PDA

View Full Version : Valor bonus when defending capital cities.



SgtAndrew
06-03-2003, 06:53
Romans defending Rome or Spartans defending Sparta ought to have a significant valor bonus within say 50 miles of their respective capital cities, I think. I mean, RTW is gonna have awesome graphics, and I think we will all feel some sentimentality for our cities once we've developed and expanded them over the decades or centuries (much moreso than with MTW), and the soldiers would feel the same way. This wouldn't be hard to do, and I think it would contribute a lot to the game if the developers could implement this. I hope it hasn't been mentioned already.

Big King Sanctaphrax
06-03-2003, 10:30
I think this is a really good idea. It could be expanded though. Maybe soldiers fighting in far flung parts could have a morale penalty, to represent the lack of food and supplies, unless you built up supply lines first?

hoom
06-03-2003, 12:18
Brings up the troublesome spectre of a few elite units being able to hold off ridiculously large armies in open battle though.

Sockeye
06-03-2003, 12:29
Not entirely sure I agree - you could set yourself up for all kinds of additional valour bonuses.
eg - would Hannibals troops get a valour bonus when/if they attacked Rome (the "prize" at the end of their mammoth journey)?

Also, for civil wars you have a problem - does the attacking army also get one for attacking Rome, as it's a prized possession?

I guess it depends on where the individual soldiers get recruited from - only then would they have any particular affiliation to a region/city? and also whether they are pro-roman or rebellious - to tell whether they'd get a bonus defending against the Romans, or attacking with the Romans to annexe?

Sounds a bit complicated to keep track of though.

I do like the idea of supplies, but I also like the caesarII method of recruiting from populations, building roads, warehouses etc on the strat map to generate income.

We shall see

Cheers,
Sockeye.
substitute faction of your choice for Roman, as it applies to any faction

eXistenZi
06-03-2003, 12:38
I think they should just have a large morale bonus, bot not a valor bonus. It's more realistic that way. Soldiers didn't automatically become stronger and more adept at handling their weapons just because their city was on the line. They did however, get an increased boost of courage and determination (less likely to rout).

Divine Wind
06-03-2003, 13:16
Quote[/b] (eXistenZi @ June 03 2003,06:38)]I think they should just have a large morale bonus, bot not a valor bonus. It's more realistic that way. Soldiers didn't automatically become stronger and more adept at handling their weapons just because their city was on the line. They did however, get an increased boost of courage and determination (less likely to rout).
Agreed.

ELITEofGAZOZ
06-03-2003, 17:30
In VI/MTW units defending a castle fight to the last man anyway.

Monk
06-03-2003, 17:31
Quote[/b] (eXistenZi @ June 03 2003,06:38)]I think they should just have a large morale bonus, bot not a valor bonus. It's more realistic that way. Soldiers didn't automatically become stronger and more adept at handling their weapons just because their city was on the line. They did however, get an increased boost of courage and determination (less likely to rout).
yes that sounds good

SgtAndrew
06-03-2003, 17:35
Yeah, I guess I meant morale, not valor. Right.

Balamir
06-04-2003, 07:02
I think this is a great idea, and very easy to put on the game, I hope CA will take these into notice... One thing though, I must say that if something like this is done, it shouldnt be going for the attack situations too. Like if Romans want to take a rebel province 50 miles away from Rome, they should fight regularly, it should be only for defence...

Sockeye
06-04-2003, 08:51
Quote[/b] ]I think this is a great idea, and very easy to put on the game, I hope CA will take these into notice... One thing though, I must say that if something like this is done, it shouldnt be going for the attack situations too. Like if Romans want to take a rebel province 50 miles away from Rome, they should fight regularly, it should be only for defence...

Still don't agree I'm afraid - if you're in a legion that gets rewards (ie booty) from fighting and conquering provinces, wouldn't you be "motivated" to conquer new territory?

And defending "Home cities" is only possible if you start recording where people have been recruited from, IMHO - legions recruited in Spain and defending Rome are going to have how much morale boost?
Also, wouldn't the fact that your defending your capital city actualy work against getting a morale boost? eg, questioning the leaders who allowed the enemy to get this close in the first place?

Sorry, but I think staying with the commanding officers morale bonus is better.

Balamir
06-04-2003, 13:17
Hmmm, I must say you have a reasonable objection there, but think of it this way too: if the men attacking are motivated because of money they should also be scared of dieing, unless they are elite..

Also, if I was to defend a threat coming directly to my country's capital, I wouldnt sit and wonder "Who has let them come here?" I would think "What happens if they pass through us?" and the answer will be the fall of the capital which renders the nation obsolute in way. So I would get in front of the enemy with determination and fight to death, since if I run away, the nation will fall..
Dont think the morale bonus as a "high-spirit" situation, its to make units harder to rout, considering the idea I stated above.

Did that help? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

Sockeye
06-04-2003, 16:29
Quite right Balamir, I probably would think that (after carefuly considering all possible escape routes of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )

In a slightly muddled way I was trying to point out there are probably too many variables to make an across the board boost in morale for a defense of a city meaningful.

Ave

Hakonarson
06-04-2003, 22:22
I agree with Balamir - defending the capital city is likely to mean someone's stuffed up big time.

Personally tho I see little changein attitudes of people defending anywhere - capital cities or provincial ones all got defended by whoever was there because the alternative was almost always a sword in the guts - and that's a lot more motivating than any political entity that I can think of

RisingSun
06-05-2003, 02:20
Come on, if I was to be defeding Washington DC, i wouldnt say, "Well, I'm not from here, so I'll just fight worse than usual." I'd say, "These bitches are goin down" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. And Romans put a lot of pride in Rome. It was the center of a glorious empire spanning the known world. This sparks another idea. Perhaps th morale bonus should be a little bigger depending on the size of your empire, happiness, how many peoples you've conquered, etc.

Hakonarson
06-06-2003, 05:19
Really Rising?

You wouldn't be worried about what was happening in your home town, and thinking that you should be there?

And you'd be just as happy possibly dying to protect the politico's as yuor friends and neighbours??

Balamir
06-06-2003, 07:45
Ack Not quite sure what I'd do if I was American. It pretty considerable, since I dont know if the taking of Washington would cost more deaths or making it survive would. I can imagine Bush blaming the whole world for the attack on Washington and starting another worldwide so-called independency operation Bah Lets hope nobody does attack Washington for our own sake http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Cheers

Catulus
06-06-2003, 09:10
A wealthy city is the grand prize for an attacker – so all besiegers should get valour bonus. Soldiers are more willing to risk their lives if they think it’s worth it.

Could there also be some kind of “city militia” that would automatically appear in a siege? These would present citizens taking arms in defense of their homes. Hastily trained, poorly equipped but with high (desperate?) moral – perhaps just enough to defend the ramparts. Obviously there would be less of these if the city is adequately defended by your regular troop. This would make certain that important cities are not easy pickings just because there is only one archer unit defending them.

And speaking of sieges, city walls were much bigger obstacle in antiquity than in later times. In the 1st Punic War Roman siege of Lilybaeum and Drepana took over 9 years (both were supplied from the sea – but then again Syracuse and Carthage took several years too).