Going to war is like taking a walk

**Patriote** · 08-06-2007, 02:46

The thing I dislike the most about the TW series is the fact that players or factions can go to war any time they want. This isn't just realistic or possible and extremely frustrating to have cities being sieged turn after turn by an "army" of 2-3 depleted unit of the enemy.

It usually took a long time (depending on the situation and nation) to assemble armies, collect the required food and equipment, send emissaries when needed and prepare war plans.

I remember that in either STW or MTW you were sometimes informed that this or this nation is preparing for an offensive at spring or that kind of information (although not always true, which is just normal) by sending a spy at one of the enemy province on the strategic map while you could build watch towers and border forts (giving you both information about neighboring provinces such as troops and buildings as well as giving you protection as hidden agents)

Also, in MTW, players could, if the Pope did not call for a Crusade, if playing catholic factions, "build" crusade counters costing money and then send it to war like in M2TM but with some differences.

Here's my question (after a lot of talking I know

) would it be possible, with the M2TW engine and the modifications we can do to it, to mod something what would represent military preparations of a nation for war (meaning time, money and information it gives to the enemy) in the form of "crusades" ? Either MTW or M2TW crusades

And to make "war counters = crusades" preferable if not required, maybe units basic movement could be reduced or movement penalties could be given if units are moving in enemy territories and are not part of a war counter or whatever possible others possible rules to simulate military campaigns.

So here's my idea so feel free to comment it whatever it is possible or not to implement it.

Thx

**Centurio Nixalsverdrus** · 08-06-2007, 03:17

Preparing for war already takes longer in EB than in reality in my opinion. For example, marching speed is much slower, mostly due to AI-dumbness and inability to make proper moves. Then you can only train one unit at the same time, so building an army takes you some turns. Forts, watchtowers, spies and diplomats exist too, so where is the problem? I mean, why do you need an advise "Nation X is preparing for war"? If you have a spy in place, and see a couple of full stacks crossing the border, you'll most likely notice the present danger of war.

As to collecting foods: Due to the fact that there were no freezers, food couldn't be kept well and so, the foraging had to be done underway.

War plans: What do generals do in times of peace? It's not that you sit around, doing nothing and then suddenly somebody has an idea and says "Hey, why not go to war with nation X? Marcus, you collect the food; Decimus, you make the plan; Gnaeus, you go and take a look if these pointy things are still in the magazine..."

So I quite don't understand, sorry. It already costs time, (lots of) money, and brain activity to prepare for war.

**Patriote** · 08-06-2007, 04:18

Of course, EB, compare to Vanilla RTW, did a great step in improvement that but do not forget that it is possible to recruit 2 or 3 units at the same time in M2TW without calculating the mercenaries available. This will reduce by a lot the time required to create armies. If you ever played Egypt in M2TW and saw the emerging of the Mongols, you know for sure what is it to see 5-6 full stacks of troops, including some of the best cavalry in the world appearing in your territory. IT MEANS that mass production of troops must begin and you can't stop until you're defeated or the enemy is (at least you think he is until 5-6 new stacks arrive on your lands again

)

A lot of people have complained about the AS sending stacks after stacks of troops turn after turn(named the Grey Death because of that) War in the Antiquity, as far as I know

, was not like modern war, well at least not as close for sure, where you could churn out weapons and men and keep sending them at the enemy (like the Russians during WW2) until victory is attained. But the problem is not the players I'm pretty sure, but rather the AI although I don't know how he would react to my idea. Would he use or not the war counters if it would be possible to implement them.

As for the examples I gave, I think you took them too straightforwardly but your part about the "war plans" was funny

I agree with you that TW level of simulation is above having players do the preparations by himself so building a war counter would easily replicate that . However, this wasn't my main idea at first but I think that would be that, if you have a good spying network (either in the enemy capital or the big city near the frontier) players could be informed about the intentions of the enemy and so would be able to deploy their armies in the field, set ambushes and build forts, semi-permanent or cheap ones before the enemy invades instead of having to learn that one of your city is under siege. As for the others examples I gave, well yes food was taken with moving armies although that's true, they do relied a lot of acquiring more of it while moving especially foraging for horses. However, carts and animals to pull them, arrows, javelins and etc were all kind of equipment that were needed and had to be made or buy then distributed.

Just like you said yourself, military campaigns are not like: "Hey, why not go to war with nation X?" Hey, Great idea! Charge! Even armies with troops already fully trained and equipped had a great deal of preparations to do before launch any military operation or campaign.

That what was my idea was all about, avoiding the AI to have a tons of "armies" with 2-3 units going everywhere all the time, besieging your cities, stopping the recruitment and construction in this city (although it could be a good idea to detach some units from the main army "mean the war counter) once inside the enemy territory depending on the situation: besieging a weakly defended city instead of using the whole army, assuring supply lines to not be disrupted, acting as rearguard defense, etc) That was the main goal of my idea, just like people preferring to always use family members instead of captains, as for the role-playing of the game. I just tried coming up with some ideas for that. However, I don't know if some or any of my ideas would be doable

Anyways, thanks for your time writing me back

**Ritterlichvon86** · 08-06-2007, 10:10

The AI should only want to leave their own soil if their stack is at least 10 units or of a certain strength.
If it goes less than that, it shall stay in homelands or retreat to its homelands if in enemy territory.
That way you won't have bogus armies trying to siege alexandria and its 7 stack army of the same size within.

Playing mtw 2 camptaigns in hotseat modus I realised that all human players generally act that way. Why not the AI ?

**Patriote** · 08-06-2007, 15:45

Sorry I really cannot help you about your question, I do not even know what is hotseat modus anways

But I sure like what you say, that there should be a minimum number of units required to besieged and then assault cities. That number could change depending on the level of the walls of each city. It does make sense because during the seconde punic war, Hannibal remained undefeated in the fields by the Romans for like 18 years but still, he never managed nor tried to besiege Roma.

I do not know if this could be done but that could be a cool idea.

Anyways, just doing some brainstorming here, I will come up a list of ideas hoping that they might inspire more ideas from you guys.

P.S. I think I was wrong when I said that Ancient warfar was not like Modern Warfare about churning out men and weapons.

War in the Antiquity, as far as I know , was not like modern war, well at least not as close for sure, where you could churn out weapons and men and keep sending them at the enemy (like the Russians during WW2) until victory is attained

I read something over the internet concerning that and warfare in general and I though it was great quality.

Here a quote:

The military revolution of the Iron Age qualitatively increased the combat capabilities of ancient armies to levels never seen before in human history. Yet, what distinguishes modern warfare from ancient warfare is more than its level of military capability and destructive power. The key defining element of modern war is strategic endurance, and this quality is a function of the total integration of the social, economic, and political resources of the state in support of military operations. After the fall of Rome it was not until the Civil War (1860-65) that the West once again began to fight wars requiring the total integration of all social resources in support of the combat armies in the field. Quite naturally, the various elements of the supporting strategic infrastructure became necessary targets of military attack. Thus, the battles of the Civil War were won and lost as much in the factories and on the farms as on the battlefields themselves. The emergence of this level of warfare in the 19th century was not new. Total war had been a major defining characteristic of armies of the Iron Age more than two thousand years earlier.

at:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...z/gabr0011.htm

and here's the link for the main page:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...z/gabr0001.htm

So maybe you guys could also give me your opinion about all the information written in this study, thanks again, this time for educating me