SSHIP - General Discussion

[Jurand of Cracow]

If you think that some other units should have it, feel free to make a suggestion list

A quick answer for Poland (perhaps I’d elaborate on it in the future).

I think the folowing units are of peasant quality, their extensive use as garrisons for public order may be unhistorical and seen as a (minor) exploit, and, therefore, they should have “is_peasant” attribute:
Hunters, Woodsmen, Lithuanian Skirmishers, Balkan Archers, Lithuanian Archers, Lettish Crossbowmen, Mercenary Crossbowmen, EE_Crossbow_Militia, Slav Mercenaries.
(of course, the units which have “is_peasant” should continue having it).

I hesitate about two mercenary units: Axemen (available in Russia) and Macemen (available in Germany).
The units which definitely should stay as non-peasant since they’re more-or-less professional: Eastern Spearmen, Mercenary Spearmen, Prussian Spearmen.

---------------------------
The formula to count the costs-effectiveness for garrisoning purposes:
= [ ( upkeep_price / number_of_soldiers ) * (is_peasant) ] + [ ( recruitment_price / number_of_soldiers ) * 0,02 ]
Where: is_peasant is 2 for the units having this attribute, but 1 for the others.
The lower the index, the better.
Remember that the mercenary units usually have a high recruitment price and lower availability, so when one takes into account taking loses, they become more expensive. On the other hand, they have usually lower upkeep, so they suit the garrisoning purposes better. There’s also the question of mobilization of funds at the beginning (example of similar units: you pay 2800 on turn 1 for Mercenary Spearmen, but only 450 for Eastern Spearmen at your castle, but then the upkeep per turn is 340 vs. 390)

With my changes the results are:
Peasant Infantry 1,7
Spear Militia 3,3
Slav Mercenaries 2,3
Eastern Spearmen 2,7
Mercenary Spearmen 2,6
Prussian Spearmen 2,7
Mercenary Crossbowmen 3,2
Lettish Crossbowmen 2,9
EE Crossbow Militia 4,2
Balkan Archers 1,8
Levy Archers 2,2
Lithuanian Archers 3,4
Hunters 3,8
Woodsmen 3,6
Lithuanian Axemen 3,8
Lithuanian Skirmishers 5,2

I also think some prices of the units should be adjusted as far as the division between recruitment vs. upkeep costs is concerned. It is both for gameplay purposes, but also for historical common-sense (eg. why Lettish Crossbowmen have such high recruitment price, while other crossobow much lower? Wasn’t it the crossbow easy to learn and comparatively cheap? On the other hand – why EE_Crossbow_Militia has the upkeep of 255, which the Lettish of 156?)
But it’s a completely different topic.

And I would like to underline: the SSHIP is way, way better in setting prices for the units than any other mod. It’s really the advantage of the SSHIP. What I have in mind here (both garrison issues and prices) are very minor issues, just tinkering with a very good mod.

[Dekhatres]

And I would like to underline: the SSHIP is way, way better in setting prices for the units than any other mod. It’s really the advantage of the SSHIP. What I have in mind here (both garrison issues and prices) are very minor issues, just tinkering with a very good mod.

tbh to me prices seems almost random or based on gut feeling, i think SSHIP is better off just using x2 or x3 the unit costs of SS6.4

[MWY]

Lol Random. I literally programmed a calculator to price units in SSHIP.

[Lifthrasir]

...A random calculator

[Alavaria]

After all, stats like morale, attack/defense and ammo count don't mean anything if the purpose is "Garrison Effect"

[Jurand of Cracow]

After all, stats like morale, attack/defense and ammo count don't mean anything if the purpose is "Garrison Effect"

You're right - it's why they are not in the formula.

But many times your settlement may be in danger of a backstab-attack, and you want to have a chance to defend if your main army is somewhere else. I usually try to have at least one good spearmen unit to fight at the gates, one or more good archer units, maybe a javelin one, and an attacking unit (axemen, general's cavalry), the rest spear militia or other spearmen. I have fought a few defensive battles with superior attacking forces (well, due to the dumbness of the AI you can win even against very good attackng army).

What I like in the SSHIP is that it forces the player to have a decent garrison for unrest, and these units can be used to defence as well (it's why I don't like peasant infantry). On the other hand, upkeep is so expensive and corruption so high that the costs of a garrison may exceed the income from this city. Very good effect! It's exactly what I like the most in the SSHIP: the income-costs balance and it's impact on the gameplay.

[Alavaria]

It's surprising you say that as I hadn't noticed a really pressing need to garrison that many settlements, except for some where the cost to do so is ridiculous, making Dread governors a better deal. It helps to have a good generic long-term plan for all settlements, as this makes your own life easier as a player but also allows to continually stack up gains Though I did sort of stumble upon a perfectly scaling public order trick while killing off nearby factions, I guess.

Especially on the internal areas, they have 0% Garrison Effect (sometimes my other favorite, the 1- or 2-man unit with a flag and little else) and are rocking Very High taxes...

But many times your settlement may be in danger of a backstab-attack, and you want to have a chance to defend if your main army is somewhere else.

Why and by who exactly, and where is the "main army" (how many stacks are rolling about?) Do people have a habit of just giving the AI free shots at them?

I wonder if all these "garrisons" you're paying for are enough to form up another two or three stacks allowing you to steamroll the AIs who are instead sniping away thanks to gaps in the too-little roster of actual threatening stacks.

[Jurand of Cracow]

It's surprising you say that as I hadn't noticed a really pressing need to garrison that many settlements, except for some where the cost to do so is ridiculous, making Dread governors a better deal. ...
Especially on the internal areas, they have 0% Garrison Effect (sometimes my other favorite, the 1- or 2-man unit with a flag and little else) and are rocking Very High taxes

Perhaps because I don't have so many Dread generals. I don't slaughter the cities and I try to ransom or I release the troops. I don't think the Middle Ages was the age of mass murderers in the 20th century style. Even if I have a high-Dread general, it's needed somewhere on the border to keep a city calm. (example: Novgorod taken by Poland has 40% unrest for being a foreign capital, 40% for the distance to capital plus much unrest for population (I managed to stop it growing at 32k), so it needs a general plus about 18 units with normal taxes).

Why and by who exactly, and where is the "main army" (how many stacks are rolling about?) Do people have a habit of just giving the AI free shots at them?

For Poland - Hungarians attack from the south occassionally (if relations are Very Poor), Novgorod attacked repeadetely until I've taken their main settlements. Stacks of 10+ units. However, I would like the AI to be more aggressive and more backstabbing - then the garrisons would be more useful.
My main army consists of 1 or 2 not-full stacks, and with the budget of 60k I can afford like 5-7 heavy infantry, and 4-6 heavy cavalry. I have some home rule and one of them is that no army can go without a general (its was good in BGR that it was induced by the game: any stack without a general would desert. SSHIP team, give it back, please!)

I wonder if all these "garrisons" you're paying for are enough to form up another two or three stacks allowing you to steamroll the AIs who are instead sniping away thanks to gaps in the too-little roster of actual threatening stacks.

They would for sure allow to set up another 2 or 3 stacks, but they're needed for garrisoning the cities. I don't use peasants, I don't have so man Dread generals, so I don' have cheap garrisons. I find it pretty historical - eg. for the expedition against the Ottomans in 1396 Sigsmundus of Luxemburg mobilized like 30k troops, but at the battle of Nicopolis he had 15k due to the need to garrisoning the castles on the way (plus desertions, plus logistical problems).
Besides, I'm not very fond of steamrolling the AI.

As our experience with the garrisons are so different, I wonder if this is not because of playing different factions, or using peasants as garrisons, or maybe different difficulty levels.

[Lifthrasir]

Alavaria seems to have a particular way of playing SSHIP campaign (and this is not a bad remark ). As far as I know, he's the only one playing that style. I've been surprised by how fast he can expand in his campaigns (see here for an example). There are also a couple of pics in his posts above that one. See how big is his kingdom after 100 turns or so.

[Alavaria]

That reminds me I should do the rest of my campaign up to where I increasingly took out more and more people...

After I shanked the HRE and had to face off against multiple factions, then it really took off from there



I note that a lot of the "restraint" later on was due just to the magic pope... sigh.

Perhaps because I don't have so many Dread generals.

I don't either, for governoring that is. I could've used more early on, too.
The game just gives your governors Dread for holding Very High taxes though, so that is handy.

I try to ransom or I release the troops.

Ah that's why, you have to fight the same soldiers repeatedly, and I assume your generals run chiv not dread so you really get to fight them as opposed to just rout. That explains a lot.

[j.a.luna]

That reminds me I should do the rest of my campaign up to where I increasingly took out more and more people...

Yes alavaria! Your pisa campaign is so cool and funniest! I like so much see how you tell your campaign and post images and advices!

[Alavaria]

Yes alavaria! Your pisa campaign is so cool and funniest! I like so much see how you tell your campaign and post images and advices!

The sort of boring part is when it devolves into fighting the same two types of battles repeatedly as the AI never learns... but I shall find some way to make it amusing.

As our experience with the garrisons are so different, I wonder if this is not because of playing different factions, or using peasants as garrisons, or maybe different difficulty levels.

Factions, perhaps? Does your faction have the gallows building? (I suspect your issue may be buildings like market and other -Law ones)

Peasants as garrisons: Surprisingly not that much as I have mercenary crossbows from way back, though I think occasionally I use peasants as they are trainable just about anywhere. But most frequent is in fact minimal 0% garrison.

Difficulty level, perhaps, does VH difficulty give bonuses/is bugged?

[Jurand of Cracow]

Factions, perhaps? Does your faction have the gallows building? (I suspect your issue may be buildings like market and other -Law ones)

Peasants as garrisons: Surprisingly not that much as I have mercenary crossbows from way back, though I think occasionally I use peasants as they are trainable just about anywhere. But most frequent is in fact minimal 0% garrison.

Difficulty level, perhaps, does VH difficulty give bonuses/is bugged?

Poland does have gallows. But this is only 30% net, so it cannot make huge change for the far-away cities. Destroying markest probably can help a bit (I don't do it), but not much.
I don't know ins and outs of bonuses for difficulty, I just play VH/VH.
Mercenary Crossbows - yes, they are widely available. This is one of the units that should have "is_peasant" attribute to make it less useful for garrisoning and more historical. It's indeed equal for garrisoning to the peasants (index of 1,8, against 1,7 for Peasant Infantry, while Spear Militia is 3,3 and Mercenary Spearmen 2,6), but at least with high recruitment price.

I may imagine that you can steam-roll the factions by breaking down the armies and taking the settlements fast. If you don't autoresolve, loses can also be contained. The money from extermination and the new settlements finances the army, one can probably do that. With Piety of no importance and the pope taken down, fighting the catholic factions is also easier. But the thing I cannot understand is: how can you control far away capitals of the other factions? Even if you exterminate them out of hand, there's a run-away increase in the population. And how you can have 0% garrisons in most of the settlements? What happens to the unrest? I cannot understand.

[bigdaddy1204]

Alavaria seems to have a particular way of playing SSHIP campaign (and this is not a bad remark ). As far as I know, he's the only one playing that style. I've been surprised by how fast he can expand in his campaigns (see here for an example). There are also a couple of pics in his posts above that one. See how big is his kingdom after 100 turns or so.

This post inspired me to try something new... I have launched an SSHIP migration campaign! So far, I'm enjoying it enormously. Have a look here if you're interested...

[Alavaria]

Poland does have gallows. But this is only 30% net, so it cannot make huge change for the far-away cities. Destroying markest probably can help a bit (I don't do it), but not much.
I don't know ins and outs of bonuses for difficulty, I just play VH/VH.
Mercenary Crossbows - yes, they are widely available. This is one of the units that should have "is_peasant" attribute to make it less useful for garrisoning and more historical. It's indeed equal for garrisoning to the peasants (index of 1,8, against 1,7 for Peasant Infantry, while Spear Militia is 3,3 and Mercenary Spearmen 2,6), but at least with high recruitment price.

I may imagine that you can steam-roll the factions by breaking down the armies and taking the settlements fast. If you don't autoresolve, loses can also be contained. The money from extermination and the new settlements finances the army, one can probably do that. With Piety of no importance and the pope taken down, fighting the catholic factions is also easier.

Well, do you have buildings which reduce law? that's one... the markets and special trading docks can really cut into your Law, actually. Gallows also help population control which is excellent And Dreadful.

The other might be faction leader Authority (maxed out?) and I suppose a network of Master Thieves Guilds***? I care a lot about population control which helps tremendously. Also, border settlements do have troops staged there in order to keep all my stacks actually full stacks of 20 full units, so I guess there's a psudo garrison effect there?


***+20% Law magically for everyone, I guess that helps? I didn't even realize you can deliberately "farm" these Master level guilds.

But the thing I cannot understand is: how can you control far away capitals of the other factions? Even if you exterminate them out of hand, there's a run-away increase in the population. And how you can have 0% garrisons in most of the settlements? What happens to the unrest? I cannot understand.

Some of them have special buildings that works. Also it can help to sabotage farms before taking the settlement (sack, don't exterminate, by the way). I think places like capitals actually tend to sit at lower tax rates than Very High. However, important to note that Heath and Happiness are not very good due to the additional growth, I prioritize Law the most until the time I want to actually bump settlement up a tier.

Also, amusingly there was plague I guess? I sat down and worked out how to convert growth rate into eventual Squalor effect, but anyway uh yeah, some people have suggested using plague as a way to artificially hold populations down for stability when building. I donno, whenever it happens I get annoyed as the settlement was stable enough before.





I suppose you can also move capitals as your heartlands have already been built up so you can theoretically take the distance penalties there rather than the front but uh I never felt really pressed enough to do it... also because I was expanding in opposite directions at the same time so uh, yeah...

I've been forward basing more and more units as I have ever more troops to cram into fronts that don't get longer due to the geography of the front.

[Alavaria]

This post inspired me to try something new... I have launched an SSHIP migration campaign! So far, I'm enjoying it enormously. Have a look here if you're interested...

Heh when I took that one settlement south of the castle (the one for the province between Africa/Egypt, the egyptian faction started sending stacks marching the whole 6-turn way to it until I just gave the settlement to Serbia instead, heh...

[Jurand of Cracow]

a network of Master Thieves Guilds***?
***+20% Law magically for everyone, I guess that helps? I didn't even realize you can deliberately "farm" these Master level guilds.

I think the game allows building just one your Master guild of a type. More are possible if you take the settlements of the other factions. So you probably have the HRE's, French etc. (the AI settlements have Thieves guilds very often, it's the easiest - and therefore first - to get).

border settlements do have troops staged there in order to keep all my stacks actually full stacks of 20 full units, so I guess there's a psudo garrison effect there?

Well, but for Poland even 19 units with full-garrison-effect are barely enough to keep 32k-citizens Novgorod calm.
And you've showed Fes with 100k... It seems there's no garrison at all. Impressive, still bogging my mind how it's possible.

[Alavaria]

I think the game allows building just one your Master guild of a type. More are possible if you take the settlements of the other factions. So you probably have the HRE's, French etc. (the AI settlements have Thieves guilds very often, it's the easiest - and therefore first - to get).

Yes, though I have like two or three thieves guilds from just France or something

[Eldgrimr]

What is the most realistic campaign/battle difficulty settings? I'm not asking about the best/most fun challenge, just the most realistic settings.

[Lifthrasir]

If you want to see the full "potential" of the script, VH/VH is the best option. However, it might be a bit 'too high" for some people. In that case, playing H/H is not too bad. Below that, the levels won't reflect what it is intended in the mod.