Bohemond
08-06-2001, 23:44
In the Middle Ages, the biggest obstacle for big-scale conquest was that it was very difficult to maintain a large army for a long time. There was no such thing as a standing army. Though much more powerful than them, the famous Sultan Saladin for instance could not crush the Crusader states at first because he couldn't pay such a large army for long enough. It was therefore a stroke of luck that the Crusaders attacked him when he was in command of several tens of thousand troops.
Therefore the Hojo-tactic of building a "Grande Armee" and keep them sitting on their butts for decades is plain ridiculous.
I have some ideas how it would be possible to make things more difficult for the attacker, because I would not like it if in CTW you could simply conquer all of Europe .. Fronts should be moving much more slowly! Even the Mongols, Turks and the great Napolean didn't achieve that much in terms of gained territory.
(1) upkeep of 1 unit per province is free: this favors the poorer states a bit, because they should have equal or higher number of provinces. It also makes the conquest of provinces with a small income more interesting.
(2) upkeep of troops is expensive. You should think twice if it is not better to disband your armies.
(3) very important: upkeep gets more and more expensive the farther your army is away from your home provinces, lets say it doubles(if loyalty is < 100% it cannot provide your army). This is very realistic, and makes retreating to a castle more favorable, because your opponent might run out of gold. It would generally greatly raise the strategic value of castles.
Another thing I would like to be implemented is loyalty of generals (and other clan-leaders). Lets assume every person in the game has a value of loyalty towards you, and that there are 4 + 4 levels of loyalty like:
100 to 75% : Retainer
75 to 50% : Vassal
50 to 25% : Ally
25 to 0% : Friend
0 to -25% : Rival
-25 to -50% Foe
-50 to -75% Enemy
-75 to 100% Sworn Enemy
It would make the whole diplomacy-thing more logical. You can command the troops of your Retainers to your liking. You can move the troops of your Vassals like your own, but they might disobey you. You can ask you allies to move their armies such and such. But you cannot know if they have their own plans. And so on.
Generals (yours and enemy) should also have a loyalty of their own. It would make it possible for a general to switch sides, or suddenly found a renegade-state. It then would also make sense to assasinate generals whose loyalty is to low. There could be numerous incidences that change loyalty, like bribing, promotion or lack thereof, marriage to one of your daughters, etc ..
BTW, all my suggestions should be relatively easy to implement, because they are basically controlled by two variables : loyalty and gold.
Please forgive me that my postings get that long .. too many ideas .. and no game in sight ..
[This message has been edited by Bohemond (edited 08-06-2001).]
Therefore the Hojo-tactic of building a "Grande Armee" and keep them sitting on their butts for decades is plain ridiculous.
I have some ideas how it would be possible to make things more difficult for the attacker, because I would not like it if in CTW you could simply conquer all of Europe .. Fronts should be moving much more slowly! Even the Mongols, Turks and the great Napolean didn't achieve that much in terms of gained territory.
(1) upkeep of 1 unit per province is free: this favors the poorer states a bit, because they should have equal or higher number of provinces. It also makes the conquest of provinces with a small income more interesting.
(2) upkeep of troops is expensive. You should think twice if it is not better to disband your armies.
(3) very important: upkeep gets more and more expensive the farther your army is away from your home provinces, lets say it doubles(if loyalty is < 100% it cannot provide your army). This is very realistic, and makes retreating to a castle more favorable, because your opponent might run out of gold. It would generally greatly raise the strategic value of castles.
Another thing I would like to be implemented is loyalty of generals (and other clan-leaders). Lets assume every person in the game has a value of loyalty towards you, and that there are 4 + 4 levels of loyalty like:
100 to 75% : Retainer
75 to 50% : Vassal
50 to 25% : Ally
25 to 0% : Friend
0 to -25% : Rival
-25 to -50% Foe
-50 to -75% Enemy
-75 to 100% Sworn Enemy
It would make the whole diplomacy-thing more logical. You can command the troops of your Retainers to your liking. You can move the troops of your Vassals like your own, but they might disobey you. You can ask you allies to move their armies such and such. But you cannot know if they have their own plans. And so on.
Generals (yours and enemy) should also have a loyalty of their own. It would make it possible for a general to switch sides, or suddenly found a renegade-state. It then would also make sense to assasinate generals whose loyalty is to low. There could be numerous incidences that change loyalty, like bribing, promotion or lack thereof, marriage to one of your daughters, etc ..
BTW, all my suggestions should be relatively easy to implement, because they are basically controlled by two variables : loyalty and gold.
Please forgive me that my postings get that long .. too many ideas .. and no game in sight ..
[This message has been edited by Bohemond (edited 08-06-2001).]