98 replies to this topic

[Jhake]

I know it's been said that adoptions are hardcoded in, but I've got an alternate suggestion. Could it be possible to change the alert of "Candidate for Adoption" to "Bastard Born/Noticed/Comes of Age" or something like that, and the choice is whether to recognize the bastard, rather than adopt the general? And as for keeping them out of the succession, I know the mod Deus lo Vult uses character traits that keep adopted characters from inheriting.

[aeoleron9]

Good one Jhake. But like Marc said we'll still get bastards with messed up names, since there are only so many names from the books. Come to think of it...can we extend the idea and give them the regional bastard names? Probably a hardcode again but just a thought.

I'm not familiar with DLV, how exactly do they prevent bastards/adopts inheriting? Didn't think you could keep them from the family tree. Simply hate it when my royal born heir apparent gets usurped by some nobody I adopted before him.

[Jhake]

Adoptions stay on the family tree with the DLV system, but actual sons get the trait "biological son", and you can't inherit without that trait. I'm not familiar with the technical side of things, but their forum's here if you want to take a look.

[Inactive User]

Oh, aeleron, is BBB for 1.2 out already?

[aeoleron9]

Nope, not yet.

I think it's ok to just replace the 1.2 files with old BBB files. It's not like CA really did anything spectacular on traits and ancillaries, I'm still getting secret lovers, pagan magicians, and a whole bunch of strange triggers that don't make much sense.

BTW, After several hours playing around with the names, descr_strat and VnV, I've finally gotten Janos Slynt into the game as a corrupt general. Along with Osmund and Jacelyn. Rinse and repeat and I can get our generals slowly implemented.

Another thing, can I assume my list of traits and ancillaries as perfect? :P Need more ideas people, any interesting traits from Westeros I left out? Any unique items or animals that could fit in?

[Maester Yobjascz]

Aeoleron9 -

I'm not sure about that list... what is each trying to accomplish?  I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, trying to make sure that are as efficient as possible with our demands on the modders.  

Quote

Traits:

There's a lot of traits assignable to a lot of characters... and I'm assuming that you're not limiting the traits to that list.  Under that assumption, some of those are self-explanatory, others are not.  In other words, traits are a *big* issue that we'll have to take some serious time with.

Quote

Ancilliaries:

Titles... okay, I can understand wanting Robb to be "Lord of Winterfell", etc.  So no problems there.

Offices... This gets a bit dicey.  For King's Landing, this is because the Small Council can, and often does, encompass members from different factions, which introduces some complications.  That said, it does make sense, under the BBB mod that allows giving titles, that we could 'reward' certain generals with titles; especially if those generals are capable at generating tax revenues, etc.  On balance, though, this might be more trouble than it's worth.  We don't have enough generals to accommodate an entire small council *and* field generals.  I *can* see retinue attachments for the various offices.  

For locations outside of KL, this gets cumbersome.  Each castle nominally gets a 'master of horse', or 'sergeant at arms'.  I'd appoint a maester, and perhaps the others as retinue attachments to generals *stationed at the castle*.  Once they leave, they lose the retinue.  

Castellans and Stewards may be too hard to implement.  They'd effectively be retinues for the captains in charge of ungoverned castles... since I don't think captains can have retinues, this is moot.  If we had enough generals on the list, we could give them all titles, and have five or six in each castle... since we don't, we've got to limit the titles as well.

Magic Wielders... I'm not sure how you intend these to function.  To my knowledge, Melisandre, Thoros, and the others weren't going to be included... certainly not as independent generals.  They're simply not that important in the scheme of battle.  Perhaps there could be a pyromancer unit, recruitable at great expense at King's Landing (damage like a siege engine, looks like a pilgrim, etc.)... Melisandre and Thoros could conceivably be retinue attachments... but we'd have to work on the details of how they'd function.

Soldiers - By these, you've got a bunch of mercenaries, effectively.  And once again, we're looking at retinue.  Recruit the Brave Companions unit, get Hoat as a retinue... same with Timett, Shagga, and the others.  Areo Hotah is likely retinue specific to the Lord of House Martell, and Bronn will take some figuring out.

Espionage - I still like the 'Outrider' agent idea, but I'm not sure if this is feasible.  Beyond that, it'll take some thought.

Fools - I'm not certain what roles fools play in war.  They're there as entertainment, though they, theoretically, can aid in political games... but even then, it's indirect and minor.  Bards and Singers might function as retinue to make marriage arrangements more palatable... for either party.  ... I suppose fools might do the same.  

Other individuals... perhaps as retinue.  Same as special items and creatures.  One issue that comes to mind is that a Valyrian sword isn't much on a strategic level... in a duel, it's a huge advantage.  In small scale skirmishes, it might have an impact (assuming only one member has one).  In large battles, the impact of one person is so small, that even a large personal advantage gets lost.  I suppose the argument could be made that having a Valyrian sword increases your the respect from your troops... but it's a stretch.  Direwolves, well, we've seen them have a large effect on cavalry, so that could work.  Ravens?  The only one we see is Mormont's (now Jon's), and I'm having trouble coming up with a viable effect it could have on gameplay.

[aeoleron9]

Hi MY, good to see you back. We need more devil's advocates! :)

On traits, yes these are not all, I'm only thinking up Westeros-based traits to add on the existing ones from vanilla and BBB. Since there's no limit to how many traits a general gets(as opposed to only 8 retinues per general) we could expand more on this...

On offices, you raised a valid point about the privy council members coming from different factions. I'm thinking we could play on that, let the threshold be open to any general with adequate skills in the respective area, but limit the seat (say, the master of horse) to only one at any given time, so we won't have numerous masters of horse from different factions. I guess we'll start out according to the books, but after say, Stannis dies, the Master of Ships will be unoccupied, and after a few turns a new general (perhaps one governing a developed port) will be granted the office ancillary. Once appointed, the general will lose loyalty, like Ser Kevan tried to point out to Cersei, but they will get boosts to their expertise.

It's one way to do it, but it would weaken the crown faction since it can't appoint the offices to its own men (OR overpower them because they can lower anyone's loyalty). It would also be weird if all the councilors are spread around the world, doing their own business, though granted that was mostly what we saw in the books... The Hand and Kingsguard Commander is especially tricky in this way, I'd keep them Crownlands-only. The Kingsguard itself is troublesome too, maybe we can make these offices-in-question as unique traits for the crownland generals? (After all, they didn't get to name any new Kingsguards from other factions)

For the smaller offices, the idea is that Stewards, Castellans and Masters of Horse be each limited to one per faction to avoid spammage. Or to adopt BBB, make some of them nontransferable retinues for the Faction Leader and not an office to grant. As for titles, they add alot atmosphere and can be implemented realistically (Roose starts in Dreadfort and gets himself the Lordship, etc) I agree we might not have enough generals to grant all the titles, but at least for major settlements they're a must.

Magic folk I see as retinues attached to generals. Maybe we can add the Reeds for Bran too, they seem magical enough  :leer:

The fools and musicians were in the vanilla game, so I thought we could give them some personality. To avoid too much trouble for the graphics people, maybe we can just use the same pic for them...They're not that important anyway.

You're right about the Valyrian swords, I've yet to go look their names up. Each will add authority and maybe bonus hitpoints for the general to represent their prowess in battle. I can't think up many items other than weapons..(Needle for Arya!) And finally, animals can include the minizoo we saw with the wildlings, maybe wargs will get them as retinues easily.

[Maester Yobjascz]

I was never gone, Aeoleron9... just busy with work (and still am).  I check in regularly, but didn't see a need to chime in 'till then.

Just to repost a couple of suggestions from before...

Spies --> Raiders: Basic idea - hireable agent called a 'Raider', recast from the Spy agent.  Can attach to towns/castles or armies.  Attached to an enemy town, it destroys fields/improvements outside of the town walls, and reduces trade income... may reduce population as well.  Some of this may be limited to not affecting towns with stone walls or better.  Attached to an enemy army, it increases that army's fog of war, slows their movement, and increases their maintenance costs.  It *may* also slowly attrition their troops.  This would be, of course, modified by terrain.  Raiders are more effective in mountains, forests, deserts, etc... they are less effective in the open.  As with any other agent, Raiders may be forced to retreat (or be killed outright) if the strength of the opposition outmatches their skill.

Victory Conditions: Self explanatory...

Crusade --> Claim Kingship: Basic idea is that we co-opt the "Go on a Crusade" model to "Claim Kingship"... all factions start as vassals to the Iron Throne.  They're capable of fighting amongst themselves.  But at some point, they can claim Kingship.  This automatically makes the Crownlands and their vassals hostile to the new King.  It also makes the new King (and his heirs) Kings... which means that they are much *more* valuable as political marriages.  There are a bunch of nifty things that fall out of this approach, if it's feasible.

Edited by Maester Yobjascz, 10 May 2007 - 06:46 PM.

[Marcus]

There isn't a way to change appellations midgame. If factions start with the leader called "Lord" there's no way to make them change to "King" if they start a crusade. Also the problem with crusades is that the Papacy is needed. If we make the Papacy King's Landing, you can't call a crusade against the Iron Throne anyways. Crusades are limited by religion, so the main Andal factions could only crusade agains Stark, Stannis and Greyjoy even if it was implemented. Also, if we're still starting after Balon claims his crown, then such a feature isnt needed, unless you want every faction to be able to crown themselves, which sort-of defeats the purpose if every faction is on their own... Perhaps I'm not grasping this concept.

[Maester Yobjascz]

Marcus -

The title 'King' could be trait based... i.e. "Lord Robb Stark, Lord of Winterfell, King in the North"...  

How many religions are we limited to?  I was under the impression that we could expand the number of religions... if this is the case, and since there seems to be little value to implementing actual religions in ASOIAF (the religions are all pretty mundane at this point, and not really that antagonistic), perhaps we could create a 'religion' for each faction?  It would be effectively invisible for most actions, but it would allow declaring a crusade against other factions...

The underlying idea was to try and create a political model that made sense.  Simply going out and attacking other factions is one thing.  But the model I suggested created all sorts of interesting hooks and options.  It gives a hook which makes marriage proposals more important, it gives better resolution to victory conditions (Mace isn't interested in being King, he's interested in having his daughter *married* to a King), and it draws an important distinction between rival lords fighting for power, and a lord contesting the Throne for Kingship.

[Marcus]

It could be trait based, but the same trait would have to given to everyone who calls a crusade. So, it wouldnt get more indepth than a "King" trait, as it has to work for every faction who calls a crusade. As for the number of religions, I don't know what the set limit is. However some religions don't have crusades. Pagan and heretic have no ability to call crusades and I don't know how easy it would be to implement crusades.  Much of the crusade/jihad is hardcoded. Also we'd have to edit the religous model, as unrest is based largely upon the religion in a settlement, and with every faction having their own religion that could make taking over another province a priest-war more than an actual battle. Also, religions can't share the same name. For the eight factions that use the Seven, only one could use that name...

[Marcus]

Back to this. After some thinking, we'd have to scrap crusades and model everything on jihads, for one. Secondly, while adding religions are possible, they just take some work making new churches and so on. This would mean that, say, Tully took over the Golden Tooth. Both are Seven factions, but because each has their own Seven religion, they'd have to convert the populace and destroy the Lannister's churches and rebuild their own. With how drawn out build times will probably be in this mod, that may become frusteration. This is still possible, if you really want to do it, there's just catches. Also, the KIng trait would most likely be granted to every named character who enters one of these 'crusades.' So, say, Stark calls a crusade against Lannister. The player sends Roose Bolton to join the crusade and attack Lannister castle X.  Roose Bolton, upon joining the crusade, would get the King trait, along with any other general who joined up... It may be possible to mod the traits so that leaders only can get it, but you'd have to send your soon-to-be King on the crusade. Another thing. What if the player claims 'Kingship' then fails the crusade? You get a "Kingship Failed" notice? I'm not saying what you want to implement is wrong, just difficult and a tad unwieldy. I honestly don't think it proves much of a point if every faction is able to claim Kingship. Not to mention the AI wouldnt see it the way we portray it, it would see it as a regular jihad, so you'd have pretty much every faction claiming this Kingship, and I really dont see the Arryns or the Tully's or Doran Martell claiming to be a King...Maybe that's just my viewpoint though.

AS for your marriage proposals, with adoptions effectively removed, and I'm trying to do the same for non-political marriages, so the effect would already be there.

[Maester Yobjascz]

Ok, it seems that the model won't really allow for the angle I was going for, so that's done.  :(

I'll have to ponder this awhile...

[Maester Yobjascz]

Can we control the creation of new generals mid-game?  I.e. - their names, abilities, traits, etc.?

If we can, then perhaps we can make captured generals a possibility with BBB...  I'm under the impression that that mod found a way to 'assign' titles and retinue from one general to another.  If that's the case...

In a battle between Starks and Lannisters, Jaime Lannister is a general for the Lannister side.  Starks win the battle, and Jaime Lannister does not escape.  This qualifies him, in the game, as killed.  However, this triggers a randomizer, which determines that Jaime was 'captured'.  Robb Stark, the Stark general, gains a retinue labeled "Jaime Lannister".  Perhaps some bonus to command or Chivalry/Dread is gained as a result... Jaime Lannister can then be traded to other generals as needed.  If Robb has Jamie as retinue and is later defeated in battle, Jaime is either lost (killed), or transferred to the victor (is this possible under the BBB mod?).  Moreover, Robb can transfer Jaime to a Lannister general, signifying his release (once again, I'm not certain this is possible in the mod).  If Jaime is transferred to a Lannister general, the retinue disappears, and a new general is created, with Jaime's name and stats.  Another tricky part would be fitting the 'new' Jaime Lannister back into the succession (assuming Jaime was *in* the succession...).

Is this possible?

[Marcus]

The only way to establish new generals is with a creation of a faction. So, for example. Wildlings won't be in the game to start. At turn X. the faction enters somewhere up north and invades the Wall. The generals are then "created" when that faction appears. It may be possible to script General X to appear at Castle Y on Turn Z, but nothing like you're suggesting. Retinues are just, from the game's perspective, an "item" that gives bonus X and can be moved from gen to gen. Retinue's are no different than the items, the game doesn't recognise a Master of Assassins any different from the Holy Grail. One isn't considered human in any sense, so like you're suggesting if the retinue is lost, a human unit is created. No, sorry. We could make Retinue's that are "people" that can be passed around, but there'd be no way to release them and the triggers may  make it possible to gain retinue, say, Jaime, when Jaime is still alive and on the map. I don't know how specific triggers can be. One I know offhead is Corruption. If the treasure is >5000, the leader gains corrupted trait 1. If treasure >10000, faction leader gains corrupted trait 2. What you're saying is something like : If a general wins over another general, then the winning general picks up a retinue with the same name of the defeated general. That would mean having a specific retinue for every named character, and it would only work if you selected to, say, ransom the men back at the end of the battle. The problem is, picking up the retinue for that character wouldnt affect the real character on the map. So, another example.
Jaime loses to Robb. Robb ransoms the units captured picks up Jaime retinue. He could do whatever he likes with the retinue, but him picking up the retinue wouldnt affect the Jaime character that's on the map. There's no way to pick a character off the map. I suppose if you chose "Execute" then you could pick the retinue up and Jaime would be off the map, but after you executed Jaime, there's no putting him back on the map afterwards, so I don't really see the point of a hostage you can never ransom off. There wouldn't be any sort of blackmail involved, as the character is in every sense dead to the Lannister faction.

Edited by Marcus, 11 May 2007 - 03:25 PM.

[Inactive User]

Nah, Marcus is right. I say "execute Jaime!" :P

Anyway, my input is something like DLV could be done, with the swords and crowns bit. So when your faction leader dies, the next one can travel back to the capital to be crwoned. And in AD, wasn't there a show me how script that could do things? Couldn't you have some feature that says, every turn when you're in conflict with Crownlands faction, the advisor pops up with a "Does your lord want to declare himself a king?" question, and to say yes, you click "show me how?" Would that be possible Marcus?

BTW, what people do you have in your mod. You could do some recruiting on TW.org or something. I'm sure people here are willing to learn. I'm willing to learn to skin, particularly as I'm angling for an art degree at the moment :P .

[Marcus]

I'm not familiar with either of those mods, so I havent a clue what you're going on about. Links?

Edit: After looking at these, I've requested the use of some parts of DLV. The show_me scripts in Ad are quite interesting. It may be able to do as MY suggests, as these scripts can kill and create characters, however it does seem to be a lot of work to do. In all honesty, I'd like to get all the basics laid out and get some sort of release done before Kingdoms. I'm all for things that will make the mod more like Westeros, but it's just not feasible to expect this much work from such a small team. Do you mind if we put this on the backburner MY? I'd like to at least get enough completed for a decent release before we tackle something like this.

Edited by Marcus, 11 May 2007 - 05:37 PM.

[Maester Yobjascz]

Marcus - I'm all for getting a basic release done first.  The stuff I'm dreaming up here is how an ideal version would work...

I'll keep refining some of those ideas, but in the meantime, let me know if there are other issues/projects that need work.  I'm not a coder or an artist, but I do enjoy playing with game mechanics.

... also, is there any hope for the 'Raider' agent?

[Marcus]

I honestly havent given it much thought. Between coursework and modding, I'm swamped.  Things you can do...uhm. Whip over and look at the list I posted in the Updates thread. If you can find something to do there, great.

Edited by Marcus, 11 May 2007 - 06:32 PM.

[aeoleron9]

I agree with holding back the ideas for now and concentrate on getting a release out first. Once we have the gritty bits settled then we'll try to mod the newer features.

I read that Europa Barbarium mod for Rome:TW had a similar effect to the "pillaging for upkeep" idea MY thought up, dunno if it's possible in M2TW though. The outrider/Raider agents would be alot of trouble too, most likely we'll have to rely on scripts to simulate the effect, again.