Originally Posted by
LorDBulA
NOPE. Troops outside the Homeland city will be more expensive no mater who commands them and troops inside Homeland city will be less expensive no mater if there is general or not.
This is the best way we can do it becouse it works always.
This is a basic premise we can certainly accept, it's also the best position to start from in our modding process. Also, higher morale inside your own city.
Originally Posted by
LorDBulA
With it we can eaven promote more historical army setup.
We have to refund unit by they number so we can have this for example:
we refund up to 4Hastati 4Principies 2Triari. So if player like to have 6Triari then he pays for 4 of them normaly becouse they are not consider as local troops but as garison from other towns.
Thsi way we can finaly show diffrance betwean Levy troops and Profesional troops. The later should not be refounded.
Very good idea. But how could it be handled?
You say in the next quote that we can't detect or count units..?
Originally Posted by
LorDBulA
As i said when general is in filed we just dont know how many troops he commands. Script cant tell us this and traits cant tell us this so we will never know how much money we have to give/take away from player.
This is what IMO kills any realstic complicated idea about giving money for characters outcide city.
Do you want go give/take away X amount of money no mater if general comands 50 men or 3000 ? Or do you want to guess?
This definitely kills that idea..
Originally Posted by
LorDBulA
Would it be possible to lower it below captain level (but only for human player) when general is in long campaigne?
Something like this: 1 year in the filed -1 morale, 2 years -2 morale, 3 years -3 morale. But recovering should be much faster +2 every one seson in town, but only to well suplied level.
It would be nice if you could also lower morale when general is besiging city. Afther all its very hard work for soldiers or very boring (depends if they are prepering to attack or are just waiting to sit them out), they stay in one place so local resources runs out quickly, diseas are also big problem.
You touched an important aspect here. This is something I have been getting around to talk about. In one way, we must not confuse morale and impatience. The morale of the besiegers would actually improve as the defeat of the enemy got closer at hand, and the attraction of loot made the men impetuous, not demoralized. Demoralization is something the besieged would be most likely to suffer. Not the besieger.
But the cost of investing a city should be very grave for the besieger. Athens spent an estimated 75% of its annual budget to maintain the investment of Syracuse in the Peloponnesian war. This is something which can be handled, according to Malrubius. By counting how many turns you have invested the city, it gets more expensive by each turn. Starts out not too expensive, and the last turn before it falls it becomes very expensive.. This must again be balanced with the potential for enormous rewards and loot pillaged from the city when successful.
How is the loot from a city handled in the game? Is it an extrapolative percentage of the settlement's income? F.ex. 4000% of Thermon's income?
We do not need to base the cost of an investment (passive siege) on the amount of troops in the city. Instead the city should just be considered a city, among cities. Taking a city is a big thing in any case. Hopefully, when/if we have a realistic portrayal of cities,
The besieged must start out with excellent morale at the first few turns of investment. At the last turn, the besieged ought to be demoralized. The besieger should start out with a lower morale. Consider the fact that the soldiers have just marched a long way and are dismayed by the prospect of having to do manual labour and construct siegeworks. But as they get snug in their investment, the besieger's morale increases each turn. That way the player has to weigh his army's morale (chance of success in assault) against the expenditure of a longterm investment..
SO in short,
On the first turn of the investment (passive starvation of city):
The defender will have a very good morale, the attacker will have a slightly bad morale, the attacker will also be cheapest to supply on the first turn.
On the last turn of the investment (passive starvation of city):
The defender will have a very bad morale, the attacker will have a slightly good morale, the attacker will also be the most expensive to supply on the last turn.
Number 1, this would realistically portray the fact that local supplies are finite, and that the logistics route (whether by sea or land) will have to be strained.
Number 2, this would give the historically accurate incentive to assault cities, which was to avoid the expense of a longterm investment.
Number 3, the defending army will have the worst possible morale at the last turn, giving the besieger yet another incentive to wish to assault near the last turn, not only to avoid the increasing expenditure but also for easier victory. Attacking on the turn before the last turn may be the best option.
If assaults are already too common in the game, we must find ways to make them more difficult in fact.. I guess the siege-script (spawning levies) will alleviate this problem a bit, but we must also look at other ways.. time-limit is not the way to do it though.
Resupply train / supplies.
Reply With Quote
from Satalexton 
.jpg "EB rocks's Avatar")
Is eating a taco.
Bookmarks