Viking Raiding

[kaosgto]

I am new here, so if I am repeating a topic, my apologies. I spent a while digging through some posts, but didn't find what I was looking for.

I have been playing the Viking expansion for a while, but only today decided to try out the Vikings themselves. I am simply baffled by one seemingly huge design oversight that makes me loath to play the Vikings, or any other sea faring people. They invade a province, and in the case of the Vikings, they do so for money. But as soon as the battle ends, they very nearly ALWAYS destroy any port that was present. The only way to leave is if a port is present?? Historically, the Vikings usually left... they didn't stick around to build a dock so they COULD leave. This has to be the dumbest thing I have run across in this game. Why am I not given the choice (and associated gold to be gained) of what buildings to sack? In addition, in the rare case I chose to invade and hold a province, why do I destroy anything? Collateral damage I can understand, but destroying 60-70% of an area's infrastructure doesn't make sense economically, militarily, or any other way. Give me the choice

Are there any plans to fix this via a patch?

Other than the time it takes to play, the game is generally fun. However, I no longer consider raiding a useful tool, unless I have soem outdated troops that don't mind suicide as a means of gathering coin for their King. Silly... just plain silly.

[Gregoshi]

Welcome to the Org kaosgto. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

You are missing the key advantage of being the Vikings - they don't need a port to move troops around. As long as there is a Viking ship next to the non-port province that has Viking units, those units can hop on the ships and go wherever the Viking ships have a presence. Having a port is only an issue for the movement of Viking agents such as emissaries, assassins, etc.

[Urban Legend]

Page 9 of the manual.

The first manual is huge, but the expansion manual is tiny.

[kaosgto]

RTFM http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Sorry about missing the Viking port reference in the manual. That does not really fix the rather arbitrary and silly building destruction phase of an invasion though. I will, however, give the Vikings another try... see if I can turn all of Britain into Neutral held territory.

[khurjan]

hehe you going to enjoy playing vikings brings out the lil a viking in us all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (kaosgto @ July 07 2003,07:25)]RTFM http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Sorry about missing the Viking port reference in the manual. That does not really fix the rather arbitrary and silly building destruction phase of an invasion though. I will, however, give the Vikings another try... see if I can turn all of Britain into Neutral held territory.
Hi there, methinks you're missing the point of playing the Vikings again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif You're supposed to be an invader, pillager and marauder. Therefore, your economy is based on destroying abbeys, ports and anything else in order to gain money. It's rather essential during the first phase of that campaign. Later on you can try to keep the provinces you conquer, but at first, just live off what others build for you.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[kataphraktoi]

Viking Invasions = Hit and Run
Damage as much as you can and get out - remember the Vikings weren't rich people, the only means to survive was to loot and raid other people's territory - a good viking destroys as much as possible for what else - BOOTY.

And besides, if you want historicity, the Vikings raided first, asked questions later and decided to settle after those questions.

[kaosgto]

I am no longer referring simply to the Vikings. Even in the normal game, buildings are destroyed in an arbitrary fashion. This may indeed make sense for the Vikings, whose goal was plunder not expansion. But the same destruction happens even when anyone invades a province. Some damage is to be expected, but usually battles do not take place in the economic heart of an area... except for seiges perhaps. Destroying farms seems somewhat logical, as armies often strip an area to feed themselves.

As an example, when the Picts reclaim Scottish-held territory, what good does it do them to destroy anything? All they have done is seriously de-value the area they just reclaimed. Even in seiges, fortified areas were never completely destroyed, as the invader often needed them to secure the conquered area.

I am not simply looking for historic accuracy... it just simply does not make sense why this destruction is arbitrary. A simple post-battle menu for razing structures listing the gold gained for each would be highly useful. They probably won't ever patch something like that in though.

[Gregoshi]

Actually, there is a logic to the buildings destroyed.

As I recall, when you conquer a province, the castle gets downgraded one level. If a building in the province requires a certain level of castle and the downgraded castle is now below that required level, the building is then destroyed.

However, if a building has an upgrade that requires a certain castle level, then when the castle is downgraded, the upgrade is lost, i.e., the building is damaged. An example of this is the spearmaker upgraded to a spearmaker's workshop. The workshop requires a Keep. If the province is conquered, the Keep is downgraded to a Fort. Therefore, the spearmaker's workshop is damaged to become a plain old spearmaker.

If I messed up that explanation, somebody please correct me.

[Red Harvest]

One of the developers commented on arbitrary building destruction with VI: it is not a bug, it is intentional. Now buildings might degrade by one level, no levels, or several levels. This differs from MTW where the castle degraded one levle. It is now random and only happens after the siege ends (or enemy abandons the province.) Vikings destroy churches/abbeys just by invading, but must siege to destroy more.

[bighairyman]

does destorying the buildings in the battlefield bring in money for the vikings or anybody else http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[Oaty]

Historically armies would leave many of the structures in tact if the enemy showed no resistance. If the battle was short and the siege short or a compromise was made between the armies or factions and a minimal amount of structures was damaged. Now as if it was a long battle and long siege the pillaging would just be devastating probably due to the fact the sieging army is weakened by your forces and in a long siege you have to worry about a reinforcing army to come so much was done to cripple the local populace if a retreat was required that areas local economy would be devastated. And the fact if they took astronmical casualties to claim that province it was typical that many people lost there homes to pillaging to make a statement that resistance is feudal

[LadyAnn]

Hi Bighair, I think it give Viking full value of the buildings, while other factions only gain 1/2 values.

Annie