Brytenwalda Realism Mod 0.5

RE: Horses

It's not an exaggerated effect. It's just the realistic consequence of an 800 pound+ horse at full gallop hitting a man. Mostly it helps AI, since so often, they'd bump into an enemy hit, come to a dead stop, have their horse killed in one hit, and then fall.

The Greek Armored Horse is a rare Tournament-only prize. Its slow but better armored. I'd prefer the paraverdus, though.

Btw., are you able to change the subject title of your OP? Ie. "Brytenwalda Realism Mod" or so? Subtitle "Balancing tweaks for the gameplay and realism" ... or so.


I'll play (already in work) a new campaign, and report back then later, or in-between post something. So far i saw a few inconsequencies regarding spear and other weapon stats, also for some gears, but none disturbing or gamebreaking. All in all, in that area, you've done a lot improvement to stats incl. costs.

Few notes already, as for historical-realism:
A sword ... as you know already, was actually a very very costly item. Actually only nobles or semy-nobles (prof. warriors) would carry one. And a skilled swordsman (all nobles, semy or lesser-nobles, bodyguards and housecarls would be such guys, and prof. mercs of course) are hard to overcome in a 1vs1 fight. Perhaps one can reflect that in the stats, ie. still higher costs, but also better base-stats for swords, ie. speed! ... and cutting related impact. A normal spearman or axe-carrier wouldn't stand a chance. One hit on a practically unarmoured foe (head or body) would be enough to bring him instantly down.
Similar it goes with all kinds of heavy armour (but practically wise versa in effect), namely all mail (or also scale) armour, very expensive, but also very good armour effect. An arrow can't cut/pierce it in our time here, a little impact on the armour, but it wouldn't hurt the body itself, at least no real harm, a little would if the arrow is shot directly and from a little distance. And even a sword hit (swing) wouldn't harm a lot.
Heavy spears (all heavy or very sharp thrusting weapons) and heavy axes are another thing here, of course. But esp. axes, most used by non-prof. warriors would be rusty working-axes (tools), and these wouldn't cut a mail/scale armour also not a linen armour or concrete leather armour, but perhaps provide a blunt trauma on the body if hitten hard. In other words: We should make a real differentiation between "axe" and "war-axes" (all non-tool-axes) for the stats.
In reality though, it is always dependent on the applying warrior/fighter ... but here the game mechanics play that good out, while a peasant with spear or axe is probably still too dangerous vs. a trained warrior, while bandits indeed generally would be dangerous, because even when poor equipped etc., they would be trained/skilled enough to at least overcome quickly any poor victim (commoners, merchants, peasants).

You did it completely right, ie. that swords and heavy armour is much more rare now, one could even increase on that ... and i think the stats could be modified to reflect the sword and mail status better (items of very skilled and rich warriors).

EDIT

Shields:
Here i absolutely don't know why "Banner" shields are labeled more worse than the other ones.
It should be vice versa: Bit better stats and therefor bit more expensive. Slightly changed would be nice, same weight and seize as the counterparts, but one more resistance and bit more expensive - as for realism it means they are better worked out because just banner shields, as for gameplay it makes no sense to me otherwise - as it is now, seems only to anger the player with a slight more worse shield if he wants that shield?

"Cracked" items:
Possibly should be more nerfed in their stats, and costs - it shouldn't be a choice to use those items, unless one have no other choice (no money).
Ie. a cracked spear would break in the first thrust on a shield.
Another way would be to rename those items: Cracked but repaired items, still worse, but then workable with the now existing stats and costs.


--

Horses:
Alright with your reply, we anyway have to go with the game mechanics, and improve on that base.

Well, can we rename items?
Horse names ... ie. "North Horse", i would be interested what's that mount. Probably we should rather go with "Big Pony"?

The "Pony" and the "Big Pony" would be the main riding horses, the stats they have are alright, probably.
But, big pony is probably also too loose as term, maybe one can use simply "Horse" or  "Shire Horse" (british breed) or even better as realism indicator, "Frisian Horse", as probably the first real/normal seized horses were imported by Frisians.

"Draft Horse", a heavy horse and/or carry/work horse, the chosen term "Draft" is alright probably ... anyway, that mount wouldn't be fast but very well stamina and strength/resistance, the stats are alright, probably. Not a horse used by nobles, preference probably by pictish and scottish people, as the right mount for hilly regions.

In reality, as already described above, none of those horses would ride into a shieldwall or ride over an enemy, they are just no war horses, and at the time, such a horse didn't exist.
But well, we've to apply on the game mechanics, unless one can/could modify the battlefield behaviour of horses
The differentiation done by the Brytenwalda team to Warband-Native's horses is already well done!

In regard of my "few notes" above, in the meantime i found that actually the most of it is realised with your mod, not so much to adjust as i first thought (had still the former Brytenwalda vanilla stats in the head). Anyways, once more my applause to your efforts!

Atm. i have only two kinds of adjustment-suggestions...
- Swords: Making a bigger differentiation between quality/new swords and used/old ones in the costs and stats, ie. rusty and chipped with the current stats, but all swords above more expensive but also clear better stats, and ie. the now crazy expensive swords (also other weapons) should also be grossly shining in the stats, otherwise they make no sense imo.. ... well, this principle should also go with all other weapons and armour.
- Axes: As already mentioned, imo. we should have a lot axes in the game, small 1handaxes, rusty non-quality or in other words the mentioned tool-axes, ie. (normal) archers and such unit-classes (or lower) wouldn't have anything above. Those axes would be very cheap, but also very cheap in their stats, provide merely blunt trauma, no cut or pierce on armour, on non-armour (cloth) they are dangerous though ... stat-example: cloth with 5 to 10 armour value = tool-axes with 15 max 20 attack points (20 would the sharpened ones, aka in-game new ones).

Well,  third point...
- Archers: The lowest archer type would be the peasant with a very simple non-quality hunting-bow, they are able to shoot an animal from low distance (with luck), but in principle very, yes very, imcapable for a battle ... but, those would be the mass of archers, while Britain had not so much an archer-warefare at the time. Also, archer-sharpshooters didn't exist here, but unfortunately the game-mechanics suggest nothing else, ie. in reality that arrows would be shot from far (not aimed or at least not direct aimed shot) before the serious skirmish/melee battle starts, as battle-starter or also used for certain tactics and a bit of psycho-effect. ... The pictish crossbow would be merely the range weapon, which is a direct aimed shot, but certainly still it was very very inaccurate, unless it were only a few meters. That said, it might be, that certain briton/welsh warriors also were capable archers, but i say here "warriors", just not the simple peasant-archer. Else, we would have some professional hunters (also saxon/angle) who were able to targeting an enemy in a battle.

Edit:
Seax (the dagger): If they are new, imo. should have better stats (and then also a bit more expensive), they were the weapon-choice for non-nobles, but capable fighters, just applied by Saxon (or Angle) medium warriors. Not for knifes though, because i would label them as tool-weapons as well, stats according, like the tool-axes, unless we speak of a real warrior-knife aka dagger, which would be carried probably by all prof. warriors.

Spear vs sword/dagger speed: I saw now spears have partly over 100 speed ... faster than swords and daggers? Imo. should be vice versa, esp. for daggers/knifes, but also swords. As for realism i would say the longer the spear (or weapon) the harder the application and with this the lower the speed impact (while mass and form of weapons have also a dependence on all that, of course ... plus and especially the one who applies!). Imagine it for yourself, a long spear, keep that in balance and targeting something, and then actually meet also as aimed, not simple. Btw., yesterday i checked the overhand mod, watched the two videos of it, while a nice mod, the animation is "pretty" unrealistic, nobody could handle a spear like that (hand position at the spear, balancing of the spear impossible).

You see, i generally make my comments from the view of historical-realism, those should not always be taken 1:1 (because we have the game-framework), but perhaps they have some inspiration-effect for the one or other item. By all that, like you, i see the gameplay and esp. also the AI consideration as very important aspects.

Hm, again a next post by me ... i'll probably start once more again, as i realised under mod options, that i can slow down the upgrade of units - a Brytenwalda realism feature.
As actually historically we would fight with mainly peasant armies ... and i like to reflect that, so far it is possible in the game framework.

Question here:

Does anybody know, is this "slow upgrade" feature valid for the whole game aka all parties (factions/lords/whatever) or is it a feature alone for the player's party to make it gameplay-techy harder for him?(... anyways, i'll try it, but wouldn't like it at all, if it is player-alone; because as labeled realism-feature, i assume and hope it is valid for all "parties" in the game).

Ajaxys, if that slow-upgrade feature is valid for the whole game (not player alone), then for a realism submod, we should have that as default setting, imo..

It even might have the effect, that the gameplay is more interesting.

DaVincix said:

Hm, again a next post by me ... i'll probably start once more again, as i realised under mod options, that i can slow down the upgrade of units - a Brytenwalda realism feature.
As actually historically we would fight with mainly peasant armies ... and i like to reflect that, so far it is possible in the game framework.

Question here:

Does anybody know, is this "slow upgrade" feature valid for the whole game aka all parties (factions/lords/whatever) or is it a feature alone for the player's party to make it gameplay-techy harder for him?(... anyways, i'll try it, but wouldn't like it at all, if it is player-alone; because as labeled realism-feature, i assume and hope it is valid for all "parties" in the game).

Ajaxys, if that slow-upgrade feature is valid for the whole game (not player alone), then for a realism submod, we should have that as default setting, imo..

It even might have the effect, that the gameplay is more interesting.

Click to expand...

Hey Davincix. Thanks for all the feedback. I'll be updating this post with further comments. But I just wanted to quickly note that the only substantial way to 'slow' down training more than it already is, would be to increase the levels of the troops. Which is what was already done (with peasants at level 15, etc).  Of course higher level troops also give more experience when killed. I'm not sure how the 'realism' option doubles the learning time of the last tier without changing the levels.

Swords - Yes. I could justifiably have made them even better and more expensive. But I didn't want to turn people off by going all extreme. I do think that between substantially raising their thrust damage and making most of the cheap axes do cutting damage, that they are the preferred choice now. But the average sword also costs something like 5x the average axe, too. Even a rusty sword might be a couple thousand scillingas (depending on trade), and I've seen a Masterwork go for 60,000.

Item Quality - This is something I very much want to do (make rusty, chipped, masterwork, etc have more of an impact), but these variables can only be modified in scripts. I have to be careful in there, unless I want to just completely discard all of the minor bug fixes made by TML, which I don't think most people want.

Shields - I'm still figuring out the sweet spot for shields. It's more varying and confusing than you think, but let me safely assure you that there is no real noticeable harm in grabbing that banner round shield over anything else. Find a 'thick' or 'reinforced' version if you can. IMO, all shields break too easily. But then, battles in Warband tend to last 5-10 minutes instead of several hours of real time.

Horses - Yes. There's definitely scope within the item file to change the name of horses (there isn't one north horse entry, after all, there's more like 30, with each corresponding to a different appearance in game). And I do want to add in a little more variety along the lines you've described.

Horse Charges - It's largely a myth that horses would shy away from impact. As late as the 17th century, there were famous authors and theorists on cavalry warfare with experience from the Thirty Years War, who wrote manuals on the procurement and training of war horses. These were widely shared and reprinted during the English Civil War. It's valuable because in the early 1600s, there was still a holdover of a medieval mindset (like sections of the training manuals devoted to lancers - even though that kind of cavalry was mostly obsolete in Western armies, and one of, if not, the final appearance of old style, heavily armored cuirassier cavalry. The 'cuirassier' cavalry that showed up in the 18th and 19th century were far more lightly armored, even though lancers did return to popularity in the Napoleonic era.

Anyhow, digression aside, the training manuals go into detail about accustoming horses to battle, and it includes lengthy time spent familiarizing them with at first bumping into, and then pushing over, stick-man panoplies of armor set on the field to represent infantry. Going as far back as the 11th Century, there is contemporary evidence of the Normans having trained their war horses to 'push' forward while in the melee press. Which has lead one historian to suggest it was the 'push' of Norman horse, rather than the charge which broke the Anglo-Saxon shield wall at Hastings. In fact, the cavalry charge itself was more often a slow trot (which is eminently understandable if you've ever ridden a horse even at a languid gallop).

All the same, the charge values are fine where they are, and are still quite low. Although, the one thing I'd like to do is raise hitpoints even further. It would probably take doubling them to be anywhere near realistic. Horses, being massive beasts, can sustain huge amounts of injury in real life and keep going. In the English Civil Wars, there are accounts of horses dripping with blood from innumerable sword strokes and pistol shots before finally collapsing. But this is another area I didn't want to turn people off being too radical.

The myth that horses will shy away from impact has largely to do with memoirs from Waterloo observing the ineffectual attempts by Napoleon's cavalry to break the infantry square. But that was more a product of untrained horses than anything else. And also, the French artillery hadn't done its job (if it had, untrained horses would've been perfectly sufficient). But the Normans would have pushed right through them!

Axes - I had similar thoughts to you, which is why I made the various cheap hand axes and hatchets worse (no parrying, cutting instead of piercing, etc). Making them blunt would actually make them more powerful than leaving them cutting. But I would also like to add a lot more weapons to the game, including maces and mauls.

Archers - I'm fairly satisfied with archers in the game. They're pretty bad, (and my pass through the troop files, beyond leaving them with slightly higher athletics than other peasants) didn't do much to improve them. The Britons can train a better than average bowman, but mostly archers are a way of inflating AI armies. The shield wall and heavy infantry are quite dominant on the battlefield. To the extent where I had to tone them down a little (tons of even middling heavy infantry had full mail armor...Now, only the top tier troops are likely to have mail armor). Although, I did leave the option for 'cheap' mail armor to occasionally show up in the lower ranks that once had them.

Seax - These were already in the mod, but weren't used by as many troops who should've had them. Their stats were even worse...I buffed them considerably. They could probably stand to receive a couple more points here and there.

Spear Speed - I agree that spears are far from optimal. But I will note that their speed is quite deceptive. And also, because of the way the game factors damage - having a higher speed on a weapon actually makes it do less damage in some scenarios. And regardless of weapon speed, there's the fact that all the spear animations are very lengthy. If spears were any slower, it probably wouldn't be possible to get off a thrust before someone was too close to be hit. But they're not ideal, at the moment.

Good with everything you wrote above.
I'm actually glad that someone like you takes BW to modify a lot increased realism incl. gameplay adjustments! Did i already say Thank You?!

Here i've to say sth. about horse charge: You are right with everything above, but you left out the development of the 'warhorse' aka horse warefare (started from on the beginning feudalism with the Franks under Charlemagne the Great in 8th c. AD and was brought then to some perfection by the french Normans, and of course that example of Hastings brought the glory time of the high medieval timeframe and its mounted knightdom, from ca. the late 11th c. - 13th c. AD, after that it was anyway common valid to have elite cavalry in europe's warefare), just a warhorse, as already written, didn't exist in our BW time. We have no horse-charge warefare in our timeframe, horses in Britain weren't trained for melee battles aka close melee impacts. But i agree, that we have just to go with the game-mechanics (which were done for medieval warefare), and anyway, one can interprete it as 'Britain's capable riders can/did ride over a footman' ( without a traditional conception of the trained warhorse ).

Other comments:

Axes: I suggest to have the "Axe" as tool-axe (meant is "Axe" in-game name) with bit lower stats and bit cheaper (could be re-named to "Crude Axe" or something like that, perhaps even "Peasant Axe"), and all other would be real dangerous axes produced for warriors with your current stats. If possible (if easy to find the code), all such simple weapons shouldn't break shields unless they are war-weapons aka war-axes or heavy war-maces/mauls!

Swords: With still a slightly better swing stat (perhaps also bit better pierce stat), that's for the new/fresh items here. Masterwork and such with far better stats. The difference between rusty/chipped to new/fresh could be much more considered in the stats (valid for all weapons and gear/amor).

Shields: I agree completely, they break far too easy, even by a simple 1hand axe and other simple weapons - there should be a big difference from a cracked item to a new/fresh item.

Seax, Cleaver (war-daggers): Imo. should be much more dangerous than any simple (tool-)axe or simple mace weapons (still slightly better cutting and pierce stats, esp. for the new/fresh ones).

All in all, we have actually the same views in all categories, that's awesome to see.


Other thing, economy:

In the long run of the game, i find it way too easy to exploit the 'money-making'. If real realism is our goal, one would have to change a lot of the current economy-system. While that would be a real pain to do, perhaps it is easier to raise all the troop costs to increase the realism (and challenge) of keeping a standing army (which, in reality, wasn't possible for lords in Britain of the BW time, also far later in the real middleage, no way possible to keep a real standing army)? Ie. 2x the current upkeep cost, and at least 5x the purchase cost (perhaps even 10x)? This from on the lowest rank, actually. Purchasing any mercs from taverns etc. should be far, far more expensive, impossible so to speak, if one is not really very rich.

From my (wished) view for the game, the starting phase should be a big pain, so to speak: One must first act alone (no recruitment as too expensive), or with few companions, making money with trading, killing a few small Theow-groups, and first then, when the coffer is filled with enough (a lot of) money, one can think about to recruit forces.
Side-effect is possibly, that the wars between the factions are not so easy aka to ie. siege positively a town or castle is way harder to achieve (when forces are more expensive to get/keep for AI as well), as it was in reality: Raiding the land (villages) was easy for them, but actually to conquer a whole realm was nearly impossible.
Edit: After i searched a bit, i found that the AI has not such a unit purchase/wages(upkeep) system as the player has ... pity for an actual realism-gameplay. Still i wonder how AI lords recruit their units (costs etc.).

RE: Horses

You're right about 8th-9th century developments, which is why I didn't make any extreme changes. It's still certain death for cavalry to charge a shield wall (which the AI does every time, anyways). But the horses were exceptionally, even ridiculously weak. I'm talking like 70 hit points weak, which is less than some infantry. And I think we all know that horses, even 6th century horses, can endure far more punishment than a man can.

Honestly, the next release will see Horse hit points raised by at least another 50 points but their charge damage/speed etc, will stay the same. And again, the lack of couched lances in Brytenwalda goes a LONG way to balancing them.

RE: Economy and Recruiting

Yes. There's a lot I'd like to do here on my wish list as well. What I'd like to do most is disallow characters from recruiting outside their own culture unless they or their faction owns the village.

I think the mod does a great deal to slow the rate of wealth accumulation (by making all the junk, for one thing, give junk re-sale value), but that also relies on not using the supply wagon and mystic merchant. The supply wagon especially, is a major cheat. But I would like to slow it even further.

I also wish I could make it so leadership had a bigger impact (by restricting the number of potential companions, etc).

Speaking of which, what are your experiences with companions so far?

Horses:
Well, i completely agree, they must have much more hp.
As for AI charging into shieldwall everytime and dies, I didn't exercise so much that i can judge the whole thing, but what's when they get very low charge values, nearly none, will the AI consider it? You could ceck it out perhaps. The best realism would be, if they have much higher hp, but don't charge ... exception for special horses (ie. the greek armoured, and those could be overwhelming good horses, statwise, and when used a skilled rider).
Perhaps lowered horse speed and armour can also do sth. for the AI, that it "thinks" it's not so good to charge? Ie. armour value negated, speed down, and very high hp (for testing).

Recruitment:

... disallow characters from recruiting outside their own culture unless they or their faction owns the village.

Click to expand...

You mean all characaters aka all lords, i assume. Would be nice. Is it feasable, modding-wise?

...restricting the number of potential companions

Click to expand...

If you want that limited more, why not using the module.ini? There is a setting, currently max 20.
I personally like to have a lot of them, the max possible for a team-group along the companion guide, that's ie. max 12 (i always recruit only this group). For me, they bring "life" into the party, so i don't play only with "meaningless" soldiers.
That you made them with better start-stats is great, now at least a few of them can bring down a Theow or Morth without to formerly stuff them with weapons and armour As for me, you can increase that still, ie. giving them better start-gear, at least for the ones who have a certain story, ie. why would a mercenary like Clovis or a prof. warrior like Ceawlin, Bodero or Lothar run around with such cheap cloths and weapon (a spear only)? I believe i would gear them up along their stories (at least halfway), although probably a lot work (reading it all), it would improve the RPG-thing a lot. Stats accordingly, but you did this already to a great part.

Btw., the mystic merchant and the wagon are no-go's for me as well.

I tried editing the setting in the module.ini, but sadly, it didn't appear to make a difference.

The reason I left companions with their starting equipment, was so as to not tempt people with hiring them, looting them of their stuff, and then kicking them out

I tend to end up stealing their donkey and a dawn ray often enough, as it is.

Ultimately, it's not too difficult to get them armored and armed up (and one could say that for some people, that's part of the charm of the early beginning).

That said...If there was a way to easily increase their hiring cost without having to overwrite like 10 other files, I would do that, and give some of them better equipment.

Yeah, it's fun with the compis like it is, i only stumbled over some of the background stories, ie. 'Frioc' evidently says when you hire him "wait, give me 400 sc so i can gear myself properly up with armour" etc., and what does he carry ...  bit laughable, not your thing anyway. Btw., is it easily possible to get rid of the shirts without real texture, replacing them? Ie. the transparent ones which are on the compis? I think so, or, troops editor? At best delete these shirt items in the whole, they are so ugly, my eyes hurt always! And btw., i think 'Ultan' shouldn't be barefoot underways, that's not fitting at all, at least his story says not that he was robbed out recently. But wait, all of that is not so important imo..
(You actually throw them out, and prior take items? ... did you read the compis guide, using a group which fits together without they are moaning with each other? I mean, these guys are useful! Ah wait, now i get it ... you hire also a comp which doesn't fit into the group just to rob them out, understood ).

Other notes...

Factions:
Now what i observe is, that Fortriu due to their position on the map grow immensely big! So if possible, besides Pengwern (still also a pretty ahistorical roaming faction), Fortriu should get nerfed somehow. I guess, i'll tweak in a bit of hate to them with the factions.txt file, but that won't help a lot. Btw., ca. 5 factions are at war with Fortriu (now), three of them (one welsh, one south-briton, one saxon) declared due to a pact, caused by one or two factions declared due to power-reduction reason! You know what, here that what you want to get out (other thread title), works as balancing factor positively! ... i have no idea if this so-to-speak anti-alliance vs. the superpower is due to my tweaks, but i guess no (perhaps a bit of it helped, because i just changed some relation values, which potencially could support certains diplo-behaviour in the long run, my hope at least).

Faction troops:
Briton, welsh infantry should be nerfed imo., their inf is compared to Saxon inf too good and too fast upgraded. Their main army strength should be foot archers/skirmishers and skirmisher cavalry, less heavy warriors. Look ie. at the Ulchr (sp? heavy foot), they are in my experience better and also faster to get as the Duguth-class (Saxon/Engle heavy foot). At least  that's my impression now, possibly must be verified. Put to this the better archers and cavalry and you have the unit stats/recruitment imbalance, which is esp. to find in the hands of Pengwern - lots of money and lords, so a perhaps slight imbalance in the unit stats/options shows ... that's why i say, Pengwern must get a nerf somehow. Perhaps a slight change for the medium/heavy briton units can "correct" something in the outcome. I don't wanna see that Saxons/Engles overun everything, no way, but ie. shouldn't loose that easy their locations (Bernaccia is meant vs. Pengwern, Gwynned, Rheged and Pengwern "owns" Northumbria except the most northern part, in every of my (test-)games). 

Party names:
In regard of historical realism, we wouldn't have "Dena Pirates" in this time, nor "Frankish Raiders". While that content is clearly fun, they are very ahistorical. The according history suggests, that the first "slim" pirates-attack on the british coast was the Lindisfarne-event 793 AD (that could be compared with one dena-group that is running around on the map). Maybe one can think over that content, and at least rename them to ie. Frisian Sea Raiders, Jutish Sea Raiders ... as i mean to have read somewhere that those guys were traditonal pirates in the Channel and Northsea. But then, those weren't mailed supermen like our Dena's and Franks, but sloggish guys which jumped on sea traders and very small coastal villages.

Edit: A small thing popped-up today for me ... ankle-boots have a 3x higher money value than the carbaniare (sp?), while ankle-boots have 1 point less armour value, any idea ... are there other hidden stats for certain items?

Edit2: What i would like to know is, how does the AI recruit their units (or here "troops"), what do the costs for the AI, the upgrade etc. ... is it all complete different to the player or are there also same factors/impacts/circumstances - troop stats are the same, i think (bit different per set difficulty perhaps), but everything regarding costs etc. is complete different designed?)? Ajaxjs, as you dig into the codes, can you enlighten me a bit more?
Coming from Total War and such games, also Paradox, the M&B system is still totally new for me. I'm slowly coming behind the secret of the M&B special/extra challenge: The AI has a lot asymmetrical advantages to the player - this as conception - you, the player, are the poor guy who has to overcome all that what the AI world lives (if one wants, because it's a total sandbox-system, makes it very charming) ... in Calradia, a quasi fantasy world, i had have no problem with that conception, i even questioned nothing really (i formerly played Skyrim, with big passion, just complete RPG, but with some realism mods), but in Brytenwalda, which lives also from possible historical immersion and realism, i feel also a bit of a pain (now), esp. when one likes to tweak realism (and historical realism, in my case) for an increased immersion. I even can imagine, that TaleWorlds knows about all that, and therefor creates not a real historical framework as game (just no in history existing scenarios, so a player versed in history doesn't take the whole thing too serious?).
Perhaps all the realism efforts or better said expectations, which we possibly try to realise or wanna see in-game, are a bit too much for the basic M&B Warband game-conception? Ajaxjs, what are your thoughts here? How far do we go for the realism in Brytenwalda, lol. What are your plans actually for the submod?
I guess i support every way which you go, because as of yet i like very much what you do, expecting that will stay that way, and'll play your submod.
But as for me and modding ... when i think about Brytenwalda, one could change A LOT in this game (so far modifiable, of course) - but i personally won't mod again, except some very very small and easy and fast things.
Atm. i have time to play and all that, very soon that will end and well, i have to pop into the serious RL again, pity and/or luck, i'm a freelancer ... complex projects coming.

Thanks for your thoughts, Dav.

There's a lot I'd like to do with Brytenwalda. I put a lot of this out here hoping that a better modder that was still around, might find a way to incorporate it more seamlessly into something like TML or such.

I am slowly acquainting myself with the scripts - and most of that is how to modify it without overwriting everything else. And eventually, I'll probably release something along those lines. Until then, it's mostly economy, troop, skill tweaking, and waiting to see if anyone else has input, their feedback and experiences on it.

At some point, I might try and figure out how to tweak CAI. But a major part of that is getting rid of the odious random war declares, which I'm not sure how to do.

Currently, I plan to release an update in a little while, taking into stuff that you've mentioned here, and the ankle boots. Curious still to see if anyone besides the two of us are even using these files.

RE: The Welsh. They have 1 less power strike and 1 less iron skin than most Germanic troops, and 1-2 less strength as well. But I'll look into it.

Aye, I'm using the mod and looking forward to further progress on this, wish I could help but I have zero experience with all that but I can test . I believe it's around day 200 and I've just been playing as a soldier in Penda of Mierce army the entire time. Mierce is currently at war with Fortriu, and them alone currently only yet no military action has been pursued much, only Fortriu caravans that happen to pass through Mierce territory. Is there a certain proximity range for a kingdom to go on a military campaign, as Mierce is kinda far from any Fortriu lands so I'm not sure if having them at war with kingdoms far away will curb there power?

I appreciate the work you put into this mod and the logic you used.  I did notice a small problem with the Britons troop tree.  There doesn't appear to be any way to get mounted troops now like in the original  Brytenwalda. 

Hi ajaxys, good to see you are really active with the submod, and thanks that my comments see some consideration in your modding.

Now, you see there are a few Brytenwalda users which use your files. As modder i know that one needs some appreciation to keep up the efforts with enough fun.

RE: The Welsh. They have 1 less power strike and 1 less iron skin than most Germanic troops, and 1-2 less strength as well. But I'll look into it.

Click to expand...

You mean the common melee troops of Briton and Welsh factions here, i guess ... .
Saw that with the stats, too, in the meantime. Nonetheless, Pengwern is in my games just too good, it is probably not their units then, but just their economical power incl. the amount of lords (armies), which makes them that superior, campaign-wise. Same item with Fortriu, which have a map-position that enables them to steamroll (slowly) from north to south. Not sure what can be changed here, except that one would "invent" (implement) small factions which get one or two centers from those factions, or a gameplay-wise correction (and easier to modify), giving other existing weak factions a center from the steamrollers to increase their chances/decrease the chances of the map-steamrollers ... on the other side, that could lead to other un-wanted campaign imbalances (always be a risk), because one changed thing provokes another one, possible chain-reaction.

Anyways, for a possible test if you like to put your hands on such things, i have the concrete suggestion that one center (ie. one village/lord) from Pengwern goes to Rheged or to Dal Riata - the latter is a faction that usually early on is eleminated, if not by Fortriu then by Alt Clut or another one, but also Rheged is always an early elemination candidate; this just in my testgames.
Another center could go to Dal Riata from Fortriu (or even two?), if Rheged gets a center from Pengwern (or also Crafu, but this faction seems to keep its position already quite good).
Well, as such start-map changes are 1. not so easy to do, and 2. are risky for the impact, we should wait with such changes possibly, until a lot other tweak things are done and also tested.

Short about the ankle boots: They are not 3x more expensive but ca. 2x ... well, just a little thing only in the whole cost/stats item view, which need tweaks here and there, not so important (just small adjustment thingies).

Next days, i'll work a bit more with the factions.txt file with the desired goal to support a bit more historical outcome, but as said, these starting relations will be "overwritten" then with the actual starting wars and the ongoing conflicts/wars between the factions ... so perhaps to have overall an impact with these factions.txt values, those relation values must be somehow exagerated, not only slightly modified as i did as of yet. A result might be, that the probability of a ceasefire between certain factions happens easier/faster, so a faction is not or possibly first later eleminated ... the pretty fast faction elemination of certain factions disturb me at most in the game - unfortunately, the faction elemination belongs to the Warband-Brytenwalda gameplay conception - if that could be modded out, CAI/AI behaviour wise, would be great for an increased historical-realism immersion, imo..

I will see that i upload the factions.txt for you to implement it eventually into your submod files, if you like, for testing purposes. Unfortunately we cannot upload file attachments in this forum, so i'll use a free upload/dl server and add the link in a post.



Can you tell me, do you have a certain date for the next update-release?

Redleg said:

I appreciate the work you put into this mod and the logic you used.  I did notice a small problem with the Britons troop tree.  There doesn't appear to be any way to get mounted troops now like in the original  Brytenwalda.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate that issue? Which troop type exactly? Ie. a screenshot?

Iirc., when for example i as player have certain briton foot troops in my party, i see the upgrade option to mounted ones, and also AI factions have them, besides that can find/add such freed prisoners.

Are you sure, that your file basis is correct, ie. no other mod files that play into it?

But maybe i'm somehow wrong and you are right, i'll check that, too, with my next game activation.

DaVincix said:

Redleg said:

I appreciate the work you put into this mod and the logic you used.  I did notice a small problem with the Britons troop tree.  There doesn't appear to be any way to get mounted troops now like in the original  Brytenwalda.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate that issue? Which troop type exactly? Ie. a screenshot?

Iirc., when for example i as player have certain briton foot troops in my party, i see the upgrade option to mounted ones, and also AI factions have them, besides that can find/add such freed prisoners.

Are you sure, that your file basis is correct, ie. no other mod files that play into it?

But maybe i'm somehow wrong and you are right, i'll check that, too, with my next game activation.

Click to expand...

I'll have to check when I get home.  I appreciate your quick reply.

DaVincix said:

Redleg said:

I appreciate the work you put into this mod and the logic you used.  I did notice a small problem with the Britons troop tree.  There doesn't appear to be any way to get mounted troops now like in the original  Brytenwalda.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate that issue? Which troop type exactly? Ie. a screenshot?

Iirc., when for example i as player have certain briton foot troops in my party, i see the upgrade option to mounted ones, and also AI factions have them, besides that can find/add such freed prisoners.

Are you sure, that your file basis is correct, ie. no other mod files that play into it?

But maybe i'm somehow wrong and you are right, i'll check that, too, with my next game activation.

Click to expand...

Okay- In your mod, the Gwyrda can be promoted into a uchelwr or a cadwr.  In the original Brytenwalda game, the Gwrda could be promoted into a marhoc (mounted) or a cadwr (at least according to the troop tree).

Redleg said:

DaVincix said:

Redleg said:

I appreciate the work you put into this mod and the logic you used.  I did notice a small problem with the Britons troop tree.  There doesn't appear to be any way to get mounted troops now like in the original  Brytenwalda.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate that issue? Which troop type exactly? Ie. a screenshot?

Iirc., when for example i as player have certain briton foot troops in my party, i see the upgrade option to mounted ones, and also AI factions have them, besides that can find/add such freed prisoners.

Are you sure, that your file basis is correct, ie. no other mod files that play into it?

But maybe i'm somehow wrong and you are right, i'll check that, too, with my next game activation.

Click to expand...

Okay- In your mod, the Gwyrda can be promoted into a uchelwr or a cadwr.  In the original Brytenwalda game, the Gwrda could be promoted into a marhoc (mounted) or a cadwr (at least according to the troop tree).

Click to expand...

I replied above in assistance to ajaxjs ... and because i wanna help in the development of the BW Realism mod.

Perhaps he has indeed changed the trooptree/upgrade options for certain troops, but iirc., he didn't mention it in his submod descriptions.

But i think, decisive is the actual upgrade of troops when you see (click) them in the troop-stack of your party ... there you should check the options.

So if you see there strange changes which shouldn't be in your opinion, list them up here, then ajaxjs can investigate (and reply) it better per mentioned troop type.

According to your trooptree in your game:
Uchewr and Cadwr are both heavy foot, iirc..
Do you have now no other briton/welsh upgrades to mounted troops? Perhaps he changed it somehow, that briton/welsh have mounted upgrades over other troops?

But i guess you'll get a reliable reply by him, when he arrives here again, just if it is a wanted change or a mistake.

Dark Age, Germanic Piracy (from Roman times on)

Historical article, source: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2745864&postcount=29

I put it up, because i mentioned above in a post, that the "Dena" and "Franks" Sea Raiders/Pirates wouldn't be that realistic as terms and their equipment, and of course, not that massive as the Brytenwalda gameplay suggests.

My interpretation:

For Britain, it wasn't 'Lindisfarne' 793 AD alone, that's clear, but probably that event was remarkable and thus that important noted in english history due to the fact, that a christian monastry was practically razed there with locally unknown brutality, by the so-called first Vikings - nothing else than heathen Norse men (from Norway), which raided traditionally formerly in the Baltic Sea coastal regions (as far as history suggests).

However, what i researched now again is, that several different germanic Sea Raiders were active in the Channel and North Sea (the closer Baltic Sea anyway, and even the Atlantic and further) - and that's also plausible.
The article linked above describes, that these folks even challenged the Roman navies which were stationed in these northern areas, in the antique and late-antique period.

Alone the historical fact, that continental Saxon, Angles (todays North-Germany) and Frisians (todays Holland/Netherlands) and Jutes (todays Denmark) invaded Britain from on ca. 4th/5th century were seafarers (or how could they cross the North Sea? with all their families and whatnot), suggests, that many of those people (also when only little coastal groups, not the whole tribes) were also sea-raiders, traditionally so to speak.
Certainly, also Frankish sea-raiders were underways, but i just think, they were of the same tradition as of the more northern Germanic sea-raiders.

Still i question somehow, that "Dena" and "Franks" are the right terms, realism-wise, for the Brytenwalda gameplay.
Gameplay-wise, one can interprete the Sea-Raiders as good equipped and also skilled, because of the many (successful) robberies, so in principle the realism is given here - only the frequence, i would say, is too high and their counts bit too massive.


Edit: (kinda offtopic)

Redleg said:

I appreciate the work you put into this mod and the logic you used.  I did notice a small problem with the Britons troop tree.  There doesn't appear to be any way to get mounted troops now like in the original  Brytenwalda.

Click to expand...

Interesting. TML originally changed the troop tree around, and all I did was put it back to the way that the 'troop tree graphic' shows in the game. In my own games, I've trained Briton cavalry without issue. It was TML that made it so cavalry derived from uchewlr. Try going down the other path. I don't have the editor open with me at the moment, but its the skirmisher line that leads to their cavalry.


DaV:

As for Dena Raiders and Franks, they're not realistic at all, really. But the only solution would be to simply remove them, and I think too many people like that, for it to just be replaced with more bandits. It would probably be better to treat them like roaming bands of Angle, Saxon or Jutish warriors, and in my head, that's pretty much what they are to me. But it might be worth looking into, if renaming some things, would mess anything else up too much.