor is: how many provinces a) not belonging to the trade league actually b) belong to a mercantilist competitor and c) trade in the trade league's centre of trade.

    The trade league owner gains up to 25% compete chances (free trade) or 100% compete chances (mercantilist) from its member's share in the trade centre. You, as a merchant republic, own two provinces trading through your trade centre (5%), but your trade league partners own most of the rest (80%): the aggregate (85%) will be calculated to derive compete chances. As a free trader that would be 21% compete chances due to "owned" provinces (85%*25%). Can a mercantilist country out-compete you and your various trade league partners, with a 21% compete chances handicap? Perhaps, but he would need a incredibly supply of merchants. While you can count on the +20% compete chances from "owned" provinces, your trade league partners would use your "compete chances abroad" modifier and their "owned" provinces bonus.

  2. #182
    Lt. General Lama43's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the Throne

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Turin, Italy
    Posts
    1,528
    Quote Originally Posted by silktrader View Post
    I won't answer the second question now, it'd be a very long reply. I could try to update the third post with relative information. The short answer is that it depends on trade centres fragmentation: how large are the centres of trade you can reach. The bigger they are, the better you will be able to put free trade's "compete chances abroad" to use. A second variable is how many provinces you own and what average goods price and population level they have: the larger the three, the better mercantilism. We're exclusively talking about "income".

    The first question is more easily answered: being a "free trade" league does make sense (there is only one in 1400, Novgorod). The determining factor is: how many provinces a) not belonging to the trade league actually b) belong to a mercantilist competitor and c) trade in the trade league's centre of trade.

    The trade league owner gains up to 25% compete chances (free trade) or 100% compete chances (mercantilist) from its member's share in the trade centre. You, as a merchant republic, own two provinces trading through your trade centre (5%), but your trade league partners own most of the rest (80%): the aggregate (85%) will be calculated to derive compete chances. As a free trader that would be 21% compete chances due to "owned" provinces (85%*25%). Can a mercantilist country out-compete you and your various trade league partners, with a 21% compete chances handicap? Perhaps, but he would need a incredibly supply of merchants. While you can count on the +20% compete chances from "owned" provinces, your trade league partners would use your "compete chances abroad" modifier and their "owned" provinces bonus.
    So basically if i become free trade every member of my league will too?

    Anyway, i'm waiting for a detailed post about free trade vs mercantilism in the mod

  3. #183
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Lama43 View Post
    So basically if i become free trade every member of my league will too?
    More precisely, if you go "free trade" every member of your league will benefit from your "compete chances abroad" bonus when trading in every COT, including the league's own. They will otherwise use their mercantilist bonus in your COT. Being a "Free Trade" league is a good bargaining chip to lure new members in — those who can trade abroad (many merchants, low merchant cost, high range).

  4. #184
    Lt. General Lama43's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the Throne

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Turin, Italy
    Posts
    1,528
    Well then that means no situations where everybody is in the league. Also it'd be best to disband the league by the time i get enough free trade moves, is that right?

  5. #185
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Land of Opportunity

    Among the most scarcely used national ideas is "Land of Opportunity". Its frequency is proportional to its usefulness which is to say it's completely useless. In vanilla, this idea increase colonial growth by 25% yearly in practice, it means that 25 people will reach your colony every year, in addition to the base rate, which is 50. "Land of Opportunity" will therefore increase your colony, by one level, every five years. During that time you will have spent 100 treasury-ducats in maintenance, without counting increased colonist costs from modifiers. "Colonial Ventures" can increase a colony's level by one, with a base cost of 20 ducats, to be multiplied by colonists chances. Even with 50% chances, a low standard, the average cost will be about 40 ducats per colonial level, well below 100 ducats. I hope you can agree with the conclusion that "Land of Opportunity" never makes sense it is always a poor choice, and always inferior to "Colonial Ventures".

    In "Omnium Contra Omnes" the idea is meant to be complementary with "Colonial Ventures", or as good an alternative in many cases. These changes were required to restore "Land of Opportunity" relevance:
    • decreased base colonial growth from +50 to +25
    • increased "Land of Opportunity" growth from +25 to +75
    The intention was to increase the national idea's natural bonus, without significantly speeding up colonisation. Even at zero colonial maintenance "Land of Opportunity" will allow the player to maintain current colonial levels, with no loss of settlers. As a consequence, colonisation will be slower for those who don't have either exploration idea.
    • decreased colonial maintenance cost from 1.7 ducats per month to 1 ducat per month
    • increased base colonist cost from 20 to 30 ducats
    This change was required to reinforce the want to let colonies grow without sending colonist agents. One colonial level therefore costs about 16 ducats, with "Land of Opportunity" whereas sending a colonist costs 30 ducats to be multiplied by success chances. Bear in mind the that the colonist will always be needed, to "tag" the province. Without the initial colonist there can't be a colony. As a result though the rate at which colonists were gained needed to be revised, to stress "Colonial Ventures" and "narrow-mindedness". The changes will be described in another section: the bottom-line is that in vanilla colonists were well in excess.

    Settlement Policy and Immigration Incentives:

    These two provincial decisions are meant to assist the national idea: "Settlement Policy" starts a process of cultural conversion, whereas "Immigration Incentives" allow to increase a province population, provided it is in fact low. Both will be illustrated in their own sections. The intention was to make the idea attractive even for those who don't necessarily employ many colonists.

    Consideration:

    It's important to remark that nomad lands aren't acquired through colonisation anymore but through military takeover, which will be described later.

    Nations starting with colonies, such as Sweden or Novgorod, will have an easier time due to decreased maintenance costs. They will nonetheless be subject to losing those colonies unless they speed up the now slower process.

    As a result of lower base colonial growth some colonies may actually feature a negative number of settlers, without "Land of Opportunity": that's the case for tropical provinces hosting aggressive and numerous natives. This situation is a possibility in vanilla as well. The quickest solution is to displace the unfortunate natives, or keep sending colonists colonisation will be severely hindered, but not precluded.

    It's helpful to compare costs and time of colonisation, with (a) and without (b) "Land of Opportunity":

    (a)
    time in years: 900 / (75+25) = 9
    cost in ducats: 40 + 9*12 = 148
    (b)
    time in years: 900 / (25) = 36
    cost in ducats: 40 + 432 = 472

    "Land of Opportunity" decreases the cost to establish a colony by about two thirds, if no additional colonists beyond the first are sent. Sending nine successful colonists, on the other hand, would cost about 350 ducats: a bit more than twice the costs as with "Land of Opportunity", but at a faster colonising pace (assuming a starting 75% colonist chance, increasing for each level and accounting for two years or so of maintenance).



  6. #186
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Immigration Incentives

    This new provincial decision is exclusive to countries boasting "Land of Opportunity". Its hastily written description reads like so:


    (Finland) encompasses large tracts of unsettled land: the economic and military potential of the area is therefore largely unexpressed. Our attitude towards foreign, industrious, workers has traditionally been welcoming — so much so (Scandinavia) is often described as a "Land of Opportunity". We may provide further encouragements to prospective immigrants: we could offer tax exemptions, free livestock, farming tools and cheap housing to skilled labourers, foreign or otherwise, willing to settle in (Finland).
    One needs to meet these requirements to lure immigrants:


    national focus proximity
    core province
    revolt risk lower than three
    population lower than 28,000
    positive or neutral tolerance
    Of the five, the first and the second are obviously the most stringent: only core provinces affected by the national focus can be a candidate for the decision. Please remark that while a "national focus" is needed to enact the decision, the modifier the latter provides will linger on even after the focus has moved. These are the effects:


    -75% taxes
    +26% population growth
    The modifier lasts thirty five years and consumes one magistrate. Please note that the base timeout before a national focus can be moved is 20 years: there is therefore an interval of at least 15 years before the national focus can be moved and the next round of "incentives" (this prevents two such decisions per one focus move, within 35 years).

    When the decision is first enacted, the province's population will increase by 2500. This first, modest, increase provides a base for the modifier to allow the province to burst through the 10,000 cap within the first round of "incentives". It's useless to remark that the tax reduction also decreases census taxes for the duration of the decision. One is in fact trading tax income for production income, tolls and manpower, to be counted on at a future date. The first increase in income will be triggered when a province's (capital) population reaches past 10,000 inhabitants. The growth rate displayed in the provincial screen actually refers to decennial changes.

    If we assume a province with a starting population of 2500 inhabitants, paired to a base growth of 3% and the initial +2500 immigrants, this table illustrates a 26% growth per decade:


    S . . . 5000
    1 . . . 6450
    2 . . . 8320
    3 . . . 10733
    4 . . . 13846
    5 . . . 17861
    6 . . . 23041
    7 . . . 29723
    8 . . . 38343
    9 . . . 49462
    These numbers aren't precise, they are in fact slightly diminutive: the +26% population growth is actually compounded monthly. We can conclude it would take one round of "incentives" to reach the first production, tolls and manpower increase (+0.1 units). The next step would require less than twenty years of "incentives", counting on a higher population base. All in all, enacting twice the decision in a single province will increase production units to 1.3 — which is the colonial cap, associated with "Thriving Colonies".

    The decision can't be enacted once a province hosts more than 28,000. The reason is that population increases would be so great as to bring levels above 50,000 within one round: a growth rate which I've esteemed to high, considering population units are capped at 100,000. Buildings like "Sanitation" have blander effects, but ones that are nonetheless tangible for such highly populated provinces.

    Considerations:

    "Immigration Incentives" are particularly helpful in scarcely populated provinces which feature highly priced goods. Two examples are Scandinavia (iron, copper and fur) and Russia (fur, copper and high manpower base). Both these areas have puny tax bases, between two and four: the 75% tax reduction wouldn't be striking, provided census abounds elsewhere.

    "Conscription Centres" and "Arsenals" now require a minimum population to be built. "Immigration Incentives" are therefore a long term investment awarding the player with additional manpower. Not only do they allow one to build military infrastructure where it wouldn't other be possible, they also increase manpower due to higher population units.
    Last edited by silktrader; 15-03-2012 at 11:48.

  7. #187
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Design Principles of Policy Sliders


    These principles were upheld while reviewing sliders — they are general in nature but serve as a good introduction to ulterior changes:

    (a) no slider end must be superior to its alternative regardless of circumstances

    The unequivocal intention is that of making each sliders' end a valid option, provided different contexts. This is clearly not the case in vanilla, where the "centralisation" end is manifestly the way to go, as early as possible (not an oversight, but a design decision that was premeditated, like a crime).

    (b) sliders should bear a determinant significance

    Geographical positions, along with policy sliders and national ideas, basically determine differences between countries: they are therefore the most important aspects providing longevity and diversity to the game. In plain terms, Burgundy is different from France because of its position and sliders — the latter must be significant to provide a different experience while playing the two countries.

    (c) sliders ends must be slow to reach

    Having established the above point it's a natural consequence that slider moves be sporadic: so that this diversity can be, at least partially, maintained throughout the game. In "Omnium Contra Omnes" it is therefore a bit hard to change Muscowy into a full freedom, innovative, quality based country within two centuries — it's actually a possibility in vanilla. To this purpose, most slider moving events were changed, as were decisions: none should enable free slider moves. There are four exceptions: social reforms (event tied to "Humanist Tolerance"), state reforms (which is probably going to be associated with "Bureaucracy"),military reforms (a military idea) — and a cultural decision ("Satire Revival") allowing a slider move of one's choice.

    The secondary reason for slower slider moves is that they allow one to easily detect trickery. As of now, there is an unfixed cheat allowing one to almost freely reach any slider position (not merely ends). In singleplayer that isn't a concern, but frankly I feel it's relevant to multiplayer. Stability is yet another factor slowing slider moves, as one stability level is lost with each move.

    (d) only significant modifiers need to be tied to sliders, never more than five per end

    While it is desirable to strengthen slider effects, the excessive accumulation of modifiers would make the balancing of other game aspects quite problematic. For each slider only the most symbolic aspects were considered. An example is the morale bonus granted by "offensive" in vanilla: it's +0.10 at the leftmost position, basically inconsequential. Another example is the galley cost modifier on the naval end: it's redundant, because it's replicated by the serfdom slider — but it's also of little consequence because galleys base costs are very low.

    (e) each slider end should include at least four modifiers

    Complexity, in strategy games, is whence most derive enjoyment — we don't want to simplify things to the point where strategic choices become black and white.

    (f) at least two modifiers must cross the whole slider spectrum

    In other terms, at least two modifiers should evolve from left to right, continuously — without being "right" or "left" only options. The intention is that of encouraging middle positions, as well as avoiding useless "intermediate" moves before crossing the middle point.

    (g) sliders effects should never surpass national ideas effects by a factor higher than 100%
    This guideline proved to be hard to attain to. If one slider's effects were so overwhelming as to belittle a similar national idea, the slider would prove to be the first candidate for a move in most cases. A situation where the context dictates which slider to move (and whether to move it) is, on the contrary, desirable. Reviewed national ideas provide a good measure and were taken as a reference.

  8. #188
    I've been practicing quite a bit and I've found that stability loss really does bite in this mod, taking between 6 and 12 years to recover for even starting nations. Combined with the desire to move sliders this pretty much meant investment in nothing but stability for prolonged periods of time as each slider move I've attempted seemed to cause a stability hit. I played TO a few times, did nothing to lose stability other than slider moves and couldn't reach +3 even by 1450 (with full stability investment), considering they are a high serfdom, high narrow mindedness country I was a bit worried (I reached +1 at best). Was this intentional?

    My current practices as Austria show a similar trend developing. Is there a way to reduce stability problems in the early game?

    One thing that struck me as a real problem though is the peasant war. Even the initial -3 stability and 2 slider moves (= 2 more stab hits in the near future) that will generally move a nation away from it's desired position (or otherwise it wouldn't have triggered the war) are significant. Whilst it makes for an interesting challenge in a later stage, if it strikes in session one of the game it pretty much finishes off whomever is playing that country considering the recovery time needed.

  9. #189
    I've noticed that without the alliance casus belli there is no way to protect a new union partner or vassal from AI vultures that declare war after you have finished off a nation. Perhaps it could be modded that this alliance CB works only one vassals or unions to protect newly gained ones?

  10. #190
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Austere View Post
    I've been practicing quite a bit and I've found that stability loss really does bite in this mod, taking between 6 and 12 years to recover for even starting nations. Combined with the desire to move sliders this pretty much meant investment in nothing but stability for prolonged periods of time as each slider move I've attempted seemed to cause a stability hit. I played TO a few times, did nothing to lose stability other than slider moves and couldn't reach +3 even by 1450 (with full stability investment), considering they are a high serfdom, high narrow mindedness country I was a bit worried (I reached +1 at best). Was this intentional?
    High stability costs are intentional. The jump from first to second level, for the Teutonic Order, costs about 1400 ducats while government tech sits at about 3000. It's a matter of habit, Lord Austere: we're used to sitting at +3 stability without concerns for losses. I have to say though that speed playing a few years in with the Teutons, I was able to reach +3 stability and maintain it, even with slider moves. I didn't do anything special but converting Samogitia and building temples, rather than constables given the puny tax base in the Baltic. The Teutonic Order is quite a peculiar case (non accepted cultures, Pagan province, low income per province).

    It also depends what sliders you're moving: "centralisation", "free subjects", etc. can trigger "Public Concern", which temporarily increases stability costs for six years or so. You need to time your slider moves when war exhaustion is low, temples are built and these modifiers aren't active. I realise it's tempting to move sliders right away, but in numerical terms it's often better to wait and lose a few years of "slider-opportunity". If you quickly move sliders, your neighbours may actually wait up and use their larger census against you.

    One thing that struck me as a real problem though is the peasant war. Even the initial -3 stability and 2 slider moves (= 2 more stab hits in the near future) that will generally move a nation away from it's desired position (or otherwise it wouldn't have triggered the war) are significant.
    The three national crises have been reworked ("Peasant's War", "Time of Troubles" and "Total War"), but I haven't included them in the latest release. In fact, I had toyed with the idea of enabling factions ("Nobles vs Peasants", "Guelphs vs Ghibellines", etc.) and getting out of the crisis by defeating one of them but I am putting that idea to rest for the moment.

  11. #191
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Austere View Post
    I've noticed that without the alliance casus belli there is no way to protect a new union partner or vassal from AI vultures that declare war after you have finished off a nation. Perhaps it could be modded that this alliance CB works only one vassals or unions to protect newly gained ones?
    The alliance casus belli was too easy to exploit — you can defend nations with either guarantees or, new addition, by including them in your sphere. In vanilla you received a temporary casus belli when one of your spheres was attacked, but it expired rather soonish and you could get around it (when the AI was lured to attack, was already at war, etc.). You now gain a permanent casus belli against any nation at war with one of your "sphered" countries.

    You're Austria, I am Poland. You desire to protect your new vassal, Silesia, against me. Provided you have high enough prestige, you can "influence" Silesia and gain an automatic and permanent casus belli against me, as long as I am at war with Silesia.

    This also means that, if I want to gain a CB against you I can try to influence any country you're at war with — the obvious requirement is that my prestige is high enough, and in most cases higher than your. You can prevent the CB by tagging the nation, that is by influencing it yourself: if your prestige is higher than mine I won't be able to influence the country.

    The "alliance CB" is not needed when human players are involved, otherwise: you ask for an alliance, I accept, you call me to war and I join inheriting your CB.

  12. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by silktrader View Post
    High stability costs are intentional. The jump from first to second level, for the Teutonic Order, costs about 1400 ducats while government tech sits at about 3000. It's a matter of habit, Lord Austere: we're used to sitting at +3 stability without concerns for losses. I have to say though that speed playing a few years in with the Teutons, I was able to reach +3 stability and maintain it, even with slider moves. I didn't do anything special but converting Samogitia and building temples, rather than constables — given the puny tax base in the Baltic. The Teutonic Order is quite a peculiar case (non accepted cultures, Pagan province, low income per province).
    I figured this would be the case, I actually did build temples to compensate but their help was limited (mostly i wanted to point out my experience, the TO was playable, but rather low tech). The austrian trials are proceeding much better. I was mostly concerned with the peasant war and such.

    And thanks for the explanation regarding the protection of newly acquired vassals/union partners. I was aware of the alliance CB problems, but I rather like the fix now that I understand it a little better.

  13. #193
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Since you're in Austria and pondering on stability — the "Formal request" was changed. No more does it lower stability, but it decreases legitimacy for monarchies.

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by silktrader View Post
    Since you're in Austria and pondering on stability the "Formal request" was changed. No more does it lower stability, but it decreases legitimacy for monarchies.
    Thanks. I think I'm getting the hang on stability, but that change will be welcome for Austria. Especially since the event fires on the northern Italian provinces gained from a mission, for Austria it otherwise means 3 stab hits (unless I stay at war). (i assume this change is implemented in the next patch, cause I still received the stab hits when playing under the Jan 30th patch)

  15. #195
    Lt. General Lama43's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the Throne

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Turin, Italy
    Posts
    1,528
    A question: why is the FoW so dark now? It makes it hard to see with the trade map and the rest aren't so clear either, anything you could do?

  16. #196
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Lama43 View Post
    A question: why is the FoW so dark now? It makes it hard to see with the trade map and the rest aren't so clear either, anything you could do?
    I can restore the original fog of war, the relevant files in the mod are only a matter of convenience for me: I dislike the wavery grey cloud on top of provinces, in vanilla, and prefer a cleaner look.

  17. #197
    Has there been any modification of mercenary forces?

    I've noticed that artillery tends to overpopulate these in the later game and cavalry early on, whilst I would think that mercenary infantry (a) should be more common and (b) would thus make for a decent alternative for nations relying on vassals for their military forcelimits. Given the stability costs of increasing province size and HRE limitations I forsee that genoa, venice and hansa might welcome this. Effectively being high powered tech and low stability cost and still field a decent (if overpriced) army.

    If this is unmoddable I would argue that a new national decision is brought in (or province exclusive for capitol provinces). Something like "rely on landsknecht/swiss mercenaries/condotierre" (regional dependence on name) which would give X mercenary infantry regiments (X = 4+2 at LT 6, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 45, 58, of the best available type (note: these TL mean that you need to be beyond the tech required for regulars)) and could only be taken during peacetime (as it represents a slow steady buildup of forces). A side effect might be lowered stability or increased revolt risk (mercenaries tend to make the population nervous) and a loss of military tradition.

  18. #198
    Lt. General Lama43's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the Throne

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Turin, Italy
    Posts
    1,528
    Quote Originally Posted by silktrader View Post
    I can restore the original fog of war, the relevant files in the mod are only a matter of convenience for me: I dislike the wavery grey cloud on top of provinces, in vanilla, and prefer a cleaner look.
    Yes please, it's quite annoying for me.

  19. #199
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    The latest release was uploaded and linked to in the first post: it's the version that will be used to start the test campaign. Unless there are striking problems, I anticipate there won't be a new one until the 12th. I am hoping to jot down a few more descriptions soon.

  20. #200
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Austere View Post
    Has there been any modification of mercenary forces?
    The mercenary pool is unchanged — actually, it can't be changed. The same rules as in vanilla apply: the pool is replenished every six months or so, according to areas. If you recruit a mercenary infantry, your enemy won't be able to recruit it until it is made available and pushed in in the pool by another recruit.

    Mercenaries were otherwise altered by decisions and the "quality" slider — those resorting to the left hand of the slider will benefit from cheaper mercenaries, a (somewhat pricy) solution to lack of manpower (as you remarked).

    If this is unmoddable I would argue that a new national decision is brought in (or province exclusive for capitol provinces). Something like "rely on landsknecht/swiss mercenaries/condotierre" (regional dependence on name) which would give X mercenary infantry regiments (X = 4+2 at LT 6, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 45, 58, of the best available type (note: these TL mean that you need to be beyond the tech required for regulars)) and could only be taken during peacetime (as it represents a slow steady buildup of forces).
    Adding mercenary forces isn't possible, only regular ones can be scripted. What I had planned to do (and ultimately delayed) was to implement regional decisions to anticipate the recruitment of unique unit types. An example: in vanilla, Scotland relies on three triggered modifiers to represent its staunch defense against the English (absent in the mod, replaced by other measures) — I envisaged to grant the Scots a unique "Highlander" unit, with higher morale offense compared to "Men at Arms". The temporary advantage would fade as "Galloglaigh", equivalent to "Highlanders", become available to England. In practice, certain nations, provided they reach adequate army tradition and technology levels, could have the chance to (a) anticipate a unit type or (b) claim a unique one. It's all speculation at this point.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 21 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 20 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts