What's left to do in a mod?

**El Santo Padre** · February 02, 2012, 10:45 PM

Title says all, what you think is missing with so many mods out there? a new era? New factions? New maps? new battle tactics?

**Magicman2051** · February 02, 2012, 10:58 PM

Depends on the specific modification obviously, I feel that most mods don't spend enough time on the economic side of things.

**El Santo Padre** · February 02, 2012, 11:04 PM

Well the thread is for anything you think is missing/wanna see. And by economics you mean.....? Complexity maybe? Like goverments?

**Magicman2051** · February 02, 2012, 11:09 PM

Not so much that, so far as I'm concerned the old adage "keep it simple stupid" applies to all things but in broad terms yes, I'm addressing complexity.

In many of the larger mods they use scripts to balance out the economy, while I see this as an effective option for some scenarios it is the fact that the scripts are being used as a crutch that feels lacking. Buildings, and what order you build them in, should be of great importance for instance. The effects of these buildings on the economy should be demystified and in terms of military buildings there should be more flexibility but similarly more focused construction.

As in, you shouldn't be able to get away with neglecting your buildings and building the correct set of them for what that particular settlement is focused on (food production/trade/archers/cavalry/culture etc.). Particularly on the higher difficulty levels.

**El Santo Padre** · February 02, 2012, 11:21 PM

mmm i didn't quite understood that

**Magicman2051** · February 02, 2012, 11:33 PM

Yeah, it was confusing to me too. This is why it isn't featured as much as it should in most mods, a properly developed economic system will have you spending just as much time on the campaign map thinking as a properly developed battle system will have you on the battle map... hopefully thinking :p

**Punic Hoplite** · February 02, 2012, 11:48 PM

Personally I'd like to see a mod where, if you engage in naval warfare, and you have troops on them (transporting them), then any losses the ships take should reflect on the troops they're transporting. I mean, if all soldiers recruited are part of a unit, then all ships recruited are part of a squadron.

I'd also like to have a system where you can cause a loss of population to a region intentionally, through not feeding them. I mean, if you have Carthage with a population of 24,000, and the only settlement left to you ol Nepte, obviously Carthage and Nepte can't feed all of Carthage's residents, and the population should drop, as well as public order. Would be very useful in war, as you could simply cause rebellion if you took the granary of a certain city, and all that was left to them was said city

I'd also like to see a minimum requirement for an army to besiege a settlement. I get so annoyed by Scythian generals, ALONE, besieging cities in the Caucuses. Obviously the requirement would go up according to settlement level and amount of troops inside.

**Chris Death** · February 03, 2012, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by Punic Hoplite

I'd also like to see a minimum requirement for an army to besiege a settlement. I get so annoyed by Scythian generals, ALONE, besieging cities in the Caucuses. Obviously the requirement would go up according to settlement level and amount of troops inside.

I don't see a reason why a single general shouldn't be able at all to start besieging.

Wether it makes sense is another question - maybe it could help to start throwing cows with
catapults at them to make them lift the siege.