Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
This is a really long post. I expected it to be a couple paragraphs, but I couldn't stop writing when I felt a good idea brewing. Make a bacon-sandwich, get a beer, and read on:
Recently, there have been some rather good ideas being thrown around. In this post I'll attempt to combine a number of good ones into some plausible features to be added to the Total War Genre. Perhaps the Expansion Pack will not explore these, but it's all the community can do to put forth ideas and hope for the best. Please feel free to add to any ideas - or to create new facets or change something which seems flawed.
inspiration comes mainly from these threads:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=46723
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=46424
1. Food
Each province has a certain amount of food which it can produce, depending on variables explained below. This would create actual need to keep enemy soldiers out of your territories and would create a need for armies to rely on the food produced in the region they occupy especially when supply lines are cut, or they are too far away to logistically transport food for an entire army 2,000 miles. This would make it possible to actually make ravaging the landscape of your enemy worthwhile. The starving populace of a country won't hold to their leader's banner long if they are abandoned to invading armies; they might even revolt and join the invader's cause. Food would diversify the facets which your armies are upheld by resources - one would be the food where they reside, two is the population available for recuitment and three would be the arms and equipment which your treasury invests in their use.
Food would be linked to Loyalty, which would need to be incorporated somehow and have more than simply Food to dictate it's course. To stay on track: A High-Loyalty region would be much more difficult for an invading force to reside in for very long, as Attrition would increase with the lack of apathetic civilians. If a safe haven could be found, perhaps a province with lower population/food-production ratio, or a rebellious city, then that would reduce possibilities for Attrition. Obviously, this paragraph is just seedlings, and hasn't been fully thought out.
1.b Watchtowers
To remove the possibility of enemy armies marching into your lands to feast, watchtowers would need to be embellished upon. At the moment, watchtowers are somewhat impotent to their actual reason for being built in the first place. An army could easily march right past a watchtower with no need to destroy it because it serves no purpose beside an impassive watchpost over enemy lands. An enemy could travel to your borders, wait there - and then at any time just march into your lands unhindered. Your watchtower would watch this over the months of it transpiring and report back at the end of the turn that the enemy has invaded; probably a large amount of time has past. To halt such occurances, the moment that an army enters your domain you would get a pop-up screen asking for your guidance. It would resemble watchmen hastening back to your throneroom, reporting on what they have seen, and the nobles of the land gathering around to ask what is to be done about this intrusion. Choices would be something along the lines of:
a. Intercept (would open a screen indicating the units which could be combined to resist invasion)
b. Strategic Move (custom move, to move whatever forces are in range to move to various places to hinder the invaders)
c. Diplomacy (ask the reason for invasion, and perhaps offer gifts to subdue their agressiveness and make them retreat). Of course this option would be expanded upon only if the Diplomacy in the game was improved.
Watchtowers would begin to create a dominion for your people which could be more readily defended and looked after. Towers would begin just by being a Lookout, upgradable to Sentry Tower to get the choices; and both could be burned to the ground or likewise, if you cannot repulse the invaders, they could remove your influence from the watchtower and gain possesion of it (though when an enemy Watchtower is captured you can only have the Lookout option until you conquer the province outright. Watchtowers would be different for coastal borders which would be able to view the ships, but would alert you if a landing party invades when upgraded to Sentry Tower.
2. Income Variables
Since I don't enjoy dealing with Math, and this idea uses some basic Math theory to impliment, forgive me if I get some terms or even concepts incorrect. Perhaps it's all wrong. Let me know what you think.
Income, at the moment, is through Trade, Mining, Farming, Spoils of War and Taxes. To increase any of these you have to invest some funds into static upgrades such as "Mines" and "Roads" and so on. This should, actually, be more of a fluid upgrade and not have as much to do with assigning certain simple things to have upgraded, but to have funds invested in such endeavors to create possible income at the end of it. Almost any investment of funds would not be without profit; though Trade and War are more risky, they bring more income. Likewise Farming depends on a good harvest, so famines and floods would be a bane to a leader who depends mostly on fertile soil to increase revenues. More detail below:
All aspects of income should have a number of underlying variables which cannot be overly affected by meddling by the player. Such values would be composed of, but not limited to:
Population: you can't have a lot of trade, a lot of war, a lot of farming and a lot of mining all at the same time. Manpower is needed to be invested in each aspect. This would only be possible once your faction becomes highly populated; and even then the growing populace requires sustinance to be Loyal to your cause. A simple way to impliment this would be somewhat of a Slide-Scale where you can apply certain amounts of your populace to certain tasks. This would create certain strategies such as Farming one year with 2/3 of your populace while keeping your borders undefended and then the next year mining the hills for valuable ore with which to recruit soldiers. This would also make a province which just sent their men to their doom at the hands of the enemy become poverty stricken and in need of Aid from other provinces.
Limits on Income: In every venue there is a limit to the amount of profit which can be obtained by the investment of funds therein. The most simple way to put it is that income can increase production exponentially for a time when they are invested heavily in, but eventually it will taper off depending on contributing factors discussed below.
Developement: There may be lots of people and lots of resources in a given area, but technology is needed to yoke the two together to produce profit for your treasury. Developement is able to be increased in larger steps if you capture an enemy town which has artisans, tradespeople and others flourishing in their courtyards. This would allow you to move such specialists back to your lands to begin educating your people - but simply having these specialists in your domain would slowly filter the ability to develope certain resources into tangible results isntead of simply trading it away. Such as: chopping trees down for lumber and trading it; or with increased Developement, utilize the lumber and a theoretical carpenter to improve the defense of your walls.
Now, the actual aspects of income broken down:
Trade
i - Roads Roads should begin to be built outwards from your settlements which have developing engineers in them. If you invest more money into developing your cities the roads would be built more quickly, linking your provinces. Roads would be better closer to technologically advanced cities, and less so as they extend outwards. Of course if you invest in building better roads, it would be a fluid investment over the course of the construction. At any time resources could be pulled from the construction and the build-time would be put on hold and the road would be partially built until you invest again.
ii - Merchants Whereas roads increase the speed of travellers on them, there needs to be merchants travelling on them to make them worthwhile. Merchants aren't something which can really be built - but would begin to populate a city when developement increases to a point where there are goods worthy of being sold outside of the borders of their Province. The merchant caste of a city would grow without much ability for the player to improve their growth besides investing in Roads and Developement to improve their chances at successful Trading. Goods would have various prices in various regions - as the Germans aren't going to be ordering expensive Lumber from the Gauls when their lands are full of it.
iii - Trade resources When there's nothing to trade, there won't be anyone buying or selling goods. Merchants will only inhabit areas which have developed resources which are craved in other provinces. You can trade amongst your own Provinces in the beginning simply utilizing the raw goods, and the Merchants expand outwards as the demand for raw and developed goods increases (usually attributed to growing populations and, likewise, developing cultures).
Farming
The most basic of income. Cultivating land to bring in grain to sustain the hunger of a populace. The more people, the more food needed. Farming is the heart of a growing kingdom. Farming has a number of limiting factors which mainly are those Population and Income Limits. Farmlands can be improved, and technology improved on a static level - but eventually the production of a fertile valley will plateau, and even decline if over-exploited or ravaged by an invading force. Famines and Droughts becoming more prevalent and fearsome as revolt and crime increases in a starving populace. Developement would increase the efficiency of farmland, and would allow for Storehouses to be built for excess grain and food for the winter. Storehouses would be able to be captured by enemy armies. You would be able to choose a place to put the Storehouses/Granaries and would likewise be able to, with an investment of time and manpower, shift the location to a more readily defendable area during invasion. Population would depend highly on the amount of Food which would be available to them; both through Farming and importing it from surrounding provinces.
Mining
Similar to Farming in the primitive aspects of it and the ability to produce a more efficient income by increases to the development of an area. Waste would be a contributing factor to the efficiency, and improvements in the mines would be linked to the Developement of a Province. There would be certain tiers to consider. The first being simply picking it off the ground and minor excavations. Increases up the tiers would bring more efficient usage of the material extracted and would allow extraction to continue at a certain rate for longer. If a region has a large store of Silver and you begin mining it without much development it would produce substantial income for the first few years but it would taper off and begin to decline as the easy to reach veins become exhausted. Also, the amount of time which a certain store of resources would take to become exhausted would depend both on the efficiency of the extraction, amount of people working the mine, and especially the actual amount of resources which were pre-determined to be in such an area. You could have mining operations in a lot of places gaining small sums, but those large deposits of minerals would be able to continue on for longer periods of time. Of course, for each area which has the ability to be mined for resources, there would be a limit to the amount of manpower which could be directed at the extraction. This limit would simply related to the inability for a small vein being mined by hundreds of people simply because it's too small and only a certain amount of people can work the mine at a time.
Taxes
Taxes are something which the Loyalty of the populace dictates to the amount which you can extract from them in resources. If there's a famine in a region, there's little chance that your taxes would be given to you as the citizens are more worried about their own mortality than contributing to the tax collectors. If your Tax Regime is Harsh, your tax collectors are likely to get the amount you ask for regardless of the pleas of your people; reducing Loyalty. If the harvest is good, and the people have surplus, they would not balk at handing over your asking tax. Therefore there would be a number of variables:
i - Tax Resource Scale Taxes come in many forms - food stores (grain/cattle), valuable ore (mining), trade profit (tariffs) - etc. There should be slide-scales dictating which Value is taxed in a certain region. In some areas Mining would be taxed heavily and Farming not taxed at all because of the lack of surplus food. Of course the development of the entire Kingdom depends on how you channel resources from province to province, what you invest in, and what is the most beneficial to your and your people's needs at a given time.
ii - Asking Amount The amount you ask for, in percentage of the income of the region. This would be calculated each year but the percent would remain the same value which you set. The income would depend on the quality of the crop, trade, mining - and others. If you ask for more, the Loyalty would reduce dependant on if the population can survive in relative comfort with what you leave them with.
iii - Tax Regime A slide scale from Benevolent, Lenient, Firm, Harsh and Brutal. If the Asking Amount is low, then the Harsh and Brutal Regimes do not affect Loyalty at all, as the Tax Collectors will go to the settlements with armed soldiers, but will not find it necessary to punish anyone when all Amounts are accounted for in easy fashion.
- Benevolent: Your Asking Amount is of little bearing on the people. They will give what they can, but keep surplus for themselves without threats from the tax collectors. Increases Loyalty. Increases Development.
- Lenient: Your Asking Amount will be recieved if the Loyalty of the populace is enough. They will give what they can, but if times are bad they will retain what they can just to get by and will not be threatened by the tax collectors. Increases Loyalty somewhat. Increases Development slightly.
- Firm: Your Asking Amount will be extracted from the populace dependant on the need for your demands. If the treasury is suffering, or the kingdom is under attack which threatens the populace, the Asking Amount will be gained. Mainly dependant on initial Loyalty and will not reduce Loyalty which is above a certain threshhold. Loyal Provinces will give more, less Loyal, less. People given empty threats by tax collectors.
- Harsh: Your Asking Amount is heard and obeyed by your most Loyal subjects. Those who do not pay are punished by public scrourging. If a Province cannot pay without becoming poverty striken and hungry, their Loyalty remains the same for the Season of extraction but will diminish through the next Season if their hunger is not subdued. Affects Loyalty negatively in the following Season if left the same.
- Brutal: Your Asking Amount is extracted with whatever means necessary. Public scrougings, humiliations and displays of brutality will bring all the Provinces' wealth into your coffers. Use sparingly, as the Loyalty of your populace will decline steadily until they no longer heed your call. The only people whom will retain your claim of the throne after many years of this Regime will be your army, and only if they retian their pay. However, Armies and Generals will become more likely to be Bribed in this Regime if their pay is not increased.
Spoils of War
Pretty basic. When you conquer a region you have the ability to plunder it all, or not. Hoever, the Spoils would have a number of titles and the ability to do a number of things with:
i - Treasure. Gold, luxury, PROFIT!? OMGZx!1 - essentially the raw loot which Pirates consider their mistress. Can be given wholly to the armies, which is dispersed into the lands they occupy if it is your land. You have an option to give it to your troops, increasing Troop Loyalty, or transport it back to their families and the Homeland which increases everyone's loyalty, though less so for the Troops specifically. Basic loot is only money, not food. Can be Traded.
ii - Food/Cattle/Spices - etc. This can be given to your Troops and deposited into the Baggage Trains or likewise sold to the inhabitants of a surrounding area to gain their Loyalty to your cause, though if their Loyalty is above a certain amount then this is not possible as they understand your subversion and will not be receptive to your clever tricks. It can only be transported a certain distance to your Homelands, as it will eventually spoil or die. There is a limit of a certain amount of time to determine how far it can be transported. This depends on where it is captured and hwo far it has to travel to be delivered.
ii - Slaves and Tradespeople - Reduces the Development in a region if they are transported back to your own domain. It takes a certain amount of time to have these slaves and tradespeople be rooted into a society to start contributing. This timeframe is lengthened if these people come from a populace which is highly Loyal. This option to capture Tradespeople isn't even available when the Loyalty reaches a certain level, though Slaves are always available; though it will decrease Loyalty in the Province they're transported to by a varying degree (depending on the loyalty of the populace of both regions and the amount of slaves/tradespeople who are disposessed). Slaves are also a valuable Trade resource and are only available when a conquered people are dispossessed and sold into slavery. Slaves do not affect Loyalty when a Garrison is neaby and will climatize to their surroundings within a generation (20 years). If they are Soldiers then this is extended to 40 years.
iii - Prestige - Increases the Loyalty to your cause in the region which the Victory was won. It reduces the Loyalty if you plunder the Province and increases the Loyalty of your Citizens in your Homelands if you do (and send the plunder back). If you release all prisoners it will increase the Loyalty to your cause only if the Loyalty to the initial ruler is low enough to do so - otherwise it will just leave a load of hostile soldiers around your invasion force, increasing Attrition.
___
__
_
Ok, well that's about enough of my ideas for now. I'd like to see what the other incredibly inventive people in this forum have to offer. Feel free to alter my suggestions or add to them at will. All we can hope is that CA sees this and will heed our call for creative elements to be added to their games.
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
While some of your ideas have merit (and indeed were implemented in that grand old game Lords of the Realm II) I think they are probably too complicated for a game like RTW.
Maybe you could have some sort of primitive trading system where different provinces have different stuff to trade, including metal to make weapons and weapons themselves, so that you would need either provinces with metal to build units or else something you could trade to another faction to get such metals, but other than that I can't see the point of much further complication. You're trying to turn RTW from a game where the emphasis is on battle, to one where the emphasis is on the economy and I can't see that happening.
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
But since you invited other suggestions for improving the game, I thought I'd take advantage of it ~:)
This is something I wrote quite some time ago but never bothered to post because I figured no-one would ever read or care about it. It's basically an idea for making happiness levels more volatile, and then tying rebel appearance and some other game mechanics to happiness levels. These ideas, BTW, are also based on the system in LOTRII, but in a more simplified form. Here they are:
Seasonal Random Events.
I suggest a random event for every province every turn, affecting the province's happiness. Some random events would be positive, some negative. And you could have both major and minor random events. A major random event would add + or - 20% happiness to a province, depending on whether it was a good or bad event. Minor events would likewise add + or - 10%. Minor random events would occur more frequently than major ones. The effects of random events on a city's happiness are cumulative, except that happiness can never fall below, say, 30%, or go above 170%.
Types of Random Events.
Minor positive random events might include good harvest, good weather, good omens, good trading - whatever. Minor bad random events might be bad harvest, bad weather, domestic animal disease etc.
Major positive random events could be excellent harvest, excellent trading and so on. Major negatives might be plague, failed harvest etc.
A battlefield victory or defeat in a nearby province might be a good or bad minor event. Retraining units in a province would also be a minor bad event, as would recruiting, results applied cumulatively. Maybe recruiting in a smaller town would be a major bad event.
Contested Provinces.
In addition, I think contested provinces - that is provinces containing units from two or more warring factions - should get a flat -10% population growth plus 0 gold for the duration they are contested. (To that, incidentally, I think there should also be an initial -10% happiness adjustment when an uncontested province first becomes contested).
Provinces contested by rebels rather than an enemy faction only get -5% population growth instead of -10%.
Happiness and Rebellions.
Which brings me to the subject in mind - rebels. Right now, their appearance is totally random. How about linking their appearance with some other factor in the game - like a province's happiness for example? Here's one way it could be done.
The idea is to make a province's happiness levels more volatile due to the effects of random events described above, and then to spawn rebels based on the happiness level. (BTW this mechanic would replace not only the mechanic that currently randomly spawns rebel armies, but also the one that spawns rebellions *inside* cities when happiness falls too low).
So I suggest that the probability of a rebel army spawning is simply equal to the percentage that a city's happiness is below 100%. So 90% happiness = 10% probability of a rebel army spawn, 70% happiness = 30% chance and so on. Once a rebel army spawns, no further rebel armies can be spawned in that province regardless of happiness level until all rebels in the province are eliminated. But the spawning of a rebel army is itself considered a negative random event, subtracting 10% happiness from the province. However, the elimination of all rebels in the province is regarded as a major positive random event, immediately adding 20% happiness.
Here's an example. You have a province that has dropped to 60% happiness and spawned a rebel army, so it drops a further 10% to 50%. You don't get any cash in the province and have a -5% population growth factor cumulative with the other pop. growth factors until the rebels are eliminated.
So you immediately send out an army to eliminate the rebels. You eliminate them, which counts as a major positive event, so the province happiness goes from 50% to 70%. Unfortunately it is still 30% below 100% so there is a 30% chance of another rebel spawn next turn. This happens, so you still aren't getting any money from the province. You manage to beat that army too and get another +20% happiness for the elimination to take the total to 90%. Fortunately you don't spawn another rebel army next turn and have a minor happiness event, which takes you back to 100% happiness.
It sounds complicated, but really it isn't, and instead of the AI just spawning armies randomly, you now have a mechanism for it, you can see which provinces are most likely to spawn rebels, and perhaps be able to do something to prevent it (like lowering taxes or increasing the garrison). On the other side of the coin, positive random events also give you the chance to increase your taxation level from turn to turn. So on the whole these changes should add some more interest to the management of your provinces, without necessiting more micromanagement (since you have to check tax levels and happiness practically every turn in the game as it is anyhow).
Size of Rebel Armies.
One further point. I haven't described a mechanism for determining the *size* of spawned rebel armies yet. Here's one suggestion - a random number between 1-3 units, multiplied by the magnitude of the province's current unhappiness level divided by 10. So 10% unhappiness (ie 90% happiness) will spawn between 1 and 3 units. 20% unhappiness (80% happiness) will spawn between 2 and 6, right down to 70% unhappiness (the maximum) which will spawn between 7 and 21 units.
Also for every turn the rebels are not eliminated and the province's happiness remains below 100%, anywhere from 1 to 3 additional rebel units are spawned in that province. In effect, the longer you leave it to tackle the rebels, the more of them you will ultimately have to deal with. If you leave it until they have a substantial army, they may even besiege your city and end up taking the province. And to make it more interesting still, perhaps that province should then revert to the faction that originally held it!
Anyhow, here's a quick summary of how the system would work on a turn by turn basis:
Turn 1.
City A ended last turn with 100% happiness. Gets a "poor harvest" minor negative event at start of this turn. Happiness immediately reduced -10% to 90%.
Test for rebel spawn at 10% probability (100 minus happiness level ie 100-90=10). Spawn fails. Continue game.
Turn 2.
City A now has 90% happiness. Gets a "cattle disease" minor negative event. Happiness down 10% to 80%.
Test for rebel spawn at 20% probability (100 minus 80 happiness = 20% prob). Spawn fails. Continue game.
Turn 3.
City A has 80% happiness. Gets "failed harvest" MAJOR negative event. Happiness down 20% to 60%.
Test for rebel spawn at 40% (100 - 60). Spawn succeeds!
Successful spawn means -10% happiness event generated. Province happiness now 50%.
Test for size of spawned army. A random number between 1 and 3, multiplied by province unhappiness/10. The random number is 2 and it's multiplied by the unhappiness level/10, in this case 50/10=5, so 2*5=10 rebel units are spawned.
Contested province means no gold from this province this turn. -5% population growth.
Turn 4.
City A has 50% happiness. Gets a "baby boom" positive minor event. +10% happiness, happiness goes to 60%.
Province still returns 0 gold and -5% population growth for presence of rebels.
Rebel army still exists so test for 1-3 unit increase. Gets an additional two rebel units, rebels now have 12 units.
Friendly units attack rebel army and eliminate it. MAJOR positive event immediately generated, province happiness up 20% to 70%.
Turn 5.
Province A has 70% happiness. Gets a "positive prophecy" minor positive event. +10% happiness so province has 80% happiness.
Test for rebel spawn at 20% probability. Unfortunately, spawn succeeds again. Size of rebel army again is INT((RND*3)*unhappiness/10), RND returns a 2.5 so it's 2.5*20/10, or 5 units spawned. -10 unhappiness event generated, happiness level to 70%.
And so on. The basic idea is to make it critical to keep happiness at or above 100%, and to deal with rebellions quickly and effectively lest they blow out of control and ruin your province over a number of turns. It should also make the management of provinces an important part of the game, instead of the unexciting chore it is now. It also makes the number of rebels you face partly dependent on your own management skills instead of just being a totally random occurrence as it is now. IMO, games should always be about mastering a set of skills, not merely throwing random events your way for you to deal with.
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
Some of your ideas are good but theres some that would need tons of work or leave the game open to tons of exploits.
Watchtowers, can already be captured but it's feature is not fully functional. When you get a blackout around your watchtower it means an enemy army has parked themselves right there. The only problem is it only works 10-20 percent of the time.
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
Quote:
ii - Merchants Whereas roads increase the speed of travellers on them, there needs to be merchants travelling on them to make them worthwhile. Merchants aren't something which can really be built - but would begin to populate a city when developement increases to a point where there are goods worthy of being sold outside of the borders of their Province. The merchant caste of a city would grow without much ability for the player to improve their growth besides investing in Roads and Developement to improve their chances at successful Trading. Goods would have various prices in various regions - as the Germans aren't going to be ordering expensive Lumber from the Gauls when their lands are full of it.
Hail Colovion-Sama
I think governments influence the creation of the merchant caste quite dramatically (Just think about the caste system in STW and where the merchants sit). Taxes would have a much more significant effect on merchant growth then population growth and it would be competitive... relative low taxing cities would have a surge in mobile merchants.
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
I'm not sure about the Income Variables section Colovion - there is a lot to consider in there. However, I do like the Food/Watchtower ideas. It adds to the variables of war and opens up more possibilities - a "scavanger" unit trait comes to mind, i.e. a unit that can live off the land without logistical support. Giving watchtowers more importance is good too. There is some good potential in this seedling Colovion - or at least it seems that way.
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
These ideas all seem very good. I like the idea of real supply lines (I mean, even Lords of the Realm II (1997) had them!) and increased watchtower importance, along with the sliders for focusing on province improvements and the idea for taxes and farming. You could actually have an effect on the province now, instead of the whole province being nothing but the backdrop for the all-important city.
Crazed Rabbit
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
I would love to see Watch Towers be replaced with Sentry Towers, where they garrison their own band of guards. The guards cannot leave the tower on the strategy map, and are only used to (automatically) attack any hostile troops that pass within the zone of control of the tower (the red squares).
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Hail Colovion-Sama
I think governments influence the creation of the merchant caste quite dramatically (Just think about the caste system in STW and where the merchants sit). Taxes would have a much more significant effect on merchant growth then population growth and it would be competitive... relative low taxing cities would have a surge in mobile merchants.
:bow:
I didn't actually give the Trade section the effort I think it deserved. You are totally correct. I hinted towards my inclinations at the beginning when I mention that "though Trade and War are more risky, they bring more income" and by the time I got to the subject at hand, I'd forgotten. I believe I was hinting that merchants aren't something you can force out of a society - some people actually want to do it, similar to in these days how not everyone works on Wall Street. In primitive societies you haven't the need or possibility for Merchant Level Trade. However, it's definite that once there is a burgeoning economy, encouraging merchants can help rise the society to gain new heights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
I'm not sure about the Income Variables section Colovion - there is a lot to consider in there.
I realize it isn't completely fleshed out, as it's the first time it's ever been written down. Any suggestions? I realize this is all just fantasy at the moment; but it would be interesting if such a conversation on possibilities of implimenting such things in future Total War Games (such as MTW 2) could draw out some developers to talk shop.http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de//wink2.gif
screwtype, those ideas are great; those are the kinds of things I"m talking about. It was that little discussion in that thread with you that spawned this posting.
I appreciate the comments. :gossip:
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
While some of your ideas have merit (and indeed were implemented in that grand old game Lords of the Realm II) I think they are probably too complicated for a game like RTW.
Maybe you could have some sort of primitive trading system where different provinces have different stuff to trade, including metal to make weapons and weapons themselves, so that you would need either provinces with metal to build units or else something you could trade to another faction to get such metals, but other than that I can't see the point of much further complication. You're trying to turn RTW from a game where the emphasis is on battle, to one where the emphasis is on the economy and I can't see that happening.
I would never want to take the effort out of building a solid battle-engine than to have such features as we have described. I'd rather be able to fight awesome battles rather than have awesome times getting to the battles. Both would be the best. Rome expanded upon a simple (though very fun) style of play and created something more complicated; I only wish to hone down and polish some facets of this new system we're working with. As always, you can simply allow the AI control either the Battle or the Turn-Based portion.http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de//wink2.gif
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
To the victors go the spoils! Victory in battle should provide cash (through automatic scavanging of the battlefield).
It might be interesting if recruitment ie whether a unit can be recruited in a place, and costs of recruitment, were linked to some degree with battlefield victories.
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
I believe that there are two things that could be done to make Rome more challenging without overhauling the whole engine or playing with units stats.
Tactically, enemy armies in Rome are too often poorly led. The AI frequently sends otherwise nice armies into the field with a captain or a low star commander. Give the AI better generals more often and they will hold up longer when facing the 6 star plus heroes we usually have in our own stacks.
On the strategic side of things, campaigns would be much more interesting and more realistic if we couldn’t replace our losses so easily. As it is now, capturing a large well developed city allows us to instantly replace most if not all of our losses without even diminishing troop quality. This makes it far too easy to sustain an offensive. If there were a moratorium or limitations on unit production in recently captured cities this would not be possible. You would then need to raise replacements back at home or in places you have held for years. This could slow down invasions dramatically or at least make pushing on after losses more risky. I propose having to demolish and replace captured buildings before using them to raise troops. You want to replace silver shield pikes in Britannia? Start building. It’ll be a while. Peasants could always be had but otherwise you would need to hire mercs or establish infrastructure to get anything better without reinforcements from the homeland.
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
Quote:
- Treasure. Gold, luxury, PROFIT!? OMGZx!1 - essentially the raw loot which Pirates consider their mistress. Can be given wholly to the armies, which is dispersed into the lands they occupy if it is your land. You have an option to give it to your troops, increasing Troop Loyalty, or transport it back to their families and the Homeland which increases everyone's loyalty, though less so for the Troops specifically
I really like this idea, in the game as is there is no such thing as loyalty ( regarding troops that is ) .
However we know that army loyalty was really , really important back in those days. Ceasar had the best army in his time, because his soldiers loved him, and because of that fought harder for him than they would for any one else.
So it would be good if we had something as ''loyalty points '' for every army.
These points would work like experiance chevrons now, but would count for the whole army, and therefor be more important.
The higher it would be , the harder the troops will fight and the longer the troops are willing to campaign and - in time of crisis - are willing to fight when not paid, due to debt etc.
This would encourage players , to plan their campaigns and carefully chose their targets.
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
For some of these ideas, it sounds like you want the game to move from "build this, and X happens" to "build this, and you get a better chance of X happening". Influence the direction the city takes with management decisions, instead of dictating it.
I'd like to see funding for public works that affects the overall state of a province/town, not individual project builds. I wouldn't mind being able to allocate funds for public works, and divvy up those funds (percentage-wise), for various city improvements, roads, sewage, repair maintenace, etc. Sort of like the tech research done in MoO3 or BotF. Certain city builds (barracks, smithies, markets, etc.) could be treated like they are now, allowing both a build tree and parallel city improvement. Squalor/happiness/trade could be affected by the overall state of a town's infrastructure. Maybe have improvement levels that can be reached with enough funding (which can decay without repair or new improvement funding). Level 1 roads give +X% to trade, Y% of troop theoritical movement, etc, level 3 roads increase these values more.
Single threaded build trees have always seemed a little silly to me. The government can only build one thing at a time? I understand why they are used (simpler interface), but realistically multiple projects would be going on at once, with the ability to prioritize important tasks.
I would love to be able to control and investigate these nuances, but how many casual players would? MoO3 failed in part because planet maintenance was too complex, it turned a lot of players off. Rome builds are much simplified from the build trees in Medieval, I'm sure this was done on purpose. The only way this sort of detail could be introduced would be to make the automatic "city advisors" smart enough to make the right decisions, and allow them to be toggled for people who want to have a life. ~D
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_guy
I really like this idea, in the game as is there is no such thing as loyalty ( regarding troops that is ) .
However we know that army loyalty was really , really important back in those days. Ceasar had the best army in his time, because his soldiers loved him, and because of that fought harder for him than they would for any one else.
So it would be good if we had something as ''loyalty points '' for every army.
These points would work like experiance chevrons now, but would count for the whole army, and therefor be more important.
The higher it would be , the harder the troops will fight and the longer the troops are willing to campaign and - in time of crisis - are willing to fight when not paid, due to debt etc.
This would encourage players , to plan their campaigns and carefully chose their targets.
Yes. I finished reading a bio on Hannibal a couple days ago, and it amazed me to realize how long his army had truly been campaigning in the field. Both himself and Alexander were incredibly wary to have their soldiers love them and trust them to the pits of hell. At the moment, you could march an army anywhere on the map - keep getting defeated, and as long as you did let all your troops die, you're good to go. It would be much better to have some kind of Army Loyalty based on a number of variables. It seems really easy to impliment.
- initial loyalty each unit has a loyalty which is related to their home Province's loyalty. When troops come from all over the kingdom, it's averaged out.
- This Loyalty would increase with victories, looting and resting for a Season in a safe haven from Attrition (would depend on the populace in the area)
- It would decrease if they are tired or starving, continue to be defeated, or perhaps a few others.
Pillaging would become a problem for docile players, and a benefit to your armies when you find a fertile enemy valley that is poorly defended; allowing you to rest your forces for a Season before assaulting their settlements. It would deffinately create, in a kind of rule-based way, a more savage enemy AI. They'd try to oust anyone who enters their domain, and likewise would attempt to get away with pilfering your ungaurded goods. It would be a balancing act between Attrition or Pillaging, and making sure that the good weighs out the bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Influence the direction the city takes with management decisions, instead of dictating it.
Yes, I believe it would make a much more fluid and organic kind of gameplay.
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
Agree wholeheartedly. But it will never happen, since it's too complex for the people that CA pander to.
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Agree wholeheartedly. But it will never happen, since it's too complex for the people that CA pander to.
I still hope someone in the Creative Assembly will feel that some of the ideas expressed here in this thread are worthy of utilizing in a future release.
Honestly, I'd just really like to have CA discuss their ideas with the community and basically allow us to get an idea of the direction they are taking their series in, giving us fans an ability to judge whether it's worth hoping for better games in the future... or if we should take the MTW --> RTW as an indication of how things will be run in the coming releases.
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
Just want to say EXCELLENT post. Your effort is much appreciated, maybe things are starting to get back to normal (pre-RTW) around here.
Gotta give the post more time and thought, but the most immediate thoughts are these:
FOOD - If it is to have an increased Strategic/Tactical value, and the presence of Enemey troops in your territory is to have a serious detrimental effect in this regard, it is as you implied, the *need* to SECURE your Territory is commensuratly increased.
Is the Campaign Map designed to facilitate the Securing of territory? Is the Campaign Map designed to facilitate the Securing of territory in a CHALLENGING manner?
Much of the game focus would be shifted to securing territory and developing Food Stores.
An addition thought might be the addition of Graineries and upgraded Fortified Graneries. At the moment, don't remember the specifics, but I believe, one of the factors to Hannibal's success was the taking of a Roman Grainery; or, maybe it was someone other than Hannibal.
In any event, the capability to *Develop* Food Stores, *Store* Food Stores, and to *Take* and *Defend* Food Stores, along with the consequences thereof would be a GREAT Strategic and Tactical addition to the game. As well as, increasing Realism.
WATCHTOWERS - correct me if I'm wrong. Both WTs and Forts can only be built within one's own terriroty. Forts can impede the Enemey, WTs cannot. Both WT and Forts have the capability to Spy/See the Enemey. Do WT have greater range?
The point I'm getting at, in the majority of circumstances what advantage do WTs have over Forts? For the most part, any spot I might want to place a WT would better be served by a Fort.
I think your focus upon WTs is needed, as their function isn't truly developed and significantly distinguised from Forts.
What value and how do you utilize WTs in your game?
I ONLY use WTs in those ANNOYING spots on the Campaign Map where a Fort **cannot** be built. (Can anyone advise why there are spots where forts can't be built?)
For example, playing the Juii, one takes Patavia (sp?), and the desire is to Secure the territory. Firstly, this can be accomplished by placing a Fort in the moutain pass leading north toward Dacia. Secondly, the coastal pass leading to the eastern side of the Adriatic (??), again, toward Dacia needs to be secured BUT, a Fort CANNOT be placed there to block the coastal pass.
Yet, a WT can, so that is what I do, in order to get advance notice of any threat to Patavia.
One can only wonder if this was an intended or unintended consequence of the map design.
Generally, I think, any consideration of WT must be in relation to Forts, and vice versa.
The issue of Forts/WTs came a while back in the following threads, much of which can, generally, be folded into your proposels:
Use YOur Forts Properly
...Forts...make em relevant
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
Well met, ToranagaSama :bow:
In my campaigns now, I build Watchtowers in places such as in the northern foothills of the Pyrenees so that I can see any invading Gaul armies making the trek to penetrate into Iberia. Generally I find I don't even build Forts, as I've never seen the AI use them so it makes me think that I'm getting an unfair advantage over them. However, if I was a small force alone in an enemy territory for years on end then I'd use a Fort to shelter my troops until they can capture a town. I thought that WT's could see further than Forts can - and although I'm not sure of this for level ground, I'm certain that WT's now would be the only viable option in broken terrain where you need to have a platform setup up abover to negate any terrain obstacles.
Building a Watchtower and a Fort nearby would be ideal, if the Warning System is implimented.
As for the Food Stores, I believe we could even expand on that idea. In the simplest terms to have the game look at the population in the city and see the amount of people whom are allotted to Farming the grounds surrounding the settlement and thereby dictate the amount of developed land, rendered graphically.
In laymans terms - make Farming become something where you can see the amount of the land which is harnessed under a plowman's tilling hand by something which looks as organic and active as the Trade Carts we see at the moment. Seeing small men working the fields would be a little too far to take the idea, but just to see farmland extending from fertile valleys and begin to develope more arid regions once irrigation is researched would be a welcome addition.
I believe that just implimenting a more realistic, fluid and organic way of seeing your kingdom churn out it's goods would bring a more rich texture to this game. Already there is the bulwark, only to be extrapolated upon by such minds as yours, ToranagaSama, and those others whom boggle our minds in the modding community with their creativity.
The initial post was cross-posted in TWC and stickied. I've still yet to hear anything from CA. I wish they would at least let us know either "wow, great ideas, we'll see what we can use and let you know" or likewise "No, our games aren't going to be more indepth in the future, only less"
It's this seeming abandonment which chills my dedication to producing threads like this. It's responses like yours and screwtype's which ingnite it again.
~:cheers:
Re: Tale of Two Ideas *CA Please Look*
I think Nelson hit it right on the head, although I like the idea of the watchtowers and the maintaining of supply lines, the ability to train what ever you want, where ever you want and really in any quantity you want makes the game far to easy.
I would like to see a force pool system employed where when a province is conquered you are given an info parchment on what units you can train based on the facilities and the population of the province. I think a system where 3 classes of people exist in each province upper and middle classes in the cities and peasants in the rest of the province. Upper class would make up most of the better calvary and heavy infantry available in a province, middle class medium and light infantry, archers and light calvary, while the peasant class would contribute militia, skirmishers and of coarse peasants.
By sieging and taking a new city you are now forced to choose occupy, enslave or exterminate, which IMO doesn't carry enough consequences, I think it should have a much greater effect on unit training. Choose to occupy and you would have acsess to all that province has to offer based on its level of infrastructure and population,but be faced with the very real chance of rebellion. Choose to enslave and you would be sending away a good portion of the upper and middle classes and thus have acsess to much fewer quality troops. Finally by choosing to exterminate you would be killing off all of the rich and influencial, the upper and middle classes, and be left with only the rural poor, militia and peasants, to garrison your new city.
I think this would certainly increase the difficulty and realism of the game, no more silvershields being recruited straight away in brittania. It would also place much more strategic emphasis on capturing rich heavily populated provinces, aswell as maintaining your original core ones.
For the sake of time I've really only skimed over how this would work ingame but I think you get the idea. Man this game has so much potencial.
