Movement allowance

[Jaywalker-Jack]

Some ancient 'yardstick': Sardis - Sousa : ~3 months' journey.

Or in our language, one EB turn :inquisitive:


...army movement rates are kept low in order to prevent "teleporting", that is, going from one point to another without a blockading army being able to interfere.

Could it be possible to increase the "red area" blockaded by a stationary army, and thus allow more movement points without letting people teleport?

The only drawback to EB's region based recruiment system, IMO, is that it can be tough to get your favourite units to see action very often. Increasing movement allowance could solve this problem.
If not land armies, I think at least fleets should be given a boost.
Any thoughts on this?

[Parallel Pain]

It wouldn't make a difference even if you increase the block area unless the diameter of the block area is increased to effectively mmmmmmmmm the width of the Italian Peninsular or more.

The block area might be hardcoded. If it's not, then I'd like to see the idea tested.

[Jaywalker-Jack]

the width of the Italian Peninsular or more.


That would be realistic when you think about it, we're talking about the area within which an army could intercept an invader within a 3 month period.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The entire idea of 'blockading' isn't too terribly realistic either, though. Lot's of campaigns mainly revolved around a sort of dance whereby everybody tried to manoeuver in such a way he'd had the battlefield of his choice; or rather had as little to do with a battlefield as possible. (Whilst still achieving campaigning objectives...)

[Parallel Pain]

That of course would be most realistic. However with a turn based game that's not really possible

[konny]

That would be realistic when you think about it, we're talking about the area within which an army could intercept an invader within a 3 month period.

In this case you wouldn't be able to move anywhere because every army (including spawned 1-unit rebells) within three provinces distance would block you from leaving your cities. Even worse: the towns in rebell or hostile provinces would make it impossible for you to move.

The better sollution would be to reduce the real time per turn to a level where it matches with the movement allowance. But in this case the game would last several thousand turns.

[Parallel Pain]

Good point.

[Jaywalker-Jack]

The entire idea of 'blockading' isn't too terribly realistic either, though. Lot's of campaigns mainly revolved around a sort of dance whereby everybody tried to manoeuver in such a way he'd had the battlefield of his choice

Well while the manoeuvering can't be represented in game, you can still take it that it happened, and the end result is the battle made inevitable by the blockading system.


In this case you wouldn't be able to move anywhere because every army (including spawned 1-unit rebells) within three provinces distance would block you from leaving your cities. Even worse: the towns in rebell or hostile provinces would make it impossible for you to move.

There could be ways around this. Maybe garrisoned troops would have less movement points, an army outside a city treated as being readied for marching.
There's also the option of reducing the frequency of rebel scum.
Even without these solutions, it would only mean you would be forced to fight battles when crossing hostile territory, which is'nt exactly unrealistic.


The better sollution would be to reduce the real time per turn to a level where it matches with the movement allowance. But in this case the game would last several thousand turns.

While this would allow the realism, it wouldn't give the fun-factor of getting your favorite troops to the frontline quickly. Also as you say, it's probably impractical to allow that many turns.

[The_Mark]

The block area might be hardcoded.
Ding!

Though, this would be doable:

Maybe garrisoned troops would have less movement points, an army outside a city treated as being readied for marching.
I'd just set it so that troops in hostile territories would move at, dunno, half the speed compared to those on friendly territory - that could make for a working mechanic, making offensives much more risky. Dunno how it'd relate steppe cavalry armies though, not to mention EB itself.

[Cambyses]

Well, more intelligent AI behaviour in both strategic and battle map positioning would also work to reduce ease of movement in hostile territories (ie blocking rivers properly, using holding forces in forts to slow down and distract human controlled armies so re-inforcements can be brought up etc)

But then again all that sort of thing starts to turn EB into a different game. At the end of the day its about conquering settlements in a turn based format. New players at least wont want to be overly concerned with logistics, skirmishing or armies dancing out of sync to find / avoid the perfect battleground.

To realistically demonstrate the effects of long campaigns in enemy lands through attrition to supplies, animals and equipment, how to overcome enemy forces using scorched earth defences or numerous small forts perched at the top of cliffs while still retaining a proper supply line etc etc. That's not Total War anymore. Its a credit to the EB guys that this mod is as realistic as it is, but I dont think in depth campaigning or regional control can ever be accurately represented in this game.

[Jaywalker-Jack]

I'd just set it so that troops in hostile territories would move at, dunno, half the speed compared to those on friendly territory - that could make for a working mechanic, making offensives much more risky.

That's interesting, just boosting movement points on home turf...:yes:
It'd allow quick movement of cool units from distant recruitment pools, without upsetting the way the game works.
Also, on hostile ground, it would make sense for an army to move more slowly. Caution, the need to pillage supplies or protect a supply train, and so on.

Think Baktria - imagine youve conquered all the way from India to Syria, and you'd love to try out those Indo-Greek units on the western front. No problem. For anyone who might read this and attack me, remember, covering that kind of distance in just a turn or two is realistic.


How likely are we to see something like this included in the future?

[pezhetairoi]

If we could find some way to make the AI distinguish between friendly and hostile territory (as it appears it already can since there is the Rationing trait) the way it does different terrain types (road, wilderness, fertile plains, etc), why not?

[cmacq]

Ding!
I'd just set it so that troops in hostile territories would move at, dunno, half the speed compared to those on friendly territory - that could make for a working mechanic, making offensives much more risky. Dunno how it'd relate steppe cavalry armies though, not to mention EB itself.


Brilliant idea.

Have you another for naval movement, as well?

[pezhetairoi]

I wonder if it's possible to relate the tiles directly offshore of provincial shorelines, such that if, say, you owned Segesta and Arretium but not Massilia, you would be able to sail very fast (more than the standard coastal rate) from Roma to Segesta, but to go from Segesta to Tolosa would be at half speed or less because the coastline (and thus the safe anchorages, water supplies and victuals etc) would be owned by the enemy. Unless the enemy has a military access treaty with you.

Then that way, the scripted relations (like Massilia being an ally of Rome, Bosphorus being allied to Pontos) would be also used to reflect accessibility.

As I see it, the most farfetched part of the idea is the military access one. I think diplomacy is hardcoded, so. But yes, differentiating the coastal tiles according to faction also could be possible. Is it? Or is the sea untouchable?

[Ludens]

If we could find some way to make the AI distinguish between friendly and hostile territory (as it appears it already can since there is the Rationing trait) the way it does different terrain types (road, wilderness, fertile plains, etc), why not?
The A.I. certainly does not seem to understand the rationing trait. I've seen A.I. stacks starve because they refused to move two tiles to friendly territory. However, I do like this idea. I rather doubt the A.I. would understand that movement is slower in enemy territory, but since the A.I. generally is not interested in campaigns beyond its direct border provinces I don't think this would be a problem.

[The_Mark]

Alas, again, we're constrained within the limits set by general relativity: c, the speed of captains, is a constant - we can adjust the generals' move speeds only relative to the captains. Most often our generals are tachyons, but when their speed drops below c, the player/AI can just ditch the general to have the movement allowance of the army boosted again. Though, seeing that the AI mostly uses captain-led stacks in any case, it wouldn't hugely deteriorate AI behaviour, as long as c is defined to be within reasonable limits. (I think we can alter c in some configurations file, but it's still a constant unaffected by traits)

It could still work, though.


Have you another for naval movement, as well?
Nope.

[Theodotos I]

Ding!

Though, this would be doable:

I'd just set it so that troops in hostile territories would move at, dunno, half the speed compared to those on friendly territory - that could make for a working mechanic, making offensives much more risky. Dunno how it'd relate steppe cavalry armies though, not to mention EB itself.
Didn't I read somewhere that they had already done this for agents? If so, maybe it's a possibility. Certainly, EB is already long enough without adding turns to it. :yes:

[pezhetairoi]

No, they increased the constant speed for agents. But the agents don't move any slower in hostile as opposed to friendly territory. The speed variation lies in terrain differences which are independent of ownership. What we're trying to do is get the AI to recognise ownership...