Dawn of Kingdoms

[ConjurerDragon]

...
ConjurerDragon, the cb against owners of Rome has been removed on purpose, nothing that I read suggested that it would make any sense to have it during the timeframe, and even more so before the mid- or late eleventh century. About Jerusalem, yes it could be made the center of the map, I guess, although I do not even know what this entry is supposed to be used for.

That´s no problem. Simply make it a CB for every *catholic* state against the owner of Rome if it´s not the pope. As at the start of the game noone is catholic (all are "christian") the CB would only have a gameeffect after the split of christian into catholic and orthodox.

 

[Third Angel]

The "natives" in the provinces around the river Elbe northwest of Moravia all have aggresiveness *0* in DoK so they are no hindrance for colonization at all.
As even the peaceful indians at the american east coast have aggresivenesses ranging from 1 - 3 in AGCEEP perhaps raising the aggresiveness of the natives in provinces of DoK: 983, 984, 719 and 720 from 0 to 2 would slow down the colonization there?

Yes, they are supposed to be a problem but I used ferocity instead of agressiveness as this post suggests. I should probably have read more closely as it sounds like DoK natives will often attack the settlements but will not do much damage.

I thought I should share my experience about modding natives for the posterity. Norrefeldt if you include this info into your essential editing post above (#3) in your own style, I’ll delete this post to keep the thread clean.

Natives are coded by several numbers in the province.csv file. These are:
native combat strengh: This number determines the number of natives multipled by 100. Its value can go from 0 to 400 (40,000 natives).
ferocity: This number determines the tolerance of natives to colonials. A value of 9 will set spontaneous attacks every few years and induced attacks almost every time an army enters the province or a colonization attempt fails. A value of 0 will result in natives that almost never attack.
efficiency of natives in combat: This number determines how good the natives are in battle. In the game you can find preset values between 0.1 and 1.3. Very high values seem to be possible, but a big combat improvement over 1.3 has not been observed. A value of 1 or above makes the natives very tough against low land level player-controlled troops.
natives tolerance value: This is the number displayed in the tooltip box, and goes from 0 to 9. Albeit being labelled as agressivity, from no agressive to highly agressive, this number determines how much damage the natives do (colonists killed) when they succesfully attack the colony. A value of 9 means that one attack can wipe out a level 3 or level 4 colony. As widely known, this number also affects colonization chances. The AI will try to wipe out the natives when this number is 5 or higher.

From the above information, we can mod some curious combinations, like natives that attack often but do no damage to the colony, or natives that are strong enough to seriously damage colonies, and very intolerant, yet the AI does not kill them, effectively hampering AI colonization. It should be noted that the AI cheats on the efficiency in combat, and has as little problem to defeat natives as it has with rebels. This is probably a good thing, as the AI has no memory of how troublesome natives are, and after subduing them, usually moves the troops out, leaving no garrison to protect the colony.

 

[Bordic]

Good, no I would rather have you edit your post. Adding #174 to #169 is a good idea.

Ok.

I will go along with your decision on this as I really have no opinion. I seem to recall something about Verona's fortifications being enhanced, not sure about Aquae. Would you not agree that two are enough? In my opinion one fortress level in EU2/FTG should represent a very consequent upgrading.

Yes two are enough. Verona goes then and maybe another province in the east or a richer one. I remember those fortifications were made against the Hungarians that's why they should be in the North East.

I really do not know though I have been thinking about it a lot for Francia. I do not like the sums to PAP idea as many monasteries were quite independent from the ecclesial hierarchy in that time. Maybe I am wrong but I guess the donations and privileges, while certainly making the Prince poorer, were a long-time investment as they made the province richer and more attractive, so maybe a loss of money for a gain of tax base value and possibly manpower.

Yes, but in order to use standardized commands what would you prefer?
-50 treasury for +1 BTV or +1 province mp? But concessions doesn't mean loss of manpower, in case? And what about "using the usual" infra boost or + 2 ADM stats?

 

[Bordic]

That´s no problem. Simply make it a CB for every *catholic* state against the owner of Rome if it´s not the pope. As at the start of the game noone is catholic (all are "christian") the CB would only have a gameeffect after the split of christian into catholic and orthodox.

In case, tha't viable for Jerusalem too! With the difference that the crusader countries would be allowed to own the province without a CB against.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

In case, tha't viable for Jerusalem too! With the difference that the crusader countries would be allowed to own the province without a CB against.

Not quite.
Rome starts the game in the ownership of the pope and noone is catholic (all are christian) so noone has a CB.

However Jerusalem starts the game in the ownership of Egypt so every christian state would have a CB right from 888 onward following your suggestion in post 193 (which could mean Wessex declaring war on Egypt if the AI thinks it has a chance)
- unless you mean to change "christian" to "catholic" in the CB for Jerusalem...?

 

[Bordic]

Not quite.
Rome starts the game in the ownership of the pope and noone is catholic (all are christian) so noone has a CB.

However Jerusalem starts the game in the ownership of Egypt so every christian state would have a CB right from 888 onward following your suggestion in post 193 (which could mean Wessex declaring war on Egypt if the AI thinks it has a chance)
- unless you mean to change "christian" to "catholic" in the CB for Jerusalem...?

Yes, I meant catholic.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Yes, they are supposed to be a problem but I used ferocity instead of agressiveness as this post suggests. I should probably have read more closely as it sounds like DoK natives will often attack the settlements but will not do much damage.

Then I suggest to change the tolerance value for provinces 719, 720, 983 and 984 from 0 to 2 to test if then and with the event to lose Bohemia again, Moravia colonizes less in the north.

Could that colonizing perhaps be a result of the rivers all being on a different continent? Normally a nation can colonize only adjacent provinces OR if it has a port colonize coastal provinces. But Moravia at the start of the 888 scenario can colonize the empty provinces at the baltic sea coast...?

 

[ConjurerDragon]

When the Byzantine Empire starts in a war against Bulgaria and should conquer and rule the whole area north to the Danube between 893 and 1018
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Droysen_-_Oströmisches_Reich.jpg
shoudln´t then BYZ start with claimcores to the provinces between BYZ and the Danube river?
Or rather have an event in which BYZ gains those cores a few years into the game?

 

[Third Angel]

Yes, but in order to use standardized commands what would you prefer?
-50 treasury for +1 BTV or +1 province mp? But concessions doesn't mean loss of manpower, in case? And what about "using the usual" infra boost or + 2 ADM stats?

A combination of all of those according to specific conditions depending on the prince, the monastery/church and the province, I guess.


I am really sorry but I have no time to answer other things right now. I will be on vacations and away from keyboard from tomorrow morning to friday night, then I will try to settle the remaining issues.

 

[Bordic]

Good, no I would rather have you edit your post. Adding #174 to #169 is a good idea.



Ok.


I will go along with your decision on this as I really have no opinion. I seem to recall something about Verona's fortifications being enhanced, not sure about Aquae. Would you not agree that two are enough? In my opinion one fortress level in EU2/FTG should represent a very consequent upgrading.

I really do not know though I have been thinking about it a lot for Francia. I do not like the sums to PAP idea as many monasteries were quite independent from the ecclesial hierarchy in that time. Maybe I am wrong but I guess the donations and privileges, while certainly making the Prince poorer, were a long-time investment as they made the province richer and more attractive, so maybe a loss of money for a gain of tax base value and possibly manpower.

Post #169 and #174 were amended accordingly. ;-)

 

[Third Angel]

Technology and cannons

I could obviously not have cannons in Dawn of Kingdoms, so the first thing I did was to look for some sprites to replace them and I found some nice catapults (0.42). Then I modified the fire and shock values for artillery in land.txt to make them less powerful than cannons and I made them available from the start since I believe there already were catapults by 888 (0.47). I was pretty sure I had changed the name to siege engines or something like that at some point, but it seems I forgot as I cannot find any trace of it.

I will easily admit that this was done rather quickly and that I am very much without experience with these kind of modifications, so any advice is welcome if weird results are observed during battles or sieges.

 

[Third Angel]

Crusades

I do not think that we can reasonnably hope to have AI LOR, NRM, APU or TOU to conquer any province around Jerusalem within an historical timeframe, even by helping them a lot. Even if we could, I think it would not be a good representation of what Crusades were to have the duchies of Lower Lorraine, Normandy, Apulia or the county of Toulouse being at war with the Fatimids or any of their vassals. Even CK was unable to model this correctly and I am afraid that the EU2/FTG engine will be even worse.

So Crusades will be handled by events. First for the Christian countries to choose if they would be involved, then for the Muslim ones to grant independence to the historical crusader principalities on historical dates, with an option B of course. So to play as JER, TRI, EDE or ANH, a human player will have to reload after those events have fired, or load the fourth scenario starting in 1102 that should be added in 0.5.

Note that none of these events are yet scrpited so I am still opened to suggestions, this is just how I envision things at the moment.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

I could obviously not have cannons in Dawn of Kingdoms, so the first thing I did was to look for some sprites to replace them and I found some nice catapults (0.42). Then I modified the fire and shock values for artillery in land.txt to make them less powerful than cannons and I made them available from the start since I believe there already were catapults by 888 (0.47). I was pretty sure I had changed the name to siege engines or something like that at some point, but it seems I forgot as I cannot find any trace of it.

I will easily admit that this was done rather quickly and that I am very much without experience with these kind of modifications, so any advice is welcome if weird results are observed during battles or sieges.

Made them weaker?
In DoK "siege engines" are available from land tech 0 - so for everyone. And they have a "fire" value of *1000* in every land tech level.
The cannons/artillery in the vanilla game and AGCEP is available only from land tech 7 (so poor or pagan or exotic tech nations usually won´t ever have them) and they have a fire value only starting from land tech 7 too.

The only value you reduced was the artillery shock value.

I would suggest to move "artillery = yes" at least to land tech 2 (so that not everyone can build them and the pagans usually will get them much later than the latin tech nations).

As medieval siege engines usually were constructed at the site of a siege for that siege and normally not used in field battles I suggest to reduce their shock value to a minimum so that at the start they are only useful during sieges.

And their fire value should not be 1000 for all time in all levels of land tech but slowly rise. Siege Engines should not inflict more losses than later era´s artillery (which starts in the normal game with a fire value of 500 in land tech 7).

 

[Third Angel]

When the Byzantine Empire starts in a war against Bulgaria and should conquer and rule the whole area north to the Danube between 893 and 1018
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Droysen_-_Oströmisches_Reich.jpg
shoudln´t then BYZ start with claimcores to the provinces between BYZ and the Danube river?
Or rather have an event in which BYZ gains those cores a few years into the game?

Yes, I would rather give them cores when they began planning the conquests, or at least when the monarch who achieved them comes to power. Feel free to script the event.

Then I suggest to change the tolerance value for provinces 719, 720, 983 and 984 from 0 to 2 to test if then and with the event to lose Bohemia again, Moravia colonizes less in the north.

Noted. I will try that with next version. Do not hesitate do run tests if you find the time.

Could that colonizing perhaps be a result of the rivers all being on a different continent? Normally a nation can colonize only adjacent provinces OR if it has a port colonize coastal provinces. But Moravia at the start of the 888 scenario can colonize the empty provinces at the baltic sea coast...?

Like I said I have no idea but this should be fixed when I finish revising geography.txt. Cool-toxic might know but he is gone.

Made them weaker?
In DoK "siege engines" are available from land tech 0 - so for everyone. And they have a "fire" value of *1000* in every land tech level.
The cannons/artillery in the vanilla game and AGCEP is available only from land tech 7 (so poor or pagan or exotic tech nations usually won´t ever have them) and they have a fire value only starting from land tech 7 too.

The only value you reduced was the artillery shock value.

I would suggest to move "artillery = yes" at least to land tech 2 (so that not everyone can build them and the pagans usually will get them much later than the latin tech nations).

As medieval siege engines usually were constructed at the site of a siege for that siege and normally not used in field battles I suggest to reduce their shock value to a minimum so that at the start they are only useful during sieges.

And their fire value should not be 1000 for all time in all levels of land tech but slowly rise. Siege Engines should not inflict more losses than later era´s artillery (which starts in the normal game with a fire value of 500 in land tech 7).

First of all, like I said I never looked at these values, neither in EU2 nor in FTG, before I had to modify them for DoK, so I had no idea what to do.

I will certainly take your suggestions into consideration. Do you mean that only Fire value is meaningful during sieges? I did not know that. I will certainly lower Shock to a minimum then, and rise Fire more gradually. Also, you may not have noticed but all nations currently have latin tech because a) given the era, the tech groups would have to be remade; b) not knowing anything about the history of technology, I preferred to keep only one tech group until I learned more.

 

[Therion]

AFAIK, fire and shock values only matter in battles and assaults. In sieges, only the number of artillery matters.

 

[Bordic]

Also, you may not have noticed but all nations currently have latin tech because a) given the era, the tech groups would have to be remade; b) not knowing anything about the history of technology, I preferred to keep only one tech group until I learned more.

Probably here ftg latin tech should be for the Islamic countries, orthodox for China, muslim for Romania and china for Western Europe.

Or any other order of techgroups but Islamic countries first of all and then Western Europe.

 

[Third Angel]

AFAIK, fire and shock values only matter in battles and assaults. In sieges, only the number of artillery matters.

Ok, I was not sure I had fully understood ConjurerDragon's implications, I will wait to hear what he has to say about it. That was the major reason I only made summary changes, I wanted to be sure to know how things worked before doing a more detailed rebalancing of Fire and Shock values.

Probably here ftg latin tech should be for the Islamic countries, orthodox for China, muslim for Romania and china for Western Europe.

Or any other order of techgroups but Islamic countries first of all and then Western Europe.

I guess some people might disagree with you, about China for instance.

Anyway, the differences were certainly less important than in 1419-1820, so it is the same as with artillery: it would need either a whole rebalancing or nothing. As long as I do not have the time to do it properly, or someone else offers me a clean solution, I would rather keep only one tech group.

 

[Bordic]

I guess some people might disagree with you, about China for instance.

You mean, China as leading tech developper? I am not against, I just wanted to give a first suggestion on how the world was different than in ftg time span...

Anyway, the differences were certainly less important than in 1419-1820, so it is the same as with artillery: it would need either a whole rebalancing or nothing. As long as I do not have the time to do it properly, or someone else offers me a clean solution, I would rather keep only one tech group.

However a two speed tech research would be at least preferable. The world never progressed uniformly.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Ok, I was not sure I had fully understood ConjurerDragon's implications, I will wait to hear what he has to say about it. That was the major reason I only made summary changes, I wanted to be sure to know how things worked before doing a more detailed rebalancing of Fire and Shock values.

In the vanilla and AGCEEP game the shock and fire values of artillery rise with discovering new land technology levels. The siege bonus however stays the same during the whole game and is only dependant on the number of artillery present during a siege:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?37492-Siege-bonus-from-cannon

Which means that you can lower fire and shock values to any low value you like to represent that medieval "siege engines" were even less moblie than artillery and still have the same effect for "siege engines" during sieges.

I guess some people might disagree with you, about China for instance.

I don´t disagree with him. China was the most advanced nation back then which had gunpowder, paper, paper money etc. long before anyone in Europe thought about it. However simply giving China the lead in technology would result in a chinese blob over asia. So China would need to be preoccupied with their internal revolts just like in AGCEEP to prevent them from using their technological lead for a world conqest.

 

[Bordic]

Ok, beware that the THU/FAT sequence is still very sketchy and usually does not work as far as I have seen.

Let's see what we have about those Sicilian revolts. Just some revolt in Palermo when FAT_193000 fires for Tazrut. I need to find some descriptional facts to implement these events, although.

Ok, should we make the random events province specific, or area/region specific if that is possible, or country specific?

IMO, we should have some Norman, Hungarian and Saracen random attacks in the game.

Attacks from the sea should be probably province random specific for sea attacks. We could even use specific areas for the coastal provinces such as Mediterranean (id 239) for the Southern European with access to the sea and maybe a new specific region for the North Atlantic coastal provinces from Brittany to Holstein...

Instead, for land attacks we could use area random specific events. Italy is 238. So a -1238 command could be used.

From what I read (Before the Normans, Barbara M. Kreutz), a few points: the operation was initiated by Capua who was most suffering from the raids. CPA then brought BYZ in, and together they convinced NAP and SLO to join in. Not sure how exactly PAP came to be involved but it seems that Pope Ioannes X did not participate in the planification as he only had been in power for a short time. PAP was important in that it bought Gaeta's neutrality with a grant of land. The non-cooperation of GTA had been one of the causes of the failure of the previous attempt in 903. Surprisingly, Amalfi who had been a key-player in 903 is not mentionned in 915.

I would be interested to read your descriptions for the events you are planning to see how we can reconcile our sources.

The sources I wanted to use were for events starting directly with the league of 915, so no early operations such as the one you pointed out since 903. But, let's see as this chain of events shouldn't be scripted to change ownership of provinces but to have people be informed of historical facts.

Good, looking forward to it.

Well, about the alliances with Italian minors, I haven't yet made any decision about. It's difficult to form alliances between the Southern Italian contries. So I think that current status is good except for the war between NAP and BEN, very unbalancing.

Also, about TOS' position in the FRL/SPL conflict, it seems that Adalberto took Wido's side, his maternal uncle after all, after a few years, but I cannot find an exact date. We could have an event for him to intervene.

In my sources Adalberto intervened when Arnulf went to Italy in his first trip. we could think he would have supported Wido against Berengario, Arnulf's puppet, but he wouldn't support Lamberto when becoming king as it happened IRL.