field cost script only for the player

[a_b_danner]

Has EB considered a field cost script similar to 'Deus lo Vult' mod for MTW2.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=67501

For those that aren't familiar with this mod, the script gives a cost for generals or leaders that are outside of settlements - for the player only. Example, any single unit, or a stack of units, has a single cost, whether they are commanded by a general or a named character. This cost forces players to be more strategic about waging campaigns. In the Deus lo Vult mod, the cost is 1000 for being in an enemy province, and 500 in your own province. While i've found these numbers to be too high, the principle is quite good. I've changed the cost for being in my own province to only 100, which makes transering troops not be too prohibitive, but it does make garrsoning forts cost something everyturn, and makes the movement of troops within ones empire a more carefully planned thing.

Campaigning against enemy cities costs a lot more, so they have to be much better planned. It also makes 'raiding' enemy cities, to raise cash, much less attractive from a profit standpoint.

Bottom line, i think the script adds a strategic element for the player, and reduces (but not eliminate) some of the 'gamy' things a person can do - huge amount of forts garrisoned by a single unit, and raiding enemy cities for the cash.

Here is an example of the script;

monitor_event CharacterTurnEnd FactionType egypt
and I_LocalFaction egypt
and not EndedInSettlement
and not AgentType = admiral
and not AgentType = spy
and not AgentType = diplomat
and not AgentType = assassin
and not AgentType = priest
and not AgentType = princess
and not AgentType = merchant
and not InEnemyLands

console_command add_money egypt, -100

end_monitor

monitor_event CharacterTurnEnd FactionType denmark
and I_LocalFaction denmark
and not EndedInSettlement
and not AgentType = admiral
and not AgentType = spy
and not AgentType = diplomat
and not AgentType = assassin
and not AgentType = priest
and not AgentType = princess
and not AgentType = merchant
and InEnemyLands

console_command add_money denmark, -500

end_monitor

[qvcatullus]

The first thing that bugs me about this is that it's counterintuitive from the realistic point of view that EB seems very concerned with.

If you're going to raise troops, then it's far more cost-effective to have them stationed in the enemies' territory than your own. In enemy territory, they can survive by raiding and taking crops from your opponent. In your own territory, you have to get food from friendlies, and if you intend to keep them friendly for wrong you'll need to pay them for it. If anything, it seems to me that there isn't ENOUGH incentive in the RTW model for parking your troops across the border.

The root of the problem is that it simply takes way too long to raise troops. RTW and MTW (I haven't played MTW2) both require years of preparation to build and gather the troops for a decent-sized army, much less move it to the border where it is needed, which makes it important to create huge, standing armies that you station here and there (and pay wages to). It's difficult to keep a smaller garrison force and then raise combat forces from a reserve when necessary. This is less of a realism issue for, e.g., the Romans (who did rely rather heavily on a standing professional army at least within the time frame of EB) than it is for the more feudal armies (parthia, or ESPECIALLY the medieval time frame in MTW and MTW2), but it still bugs me.

[Gazius]

The first thing that bugs me about this is that it's counterintuitive from the realistic point of view that EB seems very concerned with.

If you're going to raise troops, then it's far more cost-effective to have them stationed in the enemies' territory than your own. In enemy territory, they can survive by raiding and taking crops from your opponent. In your own territory, you have to get food from friendlies, and if you intend to keep them friendly for wrong you'll need to pay them for it. If anything, it seems to me that there isn't ENOUGH incentive in the RTW model for parking your troops across the border.

The root of the problem is that it simply takes way too long to raise troops. RTW and MTW (I haven't played MTW2) both require years of preparation to build and gather the troops for a decent-sized army, much less move it to the border where it is needed, which makes it important to create huge, standing armies that you station here and there (and pay wages to). It's difficult to keep a smaller garrison force and then raise combat forces from a reserve when necessary. This is less of a realism issue for, e.g., the Romans (who did rely rather heavily on a standing professional army at least within the time frame of EB) than it is for the more feudal armies (parthia, or ESPECIALLY the medieval time frame in MTW and MTW2), but it still bugs me.

This is rather interesting, and I think its worth a look at from the excellent modders here. On VH campaign, the rebels are always going to attack you, and usually in such huge forces that it really is a challenge. But what if you leave them? In some places, like in the steps or any other place with huge spaces between provinces, it wouldn't be as practical, but for factions like Rome in Italy, I'm sure huge uprisings of bandits, slaves, etc. would have been a huge problem and plenty done to put it down. However, if they're not directly attacking you, there's no real incentive to kill them. Now, if you were penalized with a fine, you'd levy an army, or recall one from elsewhere and crush it. If it would be viable, again in such a place that's densely populated such as the Italian peninsula, for them to be raiding farms and possibly slaying your people, posing yet another penalty on the player who does nothing to suppress rebels in their manpower pool. Of course, this would be small, as the cities in the game represent major ones, and therefore hold most of the represented population you can draw from. Unless of course, the represented population is interpretted as meaning only those inside the city itself, and not of the entire province. I figured this is the way it works since the swezboz are able to levy armies, yet they didn't have metropolis' like Rome or Carthage. As far as I know.

The same idea could be applied across relations between nations as well. A neutral or allied nation holding a army in your country would be using your resources, why aren't you being paid for them? Of course, this could be seen as an exploit if the AI likes to park their armies in your nation, like Carthage to Rome in my game, so maybe have it be a much smaller bonus, as they wouldn't be raiding and stealing from you. Did men often defect from the armies? It may be worthwhile to also give a small population boost as well. If fitting of course. I'm thinking along the lines of Carthage, or maybe greeks/barbarians?

Anyways, just musings to figure out how to add another layer of depth to the game, if they're felt to not be relevant, please disregard and just listen to the nice praise for how great this mod already is.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It has been suggested, here on this very forum, and, although I'm not in the EB team, I think it has been rejected. First of all there are EB's massive unit costs etc. Second, 1 can be seen as a 'mean' thus, compensating the high cost campaigning units by low cost garissoned units. But that's just me.

[Ciaran]

It would make much more sense probably if units in the open lost some of their soldiers each turn (like units in besieged cities do) to simulate for the hardships of campaigning. But I doubt there´s a scipting onption to allow for that

[Gazius]

It would make much more sense probably if units in the open lost some of their soldiers each turn (like units in besieged cities do) to simulate for the hardships of campaigning. But I doubt there´s a scipting onption to allow for that

Maybe not, but would it be possible to create a fort at the end of every turn and simulate it being sieged during the winter or summer for the desert? This is the closest thing I can think of for simulating attrition. Then edit the stats of the fort so that it only lasts 2 turns, since a true fortress, and the camp set up by the Romans every night are probably quite different. Would it be possible to even have two kinds of forts?

[Reverend Joe]

Maybe not, but would it be possible to create a fort at the end of every turn and simulate it being sieged during the winter or summer for the desert? This is the closest thing I can think of for simulating attrition. Then edit the stats of the fort so that it only lasts 2 turns, since a true fortress, and the camp set up by the Romans every night are probably quite different. Would it be possible to even have two kinds of forts?

That would be absurd. The freakin' scripts for that would make the AI turns last days.

On the other hand, it would be a step towards chronological realism.

[Gazius]

That would be absurd. The freakin' scripts for that would make the AI turns last days.

On the other hand, it would be a step towards chronological realism.

Maybe make it a handicap for the player only then? Or relate it to size of the army? Obviously a 3 unit army isn't going to take as much room as a 13 unit army, which would make a full defensive structure like a fort overkill unless along a border like the germanic one.