SP Viking Conquest Balance Mod 13

[Tingyun]

Hi Sneeper!

I imagine the thread you linked obtained its values from experiment. The thing about experiments with character creation is, the base value is an arbitrary choice, ie you can't be sure where a point is being added. Or, looked at another way, from the perspective of the end result, there are many different point systems that could arrive at that same result.

The numbers I gave are from the code, from gamemenus or menus file I believe (actually, copy pasted, as you can see), so they are correct, and how the game does character creation, and the guides might also be correct, in the system they have deduced.

For example, the guide says male or female adds +4 points to 2 stats. Actually, the code has male or female adding +2 points to 2 stats and -2 points to 2 other stats. See how those could end up being equivlant, depending on the base values you assign?

Character creation was not modded in any way prior to the final release VC Balance Mod 5.0, so anything prior had vanilla values.

The easiest way to normalize your character to the "fairer" values of 5.0, ie the total stat points you would have had if you had picked the best vanilla choices, is to follow the guide I put in the original changelog:

"sanguine or phlegmatic (+2 stat points relative to vanilla); melancholic (+1 stat point relative to vanilla)

"wisdom: gains 1 stat point
fortitude: gains 1 stat point, loses 1 skill point
temperance: gains 1 stat point, loses 1 skill point"

Just look up what you picked for each of those choices, and give yourself the total amount of stat points you are entitled to, and assign however you like (since there are enough discretionary points that the particular distribution isn't a big deal.

Ie, if your character has sanguine and temperence, import/export yourself 3 stat points

If your character has choleric and justice, don't add anything--you had picked the best vanilla values already.

 

[Pode]

For that future slaves versus nobles consideration, PoP has a pretty robust system of separate troop trees for commoner and noble recruits. They might be willing to share the relevant sections of code, even though they keep close hold on the full code.

 

[Sneeper]

The numbers I gave are from the code, from gamemenus or menus file I believe (actually, copy pasted, as you can see), so they are correct, and how the game does character creation, and the guides might also be correct, in the system they have deduced.

menus.txt does not seem to contain that information.
Can't seem to find in which file you implemented the changes

According to your guide, i get 2 attribute points to spend. (I chose Melancholic and Temperance)

 

[Tingyun]

Hi Pode!

Some special status of nobles might be something to look at going forward, but the high medieval setting has a more obvious youth-squire-knight noble development line, with a special niche as the best of heavy cavalry, and opportunities to go into knighthood orders. In VC, the noble development might be a bit more anemic--especially if bodyguards retained normal access. I think we'd have to come up with something somewhat new if we wanted to split them off--maybe renname the current tier 5 spearmen, then create a new higher skill, has both sword and spear Noble unit for each faction that is given to the player in certain numbers based on total size under their feudal control (including vassals, so not coming from a building in particular...maybe even reward vassals more than direct control, giving some incentive to hand out more towns to AI to allow for a more robust devleopment of subsidiary nobles).

Let me know if you have any thoughts, disagreements, or other suggestions. This would be very very far future though--I need to catch up on all the stuff in life that fell behind while I was sick, so 5.0 is probably the version for a while yet.

 

[Tingyun]

Sneeper: not menus.txt (well, it IS in that file as well, it is just in compiled form that us humans can't read), you need to download the python .py files if you want to be able to read and understand the code.

If you download the optional 5.0 module files for modders from nexus mod page, there are three .py files that have a "last modified" date of March 28th. The code is in one of those 3. I think it was the gamemenus python file.

I release those files for people who want to create submods, or use Kalarhan's amazing VC Tweaks Tool to create their own versions.

But if you are just trying to double check, you can relax--I am obsessivelly careful about these sorts of things. The numbers I gave you are the exact adjustments to normalize things.

 

[TadhgEomonn]

If we're submitting feature requests, I have one:

PoP adds a summary of individual kills in the after-action report for the player and his/her companions/allies. If this is something that could be added to the mod (without requiring many man-years of programming effort), then I nominate it and cast my vote.

 

[Sneeper]

Oh that explains why i could not find it, well anyway i trust you so it's all good
2 attribute points to spend, pretty awesome when you know how rare they are in VC 

 

[Golem0]

Great mod, keep up the good work. Also kudos for listing every single feature and offering explanations etc, that must take nearly as much time as actually modding and is something a lot of modders would neglect.

Something you mentioned a few pages back:

I am going to offer an option of realistic speeds in a future version (not sure if 5.0 or 6.0), possiblly as an optional download, possiblly as default but with an optional download to restore the vanilla 2x realistic speed. It would give a real chance at a truly epic feel of exploring a large world, but not sure how players would like it, so I am hesitent.

Just wanted to say I would like this very much, but I'm a bit worried about the logistics. You'd need twice as much food to travel the same distance, and it would be harder to keep morale up. Besides that, the AI would give up on sieges faster if they had to travel "further", would't they? I imagine it'd be a lot of work to adjust all that, but if you think it's feasible I fully support realistic speeds.

Also, regarding a reddit post from a few months back where you commented with a mini-mod to cut the AI party size in half: I've been using this in my current playthrough to reduce the grind a bit, and combined with your Balance Mod it's been a great experience. However, while most lords now have ~130 troops, castles and towns still have 200-500, which makes the AI reluctant to besiege anything.

I've downloaded the module source to see if I could fix this and found something called center_max_garrison that seems promising, but I can't quite figure out what to change. I'm going to look into it some more, but I was hoping you could tell me if I'm at least on the right track.

Alternatively, I was thinking of modifying lord AI so that vassals are more likely to accompany the marshall and that attacking armies will assault even if they don't outnumber the defenders 3 to 1. I've always thought castles or towns changing hands should be less common than it is in vanilla, and the latter solution seems more interesting.

Anyway, thank you for making this mod and taking the time to document every little feature. It's very much appreciated.

 

[TadhgEomonn]

Query: I am considering adding VC: Dark Age village names,

Spoiler

https://steamcommunity.com/app/48700/discussions/0/517142253864366831/

a mod that changes the names of the villages. But it requires replacing the parties.txt file, which includes the names of the villages which are used when a new game is started.

So my question: Since I will not play VC without VC Balance Mod, does your mod alter parties.txt? Making this village renaming mod incompatible with VC Balance Mod.

 

[Tingyun]

Hi TadhgEomonn,

I can look into the kill counts for a future version, I like them as well.

On parties.txt: I am not sure, but I can check with winmerge and my comparison vanilla files tonight. It would be easy for you to make a compatible version in any event. Let me get back to you tonight, or if you can't wait, you can use winmerge on the file from that mod and the VC Balance Mod parties.txt and see if the names are the only differences, in which case it would be safe to use. If other things are changed as well, you can easily selectively merge those in to make a compatible version.

Let me know if you check yoruself, otherwise I'll check tonight and let you know.

 

[Tingyun]

Hi Sneeper: yep, total attribute points are so valuable in VC, so I removed any random variations (with the exception of starting age, which the game warns the player about). The Druid sacrifice is also now guaranteed to give +1 to some random attribute, and the random event when you own a town that gives +1 to 2 attributes no longer requires gold (so the player can't miss out on it). Basically, no more permanent handicaps through luck.

 

[Tingyun]

Hi Golem0!

On the realistic party speed optional add-on:

Agreed, and those kinds of concerns about realistic party speed are why it didn't make it as an optional download in 5.0. Before I do that, even as an optional add-on, it will need a lot of playtesting, probably 10 hours at least for just watching the world go by with Ctrl t and comparing to current speeds.

Btw, I'd thought of the sieges (and also feasts), but I hadn't considered the player food issue, so thanks for bringing that up. I'll probably double the amount of food per item, to equalize it out to current balance, in the reduced speed optional version.

I am confident now that I would keep it confined to an optional add-on--I don't want to add anything into the main mod that many players would hate, and realistic party speeds would probably be the sort of thing that appeals to only a subset of players.


On the party size mini-mod I made for that reddit request:

Ah, yep that issue makes sense. That mini-mod wasn't balanced or tested at all (I think I included some warnings at the time), just trying to help the person out.

Reducing garrison size is indeed probably the easiest way, provided it can be done easily. Altering the AI to follow the Marshall and more aggressively assault would be possible.

Can you post the block of code from center_max_garrison you were looking at here? I'll take a look. Also, there is some code that defines when the Marshall levies troops from a center, so we would have to make sure that isn't what you were looking at. Hmm, on further thought I think garrison size may be more tied to the upkeep of the units and income from the center.

EDIT: One simple option might be to make the party size reduction you used less dramatic--i.e., 3/4 or 2/3 instead of 1/2, and see if that alleviates the issue.

 

[TadhgEomonn]

Tingyun,

I have compared the two parties.txt file versions and, as expected, almost all the differences are the village names which are replaced by the mod author of VC: Dark Age village names. There are two exceptions, however--line 3 and line 753. In both cases they involve numbers.

Please take a look at the files and let me know if I can ignore the numerical differences or not.

 

[Tingyun]

TadhgEomonn: The differences might be from the mod, or could be from more recent VC versions released after the latest version of the naming mod. I looked up the lines you mention, and they look like they are unconcected to the naming changes (you can post them here if you want to be sure I got the right lines, but it looked like one had to do with some special location and the other was the player party). I'd try merging, and making sure all the numbers are from the Balance Mod file, with just the place names changed to reflect the naming mod (but don't merge in any name changes from those lines with number differences, if you want to be safe). That should make it compatible, though you'd want to start a quick test game and scroll around the map a bit to ensure it looks like the names are working as they should.

 

[Golem0]

Hey Tingyun

Well, I'm glad to hear realistic speeds hasn't been written off completely. If you decide to create it as an optional download, I can do some playtesting. Totally agree with keeping it optional; even if doesn't alienate half the players initially, it could easily get boring after a few days.

As for the party size mini-mod, the code I was looking at is this:

Spoiler

            #MOTO add condition to limit size of prospective garrison
            #players complaining about huge armies sitting in a      center
            #garrison limit from levy above
            (party_get_slot, ":center_max_garrison",      ":center_no", slot_town_prosperity),
            (val_mul, ":center_max_garrison", ,
            (val_add, ":center_max_garrison", 100),    #100..900,      average 500
            (store_add, reg0, ":center_strength", ":party_fit_for_battle"),
            (lt, reg0, ":center_max_garrison"),
            #MOTO end add condition to limit size of prospective      garrison

I'm thinking that changing the 8 to a 3 would put garrison sizes between 100 and 400, could that be correct?

I saw only one similar block of code with a comment about marshal levying troops.

For altering AI, I found this:

Spoiler

              #for 50 relation with marshal ":acceptance_level" will be 0
        #for 20 relation with marshal ":acceptance_level" will be 2100
        #for 10 relation with marshal ":acceptance_level" will be 2800
        #for 0 relation with marshal ":acceptance_level" will be 3500
        #for -10 relation with marshal ":acceptance_level" will be 4200
        #average is about 2500
        (store_mul, ":acceptance_level", ":relation_with_marshal_difference", 70),
       
        (options_get_campaign_ai, ":reduce_campaign_ai"), # moto chief
        (try_begin),
          (neq, ":faction_no", "$players_kingdom"),
         
          (try_begin),
            (eq, ":reduce_campaign_ai", 0), #hard
            (val_add, ":acceptance_level", -1200),
          (else_try),
            (eq, ":reduce_campaign_ai", 1), #moderate
          (else_try),
            (eq, ":reduce_campaign_ai", 2), #easy
            (val_add, ":acceptance_level", 1200),
          (try_end),
        (else_try),
          (eq, ":faction_marshal", "trp_player"),
         
          (try_begin),
            (eq, ":reduce_campaign_ai", 0), #hard
          (else_try),
            (eq, ":reduce_campaign_ai", 1), #moderate
          (else_try),
            (eq, ":reduce_campaign_ai", 2), #easy
            (val_add, ":acceptance_level", -2000),
          (try_end),
        (try_end),
       
        (try_begin),
          (eq, ":troop_reputation", lrep_selfrighteous),
          (val_add, ":acceptance_level", 1500),
        (else_try),
          (this_or_next|eq, ":troop_reputation", lrep_martial),
          (this_or_next|eq, ":troop_reputation", lrep_roguish),
          (eq, ":troop_reputation", lrep_quarrelsome),
          (val_add, ":acceptance_level", 1000),
        (else_try),
          (eq, ":troop_reputation", lrep_cunning),
          (val_add, ":acceptance_level", 500),
        (else_try),
          (eq, ":troop_reputation", lrep_upstanding), #neutral
        (else_try),
          (this_or_next|eq, ":troop_reputation", lrep_benefactor), #helper
          (eq, ":troop_reputation", lrep_goodnatured),
          (val_add, ":acceptance_level", -500),
        (else_try),
          (eq, ":troop_reputation", lrep_custodian), #very helper
          (val_add, ":acceptance_level", -1000),
        (try_end),
       
        (try_begin),
          (troop_slot_eq, ":faction_marshal", slot_lord_reputation_type, lrep_quarrelsome),
          (val_add, ":acceptance_level", -750),
        (else_try),
          (this_or_next|troop_slot_eq, ":faction_marshal", slot_lord_reputation_type, lrep_martial),
          (troop_slot_eq, ":faction_marshal", slot_lord_reputation_type, lrep_upstanding),
          (val_add, ":acceptance_level", -250),
        (try_end),
       
        (val_add, ":acceptance_level", 2000),
        #average become 2500 + 2000 = 4500, (45% of lords will not join campaign because of this reason. (33% for hard, 57% for easy, 30% for marshal player))

By changing the 2000 at the end to a lower number (-500 if that doesn't break anything), I assume more lords would join campaigns. That alone might be enough to restore balance to the world, if it works the way I think it does.

As for making the party size reduction less dramatic, I actually like it the way it is now! Never been a big fan of 300-man parties, so even if there's no way to rebalance garrisons or sieges I'll probably keep it the way it is

Thanks for the taking the time to respond!

 

[Piédalf]

Hi Piedalf: interesting, could you share the sources you are relying on? I am not well educated in this period of history, and my understanding had been that while many elite anglo saxon warriors had horses, they would mostly use them to move from battle to battle, most always dismounting to fight.

On the tier 5 spearmen vs swordsmen upgrade: currently I have the banner carriers upgrade back to whatever line they split off from in vanilla VC (so for some factions that is the spearmen line, for other factions it is the swordsmen line), with some consideration based on the WP of the units involved. I understand your concern--it is strange to upgrade random units to Nobles, as the tier 5 spearmen are named. However, it really isn't any stranger than any other upgrade to the Noble--units in vanilla VC can start out as "slaves" and become "nobles" in a matter of a year. The naming choices of units are a problem in that way, and might be looked at in the future.

Again, the discussion is great, keep any suggestions or concerns coming!

Great talk, indeed.
So, about my sources concerning anglo saxon cavalry, it's kind of mix of some debates  between historians and some good sense.
There is very few sources from the period that are in favor of the idea of an anglo saxon cavalry.

The first is the depiction in the Alberlemno 2 stone, which modern interpretation present as a battle between northumbrians and the Picts/Scots during the 9th century. The Nortumbrian is represented as a well equipped rider that goes to melee with the Scots. I think that carving is formidable as it depicts all the fighters with a lot of details (weapons and presence or absence of body protection). Some would argue it might be a representation code  and other would state that the Nortumbrians were a particular group of anglo saxons that came to adopt cavalry tactics because they were closer in contact with the native Celts who used cavalry.

But most of the other anglo-saxon kingdoms did shared borders with the Celts, so why wouldn't they adopt some tacticts from they neighbors? What's more, in the first place, the anglo saxon kingdoms were build upon the native people who knew about cavalry. Some of the elite (who knew about horsemanship) might have  been integrated in the process of creation of the kingdoms.
Also, there is some proofs the ancestors of the anglo-saxon who settled Britain had some kind of cavalry (by some old roman sources and the figures of the Sutton Hoo helmet).
There is also the 8th century Repton stone that depicts an angle horseman, with scale armor. It is believed to be a king, so it might be a representation convention. But still: the character is holding a shield and made a spear or sword (but it's part broken), and it looks like he is  on a fighting stance. Again, the character is a well equipped warrior.

I also heard about some statements about the Church who attempted to introduce cavalry during the 8th to 10th century in the saxon kingdoms, but I can't remember where I found them.

Finally, there is the controversial 12-13th century depiction of the battle of Stamford Bridge by Snorri Sturluson. It relates that the saxons used cavalry to harass the Norwegians. Sturlson is not a very reliable source, but the tactic he talks about was not a thing that was in use during his time.

There is argument in favor of a saxon army that relied only on infantry. The most formidable is the example of the battle of Hastings. But that was a particular situation, where the far superior Norman cavalry would have annihilate the saxon cavalry. So being on a hill, they were more effective dismounted.

Finally, there is good sense involved: they were surrounded by people who knew about cavalry, as were the Franks, the Britons, the Irish and the picts, they had the horses and wealth, they were "land" people (they did not have the use of a navy before late), and their ancestors knew about horsemanship. Sure, the horses of the times were not very strong, and it is admited the germanic people  relied more on infantry, but they would at least have a small force of capable warriors, who had access to swords, at least as a couter tactic option to prevent being surrounded by the native.

I don't understand some choices of the Brytenwalda team for viking Conquest. There is this poor anglo saxon cavalry and the poor (but numerous) briton cavalry (why are the teulu dismounted?). The same goes to the Frisian cavalry (weren't them in the Frankish territory? Why couldn't them have decent cavalry, just like the Franks?), but I don't know much about Frisia.

 

[Tingyun]

Hi Golem0,

On the optional party speed concern of player boredom--there is an easy way to change the passage of time while moving on the map. Meaning the optional download could couple the 50% reduced travel speed with 2x time passage rate, meaning it would appear exactly the same as current version for the player moving, except the days would tick by faster.

On the garrison code: Subbing in 3 might indeed work to reduce sizes. Try it and see.

On the Marshall AI code: Yes, I think you are right. Note that this might obscure some of the differences between personality types (i.e., bad personality AI lords would now be much more willing to pitch in), but that seems a reasonable price to pay for your goals.

 

[Tingyun]

Piedalf,

Very interesting, and also very convincing. I will consider your points for future versions. Equipment upgrades are always save compatible, so it would be easy to give them the kinds of improvements you advocate.

 

[TadhgEomonn]

Hello Tingyun,

Thanks for the pointers. I will follow your advice concerning Dark-age village names.

 

[Golem0]

Hi Tingyun

Didn't know you could change the timescale, that would indeed solve it. I wonder which would be more fun to play, x1 for a world that feels more vast, x2 just for realism or maybe something in between.

As for the garrison and marshall code, I'm going to implement the changes and do some testing. Thank you for your feedback.