Distance to Capital

[Furious Mental]

I was just thinking- does anyone know if the "distance to capital" penalty makes a return in MTW 2 and if so how strong its effect is? Using the same penalty as in RTW would be disastrous for Catholic factions since it would make crusading from Western Europe to the Middle East so difficult as to be not worth bothering.

[Tamur]

I haven't heard anything definite. I'd be surprised if they pulled it completely out, though they have said they've done some significant work to make it more difficult to hold together a far-flung empire. This may mean a completely different system for determining public order problems, or mean another layer on top of the distance-to-capital/buildings/unrest/etc model from Rome. I guess we'll see.

[Darth Nihilus]

Logically it has to have been changed or the game would be near impossible. The distance to capital penalty in RTW was pretty harsh, but with the advent of religion it really would make crusading impossible. I can't imagine it isn't changed somewhat, or else this is going to be really frustrating.

[kataphraktoi]

An ideal solution would be the creation of a new faction if the Crusade is successful with that new kingdom as a protectorate of the faction who sent the Crusade.

Too bad, there is a faction limit :(

[Encaitar]

I'd prefer to see increased corruption (a la Civ) rather than unrest for far away settlements. It got a bit rediculous at times in RTW when (due to squalor and distance-to-capital unrest) you had to have 20 units, low taxes, maxed out happy/law/health buildings, and a highly influential governor in a settlement just to keep it from rioting every damned turn.

[DukeofSerbia]

Only one thing frustrated me in RTW than DtC - squalar!:furious3:

[Bob the Insane]

It would be a real killer for New World provinces...

I never minded it that much, I mean if it was that easy to keep a large empire together Europe would be one country by now... :laugh4:

[doc_bean]

I would like it if it influenced generals more than the general population. After all, the averge person didn't care who did the exploiting, but a general half a continent away from his liege lord might get an itching for a crown himself...

[Bob the Insane]

Well as all generals have a loyalty rating now and I believe they can rebel and effectively join the rebel faction.

I wonder if distance for the capital or the King will have any influence on that? Did it in BI for the Romans?

I have always looked on the loyalty rating of a provinces (especially in MTW) as much a rating for the local elite, the provincial nobles, as it was for the population in general... In MTW at least I always pictured it as the local nobles trying their luck at independence and this is where all the knights and professional soldiers came from during the revolts...

[Barbarossa82]

It would be a real killer for New World provinces...

I never minded it that much, I mean if it was that easy to keep a large empire together Europe would be one country by now... :laugh4:

Exactly! As the American Revolutionaries told British representatives in 1776, "the Distance to Capital penalty is too high, there are twelve points of squalor in Philadelphia and that governor you sent has some terible traits" :laugh4:
Still, the fact that it makes sense historically doesn't necessarily make it good in gameplay terms. A big decrease in public order is a blunt instrument to represent the disconnection of far-flung provinces. I think the culture penalty is appropriate but squalor never made much sense and Distance to Capital could have been better represented with restricted training options and a lesser tax-raising ability. Also, many of the problems associated with far-flung empires are already represented in the game without any special implementation - the difficulty of deploying troops to defend them and maintain order, their vulnerability to enemy attack, long and dangerous journeys for governors to get there etc. An EB-style government system would have also been a good way to represent it.

[Bob the Insane]

An EB-style government system would have also been a good way to represent it.

The only proble with the culture penalty is that it is pretty easy to deal with for a rich faction unless you are capturing huge cities...

I guess this is conceptual, I mean I have have no problem with the concept that a huge city that is a large distance from the center of you empire, and was at one point taken by force, is going to be at best a simmering hotbed of separatisim...

[CaesarAugustus]

Ya i think they should bring back the 'distance to faction leader' penalty from medieval1 and get rid of the capital penalty. Not only would this be more realistic, but it wouldn't mean factions like the turks would get totally messed up if they chose to colonize the new world. (of course there's the solution of moving your capital to a more centralized region, but i like to have a historically accurate capital).

[Bob the Insane]

but it wouldn't mean factions like the turks would get totally messed up if they chose to colonize the new world. (of course there's the solution of moving your capital to a more centralized region, but i like to have a historically accurate capital).

I love a game where people can use "turks would get totally messed up if they chose to colonize the new world" and "historically accurate" in the same sentence... :2thumbsup: :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

When all generals can rebel it means that a turn by turn micro-management of generals becomes neccecary with unhappy ones either bieng shuttled back to the king, or bieng sent on suicide charges / birng placed with all the other traitors in some pit of a province to limit damage.

Possibly accurate, but hardly the most fun aspect of the game to focus on.

~:smoking:

[Polemists]

I agree on this. Historically accurate or not this made the game a nightmare after you had like 20 provinces. Not even have way through your conquest, and your cities for no explicable reason other then being far away start all having red faces.


Even that might have been acceptable but there was no way to curtail this. While it might exsist in Medieval Total War 2, I am going to hope corruption simply means I lose a certain amount of cash in various cities. Rather then having to execute entire cities every three turns. I mean honestly, far away or not how can the same group of 400 people be that stupid every 2 years? :sweatdrop:

[Sun of Chersonesos]

i hated the squalor most in RTW, the problem was that certain eastern and barbarian factions were unable to control squalor because they didn't have sewer buildings and what-not.

[rory_20_uk]

Simply adding population migration would not only alleviate this problem but also add a touch of realism.

factoring in population in the region as opposed to merely the capital would also help.

Sadly not. But I did read that the types of grass on the tactical maps have been redone - obviously a FAR better use of time :wall:

~:smoking:

[Polemists]

Ha you thought squalor was bad before,


This time we have the BLACK DEATH, as a event. Yay for plague event of doom :shame:

[Shahed]

Does anyone know what is the exact distance to capital modifier please ?

:help: :dizzy2: :inquisitive:

[zverzver]

Squalor effects of distance to capital has been rafly halved since RTW. You can see a more detailed analisis in a post "Research on compagn map" (it is sticky).

[Temujin]

DistanceToCapital appears to be capped at 80%. The only time I've had any trouble with it was in my Spanish game where I took antioch (36k inhabitants, 100% islamic) while my capital was in Leon. That one needed an extermination.


Ha you thought squalor was bad before,


This time we have the BLACK DEATH, as a event. Yay for plague event of doom :shame:
Actually, the black death reduces squalor.

Yes it does.

No, that doesn't make any sense, but it is true.

Really!

Fewer people means less squalor, even if those fewer people are living in an open, plague-infested graveyard. It's all about living space, apparently. Everything else is secondary to the medieval commoner.