Hypothetical Improvements to MTW

[Del Arroyo]

One thing I have noticed in MTW is that the perennial standing armies don't match up much with history, and that the invasion, conquest, and assimilation of new territories seems a little too easy to me. Also the management of building and infrastructure that goes into constructing units seems a bit cumbersome. So consider the following hypothetical changes:


Imagine if the upkeep cost for troops was much higher. Imagine if, instead of having all your troops in a standing army at once, you held most of them in an reserve pool. Whenever you disbanded a unit or soldiers were ransomed back from the enemy, they would go into this pool, to be recalled to service at a "recruiting station" for a fraction of their original training cost.

Each faction could start with a pool of a certain number of soldiers of different varieties. In provinces with the proper improvements, there would always be a plentiful supply of, say, peasants and urban militia to be called up, usually for short-term duty.

Any troops coming out of the pool would be activated similarly to Mercenaries and treated the same as ransomed soldiers are now-- they would be able to defend immediately, but would have to wait a full turn to attack.

This would create a much more realistic model of the mobilization necessary for war, the high cost of a standing army, and a much more sensible portrayal of the role of Peasants and other low-class part-timers.

..

Imagine if troops being ordered on offensive operations or troops involved in sieges had their upkeep cost doubled. Imagine if a besieging army that had its "lines of communication" cut would not be able to recieve this upkeep and would suffer high levels of death and desertion.

The player would have to pay extra to launch an attack, and would have to pay extra for any troops in a besieging army, as their ability to forage locally would be hampered.

Also, what if there were certain buildings requisite to troop upkeep and that any troops stationed in a province that lacked them would require extra upkeep? These buildings could be linked to the level of integration and loyalty of the local population-- making a lengthy occupation of foreign lands quite costly indeed.

There could also be more buildings and improvements and time involved in bringing a local population over to your side-- and a strong link between these factors and the quality of troops that can be produced or called up from any particular province.

This would accurately model the high cost of launching offensive operations and occupying hostile lands, as well as the difficulty of getting the full potential value out of a conquered people. We would see more punitive wars, and wars where the out-and-out destruction of your enemy and annexation of all his lands is not the objective.

..

Also, what if there were a small happiness factor linked to the overseas deployment of troops, and an agricultural/trade income factor linked to the call-up of massive numbers of peasants and militia? This too would be accurate and depict the economic consequences of war.

..

So what do you guys think of these hypothetical changes? It would probably make conquering the entire map alot less feasible, but this never happened historically anyway, and for me the micromanagement involved in that victory goal makes the game un-fun.

In My Opinion, if the changes I mentioned here were possible, the game would be simpler and more fun, by making factions more surviveable, and focusing the game more on specific provinces and strategic moves than simply spamming and gobbling up as many provinces as you can.

What's your opinion?

DA

[Csargo]

I like your idea it sounds like a fun change to the game.

[ToranagaSama]

I understand where you're coming from, but for me, Gameplay should always take precedent over the historical. I understand that, for some, simply the opportunity to *re-play* history is fun, and I can appreciate that; but, for me, the Gameplay is what's fun.

I like the TW series, for the opportunity to play Damiyo/General/King, etc.

The examples you've given are interesting, but, frankly, as you appear to acknowledge, they would lead to *stagnation*.

So what do you guys think of these hypothetical changes? It would probably make conquering the entire map alot less feasible, but this never happened historically anyway, and for me the micromanagement involved in that victory goal makes the game un-fun.

I disagree. The game is MUCHO fun! and the micro-management is half the fun.

How could making conquering the map--less feasable be more *Strategic*? One manner in which to make things more Strategic is to INCREASE the available Strategic (as well as Tactical) options---not to *decrease* them.

Making it next to impossible to invade and hold enemy territory just cuts down the Strategic possibilities.

As the game atests, striking a good balance between *difficulty* and Strategic *possibilities* is the key; and, the goal of conquering the map is the balancer. Taking an individual province may be *relatively* easy and/or simplistic, but conquering the entire map isn't. That is repeating the taking of provinces and the *keeping* of terriroty is where the Strategic *challenge* lies.

Even if, on the one hand, the game foregoes hisotrical accuracy, the purpose of the game is provide the Player with *Strategic Challenge*, rather than historical simulation. It's a game, not a simulation.

[QUOTE]Wouldn't you say that this is what CA attempted to accomplish in RTW with *Population*? Armies are drawn from the Population of each specific city. If there is no Population, or if the population is not great enough, then no units can be trained. In RTW the City Populations represent the "standing pool" you suggest. It's just a bit more abstract. No?

Each faction could start with a pool of a certain number of soldiers of different varieties. In provinces with the proper improvements, there would always be a plentiful supply of, say, peasants and urban militia to be called up, usually for short-term duty.

Isn't this, essentially, how the game operates? You start with a certain number of varying units, and you have virtual, if not literal, access to *cheap* peasants and militia. Also, I believe, as a player gains experience, peasants/militia do serve in the *short-term*. As soon as I have access to non-peasant spear units, I never use them again. I would imagine its the same for most as they progress in skill and knowledge.

I think the game simulates the perceived reality fairly well. If a player is in a money pinch, then his armies will indeed consist of less units, of which Peasants and Militia my form the bulk, with just a few select elite units.

If a player is flush with money, then the bulk of his armies will consist of higher grade units, again, with just a few even more select elite units.

William the Conquerer didn't take England with a bunch of Peasants! Though lesser Kings were well known to defend and conquer lands with armies bulked with Peasants. Though, realize, that the Peasant contingent was more for *posturing* than for *decisive* engagement.

I don't think the *model* needs to be tinkered with too drastically.

Imagine if troops being ordered on offensive operations or troops involved in sieges had their upkeep cost doubled. Imagine if a besieging army that had its "lines of communication" cut would not be able to recieve this upkeep and would suffer high levels of death and desertion.

Putting aside the "line of commuication" issue, I think you'll find this effected quite nicely in the MedMod. If you don't like the MedMod, then I'm sure other mods effect the high cost of beseiging; and/or you could just mod it yourself.

I think by "line of communication", you really mean Supply Line. Yes, there have been many ideas and request for CA to effect some siumlation of a Supply Line, which would have the capability of being disrupted.

The player would have to pay extra to launch an attack, and would have to pay extra for any troops in a besieging army, as their ability to forage locally would be hampered.

*Paying Extra* isn't really the point. Simply *paying* would then relate simply to ensuring the amount of funds needed; pushing the game more toward simple economics. Kinda RTS like, rather that TBS or Strategy Gaming.

The real point is in making besieging, not necessarily more costly, but, rather more Strategic. That is, requiring more careful and involved (strategic) *planning*.

For example, as it is now, when you besiege a castle/fort, etc., the only account you are compeled to deal with is the loss of men each turn. This is too shallow.

Like you suggested, establishing a Supply Line s/b be a factor. There s/b factors in establishing the line; and, also in defending it (and, perhaps in making it run efficiently). Though, Supply Lines s/b just one option.

Additionally, when an army embarked on an *adventure*, a great accounting was needed. A great buildup of *Supplies* was necessary, and those supplies needed to be transported. The game should effect this *buildup* in a more obvious and less abstracted manner. To a degree which will cause it to be *Strategic* to the game.

Also, all the above and I'm sure a lot more, should effect the army's *Morale*. AS the game stands, Morale is not an issue in beseiging. We all know that an army sitting around attempting to wait out a siege, would often become emotionally demoralized and physically debilitated.

The game has *some* of the mechanics to effect this, but I doubt all that is necessary. It needs to be fully effected.

Like you suggest, this, indeed, would make the seiging and taking of provinces more difficult and slow things down a bit; but, it would be an obstacle realtively simple to overcome with the right Strategic Planning and Execution.

Which is more to the point, rather than encouring *stagnation* as a more realistic posture for the game, it would be better for Gameplay (therefore more fun) to increase the Strategic Options and Challenge, serving the purpose of increased realism AND fun.

This might slow down, but it would not become stagnant and the player would be busy as heck, formulating and executing his strategic plan. Micro-management s/b about THIS--the manner in which you execute the strategic plan.

Micro-management can be fun, if its to the purpose. For example, in the game Farms are a means to gain Funds, which then allows the player to purchase units. Simple, to some degree, unrealistic, and with no direct *strategic* purpose, yet requiring micro-management. Which is why this sort of micro-management becomes tedious and less fun.

Change that model a bit, Farming has to do with providing grain to the Grainery, from which you can establish a Supply Line to your Army. All of which will determine not only the size of your army, but also the length of time it can stay practically *in-the-field*; as well as effecting Morale.

Of course, the EFFICIENT operation of the above model requires micro-management, but the such is no longer a matter of tedium, but rather one of Strategic *Challenge*, and in reality becomes a **Skill** factor (can't think of a better why to put it). Much like a player's ability to control his units during battle can be the decisive factor. Mastering such control is an imperative Skill Set.

In a similar way would mastering the *model* I outlined above. It would become a decisive **Skill** factor. One that would requiring *mastering*.

As the game stands, there is no Supply Line factor; Farming is strictly economic; the only thing *strategic* about it, is in knowing whether the cost of an upgrade is economically efficient. (This was more a concern in Shogun, if I recall correctly, because certain provinces were more beneficial for farming than others.) You simply click for this and click for that. It adds to the Tedium and not fun factor for many.

Its nice that CA *automated* many things, but now, it would be better to focus upon turning much of what is now Tedium into Strategic Challenge.

There could also be more buildings and improvements and time involved in bringing a local population over to your side-- and a strong link between these factors and the quality of troops that can be produced or called up from any particular province.

This would accurately model the high cost of launching offensive operations and occupying hostile lands, as well as the difficulty of getting the full potential value out of a conquered people.

Sounds JUST like RTW! Have you played Rome?

We would see more punitive wars, and wars where the out-and-out destruction of your enemy and annexation of all his lands is not the objective.

I'm not sure you've expressed yourself correctly here.

"Punitive" means *Punishment* as in retribution! Such would precisely involve the EXPRESSED destruction of one's enemy, and which the annexation of all his lands would be your just reward for all the trouble you've been through. ;)

Its not very realistic. Unless you go into the Political, there is NO purpose for war other than destruction and/or material gain.

Now, I could agree that an infusion of the Political reasons that can be cause for war would be rather interesting, but this is not what your talking about.

Also, what if there were a small happiness factor linked to the overseas deployment of troops, and an agricultural/trade income factor linked to the call-up of massive numbers of peasants and militia? This too would be accurate and depict the economic consequences of war.

Quite right, which I expanded upon in my farming/supply line *model* example.

So what do you guys think of these hypothetical changes? It would probably make conquering the entire map alot less feasible, but this never happened historically anyway, and for me the micromanagement involved in that victory goal makes the game un-fun.

I disagree fully.

Yes, the entirety of Europe may not have occured in reality, BUT, the conquering of equivalent amounts of territory DID occur during varying times of history. In Europe, you had the Romans, Alexander, the Mongols, Charlemagne, etc.

There were other similar such larger territorial conquerings in, India, China, as well as elsewhere around the globe.

You must also take note, and I know that many will simply cry at the reality of this, that Total War is NOT modeled after Europe.

It is modeled after JAPAN!!!!! Shogun: Total War.

Some of the more Eurocentric types seem to either not be aware of, or refuse to comprehend and acknowledge this fact.

Know that in Japan, such a *Total* conquering did, indeed, occur, and is the pivotal occurence in Japanese history allowing for the eventual development of Japan as a Nation.

The European model which is MTW is an *adaption* of the original and intended game design.

Overall, I just can't see how removing the micro-management will make the game more fun. Seems to me, it would make the game less involved.

BTW, what is your opinion and thought on MTW's auto-management feature? Is it not sufficient enough in removing the need to micro-manage??

In My Opinion, if the changes I mentioned here were possible, the game would be simpler and more fun, by making factions more surviveable, and focusing the game more on specific provinces and strategic moves than simply spamming and gobbling up as many provinces as you can.

Let me ask, what do you think of the Viking Invaison and its much *smaller* Campaign model? It is not *more* fun in the manner you desire and describe?

Thank you for your post.

~ToranagaSama

[Zarax]

BTW, most of the changes can be ackieved with a certain amount of MODing, not too hard to do.

[Del Arroyo]

I guess in some ways we view the game differently. For me, increasing the number of surviving factions DOES make the game more strategically complex. Expansion would still happen, and you'd still have a shot at becoming quite big, but the pace would slow down a few steps. To my mind, this would add strategic possibilities to the game-- instead of the same old thing happening every time-- you get really big and everyone else gets small and irrelevant, and there is no question that you could crush them all, you just need to GET AROUND to it.

In other words, for me, once I get really big, the battles start to lose meaning, and there are a lot MORE battles.

If factions in general were more surviveable (and if they were a bit more reasonable diplomatically and in picking fights), then for me they would have more substance, they would be more real. Fighting them would have meaning, which for me is more fun.

And frankly I wouldn't shed a single tear if I had to fight fewer battles to win the game. I'd be happy with a hundred or two mundane battles, some of which I could auto-calc, and a dozen or so truly memorable ones, spread over the course of one or two hundred turns. Currently there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of battles, too few of which can be safely auto-calced-- and there are so many memorable ones that it's impossible to remember them.

..

As far as the idea of keeping the majority of your army in a reserve pool, this idea is attractive to me mainly because it more directly models real history AND because I don't really like having to deal with all those stacks. If I could find somewhere to PUT those stacks where I didn't have to LOOK at them or THINK about them until I NEEDED them, that would be fantastic.

Also it would mean that unless you had the income to support a large standing army, an extra turn of mobilization would be required before initiating any major war. It would also accentuate the difference between keeping your soldiers at home in the populace farming and working in shops and having to support them overseas occupying enemy turf.

You say that this would not really be a big practical shift, but I think that there are subtle benefits which would make this change worth it.

..

As far as requiring a buildup of supplies vs. paying extra for attacking troops, what exactly is the difference? Currently there is only 1 real commodity in MTW, which is Florins, and while this model is simplistic it can be twisted to model accurately just about any economic phenomenon.

I referred to "lines of communication" because this is a concept that already exists in the game-- if the "lines of communication" between your king and your provinces are cut, your provinces go apeshit. While this is currently the only way the concept is used, I'd wager it wouldn't be too tough to expand it to cover a few other things.

Alot of my list is taking into account the current mechanisms and concepts present in the game to try and focus on simple, practical changes.

..

As far as "punitive" wars-- the US has totally defeated Germany twice, occupied them once and never annexed them. Almost all wars in the history of man have focused more on the defeat and/or plunder of the enemy rather than his annexation into your own political system-- why? Because the latter option is a hell of a lot more difficult!!!

Alexander was a conqueror, Charlemagne was a conqueror, Napoleon was a conqueror-- and in ALL of these cases this state of affairs changed rather quickly! Japan and China have different factors and fundamentals which allowed them to be ruled as single nations-- but the Europe + Near Eastern region were not friendly for monolithic conquest.

..

It is interesting to hear about some of the features of RTW and indeed I suspected that some of these issues are addressed in that game, but I have stayed away from it based on rumors that the tactical model is basically shot.

As far as MTW automation, I use the auto-tax. If I used auto-train I'm almost sure I'd end up with like twelve spearmen, twenty peasants and around two hundred units each of archers and handgunners-- based on AI unit choices I've observed. Auto-build is an idea, but it would slow down my tech train, especially if there's no way to turn it off for specific provinces (the way it works with auto-tax).

And yes, I do like the Viking Campaign, though the greater variety of the full campaign and the absence of ridikerlous "berserkers" are also seductive. I'll do another Viking campaign at some point.

I haven't tried MedMod yet though I've read all the readmes and it sounds really good. It would be nice if there were a GA option for it.

..

It is interesting to see, that we do have many ideas in common and have been thinking about the game along fairly similar lines.

DA

[Del Arroyo]

Ooh, another great thing would be some sort of building system which would speed inland movement, instead of having to rely totally on the sea. Currently I hate moving inland because it gets to be so much more of a pain to move armies around.

And yeah, yeah, I know, they probably did something about this in RTW.

DA