Micromanaging peacetimes, or what to do when not fighting?

[Puupertti Ruma]

In total war games the strategy map is a reason to fight big fights. This leads to a gameplay that is buzzing with activity, gameplay choices, interesting dilemmas and plainly whole lotta to do while you are in a war. Where to use money, what units to build, where to move them, whether to make alliances with neighbors to get a edge against the huge monolithic empire rolling on you or take their lands in a blitz to have more taxbase, and countless other intrigueing choices await and make the game fun. (I am ignoring the possibility of AI stack spam, which of course makes the game tedious, not fun. This is done deliberately to make my point clear)
In peace times the total war games usually simplificates to deciding to whether to build infrastructure or army. This in game terms usually means selecting a building to build, waiting a bunch of turns for it to get done and then choosing another. Series of clicking buildings and end turn. This can get quite boring, and so in total war series peace is only a time to prepare for next war. This is not because war is better than peace, it is because war is more fun than peace.

In EB the aim is not to have fun playing huge and good looking battles, the aim is to portray the time period and the peoples, cultures and customs in a way that resembles the reality most. Also, reading Foot's interview at Eagle Standard he explicitly stated that EB tries to "cut back on the Total War aspect of EBII and instead [--] give the player some welcome respite from constant and endless war [--]". While this is really a good thing, it immediatly raises a question: Well what is there to do at peace time?

In EB I, there actually isn't too much, to my experience anyway. You can read descriptions of course, but it's not gameplay. The idiocy of diplomacy kills scheming. Micromanaging trade isn't possible and the only way to tweak your income is to recruit/disband units, change taxation and build mines and trade buildings. So it boils down to recruiting units to your next war and clicking to what building build next. This problem is magnified seven fold with one region factions. Either you blitz or you disband and build infrastructure slowly. The first way is fun for a while but unrealistic and eventually results in a huge debt and serious boredom while waiting for that debt to be paid. The disbanding way gives more historical expansion but also it is a bit boring when waiting for the infrastructure to be large enough to support a war.

So after a (perhaps too?) lenghty introduction, I thought there should be some discussion about what it is possible to add/mod to MTW2 to make for a more involving and interesting peace time in EBII.

Ideas, suggestions etc. are welcome! Of course if the team is ready to give some tidbits they are greatly appreciated! ;)

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Personaly, I found Foot's statement that the total-war part will be less prevalent, the best part of the whole interview. When, after a while, the AI-empires have grown powerful enough, they start sending a never-ending stream of stacks against you, resulting in several, often rather pointless, battles per turn, which, in my opinion, isn't very fun.

Still, there is some truth in what you say.

I don't know if this is possible, but perhaps, with the events, there could be different events and missions for the player to deal with, that are not connected to warfare.
For instance, the simple "build a church"-type missions that exist in vanilla too, but maybe there could be other, more complex types of missions too.
There are also, for example in SS, events such as church meetings, that the player can choose to take part in. There could, perhaps, be some kind of such events in EBII, don't know of what kind, though.

But then again, I actually find sitting around an micromanaging my economy, building stuff, and reading unit/building descriptions quite fun...

[Foot]

Just a small note, M2TW does offer a lot of peacetime variety, compared to RTW at least. Missions can concentrate (in times of peace) on building infrastructure or roleplaying characters. Scripted rebellions can keep small armies busy, particularly in newly conquered provinces, or regions under going political change. Some factions, if not all, will have an internal political situation that will make diplomacy within a faction as well as between factions a necessary area to concentrate on, sometimes at the expense of expansion.

Foot

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Sounds great!

That would add a whole new dimension to the roleplaying-aspect of the game, and make it feel even more like a real time-machine than it already does.

[General Appo]

Some factions, if not all, will have an internal political situation that will make diplomacy within a faction as well as between factions a necessary area to concentrate on, sometimes at the expense of expansion.

I refuse to believe this. Not because I consider you to be untrustworthy or anything along those lines, but because if this was true I would most likely suffer from an immediate heartattack. Therefore my survival instincts makes it impossible for me to believe this. I apologise.

[Foot]

Thats okay, the truth will out.

Foot

[Hax]

This is excellent news. Scripting rebellions might help indeed in the long-term expansion thing, especially when you've conquered everything up to India, and you can crush tiny nations with a flick of your finger.

Edit: While I'm at it, speaking of long-term expansion, what can be done to counter the EVIL ways of corruption? If you haven't read my thread in the betatesting forums, I came up with an idea for decreasing corruption.

[QuintusSertorius]

I have quite lengthy peace periods in EB I and find plenty to do, what with fomenting rebellions, bribing armies out of existence and such.

[Foot]

Edit: While I'm at it, speaking of long-term expansion, what can be done to counter the EVIL ways of corruption? If you haven't read my thread in the betatesting forums, I came up with an idea for decreasing corruption.

I have designs on that.

Foot

[Hax]

Then I leave it all to you

[DeathEmperor]

I personally enjoy being able to sit on my laurels and then consolidating my empire. A 'Pax (insert faction name' if you will is enjoyable, with the occasion border conflict with whatever other superpower exists.

This talk of scripted rebellions, and potential ways to counter corruption is most encouraging and to be honest getting me into the EB mood *starts up EB and loads Romani campaign*

[Fondor_Yards]

I've found the FD minimod helps immensely in making/keeping peace. Get them to agree to be allies, trade, share map info, share military access, and giving them between 200-1000 per turn for a 1000 turns has so far worked wonders, even with notorious traitors like the Ptolemaics. A little peace and quiet between long grinding wars adds a lot of life to a campaign.

[Megas Methuselah]

I've found the FD minimod helps immensely in making/keeping peace. Get them to agree to be allies, trade, share map info, share military access, and giving them between 200-1000 per turn for a 1000 turns has so far worked wonders, even with notorious traitors like the Ptolemaics. A little peace and quiet between long grinding wars adds a lot of life to a campaign.

I could not agree more. Especially after a 50-year long war which was supposed to be a quick blitz but ended up in a massive empire-wide brawl. The precious years of peace is very easy on the mind and helps consolidate my newfound empire, along with managing my economy and scraping together a reliable income. It's interesting how battle-weary I can get from a long, costly war.

[Cybvep]

IMO one of the most important part of EB is the fact that there are many unique elements in the mod, e.g. factional traits, "wonder"/landmark type buildings, regional units or different governments. However, there can be so much more to keep the player interested in the game even in "peaceful peacetimes" (no revolts, good stability etc.). Trade and governments!

1) In RTW and even in EB you can't really significantly influence your trade. There is also little differentation between various goods and resources. How about unique effects attached to each resource (something like the system in Europa Universalis: Rome [yep, boring, but there are some nice ideas])? For example, provinces with high grain production could have increased population growth and each "farming upgrade" would increase your trade (besides the normal revenue from farming), while provinces notable for their high quality iron production would give more income with each MIC (or blacksmith, or something similar) built, and regions famous for wine would have additional happiness bonus attached to tavern/festival type buildings (or similar) etc. IMO it would be quite realistic, fun and more interesting. But there is more! It's very easy to do something like this even in RTW, as you can specify building bonuses by resource.

2) EB introducted a government system and it was certainly much more developed than RTW Vanilla "conquer and train" gameplay, but the more you think about it, the more you want to add more features to it. Firstly, there is too little differentiation between the government types. Usually, you just create the highest possible one or the cheapest type when you have little money. Bonuses should be greater and more varied, so the short- and long-term benefits will be more pronounced. Secondly, there should be more unique possibilites attached to each government type. Well, client rulers were certainly something new and enhanced the game, but we need more! And finally, how about customising your government during the course of the game? Additional, costly "updates" attached to government buildings would certainly add even more flavour to EB's gameplay.

[ratbarf]

How about making it so you actually have very little true expansion? Like in the actual Roman Empire after a war is complete you gain direct control over the closest provinces and then the nation that you beat can then become a client kingdom which pays tribute to you? If that was possible it would really spice up the peace time through the ability to fine tune the breaking points of provinces taxation and you would also have military responibilities towards your client kingdoms. One thing I would love to see implented is a use of the Crusade perk to allow allies to actually have a diret affect on a war by sending a large stack of troops to a destination of your choosing. Like lending or supplying local troops for the Empire (which actually happened) and then having a decent amount of control over them. (ie destination) This could also possibly be implemented for allies? Would make diplomacy much more interesting.

[Foot]

How would that spice up the peacetime?

As for the crusade thing, I don't really understand what you mean. Are you saying that your faction can tell another faction where to send a "Crusade" Army? That is impossible, only the papal states can set those missions and even were the player faction the papal states its not something that is usable by the player but rather something activated by scripts.

Foot

[ratbarf]

I think it would spice up peace time because you would have to not only work on your own infrastructure, but because of the fact that a large amount of your income base is not under your direct control you would have to watch over your client kingdoms as well as extort taxes or protection money from them. So you have to balance relations, tax base, and army size based upon an income that you cannot guarentee. Just thought that would be more interesting.

As to the Crusade thing, I have very little experience with writing them. However based upon how the Crusades and Jihads are based in-game I thought it would be possible to do something similar except that instead of Christians or Muslims the Crusaders are your allies. My reason for thinking this is possible is this, 1. the Muslim factions can call them once they have a cleric who has a high level of piety. 2. in the teutonic campaign the Lithuanians are able to switch religions. So instead of having teh crusade be religously based, I thought you might be able to make it alliance based. So the king or Emperor can call a "Crusade" and then their allies or client kingdoms would be obligated to send troops. Thus making alliances much more useful and realistic.

Just something I was thinking about.

[Foot]

You can't increase taxes or exort protection money from client kingdoms. Indeed they are basically alliances with military access who give you all their left-over income. There is no obligation to them, no interesting political stuff to do with them, and we cannot mod it. I still fail to see how it adds anything to the peace game as you are essentially removing a lot of the peacetime stuff and leaving it in the hands of the AI.

As for the crusades thing, you are mistaken. It would not be possible to mod that in. The jihad and crusade mechanics are completely different yet you mix and match the two. Jihads can be called by any faction, but only for their faction (no other faction will join on the Jihad nor necessarily see your Jihad target as a province they even want to conquer), the Crusade can only be called by the papal states faction, the choice of province is set at the beginning of the game and cannot be changed, and factions don't HAVE to go on a crusade. Finally we are using the religion system for something else and using it for this mechanic would be a rather heavy waste of resources.

Foot

[bovi]

Other factions will join a Jihad. It was especially preposterous when the freaking Mongols joined a jihad against Granada. I presume they were put in with the non-christian religion for lack of religion slots. You would think that they would consider adding another religion at that point, but no.

[Hax]

Other factions will join a Jihad. It was especially preposterous when the freaking Mongols joined a jihad against Granada. I presume they were put in with the non-christian religion for lack of religion slots. You would think that they would consider adding another religion at that point, but no.

The new Vandals, perhaps..?

[Ravenic]

A few things to consider.

• As was mentioned in the original post, a good part of the early game is simply getting your provinces set up with roads, stable, and actually looking like a civilized place. Perhaps it would be a good idea to simply have everyone start a little higher up in the tech tree to begin with, with minor cities rather than large towns or worse to start with, as well as the ability to build more than just levy's at the very start. Hell, just being able to actually start with some decent professional troops would be a huge plus for a great many factions.
• Consider allowing each faction to begin with one elite unit - Agema for Egypt, Sacred Band for Carthage, etc. Just one elite unit that they can either disband or maintain and use as a spearhead for their attacks. Adds a lot to the 'elite' factor if there is only one of its kind for a significant period, plus when you do finally tech up and can retrain it then that unit will probably start with a few extra chevrons.
• Consider bumping up income or reducing upkeep some. It doesn't seem right that all but three or four factions are going massively in debt after turn one. Pontus most certainly fielded a full army with elite troops, supporting troops, etc. with only a couple provinces on the EB map, as did many other factions.
• This has little to do for peace time, but I think the British bodyguard unit should be changed. As far as I can tell it basically has no viability outside of throwing the javelins...can't even really engage in melee. Historically, as far as I know the Briton nobles of that period simply rode into battle on chariots and dismounted to fight, and did not ride around with a posse of a few dozen chariots watching while his men throw javelins.
• Scripted rebellions and all sounds wonderful, it would certainly give me something to do as Rome while I'm waiting for the Second Punic War. Got to suppress the Samnites!