nwg

Yes you do have to put the relevant files into data, but you also have to swap some campaign files ""startpos.esf and scripting.lua""
Putting the originals in a safe place.
We may not have to do this part as its for campaigns but until we know otherwise its probably best to follow the instructions fully.

There are loading instructions given with the downloaded files.
Perhaps we could try this out in MP when we both have it installed, Darth mod worked when we didn't expect it to, so you never know.
I will have a look at mine today i think.

Yep, this is for sure. At the moment TROM for custom/MP is not just unbalanced its completely ridiculous. The pricing is similar to that presented in the campaign which works fine for the campaign given the mechanics of it. However you won't get close to spending all your cash as it stands today so if you try it in custom/SP just pick a sensible army for all sides and give it a go.

The job of presenting pricing suitable for MP is _not_ trivial, but I've promised Johan I'd do it and he seems keen enough to put this work into TROM in a future release. For us, and for now, I can create a micro mod which is loaded last and correct MP pricing for us to test and generally play with until the official release from the TROM team (after CA 1.4 patch).

Cheers, M.

Those two files are for campaign use only. If you are sure you won't play campaign then don't bother with them. However, don't be too quick to write off the TROM campaign, its significantly improved on the vanilla version. Something not easy to recognise right away is the so called "areas of recruitment", which means that certain types of troops can only be recruited in certain parts of the world. It also means that if you conquer, for instance, Saxony, you can then build Saxon Line and incorporate it in your army. For folks wanting to invade Russia with a true 'Grand Army' this is the business




It _does_ work in MP, I've tried it and it works. Our challenge is, as always, to promote a specific set of mods because all players must be using exactly the same files and to ensure players can easily install.

As promised, for those interested:

My personal pick of the TROM collection (links to all in the original post):

From trom_corev1.54_part_1.rar
- trom_core_part_1.pack
- trom_text.pack

From trom_corev1.5x_part_2.rar
- trom_core_part_2.pack
- trom_flags.pack

From trom_mediapackv101.rar
- trom_media.pack

From trom_battlesounds.rar
- trom_battlesounds.pack

From BSM_for_TROM_1_5.rar
- mod_BSM_Light_2_for_TROM_1_5.pack

From TROM_Ornamentum.rar
- trom_ornamentum.pack

and of course

From LMCmapmod.rar
-LMCmapmod.pack

** TROM is Lordz Map Pack compatible and does not need the special .loc file (for those that have this please remove it)

The script file which lives here (in XP), C:\Documents and Settings\%username%\Application Data\The Creative Assembly\Empire\scripts, should look like this:

mod "trom_core_part_2.pack";
mod "trom_core_part_1.pack";
mod "trom_ornamentum.pack";
mod "trom_flags.pack";
mod "trom_media.pack";
mod "trom_battlesounds.pack";
mod "mod_BSM_Light_2_for_TROM_1_5.pack";

As always, no other mods can be tolerated, not in pack format anyway, for 100% guaranteed results do the 'game cache verify' thing we normally recommend.

Cheers, Moopere

OK i have loaded and played successfully,
Although i cant get the music and media script file activated ??
My script file looked like this

mod "trom_battlesounds.pack";
mod "trom_blood_smoke.pack";
mod "trom_core_part_1.pack";
mod "trom_core_part_2.pack";
mod "trom_flags.pack";

I tried placing the music and media script file in manually but it was overwritten by the above file when i launched via MM.
I guess i have not done something i should have at the very beginning.

Anyway i may have missed something or I'm just looking at things threw TAC WAR tinted glasses
This to me looks a million miles from anything we could possible use in MP games, it just looks like vanilla with some different fancy units, there is an awful lot wrong with it to much to possibly list, actually vanilla may be possibly better

Please Moopere tell me of the error of my ways and put me straight

Hmm. Thats so different to my experience I wonder if its running right.

Some things to notice and ensure the mod is running (compared to vanilla):

- Speed of units is slower, though not as slow as eTW
- Look for most professional infantry units causing fear to their enemy
- Ranges are different for almost everything.
- Platoon fire gone from those units, like Grenadiers, that used to have that

The list is long and there are literally dozens of changes which are very subtle but collectively give me, at least, a feeling of integration and good design.

Give me 3-4 examples of stuff that is so wrong in TROM that it gets up your nose DJ. Its not perfect, for sure, but no mod ever is and its so well integrated (IMHO) without obvious stand-out-and-shout-at-you loopholes that I thought it was worth a look.

Some things I don't like, for instance, but so far have lived with:

- Shrapnel shot. I don't like the way its implemented in ETW and prefer not to see it at all. Nevertheless, its different in TROM to vanilla, probably due to range tweaks and you can live with it (I think)

- Fire and advance. Again, interesting even nice idea, but implemented poorly in ETW and I'd rather it was gone

- Grenadier mass fire instead of rank fire. I've read the justification for this and sort of accept it ... nevertheless, not completely comfortable, but again, its not a deal breaker, just a bit annoying.

Cheers, M.

OK guys i didn't look very closely at very specific things like platoon fire gone etc.
And rightly or wrongly i was comparing TROM to TAC WAR and certainly not vanilla.

No need to mention crazy pricing for MP games, whoops i just did
No need either to mention silly arty like rockets, pickle guns etc. as can be removed easily i guess.

Arty performance is just as Vanilla i think, Howey's way to powerful with certain ammo types, also roundshot is quite accurate and combine that with easily destroyed horses, men and Guns and you have a pretty disastrous combination, just as we had for many a week at the beginning of ETW. Cannister is good though, not to powerful.
All infantry ranges to long and to much killing power but especially at longest range, rifles have a 220 range compared with 90 for line i think, something else we experienced in the early days when rifles ruled the battlefield
All unit movements much to fast for my liking, but i have got used to long drawn out tactical affairs of TAC WAR.
Units seemed to be to easily and quickly routed by musket fire.
Making a pretty fast paced affair.

I may be being a bit unfair I'm not sure, i have never experienced anywhere else such amazingly enjoyable battles as we were getting in TAC WAR until very recently when everybody discovered the real power of cannister.
For me only a couple of tweaks to TAC WAR are needed to back in gaming heaven
Where as a massive amount of work is needed with Trom.
And then you would have to try and sell it all to a very reluctant for change community

Thanks for the report Dougie, as we tend to like the same kind of thing this does not sound good for me, lets hope CA patch 1.4 and TW 1.1 will get us back into decent action untill LG arrives.

Thanks for the report DJ. Its really interesting how different an ad-hoc MP game is from a campaign game. The campaign mechanics put serious limits on all kinds of units which means you just don't see the worst abuse. In my TROM campaigns I struggle enough to even keep decent numbers of line infantry let alone guards, rifles, puckles (!!), etc simply because of distance, cost, technology and build times.

My armies tend to be built of militia or other irregular force (cossack infantry or hillmen) with a backbone of line + some provincial cavalry and maybe a unit or two of artillery if I'm lucky. When a truly elite unit does finally appear its a real joy hehehe.

Anyway, you do raise valid points and I'm glad you've provided me a fresh review of stuff I should have already known. I have not played eTW in quite a while now because of my own issues and perceptions of balance problems but there certainly was a lot of specific points to like when I did play it last. I'll raise these things with Johan of TROM and see if anything MP specific can be implemented.

To directly respond to just a couple of your points though, not to disagree, just to give my own feeling/slant:

- Rockets and Puckles. I'd prefer to restrict rockets to those factions who actually used them. (Brits and Indians?) Puckles I know nothing about historically, if they are a fantasy I think we can remove them.
- Arty is not vanilla, though you may think so when compared to eTW. Trajectory is much flatter which causes you to need to use ground to your advantage (ala NTW2). Range is different to Vanilla too. This means you don't have to drag your guns right up into the front line to use them which in turn means that although they can indeed be destroyed its not as easy as it may sound and not as per the vanilla game. Shell is overly effective thats true. Probably too much. Shrapnel is not my favourite ammo, I don't like how its been done in ETW at all.
- Infantry accuracy does fall off significantly at maximum range. Its common to see two militia units pounding away at each other causing only 1 casualty every 2-3 volleys. Professional troops have better luck but also shorter range. This is a weird choice by the TROM team but I can sort of see their argument (sort of). They allow untrained or less trained troops longer range but penalise long range by handing out few if any casualties. The theory here is that untrained/green troops get anxious and fire early, too early, and essentially waste their ammo at extreme ranges. Line troops take their medicine at lone range and hold fire until they can actually cause some real damage. Nice idea, not sure about the reality of the game... however, as ammo is quite limited it _does_ actually seem to work and your untrained greenhorns can run out of ammo popping away at max range only to have the professional line march into range and wipe them away.
- Units do rout easily. Its by design though. Almost all units cause fear to their enemy and it appears (though I'm not sure) that the fear increases as the units draw together. Therefore a particularly nasty volley can cause an isolated unit to rout, but it will almost certainly reform when out of direct danger. Secure flanks help a lot here. It also works in nicely with their idea of militiamen firing early at long range - when your line march through the fire zone of enemy militia, sort themselves out and rank fire back the militia will rout, partly through fear and partly through casualties. Its not a given thing though, there is enough doubt to make it interesting and its not a terrible idea. Also works to keep melee short (a _lot_ of fear generated).
- Not sure why rifles and some others have such log range. I think there is still some amount of confusion in the Musket gaming world about how rifles where actually used, particularly when formed into battalions and regiments rather than platoon skirmishing as folks see on TV. I don't, in the end, care enough for this to be a deal breaker so long as their is a game mechanism to restrict the total number of rifles units one is likely to face. In campaign work you almost never see rifles, probably cost and technology blockers to that, in post 1.4 patch MP we can restrict any ad-hoc army to only 1 unit (max!) of these guys.

Thanks again for the insight DJ. I'll pass comments on to Johan as I said earlier.

Regards, Moo

I am sensitive to this, but I'm not sure how hard it will be. The big draw card, the one that even made me originally go down this road, is a good SP/Campaign experience. TROM plays SP magnificently well. To that end I thought it surely must be worth pursuing an MP aspect to the mod so that, if all goes well, we end up playing only one game for both MP and SP and therefore overall community resistance would be a lot lower than you'd normally expect.

Like it or lump it, the experience appears to be that lots of people play SP and Campaign. Look at the mass of mods which simply ignore MP altogether - this is because the perceived market is tiny or non existent. In my opinion the way to draw new blood into the community is to find a way to let them continue to play SP as is their wish and to not impose additional burdens upon them to test the waters of MP.

However, the game must play MP sensibly well, I'm aware of that

Regards,
M.

Oh I should mention, as pricing is up in the air, how would people feel about some units with stats which seem strange on the surface being priced to take this into account? So, for instance, if we all agree that rifles with range 220 is really too high would it be easier to swallow such stats if the price for a rifles unit was about 2/3 higher than a line unit?

M.

Yes mate this is a fair point,
I am as i often do thinking only about the here and now, we have a great mod (in my view) and a decent number of players having great MP fun, if it ain't broke don't fix it
You are looking at the bigger picture especially regarding trying to attract more SP players into our MP world.

For me the best way to go with super units is to reduce there effectiveness, I.E. make them super no more
You either price them out of the game or if not then they are still just to good for the overall game balance.

We discovered this with rifles in the early days of ETW and indeed in CB where rifles were winning games almost single handedly.

Even with a elite unit limit that may come with the next patch i personally would not want to see any unit so massively superior to the rest.

I do agree with your point of view. In the end I think you and I like very similar games despite the apparent flavour of this particular thread.

From a gaming point of view, and thinking of the challenges in creating CB, one of the problems is having so many units which are not really different to one another, or not really perceptibly different anyway.

I remember having an open mouth 'ahhh' moment last year (I think) when we were discussing CB and rifles. I couldn't understand how rifles units could be as effective as they were almost always portrayed in games and balance this against the fact that there were so few of them, relatively speaking, in the different armies. It didn't make sense, if the weapon was _that_ good then the units would have been prolific, yet they were not _that_ common. Then Gun dropped the quote we all needed to see. To paraphrase, Rifles units when used on the battlefield were used as line infantry and to keep their rate of fire high they used carbine balls (smaller musket balls) which also reduced their range.

Historically then, in major battle combat, there would _not_ be much if any perceptible difference between a rifles unit and a musket armed line unit - and to me at least this makes sense.

This is all fine I'm sure, everyone nodding their head and saying "so what?". I think in games of the type we are playing the units are actually caricatures of their historical counterparts. We exaggerate the differences to give us the perception of unit variation. This is also where the big big challenge of proper balancing looms large. Its fine to exaggerate a units strong and weak points but to do so without regard to other units creates super units which will become obvious choices for competitive players.

To put the case another way: There has to be a good reason for each unit to exist. No good portraying and making line infantry available if rifles units beat them in every important way.

NTW2 did a decent job of balancing this. Line were generally solid with medium firing skills. Light were less reliable (morale mainly) with long range and decent firing skills. Elite light, like rifles were relatively speaking less reliable but with excellent firing skills. So, even within the infantry you had a miniature version of the rock-paper-scissors game. There is always something a player can do to get around a problematic enemy unit. If rifles have great morale, good melee, long range and fantastic accuracy then you have the superman unit and there is little an enemy player can do except bring loads of his own rifles units.

So where am I going with this? Well, I think the upcoming ability to limit the numbers of certain types of unit will open up our games to the possibility of having strong caricatures again and heading in a direction we couldn't allow in previous games. We might be able to afford to allow our guards to be really special and our rifles to perform quite remarkably, within logical and sensible limits of course, because you won't be able to field more than one of each (potentially).

This idea could, for instance, also help reduce the ages old problem of howitzers. We don't seem to have ever been successful at balancing these damn things. They are either the weapon of choice resulting in all howitzer artillery or they are not perceived as being worth the money and no-one uses them, no in between. If you could limit armies to a maximum of 1 howitzer unit then they could be made useful and desirable but not abused.

Best regards, Moopere

Hmm yes mate i think i could live with this
The key is quite obviously a limit of 1 unit, as this will bring some variety and more interesting tactical choices without this 1 unit being the game decider.

Howey's limited also to 1 unit is a nice idea, as you rightly say as soon as Howey's are worth taking then conventional arty disappears.
This actually may be the only way to make it work.