Garrison Mod

[Taelok]

Just a thought, but have you considered using the Garrison mod (the one used in SPQR) for RS2? As far as I'm aware, some cities will be more strategic to take (any city with a treasury, naval bases, military bases etc) and it will prevent taking them in one turn when they have just 2-3 units in garrison, if this mod is implemented.

For those who don't know, the mod basically adds a full garrison (or near enough) to a city once it is under siege, basically preventing steam-rolling on the campaign map and making it far more challenging. It also represents the towns militia taking up arms to defend themselves from the attackers.

Thoughts?

[EternalSlayer]

So...you want to make it completely impossible to win this game?

I think in the context of the time, it is entirely unhistorical. When the army was called all men of sufficient strength would be required to go to war. Towns would therefore be weakly garrisoned.

Unless the citizen militia are peasants with 1 attack and 1 defence value, that is. I always appreciate free XP for my soldiers and that would truly be representative of a 'citizen militia'

[rory o'kane]

I don't know about that, i think there's some merit to it - quickly levied provincial militia were available to the Romans, for example, as Arrian's treatise on his battle against the Alani shows.

[Columcille]

As a x-SPQR player, the script makes the game a whole lot slower than usual. And some people (like me) don't want to have to fight 10 stacks to take control of a city, and then when you get to the city, another whole stack.

Just my $0.02.
-am

[Taelok]

As a x-SPQR player, the script makes the game a whole lot slower than usual.

Indeed, good point. I agree with drazeN though, if it is considered, making it optional would be best.

[Lord Dakier]

A script that calls on the population of a town be turned into military power... we was going to do something similiar in Alagaesia:TW. I think you should go for it... it adds to realism. Men staying behind to protect their homes.

[Columcille]

But realistically looking at it, a town might not have the supplies(weapons) to just sprout that many men.

[drazeN]

More realistically looking () you are playing against dumb AI, so why not a bit more challenging campaign?

It would be nice to have this as an installation option in RSII.

[rory o'kane]

i agree - might be worth talking to DVK about it...

[dvk901]

I have two pet peeves about scripts. First, I think they MUST add something worthwhile to the play of the game, not just 'my\our opinion' of how things ought to be. And second, it needs to start automatically.

I have uncertainties about a garrison script because I personally prefer an unfettered '0-turn' mass build-up, last man standing wins the game. 50 stacks of Greeks...bring them on! 80 stacks of barbarians...oh yeah, a bunch of dead barbarians! If you play a 0-turn mod the way one should...by waiting and letting the pressure and strength of nations build up.....I think there is more than enough battles to be fought no matter who you play. I've also found that if you seige the city for a turn or two, a very large army will show up..or a couple...two reinforce and aid the city anyway. So a lot of the challenge is in how you play, as well as in the mechanics of the game\mod itself. If you blitz all the time, you're not going to run a garrison script anyway, and if there was one without an option to NOT have it, the next question would be: "How do I stop the script?"

However, there is an area where I DO think a garrison script would increase the challenge of the game overall....and that's in any area held by the 'slave' faction. This faction protects itself very poorly, and HELPS it's beseiged cities even more poorly. I would be much in favor of a garrison script that at least raised a 'decent' resistance in any town\city the slave faction holds.

I also believe it is very historical for towns and cities to offer stiff resistance. In this era, everyone was a warrior. The idea of dumb peasants and worthless levies is an RTW myth....any guy with a shield, a helmet and a sword\spear\club and a couple thousand of his angry neighbors who don't take much liking to you trying to take their homes and families away from them is pretty dangerous.
And the tendancy of these people was to run to the towns and cities to defend themselves, where they might have walls and weapons stored. Otherwise, anything sharp becomes a weapon!
Even dull, like rocks.

[Elodman]

I've also found that if you seige the city for a turn or two, a very large army will show up..or a couple...two reinforce and aid the city anyway. So a lot of the challenge is in how you play, as well as in the mechanics of the game\mod itself.

Ave and hail to the creators of RS Mod,


nice to read about this challenging, interactive campaign AI.

I would enquire, whether it is a normal behaviour for AI armies (Syracouse, Free People) to let their settlements rather undefended and prefer hiding in the forests?

To specify the case:

It happened at a very early time of a Roman campaign (10-15 settlements owned) when 2-3 strong AI armies (Free People) prepared ambushes in the forests, instead of defending their town with sufficient forces.
My lone army was totally outnumbered, and in spite of an assault, the Free People chose to leave their town almost deserted, and hide in the mountain forests.

Syracouse did something similar.

I wonder if these armies were so tricky because of their "national characteristics" or because having had no qualified leader, or what is the purpose of this guerilla warfare.

Perhaps Garrison Mod would come in handy for situations like this?

(having installed RS 1.5b and no other mods)

Thanx, ave.

[King Nud]

i think it might be worthwile, is it possible to make this a random occurence, so that there is no way of making it happen always, or never happen...

Could it be possible to link it to a character trait that makes the townspeople more resistant

Sorry if this is not possible, i know little about modding, just playing!

[Legionary Titus Pullo]

i dont think it will add anything to the game, as was said already, when you beseige a city they almost always send a full stack or two against you anyway.
but if it has to be make it optional, in the same way as 0 turn is optional.

[Thorn777]

As an SPQR vet, I say: jaaaai

It simply adds more to the challenge. I dont know how RS2 will turn out to be, but my strategic genious gets not tickeld to the fullest extend in RS1.5b(what a sentence, and so arrogant). So adding some toughness is always a pre.

btw.If another army shows up as often argued: SO WHAT, keep fighting baby(but SPQR whas to extreme, ooh te pain, I think im going to bed now and spoon my girlfriend before the nightmares come back and haunt me once more)

[Incontinenta Buttox]

A garrison script has merit.

There is a garrison script for key cities in the "Kingdoms Grand Campaign Mod" which I have downloaded for MTW2. This does not apply to every settlement, but only capitals and other very large important cities.

If applied to RS2. I think the following factors should be considered.

1) I think that any garrison created should only consist of militia-type troops. Any citizens hurriedly pressed into service are not going to be elite troops by any standards.

2) Not all settlements should have a garrison script. perhaps only large cities and above. Or maybe the size of the garrison can be determined by the size of the settlement.

3) Garrison script should only apply to the AI factions. The AI is dumb and needs help. A human player has no excuses.

4) I am concerned that any garrison script might stop the AI factions expanding.

[Taelok]

A garrison script has merit.

There is a garrison script for key cities in the "Kingdoms Grand Campaign Mod" which I have downloaded for MTW2. This does not apply to every settlement, but only capitals and other very large important cities.

2) Not all settlements should have a garrison script. perhaps only large cities and above. Or maybe the size of the garrison can be determined by the size of the settlement.

3) Garrison script should only apply to the AI factions. The AI is dumb and needs help. A human player has no excuses.

Good post Incontinenta Buttox, I think the idea of a key cities script would be best - those strategic locations would not been easy to take.

[King Nud]

I ask again, IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE IT TRAIT-INFLUENCED???

If a family member has a certain trait, then when his city is besieged, the townspeople come up arms........?

[Incontinenta Buttox]

Thinking about it some more. I am not in favour of a garrison script.

[Taelok]

Thinking about it some more. I am not in favour of a garrison script.

Can you specify your reasons? It would help to know where people stand.

[Themis]

I agree on certain points in this, but i also have some doubts as to its uses.

1.
It should indeed be only for AI factions (not including free peoples imo. using Alex.exe they already expand way to fast, this will also keep them in check.

2.
The troops should be militia type only with maybe some good archers (i mean hunters that use bows and defend their homes are skilled archers, for they train constantly during the hunt, and given some armor, they could be quite good)

3.
It should be limited to a few cities or the amount of units set to the size of the settlement (be it proportional or by a % of the actual inhabitants, as in a large city with 12k getting less troops than the same large city with 20k inhabitants.

4.
Will it stop the AI factions from expanding if given to rebels / other AI Factions?
Imo i think not, because in Alex.exe the AI has a habit of sending multiple stacks to a city, so i do not think this will be an issue.

5.
I agree that this helps against the zerg build up from the start of the game, but later on in the game on very hard you have more than enough problems (2-3 front wars, huge amounts of AI stacks) so i think this could also be a cause of making the game "nigh unplayable"

6.
However i really like the idea of a trait based garrison script, a "beloved" leader or a "benevolent" leader would be defended by his people, this is historrically correct.