A thought on independent cities

[Hildico]

I've been playing mostly as the Greeks and one of the most obvious new features of this mod is the way relations with independent cities have been represented. When someone attacks a free Hellenic city like Sinope or Thermon you automatically end up at war with the aggressor as your people demand you come to the aid of poor oppressed Greeks, wherever they may be. This is one of my favourite features of EB and one which I would like to see built on.

What seems to be missing to me are events if the opposite happens. If I attack one of these cities, surely my citizens would get upset. If they're so worried about the freedoms of these people, they don't want to see my army killing their men, enslaving their women, burning their farms etc. Could this not also be represented by some sort of scripted event? Perhaps riots in some cities, or a small rebellion somewhere, some bad traits for my leader, some sort of economic hit....?

They way things are set up at the moment the following sequence of events is perfectly possible:
1. Epirus attacks Thermon, angering my people, who demand I do something to counter this unfounded aggression.
2. Bowing to public pressure I eventually send an army to relieve Thermon and save our Hellenic brothers.
3. Having seen off Epirus, I notice that the garrison in Thermon has been weakened by the long siege, storm the city and slaughter everyone inside it.
4. Back home, my people hail me as an all conquering hero.

Am I the only one who sees an inconsistency there?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Help us think about some appropriate effects then within the reality of what the system can do and we would definitely think about it.

[Geoffrey S]

Perhaps you're 'just there temporarily to help the city back on its feet'?

[NightStar]

You were justing guiding a stray city back into your protection.....Your people would have thought it a crime if one of the hellenic cities would have fallen to Epeiros

[Divinus Arma]

The question would be:

"How do we peacefully incorporate allied free cities into our empire without violence or bribery?"


The answer would be:


https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1027241&postcount=22

[jebes]

OK, I have seen that WAY TOO many times today.

****(gouges eyes out)****

[Malrubius]

Geoffrey_S and NightStar are right on target. You shouldn't slaughter the citizens, though. Bad form! I guess I could have a Hellenic general who exterminates one of these cities get some trait like "Despised" or something. You could get around this, of course, but not much we can do about that. I'd punish the faction leader if I could, but I can't. :no:

[mattholomew]

isn't there some way to give control of a free city to an ai faction through scripting?

[LorDBulA]

Nope. Unfortunetly we can only give cities to player.

[Magnificant me]

any way that you could send that city into a political and economical hole. that way you could take the city and have to deal with the drain on your funds and the political unrest in that particular city, i don't know if, or how, you could do that but that would make cense to me, what with this city being indipendant befor you managed to fix that little isue and then your own people being all pissed about you takeing it and opressing them and all that could cause the city to not be very profitable for some time but still is a signifigant cosst.

[Divinus Arma]

any way that you could send that city into a political and economical hole. that way you could take the city and have to deal with the drain on your funds and the political unrest in that particular city, i don't know if, or how, you could do that but that would make cense to me, what with this city being indipendant befor you managed to fix that little isue and then your own people being all pissed about you takeing it and opressing them and all that could cause the city to not be very profitable for some time but still is a signifigant cosst.

All rebels, slaves, and brigands share the same "treasury". We are unable to make one city desperate for money while making another city rich. I suppose you could increase unrest, but the problem is that unrest in rebel cities ultimately leads to a second rebellion to a faction it most closely identifies with.

Your concept of political unrest with an ultimate defection to a certain faction, by itself, is not such a bad idea. I suppose, and the talent may corect me here if I am wrong, that unrest could occur through the scripted destruction or addition of a building within a city. The resulting destruction or addition itself would cause such a change in unrest that the city ultimately defects to the player or other faction.... hmmm. Interesting.

So, therefore, say, Thermon is attacked by Epirus, and the KH send a force to relieve it. I believe that the expulsion of Epirus (via battle or not) and the presence of KH (within a monitored map tile radius) could cause a scripted (but invisible to the player) event to occur within the city where such-and-such building is added or destroyed, resulting in severe unrest and then defection to KH. Of course, if the player never sends an army, then the conditions are never met and the city never defects.

The_Mark? What say you, oh scripting genius?

[Hildico]

Help us think about some appropriate effects then within the reality of what the system can do and we would definitely think about it.

How about a trait given to the general who attacks an independent, but "sort of allied city" (like Thermon or Sinope for KH) which reduces the morale of his troops, who don't want to fight their own people, and/or an increase in unrest to any city he governs. It could be called "Attacks his own" or something similar.

I think unrest or a small rebellion in the "home city" (I can't remember that clearly but wasn't Sinope linked to Athens) would also add flavour. If, somehow, KH could get to Sinope before Pontus and attack the city I would expect the Athenian people to be outraged. After all they force you into war with any other aggressor.

If possible I'd suggest that whatever negative effect would be applied only to a player controlled faction (from what I've seen the AI needs help rather than more obstacles to overcome).

Bear in mind that I have little idea about how scripting works and therefore what the limits of what's possible are. All I can do is mention a few ideas (not necessarily all thought through) as starting points for discussion or, if they're any good, future development

[Malrubius]

How about a trait given to the general who attacks an independent, but "sort of allied city" (like Thermon or Sinope for KH) which reduces the morale of his troops, who don't want to fight their own people, and/or an increase in unrest to any city he governs. It could be called "Attacks his own" or something similar.

I think it's possible and maybe even historically supported to have a general receive a negative trait for exterminating certain cities like this.


I think unrest or a small rebellion in the "home city" (I can't remember that clearly but wasn't Sinope linked to Athens) would also add flavour. If, somehow, KH could get to Sinope before Pontus and attack the city I would expect the Athenian people to be outraged. After all they force you into war with any other aggressor.

Not sure if this is possible or how feasible it would be. (I know traiting, but not scripting!).



If possible I'd suggest that whatever negative effect would be applied only to a player controlled faction (from what I've seen the AI needs help rather than more obstacles to overcome).

Definitely!



Bear in mind that I have little idea about how scripting works and therefore what the limits of what's possible are. All I can do is mention a few ideas (not necessarily all thought through) as starting points for discussion or, if they're any good, future development

Sure, thanks for the suggestions, everybody!

[paullus]

Of course, you can also view the conquest of one of the independent "allied" cities as an action against what had been the ruling faction in the city, and in support of a suppressed faction within the city with strong ties to your people. This especially makes sense with government types 3 or 4, where the new rulers would be the suppressed faction. I mean, that was how a lot of attempts at conquest worked back then.

The only problem would be if you massacred the inhabitants (which also occasionally happened when it shouldn't have)...then a negative trait would be quite a nice reminder to the player that an error had been made.

[Hildico]

I have a fairly strong hunch that the answer to this question will be no, but I'll ask anyway.

Can the traits that reduce/increase bribe costs be directed towards a particular faction? Ie. if the leader of a certain city historically had sympathy or emnity towards a certain culture they could have a trait that gives a % reduction/increase to the cost of a bribe if the offer comes from the relevant faction.

This might make it more possible for a KH player to add Thermon, say, to his faction peacefully. Even if this is possible, care would clearly have to be taken to avoid it being too easy to bribe these cities.

[Malrubius]

I have a fairly strong hunch that the answer to this question will be no, but I'll ask anyway.

Your hunch is right.

[ScionTheWorm]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1027241&postcount=22
:hide:

[King of the dutch]

What seems to be missing to me are events if the opposite happens. If I attack one of these cities, surely my citizens would get upset. If they're so worried about the freedoms of these people, they don't want to see my army killing their men, enslaving their women, burning their farms etc.

Why would they not? I've been reading Polybius and Plutarch lately and well, you would be hailed as a hero! You're citizens might actually 'ask' you to go there and kick some tyrranical/aristocratic butt. (or democratic for that matter). If you see it as a city with a tyrant (which al good greeks should despise) you're a good, industrious, virtuous greek.

They way things are set up at the moment the following sequence of events is perfectly possible:
1. Epirus attacks Thermon, angering my people, who demand I do something to counter this unfounded aggression.
2. Bowing to public pressure I eventually send an army to relieve Thermon and save our Hellenic brothers.
3. Having seen off Epirus, I notice that the garrison in Thermon has been weakened by the long siege, storm the city and slaughter everyone inside it.
4. Back home, my people hail me as an all conquering hero.

Am I the only one who sees an inconsistency there?

No here you have a point. If you exterminate everubody thats not the way to do it. You should occupy them. (altough selling into slavery could mean to root out the rival party or the tyrant's supporters).

You present an interesting idea though. But i think the game is a little bit to limited to allow for such a diversity in possibilities. Till that time if you think of it as you being a hero restoring power to the people or whatever (and at the same time incorporating them in you're League/ alliance) it is perfectly oke (and historicaly valid)

:2thumbsup:

[Hildico]

No here you have a point. If you exterminate everubody thats not the way to do it. You should occupy them. (altough selling into slavery could mean to root out the rival party or the tyrant's supporters).

:2thumbsup:

I'm beginning to think I should have made no mention of exterminating populations. This seems to have been focussed on by quite a few people in this thread but is deflecting away from the issue I was trying to highlight. I'm pretty sure you can already get negative traits for that sort of behaviour anyway.

My point was that perhaps there should be some fallout from attacking a neutral city that your people want you to support. The way I interpret the scripted events putting the Greeks at war with anyone who attacks an Hellenic city is that it represents political pressure from the populace. Either my leader declares war or a mob burns down his palace and strings him up from the nearest tree. I just think that the same mob probably doesn't want me declaring war on these same cities. Any mention of exterminating cities was just stretching the point in an attempt to make the inconsistency clearer.

The biggest flaws with the implementation of independent cities all stem from what CA have given modders to work with- limited diplomatic interaction with "rebels", a faction cap which means independents can never be fully represented and the fact that if you want to add a city to your empire the only available options are to bribe or to invade. Unless the EB team have some strokes of absolute genius hidden away to solve these, anything that can be done is more a workaround than a solution. Mind you, some of the workarounds have been pretty impressive

If the sort of things I've suggested can't be implented then so be it, but if you don't ask you don't get! Some things have already been implemented in EB and other mods that I would never have thought possible when I first bought the game so when I have little ideas I'll probably keep posting them just on the off chance that they are possible (and worth doing.)

[King of the dutch]

I am sorry i misinterpreted you. Maybe a solution would be to have scripts that 'declare' an independent city 'worthy of conquering'. For instance a messag 'coming from an independent city stating they have been taken over by a tyrant wich would entitle you to conquer them without a negative trait (assuming that would happen which was what you were pointing at right?). Yo could even get a positive trait then for doing that. Conqering the city without such a message might otherwise result in negativepublic order bonuses or if possibel a tyrant like trait for that city (meaning revolts would occur when the conquering general would govern that city). Is this closer to what you were saying and maybe even a valid option?

grtz kotd

[Malrubius]

The game lets you get a city in 3 ways: conquest, bribery, and diplomacy with the faction. Not much we can do about this. Historically, bribing a whole city was not too common. More common was coercion through display of force or intimidation, rather than outright battle. Perhaps you can think of bribery as consisting of such coercion and threats.

The way I think of these battles over allied cities is that you are fighting one internal faction trying to take over control of the city. You establish your own rule in its place (especially dependent on the type of government you install, which can be very lax and lenient). You're not defeating the city and all its inhabitants, just one political faction.

[Geoffrey S]

The game lets you get a city in 3 ways: conquest, bribery, and diplomacy with the faction. Not much we can do about this. Historically, bribing a whole city was not too common. More common was coercion through display of force or intimidation, rather than outright battle. Perhaps you can think of bribery as consisting of such coercion and threats.
I tend to think of bribing a city, and the cost thereof as representing the cost to convince a small amount of people to let in troops, vote for foreign access to the city, assassinating the leading opposition or any number of such things along those lines. Not the actual cost of convincing the entire population; this'd be why the cost rises when a loyal faction governor is present, since he'd make it harder to convince the local government or disaffected elements to overplay their hands. Paying him would cost more, yet once he was on your side the rest would swiftly follow.

It's either logical if you think about it, or I'm over-analyzing. :dizzy2:

[Malrubius]

Good explanation. This is just a computer game, so you have to fill in the gaps with your imagination sometimes.

[Geoffrey S]

And one of the best things about EB is that you now have to do less of that yourself, particularly with regards to the fascinating development of generals. :2thumbsup:

[Hildico]

I agree with the idea of bribing representing different things. Other suggestions could be preferential trade rights, paying for the upkeep of some troops out in the province to help law enforcement, funding of civic programmes like building a new temple or whatever, all in exchange for closer political ties. If you're role-playing it this way you might limit yourself to installing an allied state type government.

The only problem right now is that there are no real consequences to doing something "out of character" to continue the RPG analogy. I wouldn't want anything game-breaking, just enough to give the player pause for thought. I try to play "in character" but every now and then I'll crack and do something that works well from a game point of view even if the "character" I'm playing wouldn't do it. This makes me feel guilty and Ithink that, perhaps, this guilt could be felt by my generals as well

Anything that adds a little bit of political complexity on top of the somewhat crude and simplistic system given to us by CA is at least worth a look in my opinion

[The_Mark]

Nope. Unfortunetly we can only give cities to player.
Actually, we can, with:
console_command control x
console_command capture_settlement y
console_command control z

But, we don't know how it affects AI.

[Hildico]

I am sorry i misinterpreted you. Maybe a solution would be to have scripts that 'declare' an independent city 'worthy of conquering'. For instance a messag 'coming from an independent city stating they have been taken over by a tyrant wich would entitle you to conquer them without a negative trait (assuming that would happen which was what you were pointing at right?). Yo could even get a positive trait then for doing that. Conqering the city without such a message might otherwise result in negativepublic order bonuses or if possibel a tyrant like trait for that city (meaning revolts would occur when the conquering general would govern that city). Is this closer to what you were saying and maybe even a valid option?

grtz kotd

Yes, That's the sort of thing I was thinking about. Whether it's possible to implement is a completely different question, though. I think the Greeks already get positive traits for capturing cities like Korinth or Thermon. It might be interesting if these traits depended on whether or not the people there actually wanted to be "liberated."

[Malrubius]

The only problem right now is that there are no real consequences to doing something "out of character" to continue the RPG analogy. I wouldn't want anything game-breaking, just enough to give the player pause for thought. I try to play "in character" but every now and then I'll crack and do something that works well from a game point of view even if the "character" I'm playing wouldn't do it. This makes me feel guilty and Ithink that, perhaps, this guilt could be felt by my generals as well


See my progress meter? There's a reason it's at 45%. I have a huge backlog of ideas and things yet to be coded. :sweatdrop:

[Tanit]

If you think about it, this also addresses anohter important issue which I already had a problem with. In the game, the best way to take over a city was extermination, it got you denarii and it was what made the people happiest. slavery was an alright option, some gold, some population and a little happy. But occupation was the worst! no gold, no extra population and very unhappy people. Just like this issue show, the whole city conquering process should be a little more complicated. it should depend on how similar your faction is to theirs as well as how similar the government of your capitol is to theirs. Exterminating should be the best option for say, Rome to barbarians but occupation should be a reasonable option for one successor/Greek nation conquering another.

[Ad Dei Majora Gloriam]

The game lets you get a city in 3 ways: conquest, bribery, and diplomacy with the faction. Not much we can do about this. Historically, bribing a whole city was not too common. More common was coercion through display of force or intimidation, rather than outright battle. Perhaps you can think of bribery as consisting of such coercion and threats.


Let me just start by saying hi :2thumbsup:

Anyway, I agree with Malrubius in that military intimidation went a long way in making a bribe feasible, but I was wondering if it were possible to increase the chance of a successful bribing attempt (taking into account the skill of the diplomat, of course) or to reduce the cost of the attempt based on the number of troops in the enemy province (i.e. military presence).

Not sure if what CA has given the modders can do this but it'd be cool if it were possible...

[Malrubius]

Let me just start by saying hi :2thumbsup:

Anyway, I agree with Malrubius in that military intimidation went a long way in making a bribe feasible, but I was wondering if it were possible to increase the chance of a successful bribing attempt (taking into account the skill of the diplomat, of course) or to reduce the cost of the attempt based on the number of troops in the enemy province (i.e. military presence).

Not sure if what CA has given the modders can do this but it'd be cool if it were possible...

Welcome to the Org ~:wave:

The skill of the diplomat has no effect on bribe effectiveness, from what I can tell. I think bribery cost of settlements and armies is tied to their recruitment cost.

[QwertyMIDX]

Yeah, I tested this earlier, it's some hardcoded relation to the cost of the unit.