Field Battles more decisive - Sugestion

[moonburn]

better to conect it to the authority of the faction leader his generals or himself have an heroic victory his authority rises if he fails his authority decreases and we all know that rebelling parts of the army are conected to the king´s authority

now if we could mod the game in terms that the authority of the leader affects squealor and that same authority and squalor are conected to how many setlements he won/lost or how many heroic victory´s or crushing defeats he had it could vey extremly fun expecially everytime a faction leader dies the prince (as a rule ofc) as far less authority so we would have to concentrate alot on having the sucessor fighting many batles to gain enough influence before he becomes king or once the faction leader dies there might be a big increase both in squalor and amount of troops going rogue (even some generals or less loyal family members or even in extreme cases rebelling towns)

ofc we can always send the sucessor to the capital with the big academy and he eventually gets 10 influence but thats just a small trick

[Arjos]

Many sieges aren't so unhistorical, but yes what TW games are lacking is the annihiliation of the enemy's army = faction willing to surrender...
Also since AIs seem incapable of building up any sort of economy, all the money scripts allow them to recruit endlessly...
High hopes for the recruitment pools, maybe after a crushing defeat they will allow to build resistance only with lower classes, but again they should surrender :P

[Ichon]

Many sieges aren't so unhistorical, but yes what TW games are lacking is the annihiliation of the enemy's army = faction willing to surrender...
Also since AIs seem incapable of building up any sort of economy, all the money scripts allow them to recruit endlessly...
High hopes for the recruitment pools, maybe after a crushing defeat they will allow to build resistance only with lower classes, but again they should surrender :P

The pools will help limit army spam but over time if the AI hasn't fought a major war the money scripts usually allow it to build a much larger army than player with same amount of regions could ever hope to make. That isn't always a bad thing especially if the difficulty level has some effects there.

I don't know that peoples always surrendered after a major defeat. Kingdoms might sometimes become vassals but that was no guarantee and states might give concessions and tributes but surrender? Not very often.

With money scripts and limited pool sizes what I've seen in other MTW2 mods is that after winning a few crushing victories and not capturing any of the AI regions the AI is not going to agree to peace- however the quality of its army does go down for awhile and if another AI/faction presses its war or goes to war vs the AI that was defeated then it will often ask for peace. But usually it requires capturing cities. However I find myself fighting more than 2/3 of my battles as field battles with sieges being often but not so overwhelming as to be boring. You can also avoid siege assault be laying siege with army smaller than garrison- AI almost always sallies, or you can attack single armies stationed near walls to draw the garrison out to a field battle.

I'm not sure how EB2 will do arrow towers etc but in sieges that and boiling oil at gate the the largest causes of casualties. Otherwise the narrow spaces and poor pathfinding of the AI allows less costly victories than field battles. I absolutely hate how MTW2 does arrow towers with any enemy being anywhere close the towers fire. RTW you could capture a section of wall and it remained captured. Now as attacker I do all I can to avoid going on the walls since there is no point. Your main army can't enter over the wall except very slowly and you can't capture the wall. As defender on the other hand wall and towers are more easily exploited. Just station splinter units in a garrison and they can run around on the walls letting the arrow towers(or worse for MTW2, cannon towers) do most of the work. Boiling oil is the same thing... should be limited to 10-15 times. Its an endless supply not and if you hold enemy at gate long enough the oil will kill more than half.

[Arjos]

I don't know that peoples always surrendered after a major defeat. Kingdoms might sometimes become vassals but that was no guarantee and states might give concessions and tributes but surrender? Not very often.

You're right, guess the issue is all in the "army larger than what they could really afford" to me, diplomacy should have a way bigger role in the game, but I recall M2TW had a better system there...

[fomalhaut]

M2TW really doesn't to be honest. maybe Kingdoms does but i was at war with everyone on earth even before the crusade was called against me. allies will attack as as soon as you border them.

M2TW also has all siege engine armies! fun fun fun

[Arjos]

M2TW really doesn't to be honest.

Can't say much for vanilla (didn't play that a lot), but many mods had some solid alliances, the AI values military access rights, even if they don't seem to use them, having relationship to outstanding or perfect and common allies was a sure thing...

[bobbin]

I don't know that peoples always surrendered after a major defeat. Kingdoms might sometimes become vassals but that was no guarantee and states might give concessions and tributes but surrender? Not very often

Vassal states by their very definition would give some sort of assistance to the winning nation, if they refused it either resulted in war or them becoming independent again.

[LusitanianWolf]

better to conect it to the authority of the faction leader his generals or himself have an heroic victory his authority rises if he fails his authority decreases and we all know that rebelling parts of the army are conected to the king´s authority

now if we could mod the game in terms that the authority of the leader affects squealor and that same authority and squalor are conected to how many setlements he won/lost or how many heroic victory´s or crushing defeats he had it could vey extremly fun expecially everytime a faction leader dies the prince (as a rule ofc) as far less authority so we would have to concentrate alot on having the sucessor fighting many batles to gain enough influence before he becomes king or once the faction leader dies there might be a big increase both in squalor and amount of troops going rogue (even some generals or less loyal family members or even in extreme cases rebelling towns)

ofc we can always send the sucessor to the capital with the big academy and he eventually gets 10 influence but thats just a small trick

That is a good idea, I wasnt very aware about authority influence!
And another thing that the script could affect was agent's influence/skill to reflect the fear/respect that a winning faction would amass or the lack of authority that a losing faction would get. I gess I'll try to take a look at scripting (I have some programation basis so It shouldnt be that hard, right?) when I find the time to test a very simple version of this, who know, maybe I will be of use to the EB team later :P

I don't know that peoples always surrendered after a major defeat. Kingdoms might sometimes become vassals but that was no guarantee and states might give concessions and tributes but surrender? Not very often.

Probably wouldnt surrender very often but they should lose influence in their own vassals/puppet allied states. Thats what I was trying to mimic with this.
Didn't Hanibal tried to make some of the old roman enemies in italy to revolt with is own victories? And I'm not saing a 100% surrender chance but something like a 30% chance to rebel/being bribed/being assassinated in least controled provincies. You should need to siege the capital and more important cities normaly.

Many sieges aren't so unhistorical, but yes what TW games are lacking is the annihiliation of the enemy's army = faction willing to surrender...
Also since AIs seem incapable of building up any sort of economy, all the money scripts allow them to recruit endlessly...
High hopes for the recruitment pools, maybe after a crushing defeat they will allow to build resistance only with lower classes, but again they should surrender :P

That's why I was hoping this to work, to force them to "surrender" at least in their borders/puppet vassals by indirect methods.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

better to conect it to the authority of the faction leader his generals or himself have an heroic victory his authority rises if he fails his authority decreases and we all know that rebelling parts of the army are conected to the king´s authority

now if we could mod the game in terms that the authority of the leader affects squealor and that same authority and squalor are conected to how many setlements he won/lost or how many heroic victory´s or crushing defeats he had it could vey extremly fun expecially everytime a faction leader dies the prince (as a rule ofc) as far less authority so we would have to concentrate alot on having the sucessor fighting many batles to gain enough influence before he becomes king or once the faction leader dies there might be a big increase both in squalor and amount of troops going rogue (even some generals or less loyal family members or even in extreme cases rebelling towns)

ofc we can always send the sucessor to the capital with the big academy and he eventually gets 10 influence but thats just a small trick

Brilliant ideas, love it!

Would like it even better if some factions were more vulnerable to surrendering and suffering revolts than others. At one extreme, unstable regimes like the Casse, Sweboz, Seleucids and Ptolemies should be falling apart, rebelling and fighting among themselves after a crushing defeat on the battlefield, while at the other extreme the hard cases like the Romans, Hayasdan and Pontus should be almost immune to the effects of a crushing defeat.

(Notice how I picked the AI factions that do well in EB1 to be weakened, and the AI factions that do poorly in EB1 to be strengthened.)

[fomalhaut]

There'd have to a very very fine balance to walk though, if this is possible at all.

[bobbin]

Brilliant ideas, love it!

Would like it even better if some factions were more vulnerable to surrendering and suffering revolts than others. At one extreme, unstable regimes like the Casse, Sweboz, Seleucids and Ptolemies should be falling apart, rebelling and fighting among themselves after a crushing defeat on the battlefield, while at the other extreme the hard cases like the Romans, Hayasdan and Pontus should be almost immune to the effects of a crushing defeat.

(Notice how I picked the AI factions that do well in EB1 to be weakened, and the AI factions that do poorly in EB1 to be strengthened.)

I don't think it is a very good idea to impose a permanent effect like that, it is very "gamey" and doesn't make sense historically as even the Romans suffered from rebellions due to defeats. Also you cannot equate a factions performance in EB with it's performance in EBII, there are way too many differences to do that.

[moonburn]

still bobin a crushing defeat should undermine the authority of the faction leader and if your heir suceeds at the age of 16 then he has no authority of his own and can´t rely on daddy and until he proves himself there should be some negative effects until he gains a few victories finishes the agoge and get at least 4 points of influence and ofc fast before the dude who married his older sister decides he is better off governing segestica as an independent kingdom (wich if he does should trigger some masse revolts and until your murder him by any means necessary you would loose a few lands and armies once the dude dies and his descencents are dead within 20 years the lands who rebelled and the armies should return to the flock)

but hey i´m the idiot who sugested a sub mode where you could only control homeland regions and all other out of it had to use client kings wich you couldn´t controll (neither city´s nor armies i might had) and it forçed your hand to keep large garrisons to keep them under control

[bobbin]

I wasn't arguing against defeats undermining authority, just that it should affect all factions and not the few that were too strong in EB.

[TheLastDays]

Exactly... and the AI Seleukids are usually not doing well - and Pontus in my campaign gets pretty big usually, played by the AI, so I don't really get your point Titus...