Please help with the following scripts
17.---PORTUGUESE EXPANSION
-Would like to have the Portugal AI have a strong bias towards capturing regions on the coast with the spice or textiles resource, mostly ignore taking non-coastal regions at least for most of the game
16.---RAJPUTS
-Should always sally forth after a few turns rather than surrender
-most of civilian population should commit suicide/jandaur if sallying army is destroyed
15.---ATTRITION SCRIPT
-all factions need to take attrition in snowy north
-besieging should have chance to cause attrition/disease on both sides
14.---UNIFIED ARMY TRAIT=MORALE BONUS
-make a list of muslim/christian/hindu/buddhist/pagan units, if over 75% of army is same religion then increase morale of army
13.----VETERAN TRAIT=MOVEMENT INCREASE
=If most of army has silver or gold chevrons or knight attribute, then generl gets "Veteran Army" trait, gives increase in morale, also gives 15% movement increase, increase in authority/personal security, decrease rebel activity
12.----TRAITS FOR ALL AGENTS
-All spies should start with trait that gives increase army movement/sight/personal security of general at higher levels,,, Priests should inspire army, etc
11.----LARGE EMPIRE SCRIPT
=If faction owns over a certain number of regions/troops/navy then faction leader gains authority, but settlements gain corruption income losses
10. ---LARGE ARTILLERY Trait
-Siege guns and other non-light artillery will need to give trait that slows campaign map movement
9.---ARMY MOVEMENT
-larger armies should get slight movement penalty
2.---ELEPHANT ARMY SCRIPT
-Elephant armies get increased upkeep in urban areas/northern areas/desert areas
-Elephants need to move slower on campaign map then cav
-Elephants need to be frightened by fire arrows more
3.Can we make cav/camels/elephants cost more or less upkeep depending on whether they are in a good horse breeding area/desert area/jungle area?
4.Can we spawn a fort via script?
5. Can we make elephants able to knock down pallisades and small wooden wall gates?
7. Any way to script name change for character when/if they become ruler?
8. Is it possible to have a much higher campaign map movement penalty for river crossings and diff ground types
(ANSWERED)
1. Is it possible to have rain affect gunpowder/turk bow users more negatively than indian longbow users? Or would that even be historically accurate? I've read the indian longbow needed to be braced on the ground, and mud would make that difficult
6.Can we make battle maps bigger
Twcenter.net
apparently its possible to move the red lines a bit more further back to make a giant battle map.
Youtube.com
how to make maps
lionheartofengland Right On!
Twcenter.net
faction leader title change
has anyone used this before?
Wiki.twcenter.net
the maker says it can be used and doesnt need his permission
lionheartofengland Cool! I hadn't seen that I'll check it out
Twcenter.net(WIP)-environment-and-weather-mod-extra-blood
This is the twcenter mod page
Like Lionheart mentioned before ....nice find dude
1)I would presume the effect of rain on gunpowder would be dynamic than fixed....for e.g not all generals suffered in the artillery dept because of rain...robert Clive took proper care and shielded his gunpowder from rain in a battle against the natives who in contrast handled it haphazardly
I would say we create some advance military school in fort settlements....whereupon the generals once they move into the settlement they acquire a certain ancillary like say for e,g "secure gunpowder caches" in this particular context
Any general who acquires this ancillary should be able to handle artillery even in rain...
Just a suggestion.....
KingKorgoth
Let us make the use of artillery early on in the campaign more decisive and deadly.....but let it come with its own problems...let us have some elephant horse and oxen logistic buildings in settlements.....let these give some ancillaries like labour force.....this can increase the movement range of armies with artillery.....while those without come with movement penalties.....is this possible ???.....more than elephants...artillery would slowdown these armies....since many of these kingdoms fielded several hundred artillery pieces in battle....
KingKorgoth huzurat
Guys regarding the time period discussion...is it possible to mod 3 turns per year....130 years is also fine....and then we can do either colonial period or 1657-1707 like huzurat said...
huzurat
My bad my bad....should have known to post the AI behaviour suggestion here...let the discussion be here..
huzurat
KingKorgoth....guys this is just an idea.....when u read and go through field battles...and analyse the reasons for the victory or defeat ...its mostly down to the nature,traits and experience of the military generals and the also the prevailing conditions...and how they respond to it..
lets examine some famous examples
1)Battle of Hattin Vs Battle of Arsuf
when one goes through the details of Hattin,its perfectly evident how masterfully saladin executed light cavalry tactics....one couldnt help but agree that saladin ensured that the entire battle unfolded like a horror movie for the crusaders...he gave the crusaders no food,no water,poisoned the wells....this coupled with the heavy armor they wore made it even more uncomfortable in the desert heat.....i've read that saladin went as far as psychologically demoralising the enemy with a number of gimmicks.....beating drums,setting fire to release smoke,chanting,yelling...he also brought goatskins full of water from a nearby lake for his soldiers to drink infront of the crusaders....he carried out systematic raids and skirmishes all the while avoiding prolonged melee with the deadly christian knights...continously harassed their flanks enticing them to come out of their formations....the crusaders finally succumbed to this and took the bait....they were surrounded from all directions by saladin's men....and this resulted in a famous victory for saladin on his road to jerusalem
in stark contrast one can notice how differently Richard the lionheart handled saladin ....richard was smart and cautious as a general...he was mindful of the disaster that befell them at hattin....the ship that sailed along the coastline,regulary supplied the moving army....he was worried about the loss of cohesion in his defensive formation right from the beginning and restrained his men from breaking ranks....he avoided breaking ranks and didnt get enticed by saladin's tricks....but as a general he was at the same time brilliant enough to know not to go back or retreat from an action done in the spur of the moment....the moment one of his cavalry contingents broke ranks and attacked, he knew he needed to commit all his men inorder to ensure the success of the attack...mostly in the age of warfare even prudent inaction could be seen as cowardice and a general could not risk his men's morale or their confidence in him
though saladin lost the battle at arsuf,in both scenarios he handled and played his role perfectly....in both scenarios saladin responded exactly how a general should to a situation....in both scenarios saladin knew he stood no chance in a frontal field battle or a committed field engagement against heavy knights...so he let heat,thirst,hunger,nature take its toll on his enemies and when they got desperate,it would make his job much easier....the same cannot be said for the crusaders,while king guy and his leaders played right into saladin's game the other(Richard) restrained himself and was more disciplined since he knew this was exactly what saladin wanted...in the context of hattin saladin knew the psyche of the crusaders whereas in the context of arsuf it was rather richard who gauged saladin's psyche...both knew each others limitations and motives and worked to counter those....saladin had to force a decisive victory after the loss of Acre...he knew richard was miles away from his home and that richard would want a decisive battle to boost his men's morale to ensure the success of the crusade...besides he knew he stood no chance in an engagement....richard on the other hand knew of saladin's tricks and that he was desperate for a victory as well...
(Continued Below...)
(Continued From Above...)
2)Battle of Granicus & Battle of Gaugamela & Battle of Issus Vs Napoleon's debacle in russia
this example does not involve a common belligerent since Alexander's never been defeated in his field career but i'm posting two scenarios involving different time periods...besides Alexander's exploits dont require contrasting cases of battles since there is a lot to learn about psyche from his field battles even though he never lost an engagement...
the key to alexander's stunning success is that he knew the psyche of persians and Darius III....whether it is Granicus,Gaugamela or issus or even any of his battles,alexander always seemed to have a crystal clear picture of his adversary's motives and situation....infact all of alexander's manuevers are a counter to a conventional general's response....all of his adversaries' moves were a set piece scenario for which he had a tailormade checkmate
at granicus(after he crossed asia minor to invade persia)...alexander's troops had marched for a long time before they camped on the banks of the granicus river opposite to the persians led by memnon of rhodes who was a decent general of no mean order.....the persian force that fought at granicus was relatively small but still large enough to be threat especially at a river crossing...besides the persians had greek mercenary pike forces but these would probably be smaller in number....nevertheless a conventional general would give his men a day or a night's rest before he took to the field but alexander did the opposite knowing very well that the persians would anticipate this...its kinda like how muhammad ali would stand in-between rounds instead of resting on a chair...the opponent starts thinking twice about his opponents strength...he and his companions on the right charged into the persian left wing(albeit at great personal risk for alexander himself...he was nearly killed here if not for cleitus the black),broke through their lines and wheeled around the persian rear while the phalanx hacked its way through the hapless persian centre...
initially he was seen as a haughty rebellious boy king who scored a fluke victory(But this wasn't one...no offensive warfare or assault on a river front is easy...the river currents and terrain aren't suitable for orderly movement or formations,it takes nerves of steel to fight though such carnage...besides alexander's charge almost appears juvenile here but the charge was a surprise for the persians)
strategy is defined as "how you bring your enemy to a fight"....tactics is "how you fight" to defeat him...alexander knew this perfectly well...persian emperors needed to prove themselves on the battlefield rather than let their slaves do their job....to this end Darius would have to personally take to the field to prove himself and this is exactly what alexander knew...Darius's generals including memnon of rhodes advised him to avoid facing him in the open....they told him to let the heat,nature and starvation do the job for him,but darius went against this advice...
subsequently what happened at gaugamela and Issus are the same reminsicients of multiple other victories of alexander...Darius played right into alexander's game of facing him in the field.... knowing very well that the persian overlord stood no chance in personal combat or a show of personal nerves/bravery alexander consecutively threatened darius position in both battles and in both scenarios the king ran away fearing for his life,thus sealing the fate of his soldiers who had no other incentive to fight for him except for being his slaves...
in contrast like the russians did with napoleon,if the persians denied alexander food,supplies and water....avoided decisive open field engagements with him....strengthened their garrisons in the coastal cities....strengthened their fortified citadels(where alexander would get no opportunity to display his field genius,the unstoppable power of the phalanx or the hammer anvil approach)....cut off his incoming supplies with their more powerful navy(alexander knew he stood no chance against their navy which is why he took the coastal provinces before marching into the persian heartland)....cut off his retreat...then alexander would be left in a vulnerable position and would come to negotiating terms...to his fortune the persian leadership turned out to be absolutely incompetent in dealing with him...
3)Panipat & Khanwa vs Chausa
we've been through this discussion but the same logic stands...in both cases the victors knew their strengths and weaknesses and acted according to it...and both victors chose to bring their adversaries to the field or charge at them the way they wanted....at panipat babur knew ibrahim's psyche...he enticed him with a night raid...this emboldened ibrahim into taking to the field and run stupidly into babur's guns
(continued below...)
(Continued from Above...)
Sher Shah wasnt stupid...he would deal with Babur the same way he did with humayun(this would be a given 100% since Sher Shah served under Babur for a short time & he would have knowledge of how the mughal war machine worked...Sher Shah served Babur because he expected to be given his house estate which was in the possession of his half brother)...and though Babur would've fared better than his son,it would still be a setback for him
4)Battle of Cannae(and Hannibal's other victories at rome) Vs Quintus Fabius Maximus's "Fabian approach"
just like alexander before him,Hannibal was seen as an insignificant fly and an impudent upstart....all alarms about him were laughed off until they heard he had crossed the alps and that too with elephants in his entourage...
when the hour of fight came,the romans found it impossible to best him in open field...hannibal proved too cunning and unorthodox for the romans....bereft of continued support from carthage(as well as losing nearly half his force while crossing the alps)despite his stunning success on the field,hannibal used his decent at best men to carry out tactical menuevers,ambushes and military surprises.....used the terrain to his advantage...always misguided the romans with decoys and false nightfire camps....when matters came to a head,the senate appointed Fabius as dictator and tasked him with defeating Hannibal...
There is a saying "No one conquers one who doesn't fight"
fabius went down in history without getting his due...he was a smart bloke who gauged hannibal's motives and his weaknesses...Rather than fight, Fabius shadowed Hannibal's army and avoided battle,instead sending out small detachments against Hannibal's foraging parties,and maneuvering the Roman army in hilly terrain, so as to nullify Hannibal's decisive superiority in cavalry.Residents of small villages in the path of Hannibal's army were ordered to burn their crops and take refuge in fortified towns.He used interior lines to ensure that at no time could Hannibal march on Rome without abandoning his Mediterranean ports, while at the same time inflicting constant, small, debilitating defeats on the North Africans. This, Fabius had concluded, would wear down the invaders' endurance and discourage Rome's allies from going over to the enemy, without having to challenge the Carthaginians to a decisive battle. Once Hannibal's Carthaginians had been sufficiently weakened and demoralized by lack of food and supplies, Fabius and his well-fed legions would then launch the decisive battle and crush Hannibal once and for all.
while fabian strategy worked and gave romans the time to recover,it was seen by statesmen and the roman populace as cowardice since they believed in their roman chauvinism....rome ended fabius's dictatorship and decided to give open battle to Hannibal at Cannae with close to 88,000 men....the battle was rome's worst defeat and the engagement remained as the one which accounted for single largest loss of life until the british offensive at somme in WW I in 1916 (which would be 2200 years after :o)....until this point hannibal knew that the romans prided in themselves and that they would give him exactly what he wanted i.e a field battle....an invader on foreign land without support needs a stunning victory to demoralise his enemies and instill disloyalty amidst his enemy's allies...in time rome realised this and avoided him until they grew strong enough to face him and countered all his antics...at this point Romans gauged that hannibal was a man in desparate need for support/Roman defectors and all they had to do was avoid him...this worked for them until scipio finally and effectively ended Hannibal's career at Zama...
(Continued below...)
5)Waterloo
....logic stands the same again....Napoleon had just made a comeback from exile and he needed to silence europe and his detractors back at home with a stunning victory...at waterloo Napoleon did everything perfectly well as a general(there was little he could do about Marshal ney's untimely charge and bloucher's unforeseen flank attack.... and of course there are many factors that are way out of any general's control even if he is at his best...waterloo was a combination of everything against him....inorder to win everything including time,terrain and events had to go his way)....to his credit for that matter nobody whether himself or any general,can easily overturn a 2:1 numbers advantage in the age of modern warfare....his strategy was correct,his tactics were on point...he responded perfectly by crushing the prussians at ligny(he chose to overwhelm the weaker of the 2 armies to lower the odds against him)...Napoleon hoped to drive a wedge between bloucher and Wellesley,separate them and roll them over in opposite directions....but the prevailing conditions were against him and certain events were beyond his control...with due credit to him,napoleon had the upper edge until Bloucher swept him away....at waterloo Napoleon HAD TO WIN at all costs...nothing other than a resounding win would do.....anything less than a win would see him potentially exiled or worse still executed
unfortunately for him the man perched upon the slopes of the hill opposite to him was no less a genius himself(Arthur Wellesley,the duke of wellington)....and this lowered his odds....an attacker has to take a risk to win while all a defender has to do is not fight and lose and that is what exactly wellington did....wellington knew napoleon was desparate and entered the battle only after the assurance of Bloucher's support....it was only after bloucher swept away Napoleon's right in the noon that wellington even made a signal for an all out general advance...here Wellington knew Napoleon's psyche and bloucher's late surprise further helped him win...wellington simply predicted napoleon's response....waterloo is seen by many as napoleon's biggest gamble....he had everything to lose unless he won and the allies only had to avoid defeat....
(Continued below....)
(Continued from above...)
6)1st Battle Vs 2nd Battle of Tarain
Like above as usual...like I said before...the first time Ghori tried to fight the ferocious Rajputs conventionally,his entire army was crushed...he himself narrowly escaped with his life...the 2nd time around he had learnt his lesson...this time he wore down prithviraj's cavalry before counterattacking...infact this whole 2nd battle was a military surprise and a deceptive trap,right from the false letter of truce,decoy night campfire to the attack at daybreak(which prevented the Rajputs from having their breakfast)..Ghori knew that the impetuous Rajputs would take the bait and chase his elusive horsemen...
7)Gaugamela Vs Hydaspes
Obviously Alexander famously won both these 2....but I'm trying to fit a "what if Porus at gaugamela" narrative here
Irrespective of Alexander's win at hydaspes,Porus remains in history as his toughest adversary...being a runner up to the greatest field general in antiquity isn't a shame actually....at hydaspes Porus had many things working against him,but he made the right moves and countered Alexander move for move until he ran out of troops and options to fight.
..besides his men and cavalry were lightly armored and stood no chance against the Macedonian professionals...just to put in perspective at hydaspes alexander massed his right wing cavalry and threatened Porus's left...Porus responded to this by pulling out his right wing cavalry and reinforced his left with them...that is when a select group of Alexander's cavarymen exploited the weakness in Porus's right,broke through his wings,wheeled around the rear and charged into the rear of Porus's left wing cavalrymen...here is an interesting snippet,it seems porus's cavalry tried to form a square line to fend off attacks on both sides...this is a testament to Porus's skill in war....all of this and Porus was only a petty king of the punjab,one would agree that militaries further east and south were far more sophisticated,professional and powerful....imagine Porus at Gaugamela...even without his elephant regiment,Porus would be a deadly adversary and he was a fierce warrior himself standing at 7 feet tall.
...Porus was one among the last men fighting late into the battle and he refused to give up until he had no choice.
...Alexander would find this game of countering move for move too costly especially with the strength of numbers against him...even if Alexander managed to outmanuever Porus's cavalry and directly charge Porus like he did at gaugamela,Porus would stand his ground and fight,try to bring more immortals from the reserves to reinforce the centre and not give up in a contest of nerves like Darius did...if Porus would be able hold off alexander's cavalry at the centre for a while,the battle would be easily won...since it would only be a matter of time when the Persians would surround the much smaller Macedonian force..
50% of war is knowing when not to fight and the other 50% is knowing when to fight...when there is a fight it is because both parties believe they can win and more often than not only one of them was right in their belief..
in all these battles the general's psyche and response mattered the most....so is it possible to make the AI general respond on the battle map according to his character traits...like ai brash attacker or confident attacker aggressively charges his enemy....defensive ai general is reluctant to charge...another trait like "takes the high ground" can make the AI use the high ground..another trait like "turtles up" or "camper" can make the AI army get a boost while fighting from a temporary fort or a walled settlement..
....this would make spying(use of spies on the campaign map viz actually analogous to real life reconnaisance) more useful and relevant...that way the player can plan ahead....Whatdya guys think..is it possible??