[MOD] The Prince and the Thane - 1.092 Only

[unmerged(208745)]

I'm enjoying everything about this mod except for the wars. Every war is a WW2-style war of annihilation, even for stupid stuff, like trying to obtain vassalage of a bishopric that some other leige mistakenly has under his control.

So I'm asking other people how to mod the following effects:

1. Increase value from victories - battles and occupation.
2. Add in some kind of "value" factor for the war target. For example, if I'm fighting for a single county, I would like the warscore to be calculated differently than when I'm fighting for a kingdom title. I don't understand why the AI fights just as tenaciously for every title no matter what its value.
3. If you're going to make sieges so damn hard to do, at least they should be valuable. They should provide a lot of gold, as well as a good chance for destroying a building or two in the province.

I think I already know how to do #1 (the value should be in defines.lua), but I'm clueless about the other two.

==============================================

Here's a good example of what I'm experiencing in the game right now, in case you were wondering what I'm complaining about. I was playing as the King of Croatia, and the Emperor of Byzantium was somehow the direct leige of a mayor in one of my demense provinces. Rather than simply negotiating a transfer (which is impossible, but that is Paradox's fault), I declared war, which I figured shouldn't be too hard considering he was already embroiled in about 10 separate wars for independence.

Oh, how wrong I was. I spent over 10 years fighting him. After taking the city immediately, I sent my army to his home provinces. Captured 3 of his 6 demense counties. Annihilated 3 of his main armies. The warscore at this point was only about 30%, so to save money I took my army home and disbanded and waited a few years. Then I went back and retook one county, took another, and then annihilated another army. By now it was around 80%. Disbanded and waited some more. Then, finally, after 11 years, he capitulated at 100% warscore.

So now, after this incredible expenditure in lives and treasure, I now have proper vassalage of a small, underdeveloped city that will not start to generate any income at all until 5 years have passed. I've also severely weakened an important neighbor and I know I will be facing the muslim hordes that much faster now.

There has got to be a better way to simulate dark age warfare than this.

Strong points, I'll tweak the warscore mechanism for next version, thanks for the feedback.

Random thought: what would happen if you cut down on the number of women with the martial education? Would that unbalance the game? It just seems strange that 1 in 5 women have an education that isn't particularly useful to them.

To do it, you could give some female children with martial-type guardians a flag/trait, saying that they are actually interesting diplomacy, intrigue, etc.. For example, the event where the ward starts to learn swordplay could have some additional options available to female characters that will set the flag/trait for other education types. Then, you could use that flag/trait to either preempt the education system by giving them that type of education trait at age 15 (like in CK2+) or trigger an event once they are finished their education changing their education trait to the specified type.

It's one of the things I'm working on for next version, I want to re-implement a customizable education system, something like wiz has done.

 

[Jaol]

Strong points, I'll tweak the warscore mechanism for next version, thanks for the feedback.

I quite like the balance Wiz has in the latest version of CK2+. Battles matter much much more. It's actually terrifying as a small Count, but that seems good to me. Not sure how it would work with the slower sieges in TPATT, though.

On a related point, the size of the garrisons left behind after winning a siege are too small, IMO. The AI doesn't seem to understand that holdings are very vulnerable directly after they've been captured. so it's easy to just go around with a small stack storming everything the AI captured.

Perhaps you should either increase the PERCENT_OF_GARRISON_DETACHED or have a big garrison growth modifier applied for a few months after on_siege_won, to give the garrison a chance to build up a bit.

 

[unmerged(462625)]

request rebalanced for sieges as sieging a single 3.5 strength castle takes almost 2 years and almost half my men like matilda of italy vs count of lucca started on the 27th nov 66 with 6389 men ended 20 apr 68 with only 3724 and thats vs only a single county count

 

[grody311]

Strong points, I'll tweak the warscore mechanism for next version, thanks for the feedback.

I'll mess with the numbers myself and post what seems to work for me. I will try two scenarios: William the Conquerer and a Tuscan revolt against HRE. My goal is to have William gain England with one decisive battle and about two occupations. My goal with Tuscany will be to hold out against HRE for about 5 years. I'll post the numbers when I can get these two results.

I think another thing that would help wars along (and make them more historically accurate) would be to increase the likelihood of killed or captured leaders as the result of a defeat, especially if it's disasterous one. (You could also have captured nobles/mayors/priests add to the warscore - so that you are still vulnerable to losing the war following a big defeat even if you leave your king at home. Not sure how doable that is, though.)

And of course, thanks for the response, idib. You really are the best modder on the scene right now. Keep up the great work. I've tried CK2+ and Bella Garant Alii, but after trying yours, I can't go back to them!

 

[grody311]

request rebalanced for sieges as sieging a single 3.5 strength castle takes almost 2 years and almost half my men like matilda of italy vs count of lucca started on the 27th nov 66 with 6389 men ended 20 apr 68 with only 3724 and thats vs only a single county count

Perhaps you could tweak the army size multiplier effect for seiges. Right now it scales logarithmically, and, while that might be logical, it doesn't work out gameplay wise.

I would also agree about the problem with garrisons. CK2+ solves the issue by having the garrison auto replenish after only a week or so. Bella Garant Alii has no fix, and has the same problem that TPATT does. I think that increasing PERCENT_OF_GARRISON_DETACHED to at least half of the full garrison would solve the issue.

 

[Jaol]

Is it WAD that the ERE has epidemics approximately 1/2 of the time? It seems fairly excessive, IMO.

 

[unmerged(462625)]

Perhaps you could tweak the army size multiplier effect for seiges. Right now it scales logarithmically, and, while that might be logical, it doesn't work out gameplay wise.

I would also agree about the problem with garrisons. CK2+ solves the issue by having the garrison auto replenish after only a week or so. Bella Garant Alii has no fix, and has the same problem that TPATT does. I think that increasing PERCENT_OF_GARRISON_DETACHED to at least half of the full garrison would solve the issue.

Bella Garant Alii is fine only look around 100 men and less than a year to take a castle from lucca

 

[unmerged(208745)]

I quite like the balance Wiz has in the latest version of CK2+. Battles matter much much more. It's actually terrifying as a small Count, but that seems good to me. Not sure how it would work with the slower sieges in TPATT, though.

On a related point, the size of the garrisons left behind after winning a siege are too small, IMO. The AI doesn't seem to understand that holdings are very vulnerable directly after they've been captured. so it's easy to just go around with a small stack storming everything the AI captured.

Perhaps you should either increase the PERCENT_OF_GARRISON_DETACHED or have a big garrison growth modifier applied for a few months after on_siege_won, to give the garrison a chance to build up a bit.

I'll do that, even if I won't speed it up as much as Wiz did.

request rebalanced for sieges as sieging a single 3.5 strength castle takes almost 2 years and almost half my men like matilda of italy vs count of lucca started on the 27th nov 66 with 6389 men ended 20 apr 68 with only 3724 and thats vs only a single county count

I'll playtest a bit and reduce the length of sieges, although not too much as I feel that it really should take some time to take a fortress.

I'll mess with the numbers myself and post what seems to work for me. I will try two scenarios: William the Conquerer and a Tuscan revolt against HRE. My goal is to have William gain England with one decisive battle and about two occupations. My goal with Tuscany will be to hold out against HRE for about 5 years. I'll post the numbers when I can get these two results.

I think another thing that would help wars along (and make them more historically accurate) would be to increase the likelihood of killed or captured leaders as the result of a defeat, especially if it's disasterous one. (You could also have captured nobles/mayors/priests add to the warscore - so that you are still vulnerable to losing the war following a big defeat even if you leave your king at home. Not sure how doable that is, though.)

And of course, thanks for the response, idib. You really are the best modder on the scene right now. Keep up the great work. I've tried CK2+ and Bella Garant Alii, but after trying yours, I can't go back to them!

Well I already doubled the events that do that, together with many other war events. I'll probably add some more for the new version. Thank you for the nice words, you're being far too kind.

Perhaps you could tweak the army size multiplier effect for seiges. Right now it scales logarithmically, and, while that might be logical, it doesn't work out gameplay wise.

I would also agree about the problem with garrisons. CK2+ solves the issue by having the garrison auto replenish after only a week or so. Bella Garant Alii has no fix, and has the same problem that TPATT does. I think that increasing PERCENT_OF_GARRISON_DETACHED to at least half of the full garrison would solve the issue.

As I said to Jaol, I'll do that. Together with some other tweaks that should greatly improve warfare.

Is it WAD that the ERE has epidemics approximately 1/2 of the time? It seems fairly excessive, IMO.

I reduced that for next version, I think it mainly depends on city sizes around the area, but that sounds like too much.

Bella Garant Alii is fine only look around 100 men and less than a year to take a castle from lucca

That's significant, but you also have to consider the scope and goal of this mod. But as I said in the previous answers, I'll tweak it.

 

[Jaol]

I'll playtest a bit and reduce the length of sieges, although not too much as I feel that it really should take some time to take a fortress.

Yeah, the uncertainty of sieges is one of my favorite features of the mod. Sometimes a castle falls quickly, and other times you lose half your army and have to abandon the whole war. Feels very historical to me.

I reduced that for next version, I think it mainly depends on city sizes around the area, but that sounds like too much.

I started at one of the later start dates, so everyone had the disease resistance reducing buildings. Perhaps it works better when you start from 1066.

 

[unmerged(462625)]

I'll playtest a bit and reduce the length of sieges, although not too much as I feel that it really should take some time to take a fortress

the time isn't the real big issue its the losses like im only seiging them its only a basic 3.5 castle not a 8.0 fortress i shouldn't be taking so many losses starving them out and even fortresses don't always take long of capture constantinople took less than 2 months

 

[Jaol]

the time isn't the real big issue its the losses like im only seiging them its only a basic 3.5 castle not a 8.0 fortress i shouldn't be taking so many losses starving them out and even fortresses don't always take long of capture constantinople took less than 2 months

Are you sure there wasn't a disease in the province? I've never lost 50% of my forces without that. And when there is camp fever, etc., then you should take horrific loses.

 

[Duffman50]

I agree with the two posters who said that wars take to long. The very long seiges combined with the slow moving warscore make even simple wars take nearly a decade. Glad to hear you will be increasing siege speed somewhat but agree you shouldnt make them too fast. I think changes to the warscoring would help even more, like say greatly increasing the score you get for holding the objective of the war. Making battles more decisive would help too I think.

Other than that though this is a really great mod, the best I have played. Thank you so much for putting it together Idib

 

[jordanjay29]

I agree on all the points about warscore. I like sieges as they are, they feel right. Wars could be balanced by adjusting the score, which would bring them into the historically accurate lines a bit better.

 

[unmerged(462625)]

Are you sure there wasn't a disease in the province? I've never lost 50% of my forces without that. And when there is camp fever, etc., then you should take horrific loses.

nope just try it your self play as matilda of italy and right at the start move all your troops to lucca save the play as the count of lucca declare war save then play as matilda again and see

 

[unmerged(462625)]

I agree on all the points about warscore. I like sieges as they are, they feel right. Wars could be balanced by adjusting the score, which would bring them into the historically accurate lines a bit better.

but its not historically accurate your not supposed to take large losses during sieges your supposed to starve them out thats why you siege unless your very power full otherwise your enemies will come knocking and they don't take years as they would starve to dead before then and there were very few fortresses that had the supplies and secure water to survive long like Krak des Chevaliers had its own water supply and lasted 36 days so i don't know were you learned history

 

[Jaol]

Last couple games I've been spammed with "I think courtier X fancies me" events. Did the MTTH change?

but its not historically accurate your not supposed to take large losses during sieges your supposed to starve them out

Lots of sieges had to be given up because the attackers lost so many men. The loses aren't just in battle--disease, desertions, feudal contracts being up, etc. are all part of it too.

 

[unmerged(462625)]

Lots of sieges had to be given up because the attackers lost so many men. The loses aren't just in battle--disease, desertions, feudal contracts being up, etc. are all part of it too.

yes and there are things that will make the defenders give up faster as well but thats beyond the scope of this game it only has 2 options siege and assault

 

[jordanjay29]

so i don't know were you learned history

That was quite uncalled for.

 

[unmerged(462625)]

not really im still wondering were your getting your info that says current seiges are historicly acurate as when i searched for the fortresses that could survive long they ended up lasting less than 2 months so were are these 2 year surviving castles/fortresses as i can't find them

 

[monsterfurby]

This mod is so good, I am even playing it although I can't find the reason for by character looking like he is imprisoned. Still trying to find out what's different in the portrait files.

Idib: Since I am assuming a new version wouldn't work with savegames from the old one, is there any chance you could point me towards how to fix this one if you know where the problem is? I realize it's probably a lot to ask, but I figured asking wouldn't hurt and I would really appreciate your help. Likewise, if I should find a fix for this before a new version is released, I'll of course post it just in case