I like this mod and some if its options. I am having trouble with commanding my troops with the PBOD AI formations activated. The troops don't follow the follow order and I can't use the flag to place them. They will hold and charge but don't respond to the other commands. I tried the mod (v1.4) in both WB 1.153 and WB 1.158 can have the same problem.
It's very odd, I will have a look tonight to see what is causing it. The formations themselves work fine right? It's just when you have both the formation for a division and try to order a follow or a hold position with the flag? Edit: I seem to have found the problem, I will do some testing and if it is positive I will patch it.
It uses the modded morale system. I was unsure if it was needed to have it aswell, I wanted to include an in-game possibility to select one of the two (probably at the start of a new game for it cause no problem), but as I said, I was unsure if it was needed. I'll look into making the same kind of patch, or I'll make an option to select it in-game (maybe I'll do both, have the patch now, and make the selection for future release).
It is here and should be working as intended, however it is not save game compatible, so any old save will not work properly with this version (every text will be wrong).
I am sorry to have been slow on it, but last week was a rough week to mod.
You are able to get them if the freeriders are able to own a town, or if you chose this culture for your own kingdom. You can also rescue them if you see some being prisoners, most likely in a faction they are at war against. They are probably weaker than nobles from other factions in the early tiers and get heavy horses late, but in the end, they have one of the strongest armor and a variety of powerful yet slow weapons. They can fight well on foot too.
Hey thanks man. btw what is your opinion on the freerider and the mudle factions? they seem pretty weak to me. what do you think? also, when you recrut soldiers from you constable, what are the foreign troops? the recruter just stands there...
If you are talking about the faction in general yes, they are weak, having only a few lords and little fiefs to start with. But their troops are good, mudle has a modified version of the rhodok troops, with more swordsmen than spearmen, which can be an advantage, even if they can't go to tier 5, because of the way the ai uses polearm weapons. The freeriders have good troops too, they have tier 6 infantry (only them and the nords have it) and often carry blunt polearms, that are usefull against highly armored troops. Their infantry lacks shields though and they can't be used to make a shieldwall.
Foreign is supposed to be a fix I introduced at some point so that neutral lords (those that join the player kingdom) do not mess up the notes. But I looked at the code for the recruiter, and the 'foreign' option should recruit troops from the mudle faction. As they only have one village it is very likely that the recruiter is unable to find a village not looted.
Thanks again. another thing im wondering is my own patrols. when i send one out to a village, they go to the village and disappear and only show up when im fighting at the village. is that how it works? i thought the patrols would walk around the village and fight any hostiles nearby. also, when i told my constable i wanted to move troops from one castle to another and he said they are moving. i waited a couple of days and they never showed up to the Garrison; instead they showed up when i was fighting near the castle. And while im ranting, i noticed that there are no hideouts and that you don't see a lot of of area specific bandits like sea riders. do the mercs you see wandering do anything else besides fight for a faction for a bit? can they join your own faction? soooo many questions! but its bugging me and im wondering if you could answer.
Patrols should not disapear near your village, they should patrol around your fiefs, there is two kinds of patrols, automatic ones, that patrol fiefs of the faction, and the ones created for a specific task, if those do not work correctly I will have a look at it. Same for moving the troops, it should be working as intended.
There should be hideouts spawning, but I made them more rare, and they should only appear if bandits of a certain type start getting numerous. Bandit spawn is also related to the presence of a lair. It is possible that the patrols, the manhunters and the lords are doing a good job at preventing them from populating the area.
The mercs don't do much besides fighting for a faction and fighting bandits when they are not, but they can join your kingdom if you ever make one, but they are not like vassals and you have to pay them each week while they are in your service.
im wondering now if its worth becoming a lord for the freeriders or mudle. what do yoy think? are they worth the investment?
out of all the noble soldiers you can recruit like pages, which one is the best? what is the point of the freeriders scout tree? they dont seem that tough..
It would probably be hard to capture all of Calradia with them if that is all your plan, but it can be an interesting challenge if you can do without too many lords by your side.
All the noble soldiers should have pros and cons. It's really up to what you are looking for. The swadians are possibly the best pure heavy cavalry. The vaegirs are good heavy cavalry, with a chance of having throwing weapons and two handed axes. The khergits are heavy horse archers, and good cavalry if you tell them to hold fire. The nords are a heavy infantry with poleaxes, vulnerable to archer fire, but deadly against anything else. The rhodoks are decent heavy cavalry, that are better when dismounted than other noble cavalry. The sarranids are the only sarranid troops with bows, they also have two handed weapons, it makes them really powerful in sieges.
Now of course, they are better than non noble troops, but as they are really expensive in the late tiers, it might be hard to have an army of only nobles, especially as they are only found in towns.
The scouts are a light cavalry, it is true that they might be a little weak, I might buff them into a light lancer unit that will be vulnerable but also able to one-shot other units with couched lance.
could you explain to me how the castle trainer works? does it upgrade troops on it own or does it just give the soldiers in garrison exp? are there any differences to the major khergits and minor khergits faction soldiers? i want to know your reasoning for not giving the freeriders foot soldiers any shields?
and how does the constable know to turn soldiers into Calvary or foot soldiers?
Constable training is a feature of diplomacy, every day it allows for some units to upgrade, the higher the trainig skill of the player, the more troops can be upgraded at once. Although it is better to build a training camp in your center, it costs more at first, but you don't have to pay to upgrade every single unit. The constable should know in which unit to upgrade with what you told him, ranged units or infantry. Oddly enough, it doesn't actually checks if it is an infantry or an archer, choosing to upgrade to archer units will always select the second choice of upgrade (when in the party window), which is mostly right for most factions, but with the infantry choice it always select the first choice, and that should lead to upgrading the swadian footman into a cavalry unit and not the infantry like it should. If I release another patch, I will fix it, thanks for pointing it out.
The two khergit factions have the same troops but the small one have less cavalry units.
I didn't give the freerider infantry shields because they can't have both the two-handed polearms and shields. The hardest thing to do to use them effectively is to have a different strategy than with other factions, holding a position is not the best option, you need to be aggressive without exposing your infantry to archer fire, using cavalry is a good way to distract them. Once in melee their units have a reach advantage and fare well in group fighting because of it, they are also less vulnerable to cavalry units than other factions.
Adding new factions would mean either making a new map for them to fit in correctly, or placing them in not very convenient places. The first option means a lot of work. The second is not really something I would like. So no, there will not be any new faction.
It is very unlikely that I add anything important to the mod, it will mostly be bug fixes.
What do you mean with that? If you want the troop styles, the khergit tribes are using khergit troops, with more infantry and archer units than the khergits, so strategies with them are somewhat the same than with the vaegirs, except that you can't really make a shieldwall because of the small shields. But most units have bows, so it's a faction mostly of cavalry and archers.
The mudle use rhodok troops, with more swordsmen than spearmen, in a way it also gives them more light cavalry, you can use them like you would with the rhodoks, except that your infantry cannot go to tier 5, but they will have more shields and effective weapons. The cavalry should be in a sufficient number to attack the enemy archers.
The freeriders are as I told you before, good polearm infantry, decent cavalry, and support 'archers' that are useful against groups of enemies (they have trouble against single enemies). And they were supposed to have a light cavalry to distract other cavalries and support the heavier cavalry line. But since that didn't work so well, the light cavalry line will be replaced with a light lancer line. And for the tactics, the most important thing is to get into melee as soon as possible, or be able to reduce the number of ranged units in the enemy team so that they are no longer a real threat. The rest is mostly try to keep your infantry together, or at least close to each other.
For the recruiter, it might be a problem with the foreign faction appearing... The factions have been 'swapped' in a way... So the freeriders should correspond to the khergit tribes, mudle to the freeriders, and finally the foreign should be mudle.
at my castle when i talked with my chancellor, and i want to get the mood of the other nobles on who gets the fief, it says my spies have not reported. can you help? i don't know what to do
also, whats the best route too getting my own strong kingdom?
It is good, when giving fiefs to your vassals, to make sure that they don't get too many fiefs, or not enough, if you want to know, anything above a town plus a village is too much and will not grant anything more than money (something they usually don't lack with a town). It can boost their relation with you, but it should not be abused. Try to evenly distribute your fiefs. It's not like native where you have to give walled fiefs (castles and towns) only to certain types of lords (those that are less likely to betray you). Also try to at least have all of your vassals with a fief, a single village will do, if you don't, your relation will quickly drop to negative and they won't come to help you if you are marshall, and later might leave your kingdom.
To get a strong kingdom you need to have good relations with a lot of lords, a big enough party (at least a hundred men), high right to rule (this one is important if you want other kingdoms to treat you as one, and to be able to recruit lords). The best way would probably be to be a vassal or mercenary for one, or more, kingdom until you are ready.
To start it, one way is to be a vassal, and capture castles and towns until your king does not want to give it to you, at this point you can rebel, and if some of the fiefs you have are not defensible or too far away from your capital, don't even bother trying to keep them. If you have a few fiefs unassigned, lords will come to your doors to join you. Take only those that are necessary, and either do not speak with the others if you wish to take them later, or tell them you do not need their help. Taking lords with big families can help you win more supporters, as their family members will be more inclined to join you. And they usually like each other.
He should tell you why he doesn't want to trade it with you. If he tells you that he think the offered fief has not enough prosperity, you can improve your chances by: - increasing your relation with him - increasing your persuasion skill - increasing your trade skill - increasing the prosperity of the fief you want to offer (the prosperity of a castle is the same than its linked village) - decreasing the prosperity of the fief you want (for a village or castle you can wait after it has been raided)
Or you can offer him a better fief than what he has, for example, offering to trade him a city in exchange for his castle
Is their a way to change what soldiers your own lord recruits? what units would you recommend the lords to recruit? are the new companions able to become a lord? is it a good idea?
It is not possible to change what troops your lords use, but you can recruit only lords of certain cultures if you want. I suggest you take either lords of the same culture than you, or lords that have troops you cannot have (for morale reasons, or for being at the other end of the map) and that you like. If you help a lord it is good for him to have the same troops as you, so you can use the same tactics as you usually do, or if he has troops that are complementary to yours, for example, if you have nordic troops it is good to take lords that have good cavalry units, but probably not a good idea to take rhodoks or khergit lords, as the first one does not come with many good cavalry (even if using the crossbowmen with nord infantry is deadly), and the second has too many cavalry, and will lessen the strength of your infantry because of it.
Companions are able to become lords, and if you don't need them in your party (if you don't need his party skills) it can be useful to make them lords. But, it is harder to make a good companion lord than recruit one, mostly because companions don't increase their 'level' depending on the number of fiefs, it means you have to get them to a decent level before making them lords, with enough charisma, leadership and trainer. Some other skills that can be useful but are not mandatory.
Now if you plan on having only a few companions as lords, it is best to take noble companions only, else many lords will not like you making a commoner a noble.
Hey i can see that my one of my companions (Lezezit or something) who i gave land too, personality changed to pitless. on the mount wiki, it says he should be martial. is this normal?
also, what happens if you give the mercs land? is it good or bad?
It is odd, I didn't change anything on that part. And I don't believe it is randomized in native. And about giving lands to mercenaries, it is better if you can do without it, it will have the same disadvantages as when giving a non noble companion a fief. However, it will allow you to have a level 6 lord (if you give him a city and village at least) with mercenary culture, if you like mercenary units these lords will have a lot of them, and probably have high tier ones. But as I said, it is better if you can do without them, as if you give them a fief, they will be considered vassal and their relation will change with your actions as king, something that doesn't happen when they are mercenaries.
i have a question, the personalities of the other vassals ex upstanding, Martial , Pitiless, etc which ones are better to have when one is ruling a kingdom? does it affect a lot?
The best to have is upstanding and good-natured lords, if you can do with only those two types of lord, you will have an easy time keeping your vassals happy.
Personalities affect the AI decisions (to some extend) and mostly change the way their relation change with you. With those two types of lord, it is the easiest to keep a stable relationship. Now I believe some of the other types of lords make good marshals because they are very aggressive. So if you are able to give your vassals a good number of fiefs it can be useful to have a few of them (martial I think?), they also join campaigns more often.
I like the fact that there are different rankings of nobles. I dislike the names you have given to the factions and the rank names. They don't go along with lore and make it hard to tell at a glance what rank a person is. Is there a way for me to personally edit them.
In order to modify the names of the ranks for each faction, you can go in the module's folder, and in string.txt search for one of the names, or for str_faction_x where x is a number between 0 and 5, and the name of the faction is more the name of the culture (for swadians for example, it's swadian and not swadia). There will be a list with all of the faction's names grouped together, you need to keep the {s0} part of the name, and replace spaces with underscores (those in the name of the rank, not where there is the separation between the id and the actual name). To change the king's names though, you'll need to edit the troop itself.
And for the factions, you'll need to edit the file factions.txt where to edit Swadia for example you'll need to change this line: 0 fac_kingdom_1 Kingdom_of_Swadia 0 15628100 and make it 0 fac_kingdom_1 The_Real_Kingdom_of_Swadia 0 15628100
If you don't find him back at the tavern, ask the tavernkeeper, he will have your armor fixed, if not he'll warn you that you need to come to him later.
Well it is probably too hard to actually change the scripts.txt file, if you know how to modify and compile .py files of the module_system, you may want to look at these parts: script_change_player_party_morale script_count_casualties_and_adjust_morale (near the bottom of the script, where there is this line : (call_script, "script_change_player_party_morale", ":moral_loss"),) And morale_report in module_game_menus
To be honest, the moral system used is not quite the best it could be, mostly due to the fact that the ai is unable to properly defend its territories, and how the marshall system works. I wanted to force the player to have some rest between each battle, or series of battles and let the ai do some of the work, but if he does that, most of the time it means he will lose his marshall position, and most likely lose fiefs as-well. I guess that from the beginning I should have put it as an option in the camp menu, that you could turn off in case it didn't suits you.
I am however not really working on the mod anymore (a few minors changes since the last version uploaded). I may make, depending on my mood and the real work it will needs, put an optional file to reverse it to how it was before, or add an option in the camp menu to turn it off. The first one should be save-compatible, the last... is not guaranteed to be, but at least it lets the player pick one in-game.
Hey thanks for the reply. I found the script in module_scripts.py but I do not know python at all so i have pasted the section below hoping you can guide me to the changes
(store_div, ":min_loss", ":morale_dif", 3), # was 4 (store_add, ":max_loss", ":min_loss", -4), # was -2
(store_random_in_range, ":stability_reduce", 0, ":stability"), # 0% - 50% -- might sometimes give a higher morale loss if stability is too low (below 0) (store_mul, ":reducing", ":stability_reduce", ":max_loss"), (val_div, ":reducing", 100),
(val_sub, ":max_loss", ":reducing"),
(try_begin), # If min > max we reverse the two (lt, ":min_loss", ":max_loss"), (assign, ":storage", ":min_loss"), (assign, ":min_loss", ":max_loss"), (assign, ":max_loss", ":storage"), (try_end),
(store_random_in_range, ":stability_reduce", 0, ":stability"), # 0% - 50% -- might sometimes give a small morale penality if stability is too low (below 0) (store_mul, ":reducing", ":stability_reduce", ":max_loss"), (val_div, ":reducing", 100),
(val_add, ":max_loss", ":reducing"),
(try_begin), # If min > max we reverse the two (gt, ":min_loss", ":max_loss"), (assign, ":storage", ":min_loss"), (assign, ":min_loss", ":max_loss"), (assign, ":max_loss", ":storage"), (try_end),
You would first need to know how to compile it. It would not really be useful if you knew what to change but be unable to have that change in your game. In the original game, the code looks like this:
If you were to revert it back, this part would work as it used to. But beware that changing only this part will not make it function properly, you will still lose morale when fighting, probably more than what you lose currently. You need every part to be reverted to what it was before. If you are willing to wait, I could do it this weekend, as I have nothing planned this Saturday.
And by the way, it's not python, it's a language specific to mount and blade modding that has no official name, just thought it would be useful to clarify that.
It's uploaded and there was more to change than I thought there would originaly be. If you would have done it yourself based on my first comment, it would not have worked properly.
Anyways, it's under the optional files, just drop the extracted content inside the folder of the mod and overwrite when asked. Just keep in mind that I have not tested it a lot, I started a new character, and the morale was how it was in native, it should work with an already existing character, but I have not been able to test it. If you see anything weird please make me know about it.
Thanks so much for the update. I noticed the following issues on an existing saved game:
1. After a battle morale increases properly, however it does not register behind the scenes as I am still getting desertion for low morale and the pop up that goes with it. 2. When it regenerates morale from sitting around, it'll say that current morale is 530 or some high number but morale does not go higher than a 100 on the morale report screen. Also troops still desert saying morale is too low. 3. It keeps saying troops are hungry and earn less experience now, even though I have tons of food in my inventory.
How can i reverse the changes you did to morale? I understand your reasons but I would like to go on a massive warpath in the game and if I win battles my troops should be happy and not sad just because they fought a battle.
Please let me know what changes can be made to the scripts.txt or other files where morale has been modified by you.
69 comments
The formations themselves work fine right? It's just when you have both the formation for a division and try to order a follow or a hold position with the flag?
Edit: I seem to have found the problem, I will do some testing and if it is positive I will patch it.
I am sorry to have been slow on it, but last week was a rough week to mod.
They are probably weaker than nobles from other factions in the early tiers and get heavy horses late, but in the end, they have one of the strongest armor and a variety of powerful yet slow weapons. They can fight well on foot too.
But their troops are good, mudle has a modified version of the rhodok troops, with more swordsmen than spearmen, which can be an advantage, even if they can't go to tier 5, because of the way the ai uses polearm weapons.
The freeriders have good troops too, they have tier 6 infantry (only them and the nords have it) and often carry blunt polearms, that are usefull against highly armored troops. Their infantry lacks shields though and they can't be used to make a shieldwall.
Foreign is supposed to be a fix I introduced at some point so that neutral lords (those that join the player kingdom) do not mess up the notes. But I looked at the code for the recruiter, and the 'foreign' option should recruit troops from the mudle faction. As they only have one village it is very likely that the recruiter is unable to find a village not looted.
Same for moving the troops, it should be working as intended.
There should be hideouts spawning, but I made them more rare, and they should only appear if bandits of a certain type start getting numerous. Bandit spawn is also related to the presence of a lair. It is possible that the patrols, the manhunters and the lords are doing a good job at preventing them from populating the area.
The mercs don't do much besides fighting for a faction and fighting bandits when they are not, but they can join your kingdom if you ever make one, but they are not like vassals and you have to pay them each week while they are in your service.
out of all the noble soldiers you can recruit like pages, which one is the best?
what is the point of the freeriders scout tree? they dont seem that tough..
All the noble soldiers should have pros and cons. It's really up to what you are looking for.
The swadians are possibly the best pure heavy cavalry.
The vaegirs are good heavy cavalry, with a chance of having throwing weapons and two handed axes.
The khergits are heavy horse archers, and good cavalry if you tell them to hold fire.
The nords are a heavy infantry with poleaxes, vulnerable to archer fire, but deadly against anything else.
The rhodoks are decent heavy cavalry, that are better when dismounted than other noble cavalry.
The sarranids are the only sarranid troops with bows, they also have two handed weapons, it makes them really powerful in sieges.
Now of course, they are better than non noble troops, but as they are really expensive in the late tiers, it might be hard to have an army of only nobles, especially as they are only found in towns.
The scouts are a light cavalry, it is true that they might be a little weak, I might buff them into a light lancer unit that will be vulnerable but also able to one-shot other units with couched lance.
are there any differences to the major khergits and minor khergits faction soldiers?
i want to know your reasoning for not giving the freeriders foot soldiers any shields?
and how does the constable know to turn soldiers into Calvary or foot soldiers?
The constable should know in which unit to upgrade with what you told him, ranged units or infantry. Oddly enough, it doesn't actually checks if it is an infantry or an archer, choosing to upgrade to archer units will always select the second choice of upgrade (when in the party window), which is mostly right for most factions, but with the infantry choice it always select the first choice, and that should lead to upgrading the swadian footman into a cavalry unit and not the infantry like it should. If I release another patch, I will fix it, thanks for pointing it out.
The two khergit factions have the same troops but the small one have less cavalry units.
I didn't give the freerider infantry shields because they can't have both the two-handed polearms and shields. The hardest thing to do to use them effectively is to have a different strategy than with other factions, holding a position is not the best option, you need to be aggressive without exposing your infantry to archer fire, using cavalry is a good way to distract them. Once in melee their units have a reach advantage and fare well in group fighting because of it, they are also less vulnerable to cavalry units than other factions.
So no, there will not be any new faction.
It is very unlikely that I add anything important to the mod, it will mostly be bug fixes.
also, i noticed that when i send out recruiters for freeriders, it gives me khriget tribesmen. can you see if that a problem?
If you want the troop styles, the khergit tribes are using khergit troops, with more infantry and archer units than the khergits, so strategies with them are somewhat the same than with the vaegirs, except that you can't really make a shieldwall because of the small shields. But most units have bows, so it's a faction mostly of cavalry and archers.
The mudle use rhodok troops, with more swordsmen than spearmen, in a way it also gives them more light cavalry, you can use them like you would with the rhodoks, except that your infantry cannot go to tier 5, but they will have more shields and effective weapons.
The cavalry should be in a sufficient number to attack the enemy archers.
The freeriders are as I told you before, good polearm infantry, decent cavalry, and support 'archers' that are useful against groups of enemies (they have trouble against single enemies). And they were supposed to have a light cavalry to distract other cavalries and support the heavier cavalry line. But since that didn't work so well, the light cavalry line will be replaced with a light lancer line.
And for the tactics, the most important thing is to get into melee as soon as possible, or be able to reduce the number of ranged units in the enemy team so that they are no longer a real threat. The rest is mostly try to keep your infantry together, or at least close to each other.
For the recruiter, it might be a problem with the foreign faction appearing...
The factions have been 'swapped' in a way... So the freeriders should correspond to the khergit tribes, mudle to the freeriders, and finally the foreign should be mudle.
also, whats the best route too getting my own strong kingdom?
It can boost their relation with you, but it should not be abused. Try to evenly distribute your fiefs. It's not like native where you have to give walled fiefs (castles and towns) only to certain types of lords (those that are less likely to betray you). Also try to at least have all of your vassals with a fief, a single village will do, if you don't, your relation will quickly drop to negative and they won't come to help you if you are marshall, and later might leave your kingdom.
To get a strong kingdom you need to have good relations with a lot of lords, a big enough party (at least a hundred men), high right to rule (this one is important if you want other kingdoms to treat you as one, and to be able to recruit lords).
The best way would probably be to be a vassal or mercenary for one, or more, kingdom until you are ready.
To start it, one way is to be a vassal, and capture castles and towns until your king does not want to give it to you, at this point you can rebel, and if some of the fiefs you have are not defensible or too far away from your capital, don't even bother trying to keep them.
If you have a few fiefs unassigned, lords will come to your doors to join you. Take only those that are necessary, and either do not speak with the others if you wish to take them later, or tell them you do not need their help.
Taking lords with big families can help you win more supporters, as their family members will be more inclined to join you. And they usually like each other.
If he tells you that he think the offered fief has not enough prosperity, you can improve your chances by:
- increasing your relation with him
- increasing your persuasion skill
- increasing your trade skill
- increasing the prosperity of the fief you want to offer (the prosperity of a castle is the same than its linked village)
- decreasing the prosperity of the fief you want (for a village or castle you can wait after it has been raided)
Or you can offer him a better fief than what he has, for example, offering to trade him a city in exchange for his castle
what units would you recommend the lords to recruit?
are the new companions able to become a lord? is it a good idea?
I suggest you take either lords of the same culture than you, or lords that have troops you cannot have (for morale reasons, or for being at the other end of the map) and that you like.
If you help a lord it is good for him to have the same troops as you, so you can use the same tactics as you usually do, or if he has troops that are complementary to yours, for example, if you have nordic troops it is good to take lords that have good cavalry units, but probably not a good idea to take rhodoks or khergit lords, as the first one does not come with many good cavalry (even if using the crossbowmen with nord infantry is deadly), and the second has too many cavalry, and will lessen the strength of your infantry because of it.
Companions are able to become lords, and if you don't need them in your party (if you don't need his party skills) it can be useful to make them lords.
But, it is harder to make a good companion lord than recruit one, mostly because companions don't increase their 'level' depending on the number of fiefs, it means you have to get them to a decent level before making them lords, with enough charisma, leadership and trainer. Some other skills that can be useful but are not mandatory.
Now if you plan on having only a few companions as lords, it is best to take noble companions only, else many lords will not like you making a commoner a noble.
also, what happens if you give the mercs land? is it good or bad?
And about giving lands to mercenaries, it is better if you can do without it, it will have the same disadvantages as when giving a non noble companion a fief.
However, it will allow you to have a level 6 lord (if you give him a city and village at least) with mercenary culture, if you like mercenary units these lords will have a lot of them, and probably have high tier ones.
But as I said, it is better if you can do without them, as if you give them a fief, they will be considered vassal and their relation will change with your actions as king, something that doesn't happen when they are mercenaries.
Personalities affect the AI decisions (to some extend) and mostly change the way their relation change with you. With those two types of lord, it is the easiest to keep a stable relationship.
Now I believe some of the other types of lords make good marshals because they are very aggressive. So if you are able to give your vassals a good number of fiefs it can be useful to have a few of them (martial I think?), they also join campaigns more often.
There will be a list with all of the faction's names grouped together, you need to keep the {s0} part of the name, and replace spaces with underscores (those in the name of the rank, not where there is the separation between the id and the actual name).
To change the king's names though, you'll need to edit the troop itself.
And for the factions, you'll need to edit the file factions.txt where to edit Swadia for example you'll need to change this line:
0 fac_kingdom_1 Kingdom_of_Swadia 0 15628100
and make it
0 fac_kingdom_1 The_Real_Kingdom_of_Swadia 0 15628100
if you know how to modify and compile .py files of the module_system, you may want to look at these parts:
script_change_player_party_morale
script_count_casualties_and_adjust_morale
(near the bottom of the script, where there is this line : (call_script, "script_change_player_party_morale", ":moral_loss"),)
And morale_report in module_game_menus
To be honest, the moral system used is not quite the best it could be, mostly due to the fact that the ai is unable to properly defend its territories, and how the marshall system works. I wanted to force the player to have some rest between each battle, or series of battles and let the ai do some of the work, but if he does that, most of the time it means he will lose his marshall position, and most likely lose fiefs as-well.
I guess that from the beginning I should have put it as an option in the camp menu, that you could turn off in case it didn't suits you.
I am however not really working on the mod anymore (a few minors changes since the last version uploaded).
I may make, depending on my mood and the real work it will needs, put an optional file to reverse it to how it was before, or add an option in the camp menu to turn it off. The first one should be save-compatible, the last... is not guaranteed to be, but at least it lets the player pick one in-game.
# script_change_player_party_morale
# Input: arg1 = morale difference
# Output: none
("change_player_party_morale",
[
(store_script_param_1, ":morale_dif"),
(party_get_morale, ":cur_morale", "p_main_party"),
(val_max, ":cur_morale", 0),
(call_script, "script_get_player_party_morale_values"),
(assign, ":stability", reg0),
(val_div, ":stability", 2),
# (store_random_in_range, ":loss_chance", 0, ":stability"),
(try_begin),
(lt, ":morale_dif", 0),
(store_div, ":min_loss", ":morale_dif", 3), # was 4
(store_add, ":max_loss", ":min_loss", -4), # was -2
(store_random_in_range, ":stability_reduce", 0, ":stability"), # 0% - 50% -- might sometimes give a higher morale loss if stability is too low (below 0)
(store_mul, ":reducing", ":stability_reduce", ":max_loss"),
(val_div, ":reducing", 100),
(val_sub, ":max_loss", ":reducing"),
(try_begin), # If min > max we reverse the two
(lt, ":min_loss", ":max_loss"),
(assign, ":storage", ":min_loss"),
(assign, ":min_loss", ":max_loss"),
(assign, ":max_loss", ":storage"),
(try_end),
(store_random_in_range, ":morale_loss", ":max_loss", ":min_loss"),
(store_add, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale", ":morale_loss"), # Negative value
# (val_mul, ":loss_chance", -1),
# (try_begin),
# (ge, ":loss_chance", ":morale_dif"),
# (store_add, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale", ":morale_dif"),
# (else_try),
# (store_mul, ":morale_loss", ":morale_dif", ":morale_dif"),
# (val_div, ":morale_loss", ":loss_chance"),
# (store_add, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale", ":morale_loss"),
# (try_end),
(else_try),
(store_div, ":min_loss", ":morale_dif", 3), # was 4
(store_add, ":max_loss", ":min_loss", 2),
(store_random_in_range, ":stability_reduce", 0, ":stability"), # 0% - 50% -- might sometimes give a small morale penality if stability is too low (below 0)
(store_mul, ":reducing", ":stability_reduce", ":max_loss"),
(val_div, ":reducing", 100),
(val_add, ":max_loss", ":reducing"),
(try_begin), # If min > max we reverse the two
(gt, ":min_loss", ":max_loss"),
(assign, ":storage", ":min_loss"),
(assign, ":min_loss", ":max_loss"),
(assign, ":max_loss", ":storage"),
(try_end),
(store_random_in_range, ":morale_loss", ":min_loss", ":max_loss"),
(store_add, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale", ":morale_loss"),
# (try_begin),
# (ge, ":loss_chance", ":morale_dif"),
# (store_add, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale", ":morale_dif"),
# (else_try),
# (store_mul, ":morale_loss", ":morale_dif", ":morale_dif"),
# (val_div, ":morale_loss", ":loss_chance"),
# (store_add, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale", ":morale_loss"),
# (try_end),
(try_end),
# (store_add, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale", ":morale_dif"),
(val_max, ":new_morale", 0),
(val_min, ":new_morale", 100),
(party_set_morale, "p_main_party", ":new_morale"),
(try_begin),
(lt, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale"),
(store_sub, reg1, ":cur_morale", ":new_morale"),
(display_message, "str_party_lost_morale"),
(else_try),
(gt, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale"),
(store_sub, reg1, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale"),
(display_message, "str_party_gained_morale"),
(try_end),
]),
In the original game, the code looks like this:
# script_change_player_party_morale
# Input: arg1 = morale difference
# Output: none
("change_player_party_morale",
[
(store_script_param_1, ":morale_dif"),
(party_get_morale, ":cur_morale", "p_main_party"),
(val_clamp, ":cur_morale", 0, 100),
(store_add, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale", ":morale_dif"),
(val_clamp, ":new_morale", 0, 100),
(party_set_morale, "p_main_party", ":new_morale"),
(try_begin),
(lt, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale"),
(store_sub, reg1, ":cur_morale", ":new_morale"),
(display_message, "str_party_lost_morale"),
(else_try),
(gt, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale"),
(store_sub, reg1, ":new_morale", ":cur_morale"),
(display_message, "str_party_gained_morale"),
(try_end),
]),
If you were to revert it back, this part would work as it used to.
But beware that changing only this part will not make it function properly, you will still lose morale when fighting, probably more than what you lose currently. You need every part to be reverted to what it was before.
If you are willing to wait, I could do it this weekend, as I have nothing planned this Saturday.
And by the way, it's not python, it's a language specific to mount and blade modding that has no official name, just thought it would be useful to clarify that.
If you would have done it yourself based on my first comment, it would not have worked properly.
Anyways, it's under the optional files, just drop the extracted content inside the folder of the mod and overwrite when asked.
Just keep in mind that I have not tested it a lot, I started a new character, and the morale was how it was in native, it should work with an already existing character, but I have not been able to test it. If you see anything weird please make me know about it.
Hope you enjoy it.
Thanks so much for the update. I noticed the following issues on an existing saved game:
1. After a battle morale increases properly, however it does not register behind the scenes as I am still getting desertion for low morale and the pop up that goes with it.
2. When it regenerates morale from sitting around, it'll say that current morale is 530 or some high number but morale does not go higher than a 100 on the morale report screen. Also troops still desert saying morale is too low.
3. It keeps saying troops are hungry and earn less experience now, even though I have tons of food in my inventory.
Please let me know what changes can be made to the scripts.txt or other files where morale has been modified by you.
Thanks in advance
So I just download the same version again, or will the fix be released in a new patch?
Thank you for listening to your users