Number of turns

[QuickDagger]

Hy everyone,

Maybe the maximum distance covered by a standard unit could answer the question. I mean, a group of 2000 foot soldiers can march-move-travel-etc 900 km in about 3 months (lets say 10 km a day on a standard terrain). As we already know the distances between the cities, this calculation becomes easy.


So be it !

[ScionTheWorm]

okay just some thoughts if four turns were implemented on realistic potencial expansion for factions:
each province filled up with units holding the cities if realistic, hard to conquer. ai won't go berserk and one faction won't own half the world in 5 years. vikings for instance can now conquer normandy or single provinces, but won't be able to conquer a lot in no time.

richer factions will of course be able to conquer, but it will take it's time. we would have to avoid that the player have to fight 10 battles a turn, as it will take ages to get some new technology and such - in fact I think, if we would implement more turns, the player should be able to just wait up to eight turns for instance, and not fall way back in factionscore.

On the other hand, he could travel realistic distances and manouver a lot more than if only two turns. Of course it will take a lot of turns to take out another faction, as they have garrisons. shit I don't know...

[skeletor]

To me, the numbers of turns doesn't really mather. If you have 6 turns in a year, you have to do all the same things for every turn that you do with the RTW system. The only advantage with more turns, is that we can specify more the relativeness between buildingtimes and unit movement.

You will experience as many battles every turn as you do with the original system (AI allso get "6" turns per year) so you wold probably end up with faster expantion of your, and AI empires compared to buildingtime.

I like the system of RTR mutch bether, were you get haltet by the lack of recruitable unit's in newly conquered provinces, so that you have to have the garison fixed before you can move on. And if you expand to fast, replacing your army will be a pain. This allso applies to the AI factions, so you won't get any überfactions around.

BUT wold i really like to see mutch larger traveldistances compared to RTW. Your army's should be able to cross europe in a year if they don't stumble across any other armys. This way, ambushes will probably occour mutch more often, and you as a player must play mutch more defencively.


-Skel-

[QuickDagger]

I don´t think it is THAT big problem. Here´s my sugestion:

PROBLEM
1)Goal1: To cover realistic distances
2)Goal2: Stop fighting several battleas a turn
3)Hindrance: Prevent from expanding too fast

SOLUTION:
1)How to cover realistic distances: make it 4 turns a year
2)See FINAL RESULT
3)How to prevent from overexpanding...

... ready ... ?

By increasing the units construction time it would make the game very boring and it would increase the already boring massive Logistics micromanaging (how to make all constructed units merge on a meeting point obeying the optimal time/distance basis=raising a big army). So, in order to avoid time waiting turns, I suggest a tremendous increase on the units construction costs. In order to expand continuously one needs to have powefull units, but those units will be so expensive that you´ll need to wait until you have the money. And, this kind of waiting is different from the waiting when you have long construction times because if you don´t want to wait untill you can purchase powerfull units you can raise a big army of cheap units. Then, with the new cheap army you can cover all the realistic distances but you know it will be hard to expand due to the lack of a good backbone on your army.

And more, lets say you will remain a lot of turns disenvolving your economy in order to raise a massive army of good units and then you will begin raiding the world (ohh! A familiar Viking thought I gess!). Then I presume:

1) City wall defences shold be more effective than RTW
2)Let the upkeep costs low. It is soo cool to have a big army !

FINAL RESULT

It seems that, by the above measures, every faction will have a main army, instead of the spread packages of RTW. And few strong armies are good, specialy because it allows to build Viking raiding armies. Also, increasing the number of factions will prevent each faction from getting rich quickly. With only a few strong armies, there will be less battles a turn and the main battles will have longer lasting results. As well as in real life!

Wow ! Did I say that ?!

[ScionTheWorm]

I think it would rather be high upkeep but low reqruitment costs....

Would be awesome to have lots of these minor factions

oh i would have to make more faction icons