Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Marcus

Westeros M2:TW mod

Recommended Posts

Several mods have modded in the privy council concept by giving out ancilliaries/retinues to characters: suppose Tyrion stays in Kingslanding for a couple turns, and he can get granted a 'Hand of the King' ancilliary. Or you can RPG and let Joffery get it then transfer the title to his favorite nuncle.

Joffery as the pope of Westeros...probably not a good idea :P

I can see the sense of crownlands as a neutral state, but the college is probably hardcoded, and this papacy won't survive for long...I'd bet people will be sacking Joffery 5 turns into the game(I'm sure I will)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see the sense of crownlands as a neutral state, but the college is probably hardcoded, and this papacy won't survive for long...I'd bet people will be sacking Joffery 5 turns into the game(I'm sure I will)

Oh, I don't know if that's necessarily the case... it all comes down to the victory conditions, no?

If the goal of the game is simply to control King's Landing for a set length of time, then, yeah... Joffrey's screwed (as are Dorne, Greyjoy, and Stark), and it's a race between the Tyrells and the Lannisters, with the Baratheon's likely to try to sneak in.

But that kind of runs counter to the spirit of the books, no? The goal of the Tyrell's wasn't to 'own' King's Landing, but to have his grandchildren sit the throne. Same with the Lannisters... the original goal wasn't to have Tywin (or Jaime) sitting on the Throne, but to have Cersei's children secure there. Robb's goal wasn't the Iron Throne either, but rather an independent North (or, when Eddard still lived, an honorable peace with Eddard returned).

There's got to be some way to have the game calculate political strength... as a combination of military strength, territory controlled, and alliances made (and how strong those alliances are, and to whom). Victory could be based on political strength, or outright conquest, or strong alliances, or by marrying into the Iron Throne (and having that rulership be safely maintained)...

So, I think we need to spend some time figuring out the victory conditions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sacking Joff is purely personal :P

And to refute my 5 turn statement, sieges really need to be longer. Right now you can sack any city with a sizable army and some siege equip in 1 or 2 turns, and the autocal usually works in favor of the offense. That shouldn't be the case if we want some real battles...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some thoughts on Victory conditions:

Usually it's hold how many territories, destroy somebody, or hold a special province. I know, it's more realistic to turn an enemy faction vassal or make peace, but the code doesn't seem to recognize a vassalage as destroying a faction(after all the trouble for it too!). Not sure if they're moddable, so I'll go along these lines for now.

Stark: Preserve North. Destroy factions Lannister and Joffery. Alliance with Tullys?

Tully: Perserve Riverlands, Destroy Lannister and Joffery. Alliance with North?

Lannister: Preserve the West. Destroy Starks, Tullys, Stannis, Renly. Alliance with Crown or hold Kingslanding.

Arryn: not sure, is Littlefinger in? maybe hold Harrenhal... and the Vale intact.

Tyrell: Preserve Reach. Allied with Crown or hold Kingslanding.

Greyjoy: Preserve Pyke. Hold the North. Destroy Starks?

Martell: Preserve Dorne. Destroy Lannisters and maybe Tyrells.

Baratheon/Joffrey: Preserve Crown, Hold Kingslanding, destroy Starks, Tullys, Stannis, Renly.

Baratheon/Stannis: Hold Kingslanding. Destroy Lannister and Joff. Stan obviously wants all other Kings dead though...so maybe also Renly, Stark, Greyjoy? eww.

Baratheon/Renly: Hold Kingslanding. Destroy Lannister and Joff. He doesn't seem so intent on killing his brother...

Are Nightwatch and Wildlings playable? If so...

Night's Watch: hold the wall, destroy the wildlings/Others. Maintain alliance with all Westeros?

Wildlings: hold the wall, destroy the Others/Nightwatch

Others: ???

Martell, Greyjoy and especially Stannis are obviously very hard factions to play, though they do have natural defenses. The Baratheon brothers have no preserving conditions since they only want the throne and cared little for their lands. Renly offered Stan Storm's End, and Stan lost Dragonstone. I did thought about making Others a target for Stannis, but it would be stretching the timeline I think...

Preserving respective lands is probably tricky to implement. All I can think of is tune their territory count to reflect their holdings, and you can always roleplay, since victory conditions are for humans only anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the victory conditions are largely dependent on what time we consider the game to 'start'. For example, if we start at the beginning of AGoT, then Eddard is alive, and the goal might be a long period of peace. Whereas, at the end of AGoT, the goal might be carving out a kingdom and holding it...

That said, here are my initial thoughts on victory conditions:

Crownlands - Vassalage with all existing houses (i.e. all factions are vassals to the Crownlands, or destroyed); followed by peace for X turns.

The goal of the Crownlands is to maintain a cohesive Kingdom... quell any rebellions, and keep things in order. The goal isn't conquest, but retaining control.

Stark - Retain X territories (Base 'North' territories), peace for X turns.

The Starks aren't expansionist... their goal isn't to conquer Westeros, nor really to expand or eliminate another house. Their goal is an independent King in the North. Thus, they'll accept their base borders, though they'd happily accept more territories (i.e., the Riverlands or the Vale). And peace... With their borders secure, they'll need a truce with the other factions... this approximates the other factions accepting the King in the North. I'm split as to whether to require the Starks to claim Kingship or not... per Catelyn, they'd be willing to lay down the crown for good peace terms.

Tully - Retain X territories (Base 'Riverlands' territories), peace for X turns.

Similarly, the Tully's aren't expansionist either. They aren't looking to gain lands... just not to lose them. They also want peace. We do know that they react *very* poorly to incursions and being attacked... Had Tywin not sent Gregor and Lorch into the Riverlands and besieged Riverrun, I don't know that they'd have gone to war for Robb.

Arryn - Bloodline on/inheriting Iron Throne, peace for X turns.

The Arryn's are tough, simply because of Petyr Baelish's status... As of AGoT, he's already calling the shots for Lysa Tully, even though he's not visibly in control. However, the above is predicated on Baelish determining the goals of Arryn. This is also the first faction where marrying into the Iron Throne is a viable win conditiion... Baelish is either going to sit on the throne himself, or he's going to maneuver someone in his 'family' (i.e., Sansa) onto the throne. Of course, the player could opt for a military approach instead... :)

Lannister - All factions Vassals to Crownlands if Lannister bloodline on/inheriting Iron Throne, or Ally/Vassal all factions, peace for X turns.

The Lannisters are pretty much the same as the Arryns under Baelish, except that they've already got a bloodline on the Iron Throne (Joffrey/Tommen). Also, they're not willing to accept a fractured kingdom, so they'll want to ensure that their bloodline inherits an intact kingdom. If not possible, they'll take Westeros on their own.

Tyrell - All factions Vassals to Crownlands if Tyrell bloodline on/inheriting Iron Throne, or Ally/Vassal all factions, peace for X turns.

The Tyrells are in the same boat as the Lannisters. The ability to accept a blood relation on the Throne allows the Tyrells and Lannisters to work together, as they did in the books.

Baratheon (Renly) - Claim Kingship, Vassal all factions, peace for X turns.

Renly wants to be king... so putting his heir on the throne isn't important... just getting the vassalage of the other factions.

Baratheon (Stannis) - Claim Kingship, Vassal all factions, peace for X turns.

Stannis wants the same as his brother... marrying Shireen into the Throne is out of the question.

Greyjoy - Claim Kingship, hold X territories (Starting + X) for X turns.

The Greyjoys under Balon are expansionist... Balon wants to be King, and he wants to grow his kingdom. He refuses to bend to the Iron Throne, so he won't have victory while a vassal to them.

Martell - Hold X territories (starting territories), extinguish Lannister bloodline.
Doran is out for vengeance. He wants the Lannisters dead... all of them. So long as there's anyone alive who can trace lineage to Tywin, Martell hasn't won. Doesn't matter if it's by assassination, or in battle to someone else... so long as they're dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thought that occurred to me as I was thinking about victory conditions was this: we could try to co-opt the 'On a Crusade' status into a 'Claiming the Throne' status.

If you want to openly contend for the Iron Throne, you click that button. Of course, that makes you the enemy of whoever controls the Crownlands and King's Landing, and their vassals, as it puts you in Rebellion. *However*, it gives you 'King' status (bonuses to command, perhaps, certainly to diplomacy) among neutrals and allies, and makes it easier to convert allies into vassals.

If you claim Kingship, your vassal status to the Crownlands/Iron Throne is discarded. Anyone can attack you without interference from the Iron Throne. In fact, attacking such rebels would increase your status with the Iron Throne (just as going on crusades and burning heretics increases status with the Papal States). Further, failure to attack such rebels might *lower* standing with the Iron Throne. Kingship claims can be put down, of course... Accepting vassal status to another King automatically cancels your own claim to Kingship. Given the possibility of multiple Kings, is there any way we could mod the game to keep track of a faction's status with each King? I.e., the Stormlands took Vassalage to Renly when he claimed the Throne. When he died without issue, the Stormlands houses took Vassalage to Stannis, and then to the Iron Throne. By tracking status with each King, each accepting of Vassal status would lower the status with the other Kings... when they got to accepting Vassalage to King's Landing, their status would be very low.

However, if you claim Kingship, the effective diplomatic power in the eyes of allied and neutral factions would go up. Other factions would have more to gain from supporting you, since your victory enhances their status much more than if you hadn't claimed kingship. Marriages carry *a lot* more weight, and factions would likely accept Vassal status and betraying other factions (like the Crownlands) to marry into your faction.

This way, the Tullys don't make themselves Vassals to the Starks until Robb claims Kingship. Same with Renly/Tyrells. Why would Tyrell be willing to become the vassals of the Stormlands, when the Tyrells are wealthier and more powerful militarily? Because Renly claimed Kingship, and the Tyrells have a goal of marrying into Kingship.

Similarly, you should be able to create betrothals for minors... with the marriage delayed 'till they come of age. Don't know if that's possible, but it'd be nice... Would allow the Lannisters to marry Myrcella to Dorne... and have Dorne then consider assassinating the young princess before she comes of age and marriage becomes necessary... yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought about the preserving lands conditions and I think the 'hold territory' trigger can do the trick, just require them to hold all the starting settlements.

The claim Kingship idea is brilliant, hats off :) If this and vassalage triggers for Victory is moddable then I'm gonna celebrate early/late Christmas. One thing though, I think the Andal contenders at least needs to eliminate Joffery and hold Kingslanding before claiming victory. Basically we can mod it so the only viable target for Kingship is Kingslanding. The Crownlands shouldn't be bending in vassalage and I think the Baratheons both want him dead. There should only be one King left if you're an Andal King and want win.

Giving Starks and Greyjoy a different Kingship trigger would be nice(if the Andals had crusade modded then these can get Jihads), since neither of them wanted the whole world, rather just peace as a separate Kingship. Krakens obviously needs more lands and plunder, Starks...I still think they should destroy the Lannisters (and maybe Joffery too). Robb seemed determined for revenge, and his rule won't be firm until those 2 are dealt with.

Lannister and Tyrell conditions are nice. Tullys however seem a little out of place, what with everyone in conquest and blood. I guess you could play a neutral state and all, helping each King in turn...but their awkward position is inviting an attack. I think they should at least have an alliance with the Starks, with their marriage and ties...at very least give them diplomatic bonuses so they tend to stick together. And Arryns...not so sure about Littlefinger's conditions there, does anyone actually knows what that man's thinking?

I guess the Tullys, Arryns and Dorne are the middle ground open for diplomatic contest, but they all seem to hold grudges against Lannisters...maybe a penalty on diplomacy, relations keep deteriorating, etc. Tywin can still bend them to vassalage by force/money if Robb or the Baratheons aren't fast enough. Tyrells are probably open too, no doubt everyone will be trying to catch their beautiful daughter running around the Reach...Again for authenticity we can place Marge closer to Renly's people so they can get hooked up easier than the others.

Finally, if we have to push the button to start the 5 King war then the timeline is more concrete. Something like before Tywin unleashing his horde(or Tullys won't have any neutral choices) and Robb still calling banners. Renly and Stannis are both preparing for Kingship and war. Everyone still vassal to the Throne, nothing decided yet. Sounds promising to me :smoking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this for conditions? Now, Total War lets you pick both a long and short campaign, and each has different goals? Why not apply the same to this? It roughly matches what the books do, too. Generally, we've seen two goals in the books: Either a group seeks the throne or independence. So, for limited conditions, we could have an independence or survival type goal. For example, the Starks may have to hold Winterfell, Riverrun, and Harrenhal, as well as 15-30 territories overall to win their short campaign. Since we want to max out options, we could give similar goals to all factions to experiment outside of the timeline. Also, goals like having blood on the throne could work as well. Then, for a longer campaign, we could have the campaign for the Throne itself, like what Renly, Stannis, and the Lannisters all sought. In this version, we could either require total conquest or perhaps status that reflects it. For example, require some fast province total (like 50) and have many required provinces (like, say, Winterfell, King's Landing, Riverrun, Casterly Rock, Sunspear, etc.). With these conditions, we have more options and more potential goals rather than just rigidly following book goals. It's kind of like in Rome Total War. In that game, history dictates the Rome go to war with Carthage a few turns after the game starts, and the game certainly favors this course, but you don't HAVE to do it, and can in fact win without even touching Carthage. The same should apply here, with the short campaign goals reflecting more specific book ambitions.

Thoughts?

Edit: BTW, my views are based on a liberal view of the mod. I think we should not only leave events open to change, but even basic character goals. Rather than just complete an Arryn goal of being connected to the Throne, why not create a new world where Baelish desires all of Westeros under his thumb? What if Robb the Young Wolf decided to become Robb the Conqueror? I think such freedom would be a nice path to choose. However, if such a liberal objective structure is out of the question, I guess these suggestions don't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good with the short/long term differences.

I think the game's always open to player decisions, I've had several short campaigns that weren't quite short, and sometimes allied with my rival until the very end. It's probably the same here. Roleplay is encouraged, but you can always blitz on and take Westeros even when playing a Tully or destroy Dorne while being Robb. The conditions are usually there for you to end the game when you feel like it :P

I've heard of people trying to add some options to Victory Conditions like an economic/cultural triumph and whatsnot, but didn't hear of much progress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem we might run into with trying to 'eliminate' other factions, is, that it might not be very possible.

First, that the factions are all pretty even. Yes, Tyrell is very strong compared to Dorne or Tully, but not *that* much stronger. Tyrell would have to attack and keep troops to defend itself, and the Tullys do have enough troops to defend themselves adequately.

Second, there are significant manpower limits... troops that are lost in this game shouldn't be easily replaced; look at the Lannisters. They generated, to my knowledge, four armies during the War of the Five Kings: Tywin's, Jaime's, Stafford's, and one last one. Stafford's army was *very* green, and not made up of good troops... it was easily broken by Robb's vets. That last army was the sweepings of the Westerlands. There simply isn't enough manpower in a particular faction to sweep Westeros of the opposing factions through military might alone...

Third, and tied in to the above, the timeline is significantly shorter than what we deal with in the vanilla game. In vanilla, we cover a few hundred years. In this mod, we're dealing with, what, maybe a few decades? That's barely one generation, and unlikely to allow significant regeneration of manpower... whereas the vanilla game assumes long periods of time for the population to recuperate.

Fourth, I don't recall a faction ever really wanting to eliminate another faction... Doran didn't want to eliminate house Lannister... just to eliminate Tywin and his branch of the family. Tywin didn't want to eliminate House Stark... just quell their rebellion (it's only when his options for a reasonable peace keeping the North in the kingdom failed that he was left with crushing the Starks... and even then, he tried marrying Tyrion into the Starks to keep the family going, albeit with a Lannister in control.).

As aeorleron9 noted, players are free to aim for the Iron Throne if they want, regardless of faction or victory conditions. If they 'win' at the stated victory conditions, they can continue playing for total dominance.

Moreover, we can always expand the mods to include more victory conditions, more factions, and more options at later points... but for a first release, I think we should keep things simple...

Personally, I'd love to see later mods that include an invasion of Others, an Eastern Continent with Targaryen Faction (whether PC or NPC), 'historical campaigns', like Robert's Rebellion, etc. But for the time being, I'm happy with working on the War of the Five Kings... we'll expand later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be totally honest, I say we screw manpower limits. The only time manpower has been a problem in Total War was if you were the Germans or some other tiny faction in Rome on Huge unit size, where your cities were super-small. I think that ultimately it would be more fun if we just let each faction field armies like they were Total War factions. My experience from Rome: Total Realism taught me that trying to make games super-accurate sucks out the fun REALLY fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My experience from Rome: Total Realism taught me that trying to make games super-accurate sucks out the fun REALLY fast.

I would actually argue the opposite, that it makes the game quite a bit more challenging, and thus, more fun. I know it would be a huge turnoff to the mod for myself if extra stuff started to get added to factions to make them more balanced against one another or to provide extra options that the factions wouldn't have had in the book. I'm not against the possibility of, as the Ironborn, being able to invade, say, Dorne, but I should have to work for it. If I make some tactically stupid decisions and get the flower of Tyrell chivalry wiped out, it should be a big deal.

To sum up, I would make a strong appeal for accuracy to the books and the limitations the various factions have, otherwise, why not just make a mod based-on or inspired-by Westeros if a bunch of changes are going to be made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SubD -

I have no problem with an option/campaign/variant that removes the manpower limits... but that's not a recreation of Westeros... the goal most of us are interested in is trying to do better than the characters in the books, when put in their position. Removing the manpower limits effectively creates a 'god mode'... fun, but not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I will have to buy the game to play online with you guys ok I wonder how many people will buy the game just to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SubD -

I have no problem with an option/campaign/variant that removes the manpower limits... but that's not a recreation of Westeros... the goal most of us are interested in is trying to do better than the characters in the books, when put in their position. Removing the manpower limits effectively creates a 'god mode'... fun, but not the same.

Ah, I suppose adding the option would be sufficient. Well, I suppose the best way to simulate manpower would be to open with large numbers of units available to train in each settlement, but have their recharge rate be super slow to represent how slowly new soldiers are phased in. Like, say, a new set of each unit is only available every 10 turns or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SubD -

I have no problem with an option/campaign/variant that removes the manpower limits... but that's not a recreation of Westeros... the goal most of us are interested in is trying to do better than the characters in the books, when put in their position. Removing the manpower limits effectively creates a 'god mode'... fun, but not the same.

Ah, I suppose adding the option would be sufficient. Well, I suppose the best way to simulate manpower would be to open with large numbers of units available to train in each settlement, but have their recharge rate be super slow to represent how slowly new soldiers are phased in. Like, say, a new set of each unit is only available every 10 turns or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SubD -

The specific regen rate is something I'm leaving to Marcus and the other mod's who are more familiar with the internal workings of the system... but yes, I think you're on the right track there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the Medieval 2 second update is due to go live some time in the next week with improvements including a cut-scene editor and a battlefield editor. More details here.

Hopefully this is stuff that will help the mod!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×