The Population and Income Factor

[yeahme]

Will it be just like Shogun where a fix amount of profit is already determined for each province? Or will it be more complex and flexible, which economic (trade especially) and population factor will come into play. A port should not just generate a fix amount of profit as it’s in Shogun, but it should be determined on the population and the economic status of the province. Ports around modern day New York sure generate more trades than the ones, say, in Boston. By adding the population factor into the game, we can turn a piece of land that lack in natural resources into an important economic powerhouse in your empire with trades. Of course, a province’s population and trade factor should also be based on its terrain. A greater population should simply equal to greater tax/trade income.

What else can we do with the population factor if it is incorporated in the game? We can steal an enemy’s people and loyalty to your own state. For example, if we upgrade a province next to the opponent’s with huge castles, high loyalty, and great economic status shouldn’t we be able to steal their population and loyalty? What about when we attack that particular state next to our upgraded state described above, shouldn’t we get the support from some of the people of the attacked province to join our army and revolt against their own leadership?

There are so many more that population can do to a strategy game. It's really something that I think CA should incorporate to MTW.

[Sword_Monkey]

I don't know about this. I like the overall simplicity of Shogun (and it models the historical provinces well - it's a good thing to know that Owari is important because it's a rich province with a port and a river for defense). What you're talking about is turning MTW into Civilisation with real-time tactical combat. Not to say that would be a bad game, but I came back to Shogun after growing bored out of my skull with all the supposedly exciting elements of Civ3 (which are more or less what you're describing).

Any game mechanic that you add is subject to the developing of an algorithm for it from the human player. At first they're interesting because they're novel, but once you've learned them, they just become something you need to do. Add enough game mechanics and you turn the game into busy work beyond the point of fun. It's like any program, add enough complexity to the general routine and the amount of work the program needs to do grows geometrically - a program takes forever to do anything and a game becomes tedium.

By all means, deepen the diplomacy model (which won't take much http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif ) and add better trade but don't bog the game down in mechanics that won't actually be fun after the 600th time you have to deal with them. The core strength of the game is the combat, and the turn based portion should be a means and a context for that combat.

[theforce]

That is a very good idea. Taxes would be (fixed tax rate x population number) Also it can be more flexible like richer people pay more taxes. A disaster would reduce the population or a really advanced city would draw people there.

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.

[Leet Eriksson]

taxes+jizya=unbelievable income!

Taxes+Jizya+Trade=Enough to conquer europe http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

Taxes+Jizya+Trade+Farms=The world http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

I hope they sort the diplomacy engine out this time. Its such a waste of time when crappy little AI make peace then attack you in 2 turns. I mean whats the point?
" The element of surprise?"

Yeah only the first time not the hundredth time!

------------------
Grand Master of
The Knights Templar
"non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomine tuo da gloriam"
http://www.gifs.net/animate/aniyin.gif

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

I think with the addition on naval and land trade routes that you must control (or be in good terms with the country that controls them), the economics part of the game will be more complex than STW.

------------------
Yes the camel sprites do look good, hope they sound good also...

[theforce]

Kuma is right. Trade routs will be the key also taxes must be as l have told to be cool http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.

[Leet Eriksson]

don't forget that farms are also an important peice of resources at the time wich explains why was the majority of europe were"serfs"

[Vanya]

money + jiz = nothin' but sticky money.

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

a jizya is like somesort of income to protect the local poeple of the captured territory and of course support the army(just like when you become a christian daimyo in shogun).added with farms trade and of course taxes the saracens could feild up quiet huge forces.

[Hirosito]

adding to kuma's point they also mentioned stuff like the discovery of america and that'll you'll have to invest in that. there'll be a lot going on in MTW

------------------
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.

[Bohemond]

1st: Sword_Monkey, I see your point (I also have many ideas that would make Shogun more like Civ, but you're right, once the player understands the algorithm it will becom boring ..)

2nd: Nonetheless, I think it should be like:

high taxes = diminishing income from provinces
low taxes = growing income

this would make periods of peace an important factor in the prosperity of your Nation. Warmongering will impoverish your country.

I would like a system where a happy population can keep up 1-3 units per province for free. Additional units should be extremely expensive in terms of cost per season. If we had an element like Mercenaries (could be a separate "faction" with unique units like Norman Knights or Turkopoles), there would a way to dratically increase your military strength for a short term, and that costs you dearly .. Mercenaries could also revolt and turn against you .... This is very accurate, just look at the Byzantinian Military that eventually turned against its Masters.

The Shogun systems strength is Simplicity, but there could be some great mechanics incorporated without giving it up.

But I think CA have something of that sort incorporated with MTW, and just remember what a great job they did with STW.

[Bohemond]

.. I also think that it's good that MTW is laid out in such a grand scope like it is now, not like the original CTW .. now we have people like faisal who will play the game from the Islamic point of view, not just a Total War - Christian Europe !! I'm also looking forward to playing the Islamic side!!!

[Sword_Monkey]

Quote Originally posted by Bohemond:

The Shogun systems strength is Simplicity, but there could be some great mechanics incorporated without giving it up.

But I think CA have something of that sort incorporated with MTW, and just remember what a great job they did with STW.

[/QUOTE]

I agree completely. I think that a system that more accurately represents medieval Europe is a good thing. The king who demanded too much tribute so he could send yet another unit of soldiers off to the Crusades could very well break the economy back home and find nothing to send out next season.

What I was wary of was taking more complex economics, which is on the surface fine, and then adding in the ideas of growing population and tying income to that. Once you move from the simplicity of improvement yields function result to a province to then having each province with a variable population and there being ways of increasing/decreasing that population, the game becomes even more micromanagement for, imo, no increase in fun.

I play these games because I want to be a great general and leader, not a great accountant. If they can find ways to make some of these ideas transparent (provinces neighboring yours more easily subjugated if you're a good ruler = good mechanic) versus layering on micromanagement that gets in the way of the game (culture flipping = civ3 = bad mechanic), I'm all for it.

[Leet Eriksson]

economoy is an important part of the game but what concerns me is the relegion factor and how would it affect economy as you can see muslims have forced on any non muslim(considering the non muslim is able to pay)to pay a small jizya to insure protection and maintain the army or when the christians force somekind of taxes on the local population will this be integrated in the game?it makes it more realistic and very simple to use for example once u capture an enemy territory jizya collectors automatically collect from the non muslims in the territory and add it to the end of the year income.simple eh?

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Religion like the economy seem to have a greater role in the upcoming MTW than in the original STW.

Some of the strat map pics seen in previews seems to indicate this:

One of them is a message from the pope asking "for the love of god" to stop attacking a faction (don't remember which one) and leave that factions land in "x" seasons.

Another is a picture with what percentage of the population in the "province" is of what religion. If you include heretics, it seems that 7 religions will be available.

[andrewt]

I agree that port income shouldn't be fixed but I also think that it should be based upon historical "income". Creating your own trade routes just adds another complexity that will become repetitive as people figure out the formula.

Also, compare Starcraft to a lot of other strategy games. It had less complexity but more depth than a lot of them.

[Sword_Monkey]

Quote Originally posted by faisal:
economoy is an important part of the game but what concerns me is the relegion factor and how would it affect economy as you can see muslims have forced on any non muslim(considering the non muslim is able to pay)to pay a small jizya to insure protection and maintain the army or when the christians force somekind of taxes on the local population will this be integrated in the game?it makes it more realistic and very simple to use for example once u capture an enemy territory jizya collectors automatically collect from the non muslims in the territory and add it to the end of the year income.simple eh?[/QUOTE]

So long as its a transparent mechanic, no problem. For instance, if there was some figure, say max 200 gold (not knowing anything about the base prices in the game I'll pull a number out of my ass), and you multiplied that by the percentage of non-Muslims, that could work so long as it's countered by automatic civil unrest similar to the way Christianity initially functions in Shogun. Then you get your jiz but have to maintain some troops. As the territory converts, you gradually lose your jiz, don't have to maintain troops, and you never had to click a dang thing besides a couple of troops for garrison purposes.

[theforce]

Bohemond usually merceneries DON'T revolt. They careless about the situation they just fight.


------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.

[Leet Eriksson]

ahh yes exactly sword monkey thats what i hope to see in the game.

[Hirosito]

i dont think it'll be as easy to figure out the formula for winning in MTW as more variables have been included and i dont mind a bit more economics in the game

------------------
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.

[Bohemond]

Quote Originally posted by theforce:
Bohemond usually merceneries DON'T revolt. They careless about the situation they just fight.
[/QUOTE]

What I meant was that they might desert when you most need them (Even in the midst of a battle). They only fight if they are certain to be on the winning side.

[Leet Eriksson]

THEY(the mercenraies)fight only when they get payed not when they are certain wich one is the winning side.thats dumb if they get payed and don't fight why would i bother even paying them?

[Bohemond]

Quote Originally posted by faisal:
THEY(the mercenraies)fight only when they get payed not when they are certain wich one is the winning side.thats dumb if they get payed and don't fight why would i bother even paying them?[/QUOTE]

Your first argument is very true, Mercenaries only fight when they get payed.
What I meant with being on the winning side ist that a Mercenary is bound to his Lord because he thinks it will yield him a personal profit. He feels not obliged to be a faithful servant of his Lord if he thinks the odds are against him and that it might lead to his own destruction. In that case, he will desert or treacherously change sides.

Quote
thats dumb if they get payed and don't fight why would i bother even paying them?
[/QUOTE]

Sorry no offense, but with this argument you seem not to have understood the meaning of Mercenaries. A Lord will have to pay for them because there are simply no other experienced enough troops at his disposal. Civilians of all time were loath to serve in the Military and fight, and they sucked if they had to. Mercenaries on the other hand are professional soldiers that will instantly and readily be available if the price is high enough.

I think it's a shame Mercenaries will probably not in the game since this is an essential and logical new element for me. Even Lords of the Realm II had a very good implementation of Mercs (these units were tough, but could not be mixed with other Mercs units in one Army)

[Jaguara]

Quote Originally posted by faisal:
THEY(the mercenraies)fight only when they get payed not when they are certain wich one is the winning side.thats dumb if they get payed and don't fight why would i bother even paying them?[/QUOTE]

Yes, but it is rather naieve to believe that the Mercs will die valiantly for the guy who merely pays the bills. The goal of a mercenary was to make a profit...death severely impedes your ability to profit.

Mercenaries will gladly accept their pay while things are going well, but if placed in a place where it is more profitable for them to desert or switch allegiance, then they often will...of course they can expect the next paycheck from you to be cancelled. Even if they can never work for you again, it is better than death...

[Leet Eriksson]

well hiring mercs has its cons afterall.

[Kraellin]

i've said from the start that M:TW is going to be europa universalis meets shogun and the more i see, the more it stands up this way. europa was the first game that ever really treated non-combat state and religious influences with anything but contempt. in EU it is one of the strengths, not a sideline to the game. i hope that M:TW follows suit.

but i also wouldnt mind a bit of civ3 thrown into M:TW as well, particularly when it comes to borders, provinces, states, and countries. stw was strictly provinces. you attacked an entire province and captured the entire thing or not when you invaded. civ3 uses an expanding, flexible border system which i like. borders are determined not by fixed lines, but by influence and power. this, to me, is much more fun. if you're doing well your borders just keep moving outwards until it hits someone else's border. cities can suddenly change hands, go over to the other side, simply because of economics or diplomacy. you could actually win civ3 and never fire a shot. i found this quite intriguing and i hope M:TW borrows on this heavily.

and following this same train of thought, it would be great to be able to NOT capture an entire province or state with one attack. perhaps all you do is move a border a bit. this would make border raids a viable option. and this is often missed in strat games. what if i only want to pick up that one key resource that is just over my current border but i'm not willing to trade for it. i just want to capture it and not the entire region. this shld be a possibility. or maybe i'm land locked and want a sea route to expand my trade. i'd like to be able to attack a portion of my neighbor's territory to get just that much extra territory. i dont necessarily want to gobble up his entire region or maybe i dont have the resources to do a full campaign to try and capture him entirely. i just want that lane to the sea so i can build ships.

the possibilities are really quite incredible when you start talking about medeival europe. i hope they realize some of these in the upcoming project.

K.


------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

[yeahme]

Civ III with Shogun! Why not! Two award winners in one. You'll probably even see TV adds if MTW can have a good strategy play like Civ3 and Shogun's realtime engine!

[Grifman]

Faisal said:

"a jizya is like somesort of income to protect the local poeple of the captured territory and of course support the army"

LOL! That's one way of looking at it. Sounds more like protection money for the Mafia to me. If I'm a non-Muslim who do I need protecting from? I'd love to have my country come back in a reconquer the land from the Muslims! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Grifman

[Sword_Monkey]

Quote Originally posted by yeahme:
Civ III with Shogun! Why not! Two award winners in one. You'll probably even see TV adds if MTW can have a good strategy play like Civ3 and Shogun's realtime engine! [/QUOTE]

Civ3 doesn't really deserve the awards, though. Design-wise, it's an extremely shallow game with a lot of useless window dressing and a lot of short cuts taken in the presentation at the same time. After two months playing it I'm convinced that given the hooks into the AI you could write a script that would play and win the game by itself. I had a lot of fun learning the game but, once learned, that was the end of the fun. I'd really hate to see MTW become so bloated it suffered from the same flaw.

It got the praise it did only because it really had no competition in its genre. There are a lot of good things in Civ3 which we already know are in MTW (strategic resources, right of passage, trade). I'd love to see something like the Civlopedia and I would hope they've implemented real summary screens for military and economic information. Nothing like trying to figure out where you need to build better farmland or which troop type you really need to focus on in Shogun.

But, the border concept and city flipping was cute at first but really, really boring after only a few games. I know there are people out there who want to win without combat but, imo, it was like watching grass grow. It didn't take long to figure out that I could get that city and resource in 1/4 the time just by builing up superior forces and attacking as I could by waiting for a random number generator to give it to me because I sat there smacking "end turn" repeatedly while building culture. I don't believe you can make a good peaceful strat game and a good war game at the same time, something will break. Civ3 is a really good example of how in trying to do both you can make a game that's ultimately boring at both strategies.

[theforce]

Since they are only updating the game engine l pretty sure they shall give much attention to aspcects of the game like assasination,income(taxes) and politics!!!

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.

[Leet Eriksson]

grifman i can see how anti muslim you are but jizya is not like the mafia *** ******* its like the US when they offer protection if you provide petrol so i can also say the same to US then.

[This message has been edited by Sir Kuma of The Org (edited 03-03-2002).]

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Faisal and Grifman

1. Faisal i have deleted 2 words from your last post. I think, i can safely say that it did not add anything constructive to the discussion.

2. I left the "anti-muslim" part in because, i made an error in not seing the potential problem of the last part of Grifman's last post. I AM SORRY FOR MY MISTAKE.

Please Both of you , do not continue in this direction. If you have religious/political issues you really want/need to discuss, i suggest that you REALLY communicate between yourselves by ICQ or E-Mail.

Any post that is not game related and slips into religious/political pot shots at each other will be completly deleted without any explanation.

Before you start complaining about my censoring you, let me tell you that you are right, i am censoring. IT's not personal, it's not a power trip, i do not take any pleasure doing this (i'd rather continue to be nice, do some PR and spam with a smile), BUT it's my responsibility.

Before posting again here, please take the time to read the rules you agreed to, before signing in this private forum.

If Any of you want to discuss this further, you are free to E-Mail me. Also if you ever see something that really offends you (faisal, Grifman or anybody) that i did not see or adress properly, before taking the law in your own hands, E-Mail please.

Once again sorry to all of you for my error, those who now "my style" of modding now that usually adress quicly posts that even remotly can be understood as insulting/agressive to a person or a group, while being a bit loose on spamming and discussions that are more or less game related.

[Leet Eriksson]

you don't need to apologize at all but reffering the muslims to criminals is not tolerated let me clear things up with a small Q&A all should understand this is not like the mafia:

1.What is a jizya?

A:a small tax that is forced in non muslim lands to ensure their portection.

2.What happens if the non-muslims don't pay?

a:nothing but if they don't pay chances are the army garrisoned in their could not protect them and of course would be frequently under attack(barbarians bandits etc etc).

3.What happens if they become muslim?

A:they stop paying.but will be put under the Bait al mal ministry to ensure the city still gets protected and improved without them paying the ministry takes care of everything from there.

as you see its not the mafia they don't get beaten up if they don't pay they are free wether to keep their relegion and do exactly anything they like,the city stays like it was but more freedom is provided no more living as serfs or slaves etc etc.Islam is a very simple(albeit a bit complicated when someone wants to get "into it")and bright relegion recently anti islamic propaganda has given our name a bad rap so i hope people would understand very soon that this relegion is not as it was "pictured"by anti islamic campaigns.

[Papewaio]

Quote Originally posted by faisal:
Islam is a very simple(albeit a bit complicated when someone wants to get "into it")and bright relegion recently anti islamic propaganda has given our name a bad rap so i hope people would understand very soon that this relegion is not as it was "pictured"by anti islamic campaigns.[/QUOTE]

Greetings Faisal http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

You have very valid points.

You could swap most of the worlds religions with Islam and would end up with the same points, in other words substitute Catholic, Christian, Hindu, Judaism etc

Religion is not generally the problem it is the way it is used to justify political motives which is.

This is turn causes people to attack the religion and not the political parties using the religion as a marketing/recruiting tool.


------------------
Victory First, Battle Last