View Full Version : Non May Pass!
Hey Guys,
I find it a little annoying that you can't "Request" permission to move through an Ally's territory.
I know that wise building, ports, and at times, Crusades, are the way around this, but it would still be usefull, at times, to have your Army pass through an Ally's territory to assist troops on the other side.
Understandably, Allies may not be entirely comfortable with you marching an Army through their lands, but you'd think that could be resolved with some sort of Financial Penalty, i.e. "Your Emissary suggests a donation of 750 Florin should be enough to offer the King of France to let your Troops march through in Peace".
I would find that handy, but I think the computer would find it even more helpful. While the Alhomeds were decimating the French in the South, the bulk of the French Army was hemmed inside Brittany by my English Troops. We were allied, so it's not like I chased them there.
I abandoned Anjou, waving the empty Province like a red flag to a bull, trying to get the French to have enough sense to move in and be able to face the Alhomeds with the bulk of their forces. But the French wouldn't bite, so I killed them.
What do you guys think about this "March Through In Peace" idea about crossing Allied territories?
Azrael
I think we'd all love this feature, we've been asking for it since day 1.
Fearless
11-13-2002, 15:35
I agree with inferno, what a vast improvement it would make
ToranagaSama
11-13-2002, 15:43
Don't agree at all.
If you can make an argument based on historical reference then maybe, but, frankly, its just not realistic no matter how convenient it may seem. War is not about convenience.
A) Historical facts are totally irrelevant. MTW is a game based loosely on a historical time period, it is not meant to be true to history, nor is it.
B) If countries are ALLIES, why should they not allow the other's troops through, especially if they are intending to attack a common enemy?
As the vocal support for this idea is greater than the vocal dissent, surely you should provide reasoning for its non-inclusion, rather than us trying to persuade you?
(Edit >> Spelling)
One historical example springs to mind: when the Latins in the Near East allowed to Mamluks through to fight the Mongols at Ain Jalut in 1260. But I must admit thinking of other actual occurrences isn't easy.
It does seem a sensible feature: I asked for it back in STW:WE days.
PanthaPower
11-13-2002, 16:04
Hmmm, I would only like this feature if the human player would suffer a lot when he breaks his promise and attacks unprotected computer controlled countries in the back. The AI would need extra AI to "escort" the army through it's countries whenever he agrees to let you through. Maybe something for an add-on?
Edratman
11-13-2002, 16:13
The historical arguement against allowing allied armies to pass through territories revolves around the issue of supply. In the period of the game quartermaster corps and supply trains were non-existant. In the absence of canned or most preserved foods armies fed themselves by foraging (pillaging if it was your farm or village), not to mention armies surely used the opportunity to amass wealth and throw in a bit of rape. By permitting a large force to strip a swathe of your kingdom for their convienence doesn't make much sense.
I believe Wellington was the first significent military commander to insist that his armies have supply trains and/or purchase food from the local population. This amazed the Spanish population in the Penisular War, providing a stark contrast to the French armies that mercilessly ravaged the land in search of provisions.
One cannot let modern conceptions of military forces behavior and morality to influence your perception of conduct in this time period. This was an age of "might makes right".
The game allows allied armies to relieve sieges. This is probably a historically accurate portrayal of a desperation move.
LordKhaine
11-13-2002, 16:17
I think it would be a good idea for moving across, say, one friendly province. But I can just see it being abused and people wanting to move straight through entire nations http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Hey Edratman,
That's the most sensible argument against letting troops pass through. It's reflected quite well in the "Crusaders Loot" you get as you march along.
But frankly, at times, it makes strategic sense to be able to march an Army through an Ally's territory or give them Rights of Passage through yours.
Your point is a good one, and that's why I propose a Financial Penalty for Peacefull Passage.
I would say it was the sort of thing that the computer would resolve automatically, i.e. This Army is Travelling to XXX, it cannot be used until the next turn.
I would say, next turn, it should only be able to get to it's destination. Though perhaps giving the Travelling Army's player the option of "Proceed to XXX or Sack Province" could give an adequate reflection of the dangers of offering such "free passage".
I appreciate your argument, and think it's a good one. However, I beleive the tactical benefits and necessities of such free passage endeavours outweigh the historical facts about armies have a bad habit of pillaging. That's the very reason the Allied Province should charge for passage in the first place.
Please keep letting me know your thoughts.
Azrael
MonkeyMan
11-13-2002, 16:35
This all revolves around the deplomacy and alliances issue. I would love to earn my allies gratitude by helping them in fights other than by luck or breacking sieges. Or even request aid.
Something like an ally asking for assistance, and allowing you to move in their territory.
Showing predicted allied attacks or defences on the map in a certain colour. and allow you to move to them.
The ability to assign stacks under your control to an ally to use as they see fit and move in their territory or attack their enemies, defend (recallable at any time and supported on a half/half or all ally basis). The battles could be done by you in the normal way as an ally or put under the control of the ally.
Bob the Insane
11-13-2002, 16:41
How's this for an off the wall idea...
A new object, like a crusade or Jihad..
The Allied Army..
Like a crusade or Jihad it would have a particular target, but in this case it is a Faction not just a province. The same as crusades, individualy factions can decide whether or not to let it pass.
When created it contains a single Royal Knights unit (or faction equivilant). You can add more units. As it moves through other factions they have a opportunity to add units of their own provided they are at war with the Targeted faction. The Allied Army is controled and moved by the Faction which created it.
It would lose troops in the same way as a crusade until it entered the Target Faction's territory (to incourage it to actually attack the enemy). The Allied Army would continue to until the faction controling the Allied Army agrees a Ceasefire with the targeted faction or the Allied army is defeated. If any faction which has added units to the Allied Army agrees a ceasefire with the targeted faction, then their army would be sent home. Also if all the Controling faction's units are destroyed the Allied army would be disbanded and units sent to their own homes.
When battles actually occured it would be like normal allied battles. The player would control only his own units. It would make for great and huge battles though....
If this was possible, perhapes they could send units from a crusade back to the faction's they came from (if picked up on the way..)
Fearless
11-13-2002, 17:19
Let's put it to the vote..................Another Poll
I love the smell of spam in the morning.
Edratman
11-13-2002, 17:35
Azreal, thank you for your kind words.
I agree the ability to move through an allies province would simplify many strategic conflicts, but I cannot concur with it on a historical or practical level.
As I said in my previous post, armies at this time supplied themselves by looting the local inhabitants. Surely this resulted in major unhappiness in the province, not to mention inevitable clashes with local (and outnumbered) garrisons, resulting in a significent reduction in their morale at the least. I'm sure the peasantry would have resented their rulers for sanctioning an army of looters to pass through their land.
Further, monies paid to the kings treasury probably did not work its way down to the local level to compensate the population. There was little if any enlightenment on the royal ruling level towards their citizens and I imagine that the only times most royals provided some welfare was to stave off imminent revolt only when his military forces were not up to the task of supressing it. This attitude is the major reason why most monarchies were overthrown after the invention of gunpowder weapons that leveled the field enough to allow untrained citizens to combat organized, professional military forces.
An additional thought is that a force crossing an allied province must be considered to have a round trip ticket. Crossing the province to do battle with a common foe should result in that force recrossing it on the trip home, even after a successful mission. After all, this is a time when journies were measured in weeks and months, not by the hours we use today, so long distance government control was not attainable.
This is based on the historical inability to successful control non-contigious lands. This reality the game emulates very well with massive and continual rebellions when you conquer a land without at least trade route control back to your monarch.
A final arguement against allies allowing you to pass through their lands would be also based in practicality. What would stop an allied army from just parking themselves and assuming ownership of the province? What sort of ruler would allow that possibility? After all,at this time period, royal control over distant armies was nominal at best and there was little to stop an ambitious military commander from crowning himself king.
Kings requested help from there allies often. I would love to help my allies if I could pass my troops through his territory to help him in his battles. Being able to do that does not seem historically inaccurate. Think of it as "donating" troops to your allies cause, not trudging your massed army through their territory.
Lord Romulous
11-14-2002, 05:48
Do any have knowledge of historical occurances where allied armies passed over the lands of factions.
edratman makes some very good points and i agree with all of them.
however if their are a number of historic occurances of allied troops crossing other factions lands then i would be willing to vote for travel accross allied lands.
I think it should be limited to situation where your ally is under presure and request assistance. U should not be able to cross an allys lands just because is makes a more convient route for invasion of another faction.
Pellinor
11-14-2002, 11:09
Armies did not provide for themselves solely by pillage and forage. Despite cliams above, logistics were well developed, certainly by the fourteenth century - they had to be, as many armies would not be able to support themselves from the land without becomeing completely dispersed, which is not such a good idea when in enemy territory.
There was indeed a lot of pillaging going on, but certainly the English armies in France had efficient supply tails. How do you think they supported themselves in their home countries before invading?
I will dig out my references once I get home, if anyone's interested.
I totally agree with the idea of moving armies into allied territory (after a request) and ofcourse vise versa.
The penalties for backstabbing an ally could be:
1. Influence of leader reduced to 0.
2. If the invading campaign army do not succed in capturing the province (meaning it lost the battle) remains in that province and each year it remains there it takes great losses based on that province's zeal score and the distance from homelands.(due to guerrila warfare and unability to supply).
The "Allied Army" idea is great though, I only wish to add that each unit droped in from another faction keep being that factions unit (meaning that support cost is paid from that faction AND it continious to fight under the banner and colours of its faction). Finnally it shouldn't target any province/enemy but rather be build for a certain alliance, meaning that it accept units from those allied factions only and can move around into those factions territory only.
A.Saturnus
11-14-2002, 12:57
Of course armies pillaged a lot, but only from enemies (or neutrals sometimes). If this would be such a problem how could the army be supplied in the homecountry? If it`s possible to hold an army in your own country without pillaging then it must be possible in another country too, you just have to pay the support costs to the other faction (and maybe some extra fee, why not raise support if your army is in another faction`s province?).
As it is now, the only ways to fight together are crusades and accidently attacking the same province. But joint armies are historically correct.
It would also be nice (and not unrealistic) if you could lend troops to an ally.
Edratman
11-14-2002, 14:55
I'm getting to really like this thread More and more of the game makes sense to me.
At this time there really wasn't what we know as standing armies. Each local baron, earl, etc. had a small force to enforce the peace, collect taxes and whatever duties were necessary at the time. (That I believe is reflected in the relatively small numbers of each unit in the game.) Thus, the military was dispersed around the country side and the local demands were greatly reduced. These units only came together as an army when the king called them at time of peril.
The local forces were supported by taxation. This was not in such a form as we enjoy it today (sic) by placing a check in an envelope every April. The local tax collector, with several soldiers and a few carts visited every farm and village and took either percentage of the crop yield or a fixed amount of food and goods, regardless if it left the village with enough to survive until next year. (Got to remember, money was not in common usage, barter was a substantial part of the economy of the period.) I think of this as legal and organized looting but nobility justified it to the peasants by telling them they were providing protection from their enemies. By this logic, by permitting an outside force through the country side exposes this arguement, not to mention reducing taxes and probably forcing entire villages into starvation.
Secondly, the English armies did loot France. There is even a French term for this type of warfare (which escapes me at the moment) as conducted by the English. The purpose of this was to provide for the English and deny the French the taxes of the looted region. Pitched battles were extremely rare, as evidenced by the very few battles known to us despite the 200 year duration of the conflict.
But I do like the idea of penalizing a kingdom if it did make a move through allied territory and reneged on moving out. This would make the game very interesting. And I also am in favor of lending troops to an ally if he is in trouble and requests them. This could be viewed as a proxy fight and would permit a player to conduct warfare against another faction without actually having a state of war between them.
Some form of indebtedness by the ally must be incorporated into this sort of assistance, either annual payments of perpetual loyality. The game diplomacy would have to change so this assisted ally would not break the alliance every time some one province kingdom jumps the player. I do dislike the fact every ally discontinues alliances in these situations despite my king having gazillion influence etc. Nor is it realisitic for an adjacent ally to discontinue an alliance when I am attacked by an isolated kingdom 3/4 of a map away.
Great game, isn't it
Edratman
Is this why the Spanish resistance allied with the English and slaughtered French prisoners during the Napoleonic wars as the English armies treated them with respect as opposed to the rape and pillaging of the French armies ?
I think this was the same as Henry V's armies in France- he treated the local population with dignity and respect and hung any of his men who looted- as seen in the play Henry V so that if he conquered France hed have a lyal population.
Of course I may be talking b*ll*cks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
And of course you could make a demand for unit lend from an ally and an enemy could borrow from his allies. This would make a small faction with strong allies more dangerous than isolated great powers.
Prodigal
11-14-2002, 15:44
Great ideas. The engine's already in place I imagine, at least in part, as crusaders passing through byzant country pillage an amount every year, so why not just expand it a little? The ability to request aid from allies is another goody too imho.
Hey Guys,
Edratman, the point of the English attrition against the French, where they would Sack a region, plunder it's resources and leave, returning to England with the goods, denying the French of their income is a good one.
However, they were at war. They didn't enter France on the premise of being allies. Armies of this time did have supplies and didn't have to resort to Sacking the local populace for goods (though, of course, history teaches that due to low supply levels or greed, they did sometimes pillage).
A few posts back, someone mentioned that people might "abuse" this "Peaceful Passage" and use it to march an army halfway accross the map. This would not be right at all. The Financial Penalty for Peaceful Passage should be significant (though not unobtainable). It should only only be an available option for Defence, not attack.
Finally, if Armies cannot pass peacefully because of their uncontrollable urge to pillage the local populace, there is a flaw with the existence of Mercenaries in the game, and the building of Inns should be banned.
(tongue in cheek, that last one)
Azrael
ToranagaSama
11-14-2002, 15:52
Quote[/b] (Inferno @ Nov. 13 2002,09:51)]A) Historical facts are totally irrelevant. MTW is a game based loosely on a historical time period, it is not meant to be true to history, nor is it.
B) If countries are ALLIES, why should they not allow the other's troops through, especially if they are intending to attack a common enemy?
As the vocal support for this idea is greater than the vocal dissent, surely you should provide reasoning for its non-inclusion, rather than us trying to persuade you?
(Edit >> Spelling)
Ok, Mr. Vocal Minority http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ,
I'd vote for Pass-Thru, ONLY if the passing army is allowed to ATTACK and Take the province it is allegedly passing through.
This way the Sucker, who allowed the Pass-Thru, would get his just desserts (somebody spell that word for me!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
How's that?? Now you've got your pass-thru, but who'd allow it?
--------
TS wants his C-MP
Edratman
11-14-2002, 16:38
Monkian
You are correct about the Spanish during the Peninsular war. The French looted Spain for supplies and the Spanish viewed the French as occupiers and the government was a French puppet so the people fought them on a local level, which was termed the "small war", hence the word "guerrilla" which is the spanish word for that term. The French were very cruel in their occupation and Wellington tried to make sure his forces were not. He did that in India also so it was a philosphy of his, not a situational adjustment.
As for Shakespeare, I'll have to admit to all but zero knowledge, so I'll defer to you. But trying to not make enemies out of the people of an occupied territory makes a lot of sense. Although I also think that was not very common at any time in the history of conflict.
I don't demand or expect pure historical accuracy in a game, but I do enjoy incorporation of some historical and accurate human emulation in it. So all the posts about the accuracy of the sovergnity or size of various areas seem a bit pedantic to me. It is only a game first and last. So I smile and enjoy (and curse) such facets as the routing of low moral or poorly led troops, even if they are mine.
The diplomatic aspects of this game are its only shortcoming in my opinion. As has been often posted, EU was much better in this regard. On the other hand, I did not have anywhere as much fun playing EU and ended up only playing it for a short time. I have a lot of fun playing MTW and while I could wish for perfection, I am very happy with the game.
To be honest I've learned msot about the Napoleonic wars through the Tv series Sharpe- based on Bernard Cornwall's novels http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Edratman
11-14-2002, 17:19
Monkian
I got a lot of mine from reading the Sharpe books myself, but I am a history buff and have read extensively on all eras.
I've not seen the TV series, but I highly recommend the books. I have read all of them several times, great writer, superb historical background and Sharpe is a wonderfully balanced character, heoric, and flawed. The principles on the conduct of warfare conducted around 1800 are quite applicable to MTW.
The Sharpe series is out on Region 2 DVD and is very good.
Sharpe is played by Sean Bean.
try www.play.com if you're interested http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Edratman
11-14-2002, 18:02
There is a Cromwell novel that is from the era of MTW. I think it is called "Archer" and the hero is a English longbow man. Interesting and applicable book.
Cool, I'll check it out.
Heres hoping for Napoleon- Total War http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
there are two bernard coenwall books in the mtw eara:
1. harlequin
2. renegade
they are part of a series called the grail quest
(got them both) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Prodigal
11-15-2002, 14:39
Quote[/b] (Edratman @ Nov. 14 2002,11:02)]There is a Cromwell novel that is from the era of MTW. I think it is called "Archer" and the hero is a English longbow man. Interesting and applicable book.
It's Bernard Cormwell & it's the first of the Grail Quest series, the first is only called Archer in the US apparently. The second ones just come out, can't remeber the name.
If you like that stuff, read the arthur trilogy, some of the best damn books I've ever read.
Winter King
Enemy of God
Excalibur
i agree http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I've read Winter King- Very, very good- brings out the Celt in me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.