[Development] - Suggestions, Brainstorming Thread for V5

[HTAPAWASO]

I think we're all agreed that healing is too fast in M&B.  And I like your ideas about movement vs. stopped resting affecting the rate of healing.

However, replacing healing is a fair bit of work (means disabling the built-in skill, and replacing it with a hand-made one, and coding all of the parts of the game where it needs to have an effect).  So will be a while before I get to it.

Hospitals - I really dislike the idea.  Seriously?  What 10th or 11th century town had a hospital that *healed* anything?  Sure, there must have been infirmaries, but medicine was incredibly primitive and largely wrong-headed.  Leaches, blood-letting, crude amputations, unsanitary water, unsanitary general conditions, tons of superstition, no bio-science to speak of, etc., etc.  At best you had priests cutting up guts of animals, or performing mumbo-jumbo rituals & rites, and incense for you.  if you were rich, that is.  Otherwise its get out of bed you lazy !@#$!@ and get the animals fed & work the fields, etc., or you starve to death, period.

Disease, overcrowding, and everyone living in their own or their neighbors wastes (and the animals they all kept) were the norms, and likely the principle limits on population density.

Well while medicine was certainly limited at the time, simply having a set-aside place to rest and be looked after would be of great help to a wounded person.

You don't have to call it a hospital, but armies of the time certainly did understand the merit of letting the wounded rest, and of dressing wounds. Maybe make it only available in castles, and give it a more appropriate name, but have the effects be the same.

Monasteries would often take on the job of caring for sick civilians, so perhaps they should be buildable in towns, and have a small impact on health.

 

[Rolos]

I think we're all agreed that healing is too fast in M&B.  And I like your ideas about movement vs. stopped resting affecting the rate of healing.

However, replacing healing is a fair bit of work (means disabling the built-in skill, and replacing it with a hand-made one, and coding all of the parts of the game where it needs to have an effect).  So will be a while before I get to it.

Hospitals - I really dislike the idea.  Seriously?  What 10th or 11th century town had a hospital that *healed* anything?  Sure, there must have been infirmaries, but medicine was incredibly primitive and largely wrong-headed.  Leaches, blood-letting, crude amputations, unsanitary water, unsanitary general conditions, tons of superstition, no bio-science to speak of, etc., etc.  At best you had priests cutting up guts of animals, or performing mumbo-jumbo rituals & rites, and incense for you.  if you were rich, that is.  Otherwise its get out of bed you lazy !@#$!@ and get the animals fed & work the fields, etc., or you starve to death, period.

Disease, overcrowding, and everyone living in their own or their neighbors wastes (and the animals they all kept) were the norms, and likely the principle limits on population density.

Clerical medicine, often called monastic medicine, was provided as part of a religious duty, with payments and income made via a church rather than directly. The Rule of St Benedict states that "before and above all things, care must be taken of the sick, that they be served in very truth as Christ is served."[4] Virtually every monastery had an infirmary for the monks or nuns, and this led to provision being made for the care of secular patients. Almost a half of the hospitals in medieval Europe were directly affiliated with monasteries, priories or other religious institutions. Many of the rest imitated religious communities, formulated precise rules of conduct, required a uniform type of dress, and integrated worship services into their daily routine.

Physicians, who studied the works of the Greek masters at Universities, were the self-proclaimed elite of the medical profession. It was an uncommon role, in a study of 13th century Worcester there were just three physicians amidst 10,000 other taxpayers,[5] and few people other than the well-off or the nobility had regular access to these. Physicians diagnosed their patients by close examination of their blood, urine and stools, and determined their complexion or balance of humours. They could prescribe medicines, or bloodletting from various parts of the body to rectify the balance of humours. Physicians could also attempt surprisingly complex operations like trepanation of the skull, to relieve pressure on the brain, or the removal of eye cataracts.

In the Medieval period the term hospital encompassed hostels for travellers, dispensaries for poor relief, clinics and surgeries for the injured, and homes for the blind, lame, elderly, and mentally ill. Monastic hospitals developed many treatments, both therapeutic and spiritual. Patients were supposed to help each other through prayer and calm, perhaps benefiting as much from this as from any physical treatment offered. Some hospitals had as few as ten beds, but others were far larger. St Leonard's in York is recorded as catering for 225 sick and poor in 1287. And in Florence there were over thirty hospitals by 1400, one of which, the hospital of Santa Maria Nuova had, by 1500, a staff of ten doctors, a pharmacist and several others, including female surgeons.

The 12th century saw the establishment of the Knights Hospitaller, a unique mixture of monastic, military, and medical life. The Hospitallers ran hospitals in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the Crusader states, and their order eventually spread to the rest of Europe as well.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_medicine

Sure, their methods might have been ineffective, but by that logic healing should be removed altogether from the game.

 

[Mordachai]

You don't have to call it a hospital, but armies of the time certainly did understand the merit of letting the wounded rest, and of dressing wounds. Maybe make it only available in castles, and give it a more appropriate name, but have the effects be the same.

I think that's an anachronism.  People of the time lived until they got a serious wound or ailment.  Then they festered and died.

Trivial wounds, like a broken bone (not a fracture, just a clean break), or minor sickness like the common cold and flu, although considerably more deadly than now, were reasonably survivable.  But actually dedicating societal resources to care for those who couldn't contribute, and who were, in all reasonable likelihood, never going to be able to contribute again, is a super-recent phenomenon, due to advances in food production, food transportation, and general abundance.

Monasteries would often take on the job of caring for sick civilians, so perhaps they should be buildable in towns, and have a small impact on health.

For the noble classes and for the wealthiest of the merchant classes, true. 

Few institutions existed that could afford to take care of the general sick of the population, from everything I've read (and the above Wikipedia seems to largely corroborate my position, at least before about 1400).

Linked from the Wikipedia page aforementioned: http://www.revelationsoftware.com.au/medievalhygiene/Hygienein%20towns.htm
A quote:

The wells that the people drunk out of were often polluted so beer and wine was often drunken. Unlike our times there was no garbage service so people would simply toss there rubbish in the street. Some peasants houses were made out of manure, the manure was used to hold the whole thing together. Large animals were also kept inside of peoples homes. These animals usually shared the room with about 10 other people. People would also just go to the toilet in the corner of there houses and just leave it there.  Most towns had open sewers and animals happily walking around dropping waste where ever they go. People who sold food and especially meat would often leave the meat out for days in the London streets, they were still able to sell it to hungry customers though. When a Dutchman was visiting an English home in London this is what he had to say

" The floors are commonly of clay, strewed with rubbish under which lies undisturbed an ancient collection of beer, spittle grease, bones, droppings of animals and men and everything that is nasty."

 

[Mordachai]

New Event: Fire / Flood / Volcano

Fire being a common event in medieval towns, due to building materials being largely flammable, and open fire being the norm.

Flooding was more common than today due to a lack of water control systems.

Volcano - as rare then as today, but utterly devastating when it happened.

 

[HTAPAWASO]

You don't have to call it a hospital, but armies of the time certainly did understand the merit of letting the wounded rest, and of dressing wounds. Maybe make it only available in castles, and give it a more appropriate name, but have the effects be the same.

I think that's an anachronism.  People of the time lived until they got a serious wound or ailment.  Then they festered and died.

Trivial wounds, like a broken bone (not a fracture, just a clean break), or minor sickness like the common cold and flu, although considerably more deadly than now, were reasonably survivable.  But actually dedicating societal resources to care for those who couldn't contribute, and who were, in all reasonable likelihood, never going to be able to contribute again, is a super-recent phenomenon, due to advances in food production, food transportation, and general abundance.

I think that, while certainly many more people died of wounds in the past than do now, it's been a steady process of improvement rather than every single infected person in medieval times dying.
Certainly, the author of this site (http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Medicine/military.html) details many "remedies" (whether they were effective or not) of the period. He also mentions that crusader cities usually had hospitals, and that makeshift field hospitals were also common-place.

And it wasn't limited to the crusades either:
"During the thirteenth century an immense number of hospitals were built. The Italian cities were the leaders of the movement. Milan had no fewer than a dozen hospitals and Florence before the end of the Fourteenth century had some thirty hospitals." - James Joseph Walsh

Monasteries would often take on the job of caring for sick civilians, so perhaps they should be buildable in towns, and have a small impact on health.

For the noble classes and for the wealthiest of the merchant classes, true. 

Few institutions existed that could afford to take care of the general sick of the population, from everything I've read (and the above Wikipedia seems to largely corroborate my position, at least before about 1400).

I'm not sure that's true.

"But I must not conclude my work by omitting what he did for the poor outside the walls of the city Canterbury. In brief, he constructed a decent and ample house of stone…for different needs and conveniences. He divided the main building into two, appointing one part for men oppressed by various kinds of infirmities and the other for women in a bad state of health. He also made arrangements for their clothing and daily food, appointing ministers and guardians to take all measures so that nothing should be lacking for them."
That quote is from the 12th century

I have no doubt that the wealthy members of society had far greater healthcare than the poor, but there were those dedicated to serving all people, mainly stemming from the church.

Wealthy people had their own surgeons. Monasteries were charities to serve the poor.

Have a read of this: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/science--a-day-in-the-life-of-a-medieval-hospital-on-a-windswept-hill-in-scotland-archaeologists-are-excavating-the-site-of-an-infirmary-run-by-monks-their-finds-shed-new-light-on-medical-practice-in-the-middle-ages-says-steve-connor-1484182.html

A quote:
"Hospitals then were not exactly as we think of them today, he adds. 'Their purpose in the Middle Ages was to provide a range of basic hospitality. One of the specific purposes of this one, according to its charters, was to look after the sick, the aged, the infirm and the poor."

 

[Mordachai]

Okay, so from your POV the middle ages had an abundance of hospitals, took care of its poor, its sick, and its homeless?
...So then we've slid considerably backwards since then!  If only modern cities did so well.

Yes, I'm sure that the science of medicine, as well as the art thereof, has been an industry of many minds and bodies over the preceding millennia.  And I am equally sure that modern medicine did not hatch fully-formed out of thin air in the past two centuries.

However, to say that hospitals - in the sense that we use the word - as a major place that practices medicine and heals its patients to wholeness - existed in the middle ages is ludicrous.  Hospitals, as several of the links indicate, were largely grown out of the concept of hospitable/hospitality, which is more like an inn, a way station for those on a pilgrimage to the holy lands.   That they offered a form of succor, both physical and spiritual, I have no doubt.  but to make the leap to say that they actually significantly affected the overall health of the citizenry of the times is a rather unfounded leap of gigantic proportions.

I'm sure that there were philanthropists and altruists and other self-sacrificing individuals then as now.  However, I call into serious question the effectiveness of their ministrations.  Simply put: all of the good intentions of those ages could not a sick person heal.

Its like so many of our current "Events" in the game - everyone seems to feel compelled to have a Disney(tm) option in there that makes it always come out okay.  As though plague had a solution!  As though it was possible to throw money at an issue and make it all better!

The medieval period was not noted for its abundances, nor for its humanitarian efforts by and large, nor is it known (or western society in general) for its cleanliness or good health practices.  It IS known for its squalor, its festering conditions of absolute poverty and poor hygiene, for its ill-conceived notions of what is good for the body and spirit, and for its utter lack of compassion for the peasantry.  Stories of those who made any great effort on the poorest citizens behalf (and I use "citizen" extremely loosely here, since almost all peasants weren't citizens until only the most recent of times, and still only in some parts of the world today), ... those individuals were generally accorded sainthood - hardly a common title to bestow on anyone.

It is a clever and fun euphemism to largely sanitize and gloss over the middle ages as a place of honor and glory, for king and country.  But to add hospitals in the sense of improved healing for anything but the most minute percentage of the population is grossly exaggerating their actual function and competence at that time.

 

[Sibilance]

That was an illuminating hospital discussion, I love watching that stuff happen on mod boards.

Anyway, I'm still frustrated by the tedium and disorganization that results from not being completely able to set my troops in order in regimental stacks and garrisons. Making the "Move Up" and "Move Down" buttons always work everywhere would be best, but that was hardcoded; however, this issue is still important enough to streamline a bit.

So, how about this as a workaround: have a dialogue option with organizing Regiments, and with the Marshall inside castles and towns, which would shuffle your troops into a more reasonable queue. The most useful and probably simplest thing would be an order to put the best troops to the front, which would make a given stack or garrison line up by Levels. I end up with a lot of doughy human fluff like Peasants and Forest Bandits in my forces, and it's a nightmare to try to keep good troops on top of the list or muster them out for a siege. It would suck to lose the ladder in a siege just because a pile of Peasants were on the wall where my Sharpshooters were supposed to be.

Beyond that, given the way multiple regiments will each spawn just a few troops from their top slots in each battle, it could be handy to have commands to put Infantry, Archers, or Cavalry to the top of a regiment's queue, in order to balance and tailor your critical first wave to the threat you'll be facing. By issuing these commands multiple times, you'd also be able to do things such as layer a stack Archers/Infantry/Cavalry if it's for a siege, and then pluck the low-level troops out via the old "into your party >> bottom of the stack" fandango.

This could cut down on a lot of boring and tedious troop shuffling, and keep players on the move and in the fight. You think you can pull it off?

 

[HTAPAWASO]

Okay, so from your POV the middle ages had an abundance of hospitals, took care of its poor, its sick, and its homeless?
...So then we've slid considerably backwards since then!  If only modern cities did so well.

Yes, I'm sure that the science of medicine, as well as the art thereof, has been an industry of many minds and bodies over the preceding millennia.  And I am equally sure that modern medicine did not hatch fully-formed out of thin air in the past two centuries.

However, to say that hospitals - in the sense that we use the word - as a major place that practices medicine and heals its patients to wholeness - existed in the middle ages is ludicrous.  Hospitals, as several of the links indicate, were largely grown out of the concept of hospitable/hospitality, which is more like an inn, a way station for those on a pilgrimage to the holy lands.  That they offered a form of succor, both physical and spiritual, I have no doubt.  but to make the leap to say that they actually significantly affected the overall health of the citizenry of the times is a rather unfounded leap of gigantic proportions.

I'm sure that there were philanthropists and altruists and other self-sacrificing individuals then as now.  However, I call into serious question the effectiveness of their ministrations.  Simply put: all of the good intentions of those ages could not a sick person heal.

Its like so many of our current "Events" in the game - everyone seems to feel compelled to have a Disney(tm) option in there that makes it always come out okay.  As though plague had a solution!  As though it was possible to throw money at an issue and make it all better!

The medieval period was not noted for its abundances, nor for its humanitarian efforts by and large, nor is it known (or western society in general) for its cleanliness or good health practices.  It IS known for its squalor, its festering conditions of absolute poverty and poor hygiene, for its ill-conceived notions of what is good for the body and spirit, and for its utter lack of compassion for the peasantry.  Stories of those who made any great effort on the poorest citizens behalf (and I use "citizen" extremely loosely here, since almost all peasants weren't citizens until only the most recent of times, and still only in some parts of the world today), ... those individuals were generally accorded sainthood - hardly a common title to bestow on anyone.

It is a clever and fun euphemism to largely sanitize and gloss over the middle ages as a place of honor and glory, for king and country.  But to add hospitals in the sense of improved healing for anything but the most minute percentage of the population is grossly exaggerating their actual function and competence at that time.

I am by no means trying to suggest that medieval hospitals were anywhere near as effective as they were today, merely that they did exist in some form and did have an impact.

Take the city of Florence. Some of the most impressive buildings in the city are the orphanage, the hospital, the many monasteries which seeked to take care of the poor.
They were all donated to the city by the wealthy not just for humanitarian reasons but to gain popular support.

I can't speak in confidence about the rest of Europe because I have only studied Italy in depth, but to suggest that no effort to take care of the poor and sick is a great simplification.
Again, I'm not saying they had welfare packages or anything such as today - merely that there was something.


But from a game stance, I'm really not talking about that kind of hospital.
All I'm talking about is a place within a castle/city reserved for wounded soldiers where they can rest. Call it a barracks if you like.

If you believe that nobody recovered from their wounds in medieval times, why have a healing system within the army at all?

 

[Sibilance]

How about a new order for Regiments, "Follow but do not engage"? Having the freedom to employ precise surgical force in order to maximize renown, loot, and key troop experience is one of the coolest things about the regiment system. I'm usually bounding ahead of my regiments to pull this stuff off anyway, and it'd be more fun for me to set up gentlemanly outnumbered fights without worrying about my midnight-Training heap of Farmers spoiling the sport.

Also, two simple MageLord tweaks I'd like to see in this mod are hero garrisoning and the one which lets you get another quest from a village elder in 36 hours, instead of never(!) if that one hasn't been implemented already.

The Native way of paying Travelers and tracking down your old comrades works okay and is a nice side-game on trade routes, but I'd really prefer to keep my heroes on retainer. Native doesn't really afford a way to keep angsty mercs from stomping off in a huff, and I'd say that personality conflicts are better appeased by dumping whiny folks in one of my towns for a few days of wine, women, and wages. Hey, I'm an enlightened despot; my pampered mercenaries deserve a bit of R&R!

 

[Sildae]

The Hospital debate was really entertaining haha. However, as questionable the medicine of this time may be, healing is in-game, and there were medics, surgeons, marabous, shamans (call them whatever you like ) at the time. The dialogs between heroes on the method of Jeremy or the other one is there to reminds us about the "artistic" way of healing, surgery and first aid

I would stick with the crusader version. Yes it was mainly a place for hospitality, but it served for everyone (from the pilgrim to the poor). The idea was to provide a place to rest, a meal, and sometimes heals, surgery etc.. It was clearly for the poor ones who cannot afford to go to inns for their pilgrimage...

I think it's more like what we call now dispensaries,  healing from the social life to first aid... sometimes providing beds.

So, if we come back to the game itself, i think it's a good way to asset what it could benefits the towns : people will like you more (because it helps the poor ones), a little bit health and faith (because it's held by the religious powers).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That being said :p , I would like to take about another completely different topic ! The way you hire Lords/ladies and their "rank". in game the more you have the greater rank they spawn with. In history, it was the land that you possessed that granted you your rank (simplified). I do not know if it can be done, however, but well, think it's harmless to express my thoughts

I would love to see something more dynamical : The lord spawn as "Noble" {lordname}
If you give him
1 village <  "Lord" < village + castle
2 castles < "Baron" < 3 Castles
4 castles < "Duke" < 5 Castles
6 castles < Count < 7 castles
8 Castle + 1 Town < Prince <  2 Towns + (8+) castles
King = 3 Towns + (8+) castles
The Lord/Lady that hits the rank King can hire some lords (but they can be only granted castle and cannot be promoted)
The Player Is beginning as King/Queen, asap he manage to make one lord to hit the king rank, this triggers a little event with the council asking to proclaim yourself Emperor, and then letting you know that Prince {lordname} was crowned King of the province {you choose how to name it}.

If a new tax system is implemented, it will be worth to grant more power to your lords (and will give a better imersive feeling to the game). For example, when you have secured a big part of the map, it may be a cool feature to let the kingdom empire in good hands while you are launching a crusade against your next target And Gaining the Emperor Rank for yourself could result in a significant boost in renown (and Troops you can handle at a time... )

Well then, good luck with the SO HUGE implementation of the auxiliarii variant in a "SoD v4.5 GOLD EDITION" release (the tweaks made or intended by Twan sounds really great)

 

[Mordachai]

Renaming / titling lords is a wonderful idea.  Sadly, it did not occur to TaleWorlds, so the M&B system just doesn't handle it.  The work-around is insane - literally over a thousand edits to try to circumvent their missing this basic and useful feature.  So won't happen.

I have already made it such that your "recruited lords" are in random order, just to mix things up a bit.  But titles aren't likely to ever happen

As I said before, I find the idea of a building that you can add to a town that improves health beyond what your Churches and Monasteries do to be absurd.  Ergo, I won't be adding one to the game.  Maybe Mistont or Twan will, I dunno.  But for myself, I'd put machine guns in first.

As to choosing who's in a battle, so that you can maximize your XP, advantage numbers, that was discussed briefly and the team did not like the idea at all.  So its out.  If you drag patrols around with you, they're in the battle.  If you station them far enough away, they're not.

As to making your companions into lords or patrol leaders / generals, I expect we'll do something along those lines... eventually...  probably...

 

[jasonxfri13th]

I am still not a fan of making companions lords/generals.

For me the whole point of having them is to watch them level up and buy them very good equipment. It is a nice feeling to see your companions charge up the siege ladder and instead of dying in 5 seconds they kill 5 units and jump over the wall to kill some more. Making them lords/generals would basically take away all of the work and money spent into training and equiping them. It is cool because it is basically like having a small party lime in other RPG games that you level up. (not like normal units who you can not cutomize) So if companions would be lords/generals who would replace them??

 

[Rolos]

I am still not a fan of making companions lords/generals.

For me the whole point of having them is to watch them level up and buy them very good equipment. It is a nice feeling to see your companions charge up the siege ladder and instead of dying in 5 seconds they kill 5 units and jump over the wall to kill some more. Making them lords/generals would basically take away all of the work and money spent into training and equiping them. It is cool because it is basically like having a small party lime in other RPG games that you level up. (not like normal units who you can not cutomize) So if companions would be lords/generals who would replace them??

Send off the ones you wouldn't be able to keep in your party due to conflicts with other companions. Wouldn't you rather have an extra ally with you (albeit leading a different party), than a deserter?

 

[Mordachai]

von's not a fan of it either.  Hence the maybe.  However, many folks come and ask, and we've done things that the majority wants  on occasion (q.v. Tactics Battle Kit).

Even if we did add the ability to, nobody would force you to use it.  Just like patrols - I feel like they're akin to cheating.  So I don't use them.  Doesn't make me right or wrong, and doesn't impact your game where you happily use them, eh?  So if we did add them, some would use that feature, some wouldn't, and I would consider that a personal preference (which is why the poster whining about being allowed to abuse the tournament thing is so annoying - if you don't like a feature, don't use it).

 

[jasonxfri13th]

I wouldn't care if it was added, but I would not use it. But I do not want something to happen like it becomes required, like they replace the current lord system.

I do not like using patrols and I do not think it is fun to not be allowed to have so few units, a king would be able to lead thousands of troops with no problem so I usually fiddle around with the txt files.
So I do not care about conflicts because I simply disable them.

It would be best if it was optional, then it would be a win-win situation.

 

[Mordachai]

win-win is best!

Yeah, I like to try to put in controls for turning stuff on and off.  We'll see.

I'd like to offer  a choice between patrols and larger party size.  Personally, I'd much prefer that.

If only I could take a 6 mo. hiatus from my real job and just do this for a while, then I could get it all in there.

 

[alcibiades]

I do like the on/off controls, especially on the formations code. I'm torn on that one at the moment. I like it, but I also hate that the enemy abandons their mounts and congregates in the corner of the map after "fleeing in terror." That's an engine limitation of course, but it is still fun to chase down a routing enemy and turn them into shishkabob. (Or herd them all into the corner and turn them into pincushions )

 

[Sibilance]

As to choosing who's in a battle, so that you can maximize your XP, advantage numbers, that was discussed briefly and the team did not like the idea at all.  So its out.  If you drag patrols around with you, they're in the battle.  If you station them far enough away, they're not.

Naturally. And just like how you posted, it's a matter of personal preference in how I play the game.

That said, the regiment system is a key part of your team's design space, so what did you think of my first idea to make it less clunky to work with?

 

[Mordachai]

Sibilance - the main reason I haven't really gotten into a discussion of that idea is that I just don't care what order my lords or patrols (or even garrisons) come in to the battle.

I have never tried to sort them.

It sounds like a nice, but totally minor feature.  And since there isn't any native sorting in MS, I'd have to write a bubble sort or quick-sort from scratch, using only the clunky MS mechanics to do so.  Far from impossible, but a fair bit of work which when compared to the motivation level (hovering around zero), you might imagine why it hasn't really registered on my radar.

If you want to write that algorithm, and test it, and then give it to me as a kit, I'd be happy to integrate it (time permitting).  But since I just don't have a desire for it... I'm afraid its way down on my list.

I'm sorry.

Feel free to keep asking... priorities change

 

[Sibilance]

Thanks for replying. And yes, it is rather minor, but for those of us who really play heavily in the regiment system it's a constant nuisance. Shuffling large quantities of troops around with the Native mechanics is such a gigantic pain that it becomes kind of a fun-killer; fighting with the interface is distracting and can really kill the mood for actually playing the game.

Anyway, I am an ignoramus in coding, but gameplay reasoning and nagging I can do. Vonmistont, if you're out there... can you make this happen? Pretty please? With sugar on top?