DEVELOPERS DIARY [Sharing Our Work with IS Supporters]

[ErikBerg]

Aren't the unit sizes already doing that in a way? I don't mind a challenge and I'm all for it, but if a unit cap is put too low, I can't help but worry it might instead cripple the player in terms of reaching campaign goals.

[Swerg]

Aren't the unit sizes already doing that in a way? I don't mind a challenge and I'm all for it, but if a unit cap is put too low, I can't help but worry it might instead cripple the player in terms of reaching campaign goals.

I'd say that manpower-rich factions like Russia and France would be able to field, say, 10-12 units of each type of regular infantry. Less populous factions like Sweden and England would be restricted to 6-8.

This limit could be raised for middle era units and even eliminated for the late-era, representing the fielding of huge Napoleonic armies.

However, the idea would be to limit the action to between 1 and 3 'field' armies. The rest of a nation's forces should be garrison troops.

The problem, of course, as I said, would arise in getting the AI to differentiate between 'field' and 'garrison' troops.

EDIT:
Also, if players happen to need a lot of manpower, a sort of 'levy' or 'conscript' unit of poor quality, but without a recruiting limit, could be thrown in for the less populous factions. I'd say that giving it a very high upkeep would represent the strain placed on a faction by recruiting in such a fashion, as those 'conscript' units would generally only be recruited if the regular manpower pool was exhausted.

[ErikBerg]

I suppose this would make sense. From a Swedish perspective I can safely say that-Aw hell, just I dropped my pastry on the keyboard, there's powdered sugar EVERYWHERE-Sweden never had any more than a single field army at any one time during the Great Northern War.

A noteworthy point is that Sweden had an unusually large armed force in terms of soldiers/inhabitants ratio compared to surrounding nations. In 1700 the alloted army alone numbered ~43 000 (not including the ~16 500 permanent troops garrisoned in cities and forts). When Charles XII began his march on Russia after the treaty of Altranstadt he commanded the largest army ever fielded by Sweden, roughly 40 000 men. This army was well-armed, freshly recruited, well-rested and in good health (though we all know exactly how well that campaign went, don't we?) [Sjöström, Fraustadt 1706, p. 287].

Maybe the gap between regular line infantry and "second line" troops shouldn't be too great. Like a tiered system?

- Regulars: Line infantry
- Second line: Line infantry of slightly lesser quality but not quite militia
- Garrison/Levy/Militia: Low quality conscripts

EDIT: Heh, I just reached 100 posts!

[Swerg]

Indeed, one of Sweden's main problems in the Great Northern War was that, with its fairly small army, it was unable to 'pin' Augustus down in Poland or force a major battle with him for some time. Basically, neither side had enough troops to occupy anything more than the region they were in at the time.

Charles DID employ a few armies, but he kept the largest force with him, sending out a few thousand men to relieve Riga at one point and chase the Russians out of the Baltic provinces temporarily.

I would say that 'garrison' troops (such as currently exist for Russia) could represent the 'second line' fairly well. Although, as an alternative, a true 'tier' system such as is used in NTWIII could be used, where you can recruit 'conscripts' 'regulars' and 'elite' variations of regular line infantry, with the 'elite' line being only a step below grenadiers, while 'conscripts' are only a bit above militia.

Of course, that would mean creating ~9 units of line infantry for each nation, which would cut down on the number of unique units...and I personally love having unique units. More unit variety is better!

And yes, nations like Sweden, Prussia and the Netherlands could recruit VERY large armies for states their size. The Dutch managed to raise over 100,000 troops at one point in their war against France, which is a pretty staggering number considering their population.

Of course, it's nowhere near the 750,000 of the French army in wartime, and only half of the 220,000 France maintained in peacetime.

[ErikBerg]

~9 units of line infantry for each nation, which would cut down on the number of unique units...and I personally love having unique units. More unit variety is better!

Ah yes, unit variety is of course preferable!

Also, it just dawned on me that in IS 2.1.4 Sweden actually already has a sort-of tiered system with the Indelat infanteri, Värvat infanteri and the Lantvärn not far behind stats-wise.

[Swerg]

Sort of, but as I recall, the Varvat infantry have better morale/melee than the Indelat, don't they? They're basically meant for 'carolingian' "fire one volley and charge" tactics vs. the Indelat's more traditional line tactics.

[ErikBerg]

Värvat melee skill is higher by two points, I think, but the Indelat have higher morale (8 vs 5 of the värvat). The high morale is to represent the discipline and religious certainty that God was on their side.

Here's the deal with the Indelat vs Varvat thing.

This all comes down to the way that Sweden recruited its army. Essentially, they were both just Swedish Infantry. However, the Indelat went home and farmed and took care of the family for most of the year, whereas the Varvat was a permanent force. It had been noted by observers at the time that the Indelat had amazing morale (and in the game they really do. Their morale is the same as most nations' grenadiers), while the varvat did not. This introduces an interesting dynamic: Indelat, with worse training but higher morale, and the varvat, with better training and worse morale.

It is supposed to be that way in the game, and Varvat Infantry shall not be given an increase in morale. This poses a choice for the player: use the better stats option and hope to route the enemy before taking too many losses yourself, or use the worse stats option which you can be assured will stick around for a while.

I don't really use Värvat, though, I feel they are too likely to rout and leave wide gaps in the line.

[doinwork34]

Heres another idea. It seems as though diplomatic relations in RL did not have to do so much with the state as it did with the leader in Monarchies. What I mean is that if a new King or queen came into power, and they had a different policy, that policy would trump. Ex. In the 7 years war Spains King (not sure who it was) had good relations with British, so he stayed out of the war. But when he died Charles III came into power and immediatly declared war on British. There are other examples but I want to keep this short. So my idea is, in conjuction with the family tree mod, maybe give the possible heirs an "agenda", or personality so that when he comes to rule he will have big penalties and bonuses against certain states. (If he was a French general and fought against the Austrians, maybe he could have +3 moral to all units fighting against Austria. as king) I dont even know if this is possible but let me know what you think.

[Navneeth Jay]

@doinwork34

It may not be possible. But exaggerating the diplomatic bonuses of rulers would have a similar effect.

Btw, no one has responded to this yet: How does allowing a method of "liberating" a faction sound. I.E. If you want to harm an enemy nation by capturing their region and liberating it so that you can make the liberated nation a puppet state. Or if a region is too likely to revolt and you don't want it to declare war on you.

Basically, if a nation is created from your region, you could request peace and the nation will be programmed to accept automatically and have historical friendship with you.


And does anyone else wish armies could be larger and general military attributes grander? Having armies of 3000 troops at max seems dull (and strange, since 3000 troops in an enemy region can kill millions of people per year).

[doinwork34]

Navneeth, Have you played Napoleon TW? (not being sarcastic) when you capture a province, you have the option to liberate the state. Its a pretty neat feature but it doesn do much. I do think that it would be better if the AI could actually help so that a liberated nation would be more than just a static buffer zone that does nothing...What I mean is that if the AI could create an army there and then maybe somehow program it to follow your army if you go into enemy territory or somehting like that or they could give you access to unique units for very cheap or free. That way it gives u an actual ultimatum...Do you liberate them and get serious military and finacial help? Or do u capture the province since the point to the game is conquest?

[Navneeth Jay]

If you have played as a small faction, you'd know the usefulness in not controlling certain regions. They can have huge town watch costs, many of them are worthless, and defending them yourself reduces your ability to defend other key regions. Eventually, you might end up losing that region to a larger faction (playing as Persia has made me aware of this).

I severely doubt Empire has the capabilities to make an allied faction give you recruitment options and whatnot. But if they ally with you or perhaps if you force them into being a protectorate (which would make sense in real life for a faction seeking independence), their +3000 faction treasury bonus and better recruitment options could be a great asset in holding back a persistent invader.


For large factions, I'd agree that conquest is too tempting. There aren't enough drawbacks to imperialism as there are irl.

[Navneeth Jay]

!IMPORTANT QUESTION!

Something just occurred to me about economic development in IS. I'm unsure about this, and I need some reassurance.

It came to me that there doesn't seem to be any reasonable incentive for economic development. By instinct, we all do it (obviously, how can we collect taxes if our regions are poor ), but I one day decided to just check the actual benefits from the construction of economic buildings.



For example:

Weaver's Cottage:
Upgrade of Craft Workshops (Weavers)
Cost: 4200
Town Wealth Increase (From normal Craft Workshops): 195
Town Wealth per Turn: 10
Bonus: -%0.2 Artillery Recruitment


So in order to pay back the investment into the construction of that building with a tax rate of 33% (default), the number of turns needed is modeled at:

[4200=t(195+10t)/6] where t is the number of turns.



I've calculated that it will take around at least 40 turns before this expenditure pays for itself. TWENTY whole years! If you chose not to develop that building and just kept that money in the treasury, you're treasury wouldn't suffer from the choice of not investing in the economy for twenty years! And the artillery cost bonus is negligible.

So is there any real reason to invest in these buildings at all under the current numbers? It seems you would be more successful just by building a level one industrial building per town and keeping it that way. And the more you upgrade the building, the longer it takes to pay for itself. The highest upgrade might not even be worth purchasing at all until past 1800.

[Flikitos]

Well we can not make a farm as a source of money as for a goldmine, which could be unrealistic, also in the real world there are territories with luxoriousness (take the example of Mexico) and others where the richness has to be improved so as to make money (like virginnia).

You are right, the time so as to make some region rich, we will see what we can be do. Please put your suggestion on the first post of the thread.

Thank you Navneeth Jay.

[Navneeth Jay]

Well we can not make a farm as a source of money as for a goldmine, which could be unrealistic, also in the real world there are territories with luxoriousness (take the example of Mexico) and others where the richness has to be improved so as to make money (like virginnia).

You are right, the time so as to make some region rich, we will see what we can be do. Please put your suggestion on the first post of the thread.

Thank you Navneeth Jay.

Much appreciated, Flikitos. . I agree, farms are meant for population growth. Just certain industrial buildings aren't yet worth the costs.

The most balanced and realistic method of wealth capping might be partially linking it to population. Hence, if a region's people die out because of famine or war, it won't grow. And if it prospers by immigration and food supply, it grows.

[Sigma]

My suggestions post, things will be added to it with time if I have to:

-Include a supply and manpower system like APE-TI has, to make things a bit more complex and realistic.
-No forts, or you could replace forts with garrisonable buildings?
-Add the Mamluks as a playable faction in the middle era as there was a Mamluk struggle for independence around 1768 by Sultan Ali Bey Al-Kabir. For the late campaign they could be a non-playable protectorate of the Ottomans and located in Egypt since the rebellion was crushed.
-If it is possible to code, make atheism a religion. And have an atheist trait for scholars that can appear that would cause atheism to rise in a region by 0.5% every turn. If implemented the scholars with the trait would have so little influence that they wouldn't be a bother to your territories unless you let them sit in one with no church or priests for a long time. I think it would be a nice way for people to roleplay out the French radicals during the French revolution when they tried to introduce de-christinization.

[Flikitos]

Hi Sigma!

Well could you explain for the supply and manpower system from APE-TI?

About forts, we will see, I have some project for those, I do not know I will be able to do my business, but if it works, do not worry I will let you know what I have in mind. I hate making false proposals.

[Sigma]

Hi Sigma!

Well could you explain for the supply and manpower system from APE-TI?

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=312748

Its on their FAQ but to try and put it into my own words, basically they coded it in to have each region give you a certain amount of manpower and supplies which are displayed in the adviser box when you click on the region capital city. Each turn you get so much manpower that replenishes what you used from recruiting units.

Basically if you run out of manpower you cannot recruit or replenish anymore units until your manpower replenishes. As for supplies, if your supply limit is reach then you can't recruit anymore units either since you cannot supply anymore units.

Each theatre has its own manpower and supply as to make cross theatre operations and colonization harder for the player. Basically the purpose of manpower and supply is to prevent players with tons of money in the late game from spamming stacks of armies and steamrolling the theatres.

Also on their FAQ:
"How do I increase my manpower and supplies?
Your supply limit is currently tied directly to your manpower, increasing your population will increase both (but it will take some time, especially if the population increase is NOT due to conquest.)"

So the supply limit is tied to manpower and city population is what increases both. (Which IIRC they increase with events every so many turns after you've conquered a region)

Also APE has a nice touch where after taking a region there is a few turns where the resistance to you will be raised through events and then will slowly lower after a few turns.

[Swerg]

What would be great would be replacing forts with earthworks, barricades and those horse barrier things I can't remember how to spell. Field fortifications were of great importance to several armies in this period, and their lack of presence in the game is one more mark of CA's lack of effort.

[ErikBerg]

The supply and manpower system does sound interesting, methinks!

[Flikitos]

Yes it is true, it is really interesting, I will talk about it with the APE-TI team as soon as IS 2.2 will be finished.