SSHIP - General Discussion

[GenPatton]

I'm struggling with something which I don't understand how to get past it. I got an Usurper as King, and had civil war until I managed to kill my usurper king in a suicide battle against some rebels. Civil war ended but most of my nobles have no loyalty anymore, they have no movement points, i can't even recruit units in some settlements, it's been like 30 turns my new king is suppose to be a good one but the nobles don't like him i guess. Moving my king from settlement to settlement changes the nobles in anyway?
H
ow to get nobles with loyalty again? What's going on, what to do.

Also, the turn before i got the usuper king i raised taxes everywhere because i was fighting on multiple fronts. I'm playing as the franks, turn 364 (24 regions - largest faction... mongols have started losing their settlements) anyway I'm fighting England, HRE, Aragon kingdom and Pisa at the same time, that's why i had to raise taxes, but did that cause my king to become usurper?

[GenPatton]

Ok now all of the sudden nobles everywhere have ALOT of loyalty. So it took actually 28 turns for things to come back to normal... wow

[bigdaddy1204]

For the human player and/or for the AI as well?

Haven't tested it with the AI. But I figure it was reasonably historical, since York was basically reduced to a castle by the Normans after 1066. They built a castle and it wasn't a major trade centre again until later in the medieval period.

[Boogie Knight]

Glad people are talking about Norway/Scotland, because I'd thought of this the other day and only just remembered to ask:

Does SSHIP represent the Lordship of the Isles at all? Obviously not as a faction because you're already having problems with that, but do any of the Western Isles - perhaps even Man - have a settlement on them?

Pasting shamelessly from Wikipedia as I could never do justice to it:
The Lord of the Isles (Scottish Gaelic: Triath nan Eilean or Rìgh Innse Gall) is a title of Scottish nobility with historical roots that go back beyond the Kingdom of Scotland. It emerged from a series of hybrid Viking/Gaelic rulers of the west coast and islands of Scotland in the Middle Ages, who wielded sea-power with fleets of galleys. Although they were, at times, nominal vassals of the Kings of Norway, Ireland, or Scotland, the island chiefs remained functionally independent for many centuries. Their territory included the Hebrides, (Skye and Ross from 1438), Knoydart, Ardnamurchan, and the Kintyre peninsula. At their height they were the greatest landowners and most powerful lords in the British Isles after the Kings of England and Scotland.

If you guys are looking to represent this and you haven't already (I can't find a copy of your map!) might I suggest a settlement somewhere, either on Man or perhaps Skye, that controls a region that consists of the Western Isles? Historically it was quite a major flashpoint between Norway and Scotland, with lots of small family-driven wars over individual islands. I'm not sure of its status at the start of the campaign, but would it be an idea to put Norway in charge of it so as to ensure their interest as much as possible? Otherwise they might prioritise the eastern coast of Scotland and just sort of ignore the Isles. Would it also be possible to represent the Orkneys or Shetlands? I can't remember off the top of my head their distance from Scotland so they might be too far north.

And I agree it would be nice to see the Scandinavians invade the British Isles a bit more just to give those factions more of a challenge, but don't forget that it didn't really happen again after 1066. There were raids along the English coastline at the very beginning of the 12th century, but they were fought off very easily by a combination of the fyrd and the new Norman castles they were stationed in. IIRC those raids, as with most raids to hit England, were launched by Danes rather than Norwegians; the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066, in which, to put a real Gerald of Monmouth-style spin on things, the White Dragon finally devoured the Raven once and for all, was a real hammer blow for the Vikings and Norway in particular. Some historians say that Stamford Bridge was the end of the Viking Age, which I think is a bit of an exaggeration, but not entirely untrue. Eventually even the Danes gave up; my Danish history is thin, but once a certain dynasty took over a large part of their 'new way' was to relinquish the Danish royal family's claim to the throne of England.

[bigdaddy1204]

…might I suggest a settlement somewhere, either on Man or perhaps Skye, that controls a region that consists of the Western Isles? Historically it was quite a major flashpoint between Norway and Scotland, with lots of small family-driven wars over individual islands

Good post!

I agree it would be good to have the Northern Isles represented. This would make the game much more interesting for Scotland and for Norway. I propose that Kirkwall, on the Orkney Islands, should be used as the capital of a province called the ‘northern Isles’. I’d also agree it should probably start under the control of Norway.

Orkney provides the best farming land out of the various isles. When I visited Orkney and Shetland last year, it was clear to see the difference – Orkney provides rich pasture and grazing for cattle and crops, whereas Shetland is much more rocky and barren.

Also worth bearing in mind is that the climate was considerably warmer during the Viking Age than it is today. Wine was being cultivated even in the north of England, and temperatures were several degrees warmer. This is one of the factors that drove settlement of the northern isles during the period.

[Lifthrasir]

Not possible unfortunaly. We have reached the maximum amount already.

[bigdaddy1204]

Not possible unfortunaly. We have reached the maximum amount already.

We could always cut one of the Russian or Swedish provinces...seriously, who ventures that far north anyway ; - )

[GenPatton]

well personally i think that central europe is crowded and the area from antioch, through Jerusalem and to Egypt is weakened. I just realised something in my campaign, if you take Acre and Asqalam (two castles/fortresses) you basically completely handicap Egypt. Left only with city settlements they won't be able to get elite units so they're done. I even did the experience of leaving the settlements to rebel so they could take it back, but how ironic it was when i realised they couldn't take on the rebel stacks garrissoned lol

PS: replace nizza for kerak (is my opinion)

[achilles-91]

well personally i think that central europe is crowded and the area from antioch, through Jerusalem and to Egypt is weakened. I just realised something in my campaign, if you take Acre and Asqalam (two castles/fortresses) you basically completely handicap Egypt. Left only with city settlements they won't be able to get elite units so they're done. I even did the experience of leaving the settlements to rebel so they could take it back, but how ironic it was when i realised they couldn't take on the rebel stacks garrissoned lol

PS: replace nizza for kerak (is my opinion)

I have to agree with this.. Europe have too many settlements, While middle east would profit a lot from few settlements. But thats just my opinion..

[Dekhatres]

btw there's another castle (cant remember it's name) south of Jerusalem (not Ascalon) and eastern factions do not need castles to recruit elite units, sure castles might give a few aditional units but even without them they have acces to lots of strong units from cities, i think it's fine as it is

[Lifthrasir]

Just remember that the region/settlements have been choosen by the past regarding their population and importance at that time. Many people contributed to that in the past (look the original thread). Once again, we won't change the region/settlements in a short term period

Regarding Egypt and especially the Fatimids, they were not that strong during the 12th century actually. I think that the Levant is not that bad and doesn't requier major changes. A few light adjustements might do if necessary.

[bigdaddy1204]

Just remember that the region/settlements have been choosen by the past regarding their population and importance at that time. Many people contributed to that in the past (look the original thread). Once again, we won't change the region/settlements in a short term period

Regarding Egypt and especially the Fatimids, they were not that strong during the 12th century actually. I think that the Levant is not that bad and doesn't requier major changes. A few light adjustements might do if necessary.

With me in command, they became strong!

I conquered the Crusader states, the Zengids and the Abbasid caliphate as Egypt and I loved every minute of it.

I do feel that the Zengid army is better though. I missed having Fari cavalry archers and Turkish archers. I do love the Zengid army

[GenPatton]

anyone ever considered removing peasants from the game? To give room to a new and usefull unit? Like who the hell recruits peasants ever?

[bigdaddy1204]

anyone ever considered removing peasants from the game? To give room to a new and usefull unit? Like who the hell recruits peasants ever?

I would! Peasants can be a useful garrison unit. Their large unit size and cheap upkeep cost makes them ideal for garrisoning cities and castles.

[Crudelis]

Hi everyone, I’m a medieval 2 player since it’s release and since then I’m also checking the TWC forum from time to time. Stainless steel is one of my favorite mods, so I decided to finally create account and give You some feedback on mod.
I really enjoy the mod and appreciate Your hard work but there are some issues I want to tackle:

First of all I think that this game needs to finally remove spawning rebel stacks. They are mainly annoying and they never are challenging. They are just tedious content which only artificially prolong the game time, so it wastes player time.
I found also tedious and annoying the factions reemerging. To be honest at first time it is fun, but at 10^th time it’s just outrageous. The idea is fine but it needs some more restrictions, also it takes only 1 turn of unhappiness in settlement to trigger this event, opposed to 2 turn in normal rebellion. It’s especially annoying since some scripts probably raise the unrest via console and the happiness is not updated properly till the end turn or some action in settlement like changing the taxes.

Speaking of unrest, the game doesn’t give any warning or explanation and unrest is just rising to crazy values like 140%. In general, the descriptions of buildings and some traits are misleading or incorrect. For example there are no free upkeep units, but the descriptions are still present, indicating that some buildings will provide free upkeep slots. Also the conditions of plotting traits and usurpers are really not clear for me. Some clue should be given, what to do to avoid or remove such a trait. The player should be punished for mistakes, not just randomly.

And finally some balance issues. The general’s bodyguards are really too strong. I must say, I really enjoy my play through as Norway where the bodyguards are infantry. That way I hadn’t got that massive advantage over AI and I had to be more cautious. I think that only the king and prince bodyguards should be mounted and if this is not possible, charge and attack value of that units hould be decreased to 2-3. The bodyguards are supposed to protect the noble, not to charge to the battle and kill 1000 enemy soldiers.

[Lifthrasir]

Thanks for your feedback. We know that there are still numerous points which need to be improved. Be sure that we will take your remarks in account (but it doesn't mean that we will make them in SSHIP ).

Btw, about Norvegian early bodyguards, as they're the only one dismounted, I've raised a bit their skills against cavalry. That should make them somehow equal to the other mounted bodyguard units

[MWY]

@Crudelis: Thanks for the feedback

I think rebel spawns could be removed a tiny bit, but not as much. It should be something you need to do to keep your kingdom clear, and something you need to do regularly.

Rebellions will be toned down quite a bit.

Perhaps events should pop up why unrest increases. Thats a good idea.

About usurpers and traits: I've reworked a lot of it for the new patch. A demonstration how everything will work together can be seen here:

http://www83.zippyshare.com/v/gYANzRRV/file.html

Hm I think I turned down bodyguards quite a bit. Still they should be atleast as good or better than feudal knights. Perhaps we need some more bodyguard units if possible, to represent the "mailed knight" era until 1200. Those could be worse or only as good as feudal knights.

[Lifthrasir]

I've done a few trials with the mount_effect in the EDU for Norvegian early BG at +2 for horses and camels (instead +1 originally). It's much better that way as they can survive longer. However, from my point of view, the perfect number would be +1.5 but it's not possible to set the value that way
What do you think MWY?

[Dekhatres]

bodyguards are like glass cannons, they hit like a truck but they are also slow and can die in melee pretty fast, imo the balance is ok

[Crudelis]

Thanks for the fast responses

I think rebel spawns could be removed a tiny bit, but not as much. It should be something you need to do to keep your kingdom clear, and something you need to do regularly.

Maybe they should spawn less frequent, but stronger and be more aggressive. I have noticed that on the beginning of the campaign rebels keep besieging the settlements and are acting more like a proper factions. And I have to say, that was enjoyable But after few turns they turned again into passive bandits, just randomly blocking the roads. On the other hand, I feel that such aggressiveness kept through all the game-play can't be random and should have some reason, like happiness below 100% but above 75 % or not enough law in the region.

Hm I think I turned down bodyguards quite a bit. Still they should be at least as good or better than feudal knights. Perhaps we need some more bodyguard units if possible, to represent the "mailed knight" era until 1200. Those could be worse or only as good as feudal knights.

Historically I can imagine, that the king's or noble's guard would consist of only the finest knights in the kingdom, but in game that feels too strong due to their automatic replenishment. Another type of the bodyguards would be fine, since we have 3 eras in the game and that would make the early conquests less trivial. However lowering their charge value a little can be sufficient to prevent them from hitting that hard, in exchange they could use some defense upgrade.