[BTS] The History of Three Kingdoms

[stmartin]

@darkedone

It's a cool idea, the problem is I don't like to restrict players like in a commercial game. In my opinion this feature is there to play with player's mind, appealing to the natural human desire to complete something, even if that something is just to unlock a scenario which is perfectly playable right away.

After I read Kenjister's post, I think this feature can be a good thing if used right. To make a line of scenarios, one precedent the other, make player decision and events happened in previous scenario carry over to the next scenario, this is really cool. I love this idea. The only problem will be the lack of time to make that many scenarios. Everything is possible though.

 

[darkedone02]

hmm, the unlocking things idea really reminded me of FfH's scenario line. Basically they have scenario's that can only be played if the previous one had been completed. Each scenario also has some special rule change (done by having a hidden game option turned on). Perhaps a historical campaign could be created for some civs? Events and choices also carry over from scenario to scenario that can make for some really cool play in HoTK, such as having a hero death carry over from scenario to scenario along with hero experience.

yeah, but it will be nice if they did it to the whole of the mod, like i cannot play in the standard size map of the play now! or custom game until i've completed something that requires that. This help make players have to play the scenarios or other things to unlocked it... something like achievements similar to team fortress 2 where i unlocked the 9 heavy achievements to unlock one of the unlockable item. I wish this game have something like that system to keep the challenge and the joy of unlocking everything in the game.

it's like Total War, where i cannot play that race until i conquer the whole civilization first, It's like a campaign in age of empires that i need to beat that level to advance to another one, it's like playing on team fortress 2 that if i want to get that item, i need to unlock a certain number of achievements. If all three of those unlocking system combine on this very mod, this make the game a lot more fun and challenging. If it's popular, he could add something like a feature shop that if i beaten a game or a scenario, i earn points and if i get enough, i can unlock on the features at my own desire.

@darkedone

It's a cool idea, the problem is I don't like to restrict players like in a commercial game. In my opinion this feature is there to play with player's mind, appealing to the natural human desire to complete something, even if that something is just to unlock a scenario which is perfectly playable right away.

After I read Kenjister's post, I think this feature can be a good thing if used right. To make a line of scenarios, one precedent the other, make player decision and events happened in previous scenario carry over to the next scenario, this is really cool. I love this idea. The only problem will be the lack of time to make that many scenarios. Everything is possible though.

well... damn!

 

[Ambreville]

I had an issue with the Belief system, but I'm not sure it's a glitch. The Belief screen didn't seem to work. I could not pick a State Belief, and the exit link at the bottom of the screen wouldn't close it. The only way I eventually did get a State Belief is when another Civ asked me to choose theirs. What's the deal with this?

Also, the Relations screen doesn't always show all of the Civs' Worst Enemies. Because there are so many factions in play (in the scenario game), it's tough to make heads or tails of who hates whom, and therefore pick the right partners. It would be great if this info was displayed in a more immediately evident manner in any case. I've no idea if it can be done, but I thought I 'd drop off the idea anyway.

Game's fun! Cheers!

 

[AnotherPacifist]

You need the latest patch for the religion screen to be fixed.
The worst enemies are somewhat random once the following combinations are exhausted (i.e. after one dies), but preset from the start are some neighbors:
Lu Bu/Cao Cao
Zhang Lu/Liu Zhang (permanent war in 200 AD)
Liu Biao/Sun Ce
Sun Ce/Liu Yao
Yuan Shao/Gongsun Zan
Yuan Shao/Zhang Yan (starting 200AD, but not at war)
Yuan Shao/Cao Cao (starting 200 AD at permanent war)
Liu Bei/Cao Cao (starting 200 AD, although Liu Bei has a knack for making enemies of anybody not Revivalist)
Everybody with Yuan Shu, especially Liu Chong starting 196AD. So to cosy up to an AI just make Yuan Shu your enemy, unless you play him, of course.

Li Jue is also rather hated generally given that his boss Dong Zhuo was once the target of a coalition of almost everybody who was anybody later in the 3 Kingdoms.

 

[blizzrd]

I've only had limited experience with this mod, I've played Lu Bu several times and Liu Bei and Cao Cao once each. My most recent game (Domination Victory) was with Lu Bu on Immortal. I just wanted to share my thoughts, if there is an alternate thread/forum for this then I didn't find it before I found this thread.

Firstly, I really like the Legion system, it adds much to the CivIV combat system which was an area of the base game which was always underdeveloped in my opinion. But I don't like the huge number of heroes that can be accumulated. It feels like a way too much most of the time. In one of my games with Lu Bu I had accumulated more than 20 heroes by 200AD once I had assimilated all of the nearby clans into my empire.

I would prefer to see Heroes only have one specialty unit type rather than the ability to specialise in up to 5. There are hardly enough combats even in a conquest game to pick up all of the good skills and base unit skills that can be acquired by the best heroes, let alone diversifying traits to improve the base skills with more than one troop type.

Strong Bow is overpowered relative to almost every other hero skill.

Levee + Ranking Classification + Watermills is better than any other building/civic/terrain improvement combination, of which there are quite a few on offer. But the extent to which Levee + RC + Watermills beats anything else is currently way out of proportion in my view. Once achieved, there is really no need to even consider swapping civics/improvements because everything else is inferior.

The power of Levee + RC + Watermills means that some civs are naturally very much at a disadvantage due to their starting location and in some cases almost complete lack of rivers in their home terrain. Either the number of rivers on the map needs to be toned down (and quite a bit in some areas) or something needs to be done about the raw power provided by Levee + RC + Watermills. Under this combination, a fully grown cottage is actually inferior in terms of total terrain production output.

The late game is not very interesting. Once you get on top in your local war (with whoever you start out at war with) and then take at least the capital city of one or two of your next biggest rivals, there is not much more to be done. I've gotten into a a powerful position heading towards Domination/Conquest more than once where I just lost interest in going through the motions to achieve the victory. I'm not sure what the fix to this is, but I find it to be a relatively large issue in terms of my desire to start up the next game using this mod.

 

[stmartin]

@blizzrd

Your feedback is gold. The next version of the Mod will solve most of these issues you listed here.

 

[Kenjister]

I agree with blizzrd on pretty much everything, espically the hero accumilation. Perhaps you can make some heroes have a chance to refuse surrender and choose death upon capture?
On the topic of promotions,Stong Bow is definitely overpowered, though I like how heroes never have enough xp to get all their good promotions, since it allows each game to be quite different.

As a suggestion for improvement balance, how about making villages and towns give some production, either through an innate bonus or through a civic? Perhaps remove the commerce from watermills while you're at it. Towns should be essential in any big city, but right now, a town simply drains production (which is very important, given the focus on warfare) from a tile that could otherwise have a watermill.

 

[Ambreville]

I agree with blizzrd on pretty much everything, espically the hero accumilation. Perhaps you can make some heroes have a chance to refuse surrender and choose death upon capture?

That there presently can be too many heroes was one of my earlier points as well. I thought a function allowing captured heroes to be ransomed (exchanged for cash, a supporting vote, or another prisoner), or just executed (thereby producing some kind of bonus among one's troops or population) would have been a good way to keep the number of heroes to a more reasonable level.

 

[blizzrd]

I liked the historical way in which Cao Cao executed Lu Bu and Gao Shun when in my game as Cao Cao I captured these heroes. But I have not seen any other heroes get executed upon capture. Are there any other historical combinations that are preset in this way?

 

[AnotherPacifist]

If not already present, Gongsun Zan should be executed by Yuan Shao when captured. Guan Yu should never be allowed to serve anybody other than Liu Bei and Cao Cao, and when defeated by the Sun clan should definite commit suicide.

On the other hand, some heroes should NEVER die when captured, like Zang Ba and the wily Zhang Xiu who nearly had Cao Cao at the Battle of Wan but then submitted peacefully.

Addendum: actually Gongsun Zan killed himself while Guan Yu was executed. Same difference.

 

[Presd Xiaopeng]

Wow this is a great mod (i'm sure somebody said that already)

This brings back some fond memories from Sanguo VIII thru X

If i do remember from the Sanguo games, it was a choice everytime you capture generals that you get to decide what to do with them: imprison, free, offer commission or finally execute. And these choices would have effects on diplomacy with their origin nation and morale of the general (provided you didnt execute him). Maybe a system can be put in place when capturing an enemy general each will spawn an event to that effect. Also is there a way for them to die of age...

Furthermore, another element i thought would be an enhancement if included is the great "mind" heroes from the game, you got guys like Zhuge Liang, Zhou Yu, Xun Yu and of course Sima Yi who arent often in field but their intelligence offsets it. I mean these strategist and politicians would be some you can fortify at a city, it would give it some bonus, like Zhuge Liang reduce cost for infrastructures and Zhou Yu would reduce cost for training units. And if they are Fortified with troops and legions on the field, they would also bestow some sort of bonus to them, like Zhuge Liang would make all units in a tile immune to first strikes.

One last point of interest, (this one might be pushing it) the "relics" system like those weapons, wise books and other objects that you can give your generals to augment their abilities and loyalty.

 

[Ambreville]

Wow this is a great mod (i'm sure somebody said that already)

This brings back some fond memories from Sanguo VIII thru X

If i do remember from the Sanguo games, it was a choice everytime you capture generals that you get to decide what to do with them: imprison, free, offer commission or finally execute. And these choices would have effects on diplomacy with their origin nation and morale of the general (provided you didnt execute him). Maybe a system can be put in place when capturing an enemy general each will spawn an event to that effect. Also is there a way for them to die of age...

Furthermore, another element i thought would be an enhancement if included is the great "mind" heroes from the game, you got guys like Zhuge Liang, Zhou Yu, Xun Yu and of course Sima Yi who arent often in field but their intelligence offsets it. I mean these strategist and politicians would be some you can fortify at a city, it would give it some bonus, like Zhuge Liang reduce cost for infrastructures and Zhou Yu would reduce cost for training units. And if they are Fortified with troops and legions on the field, they would also bestow some sort of bonus to them, like Zhuge Liang would make all units in a tile immune to first strikes.

One last point of interest, (this one might be pushing it) the "relics" system like those weapons, wise books and other objects that you can give your generals to augment their abilities and loyalty.

Yep! These approaches all sound really exciting!

Has anyone discussed "catch-up" features yet? I'm thinking about a set of random conditions that would give a significant (and temporary) advantage to a really weak faction in order to get it back into the game?

--------------

Edit

Another thing I would strongly suggest -- either:

1. Give all siege weapons a decent chance to withdraw after attacking. Otherwise, siege weapons end up being used in suicide attacks in order for infantry to take out a stack of enemy units. As a result, you spend way too much time building siege weapons to replace the destroyed ones. IMO, very boring and frustrating. Besides, it makes no sense anyway. Historically, siege machines weren't used in direct assault resulting in the the machines being destroyed.

OR

2. Don't limit such an important feature as ranged bombardment to a single and relatively rare Hero promotion. It makes that promotion way out of balance with others available. I think this would eliminate the need to continually build siege machines. Some siege machines (like Trebuchets) could be designed to bombard walls & buildings, while others (such as Ballistae and archers) would be better suited to bombarding troops instead.

This general approach almost ensures the attacker will eventually bring down any defender holed up someplace. Therefore (and I don't know if such can be achieved) the AI needs to be taught when to rush out of a well-defended spot to counter-attack. A defender's counter-attack should be designed so that at least some of the enemy's siege weapons are destroyed in the process, especially if the defender has cavalry available, even more so if the defender has more cavalry than the attacker. In other words, cavalry might have some inherent sniping ability, which would better reflect the use of fast-moving units in general (especially "light" cavalry).

Makes sense???

------------------

Edit #2

Hmmm.... "edit-salad" for breakfast! Love it!

I remember the way the old Panzer-General game used to handle artillery. You could position artillery behind a line of defending units. If the defending units were attacked, the artillery behind them would automatically get a shot at the attackers before they could reach the line of defense. This meant the attacker had to use his own artillery or air force to take out or weaken the defender's artillery before launching an assault. On the other hand, artillery that fired "defensively" could not be fired during the defender's turn. It worked really well there.

How does this apply here? Siege weapons would have to be in the defender's stack to emulate the Panzer-General concept. If this is the sort of siege weapon suited to bombard troops (as opposed to structures), then they could get a first shot at assaulting troops. Ditto archery units.

Altogether, what I described in Edits #1 and #2 could really open up opportunities as regards general tactics and the use of troops. By the way, I didn't see any ships capable of bombardment. Didn't they have ships with catapults or the equivalent of Greek fire back then?

-------------

Edit #3

Yay! It's an "editathon!"

Imagine how awesome Horse-Archers would become if given some troop bombardment ability! Wow! And that would be historical, I think. The factions on the deserted western reaches would get a major advantage. Makes up for the lousy terrain.

 

[Kenjister]

@ Ambreville, the ranged bombardment idea's you have all sound awesome! As for the defensive strike system, there already is a very good one in FfH that does exactly that (you probably have know that already though), perhaps the mod team could borrow that feature?

As for Horse Archers, perhaps give them some collateral damage, and an even higher withdrawl rate?

Finally though, I think the AI does a decent job counterattacking since they're much more aggressive in this mod. I don't know about you, but I absolutely hate invading Ma Teng unless he's already weak since his cavalry always gets my siege units by flank attack. Seige units definitely need withdrawal though, perhaps even close to 100%, but also a higher support cost (+3 maybe?). Something needs to be done to differentiate them from crossbows.

 

[Ambreville]

@ Ambreville, the ranged bombardment idea's you have all sound awesome! As for the defensive strike system, there already is a very good one in FfH that does exactly that (you probably have know that already though), perhaps the mod team could borrow that feature?

Yeah, it's the same thing basically. I'd give a much higher chance for the defensive strike to occur (80% at least). I would also give the defensive strike capability to all archery units and to those siege weapons designed specifically to bombard troops. Trebuchets, for example, would have NO defensive strike capability, but they can bombard plots in order to reduce enemy fortification bonuses (or randomly destroy buildings -- although that's a feature from Dale's Combat Mod). So you still can't wage a war without them. Now you have a clear, fundamental difference between the two types of siege weapons.

As for Horse Archers, perhaps give them some collateral damage, and an even higher withdrawl rate?

I didn't check their withdrawal rate, but it would have to be high if you used them in direct attacks. In FfH, the siege weapons' withdrawal rate is 80% IIRC.

I'd suggest that this isn't the best approach however. Horse Archers should have the bombard capability against troops (not against fortification bonuses). If so, here's how they'd be used in combat: 1. Move them up to be adjacent to the enemy; 2. Use their archery bombard capability; 3. Move them back if they still have some movement left. As described here, there is no direct attack, and therefore no need for an ultra high withdrawal rate.

On an open plain, Horse Archers are deadly! On the other hand, I'd actually give the Horse Archer a lousy defensive value. If they get caught in hand to hand combat, they should be dog meat, unlike for example armored cavalry.

With the ranged bombardment feature, withdrawal is really no longer needed. Siege weapons should never be used in a direct/physical assault--that's what infantry is for. You just use their ranged bombardment capability just before the physical assault. It's either you give them the high withdrawal benefit OR the ranged bombardment, not both!

As a result of this (pardon me for being a tad radical here) archery and siege units should ideally remain "defend-only" units. Their only attack lies in their ranged bombardment capability, or pillaging. I would still make the archery units good in defense (to hold walls for example), whereas I would not for Horse Archers. Siege weapons would have lousy defense values for obvious reasons. Arguably, you could make the Horse Archers "defend only" as well, since they too have the ranged bombardment capability. Their advantage is their mobility.

This being said, there is the possibility that siege or archery units could automatically strike back when bombarded by an enemy. Then it becomes a question of relative ranges. For example, crossbow units can only strike defensively against other crossbow units bombarding them (assuming crossbows are the shortest-ranged archery units in the game). Archer units can strike defensively against both crossbowmen and other archers bombarding them. Siege units capable of bombarding troops should be able to respond to any enemy bombardment, since they have the longest range). All damage in this case should be simultaneous.

Finally though, I think the AI does a decent job counterattacking since they're much more aggressive in this mod. I don't know about you, but I absolutely hate invading Ma Teng unless he's already weak since his cavalry always gets my siege units by flank attack. Seige units definitely need withdrawal though, perhaps even close to 100%, but also a higher support cost (+3 maybe?). Something needs to be done to differentiate them from crossbows.

No need for high withdrawal rates if ranged bombardment is available, as explained earlier. I'm not sure about the extra support cost otherwise. I ran a game using catapults with an 80% withdrawal rate. I didn't see anything that went way out of control in the rest of the standard scenario. It's tough enough to play, my gut feeling is that the extra cost isn't really needed, unless you run the game at Prince or higher. The extra cost might be more appropriate if ranged bombardment is allowed, because these units theoretically should never sustain damage, other then enemy bombardment. I could see the AI spamming the map with these things! That's really a playtest issue I guess.

Giving light cavalry a snipe capability (which would make siege weapons highly vulnerable because of their low defense rate) should otherwise take care of siege weapons running amok across China!

 

[Kenjister]

Well, I don't think horse archers and the like should be restricted to bombardment only, after all, a singe tile in CIV terms is really quite a large area, allowing for fluid defenses, raiding ect. to take place all within the mechanics of a single battle. That's why I proposed giving horse archers collateral damage and a high withdrawal rate instead of ranged bombardment (perhaps even several first strikes), after all, they are moving relatively close to the enemy to attack, and they do carry other weapons besides bows. Collateral damage would reflect the short-range hail of arrows they shower on enemy formations, and the withrawal rate would illustrate their ease of escape, since they are engaging from a slightly longer range than normal cavalry.
Giving them a ranged bombardment would make them too much like fast seige units, while IRL, they were fully capable of eliminating enemy troops in direct attack (which ranged bombardment would not do). I would give them defensive strikes though, if they are introduced.

I also think that the seige units "attacking" is not really close combat but simply moving into closer range. Since seige units having a high withdrawal rate represents "running out of ammo" I think they should be set to defend only with a ranged bombardment skill to better reflect their role in real life. Furthermore, I think ranged bombardment should be limited to archers and seige only, with archers having a weaker version but also defensive strikes, since a single tile represents so much distance.


Oh, finally, I think the FfH defensive strike system is generally sound, since the drill line gives increased chance and damage. All we'd need to do is give horse archers access to the drill line, and regular archers a high base chance to get defensive strikes on a regular basis.

 

[stmartin]

Wow this is a great mod (i'm sure somebody said that already)

Thanks.

If i do remember from the Sanguo games, it was a choice everytime you capture generals that you get to decide what to do with them: imprison, free, offer commission or finally execute. And these choices would have effects on diplomacy with their origin nation and morale of the general (provided you didnt execute him). Maybe a system can be put in place when capturing an enemy general each will spawn an event to that effect. Also is there a way for them to die of age...

I'm working on this right now. It's part of the plan for next version.

Furthermore, another element i thought would be an enhancement if included is the great "mind" heroes from the game, you got guys like Zhuge Liang, Zhou Yu, Xun Yu and of course Sima Yi who arent often in field but their intelligence offsets it. I mean these strategist and politicians would be some you can fortify at a city, it would give it some bonus, like Zhuge Liang reduce cost for infrastructures and Zhou Yu would reduce cost for training units. And if they are Fortified with troops and legions on the field, they would also bestow some sort of bonus to them, like Zhuge Liang would make all units in a tile immune to first strikes.

This is scheduled for future versions. What we have in mind is a bit more complex than you mentioned here.

One last point of interest, (this one might be pushing it) the "relics" system like those weapons, wise books and other objects that you can give your generals to augment their abilities and loyalty.

This system requires introducing more stats for heroes: namely, leadership, might, politics and intelligence. (I hate to replicate other game and mod's design, however, can't argue here because RTK got this just right). Leadership and might is part of the plan for next version. So we will have a foundation for this system very soon.

 

[stmartin]

@Ambreville

I like the idea of differentiating Trebuchet and Ballista. I also like the idea of giving ranged bombardment to more units. As to horse archers, I prefer keep it as it is, because your suggestions would make a whole different kind of combat which is more of a personal preference than superior design.

@Kenjister

Defensive Strike is an interesting idea. I would implement it.

 

[Ambreville]

@Ambreville

I like the idea of differentiating Trebuchet and Ballista. I also like the idea of giving ranged bombardment to more units. As to horse archers, I prefer keep it as it is, because your suggestions would make a whole different kind of combat which is more of a personal preference than superior design.

@Kenjister

Defensive Strike is an interesting idea. I would implement it.

Alright! Glad to hear this. Would you consider giving light cavalry some sniping ability to keep a possible proliferation of siege units in check?

 

[Kenjister]

Alright! Glad to hear this. Would you consider giving light cavalry some sniping ability to keep a possible proliferation of siege units in check?

Well, you could give some light cavalry flanking instead

 

[Narcio]

I've just found this mod and played around with it for a bit for the first time, so I'm not experienced in it. I really like it though.

However, I tried to play this multiplayer with 2 humans and I encountered an issue with Legion creation. With two players, player 1 and player 2 as humans the following would happen: If player 1 created a legion, player 2's currently selected military units would suddenly change to show (grayed out) player 1's newly created legion. You could hover your mouse over that legion and see its stats / name etc, but could not click to control it. It is much like if you had your own unit in the same square as another player, and thus can see the units he had there grayed out. The problem is, the enemy legion was no where near the other player and they shouldn't be able to see it.

I was using 2.4 + music pack + patch e.