Recent content by warbandnoob

It is pretty much the same, but if you need more try this...

http://historyatlas.narod.ru/russia_eng/index.html

This cover evrey 50 years.

What I am more or less looking at is filling in settlement where often many maps leave them blank...such as in the crimean and Wallachia/Moldavia regions.

I was playing around with Thorgrims editor and made a few tweeks to the map in Northeast Europe. In my efforts I added some details around Prussia especially on the coastline. I also altered Gotland and Osel and added the Memel and Duna rivers. I also moved some towns and cities (although the editor would not let me move some of them. My question 1) What do you think of these alterations? 2) Would the creators of this mod be interested in these changes or am I wasting my time?




I am new to Warband modding, but wanted to give it a try. This image is the editorial version. I have not yet been able to get it to function in the actual game. Any ideas? I have also been getting the following message "One or more town spawns are on impassable tile, consider moving them to prevent game crashes." At this point I have not had luck getting the game file to load without warband crashing. I though it might have something to do with the size of the map. Any experts out there willing to help?

Hello creators of 1257. This is a nice mod. I wonder what map editor you are using and if you would be willing to accept submissions for upgraded maps and town locations. I'm guessing there are only a couple of you working on this project and others would be happy to assist. I have been experimenting with the Bloodpass editor on your map...not for making my own mod, but for helping out on yours. Like adding rivers and lakes in the east reshaping islands, etc. I also noticed that the Bloodpass editor only using python (modules_parties) and you use txt (parties) for the castles and towns. You all do a great job and I think moving a couple of cities would be nice changes. (For example...moving Thorn right next to the curve of the Vistula, next to Chelmno--which should be Kulm at this time and controlled by the tuetons--or moving Novgorod closer to Pskov--it should actually be closer to Pskov than Pskov is to Riga. This is not a criticism. I am just curious. Thank you.

What is the status on this map editor? I like the views, but I need a guide on how to use it. Also I noticed it uses python instead of text. (i.e. Modules_Parties. PY vs. Parties.txt) I like the ease of moving settlements around in this editor. Is there a way to shift regular text to python and back again?

Does anyone know if there is a map editor that is compatable with Windows 7? Does Tale Worlds have an official editor? Thank you.

Auldman said:

In the mod right now are:

Great Britain
France
Bavaria
Holy Roman Empire
Kingdom of Denmark and Norway
Kingdom of Prussia
Polish and Lithuanian Commonwealth/Saxony
The Ottoman Empire
Russia
Sweden
Hapsburg Spain
Bourbon Spain
The United Provinces

We'd like to add later (if we can):
Reggio and Modena
Papal States
Venetian Republic
Portugal

Click to expand...

Excellent work. Thank you for your efforts!!

Will it still be possible to rebel and form your own kingdom? Can factions form to oust a ruler (like a new Lithuania being formed)?

Will ethnic refugees be able to settle in villages to change the composition of the population?

Will it be possible to intermarry with nobles/dukes to increase your status?

Nice addition with Naval warfare. Can you actually sail or is it a scene like sieges? I look forward to playing this mod as I wait for M&B II.

celestialred said:

The main reason I wanted to change and recreate the economy was because I wanted the player to be able to make money in times of peace, so as to prepare for war. In 1700, the notion of rampantly running around fighting off bandits is sorta anachronistic for a regiment. The bandits have been replaced with political dissidents (Kuruc Rebels, Uskoci Pirates, Monarchist Agitators, Jacobite Rebels, etc) which are localized to their area. An early game player would probably make money by using militias, doing quests, or serving as a mercenary. I assumed a player who's been integrated into a national army will have to make larger amounts of money to support higher quality, higher quantities of troops. The player will be able to manage their own shipping/trade empire should they wish. My plan is for a player to be able to also prey upon the system by being a pirate, should they wish. It will have its own set of pros and cons.

Economic damage from a war is something that I'm going to be making a key issue. I'm going to using some of Diplomacy code in combination with some personal code and a group economy code I'm working on with another team to create land investments, sea trading, sea battles, banking, a stock exchange (that will be much later in releases, I haven't even sketched out how to implement that yet), and land shipping. Village, town, and castle economic statuses will play a role in the AI and kingdom policies in war.

JackX: You're quite right to say it will be hard, though I think it will be easier to understand and use once you see it and use it. A player could live as a soldier for a nation and do well enough, but someone who wishes to start their own empire or really push the one they work for will need much more money to expand. It might be odd to see the flaws in a system that has been arguably improved upon, but no more so than playing regular Calradia . I would think of it more as learning how to game the system, since that's really what many did anyway. But you'll be able to do things like trade tea to Russia via London or send Trade Firearms to the Ottomans for a pretty penny. You could loot and sack towns/villages to curb population and tax returns, causing the AI to have smaller armies and money pools. I plan on making the retaliation for such acts quite obvious and one for which you should prepare.

But it's a system that I'm sure will require multiple iterations and adjustments. I don't expect to get it right the first time. I need to ensure players have a way to make money, sustain themselves, field armies, and expand their nation. I'm not going to set the attrition of battles, wars, and economies on a "real" scale. Even I would lose my patience. I have to make a fair compromise between reality and gameplay. Player feedback will probably be the determining factor. Once we release it, we'll open a subboard for economy stuff so I can get ideas and thoughts on it all. I'll use that to determine how to improve it. Same with gameplay.

Click to expand...

I think you have a lot of great ideas here. I would suggest that in addition to economic investments that the state itself pay a stipend for regiments under your control, in this way a player would be in a weaker position to rebel and would be dependent on the state for their livelihood. I think villages should and could be controlled by individual Lords, but the cities and castles should be controlled and owned directly by the king or the state, in this way the state controls the strongholds and the maximum tax income that would be used to pay for regiments in the state's service. Of course a player could gain control of castles and in some cases cities, but this would constitute a fief and a degree of independence. In the case of 1700's France, all the major cities were in the control of the state and their were no more fiefs that I can think of. However, in the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, the Ottoman territories, and in Russia, many fiefs existed and therefore more cities should be controlled by independent rulers like the Dukes of Hesse and Bavaria or the Ostrogski and Radziwill families in Poland (allowing them to rebel).

I would also suggest you do away with claiments to the throne...in this period of time a claiment does not fit (exception in Russia and Ottoman territories where rebels rose to try to take over the throne. True claiments during this time period were sponsored by states, such as France's support of the Jocoby rebellion in Scotland, or the various state sponsored Claiments in Poland or the Italian principalities. I would, however, give a player the option of joining a rebellion or a claiment once they started a war on or within an existing state. You could give the player the option of supporting one of your political dissident parties popping up in the game (the Jocobite, Kuruc Rebels, and Monarchist Agitators, or the Radziwills in Lithuanian) as an organized force. A claiment rebellion should not be dependent on a player joining that faction or rebellion to become active. In this way several rebel group could raise on the map as new facctions once they assume control of a city or castle.

I think a really interesting twist would be, if a player gained sufficient clout and legitimacy, that that player could be recruited or supported by a state in a rebellion. For the most part, however, a player will have great difficulty doing anything other that making a fortune by working for and supporting a state in either industry or military professions.

Seperately, here are a few ideas about economic methods used to raise money for the state and reforms of regiments in Russia. I think you are going to need a lot of NPC to organize the shear number of regiments supported by the state or a rebel faction. Have you considered a method of spawning new NPC, especially for the rebelling faction.

Here are a few ideas about economic growth to support larger armies during Peter the great's reign:
http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h30-sw1.htm

Here is some info on Russian regiments:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/48680294/THE-RUSSIAN-REGIMENTS-RAISED-BY-PETER-THE-GREAT

celestialred said:

There are several scripts which impact the number of soldiers a "commander" has. I have already constructed a system whereby the first 8 lords of every nation are purely cavalry with a chance of militia or mercenary units. These, I had planned, to place an ideal size of 200-260. The following 12 are given infantry regiment templates with an ideal size of 400-480. The quality of the nation's cavalry and infantry varies and is historically based (though I'm sure I'll have to tweak those at some point based upon feedback). Every regiment has 6 tiers, making the regiment self contained. A British Orkney regimental, for example, starts at level 4 as a recruit. He upgrades 5 times: Recruit -> Green -> Experienced -> Veteran -> Hardened -> Elite. They advance up in level, gaining stats and equipment as they go. I did this so that if a player has a particular regiment they like, they can simply stick with it. It also allowed me to keep and simulate real regiments. The level cap for each regiment type is tiered. A British Orkney regimental tops out at 15, whereas a British Grenadier, First Foot Guard caps at level 31. This helps to reflect the more elite quality of the better units - with pay and hiring costs adjusted. An early game player would probably make use of militias and lower cost regimentals (like the Orcadians).

Click to expand...

First thank you for responding. I'm impressed you are working through this. Creating each individually named regiment must be quite a chore. My only thought is with regimental specilizations (Infantry, Calvary etc.) how do battles play out? I do admit I like the idea of specialization, however, leading a musket unit only, might get a bit slow. Muskets usually end up in a volly firing duel followed by charges. In WFaS I have always fixed the position of my musket and pike and circled around with the calvary. Understanding your effort to make the game model a bit more like history, I think this is a good idea and the regimental model works well for armies. However, The player might have greater difficulty on their own (not sure how you are modeling the player into the game during this era as states were handeling their recruits more than mercenary commanders.) If you do plan to give the player greater freedom outside of the nation-state they choose to serve, you might consider allowing the player to promote their companions as regimental commanders. This would allow a player to use and command both infantry and calvary in their own brigade or perhaps lead a rebellion.

celestialred said:

I'm in the process of designing the hiring system now. Villages yield you only militias, castles are currently slated to be for cavalry recruitment, and towns are slated for infantry recruitment. I did this more for gameplay value and balance, not for a particular historical basis. I'm able and willing to change that, if people feel that's ridiculous or game breaking. However, I would need some kind of replacement for that system were I to change it.

Click to expand...

This sounds like a great idea. I think it would be great if you could limit certain production types to a certain nation, i.e. in Amsterdam you can only produce Dutch units, in Riga Latvian and German units, in Stockholm Swedish units, etc. I would be very curious how you are planning on modeling hiring generally. For example in the 1500s and 1600s a state would pay a mercenary captain to raise and equipt a regiment of infantry or calvary. The mercenary captain would be paid a lump sum and would keep whatever funds remained. The captain would then serve that commander until the commander could not pay or the unit was disbanded. The 1700s was different as the state created larger and larger standing armies. I know this is just a game, but I was curious how you planned to model recruitment efforts. I did notice in the 1257 mod a lord could recruit a small mercenary unit (50 men) in one go, rather than a few men at a time. How will the player-state relationship be handeled in raising a regiment?

celestialred said:

Castles currently are staffed with 3/4 cavalry, 1/4 infantry, at around 2000 men. Towns are capping around 4000, with 3/4 infantry and 1/4 cavalry. I had intended the siege changes to take this into account, with 5 or so unfolding stages of attack. Constructing parallels, fortifying them, building demi-lunes and circumvallation and contravallations. The classic Vauban zig/zag trenches would also be present, along with the ability to barrage a fort or city to reduce the strength of the garrison. Only the bloodthristy or bellicose players would actually follow through to a full-on storming of a breech. I wanted players who wanted to have both realistic sieges and the ability to engage in a serious battle available, but also able to be bypassed through successful use of the Siege skill. I realize not everyone has a penchant for hours within a single battle.

Click to expand...

Can't wait to see how you implement siege warfare. This was always lacking in the original. I like the stages of attack. It would be cool if at each stage you fought a mini battle for each stage. That sounds like what you have in mind with the zig/zag trench warefare to bring your guns and mortar within range to breach. Can't wait to see this. I hope supply is better handled than just what is in your inventory...or perhaps larger numbers on the supplies so they last longer...maybe wagons that can be tapped for resupply throughout the siege.

celestialred said:

Skirmishes in the open between you or other commanders generally have fewer numbers of men and go much faster. I could, theoretically, design a system that prevents you from making every skirmish and battle into an all out "fight to the last man," but I'm only going to do that if there's a large number of people who want it done. It would require me redesigning battles quite dramatically, and one I'm somewhat loathe, but not unwilling, to do. The player feedback means more to me. I have lots of time.

Click to expand...

You might consider having withdrawal options in place. For example say the player or the AI gets wiped off the map in the first phase of the battle. (BTW: I hate how other Lords almost always escape, but if a player loses, they have no chance of escape.) They could then get an option to attempt an organized withdrawal (realizing they can't win) and based on certain skills the withdrawing army gets an opportunity. However, the pursuing army commander might have greater skill and could prevent a withdrawl. The retreating army could then take a moral hit and the battle could either continue or turn to a route. You would probably have to code some common sense into the AI to withdraw if they were getting whipped.

celestialred said:

I will what I can to try to make as many happy as I can with the end product, but this engine has a great deal number of limitations that make a project like this quite complex and, at times, impossible to fulfill. But that's not going to stop me from trying my damnedest to get as close as I can.

Click to expand...

I am amazed at your dedication. Good luck!

I'm very impressed with your models and period scenes. You might want to scale back your regiment sizes to one quarter of historical size. I don't know if the system can handle a 10,000 soldier army, although it would be cool. I think there was a mod for WFaS that allowed for bigger armies on the map, 500 vs 500 that I think would be essential if you don't want one battle to last 5 hours. One thing I have always found very annoying is that you get 150 men on a map and you have to go through 10 mini-battles before you finish the conflict.

You could just have the organizational units represented by 1/4 of strength. For example 25 soldiers to a company (Captain), 100 soldiers to a battalion (Major), 250 to a regiment (Lt. Col.). You could rank up to recieve the command skill to lead each unit size and only after reaching a full Col. can you lead a small brigade of four to five regiments.

For a game like this (designed for feudal warfare) it will be very difficult to create the game mechanics to simulate the period. I'm sure you have great skills so I wish you all the luck. If you can do it, I applaud you. You might consider a way of getting an entire brigade to move as one unit when on campaign. If you cannot achieve that it will be very difficult to keep the differing units from scattering into the wind when a larger army comes. I have to say nothing irritates me more than when I have a thousand soldiers on campaign divided into smaller units and they all scatter because one of the opposing generals has 300 men and then you end up fighting with only a small portion of your fighting force. For this mod to be effective this will have to be one of the first game mechanic you fixed. I think there was a mercenary mod that allowed smaller units to link onto the army of a Lord, you might look into that as a model for the regiments.

Anyway if you can simulate a brigade then I think you could then have four brigades moving on the map in the form of a division or corp. When two corps clash you would probably just want the fighting to take place in phases. All four brigades would line up on each side to fight each other. In each phase the human players casualties (either to victory or to defeat) would add tactical advantages to the other computer controlled brigades to either increase (add bonuses) or decrease (add penalties) their odds of victory. In this way the human player is only simulated as being in one location at a time and fighting happens in the other brigades concurrently.

I think this would also increase the probability of brigade survival, ie armies could break and run,  or withdraw in order. During the period most armies did not fight to the last man, unless they were significantly outnumbered. Usually an engagement would happen, they would clash, fighting would ensure for a few hour or until dusk and then armies would withdraw, if lucky entact. Very few armies were completely destroyed. Although it was more common to see a leading unit destroyed.

I think on the field the game mechanics would also be very important. You would probably want to set up the means to pass orders to the grouped battalions or regiments, ie you give orders to the commanders vice the individual men. So if you led a battalion you would give orders to four infantry companies or four sqadrons of calvary. This would also play out at the higher command levels. The only time you give orders to individuals would be if you were attempting to rally a fleeing force or if you personally let a company.

Anyway, you all are the experts. I will stop my silly rant. Good luck with the effort. I hope you succeed. I hope you game mechanics are as good as your scenes and models!!! Please suprise us.

Your Mod is looking very promising. Do you have one location for development diaries? Reading through 150+ pages is quite an ordeal to get a grasp of your vision. I'd buy a game like this, but would love to see your progess in one post.

Busy playing the Game. Great Job!

Morgh said:

As I wrote, I work at new improvements for WFaS Enhanced. We decided to include another custom party to v1.75 instead of 1.76: The ore mine.
Also I improved the code, that I can insert more production locations at the map in the future.

You can deploy prisoners there as slave / peons. Also you must buy and restore the mine, before use. The mine has a lot of options, so you can set the level of "torment" / output, you need guards, there can be a revolt and maybe random events. Also you will have casualties depending to your disposition

After thinking a lot about the time of production until a report will be shown, I decided to set it to three days instead of one or seven days. One day is too much, seven days is too less.
The mine is a "money machine". It is expensive to restore it, so it is also no cheat at beginning of a new campaign! It needs much maintenance for a high output, it needs almost no maintenance for a moderate output.

Currently it has no scene, also there are no caravans to transport the ore to towns or a seaport. Thats a feature which I'm very interested in, so I will see what I can do at the future.

Before some people will tell me, how anti-historical that feature may be: That won't interest me!  The mine can be enabled / disabled as all custom features at game start or while running game!

The mine is also upcoming with 1.75. I hope I can finish scripting at saturday or sunday. There's only the presentation and prisoner management left and maybe some funny events. So maybe, the main entry could collapse or else... We will see...
So please be patient.

---

The mine is an idea from "me", but there can be parallels to other modules. Also all its features, events and else are inspirated by a long time of gaming. The code is written by me, and uses no snippets of the forum or else. For me, its important to inform you about this - before people say, its stolen, or else!

Click to expand...

Interesting addition...actual some historical support for it...from Wiki "Capital and energy of urban enterprisers affected the development of mining and metallurgy during the earlier Commonwealth period. There were several hundred hammersmith shops at the turn of the 17th century. Great ironworks furnaces were built in the first half of that century. Mining and metallurgy of silver, copper and lead had also been developed. Expansion of salt production was taking place in Wieliczka, Bochnia and elsewhere. After about 1700 some of the industrial enterprises were increasingly being taken over by land owners who used serf labor, which led to their neglect and decline in the second half of the 17th century."

Here are some salt, copper, and Iron mine locations.
http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/Poland/schwed_pol.jpg