2 Points for consideration

Caveat:

I am not playing EB-open beta, these comments are derivative based on thread discussions I have been perusing.


1) Gast' infantry:

These doped up maniacs strike me as correctly depicted in that many of them would have been able to continue the fight despite mortal wounds -- like a dying bear.

Do they survive after the battle? If my hoplite ran the Gast' through the belly, he may well be drugged up enough to shrug it off, kill my hoplite and 6 of his comrades, and then scream in victory over their corpses -- but he would almost certainly be dead in the next few weeks from infection. But doesn't the game have him surviving to fight in the next battle two months hence? Is there any way to address this within the framework of the engine?


2) Upkeep costs on ships:

What the game lacks -- from what I've read -- is a "trireme shed." My readings (admittedly not as focused as the design team) suggest that numerous naval factions would have trireme sheds constructed so that they could safely store and maintain their ships for use in the future, manning them at need but not building them whole cloth each time. Could such a building be developed to drastically reduce the upkeep costs of a naval unit that stayed in port for the entirety of a turn? This would allow folks to build large fleets, mobilize them for war, but then limit costs during quiet times (though of course not have them for deployment).

I also like the idea of under-armed transport ships. This would fit well since the combat ships of the med weren't really intended for transporting numbers of troops and fighting as a navy (the way the system shows it currently).


Thoughts?

Our navy building system does not have such small scale to include "trireme sheds" as separate building. It's assumed to be included in one of the larger naval ports for appropriate factions. I suppose it could be referred to in the building description, but that's about it, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Is there any way to address this within the framework of the engine?

---

Not that I know of. :no:

Some interesting points. Is there any way at all that at certain ports, the upkeep is drastically reduced if a fleet is docked there. That would be pretty effective.

We can probably script something.

I think the only way to detect the location of a fleet would be to have something checking whether the admiral is near a certain tile, for every naval port. There's not a "FleetIsDocked" condition, that I'm aware of.


Something like this (sorry for the scripting pseudocode, I'm not well-informed in this area):

Code:

---

for every possible port location for every single faction (probably only a few hundred checks):
Condition I_CharacterTypeNearTile romans_julii admiral, 1, x, y
add_money romans_julii 1000

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

We can probably script something.

---

Will you? Do you agree it's a pretty good idea and will help with the concerns over naval upkeep costs?

Would only two or three factions get access to this? What factions in our time period pulled their ships up into ship sheds to decrease the cost of keeping fleets.

Well it would be more of a gameplay enhancing deal for all factions. I don't assume there were any nations that kept their entire fleets out at sea, all the time. It doesn't necessarily have to be a ship shed, just the port itself, unless you want to just add it in the description as mentioned for certain ports I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malrubius

I think the only way to detect the location of a fleet would be to have something checking whether the admiral is near a certain tile, for every naval port. There's not a "FleetIsDocked" condition, that I'm aware of.


Something like this (sorry for the scripting pseudocode, I'm not well-informed in this area):

Code:

---

for every possible port location for every single faction (probably only a few hundred checks):
Condition I_CharacterTypeNearTile romans_julii admiral, 1, x, y
add_money romans_julii 1000

---

---

Why hasn't anyone thought of this earlier? With a bit more sophisticated code we could link upkeep to the fleets' distance from nearest docks, at least up to a certain level.

Hmm, this also brings up what may be a solution for the Militia upkeep problem. Would it possible to use an add_money script that would negate or reduce the upkeep of a militia unit when they have been in a city for one or two turns? This would represent their working in the fields and shops and still be available to repel invaders.

Is it possible to script for a unit type like that?

Deleted, The_Mark likes the idea ~;)

@jebes,
Im not sure but i think youd have to make each militia squadron a family member, why is not a totally bad idea, if you make him have a trait like "Captain of Militia" and have that trait make him infertile and everything, could it work?

I really feel sorry for the guy that writes EB's code...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jebus

I really feel sorry for the guy that writes EB's code...

---

I feel grateful and appreciative. And the whole team as well.

Quote:

---

I really feel sorry for the guy that writes EB's code...

---

Why? Its quite simple.
I must say that i like this idea. Now our historians myst say what they think about this.
Each port will get refound for only one fleet.

Quote:

---

Hmm, this also brings up what may be a solution for the Militia upkeep problem. Would it possible to use an add_money script that would negate or reduce the upkeep of a militia unit when they have been in a city for one or two turns?

---

Nope it wont work for land units. We just cant get enough info.
On sea it simple.

HEll
you know you guyz are awesome. though you are very humble. :2thumbsup:

We're getting good ideas here guys..


:idea2:

Could not this idea even be used to simulate supply lines for amies?
Could the script check if an army was on a tile owned by an enemy?
And if so, let's hypothetically say we have such a script.
When the army is in homeland provinces (type1 gov), the script would add more money.
And if the army was in one of your government type 4-5 provinces, the script could add less money than with typ1 gov.
This could reflect the attrition of going through a poorly organized (type 4-5) home-province, contrary to going through a highly organized (type 1) homeland province. And then, you could also add even less money while going through allied territory..
And going through enemy territory should naturally be very expensive. This again could be offset by a general with a "forage" trait..

See where I'm going with this? ~;) :2thumbsup:

Can we remove money from the players treasury if theyt have armies which are more than say 10 squares from one of their settlements (since all armies in the field are led by a character of some kind) to represent the difficulties of resupplying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Mark

Why hasn't anyone thought of this earlier? With a bit more sophisticated code we could link upkeep to the fleets' distance from nearest docks, at least up to a certain level.

---

Keep in mind that the AI will never associate naval cost with distance from docks. But there may be a plus/minus for each side:

Human: Knows about the cost/distance link, and so makes an effort to keep fleets as close to home ports as possible. This encourages behaviour that mirrors history, which is good. The AI will not be able to do likewise, so advantage Human.

AI: Unlike the AI, the human player is often prone to send fleets off on great voyages of exploration. In the past there was no reason not to - the cost of maintaining a Pontic fleet off the cost of Norway was the same as being in the Black Sea. Well, no longer. And since the AI typically doesn't launch long range naval explorations, advantage AI.

In sum, this idea would seem to make the game more realistic, and wouldn't unduly penalize one side over the other.

You could have it only effect the players faction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kull

Keep in mind that the AI will never associate naval cost with distance from docks. But there may be a plus/minus for each side:

Human: Knows about the cost/distance link, and so makes an effort to keep fleets as close to home ports as possible. This encourages behaviour that mirrors history, which is good. The AI will not be able to do likewise, so advantage Human.

---

Even with the Human advantage of knowing to keep fleets close to ports, it doesn't matter because the AI has the huge money advantage, so even if they have plenty of fleets all over the place, they won't take too big a hit. So technically, the AI has the overall advantage ~;) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderland

Even with the Human advantage of knowing to keep fleets close to ports, it doesn't matter because the AI has the huge money advantage, so even if they have plenty of fleets all over the place, they won't take too big a hit. So technically, the AI has the overall advantage ~;) .

---

I'm only talking about advantage in the sense of "versus the status quo". Since the AI is already getting money, that's the "as-is" state. With this change it's now likely that they will get less - or at least less in relation to the human.

I am honored to have sparked such a seemingly useful discussion.

My limited knowledge -- its been years since I read up on triremes, suggests that storage sheds were not uncommon, but that the facilities of Rhodes and Carthage (to use their English names) were the most extensive.

I love the distance idea. I always wondered about the Scythian fleets I would encounter off Carthago Nova in RTW Vanilla.

Militia unit garrison upkeep bonus can be done, to an extent, with the I_NumberUnitsInSettlement.

Supply lines: Now we're talking! Though, I'm afraid that we can't link it to government buildings in the provinces, we can certainly detect if a character is in enemy lands, but basing it on distance would probably be overly complex with the engine we have at hand. Traiting could, however, tie it to the time the general has spent in hostile territory..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Mark

Supply lines: Now we're talking! Though, I'm afraid that we can't link it to government buildings in the provinces, we can certainly detect if a character is in enemy lands, but basing it on distance would probably be overly complex with the engine we have at hand. Traiting could, however, tie it to the time the general has spent in hostile territory..

---

:bow:

Yay i finnally came up with something worth persueing, i did come up with it right? Even if someone else did i have some ideas about that

You could have a quatermaster ancillary, and alsorts of other ancillaries that could be derived from the howlong have you been in enemy territory trait, like if you took a new town or something like that after spending along time outside a city you get a "quatermaster" or something similar.

Also you could give him a trait based on what buildings were in the last town he stayed in cant you, you could say that a granary or armoury in that town dictates how good his logistics are, which could have an effect on the money he costs extra.

Seamus helped spark something potentially great.

Thanks for your ideas Seamus and Spitful. :bow:

It's always nice when fans and the community provide us with good ideas like this. ~:grouphug:

Kudos to the community for being so excellent. :2thumbsup:

You would hate me ... But still I have to say that there is one problem - in some areas plunder would be very big - in fact many wars were pure plunder which RTW is not depicting.
Making staying on enemy land very expensive won't be historical - in fact (exept some regions - forests, deserts) staying on enemy teritory should in fact give you money, not take it from you. On the other hand, in your land army needs to be fed and paid by your own men ...

also is there any posibility to give money to army winning a battle if anemy is destoyed or routs? It should be scaled to enemy army size, as it is to reflect capture enemy camp, loot the dead, sell captives.

If the army is larger than the province could sustain, even if it is a foreign one, then supplylines are more important, but if it's of a certain small to medium size it could merit the bonus I would think in most provinces; and of course in winter it would be even worse. But I don't know how good the system could be at determining all of these variants. :dizzy2:

I just read in Xenophon's history of grece that spartan army plundering Korkyra got so much, that soliders refused to drink wine other that tastes like flowers. :) :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

You would hate me ... But still I have to say that there is one problem - in some areas plunder would be very big - in fact many wars were pure plunder which RTW is not depicting.
Making staying on enemy land very expensive won't be historical - in fact (exept some regions - forests, deserts) staying on enemy teritory should in fact give you money, not take it from you. On the other hand, in your land army needs to be fed and paid by your own men ...

also is there any posibility to give money to army winning a battle if anemy is destoyed or routs? It should be scaled to enemy army size, as it is to reflect capture enemy camp, loot the dead, sell captives.

---

I would hate you?

I don't see why I would hate someone who reminds me of something so important. Loot! We can't have realistic attrition/logistics without local loot! In fact vanilla does simulate this for the faction being looted. The tile the enemy army sits on starts to look "scorched", and you get "pillage" penalties in your provincial finances.

Something you forget though, is that a lot of this money is basically just going into the hands of the soldiers who pillage. Varying on the abilities of the commander, little of this loot actually goes to the state treasury. But that's what traits and ancillaries can help with.

The mercenary army, of which Xenophon was a guest, also went through Cilicia. Due to Cyrus being unable to control them properly, they looted the country and wreaked a lot of havoc. Only thanks to Cyrus' diplomatic skills, and good reputation, did he save this dire situation. You remember the part where both monarchs gave eachother presents to patch up the relationship..

How much of the money do you think went directly into Cyrus' treasury? The soldiers were the looters. Most likely he ordered them to give it all back for diplomacy's sake. And to preserve his good reputation.

Hannibal Barka's forces moving through aquitania and the alps would scarcely get much of a bonus.. considering he lost 80`000 men on the march. But once on fertile land, with good celtic allies, he started getting reinforcements and supplies.. The local loot soldiers take from the areas they march over is small pickings compared to the enormous costs of bringing about sufficient logistical operations. But local loot may help alleviate these costs somewhat for an able commander. This is micro compared to macro though.

Allowing an army to loot the countryside is one way of preserving "morale" (god knows that definition is "flexible")..

still, while on good looting site they fed "on the enemy" so much less logistics are needed (just send foraging party or two)

I considered post you mention as spoiling idea that everybody cofirms great - so I wrote "You would hate me" :))

I don't neccessarily seem the problem. Raiding cities can give a large amount of money and really damage the enemies economy. How is that so different from foraging?

Foraging is a different thing to looting. The Greeks for example, were not very used to this "foraging" business. Polybius noted with curiosity the ferocity with which the Romans would forage food from the countryside whilst campaigning. This impressed Polybius a great deal, who was once an "alphamale" in the greek city of Megalopolis.

If you came across a town, then you would be lucky and get a lot of concentrated loot. Compare it to gold mining/sifting. A large nugget of gold is more valuable than the same volume of gold particles in a river. Even though they are of equal volume, the gold nugget is more concentrated, thus less effort is expended in "collecting" it. Though the golden nugget is more rare to come by..

But if your army is simply moving over terrain, you would be lucky to catch a few scattered huts with sheep-farmers and such. In this sort of terrain, your ability to loot matters very little. Foraging is a skill known to a man who is used to living outdoors. Foraging involves hunting, knowing which berries are non-poisonous, where the food can be found in nature.. that sort of thing..

This would certainly help diminish the logistical costs - hence the "forager" trait mentioned earlier.

For example classical greek warfare was mainly raiding enemy lands and taking or destroying everything, just because without siege artilery and/or enough money to starve city out they were not able to take the city itself.
same thing with different stepe people and in some cases in all wars.
I remind you that Hannibal had problems taking any bigger city so he raided countryside.

oh, 3 minutes late :(
Shigawire, what you say is true in low populated area, but in rich, highly populated people just cant hide in theire cities with everythig they posses - friut trees, growing crops, undefended estates, slaves, animals and many more are what raidin enemy coud take.

Yes, but don't overestimate this density. It wasn't as it is today. But I agree that pillaging actual CITIES should reap enormous revenues. But I can't say that I agree with the idea that pillaging the "relatively" empty stretches of land between the cities should reap the same degree of revenue as a city.

This is why I would like to see special tiles with such resources to be pillaged. Oases in deserts to be foraged, to small populated tiles to be pillaged etc.

Don't know if this is doable yet though.

We could link some foraging bonuses to tiles.

Quote:

---

. But I agree that pillaging actual CITIES should reap enormous revenues.

---

And it does. When i pillaged Pella few theys ago i go 7K.
For pillaging big cities you can get about 20K. Its hudge money eaven in EB.

If there were some way to imply a settlement near such tiles, that would be fantastic. It'd give the sense that the cities on the map aren't the only populated areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LorDBulA

And it does. When i pillaged Pella few theys ago i go 7K.
For pillaging big cities you can get about 20K. Its hudge money eaven in EB.

---

Ok. I haven't tried EB yet. :shame:

Well, here're my two cents, hopefully they'll help.

- Looting is a great idea, and it can have a whole new line of traits associated with it as was mentionned. Such as for example as "Soldiers's purses filled from loot"(well shorter...), which would mean they've just looted something and are very happy with their commander. But it could make them less eager to fight when the odds are against them, because they don't want to risk what they just got (or something along those lines). Also, there could be a trait which gives Generals something along the lines of 'good looter', makes his soldiers more loyal, and can increase his personal fortune(more influence I suppose) but it could also give him a couple of negative traits as well such as greedy or some such.

- But there is a huge pretty precedent for supply lines being disrupted, and that at times costed the invaders the war. Though the only example I have it is the Chinese invasion of Korea in the 600s(I think) by the Sui(not sure) dynasty. So perhaps there could be a way to say that if say an enemy force is within X number of tiles(I think) between the province supplying the invaders and the invaders themselves, supply gets harder. Or something like that.

- As well, isn't it logical to assume(might just be me) that there would be a sort of unofficial guerilla caused by an invasion. I'm not talking about like recruitable forces or the like, but like a scripted events. Sorta like some villagers getting together and getting pissed off that their hardwork is being taken by the invaders, so they try ambushing a small party(handful) of the invaders. And the invading army could lose a handful of men(most likely not from the General unit) each turn it spends in enemy territory to that guerrila thingie. If it's possible, it could be tied to the population of the province's capital, the bigger the population of the capital, the bigger the population of the capital, the higher the number of folks who'd be crazy enough to attempt this. If it can be But never more than like ten(or so) a turn.

- Also, is it possible to use the looting concept for the navies? Sorta like to mess with the enemy, a faction resorts to pirate tactics if it's close to enemy shores, I'm talking extremely close. Could subtract some cash from whoever's being pirated<is that even a word>?