[WB][S][TC]EmpireIV Ver. 1.0 [WSE for EmpireIII 64 bit OS required]

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Black Jack crashes the game. The AI on Fantasy Island appears to be inert. Will test that more at some point.
 
Riding a spider mount:


A shot of the castle at Vadan, the architecture of the town inside the walls follows the same motif:


I witnessed the death of a yellow elf; they die normally, without the death thrall.

I also encountered a bandit party of Dark Summoners.  Nasty!!  They created a white cloud around themselves, and then a green, glowing cloud appeared just ahead of my cavalry.  When my soldiers emerged from the other side of the cloud, their horses were gone and they were on foot.  Needless to say, the battle did not go well.
 
I have a pretty strong rig, but the overland map still hitches and chugs a lot. The world might be too full, or maybe there's still some trimming to be done in beta. This is probably the largest map I've ever seen in a M&B mod. Nova Aetas might be larger, but that mod is also notoriously buggy with lots of CTD.
 
Hey there, wich OSP you have used to get this dinosaur?
2925f60.jpg
 
Could I have a link to Beta 3 please? Or the most recent release. Dying to play this, Empire III is my favorite mod for Warband. Love all the extra items and content.
 
Thanks so much, I also tried to redownload Empire III but every time I do it says its invalid when I try to extract it. Any ideas? Loving Empire IV so far tho!  :smile:
 
The original post requires a download link before this thread can be moved to the released boards. Since you seem to have several versions out already, I did not add a link to the OP myself, but would ask you to do that with the most recent version.
 
Funny mod, cool map but the balance is ouch, magery is overpowered!!!! 1 mage Vs 200, mage win hands down.
The whole balance of almost everything need a lot of work, weapons, magic, troops etc.
and pictures in the inventory this is imho not a good idea this the vanilla inventory bis still the best.
other than that this mod is cool. :smile:
 
Played a little after work.  The minstrels are telling me that I have learned all that they can teach, but I haven't actually had any of them teach me anything, yet.

Other than that, no other problems, so far.

I haven't done a whole lot, though.  Have collected a few companions, no troops.  Running around sniping the bandit groups I can handle. Competed in a few tournaments.  Bought some enterprises in a few villages.  These seem to pay way too much, but I'm guessing that is balanced out by not paying anything when they get looted or infested?
 
When I add troops to a small village, the game will not let return to the main world map at all. Anyone else having this problem?
EDIT: Fixed problem but new question. Does the Artillery actually work in the game?
Also how is one able to establish alliances in game as well?
 
sidhos said:
Played a little after work.  The minstrels are telling me that I have learned all that they can teach, but I haven't actually had any of them teach me anything, yet.

Other than that, no other problems, so far.

I haven't done a whole lot, though.  Have collected a few companions, no troops.  Running around sniping the bandit groups I can handle. Competed in a few tournaments.  Bought some enterprises in a few villages.  These seem to pay way too much, but I'm guessing that is balanced out by not paying anything when they get looted or infested?

  for the minstrels try again when you're level 10.

---
  I'm really too busy, just noticed this had magic.  I sort of recognize the CoF but glad to see someone cleaned it up.

  I'll start working on magic now and if its finished I'll send it to Lor Dric to play with use/not use as he wishes.  There are some things CoF didnt handle well but it was a great first step.  I like the overall idea of a high fantasy mod done by someone that actually codes.  Nice thing about Lor Dric is "he does more than cut & paste".

  - GS
 
I must say that the work is very impressive.
So much stuff in the game, new mechanics, a lot of mounts, weapons, factions, armours and everything else.
The map is incredible and it's very well filled with factions, races and enemies.
But man, PLEASE, fix the performance issues.
The game in my opinion is currently unplayable, and i really want to play it, because it looks amazing.
The lag is real and the loadings are too much long, even if you enter and exit from a village it takes 15 secs everytime, and i can't even fast-forwarding, so the map it's really unplayable.
I must say that the battles are smooth and the framerate it's very good, so the problem it's only on the map.
Another thing is that the images are too low resolution, and they are not polished in terms of cutting and smoothing.
I didn't played much because of the map problems and lag, so that's all i can say for now.
Please, keep working on the performance optimization on the map, don't bother to add more things, just fix the performance and the bugs, then add more stuff.
Thank you.
PS: Nice to see that you used The Great Cold song on the menu ^^
 
gsanders--Thanks.  Will try again, after work today.  I think I'm around level 21 now, but I just quit talking to them after a few times.
 
Buckethell said:
..., PLEASE, fix the performance issues.
The game in my opinion is currently unplayable, and i really want to play it, because it looks amazing.
The lag is real and the loadings are too much long, even if you enter and exit from a village it takes 15 secs everytime, and i can't even fast-forwarding, so the map it's really unplayable.
I must say that the battles are smooth and the framerate it's very good, so the problem it's only on the map.

@Lor Dric mainly, but any modder might find it jogs their thinking:
  I had these issues in Perisno, then pre-test "A" Warsword Conquest, and the map lag came down to 3 areas of tuning:

1) replace every instance of 
    (rest_for_hours, ":hours", 5, 0), #kill some time and coincidentally set the speed multiplier until changed
        with
          (rest_for_hours, ":hours", "$g_warsword_wait_multiplier", 0), # waiting is now scaleable.

    I'd set that multiplier at 3 for example.  Then when someone ctrl-spacebar to speed time passing the CPU doesn't have to process the 220 or so background tasks at 5x normal rate, now just 3.  For kicks and giggles let the user set it with xgm_options
from a range of 2 to 4.  I'd say this value needs to be low considering the number of parties you have on map.

2) I became concerned about parties on the map and ended adding a report to manually check if the parties on map had too many disabled, how many parties total a try_for_parties loop has to iterate through, and to count a template that I expected to find in large numbers and see if the Warband tool telling how many of those parties there were was accurate, or it there were disabled parties etc wasting bandwidth during a try_for_parties loop.
it looked like this:
Code:
   ("metrics_for_parties", [ ], "{!}Measure parties counts.",
     [
      (jump_to_menu, "mnu_metrics_for_parties1"),
      ]
     ),

# ...  sometime later in game_menus.py

  ("metrics_for_parties1", 0,
    "{s16}^{s17}",
    "none",
    [
    (assign, ":total_parties", 0),
    (assign, ":inactive", 0),

    (assign, ":count_looters", 0),
    (assign, ":count_deserters", 0),
    (assign, ":count_royal_traders", 0),
    (assign, ":inactive_royal_traders", 0),
    (assign, ":count_patrol", 0),
    
    (try_for_parties, ":party_no"), 
        (val_add, ":total_parties", 1),
    	(gt, ":party_no", "p_spawn_points_end"),
        (party_get_template_id, ":party_template", ":party_no"),

        (try_begin),
            (party_is_active,":party_no"),
            (try_begin),
                (party_slot_eq, ":party_no", slot_party_type, spt_kingdom_caravan),
                (val_add, ":count_royal_traders", 1),
            (else_try),
                (eq, ":party_template", "pt_looters"),
                (val_add, ":count_looters", 1),
            (else_try),
                (eq, ":party_template", "pt_deserters"),
                (val_add, ":count_deserters", 1),
            (else_try),
                (eq, ":party_template", "pt_patrol_party"),
                (val_add, ":count_patrol", 1),
            (try_end),
         (else_try),
            (val_add, ":inactive", 1),
            
            (try_begin),
                (party_slot_eq, ":party_no", slot_party_type, spt_kingdom_caravan),
                (val_add, ":inactive_royal_traders", 1),
            (try_end),
        (try_end),
    (try_end),

    (assign, reg3, ":total_parties"),
    (assign, reg4, ":inactive"),
    (store_num_parties_of_template, reg5, "pt_looters"),
    (assign, reg6, ":count_looters"),
    (str_store_string, s16, "@Total Parties: {reg3}   Inactive: {reg4}^Looters: {reg5}  active: {reg6}^"),

    (store_num_parties_of_template, reg3, "pt_deserters"),
    (assign, reg4, ":count_deserters"),
    (assign, reg5, ":count_royal_traders"),
    (assign, reg6, ":inactive_royal_traders"),
    (store_num_parties_of_template, reg7, "pt_patrol_party"),
    (assign, reg8, ":count_patrol"),
    (str_store_string, s17, "@Deserters: {reg3}  counted: {reg4}^Royal Traders: {reg5}  inactive: {reg6}^Patrols: {reg7}  counted: {reg8}"),
        ],
   [
    ("return", [], "Return", 
	[(jump_to_menu, "mnu_reports"),]),
]),  # close this menu

  3) then I wanted bandwidth wasting loops such as icon flip over water to be called less often.  I used 0.35 hours for my timer, to effectively cut wasted bandwidth from that ONE simple_triggers by almost 50%.
note I use the list processing system to further reduce the number of parties to examine.
Code:
  # Updating player icon in every frame         # simple_triggers number 64
  (0.35,
   [
    (try_for_parties, ":cur_party"),
        (party_is_active, ":cur_party"),    # don't waste time on disabled parties
		(party_get_current_terrain, ":terrain", ":cur_party"),
		(party_get_template_id, ":cur_template", ":cur_party"),

        (this_or_next|neq, ":cur_template", "pt_sea_traders"),
        (this_or_next|neq, ":cur_template", "pt_sea_raiders_ships"),
        (this_or_next|neq, ":cur_template", "pt_raiders_ships"),
        (             neq, ":cur_template", "pt_pirate_ships"),

        (assign, ":continue", 1),
        (try_begin),
            (eq, ":cur_template", "pt_none"),
            (party_get_icon, ":test_party_icon", ":cur_party"),
            (eq, ":test_party_icon", "icon_ship_on_land"),
            (assign, ":continue", 0),       # GS we want to exclude from the list beached player ships
        (try_end),    

        (eq, ":continue", 1),    
	(try_begin),
	    (this_or_next|eq, ":terrain",rt_bridge),
            (this_or_next|eq, ":terrain",rt_river),   # terrain type 15 isnt defined in header_terrain.py
            (eq, ":terrain",rt_water),   #  could only apply to p_main_party  (player)
    
            (call_script, "script_list_index_of", "trp_list_04", ":cur_party"),  # reg1 index, -1 not found
            (try_begin),
                (eq, reg1, -1),     # its not in the list already
                (party_get_icon, ":cur_icon", ":cur_party"),
                (party_set_icon, ":cur_party", "icon_ship"),
                (call_script, "script_list_add", "trp_list_04", ":cur_party"),  # stuff the party_id
                (call_script, "script_list_add", "trp_list_05", ":cur_icon"),   # stuff the icon
            (try_end),
        (try_end),
    (try_end),

    (call_script, "script_list_count", "trp_list_04"),
    (assign, ":list_end", reg1),
    (val_add, ":list_end", 1),
    (gt, ":list_end", 1),   # we can skip any empty list (actual length = 0)
    
    (try_for_range, ":list_index", 1, ":list_end"),
        (call_script, "script_list_at_nc", "trp_list_04", ":list_index"),
        (assign, ":cur_party", reg1),

        (try_begin),
            (neg|party_is_active, ":cur_party"),    # party must have been defeated very recently
            (call_script, "script_list_remove_at", "trp_list_04", ":list_index"),
            (call_script, "script_list_remove_at", "trp_list_05", ":list_index"),
            (val_sub, ":list_end", 1),
            (val_sub, ":list_index", 1), # because you need to test that index again next iteration...
        (else_try),
            (party_get_current_terrain, ":terrain", ":cur_party"),
            (neq, ":terrain",rt_bridge),  # 
            (neq, ":terrain",rt_river),   # terrain type 15 isnt defined in header_terrain.py
            (neq, ":terrain",rt_water),   # 

            (party_get_template_id, ":cur_template", ":cur_party"),
            (neq, ":cur_template", "pt_sea_traders"),   

            (call_script, "script_list_at_nc", "trp_list_05", ":list_index"),
            (assign, ":cur_icon", reg1),
            (party_set_icon,":cur_party",":cur_icon"),
    
            (call_script, "script_list_remove_at", "trp_list_04", ":list_index"),   # partyID
            (call_script, "script_list_remove_at", "trp_list_05", ":list_index"),   # icon
            (val_sub, ":list_end", 1),
            (val_sub, ":list_index", 1), # because you need to test that index again next iteration...
        (try_end),
    (try_end),
    ]),

list management system at https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,341079.0.html

  This use of a list was originally intended to put the party on water into a list to check more often if it hits land, while skipping river crossings, so as to use try_for_parties less often.  In this case you could for example run the above trigger less often, say  0.7 hours, then every .35 hours check if dry land was hit only within that list, so as to react faster but go through your huge number of parties far less often, reducing apparent stutter.  The added overhead of a list manager only makes sense if we assume for example about 1 in 8 parties are on the water, at most, so if we could not check all the other parties as often we save ourselves a processing spike.  If 40% of the parties were on water, I'd reckon we're at break-even, and with more we'd suffer a net LOSS of bandwidth.  I'd especially reconsider the use of this line          (call_script, "script_list_remove_at", "trp_list_04", ":list_index"),  # partyID
and try to avoid it completely if possible, for a very big list.  A very small list (50 parties for example out of 2000) the added overhead isn't a burden.

  Optimize every try_for_parties firing every 2 hours or less.    But actually Lor Dric knows this.  I suppose I'm reviewing for any other modder...

3) battles are already smooth per the OP so actually these few tricks are probably the ones that pay the quickest.  With just tuning icon checking as above Perisno .772 was sped up by 1/3rd for .773 for overland map travel, as was Warsword Conquest for (still unreleased) patch 2.  Its proven to work for over two weeks on Warsword Rigale test, so I'm not just making up numbers.  In WC I have 1000 parties on map the first few seconds and this grows to about 2000 parties after bandits, kingdom parties, traders, and such have popped for around 1 week.  I changed the frequency of kingdom_party spawns from 1 check every hour down to 1 check every 2.31 hours, the weird size to not have it go off at the same time as all the other 1 hour and 2 hour triggers.  Picking a weird frequency reduces a standing wave in terms of smoothing a spike in CPU useage.  I suppose its sort of like using spread spectrum on a clock timer circuit.

  I haven't shared much but you're one of the few I trust, and this little bit of open discussion doesn't really hurt anyone.  You have an impressive number of parties on map; they probably need to fit into some fast lists and be less often try_for_parties  (which I use just for filling lists once and then drive the list which I assume is much much smaller, else the list overhead doesn't get profit in bandwidth.  I wouldn't remove anything from a list that was huge its almost faster to build a fresh list if its done too often.  But you'd see that.

  Well, all this you know, but its useful review for anyone else.
good luck on this, in my experience you're one of the few that would do this well.

  - GS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom