SSHIP - General Discussion

[GG Magic]

Found the answer in the 'SSHIP - Economy, Events, Scripts & Other Features' thread.

The 'Usurpers, Bastards, Regents and Heroes' section needs to made clearer to people who play this mod I think, since it can seriously cripple a campaign and people won't realise they need to ride it out and avoid certain undesirable traits in generals to prevent it happening in the first place.

Maybe it would be helpful to refer people to that thread during the installation instructions in the release thread.

[Henry X]

Found the answer in the 'SSHIP - Economy, Events, Scripts & Other Features' thread.

The 'Usurpers, Bastards, Regents and Heroes' section needs to made clearer to people who play this mod I think, since it can seriously cripple a campaign and people won't realise they need to ride it out and avoid certain undesirable traits in generals to prevent it happening in the first place.

Maybe it would be helpful to refer people to that thread during the installation instructions in the release thread.

Care to elaborate a bit? I've never fully grasped the usurper system myself, but I have enjoyed its inclusion since it forms a pretty good check on reckless expansion

[Alganor]

Is it possible to add women as merchants, assasins, spies, or generals? with very little chance to occur?

[lolIsuck]

Is it possible to add women as merchants, assasins, spies, or generals? with very little chance to occur?

Not possible, and if it would I doubt it would be implemented as there are very few, if any, historical examples of this.

[Alganor]

Not possible, and if it would I doubt it would be implemented as there are very few, if any, historical examples of this.

Pitty. And yes, there were Edith Ennen - Frauen im Mittelalter etc... woman role in middle ages was more to be similar to woman role in 21 century. But almost about that time was defamated by Age of Enlightenment. Jacques Le Goff inspired current historicians to look at middle ages with reason and contest highlighting achievements of this period and variations inside it

[Alavaria]

Care to elaborate a bit? I've never fully grasped the usurper system myself, but I have enjoyed its inclusion since it forms a pretty good check on reckless expansion

Hmm that's odd, I expanded amazingly recklessly but not had issues with it, as long as the heir is a "Biological Son" there shouldn't be any issues...

And that's with me running all my offensive generals as dread, even top guys can't get picked for heir over a son who has just come of age it seems.

[j.a.luna]

is possible for the next patch add more units models from broken crescent for replace some vainilla muslims models in the current game? for example al haka infantry and daylami infantry models could be replace for other new models or maybe add some especific muslims units

[Lifthrasir]

Unless I've misunderstood your point entirely (wouldn't be the first time), the chevauchée was part of a larger military goal of conquest. Edward and later kings knew France was immensely rich and productive; conquest would be impossible without hamstringing its means of supply. They were playing the long game and hitting the French crown where it hurt, because any sensible logic said that going up directly against the might of the French army at its best was suicide. Agincourt, Crecy and the like were outliers and decisive battles couldn't be relied upon on their own to win the war, especially not in the opening stages when Edward and the Black Prince were still in the game. So those absolutely could be, and were, invasions.

I promised you an answer and there it is:

At the start of the Hundred Years War, the "indirect" conflicts between France and England (in Scotland 1329 - 1346, in Flanders 1340 and in Brittany 1341-1342) were very expensive and without any good result for Edward III. That created a financial crisis between 1339 and 1342 which bankrupted the Italian creditors, the Peruzzi in 1343 and the Bardi in 1346.
That's why Edward III changed his strategy. The main goal of his "chevauchées" was to ravage the wealthy French countryside, proving de facto that the French King was unable to protect his people. The principle was quite simple: Edward III was landing with a 10,000 - 15,000 men army, making a tour in France from a town to another but avoiding fortified or well defended places, up to his last point where he was embarking to go back to England. Each "chevauchées" was divided in 3 stacks, advancing in paralell about 10 to 20 km per day, pillaging and destroying all they could for supplies and personal gain, impovereshing the French King incomes, within a 20 km wide corridor.
As you mentioned, Agincourt, Crecy and others were fought because the English army didn't have another option.
Now, here is the interesting fact: in November 1359, Edward III came back to France, his goal was not for pillaging this time (the countryside was already very poor dyue to the previous "chevauchées") but more to go to Reims to size the French crown (John the Good was taken prisoner during the battle of Poitiers in 1356), hoping to take advantage of the strife between the inhabitants and the Archbishop John of Craon (who was one of his family member). But when he arrived in Reims, the city doors were closed and the city was ready for a siege. Edward III decided then to go to Paris where he faced the same situation. He didn't even try to besiege the town and just carried on his way. It seems that the crown wasn't that important to him. Then, he started negotiations that ended by the treaty of Calais in October 1360, granted him with numerous lands and a ransom of 3 billions of golden crowns (or ecus) to set John the Good free.

On contrary, in 1415 when Henry V landed in Normandy, that was an invasion. He had siege engines. He conquered Harfleur but the siege took longer than expected and he was actually going back to England via Calais when the battle of Agincourt happened (with all known consequences). Then, Henri V came back in 1417, with artillery this time, and started to conquier all fortified places in Normandy (Caen, Cherbourg, Evreux, Rouen, Pontoise, Mantes and Chateau-Gaillard). Pillaging was forbidden to get the local population on his side and strong garrisons were left on strategic locations. From then, the defense of Normandy became one of the main priority for the English.

See the difference between these 2 parts of the Hundred Years War. Same Kingdoms involved, different strategies for different goals. That's why I don't consider the "chevauchées" of Edward III as invasions. Hope it helps to understand my point of view

[Lifthrasir]

@ j.a.luna, I think that MWY has added already some of them.

[achilles-91]

Will reworked Denmark and Norway units be based on sandees units or on rakas(or how its called)? I myself, prefer sandees highly

[Hellvard]

Sandy's units are very high quality, but they have typical western style and can fit any European catholic faction, while Raakas ones have unique and historical scandinavian look, you can't mistake them with french or german ones

[Lifthrasir]

I agree with Hellvard except for the Veidimenn (archers) who aren't (no trace of archers using and 2H axe) and mounted units for the Early Era. Raaka's units are also great quality. So, I'll use Raaka's units in priority but, and especially for Denmark who was more "westernized", I'll also probably use some of the Sandy's units.

As we're talking about the Norse rosters and as it has been asked recently, I'm continuing this discussion in the New Factions Units Rosters thread as it is more relevant

[Novgorodian Nark]

two small requests:

a lot of horses have very low quality eyes while some have very good ones, can you make make the horses all have the high res ones?

the royal banderium of hungary`s horse armor doesnt match the dark iron armor the knights use, can you make the horse armor darker, so it fits?


Thanks

[Lifthrasir]

I guess that's because some horse models are still the vanilla one and some others are the Marka horse models (which is much better). We'll see what we can do but it might take a while before we fix all of them.

[Novgorodian Nark]

the release notes claimed the mongols were supposed to be stronger than ever, but ive played against them for 50+ turns now and they are extremely underwhelming, their armies are much fewer than in SS 6.4,
i think their strat map AI is smarter though, but their numbers are 1/6 of what they were in SS 6.4

probably my favourite thing in the game is the mongol invasion, the feeling of doom when its so fearsome, every city being attacked by 8 full armies of elite units with powerful generals, all over the place, Persia only lasting for 10-20 turns not 50+

anyway i plead you to buff them a LOT!

just to put it in perspective im having bigger problems against denmark and norway than against them (denmark and norway only has 3 cities each)


oh also Genghis Khan`s model is kind of bugged, his shoulders have a texture/mesh bug where u can see through the model under the shoulders.

Thanks in advance

[Dekhatres]

the release notes claimed the mongols were supposed to be stronger than ever, but ive played against them for 50+ turns now and they are extremely underwhelming, their armies are much fewer than in SS 6.4,
i think their strat map AI is smarter though, but their numbers are 1/6 of what they were in SS 6.4

probably my favourite thing in the game is the mongol invasion, the feeling of doom when its so fearsome, every city being attacked by 8 full armies of elite units with powerful generals, all over the place, Persia only lasting for 10-20 turns not 50+

anyway i plead you to buff them a LOT!

just to put it in perspective im having bigger problems against denmark and norway than against them (denmark and norway only has 3 cities each)


oh also Genghis Khan`s model is kind of bugged, his shoulders have a texture/mesh bug where u can see through the model under the shoulders.

Thanks in advance

iirc kwarezmians actually had bigger and quite decent armies but mongols completley outplayed them, in 6.4 mongols had too many stacks, to the point where you are not playing a strategy game anymore, just a zombie invasion simulator killing stack after stack of zombies that pop out of nowhere, it is much better now imo

[Novgorodian Nark]

yeah except the Mongols are now the weakest faction in the game -.-

the mongol invasion cinematic that sets the tone for the event is more like a joke now.

"the mongol invasion" Oh you mean that tiny band of stragglers who got beat by the Persians and was never seen or heard from again...

historically accuracy 10/10

[Nekro]

Hey all, I don't know if I'm posting this in the correct place, but seeing as how I'm trying to add a little self-mod to SSHIP I thought I might as well ask the question here. What I'm trying to do is add a "wonder" building to Alamut that will truly make it into the Hashashim's headquarters. I've added the building just fine and it allows you to train assassins from the castle just fine, but where I ran into a problem was adding a trait that would allow those assassins to come out as if they were trained journeymen from a city with the assassin's guild headquarters. Basically, I just copied the trait and trigger from the assassin journeyman entry, tweaked it a bit and tried to start the game, whereupon the game CTDs immediately without even getting to the main menu. I've tried playing around and seeing if adding other traits would work and nope, same problem. I've looked around to see if maybe there was a hardcoded limit to how many traits there can be and there doesn't seem to be any from what the information I've seen. So I'm at a complete loss as to what I'm doing wrong and thought that this would be my only hope of solving my problem. This is what my trait, trigger and export_vnvs.txt entry look like.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Trait HashashinMember
Characters assassin

Level Hashashin_Member
Description Hashashin_Member_desc
EffectsDescription Hashashin_Member_effects_desc
Threshold 1

Effect Subterfuge 3
Effect PersonalSecurity 1
Effect PublicSecurity 1

;------------------------------------------

Trigger assassininit7
WhenToTest AgentCreated

Condition AgentType = assassin
and SettlementBuildingExists = hashashin_alamut

Affects HashashinMember 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------

{Hashashin_Member_desc}Training from a young age with the Alamut Hashashim has turned this man into a true master of the trade.
{Hashashin_Member_effects_desc}+3 Subterfuge, +1 to public security (improves the chances of detecting and capturing enemy agents)
{Hashashin_Member}Alamut Hashashim Member

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Dekhatres]

yeah except the Mongols are now the weakest faction in the game -.-

the mongol invasion cinematic that sets the tone for the event is more like a joke now.

"the mongol invasion" Oh you mean that tiny band of stragglers who got beat by the Persians and was never seen or heard from again...

historically accuracy 10/10

yes and in my last 6.4 game by 1500s byzantines conquered more than half of the world, historical accuracy 10/10

my point is that in the end this is a SANDBOX game, you change history, maybe you should take a look at the 2nd and 3rd mongol invasion of hungary and poland if you think the horde should be invincible

[MWY]

The mongol invasion should still spawn at least around 15 stacks (together with a money boost) which is in my opinion enough the represent them historically accurate. It's not like mongols were destined to conquer everything, besides their military power they could have been defeated several times, but mostly commanders didn't know how to deal with their tactics and/or had bad troops. If f.e. they would have had a big loss against the kwarezmians, who knows if they would have even returned to the persian regions.