Pillage....Is it TOO rewarding???

[ToranagaSama]

I was just reading this thread, and it caused me to think.
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/002245.html

My style of play is pretty much like Draksen, which quite the opposite of your average rusher type.

I think the Devs put a LOT of effort and imagination in an attempt to counter Rushing; but their efforts appear to have come up short.

The reason why is that there is too much reward to be won by Pillaging/Conquering; not too mention the "Raid to Build a Bank Account technique".

What's the point of implenting "Upkeep for Troops" and "Trade"? One of the big complaints/questions w. MTW was, "How can Province A maintain X number of troops?? Province A doesn't have the Koku! [The Troops would eat everything in sight, and then start eating the Peasants!] "Blah...blah...there s/b some Limiting Factor".

Well, we get the "Limiting Factors", BUT they're totally offset by the amount of Florins to be had by Pillage!!! So, what's the point?? Isn't it just a bit unrealistic? Wars are not won by Pillage, but by a STRONG economic base. Isn't this why Trade was implemented?

Trade may not be ready for Prime Time, explaining why the excessive pillage amount.

Should Pillage be toned down for MTW?

Should Trade (and diplomacy too) be further developed (greatly so) for the Add-On or TW3 AND pillage de-emphasized to an ancillary factor.

Put more simply,

Does it make sense to be capable of sustaining your war machine and winning/conquering the game by pillage alone?

If not, then how much should it be toned down? 50%?

And if so, then should a corresponding adjustment to Trade be made as well? Add more provinces with 3 tradeable goods; or may some with 4 or 5 tradeable goods?

OR, better yet, pump up the income from inter-province "in-land" trade.

Or, all of the above.

Guess, I just want to kill all the fun for the Rushers....hahahaha....

[This message has been edited by ToranagaSama (edited 10-08-2002).]

[This message has been edited by ToranagaSama (edited 10-08-2002).]

[Lord Romulous]

im not sure if im accurate or not so please tell me if im talking hogwash (theirs a word i havent used for a while)

but wernt a significant portion of medieval armies funded and controlled by a few lords. with the overall objective sanctiond by the king. eg to beat up france is good so i encourage u to do it.

thus the armies depended on the pillage they got from captured towns and cities to
1. pay their men
2. feed their men.

if they wernt being succusful eg the towns or cities succusfully resisted, after a while they could not afford to stick around so the army went back home.



[This message has been edited by Lord Romulous (edited 10-08-2002).]

[chunkynut]

I think realisticly it may be too little, but i like it as it is.

Didn't the Vikings do alot of pillage and wait a few years then do it again to increase there reserves on money/cattle and err women???

I think there should be a pillage ability but you have to remember that you create big stacks of troops i find with this technique.
When you attack a proveince with a large stack you make the enemy retreat(maybe) then you back out or stay. This can cause rebelions or make the other faction retake with the armies it has formed with in the retreated teritory.

Thus larger/ more stacks of troops on your borders.

I dont raid btw i wage war, i take land and (try to) keep it!

[cihset]

Medieval warfare was mostly about pillaging, because of the heavily fortified castles who were close to impossible to conquer withouth very prolonged sieges (which were usually unfeasible with that times armies and logistics)

[Kraxis]

After two campaigns where I completely thrashed my most potent enemy (HRE in both cases) by playing Edward the Black Prince, I too got a little tired of the pillaging.

In one of the cases I sent a force of about 500 men into the hinterlands of the HRE lead by a Prince. They managed to go rampaging all through the Empire... I earned about 12k florins while the HRE got a massive setback to its production facilities.

After that I vowed never to do it again, the HRE actually ended up in the Dark Ages again after a Civil War and some rebellions.

But I believe the pillaging has been toned down in the patch...

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[Orion]

Sorry for the long post

Pillage is not just taking the money, You have conquered a full province (cities, towns, villages) loaded with grain & cattle stocks, also the weapons, tools, precious other stuff etc.
I don't thing pillage volume is high at an disturbing level since I guess its generally 2-4 years of province income (correct me if I am wrong on this because I didn't really care much on it) which is quite normal considering the aggregated wealth of some peacefull years

The matter of "if it is really historic or not?" Ottoman Empire (which I read quite lots of things -thanx to history teachers (not all of them ofcourse ) was financed its glorious military expeditions mainly with pillage income (called as "ganimet" in Turkish where meaning is slightly different - somehow earned but still the act is pillaging) until second half of 15th century. (must check some docs to give more accurate numbers/dates and importance of GANIMET in its economy if asked).
Ofcourse there were other sorts of income but main part was pillage that after the successful campaigns come to an end the economy was corrupted (ofcourse it is not just that an incredible empire reduced to ash)

------------------
So said the King
So it is written

[ToranagaSama]

Quote Originally posted by chunkynut:
Didn't the Vikings do alot of pillage and wait a few years then do it again to increase there reserves on money/cattle and err women???

Yes, but doesn't that sound like a raid to you?? The Vikings toosk and kept very few lands. Most the lands, outside of the north countries, were "settled" not conquered! Most of the lands in Europe, specifically France were 'given' to them by the French King, just so they'd stop the raiding/pillaging and, so that the French King could rely on the Vikings fighting other Viking raiders. Hence, Normady, Brittany, Burgundy, etc. This is why such places have a certain sort of autonomy from France, etc. France is just the example, but there are other similiar instances.

I think there should be a pillage ability but you have to remember that you create big stacks of troops i find with this technique.
When you attack a proveince with a large stack you make the enemy retreat(maybe) then you back out or stay. This can cause rebelions or make the other faction retake with the armies it has formed with in the retreated teritory.

Thus larger/ more stacks of troops on your borders.

Sorry, but this is simply CHEESY, and obviously NOT the way the game was "designed" to be played. What oh what is the point? I presume your implying that the "large" rebel starts balance out the pillage gained from such "raids"? Interesting premise which I hadn't considered. Definitely a-historical!

This technique is precisely, the one I described as, "Raid to Build a Bank Account technique".

[Just an aside, this is the type of thing that makes me SCREAM for C-MP. Just wouldn't fly in C-MP.]

I dont raid btw i wage war, i take land and (try to) keep it![/QUOTE]

What about the "technique" above?

[ToranagaSama]

Let me make this a little bit clearer. Pillage was something you gained AFTERWARD!

Before you pillage, you needed to ALREADY have the Money and the Means! It cost a GREAT deal to raise and maintain, in the field, an army. In today's parlance it'd be called Startup Capital!!

If pillage is the aim, then one must have the Startup Capital to go pillaging.

How about this,

1) Already in the game there's a "cost to build an army; and

2) There's a maintainence cost to keep a "Standing" army;

3) I think there s/b ADDITIONAL cost to actually use that army, to wage war.

In other words maintenance, as an example, "maintenance" costs s/b doubled, or on some level increased SUBSTANTIALLY.

In medieval times, just as it is today, war is "inflationary". Shortages, price increases, wage increases, etc.

OK, how about this: War Debt!

Start an offensive war and you incur debt, the longer you wage the war the greater your debt. At some "financial" point, you cannot continue warring until the debt is reduced or eliminated.

Just a last thought, yes! The medieval kings and lords went a pillaging, BUT they didn't go a conquering all of Europe and parts of Asia and Africa!!! Think about it. In this context the wars/pillaging were contextually quite small.

Why?? Cause they couldn't afford too!!

The thing to never forget is that MTW is a European version of SHOGUN. The "gaming" concept of complete conquest has been 'borrowed' from Shogun. In Japan, complete conquest was the aim, and the last great Shogun was enabled by the fact that he was "Lord of the Kwanto". The Kwanto being the region of the Japan that produced the great bulk of rice/Koku.

[ToranagaSama]

Orin,

I don't thing pillage volume is high at an disturbing level since I guess its generally 2-4 years of province income (correct me if I am wrong on this because I didn't really care much on it) which is quite normal considering the aggregated wealth of some peacefull years

You make my point, somewhat better than I've been doing so far.

Simplfying this, slightly, and using your example:

In a single turn, you gain 2-4 years worth of income; in the next turn, again 2-4 years worth; let's go one more turn and another 2-4 years worth.

So, in THREE turns you get 6 to 12 years of income!!!!

Does this make logical sense? Forget logic, I think its questionable gaming sense (especially for the type of game that TW purports to be). What's the point of building "trade"? What's the point of improving the agriculture in your province?

The capability to sustain your army on any amount of pillage for any sustained period of time just ruins it. Even the Romans had great trouble with such a model.

[Hakonarson]

If you're rutghless about what yuo take from the conquered foe and don't mind leaving tyhem to starve then 12 years income from an area doesn't seem too much.

That's 3 years of constant thorough and devastating robbery!

Consider the "great" English "raids" (Chevauxches (sp??)) of the 100 years war - they raped, pillaged and burned Northern France almost back into the dark ages.

Hundreds or Thousands of English soldiers made fortunes from these - setting the stage for English expansion over the next 200 years due to the vast amounts of capital transfered into England.

Or similarly in the 30 years war much later (1618-1648) - vast areas of Germany were litterally laid waste.

However I think there is too much income to be gained by destroying buildings - Why do you get income from knocking down a stone castle?

"Buildings" IMO represent technology rather than physical real estate - if you knock over a fiorge what's to stop the master swordsmith from building another?

However if you kill him then the skills he have are lost.

But how much do you get for killing him??

[ToranagaSama]

Consider the "great" English "raids" (Chevauxches (sp??)) of the 100 years war - they raped, pillaged and burned Northern France almost back into the dark ages.

Hundreds or Thousands of English soldiers made fortunes from these - setting the stage for English expansion over the next 200 years due to the vast amounts of capital transfered into England.

Or similarly in the 30 years war much later (1618-1648) - vast areas of Germany were litterally laid waste.

BUT, where in your examples was Europe conquered?

1. I do believe they were all in the Dark Ages!!

2. English expansion was more due to the defeat of the Spanish Armanda and the subsequent (economic) collasp of the Spanish.

[todorp]

Pillage was A style of very successful warfare! Just read about the Muslim expansion. It was raids, pillage and mass killings of the innocent. There ware very few pitched battles. How long a mighty fortress will survive if all peasants and the supporting infrastructures are gone? E.g. Constantinople. That is one of the reasons the Crusader kingdoms collapsed as well.

[Orion]

Quote Originally posted by ToranagaSama:

...In a single turn, you gain 2-4 years worth of income; in the next turn, again 2-4 years worth; let's go one more turn and another 2-4 years worth.

So, in THREE turns you get 6 to 12 years of income!!!!...

[/QUOTE]

Toranaga,

I get your point now (I really did not realized that mecanic because I never use the strategy you defined) and you are right on that pillage income must be inline with income-expense balance of a province and effect of previous battles.

What I mean is:
If you conquered a province and pillage what they have, in the next few turns return of pillaging act must be reduced.
But what I started to suggest is just brings additional problems like: What kind of a equation must be used to compute the province balance? Because right now the system is based on a "central treasury" logic and all the unit support costs + investment for improvements and other expenses are deducted from total income and the result is added on the previous aggregated balance. So if I suggest finding out the true province balance than costing of units (w their support costs) and building costs must be decentralized.

May be some portion of total treasury can be appropriate or not ???

What did you do man!!! I was having fun with the game now I had to think on it too

I need some time to give a better idea of economic model for the game

------------------
So said the King
So it is written