Search results

... just in case somebody stumbles over this mod ...

Today, more or less randomly, i updated Warband and VC via Steam to its latest patch versions.

Then i reinstalled the mod and fired up a new Sandbox campaign. I can confirm the mod still works, no errors.

kalarhan said:

DaVincix said:

And "wut", the game developer makes his game not for me personally?

Click to expand...

glad you finally got it 

now to learn how to mod or play a submod 

Click to expand...

Lol.

Correct was set into "..." for a reason.

And "wut", the game developer makes his game not for me personally? ... it is not mine? ... not my vision of the game?

More news, please.

kalarhan said:

DaVincix said:

And at least i hope, the Bannerlord devs will do it (a tad) better in this regard.

Click to expand...

they won't, because you are asking for the improbable. That somehow they will manage to make the game the exact way you want it to be  . Devs need to balance things for different players, so if you are not happy with EASY/NORMAL/HARD/NIGHTMARE modes that most games have nowadays, you should just try a different submod or make the changes yourself.

the good news is that TW games are easy to mod, so in a few hours you can create your perfect world (difficulty wise) with just a few adjustments.

Click to expand...

My point was not about the different difficulty settings. But about basic gameplay possibilities, which are there on all difficulties.
And thus, i disagree in this regard with your viewpoint, because i speak of the default game-design, here combat items, which are different in the various games.
I explained to you already, that i'm not a games-noobie, but vice versa. Where i would/could agree is, that merely nowadays, game developers have an increasing tendency to create their games for so-called casual gamers, and yes, modders have then to "correct" game-designs, where and when possible, for the not-so-casual gamer.

I also find TaleWorlds games not the easiest for modding, and i have a vast experience with modding (various) games, circa since the end of the 90s.

And btw., as with pretty much every good game, here example Native, VC, on the first look (or play), these games are very good. The more one plays them, the more one finds the flaws. That's my experience with pretty much every game (even with "The Witcher" I, II, and of course III, which i consider as the best game developments the recent years). And one goes on the search for mods or if one can, starts to modify the game. Not without reason, Nexus etc. are extreme high frequented boards.

The commercial "mechanic" with so-called once independence games, from which M&B comes basicly: First, the game design is somehow new and unique. Made at first for usually not the casual gamer. The game becomes known and players (customers) increase vastly. Thus, the game developer has to change its course, a lot. For the casual gamer market. And usually, the financial frame rules aka the publisher and distributor, just then not anymore the game developer. I don't blame somebody, the game devs meant, it is just the way it is.

Back to the subtopic: Imo., a game developer can indeed avoid in-game exploits. It is just a game design decision, which probably can be set in early-mid game development stages. Of course, the chosen engine pre-defines quite something.

P.S. Indeed, i'm still on the search for a game or games, where i get not the point, that i must use mods or have to mod the game
Atm., only Medieval Total War 1 comes to my mind (released around 2002), which was "ready" as vanilla version.

... means you will still have to pay attention in battles, instead of just clicking charge and go drink tea while they auto-kill everything for you

Click to expand...

Exactly.

A game (or mod) is but really "optimised" balance-wise (or read: combat optimal developed), if such Easy-options are not an option (unless somebody is using actually cheats and/or changes the according code/s).

I think VC (as well as Native) offers still too much default exploits. And at least i hope, the Bannerlord devs will do it (a tad) better in this regard.

hruza said:

DaVincix said:

Besides, it decreases the morale of your army. Just take care about that factor as well.

Click to expand...

That's correct. However since it's player who decides when to recruit and how many, this usually is not a factor. Simply don't recruit when low on morale, or recruit only as much as your morale permits.

Note however that part of the recruits might attempt to escape at the midnight first day after they have being recruited. But since they escape only from your party, there's workaround: just put them in to quarters, garrison or refuge for the night. Not sure if that's intended or if it's exploit.

DaVincix said:

I personally never, rather very seldomly, recruit prisoners. And pagan troops, which also decrease morale within a christian army. Vice versa the same, afaik.

Click to expand...

I did not find morale to be big issue unless you pay no attention to morale and repeatedly do things which damage it. I newer payed attention to the religion of my soldiers or companions and newer run in to problems while doing so. Well, I might have desertion or two when getting over-greedy claiming battle loot. But I count that as my fault.

Click to expand...

As said

But sure, morale can be increased aka balanced against these factors with other (multiple possible) measures.

Click to expand...

and especially

It all depends on play-style.

Click to expand...

Personally, i role play, aka i try to think myself into the timeperiod along "how would the protagonist apparently act".
I can't play such games without an according portion of realism/immersion, they quickly are very boring to me then.

Example, recruiting prisoners is a no-go then, unless for certain single cases (where according history-sources indeed suggest such cases), but just not as default-"program".
Imo., that the game allows that out of the box is rather one of the exploit-options within the game, and if there were a choice-button, i would disable that option, so that i'm hindered to use that option overall.

Maybe random scripted triggered "events" post-battle would be a better solution, such as that from time to time a certain troop offers to join your party, just applicated for post-battle prisoners as well, and fe. very high renown would be conditions.

You can also recruit prisoners. This is by far the most effective way to get high level troops in the VC. Problem is, you have to be able to win battles and capture those troops to begin with, and you need good troops for that. Also recruiting prisoners is more difficult when you are low on level and renown. Therefore this is tactics more suitable for mid to end game.

Click to expand...

Besides, it decreases the morale of your army. Just take care about that factor as well.

I personally never, rather very seldomly, recruit prisoners. And pagan troops, which also decrease morale within a christian army. Vice versa the same, afaik.

But sure, morale can be increased aka balanced against these factors with other (multiple possible) measures.

It all depends on play-style.

Tingyun said:

No problem, that is understandable!

I will keep reporting issues found, and leave it to you judgment what is critical. Thanks for all your work!

Click to expand...

That makes sense, imo. esp. for the case, if the VC team plans perhaps a VC 2 on Bannerlord.

motomataru said:

Making a more historical experience? That's a cool project...

The purely random war mechanism may be found in simple_triggers.py by the comment, "ramp up border incidents."

All other casi belli can be found in the giant script_npc_decision_checklist_peace_or_war. The "growing power" casus section is under the comment, "Attack strongest kingdom." There is a tendency to attack dissimilar cultures tracked by variable, cultural_antipathy.

I doubt one could find these things easily in the .txt files. Have fun!

Click to expand...

That helps, thanks moto!

Why ".txt files"? Such changes i'm doing within the .py files.

EDIT

Well, found comment Attack strongest kingdom in line 52050. I'm not sure what to disable from up this line.

Moto, can you make a change-suggestion, which comes close to my idea for a less random war/peace/truce play, within the according code?

In effect, that afterwards a factions.txt relations adjustment would be handled by the AI more along its edited values.
That would be esp. that a) Anglo-Saxon factions don't war each other, that b) Norse factions don't war each other, but tendentially ally with each other.

Comicably, in my current mod state, that happens already in-game after a few days in the game (probably due to edited scripts.py lines and factions.txt), but surely, that is not a stable faction relations status.
So i'm looking for a code (or disabling code lines), which would rather ensure, that the historical conflicts play out over years.

Besides this, the "alarmed...growing ...curb power" casus belli should not appear anymore in addition with such changes, at least not within/between Anglo-Saxon factions and within/between Norse factions.

Edit: I stopped modding the game (lost passion to fiddle with the files); and it already plays good enough.

motomataru said:

DaVincix said:

I instead looked for the "balancing" casus belli "alarmed ... curb power", which i found in scripts as well. Disabling the according lines worked: This war declaration is not anymore active in my mod.

Click to expand...

Be aware that casus belli is the mechanism for causing wars between random factions. If you shut down the mechanism rather than just the message, then factions won't war as much with one another.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the hint, moto. What do you mean with "rather than just the message"?
Just disabling the random wars as balancing act along "curb growing power" was the purpose of the change, as such a script property is too much of free gameplay for me within the historical setup, that VC provides in general.


Bit more about the theme of (random) wars:

EDIT

My further playtesting showed that the "...alarmed...curb power..." casus belli is still active in my mod. As said, i disabled the according lines in scripts.py.
Anybody an idea what i'm missing?

Although, this casus belli appeared as of yet with factions, where i don't mind it. Well, i would like to know the thing out of principle and will think about then, if i disable it completely or not.

kalarhan said:

DaVincix said:

Few questions
1. Stats modding stuff (using Morgh's tool on .txt files, after the modded file setup with modsys)

1.1 "Can't be used to block"

2. Strategical stuff (using just the modsys source files to create the according output)

2.1 Which .py files correspond with which .txt output files?

2.2. Which file or code is determining, that faction relations are random set up at game start?

2.2.1 Would it be possible to keep faction relations for a certain time, not just for the game start alone, via script that sets dates, if so, how?

2.3 In-game message "concerned because ... growing power ... declares war ..."

Click to expand...

1) instead of Morgh's just edit the module_items.py, you can see the flags there
2.1) not that easy, as some changes will affect multiple files. So you can't just assume a 1:1 relation if you don't know how the compiler works
2.2) module_scripts.py, see "game_start" and hunt down the code that is responsible for the random relations
2.2.1) see 2.2 and then study how diplomacy scripts work, as you will need to add exception rules there (see Forge tutorials for how to work with MBscript)
2.3) see module_simple_triggers.py, search for "restaurar faccion chief". If you are looking for something else: copy the exact text and do a full text search on your modsys files

Click to expand...

As for no. 2.3, that was for the Rebellion case. I instead looked for the "balancing" casus belli "alarmed ... curb power", which i found in scripts as well. Disabling the according lines worked: This war declaration is not anymore active in my mod.


Another question: Is it known by the community, what the hair-disappearance under certain helms causes?

Forgotten to mention: The modfolder consists of the several .txt files which are created with the modsys processing.
The music.txt file is not included, as i think, many use their own customised music folder and .txt file.

Mod compatibility: All music and all pure texture (.dds) mods.

And for the described faction relations stuff alone? Is it more than scripts.txt?

I don't plan to dive into the depth of the compiler.

Edit: Hm, it starts to be pretty complicate ... wanted to avoid such a situation ... perhaps i can (or should) live with what changes i did as of yet.

As always, appreciating the quick reply 


One important question to

2.2) module_scripts.py, see "game_start" and hunt down the code that is responsible for the random relations

Click to expand...

if module_scripts.py is changed, which .txt files are affected?

I know you said, i should use solely the modsys and not at all Morgh's, but now it's rather too late, i don't (wanna) plan to make all Morgh-changed .txt files anew with .py files (it's much too much).

Btw., i  find Morgh's tool very comfortable. As i re-found it / re-applied it now, i remembered that i used it a lot with Warband/Brytenwalda, with joy.

So thanks to kalarhan's and kraggrim's help, i was able to achieve a proper mod into my desired direction, and playtesting that the recent days (error-less, at least).

Few questions remain to make it perfect, so to speak. Hope to get answers here.

1. Stats modding stuff (using Morgh's tool on .txt files, after the modded file setup with modsys)

1.1 "Can't be used to block" ... here i modified all langseax and broadseax items according to swords that they can parry (block) like swords. In-game but, the former hint does not disappear. Besides this change, i did a lot of stuff with Morgh's tool sucessfully in the possible .txt applications, just this "block"-change for items does not work properly, it seems. Do i miss something?

2. Strategical stuff (using just the modsys source files to create the according output)

2.1 Which .py files correspond with which .txt output files? I mean, i would like to know exactly, which output files i have produced modified (as the bat application just produces the full file set).
Is there a source where i can find that? Or is it that easy like troops.py -> troops.txt etc., or is there more linking?
I think this question is very important, because when i'm doing step by step modding, as here explained, first modsys then with Morgh's tool different .txt stuff, and i wanna change but files which can't be changed with Morgh's, ie. strategical (scripted) stuff, i have kinda a problem? The solution would be to save the according .txt files changed with Morgh's and re-add these, when i modify/ied .py files afterwards, i guess. Just which ones is my question (needs an exact file knowledge about .py file output links).

2.2. Which file or code is determining, that faction relations are random set up at game start? Wanna perhaps disable that (how?) and modify faction relations to certain alliances and wars (will find that, probably, in factions.py file? ... as of yet, i know oly the according numerical codes from the factions.txt file).
2.2.1 Would it be possible to keep faction relations for a certain time, not just for the game start alone, via script that sets dates, if so, how?

2.3 In-game message "concerned because ... growing power ... declares war ..." guess you know what is meant. Is it possible to disable this casus belli auto-mechanic? If so, how?

... i myself wasn't ever able to solo kill 100+ Danes on a horse, also not accordingly in Warband vanilla or Brytenwalda (both which i played a lot), not in a slightest way ... perhaps i would be able to solo kill a lot of Ruffians in VC, maybe 50+, in this way ... but then when finally the horse is killed and i must beat my way through on foot, blood loss will take its account somewhere also against Ruffians (i play always with all realism options on). I can't even imagine how this is possible versus a mix of low/medium/high/highest tier 100 + units not to speak of Danish Searaiders with its ca. 25 % mailclad swordunits, but well, i'm not the best possible combatant as player, so it might be me alone, who thinks so.

But Tingyun, i'm under the impression, that you confuse proper argumentation about the subjects of this thread and its sidethemes, when using this possible mounted "supercharger" play-aspect, as it would be a normal option to players and new VC players, and on the other side you explain that it needs a lot of skill (aka training) to achieve that point.

But i think, the thread has done its purpose already. What should be learned from it: Different players have different play experiences, and especially different play styles.
Example to the last mounted solo option, i personally wouldn't ever have the idea to fight alone versus 100 Danes or whatever in this direction, speak versus an enemy number where i as player am that outnumbered (i'm mere the historical realism gameplay player, and modding currently the game into this direction).

No "luck" here, read i'm imcapable to provide the according files and path.

What i did:
- Dl'ed modsys 2.028, dl'ed and installed Python 3.x for x32 sucessfully, although my OS is Win10/64, but i wasn't sure enough about the diverse Python dl sources. Guess though, that this Python version (the newest) works as well, with MB and VC?
- Have put the VC Source folder into the Warband main directory folder.
- Changing the two files from the Source folder, as descibed by you, with Notepad++ - easy enough, not a thing as i do such editing for ages.
- Changed module_info.py, so the path for the Source folder is set to my modfolder.
- Just launched the game, and no according changes are present.

What do i missing that the changed files get linked to the modfolder files?

Thanks a ton. I will try my luck.

kraggrim ?️ said:

Lord's faction is set in module_troops.py, though they're refffered to as knights (and kings are 'lords') in this file. Eg:

["knight_1_1", "Jarl Sigifrid Angantyrsson", "Sigifrid Angantyrsson", tf_bajo|tf_hero, 0, reserved,  fac_kingdom_1,
[itm_common_pony,itm_carbatinae_11qs,itm_lamellar_armor2,itm_leather_gloves,itm_noble_sword,itm_tab_shield_round_09_device,itm_vikingold_elitehelm8,itm_longseax10,itm_throwing_spears,itm_trophy_b],
  lord_attrib,wp(380),knows_lord_1|knows_navigation_8,0x0000000f401046515cf671b5558dd89300000000001e38f30000000000000000],

Click to expand...

Center factions are set in script_game_start in module_scripts.py:

#Give centers to factions first, to ensure more equal distributions
        #chief da ciudades
        (call_script, "script_give_center_to_faction_aux", "p_town_1", "fac_kingdom_5"),
        (call_script, "script_give_center_to_faction_aux", "p_town_2", "fac_kingdom_5"),
        (call_script, "script_give_center_to_faction_aux", "p_town_3", "fac_kingdom_8"),
        (call_script, "script_give_center_to_faction_aux", "p_town_4", "fac_kingdom_1"),

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the other stuff.

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for a quick answer!

And fac_kingdom_number and p_town_number, in which files i can find the real names (faction and location)?

See also my editing, personally i have not much fun with learning and coding in game engines which i don't know, anymore.
Thus, would you be able to make the following changes, perhaps in a quick manner, and make the files available for dl?

- East-Engle lords mainly belong to Danmark (except Eadmund, its king).
- East-Engle settlements belong to Danmark (except Dunwic and its villages).

Click to expand...

I would be infinitly thankful

EDIT

Guess, nobody will volunteer for the above changes.

Questions remain:
- Watched in the source, i can't find a real-name list for kingdoms and settlements, what do i miss? Is there thread somewhere which defines the numbers with real-names?
- The dl'ed VC source is for VC 2.028, will such changes work for VC 2.032 beta, i guess yes, because no changes since 2.028 in the according files? Correct?
- And how exactly is the path to get these .py files working (as i can't find .py files in the default file setup)? Btw., i'm using a named module folder, "VC Modtesting", based on 2.032 beta.