Costs

**Tulius Hostilius** · June 20, 2007, 05:43 PM

"Siege Costs
Sieges have costs build into them.

1000 florin to initiate a siege
500 florins-per-turn to maintain a siege
500 florin to storm the walls
500 florin to prop up your new government if you capture the settlement.

[edit] Miscellaneous Costs
It now costs 2000 florins to change your capital city."

This is from The Long Road Wiki.

What files must I change to do this?
Thanks in advance.

**Rusty Hammer** · June 20, 2007, 05:47 PM

I may be incorrect, but I do not believe these costs will be implemented until the release of 2.01, if you are running 2.0 there should be no such costs. Torn correct me if I'm wrong.

**tornnight** · June 20, 2007, 06:56 PM

Correct. I got ahead of myself.

**Tulius Hostilius** · June 21, 2007, 01:56 AM

Ok! Thanks.
That are nice ideas!

**Dooz** · June 21, 2007, 03:54 AM

Hmm... I don't think there should be a cost to storm the walls. Let me explain why. What I usually do is just wait out a siege and starve out the enemy. Most of the time, this works as no reinforcements show up, or maybe a small band of them do and it's no big deal. Now with the new siege cost script, I would think I'd have incentive to in fact risk a lot of men actually storming and taking the place after as few turns as possible, to save money. Otherwise who knows, I might lose a lot and probably can't afford to. Basically, the siege cost script per turn gives incentive to end the siege and take the city as fast as possible. With a cost to storm it, that incentive is gone and it's just money gone either way. Plus it doesn't seem to make sense for there to be a cost to attack. In fact, I'd rather see a cost if you wait and take them without an attack (but not necessary). I don't know, just personally I'd prefer there to not be one.

As an aside, would it be possible to make the per-turn siege cost higher or lower depending on the size of the sieging army? That'd be a pretty cool feature. Oh and maybe traits of the commanding general could increase or decrease those costs as well?

**Tulius Hostilius** · June 21, 2007, 04:22 AM

A long storm of a city would be costly to a king. We would pay wages and food.
A long storm has the additional risk of deceases, for both factions. So everybody would want a short siege.
So, personally, I think that this script would be an approach to “realism”.

**acegogo** · June 21, 2007, 04:53 AM

I have to agree with Wonderland, I don´t like that kind of scripts.

Units already have upkeep costs, which symbolize pay, food and equiptment maint. So why should it be higher while siegging??? do they eat more while they wait for siege equipt. to be ready??? Do they get paid more for performing what they where contracted for??? and surely their lances/swords etc don´t go rustier just because they are sitting outside a cities walls.

Anyway, Democracy is a beautiful tool.
(OFCOURSE, with our Illustrious GrandMaster Torn permiting)

**Tulius Hostilius** · June 21, 2007, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by acegogo

Do they get paid more for performing what they where contracted for???

Most of the time there where only short contracts… so: yes.

Originally Posted by acegogo

Anyway, Democracy is a beautiful tool.

The best we found so far...

**Dooz** · June 21, 2007, 05:07 AM

Wait... just to be clear, I was only saying the specific cost for actually storming the city shouldn't be implemented. The one for maintaining a siege on a per-turn basis should.

**Ludicus** · June 21, 2007, 06:15 AM

500 florin to storm the walls

Agreed.Or may be less,250.
How the money is spent to storm walls:carpenters,engineers and their equipment,smiths,woodcutters,etc.

**acegogo** · June 21, 2007, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by Tulius Hostilius

Most of the time there where only short contracts… so: yes.

Well, ok, they had short contracts, it just happens to be that at the momment we have them full time so we pay them every turn, surely some of those idle turns compensate for that.

@Wonderland

Sorry if I missinterpreted you before

**tornnight** · June 21, 2007, 07:06 AM

Hmm. Good point. I think lowering the cost to storm the walls will be a good compromise.

Remember, either way Siege Costs are optional. You can play on Medium or lower and not have them at all. I suppose I could also provide a way to remove them altogether. Hmm, sort of like a campaign config.

**acegogo** · June 21, 2007, 07:17 AM

I really didn´t intend to give anyone extra work, I beleive if that is the way you want TLR to go, then, so be it, and as you say most of this things will be optional.

Did I ever mentioned that I looooove this mod?????

**Dooz** · June 21, 2007, 09:45 AM

Ooo, campaign config option would be the best way to go, if possible. Otherwise you'd have to choose a lower campaign difficulty just to play without the costs even if you want to actually play at a higher difficulty, or you'll have to give in play with them. Well anyways, whatever way it turns out I'm sure it'll be carefully balanced and work in the scope of the mod as everything else you've done so far.

**Pelican Man** · June 21, 2007, 10:20 AM

A campaign option would actually be terrific, and I would definitely play with it, but wouldn't that affect the outcome of how the AI would react? I mean, Torn, don't you want the AI to react specifically to the way you want it done? Because if that is to be an option (the cost option) then that would mess up the system you originally aimed for.

Or, maybe I'm just speakin' out of my ass. lol