The feature for unlimited gameplay! - NOMADISM
This feature suggestion fits in with the game in terms of the features we know to date; historical accuracy AND improving gameplay in terms of extensive depth and replayability! It also serves to extend the presence of a people who wouldn't just disappear once their hillfort capital had been overrun. This just does't make sense
This is a bit like the feature in RTW:BI, where a nomadic faction can choose to uproot itself and become nomadic, thus changing the overall play style.
Here though, this should be available to every faction who meets certain criteria, and the faction doesn't turn into an unstoppable swarm of supersoldiers. ...quite the opposite in fact.
For factions that are not COMPLETELY urbanised (the "greco-roman" label that CA have stated fits well enough as an example), the option is present to become nomadic. This means that the faction leader and ruling family are the "capital city" equivalent. Some factions may end up staying this way for a long time, wandering the Gallic countryside (for instance), chewing up all the grain, causing major annoyance for the owner of said countryside.
- On the positive side the faction would be consolidated into a ONE MASSIVE ARMY (representing the entire people of the faction including non-combatants), which would have increased movement points. It also means that the faction doesn't NEED settlements to survive. Note that (despite the below picture) this is not the Horde feature, but sort of a mix between that and the "revolutionary stage" of ETW, with many more things you can do with your people.
- Being the last bastion of defense against the utter destruction of their people, the troops of the Tribe would have a somewhat increased morale.
- On the negative side, the tribe would suffer constant attrition everywhere it went unless it fed off the land. The amount of resources it gains (also minimising attrition rate - starvation) depends on the fertility of the region it occupies (which is a great way to incorporate this aspect of region economics). They cannot recruit units, but have greater access to mercenaries. when they defeat an army, they can also gain troops this way. similar to BI, a nomadic faction would need to sack settlements to survive, adding to its treasury, but also its stockpile of resources (to minimise attrition - starvation).
- without a central region to draw good troops from, many of the tribe would be tribesmen who aren't fighters at all, and more closely resemble the tactical prowess of RTW's Peasants.
- This form of faction is NOT going to be able to take on a major power, and won't even be able to last long against a minor power for too long a time, because they simply don't have ANY infrastructure.
This feature should be potentially available to all non Greco-Roman factions to counter the lack of shipbuilding capabilities of barbarians, and the infertility of the East - FOR EXAMPLE. That said, if a non greco-roman faction becomes urbanised (open to suggestions as to how this could happen), then the option would disappear.
It should be said that there should be more negatives to Nomads than positives, but it is a way to extend the game if a player is on the brink of being defeated. It also makes it harder to defeat an enemy faction, meaning that you can no longer just rush their territory, and then never have to deal with them again.
I'm not saying it would happen to every faction, but only if they decided to do it. This would be an extremely particular AI event, which most of the time would happen just before the AI senses defeat, either economically or by the sword. And even then it would be rare. For the PLAYER, it could be something to work towards, as an alternative play-style, just like refusing to accept the Marian Reforms is something CA have promised as an option.
I don't want to hear people say that this feature isn't appropriate for this time-frame, because that's absurd. The Helvetii were major players in the first century BCE, and the Parthians were a settled tribe themselves! There are many examples of this, and there's no reason why the Huns couldn't have arrived in Europe centuries earlier had the Persians not held the Caucasus mountains so well!
EDIT: I've deleted the RTW:BI picture, because although I've said a few times that this is NOT a horde feature, the picture's presence misled everyone. It was there to provide a visual representation of the feature only. The point is that these aren't thousands of warrior-caste lunatics, they're peasants, farmers, women/children (not necessary to represent them in fighting terms), plus the necessary warrior caste who would have been in there too!
The criticism for this feature has really shown the misunderstanding for the barbarian factions, and an adherence to a renaissance inspired viewpoint of Roman virtue and progress amongst "barbarian" .... not virtue and progress.
seriously go away and read a bit about how barbarian tribes were organised (from a non-roman oriented perspective). This feature is truly great for the non-civilised(meaning Urbanised) peoples of Europe.
Reply With Quote
Re: The feature for unlimited gameplay! - NOMADISM
Originally Posted by Emperor Domitianus
BTW I don't see any reason to add a useless feature that DO NOT represent the fealing of the this kind of game and that is not part of the hystorical sistuation that, I remember you, is the base of this line of games. You may give the nomadic feature to a people that used it massively but for sure not most of the factions portraited in this game. Not the Greco-Romans should have this as they were nomadic during the preistoric era not for sure this one. Instead let's add a feature to add colonies to them as it was the main way to conquer and occupy lands.
Anyway, which factor determines the culture of a nation? 
