PDA

View Full Version : How will \"The glorious achievements\" affect the game?



Sir Kuma of The Org
12-11-2001, 04:48
In the strategic turn based part of the game i have read that glorious achievements "will bring fame, glory and wealth" to the faction.
Some examples they give : building some great historical building like a great cathedrall or establishing an empire overseas.

How will this play out? What effect will it have if any?

I also read about deploying naval forces, establishing trade routes on land and sea. The Economics of the game do seem to be more complex than just land "taxes".

Khan7
12-11-2001, 05:28
It would also be nice if acquiring and maintaining forces became a bit more complex than just "building a building" and "paying money" and then shelling out "paltry and insignificant supply and support funds" which "arrive at the location of your army magically, without relying on any physical form of transportation".

Without some reform along these lines it will be impossible to simulate the Crusades, at least, in a historical fashion, because most of the Crusades were won by the Muslims simply by cutting off the Crusaders' supply lines.

Matt

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 12-11-2001).]

Nelson
12-11-2001, 06:36
I'm all for making the M:TW a genuine wargame. But truth be told, the closer it gets to real logistics the farther it will get from a wide audience.

Maybe fame and glory make one's faction a more desirable ally. Kinda like providing one's daughters with a bigger dowry.

Shiro
12-11-2001, 09:40
Say you get a nice Cathedral. Perhaps the peasents will be inspired for 20 years and they'll sign up in greater numbers - so archers would be cheaper or more plentiful or something like that. That is what Shiro foresees.

EDIT: Spelled Shiro wrong. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

[This message has been edited by Shiro (edited 12-11-2001).]

Khan7
12-11-2001, 10:59
Hey, just cuz they add good options doesn't mean they have to be for everyone. Ever hear of realism/difficulty level options? Haha, that's the stuff.

Well, it sounds too late for TW2, but maybe TW3? Huh? PLeeeeze? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

Matt

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 12-11-2001).]

solypsist
12-11-2001, 11:24
wow. this game seems to be heaed in directions previously unknown to me, and i thought i had a bit of an "insiders" info line. those guys in santa monica have been keeping things from me...grrrrr
nice job Sir Kuma..you're doing an excellent job of keeping this forum alive with new info and such!

[This message has been edited by solypsist (edited 12-11-2001).]

Murmandamus
12-11-2001, 12:40
Quote Originally posted by Nelson:
the closer it gets to real logistics the farther it will get from a wide audience.
[/QUOTE]

The Civ series and spinoffs are quite complex and they have a reasonably wide audience afaik. Increased complexity/realism adds depth, replayability and more varied gameplay imho which is a good thing.

BakaGaijin
12-11-2001, 19:23
I think the vast majority of people here would love to see supply modelled in some form or other, even if just in the form of a morale hit. Actually, if I remember correctly, this period marked the very beginnings of formal supply, but plunder and pillage were still a primary means of obtaining supplies for an army on the march.

On the other hand, a sieging army couldn't rely so much on supplies from the countryside, as all the peasants would either have been slaughtered by themselves or retreated into the castle, so formal supply rules would add a much needed extra dimension to what is, in S:TW, a simple matter of just sitting in a province with more units than the enemy and waiting for them all to die.

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

Nelson
12-11-2001, 20:39
If the guys at CA want to give us more detailed logistics I say bring it on.

Funkybax
12-11-2001, 21:09
Yes, Yes, Yes.
Logistics, logistics, logistics.

Hirosito
12-12-2001, 00:53
well the overseas empire one seems to me to be purely economical
the great achievements one possibly greater loyalty by the population
the inventions will probably be just that so you won't have to wait as long
don't ask me what witches are gonna do
other personalities like bishops are supposed to help you get treaties bit like in shogun when you're catholic it's easier to get alliances with other caths

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

Anssi Hakkinen
12-12-2001, 04:01
The "achievements" sound too Civilization-esque for me to think of them as anything other than glorified buildings. Until further information is received.

Weren't overseas empires in kind of short supply in the Middle Ages? How far does this game go?

Jaguara
12-12-2001, 04:08
I don't think we will see any logistics in this game.

The strategy component is quite high-level, like Civilization or similar games where logistical infrastructure is kind of incorporated into the armies. How exactly would you like to model logistics in a game like this? Force you to send convoys back and forth? That is micro-management that I am not looking for...

I like logistics in a game like Harpoon...but in a game like this, I am not so sure...

Murmandamus
12-12-2001, 05:23
There is a simpler way to do it. Make it so that a province can only support a certain number of soldiers and that it can only use the supplies/funds from provinces that are connected to it, either by land or by port. So if your province or group of provinces gets seperated from your main empire it can only use the supplies/funds that it produces. If it's not enough to support the number of soldiers in it then they start dying/defecting/retiring or whatever like in a seige. It would also affect morale and they should get tired quicker if they are going hungry.

In STW I usually tried to cutoff enemy armies like this to prevent reinforcements. Then I could slowly grind them into the dust. I always thought it would be good if it cut off their supplies as well. A province that only produces 100 koku shouldn't be able to support an army of 3000 for very long.

Khan7
12-12-2001, 06:23
Ok, it is terribly simple--

Just make having a standing army actually cost something. You don't have to deal with convoys or anything like that. Just make it show up on the Koku ledger like it currently does. Right now supporting your troops costs *something*, but it is in general totally insignificant, and I've never found it to be a factor in my economic choices, having played many many campaigns in a variety of situations. Historically, especially during wartime, the majority of a state's (or state-like enitity's) funds are spent on the UPKEEP of the military. Currently you either spend your funds on building projects or MORE military.

Historically keeping a significant standing army was a real financial burden. In STW it's a given, barely a thought is expended on the matter.

But that is a separate issue..

As far as sending convoys back and forth.. what gave you this idea? It would be quite simple and involve no more "micro-management" than is currently involved. I have expounded at length on this topic in GD some time ago, but the basic framework that I had thought would be good is the same as what Murmandamus is talking about.

To summarize my own thoughts on the matter, troops would cost much more upkeep than they currently do. Cavalry would cost significantly more than infantry. There would be a base cost. This cost would be what you pay, if your troops are in a province with a castle. But a castle would only be able to support so many troops before additional troops would have an additional cost. Troops in a friendly province with no castle would have the same increased cost as extra troops in a province with a castle.

This would simulate the importance of infrastructure to supply, and is quite realistic, and may sound complicated, but you must understand it would all be handled behind the scenes, leaving the player to only remember "try and keep troops in castle, manage size of armies..".

Being able to support troops in a province with no castle would of course be dependent on there being a land or sea route to your capital, i.e. open lines of communication. If that supply route was cut off, the troops would have a certain ability to live off the land.

There would also be dramatically increased upkeep charges for troops being sent on offensive maneuvers, and troops that were in a province not totally under your control. If troops were in a province with less than 100% loyalty, there would be MUCH increased cost. And the turn you sent troops to attack, there would be dramatically increased cost for that specific turn.

There would be the same significant penalties if you were trying to conduct a siege against an entrenched foe. Thus making it actually possible for a defender to win a siege (if you run out of dough, or get sick of paying through the nose). This would mean there would actually be a real military purpose for castles, which is currently totally absent.

Also figure in a similarly increased cost if your supply operation is almost totally naval. And for situations, such as attacking, besieging, and supplying overseas, in which the supply costs would be dramatically increased, figure in a certain amount of that increased cost that could be reduced based on the supplies an army finds available in the province it is attacking/living in. This historically was an enormous factor, the craftier commanders always finding ways to live off the land instead of draining the storehouses at home and losing half the stuff in transit.

..

Now if you wanted to get *really* tricky you could actually model cost based on a unit's distance from the nearest supply depot, i.e. castle. This would be entirely realistic, but a bit tricky. And with the new naval aspect to MTW, there is another tricky-but-not-so-tricky option, i.e. measuring the size of your naval forces to determine how much supply you can port overseas.

IMO figuring the capability of your navy to transport supplies would be a must in any expanded logistical model, simply because it would be so easy. Basically another mathematical equation that spits numbers to your koku ledger, and nothing more. It adds depth, it adds factors, but not micromanagment.

..

Argh, that may not be the most cohesive essay you've ever read, but it was the best I could do, my previous essays being long gone off of the GD archives.

Keep in mind that it all may SOUND complex, it all may SOUND like a pain, but in reality it amounts to a bunch of mathematical equations that spit numbers onto your ledger at the end of the season/year (I think upkeep should be handled on a seasonal basis, or at least it would need to for a logistical model similar to what I've described).

All the user would have to remember would be "castles good, keep an eye on army size, think before attacking, watch my lines of supply". No micromanagment.

Now obviously there would be players who would not want to think about all of that, which is perfectly understandable. So just provide improved logistics as an option. That tends to be the norm with any game like this. By providing in-game options, the developers increase the capabilities of the game while increasing yet further its potential audience and its replayability.

Anyway, the obvious question here is Time + Money and not much more IMO. Oh well, we can hope, but I think we'll mostly hope for TW3. But we can dream, can't we?

Matt

Sir Kuma of The Org
12-12-2001, 07:50
Thanks Soly

There seems to be a lot of stuff in this new installment of the TW series, that IF implemented as annonced, will add new dimensions to the game we all love.

But at this time, it is not clear what form/effect this new stuff will have on the game itself. I don't think that we will now for sure for some time, quite understandable, they seem much more prudent this time around....

I really got the feeling that they are aiming very very high with the next installment, shooting for a "major" game with a wider audience and even greater critical acclaim.

BakaGaijin
12-12-2001, 09:36
I agree with Matt. Adding in the features as he described would, of course, be Hell on the programming team, not to mention the balancers. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

However, the player would have very little extra to do, except to give brief consideration to stuff like not getting his armies cut off from the rest of his territory and possibly turtling a few turns to save up for an attack, instead of going on a rampage cross-country with no stops. If anything, these changes would make the game EASIER for a lot of players with knowledge of real-life warmaking, since most of us will know about these kinds of things already. Those who don't will learn. The incentive to learn being, of course, the fantastic depth added.

Think of it this way: few people still play the original Dune 2, but lots still play Civ. Why? Civ is the deeper game.

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

Khan7
12-12-2001, 10:09
Of course, why they are playing original Civ instead of Civ2.. THAT is the mystery.. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

But anyway, yes, if they haven't already gone pretty far in the direction I was speaking of, it would be hellishly chaotic to try now, and still keep the same deadline. As I said, our mantra will now be "TW3!". LOL.

But don't worry, I hope not to be one of those totally unpleasable game geeks, there should be plenty in TW*2* to make me happy. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

But if they don't do anything about realistic depiction of spears, I'll be pissed, suffice to say http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

Matt

BakaGaijin
12-12-2001, 13:49
How could they not, given the glorious success and mass appeal of the Real Deal Mod.

*looks around*

*runs*

Just tweakin' ya, Matt. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Anyway, to get back on topic, I'm sure TW2 will be Hella fun, even without supply being revamped (which is to say... added.). The battlefield additions (siege engines! destroyable castle walls!) ought to be enough to make us happy, and it seems that CA even took a sideways glance at the diplomacy, too. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

Khan7
12-12-2001, 14:27
The Real Deal has kick in it yet, though any comeback is in the future I'll admit..

Matt

Grim
12-12-2001, 16:18
Khan7: Quote Now if you wanted to get *really* tricky you could actually model cost based on a unit's distance from the nearest supply depot, i.e. castle. This would be entirely realistic, but a bit tricky. [/QUOTE]

Are you thinking along the line of [(BCU)x (X%/each region separating unit from castle)+[X% of BCU(if unit cut off from supply line)]=Cost to keep this unit.

BCU is "base cost of unit"

So if I send a unit wich cost 600 (Ecu/Koku/whatever) at 1 region away from my castle (or nearest supply depot) into unfriendly territory, and I give an arbitrary 5% (that's the "X%"), then this unit will cost 30 to keep this (season/year?).
If it were at 2 region away then it will cost me 60 to keep/season or year. More if this unit is cut off from your castle/supply depot.

We would have to really think before sendng those knights on a journey. Sounds nice.

------------------
"Je vous repondrai par la bouche de mes canons"
-Frontenac
(I will answer you with the blast of my canons)
-Trad. libre

[This message has been edited by Grim (edited 12-13-2001).]