Slitherine

No, I never got the Central AI to declare war on Belgium. But I'm pretty sure that it is possible.

I lost the code to display the hex coordinates when I lost the whole mod, but it was something like this in ui>main_hud.lua:

I think small garrisons costing 1 upkeep and not being able to disband them is ridiculous. It would be better to actually give them a worthwhile task, like defeating local rebellions and strikes. Maybe if you disband the small garrison, you run the risk of a worker strike destroying a city's productivity.

And you can edit the game's deployment code in game>game_deployment.lua

Are you making code comments for every spot where the code is changed? I mean just pointing out that some code is part of the mod.

DanielHerr wrote:I think small garrisons costing 1 upkeep and not being able to disband them is ridiculous. It would be better to actually give them a worthwhile task, like defeating local rebellions and strikes. Maybe if you disband the small garrison, you run the risk of a worker strike destroying a city's productivity.

Well, I had four options here:

1) Leave the rules as they are. In such case the Russian player disbands all his SGs, using the huge amount of saved up money he steamrolls the central powers by late 1915, early 1916 max and the game becomes unplayable as the central powers.
2) Have SGs cost 0 upkeep. Same result as above.
3) Make SGs cost 1 and remove the ability to disband them.
4) Make Sgs cost 0 (or remove them alltogeather) and then entirely change the PP levels of all cities and rebalance factions so that historical rates of eqpansion produce historical army sizes and research rates. Sounds good in theory, but playtesting required would certainly prevent me from completing the mod in 2015. It would take massive amounts of time and testing, something which I do not posess.
Even minor fiddling with Ottoman cities and PPs proved time consuming as it was.

Given the 4 options available, I went with option 3. I'll leave the mod open for alterations by others, so if someone would liek to re-mod it to something like option 4, fine with me.

Strikes/revolts occuring in 1914 without any real political/historical reason - that's something that goes against my design philosophy. If the war is short and you are sucessfull, there shouldn't be a chance for a strike, navy mutiny etc. Even very independance-oriented nations like the Poles did not rise up until certain major powers were losing the war and on their last legs.

I'm gonna introduce (well, already introduced some) random events dealing with strikes, mutinies, revolts etc, but these are linked to the lenght of the war, the current morale of the factions etc.

DanielHerr wrote:And you can edit the game's deployment code in game>game_deployment.lua

I've tried working with it, but failed to achieve the desired result. I could either have any faction be able to build in any occupied city (which ends up with british building units at Salonika, Baghdad etc) or leave the default which means new countries cannot deploy units anywhere.

I failed to come up with a script that would change the original hex ownership, which is at the root of the issue. Would be very happy if such a script was made available, would solve everything tbh.

A kingdom for an original hex ownership edit script, or a map editor.

DanielHerr wrote:Are you making code comments for every spot where the code is changed? I mean just pointing out that some code is part of the mod.

No, just in some places for my own test purposes and debug.

DanielHerr wrote:No, I never got the Central AI to declare war on Belgium. But I'm pretty sure that it is possible.

Well, toyed with such a notion but in the end failed to get the AI to work as I intended. There was also the issue of balance, as without war on Belgium the UK would stay out of the war for some time (possibly not enter the war at all if the CP are winning), which in turn would probably cause Italy to stay neutral, or join the war on the central powers side. Turkey would also be able to concentrate all her army in the Caucasus. Turkey would automaticlaly get the two battleships being built in Britain, which would shift the balance in the Black Sea, especially without the corresponding Entente British navy active.

In short: it would be a very big game changer. Once I finish my mod, I may build a separate "no war on Belgium" scenario with its own unique set of events and some vanilla events removed. But all in all: I see this as an additional "what if" scenario, not part of the main mod scenario.

There is another option. Previously, small garrisons didn't cost upkeep. You could just use the previous lower city production values.

I think taht one used the "Free PP per faction" option which I don't really like.

@sabrata: I believe your mod is designed to be played in multiplayer mode only, right?

To be honest, playing as Central Powers in Single Player mode I found the game entirely too easy even with small garrisons at 0 upkeep. Usually I can get Russia to surrender at around early 1916 as the russia-AI fails to keep an aggressive stance and transports too many units to the Caucasus after I have seized Warsaw. After the fall of russia, the other factions will usually follow in a kind of dominoes-effect.

Did you encounter this problem too and if so, how have you planned to adress this?

I certainly have not had experience Russia falling easily, and even taking Warsaw is hard. It seems to me like Russia is overpowered.

DanielHerr wrote:I certainly have not had experience Russia falling easily, and even taking Warsaw is hard. It seems to me like Russia is overpowered.

Same impression. I'll see what can be done about it. One thing that is gonna change things a bit is the commanders. Some minor nations will now get a range 1 commander (Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Spain, Ireland, Arabia, Belgium for example), but Germany will get an additional commander to deploy.

So while some minor nations (Serbia, Belgium in particular) will be more troublesome, Germany will have one more commader to deploy making longer frontlines (like the eastern front) easier to hold.

Another change to counter Russia a bit is the inclusion of the Boyen fortress, so East Prussia is harder to steamroll (Russia gets Osowiec on the other side of the border though). Moreover the PP weight of Russia is shifted west. There's gonna be an additional 6 PP worth of cities in Poland, at the expense of some in far east Russia. So if Russia fails to hold the Warsaw salient, the loss will be more painfull.

Robotron wrote:@sabrata: I believe your mod is designed to be played in multiplayer mode only, right?

You stand incorrect. While I trust some of the changes introduced will improve balance (some were specifically added to limit "gamey" tactics or increase uncertainty and FoW for the players), I will not introduce elements that would be historically implausible or damaging to SP experience, even if these would contribute to MP balance.

The player can often get better-than-historiclal results through sound gameplay decisions, but my overall impression is that both the Entente and the CP end up too brittle in the western front, while Russia is too tough in the east and the caucasus-mesopotamia front is boring and too static.

I have introduced changes to fix that, particularly Mesopotamia and Caucasus. As for balance on teh whole eastern front, I guess taht needs more testing. I'll be releasing an "early access" (but fully playable) version very soon.

You're sure about not using the previous production values? You don't have to use the free upkeep. And I think it would balance nicely with no small garrison cost.

Some minor nations will now get a range 1 commander (Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Spain, Ireland, Arabia, Belgium for example)

Serbia certainly deserves its Putnik. For others, I don't know. Brussels never falls without heavy fighting, which was not the case historically...
Maybe this one-range thing could be extended to Turkish leaders ( actually, Enver Pasha should have a negative impact) and possibly some Austrians too

BTW, I always found it strange to get Falkenhayn as a front commander in 1914...

DanielHerr wrote:You're sure about not using the previous production values? You don't have to use the free upkeep. And I think it would balance nicely with no small garrison cost.

Actually, it would not balance itself.

Just made a short test. With the current vanilla post-patch situation, the starting PP of Germany is +51, while that of Austria +15.

Using the old construction levels, with free smallgarrisons and no free upkeep, starting PP of Germany is +28, while that of Austria +23 PP

So as you see, its a very different setting and would require really the same long playtest process I don't intend to participate in. That would take several more months of modding, tweaking and testing. No thanks.

Zombo wrote:

Some minor nations will now get a range 1 commander (Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Spain, Ireland, Arabia, Belgium for example)

Serbia certainly deserves its Putnik. For others, I don't know. Brussels never falls without heavy fighting, which was not the case historically...
Maybe this one-range thing could be extended to Turkish leaders ( actually, Enver Pasha should have a negative impact) and possibly some Austrians too

Well, not all of the minor leaders are avilable at start. Putnik is available from pretty much turn 2 or 3. The Belgian commander needs more stuff to happen before he's active, so any half-decent CP player should already have taken Brussels by the time he arrives. He does help however to keep any Belgian coast presence, as historical.

Turkey in my mod will actually be in a weaker position, as an Entente advance up Mesopotamia will be an issue and needs to be checked. Also the Caucasus front will be more active, with new objectives available (Trabzon is a city now). Removing Turkish leaders would prolly make Turkey too brittle and giving a commander negative stats would simply enable "gamey" tactics by the Player.

I may give some Austrian and Turkish commanders a 1 range if playtesting shows these too countries are too tough as they are.


In other mod news - playtesting shows 1914 crippling defeats can (rarely, given luck and good tactics) can occur, so I will be introducing special "Home by christmas" sudden death events.
1. If at any point in 1914 the CP control Lemberg, Konigsberg, Przemysl, Metz, Lodz, Belgrade, Paris and Brussels, the Entente falls apart and the game ends with a CP victory.

2. If at any point in 1914 the Entente control Lemberg, Konigsberg, Przemysl, Metz, Lodz, Belgrade, Paris and Brussels the opposite happens and the CP lose the war.

If neither happens by 1915, then you are in for the long haul, trench warfare and all.

I strongly disagree about the sudden death stuff. However, I do think that it should be possible for a county to negotiate a peace, even if it is not totally defeated.

DanielHerr wrote:I strongly disagree about the sudden death stuff. However, I do think that it should be possible for a county to negotiate a peace, even if it is not totally defeated.

You mean negotiated in what way? I'm not entirely sure what gameplay mechanic you are referencing. The weakness of the CTGW engine is that it offers just events and effects, not events with options for the player to choose from.

I'll need to playtest the sudden death requirements so these will be polished and balanced in the final version. I'm plannning for these as a hard to achieve "possible only in 1914" option. I want to reflect the fact that every power was pushing for a quick, decisive mobile war and was consequently ready to recognize a defeat of such form. In may ways an end to the war was easier in 1914 than in 1917 and I want to reflect this in the game.
Once the war of attrition started for real, everyone pretty much decided to grind their teeth and get ready for the long haul. Hence starting from the date of the Christmas Truce, the "sudden death" option will no longer be available. If you can't win a fast war and get your boys home by christmas, they will likely stay in teh trenches for years (as did happen in RL).
The "sudden death" will drop the morale of Germany and Austria (or France, UK and Russia if its a CP sucess) to 0, thus the trimphant player can still reject the surrender and go for a total victory if he wants.

I'll be releasing a 0.9 version tomorrow. Treat it as a "open beta" of sorts. Most of the content will be available, as well as the 1914-1919 full war scenario. This will include pretty much 90% of the content planned for the final version.

Version 1.0 will be realeased once I get some bug reports (or reports of no bugs at all!) and will include mostly bugfixes. I alo hope to try to include the following elements:
- More scenarios, 1915, 1916, 1917, an alternative "Italy joins the triple alliance in 1914" scenario, an alternative "Germany does not invade Belgium" scenario and an alternative "Balkan Wars in 1914" scenario.
- More minor/flavor events
- Possibly a Senussi faction and corresponding chain of events.
- Possibly a late war Polish revolt faction and corresponding chain of events.
- Special territorial concession events in case of an early surrender of a power (Example: AH surrenders but controls Transylvania when it does so. If Romania is Entente, it will receive Transylvania from the surrendering AH).

Sabratha wrote:

DanielHerr wrote:I strongly disagree about the sudden death stuff. However, I do think that it should be possible for a county to negotiate a peace, even if it is not totally defeated.

You mean negotiated in what way? I'm not entirely sure what gameplay mechanic you are referencing. The weakness of the CTGW engine is that it offers just events and effects, not events with options for the player to choose from.

I'll need to playtest the sudden death requirements so these will be polished and balanced in the final version. I'm plannning for these as a hard to achieve "possible only in 1914" option. I want to reflect the fact that every power was pushing for a quick, decisive mobile war and was consequently ready to recognize a defeat of such form. In may ways an end to the war was easier in 1914 than in 1917 and I want to reflect this in the game.
The "sudden death" will drop the morale of Germany and Austria (or France, UK and Russia if its a CP sucess) to 0, thus the trimphant player can still reject the surrender and go for a total victory if he wants.

I'll be releasing a 0.9 version tomorrow. Treat it as a "open beta" of sorts. Most of the content will be available, as well as the 1914-1919 full war scenario. This will include pretty much 90% of the content planned for the final version.

Version 1.0 will be realeased once I get some bug reports (or reports of no bugs at all!) and will include mostly bugfixes. I alo hope to try to include the following elements:
- More scenarios, 1915, 1916, 1917, an alternative "Italy joins the triple alliance in 1914" scenario, an alternative "Germany does not invade Belgium" scenario and an alternative "Balkan Wars in 1914" scenario.
- More minor/flavor events
- Possibly a Senussi faction and corresponding chain of events.
- Possibly a late war Polish revolt faction and corresponding chain of events.
- Special territorial concession events in case of an early surrender of a power (Example: AH surrenders but controls Transylvania when it does so. If Romania is Entente, it will receive Transylvania from the surrendering AH).

You have an ambitious project there, Brother!

Wait, doesn't a moral of 0 mean a country surrenders unconditionally?

Another thing. When a country surrenders, such as Russia, and it controls another, such as Finland, it would be nice if the occupied country would become independent.

DanielHerr wrote:Wait, doesn't a moral of 0 mean a country surrenders unconditionally?

You can still decline to accent surrender as the victorious player.

DanielHerr wrote:Another thing. When a country surrenders, such as Russia, and it controls another, such as Finland, it would be nice if the occupied country would become independent.

Yep, this is coming in 1.0.

So far in 0.9 you will have Ireland, Egyptian and Transcaucasia as new countries/rebels. I went for these since Transcaucasia did form in RL and fougth a war with Turkey in 1918, while Ireland and Egypt experienced serious uprisings (and eventual independance for Ireland) in 1919, so I decided its not a streach to have them revolt early if the Entente is doing poorly.

Senussi, Poland, Finland, and Czechoslovakia may come in 1.0 if I decide that adding them would be a good idea gameplay-wise after some tests.

Sabratha some very interesting ideas you are coming up with! I look forward to playing your mod, since it appears that yourself and DanielHerr have a good grasp of working with Lua scripts. Have either of you thought about tweaking the in game AI? For one thing since release the games naval warfare AI is stupid, the main problem being that the AI does not protect or repair its ships,mainly the Dreadnoughts.

All the best,Kirk.


Does anyone know what this highlights as a problem because it keeps crashing ?

[08:22:35][904]*** Starting naval AI ***
[08:23:24][904]Resume: false, ai/cost.lua:0: attempt to index field 'originalFaction' (a nil value)
[08:23:24][904][C]:-1(global error) ai/ai.lua:0: ai/cost.lua:0: attempt to index field 'originalFaction' (a nil value)


I'm sure I have solved this before, but I can't remember what I done to fix the problem.

kirk23 wrote:Sabratha some very interesting ideas you are coming up with! I look forward to playing your mod, since it appears that yourself and DanielHerr have a good grasp of working with Lua scripts. Have either of you thought about tweaking the in game AI? For one thing since release the games naval warfare AI is stupid, the main problem being that the AI does not protect or repair its ships,mainly the Dreadnoughts.

All the best,Kirk.


Does anyone know what this highlights as a problem because it keeps crashing ?

[08:22:35][904]*** Starting naval AI ***
[08:23:24][904]Resume: false, ai/cost.lua:0: attempt to index field 'originalFaction' (a nil value)
[08:23:24][904][C]:-1(global error) ai/ai.lua:0: ai/cost.lua:0: attempt to index field 'originalFaction' (a nil value)


I'm sure I have solved this before, but I can't remember what I done to fix the problem.

I don't think I'm that proficient with AI files to check that out, perhaps Daniel can help you. Some of the ai files are not easy to edit, seem to require hex-editing like the map files.

DanielHerr wrote:No, I never got the Central AI to declare war on Belgium. But I'm pretty sure that it is possible.

I lost the code to display the hex coordinates when I lost the whole mod, but it was something like this in ui>main_hud.lua:

Code: Select all

function hud.OnHexClick(hex, button)
 hud:GetText("turn_text"):SetText("Hex: " .. hex.x .. "," .. hex.y)

Doesn't work i'm afraid.


Download links for 0.9 version in first post in thread. Enjoy!

DanielHerr wrote:I strongly disagree about the sudden death stuff.

Well, I'm gonna have good news for you. I tested these and in the end I agree with your opinion. These turned out to feel "artificial" and gamey, with players madly going for specific cities, ignoring the rest of the front. Dropped the notion alltogeather.