Recent content by Helerek

  1. Helerek

    If no nerfs for Fians or Khan's Guard then..

    thomas13 said:
    When it's player vs AI, yes the AI will have a tendency to cheat. When it's AI vs AI they're bound to the same rules as the player with no scouting. In the scenario I described it's AI vs AI. I think the reason they enable the AI to cheat against the player is because the player is overpowered. Now I'm not saying I agree with the AI cheating but I think it's set up that way to level the playing field but they do it in a very odd way. The should should just strengthen AI nobles so they don't have to cheat.
    Click to expand...
    Ah fair, I didn't see that post mentioning AI vs AI. When it comes to that I didn't notice anything out of order.
  2. Helerek

    If no nerfs for Fians or Khan's Guard then..

    thomas13 said:
    Or maybe there are two truths but you only want to see one.
    Click to expand...
    Idk I played roguery playthrough with all factions at war with me and experienced whole factions following me out of my scouting vision (250+). I have a fair share of 50 hours of runing away from those parties (even tho I was on the opposite side of kingdom they still kept coming for me). I can make a video to prove it to you if don't believe me. Was on 1.8.1 beta. Doubt it's fixed.
  3. Helerek

    If no nerfs for Fians or Khan's Guard then..

    thomas13 said:
    Not true. AI nobles are limited by the fog of war. And their vision is the same as a player with no scouting. Follow an AI army sometime and watch as they walk right up to a larger enemy army and they turn around at the last second. Why? Because they don't see them. AI nobles are nerfed compared to the player.
    Click to expand...
    Lmao no. It's not even a 1% truth. I had 1 noble chase me from battania all the way up to Khuzait without vision. Then I used cheats to see 12 enemy lords chasing me with no vision on me. AI is cheating when it comes to vision since 1.8? Maybe 1.8.1
  4. Helerek

    xml vs xslt for troop override question

    NPC99 said:
    I'm not surprised. Your XSLT will remove every NPCCharacter from the game - all the troops, Lords, notables, villagers etc. which the game's code expects to be there (NPCCharatcters exist in a lot more files than just spnpccharacters.xml). The example I gave only removed one NPCCharacter the imperial_recruit and would need a related xml adding back a new version of that imperial_recruit or the game would crash in its absence (unless all references to it and dependencies on it in other xmls are also edited out).
    Click to expand...
    It was crashing due to wrong xslt code. The online xslt checker worked like a charm.
    Also you can remove a unit and not replace it. The game will work fine until you see the unit on campaing map or inspect it in encyclopedia (little trivia).
  5. Helerek

    xml vs xslt for troop override question

    // Nvm I managed to find few fixes that helped me get the whole problem out of my way. Thanks for reading and sorry for pinging you D:

    NPC99 said:
    When you create your module from the option in the scene editor, it populates your mod's SubModule.xml file. One of its XmlNodes includes: <XmlName id="NPCCharacters" path="spnpccharacters"/> which tells the game to look in your mod's ModuleData folder for an xml called spnpccharacters.xml
    If your spnpccharacters.xml only includes new troops or characters which are additional to those in ...\SandBoxCore\ModuleData\spnpccharacters.xml you don't need to do anything more and you'll get both sets in game.
    If your spnpccharacters.xml includes edited troops or characters already in ...\SandBoxCore\ModuleData\spnpccharacters.xml it will overwrite all of the Sandboxcore entries apart from those relating to equipment where it will add your equipment to the Sandbox equipment, making a mess. To avoid this you need to use XSLT to delete the edited Sandboxcore troops or characters. That requires an spnpccharacters.xslt file in this format:
    XML: 
    <xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
<xsl:output omit-xml-declaration="yes"/>
<xsl:template match="@*|node()">
    <xsl:copy>
        <xsl:apply-templates select="@*|node()"/>
    </xsl:copy>
</xsl:template>
 
    <xsl:template match="NPCCharacter[@id='imperial_recruit']"/>

</xsl:stylesheet>
    The first part down to </xsl:template> just tells the engine to omit the matches listed below. In this example, I've only deleted imperial_recruit. You just need to use that line and substitute the correct id. For several troops just list them under <xsl:template match="NPCCharacter[@id='imperial_recruit']"/> and before </xsl:stylesheet>

    PS your spnpccharacters.xslt file needs to be in the same folder as your spnpccharacters.xml file (i.e. your mod's ModuleData folder unless you modify the path in your SubModule.xml).
    PPS if you copied the whole of SandboxCore's spnpccharacters.xml to your ModuleData folder, you could use an XSLT like the example given in Taleworlds Documentation to replace all settlements rather than listing individual troops.
    Click to expand...
    Tried it out multiple times in 1.9 and doesn't seem to work.
    As soon as I create xslt file (even with only 2 lines of stylesheet /stylesheet) it crashes when I open sandbox/campaing.

    XML: 
    <xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
    <xsl:output omit-xml-declaration="yes"/>
    <xsl:template match="@*|node()">
        <xsl:copy>
            <xsl:apply-templates select="@*|node()"/>
        </xsl:copy>
    </xsl:template>
    <xsl:template match="NPCCharacter"/>
</xsl:stylesheet>

    As soon as I remove that file it works all well. I even tried removing all content and only leaving first and last line. For some reason it keeps crashing when I enter campaing/sandbox.
  6. Helerek

    If no nerfs for Fians or Khan's Guard then..

    Brano said:
    Units like Khan's guard should be available only to...like ..khan? You know. Khan...guards?
    I'm five years into my actual 1.9.0 vanilla game session and all castle villages in Battania are throwing their fians at me. Im not able to absorb them into my warband anymore. But that's probably me. Being too kind with those village elders...ehm...notables and doing too much fetch-me-this quests 🤔
    Click to expand...
    Not really.
    It's super easy to get more slots for villages.
    1 is native + 1 leadership + 1 charm + 1 faction. In total you get 4 of them off the bat with not much investment, now you need only 10 more relationship (1 quest with high charm) and you get 2 more slots.
  7. Helerek

    If no nerfs for Fians or Khan's Guard then..

    JunKeteer said:
    But it's still relatively too easy to field a full troops of T6 EC/BK/KG/Fians (or a combo of those). Yes, we can choose not to do that to create a handicap for ourselves, but why not do it the other way, where it's a challenge to get a stack of T6s? Make higher tier troops wages scale higher as it's still too cheap and almost no thought is needed to just upgrade all troops at the party screen to the next tier vs balancing which you can afford to.
    Click to expand...
    As long as smithing is in game it won't matter :grin:.
  8. Helerek

    If no nerfs for Fians or Khan's Guard then..

    I think they are in fine spot, it's just AI that gets in the way.
    Yes fians/khans are domination, but the reason is the AI behaviour. Simply put horse archers vs archers and you will see that horse one will obliterate foot one for no reason (only difference being the AI behaviour).
    I had problems killing T2-3 units with my fians if they faced me and broke only 2-3 shields with 100 fians vs 10-20 enemy T2-3 units. I don't think fians deserve a nerf, but maybe shields do.
    Main problem with fians is they are archers, but also shock troops and I think it's fine for a noble unit, however their armor/weapon efficiency is too good. Maybe nerf their armor/weapon and make them slightly weaker or make troops with shields better at blocking => shields weaker => making shield infantry stronger for all factions.
  9. Helerek

    In Progress Cavalry thrust AI got bonked along the 1.7.0 to 1.8.0

    Summary: Cavalry was good in 1.7.0, however you changed the delay between thrust/prepare attack in your code resulting in cavalry missing 90% of their thrust attacks. Just watch video below, or investigate code changes to cavalry/thrusting attack delay before launching a stab (especially for...
    • Helerek
    • Thread
    • ban-36577 cavalry combat ai thrust
    • Replies: 1
    • Forum: Singleplayer
  10. Helerek

    In Progress Citizenship policy

    Summary: Citizenship policy should compare Owner.Clan.Culture to Fief.Culture. Instead it compares it to King.Culture. Either description or script is wrong. How to fix? Replace the kingdom.rulingClan.Culture with fief.Culture, so it compared fief culture to owner clan culture and not owner clan...
  11. Helerek

    Resolved "Citizenship" policy is not working as described in game.

    MArdA TaleWorlds said:
    I've been informed that this bug is fixed and the fix will be sent to the game with future patches. Thanks for reporting and sorry for any inconvenience!
    Click to expand...
    Is the fix live or should I make another thread about this not working?

    unknown.png

    What it does is compares OWNER CULTURE to KING CULTURE.
    What it should do is compare OWNER CULTURE to SETTLEMENT CULTURE.
    So a battanian lord owning a battanian fief = +0.5
    A battanian lord owning a sturgian fief = -0.5
    Currently all nobles with same culture as king get +0.5 and different culture than king -0.5
  12. Helerek

    Do you enjoy smithing?

    Do I enjoy smithing? No, but I could if they changed it. There's many bad designs like:
    1. Stamina doesn't regenerate during traveling/fighting (it should regenerate at reduced rate)
    2. Discovering parts should be decided by a player. Parts of Tier 3-4-5 should require a smithing lvl to create (not a lvl 20 smith creating a weapon worth 15k or better than any other item in game).
    3. Smithing orders are boring. You have to find 1 matching combination of a blade/handle and that's it. Sometimes you even fail while passing all the requiremnts .
    4. I feel forced to level it due to having 2 attribute points (that's 8 character levels...) being locked behind perks in the smithing tree.

    I am 100% against removing it tho. I think adding armor-smithing or fletchery might make it more interesting as a skill. Either to add up to smithing or as independant skills.
    MostBlunted said:
    True, but it´s your decision. I mean smithing can just be complety ignored and has no impact.
    Click to expand...
    True, smithing is totally optional, however it still should be balanced more or less.
    Senko said:
    I like smithing. It's very comfy and one of the only things to do in the game besides battle lol
    Click to expand...
    This, beside tournaments giving us about 1k gold?????????? Smithing is only thing to do beside battling/questing (that involves battling in majority or traveling).
    Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:
    If an exploit like that exists, it takes extra willpower not to use it, making the grinding that much more annoying because now you're only doing it for roleplay purposes.
    Click to expand...
    Dev console exists too yet I don't feel any need to use it.
    Gandamula said:
    I spent 10 minutes in 500h + smiting,a waste of development time and disk space,like the scenes, useless and without any interest, half of the total game size, and used less than 1%
    Click to expand...
    It can't be half of the game size, come on :grin:.

    PS: Should add rating from 1 to 5 or "mixed" feeling to the poll.
  13. Helerek

    what is causing server crashes?

    merrrica said:
    Edit: BTW, officially this will never be admitted, why would they?
    Click to expand...
    🙏 cheers
  14. Helerek

    what is causing server crashes?

    merrrica said:
    Anyone who has ever worked in a dev shop probably know what has happened. It's legacy code with crappy documentation and they most likely have new devs that don't know what the hell is going on (can't understand the code) combined with the prioritization of SP sprinkled in with underpaid, overworked conditions.

    Edit: Likely have to include some incompetence with negligence as well
    Click to expand...
    Any source on that? I am curious about talewords working conditions :grin:.
  15. Helerek

    Attack while blocking

    MostBlunted said:
    More CPU calculations because of more blocking?!
    But I´m happy to be wrong :smile:
    Click to expand...
    Yes and no.
    No, because calculations are already being done for projectiles arrows etc.
    Yes it is more calculations. Worst thing is if you have 500vs500 and each unit takes a swing. You would have to do a check for each melee swing of said unit. That's a lot of calculations. Ofc they can come up with some skinny code to make those calculations less stressful, but it's still a lot. How it could be done is:
    if hitPart = leftarm then hitShield().
    This would add only 1 check and only to arm hit, but would totally ignore the shield and only increase arm armor.

    However in RBM we can see that shields are passively blocking melee swings. If you equip shield on your back (don't draw it) then it blocks swings from behind. Just as you want it to. Now imagine we change placement of said shield to rest on your left hand instead of on back. This would make the shield block passively both melee and ranged (and I didn't notice any major problems in RBM fps). So problem here would be the units using both parry and passive blocking, but hey. Who knows how it would go. Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all? To experiment it, you can add an archer shield to an infantry unit and then remove their original shield.
See more
Back
Top Bottom