Realism versus Playability/Complication in TW

[DensterNY]

Although there is already so much covered in the TW games in terms of playing dynamics would you welcome more details and do you think that it would make it more enjoyable?

For example, one of the biggest obstacles to an advancing army is feeding this mass of men. Most armies had supply trains running to and from its supportive cities, plus hunters and foragers that supplemented their food stocks. Do you think you would enjoy this game if armies marching outside of their borders had to maintain a supply train that could be intercepted or interrupted by raiders?

I know it would be frustrating but imagine having to keep that in mind when moving your troops and perhaps when your food stocks have diminished you see morale dropping as well as desertion, similar to men undergoing a siege.

For this reason many armies marched during harvest seasons to forage crops from lands that they pass through. In response opposing enemies or civilians would burn or salt over fields to deny armies sustenance and to hopefully slow them down or turn them around. The Romans were particularly noted for their scorch the Earch tactics. So would you like to have this option in TW? To damage a city and its area's farmland so that its populace is restriced and secondly its more difficult for an army to feed off that area?

[rvg]

It's actually been done quite well in an old, OLD (1994 I believe) game called Lords of the Realm. There the army could destroy the countryside, but at the same time, if the province had no food, the army would starve.

Come to think of it, I think that was the first game that kept track of unit morale and introduced the possibility of routes in combat.

So, to answer your question, yes, it can and should be done.

[petertmorgan]

I agree that this is an issue of realism versus playability, but in several ways there is already some realism in this area.

First, at the end of a turn, each province is controlled by exactly one faction, so presumably could control production/etc. The only time another factions units are at the end of a turn in a province not controlled by them is 1) units inside a besieged fortification or 2) a crusading army passing through. In the first case the units inside the fortification would have a minor impact on what goes on outside, and in the second case desertion versus accretion is already built into the rules.

Second, you can always destroy buildings and raze farm improvements (at least to a point), you just don't have the option to do it as you're retreating from battle - it takes some foresight.

Third, loyalty (i.e. control of the province without rebellion) seems to be determined in part by distance and connectivity, so in a way the flexibility of supply and communication is important in control.

The size of the armies in MTW is also small enough compared to the size/productivity of the provinces that, if you accept the small size of the armies, then the stress on the countryside would be rather small... Of course who said the size of the armies was realistic ;-)

[Templar Knight]

Knights of Honor has food levels for your armies, you can also burn villages and monasteries etc, it would be great if something similar could be implemented. One thing I loved in Lords of the Realm 2 was the ability to burn your enemies fields which would draw out his army from his castle. :san_cool:

[Ciaran]

Knights of Honor has a lot of nice features that would fit well into the TW games, sadly it lacks in the battles. Combining the TW battles with the KoH strategic part, now that would be nice.

[Ludens]

On the battlefield the game is already detailed enough, but on the campaignmap I think more details would improve the game. My pet pieve is the espionage system: micromanaging 100 spies and checking every turn whether they have died or not gets so boring. Instead, I would like to have some sort of menu where you can set specific amount of money for home defence, infiltration of certain factions and sabotage. The problem is getting the A.I. to use it properly (c.f. diplomacy).

A supply system is indeed a good idea, but how would you implement it?