A new feature

[Copperknickers]

Hi, an idea for EB 2. I was wondering if you incorporate the crusade desertion feature to add in the deathg of your troops when marching over treacherous terrain?

[antisocialmunky]

Would be nice for sieges.

[hellenes]

I dont know how this would be implemeted but here is the idea:
Make ALL armies "Crusades"/"Juhads"...so you dont "make" troops in an unrealistic "RTS" like fashion...
Like if a Roman general wants to launch an attack on a settlement or wants to reqruit an army he asks the Senate (insert Pope but invisible somewhere on the corner of the map) for armies...this way you may have a realistic legion that has desertion...
For other factions it would work in a similar way...
This way you may provide an overhaul to teh idea of the campaign and make it faaar more realistic than the RTS like upproach...

[I Am Herenow]

But then how would you recruit soldiers, after you had used up your starting armies?

[hellenes]

But then how would you recruit soldiers, after you had used up your starting armies?

You dont...you just keep launching "Crusades"/"Jihads"....

[antisocialmunky]

I think its limitted to one per faction.. and you would need a few popes... and I think there can only be one pope. This sort of thing would be interesting if we could have more than one per faction and limit non-crusade troop movement to your own territory.

[Patriote]

Anyways, you need a minimum of 8 units, I think, in the army to able to turn an army into a crusade. Otherwise, that could be a nice feature is modding is possible.

[Hax]

Like if a Roman general wants to launch an attack on a settlement or wants to reqruit an army he asks the Senate (insert Pope but invisible somewhere on the corner of the map) for armies...this way you may have a realistic legion that has desertion...

I'm no expert, but I think the state of the Pope depends on the Papal States still alive as a faction in the game. Every faction slot will be used in EB2, I think, so that'll leave no room over for the Pope to exist.

As I said, I'm no expert and not in the EB2 team.

[Kuningaz]

Besides I think it would be quite boring only launching crusades/jihads instead of recruiting units. Kinda takes a bit of the game's fascination away. And why would all other factions have to do that? I can understand it when you're talking about republican rome but when I was the Ptolemaio Pharaoh I would'nt be glad to have to ask for permission to attack the seleucids or something.

[hellenes]

Besides I think it would be quite boring only launching crusades/jihads instead of recruiting units. Kinda takes a bit of the game's fascination away. And why would all other factions have to do that? I can understand it when you're talking about republican rome but when I was the Ptolemaio Pharaoh I would'nt be glad to have to ask for permission to attack the seleucids or something.

but even he didnt "build" units in the unrealistic and dumbed down RTS fashion...Armies were assembled and reqruited as a whole and then marched...

[fahrenheit]

I don't mean to pop your idea balloon but there are many flaws with this idea. (Assuming my knowledge about the MTW2 Papal system is correct.)

1. We could only do this for one faction, since there is only one pope.
2. There would be no way to restrict it, as the game function is meant to help you conquer the holy lands easier. Changing it to restrict your armies would be unrealistic and seemingly impossible.
3. This would only allow you to attack someone else once every few years.
4. The pope is supposed to be invincible, if he dies someone else takes his spot. If his only city is taken he becomes a horde. Doing this means the senate would forever live, even if Romani was destroyed.
5. If every army was a crusade/jihad army then the people would desert if the army sat around for awhile.

[hellenes]

I don't mean to pop your idea balloon but there are many flaws with this idea. (Assuming my knowledge about the MTW2 Papal system is correct.)

1. We could only do this for one faction, since there is only one pope.
Jihads dont need that.
2. There would be no way to restrict it, as the game function is meant to help you conquer the holy lands easier. Changing it to restrict your armies would be unrealistic and seemingly impossible.
I meant to avoid the unrealistic and dumbed down "RTS" recruitment. Because this way you assemble armies and not whenever you want...Which means slower expansion...
3. This would only allow you to attack someone else once every few years.
Exactly thus making the game more challenging and realistic.
4. The pope is supposed to be invincible, if he dies someone else takes his spot. If his only city is taken he becomes a horde. Doing this means the senate would forever live, even if Romani was destroyed.
Jihad?
5. If every army was a crusade/jihad army then the people would desert if the army sat around for awhile.
Thats the point.

Some constructive commentary...

[antisocialmunky]

It might be interesting to give certain factions Jihads and stuff like Gaul to show tribal chieftains gaining a large following and raising am assive peasant army to drive out invaders. It'd also make mass desertion more plausable if its a bunch of peasants.

[fahrenheit]

Some constructive commentary...

Jihads dont need that.
Jihads only work with the Muslim faction. Or whatever we rename it to.
And it can only be called on a population with a significant amount of Muslim people.

I meant to avoid the unrealistic and dumbed down "RTS" recruitment. Because this way you assemble armies and not whenever you want...Which means slower expansion...
There are other, better ways to do this. Increase money cost, lower movement, etc. But trying to limit armies to crusades/jihads is impossible.

Exactly thus making the game more challenging and realistic.
No, you could only have one army. As in, one general and a mass of units. That is not only not historically accurate but it is also extremely difficult.

This would mean that you could send one army (say for example) north to fight Audei. Then when Epeiros comes knocking on your door you have to wait and twiddle your thumbs. It wouldn't matter how much money you have, or even how many soldiers you have, you would have to wait for the crusade time to restart in order to attack them.

Jihad?
Jihad would be the most likely if we used this, but it could only work with factions of the same religion.


Thats the point.
Thats unrealistic and not historically accurate.

[antisocialmunky]

Jihads dont need that.
Jihad?
Jihad would be the most likely if we used this, but it could only work with factions of the same religion.

Bringing in from the culture/religion/government thread, if we did use government type as our 'religion.' We could make confederation = muslims and give them Jihads to give thme the feature I mentioned above.

[fahrenheit]

Bringing in from the culture/religion/government thread, if we did use government type as our 'religion.' We could make confederation = muslims and give them Jihads to give thme the feature I mentioned above.

Everything is still being debated, and maybe crusades/jihads feature will be implemented into the game. But limiting recruitment of armies to only jihads/crusades is impossible. I'm not against the idea all together, but what the OP and a few other people are asking is a nightmare to modders and players alike.

[Patriote]

In fact, the starting idea was to used the crusade/jihad's effect of desertion in certain conditions, not to restrict all armies as crusades/jihads

Could be nice for armies running low on supplies, would make sieging huge towns even harder as troops, forced to stay in the same place for a long time, would lack supplies and "desertion" could represent real desertions as well as others problems such as sickness and the rest coming with lack of supplies and sanitary installations or whatever.

Anyways, might be hard-core as everything else

[antisocialmunky]

You could use Crusades to model migration.

[lobf]

It has great potential, but it would remove a lot of flexibility from campaigning.

[Copperknickers]

And remember, the recruitment mehod described will be included in E:tw, if you want to make an army, you go to a general, not a building.

[General Appo]

Apart from all the other constructive criticism, I must add that if this was implemented somehow then you would also have to be able to make different kinds of armies that can act as garrisons and the like, it´s not like the Roman´s didn´t have a single soldier prepared between their war´s.
The best way I can see of somehow implementing this is indeed with Celtic, Germanian and other tribal factions, where a strong chieftain could over some time gather a large following for virtually no recruitment cost as long as he could promise them enough loot and glory if they followed him.
If he then simply stayed put or failed to bring his followers what he had promised his men could easily abandon him to seek fortune on their own.
Of course, I don´t know how easy this would be to implement.

[antisocialmunky]

Apart from all the other constructive criticism, I must add that if this was implemented somehow then you would also have to be able to make different kinds of armies that can act as garrisons and the like, it´s not like the Roman´s didn´t have a single soldier prepared between their war´s.
The best way I can see of somehow implementing this is indeed with Celtic, Germanian and other tribal factions, where a strong chieftain could over some time gather a large following for virtually no recruitment cost as long as he could promise them enough loot and glory if they followed him.
If he then simply stayed put or failed to bring his followers what he had promised his men could easily abandon him to seek fortune on their own.
Of course, I don´t know how easy this would be to implement.

It would be cool if we could disband units and have a script allow you to recruit low cost 'veterans' in that provence. IE

If Corhors disbanded
then add +1 to Evocata recruitment.

[General Appo]

But you would have to have time limit on that offer, you can´t disband a unit and pick it up 200 years later.

[Hax]

I personally thought of using this function to represent campaigning out of season, eg, the deaths Hannibal suffered when marching through the Alps.

[antisocialmunky]

I think someone on XGM found something in RTW that caused desertion or something. There's a thread in the EB forum about it.

[I of the Storm]

That's still under discussion.

How about using the jihad feature for scripted AI things? Like the Cimbri&Teutones for example?

[aftzengeier]

Hail guys...

It allways annoyed me that someone's able to kill all the citizens of a conquered settlement. In most historical cases the population was only displaced. That caused the countless migrations.
So another cool feature about that could be low quality rebel armies that appear when a settlement is wiped out. They may represent the people that were not killed, just banished, and are now on search for refuge and a new home far away from the enemy's territory. This would only make sense if it is possible to give rebel armies a marching order to defined area via script. I do not know much about scripting - only that many things are possible! If it is, I'd think about the capital of the defeated faction as a target or if they recently lost their last city the capital of an ally. If there is no ally or the defeated are rebels they should go for a random capital or something. They also may head for a town or capital of a faction that is neither enemy nor ally of the victor, somewhere save. (Just some possible offers - There are many more ways).

In addition they shall be commanded by a very "bribable" generated family member. This way "giving those people some land" would be afforded quite good. To support this kind of feature the AI had to be encouraged to burn some more cities down. As I told I don't know much about the possibilities of scripts. Yet I think this would be a nice, realistic feature and there are countless excamples in antiquity that were worthily represented with such a feature.




Farewell.
Your friend Aftzengeier