Scripts/events

[konny]

Using this with large armies doesn't make sense because you might as well take the settlement and make much more booty.

[Hax]

Also, I'm pretty sure the Anabasis still works.

[lobf]

Using this with large armies doesn't make sense because you might as well take the settlement and make much more booty.

I don't understand. You don't suffer knocks against morale for leaving your province, no matter how big your army is. Yes, if you are only conquering the provinces right next to you and do so within a season every time, then it makes no difference. But that rarely happens in my games.

Why not giving the trait to the Parthians or Saka? Don't they have some kind of history of small scale raids between settlements? Or hunting as they travel by horseback?

[General Appo]

Umm... the Saka does have it.

[Ludens]

I think it's because these represent the nomadic factions. Nomads are capable of foraging for themselves: they pretty much do it for a living. They didn't bother with a supply train. To a lesser extent, this also applies to the Germans (no large settled communities, majority of freemen expected to produce their own food, no organized logistical effort to speak off). The Parthians on the other hand were in the process of settling down, in other words losing the skill to forage for an entire army. Off course, this is not a perfect representation (early on the Parthians would still be very nomadic, lateron the Saka would settle as well), but the scripting engine is not flexible enough to represent that.

[lobf]

Umm... the Saka does have it.

Oops. I thought someone said it wsa a Saba/Sweboz thing. My bad.

I think it's because these represent the nomadic factions. Nomads are capable of foraging for themselves: they pretty much do it for a living. They didn't bother with a supply train. To a lesser extent, this also applies to the Germans (no large settled communities, majority of freemen expected to produce their own food, no organized logistical effort to speak off). The Parthians on the other hand were in the process of settling down, in other words losing the skill to forage for an entire army. Off course, this is not a perfect representation (early on the Parthians would still be very nomadic, lateron the Saka would settle as well), but the scripting engine is not flexible enough to represent that.

I guess I don't see what the size of a culture's settled communities has to do with how it supplies itself in the field. In fact it seems like the more coordination and logistical planning is possible, the better you should forage. Didn't Roman armies forage? What makes you believe that German armies at the time did it better?

[Foot]

I guess I don't see what the size of a culture's settled communities has to do with how it supplies itself in the field. In fact it seems like the more coordination and logistical planning is possible, the better you should forage. Didn't Roman armies forage? What makes you believe that German armies at the time did it better?

The supplying of an army in the field is part of the upkeep costs for all factions. Think of this as in addition to that. Low-level raiding, independent warbands after booty. Its a gameplay thing that emphasizes the role of raiding and living off the land that played a major part in those faction's economy. So this is not about supplying yourself in the field (for a start it requires your army to stand on one spot for a number of turns) but rather it is about the extra-curricular purposes of those armies: the raiding and pillaging of an enemy faction's resources without any immediate motion to conquering the province - certainly more of a hallmark of germanic or nomadic forces than the armies of a mediterranean faction. The armies of Rome, Greece etc were all either standing armies billeted on farmed land when not at war (either defensively or offensively), or were called up for a campaign and then returned home: they weren't one for raiding, and raiding was not a way of life for their warrior class.

May I make a suggestion, Lobf? How about instead of nit-picking incessantly, you try and make some creative conceptualising of these gameplay mechanics that would make sense of how we have implemented them and then enjoy the game.

The best way to use it that I can see is to split the army up into one unit forces and have them sit next to each other; each army adding its own bonus to the faction's treasury.

Foot

[lobf]

The supplying of an army in the field is part of the upkeep costs for all factions. Think of this as in addition to that. Low-level raiding, independent warbands after booty. Its a gameplay thing that emphasizes the role of raiding and living off the land that played a major part in those faction's economy. So this is not about supplying yourself in the field (for a start it requires your army to stand on one spot for a number of turns) but rather it is about the extra-curricular purposes of those armies: the raiding and pillaging of an enemy faction's resources without any immediate motion to conquering the province - certainly more of a hallmark of germanic or nomadic forces than the armies of a mediterranean faction. The armies of Rome, Greece etc were all either standing armies billeted on farmed land when not at war (either defensively or offensively), or were called up for a campaign and then returned home: they weren't one for raiding, and raiding was not a way of life for their warrior class.

This is a fine explanation. Thanks.

May I make a suggestion, Lobf? How about instead of nit-picking incessantly, you try and make some creative conceptualising of these gameplay mechanics that would make sense of how we have implemented them and then enjoy the game.

Incessantly nit-picking? I was trying to figure out how/why this thing existed. I was under the impression that it just kept armies from becoming demoralized in the field. And my last reply was to Ludens specifically.

I wish it wasn't offensive to ask critical-sounding questions.

[Foot]

I wish it wasn't offensive to ask critical-sounding questions.

Why do Sweboz and Saka generals get this trait and not Romans or Gauls for instance?

Explain to me how that is a critical-sounding question. You never make any effort to think for yourself, to put forward a hypothesis that might fit with what we've done and then deconstruct it for inaccuracies. The end result is that an unsaid assumption of every one of your questions is that the EB team is a bunch of idiots. How else can it be read? If this had been your first question on the forums then it would have been not a problem to answer. However you have a history and therefore ask within the context of that history.

The reputation you have gathered around yourself is one of a poster who's only purpose is to attack the EB team, where no answer is good enough, where you imagine it is your god-given right to pester us more and more even after we have said that we do not currently have the expertise to answer you. To redeem yourself you need to change your attitude. Before you say it, that doesn't mean you must cower before the almighty word of the great and good EB team. We are not always right and never claim to be, however just persistently asking without making any attempt to put forward and defend a different position is just dull. And once you have been answered to the best we are able to do at that time please don't continue as if we've been holding back. If you are not satisfied with the answer then just be satisfied that you have EB to play with (you do play EB, don't you? Or do you just complain about it?).

Foot