Barbarian Raids and Pillaging

[Matchlock Chariot]

I have no idea if this was discussed before; if it was feel free to delete this thread.
Anyway...
Ever since ETW, regions have had small towns and farms which could be attacked by enemy armies, disrupting the town/farm's economic output.
For Rome 2, wouldn't it be great if when you hit a farm or town you would get some cash loot for doing so? Perhaps the size of the army will determine the amount of loot?
I imagine that you would have to leave the towns alone for a while to let them recover, or else the loot would be minimal the next time around.

Historically: Rome's frontier provinces like Pannonia have been the targets of barbarian raids, which were quite profitable to the raiders.

Of course this option may be open to just about all the factions. Personally I feel that this would add greatly to the fun and immersive experience of playing as one of Rome's Germanic or Celtic neighbors.

[Lord Baal]

The issue with raiding as depicted now is that they only serve as a negative offset for the attacked. You gain nothing by doing so and after a while it simply get's boring.

If a supply system is implemented, raiding and pillaging would be essential to rebel armies or otherwise stranded armies, or small factions against each others, making them more important that a simple annoyance, becoming a valid strategy to support your armies in the field while hurting the enemy production and gaining the locals hate for your faction.

[AgentGB]

The issue with raiding as depicted now is that they only serve as a negative offset for the attacked. You gain nothing by doing so and after a while it simply get's boring.

If a supply system is implemented, raiding and pillaging would be essential to rebel armies or otherwise stranded armies, or small factions against each others, making them more important that a simple annoyance, becoming a valid strategy to support your armies in the field while hurting the enemy production and gaining the locals hate for your faction.

yep this! Thats constructive criticism

Raiding farms etc in E:TW to FOTS only hurt the ai, and became boring, pointless, since some turns you would naturally forget to do so, but with what Lord Baal mentioned, i would have more incentive to raid to keep enough supplys for troops, with the ai/player also given the option to scorch earth there own or enemys farms etc, rendering it unraidable for x amount of turns.

[zg0301zg]

yep this! Thats constructive criticism

Raiding farms etc in E:TW to FOTS only hurt the ai, and became boring, pointless, since some turns you would naturally forget to do so, but with what Lord Baal mentioned, i would have more incentive to raid to keep enough supplys for troops, with the ai/player also given the option to scorch earth there own or enemys farms etc, rendering it unraidable for x amount of turns.

wouldnt be easier if you perhaps invade your enemy to just make ambush or place your army on the middle of the road, it could also be as described as raid and to be able to supply your troops, since there is no alternative route right ?

[SonOfCrusader76]

The issue with raiding as depicted now is that they only serve as a negative offset for the attacked. You gain nothing by doing so and after a while it simply get's boring.

If a supply system is implemented, raiding and pillaging would be essential to rebel armies or otherwise stranded armies, or small factions against each others, making them more important that a simple annoyance, becoming a valid strategy to support your armies in the field while hurting the enemy production and gaining the locals hate for your faction.

Yep, even a rudimentary supply/logics system would throw everything up in the air as far as raiding's concerned. Having an enemy walking around attacking farms and stuff is one thing - but if they could attack supply lines, so not a damn crumb of food is reaching the city, that's definitely an incentive to get out there and kick their arses!

[Shocked]

Good idea Matchlock, this is what i'd call constructive criticism, unlike the other negative and/or unrealistic crap on here.

[RGA]

I've got some ideas for this:
- Raiding and pillaging should be carried out automatically when your armies are in enemy's territories or vice versa. Raids in ancient warfare were done by small groups of soldier. I cannot imagine Caeasar commanding a raiding party.
- The province invaded by enemy's army suffers from lost of income and decrease of population (simulating civilians killed during raids). On the other hand, pillaging army has lower unkeep cost.
- To balance the gameplay and avoid abuse of "moving your army into enemy province and do nothing", all armies which are in the influence of enemy ones suffers from attrition. This is to simulate the small fights and skirmishes, which were far more often than pitch battle. The rate of attrition depends on the presence of enemy force in the area. This also eliminates the painful need of fighting armies of 10 men. Now you can just put a big army aside them and watch them die
- Now generals have to face the choice: facing enemy in a big battle or just having a stand-off. Bringing war to enemy territory is of much more benefit now. And the no-man's land will suffer terribly from war, just as they were in history.

[Fabricus]

I have no idea if this was discussed before; if it was feel free to delete this thread.
Anyway...
Ever since ETW, regions have had small towns and farms which could be attacked by enemy armies, disrupting the town/farm's economic output.
For Rome 2, wouldn't it be great if when you hit a farm or town you would get some cash loot for doing so? Perhaps the size of the army will determine the amount of loot?
I imagine that you would have to leave the towns alone for a while to let them recover, or else the loot would be minimal the next time around.

Historically: Rome's frontier provinces like Pannonia have been the targets of barbarian raids, which were quite profitable to the raiders.

Of course this option may be open to just about all the factions. Personally I feel that this would add greatly to the fun and immersive experience of playing as one of Rome's Germanic or Celtic neighbors.

It should work for all factions' armies, since after all, "An army marches on its stomach"! Through the Napoleonic era armies ate by raiding or forcibly taking food while on the march.

[General Sultan V]

Some armies Had discipline, and Raiding was punish-able. Civilized and disciplined armies that never needed To make raiding & Scorched Earth strategies Unlike Undisciplined ones. Professional armies such as Roman and macedonian Should instead rely on logistics For their supply while Undisciplined ones such as that of barbarians or Hannibal's should Rely on raiding extensively both for their survival and Earning profits. this should provide different aspects on Different styles of warfare, the Organized Armies Having to Carve a way through to keep themselves on track while the Rag-tag ones having to make their living in the enemy lands. Although It would bee too complex to actually have to do the whole supply lines, logistics, Etc thing for Organized armies... And maybe there should'n be anything like that at all.

[Fabricus]

Some armies Had discipline, and Raiding was punish-able. Civilized and disciplined armies that never needed To make raiding & Scorched Earth strategies Unlike Undisciplined ones. Professional armies such as Roman and macedonian Should instead rely on logistics For their supply while Undisciplined ones such as that of barbarians or Hannibal's should Rely on raiding extensively both for their survival and Earning profits. this should provide different aspects on Different styles of warfare, the Organized Armies Having to Carve a way through to keep themselves on track while the Rag-tag ones having to make their living in the enemy lands. Although It would bee too complex to actually have to do the whole supply lines, logistics, Etc thing for Organized armies... And maybe there should'n be anything like that at all.

First of all, give me some cites.

Second of all, in your most educated opinion, the Grande Arme of Napoloen was a just a barbaric horde? The U.S. Army of Sherman in the Civil War would also be considered as such?

Yes, war is horrible, no matter who conducts it. Its not like the supplies were shipped to the armies from Walmart's central shipping location in Gaul.

I am not saying that every time on each campaign, the Romans and Macedonians would have ransacked the surrounding country especially in times of civil war when fighting on their own soil, but I don't see how else sieges, such as Alesia could have been endured, not to mention; Caesar didn't want to take places such as Gaul just so they could build the Celts some highways and public baths, now did he? And I suppose Trajan's soldiers on the column aren't ransacking, no they could never do such a thing! They must just be borrowing that city from the Dacians for the purpose of the enlightenment and betterment of the general populace.

[General Sultan V]

First of all, give me some cites.

Second of all, in your most educated opinion, the Grande Arme of Napoloen was a just a barbaric horde? The U.S. Army of Sherman in the Civil War would also be considered as such?

Yes, war is horrible, no matter who conducts it. Its not like the supplies were shipped to the armies from Walmart's central shipping location in Gaul.

I am not saying that every time on each campaign, the Romans and Macedonians would have ransacked the surrounding country especially in times of civil war when fighting on their own soil, but I don't see how else sieges, such as Alesia could have been endured, not to mention; Caesar didn't want to take places such as Gaul just so they could build the Celts some highways and public baths, now did he? And I suppose Trajan's soldiers on the column aren't ransacking, no they could never do such a thing! They must just be borrowing that city from the Dacians for the purpose of the enlightenment and betterment of the general populace.

lol. This is just laughable


Caesar turned those Lovely Human sacrificing gauls into Roman citizens in years. Those animals you are talking about pillaged and raided and sacrificed eachother and other people Before The Romans conquered and on top of that civilized them. I Doubt you heard about any Roman built Roads or Aqueducts or bridges.

Caesar didn't want to take places such as Gaul just so they could build the Celts some highways and public baths, now did he?

Bath, England

Carthage.

Pons-Du-Gard. France

Hadrian's Wall, a 120 km long Wall built by Romans to protect People they had to fight.

[Markas]

Leeds, england

What bridge is this?

EDIT- This is the Seven Arches Aqueduct built in 1842. Thought there was Roman Aqueduct In Leeds I didn't know about!

[Anna_Gein]

lol. This is just laughable


Caesar turned those Lovely Human sacrificing gauls into Roman citizens in years. Those animals you are talking about pillaged and raided and sacrificed eachother and other people Before The Romans conquered and on top of that civilized them. I Doubt you heard about any Roman built Roads or Aqueducts or bridges.

Just clear things up please.
You were sarcastic, humorous or whatever but not serious, right ?

[Fabricus]

lol. This is just laughable


Caesar turned those Lovely Human sacrificing gauls into Roman citizens in years. Those animals you are talking about pillaged and raided and sacrificed eachother and other people Before The Romans conquered and on top of that civilized them. I Doubt you heard about any Roman built Roads or Aqueducts or bridges.

Lol. No, your blatant propaganda is laughable.

You bet I have read about Roman Roads and Aqueducts, I actually bothered to take Latin for 2 years, and happen to admire Roman culture, your however, are just posting pictures of buildings, to dodge my point that war is in itself a vicious state of the human condition.

Now aside from, what about the near constant state of civil war within the Roman Empire that Caesar created? Maybe not with pillaging, but being killed either by a pilum or a gallic sword is rather a Hobson's choice.

You mention human sacrifice, interesting given the nature of Rome's entertainment, where many of those animals in Gaul doubtless ended up after they had done fighting Caesar. Did I say that Celtic human sacrifice was good, no? But am I saying the Roman's conquered people just to build them sewers, no, that is what you are saying, and that is a lie.

An interesting thing to keep in mind, especially the recent turn in this thread is that the Greeks, in their early days, also likely practiced human sacrifice to some extant(keep in mind also the origination of gladiatorial combat, similar to killing of servant's in viking culture later) similar to Achilles revenge for Patroclus(Human Sacrifice in Greece Dennis Hughes), and also the sacrifice of Agamemnon's own daughter for the safe passage of his ships - do read the Iliad sometime, it is quite an insight into early European culture.

Also, if you have read Hesiod's Works and Days you would have read the condition of slaves who, it would appear often went naked and had no shelter in those days in Greece, or else he would not advise the reader to tell them to make their own coats(have fun in a goatskin in a winter in mountainous mainland Greece) just like what those nasty Celts and Germans did to their slaves to, how about that?

Since you appear totally to love everything Roman, does that mean that the Greeks were "animals"( I assume you like their culture somewhat if you like Rome's so I guess you will either again not reply or say no, unless you take the more logical stance that perhaps all men are animals and capable of brutality.

More to the point, you, while you were laughing, appear to have skipped over the lines about more modern nations which have also employed living of the land(pillaging, in a word). Again, have you ever read about Napoleon's tactics or Sherman's? But I doubt you would have unless your writing belies the extent of your maturity.

How about the 30 years war? I wouldn't classify baroque Europe as a savage and barbarian people, but if you know anything about those wars, and have looked at the contemporary paintings, they often show,(oh no! It can't be), Pillaging!

So, in the end, I think it is you who needs to broaden your mind and think more critically about what you say, and perhaps either research with greater care, or not spout out ridiculous manifestos based solely on emotion and bias.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Some armies Had discipline, and Raiding was punish-able. Civilized and disciplined armies that never needed To make raiding & Scorched Earth strategies Unlike Undisciplined ones. Professional armies such as Roman and macedonian Should instead rely on logistics For their supply while Undisciplined ones such as that of barbarians or Hannibal's should Rely on raiding extensively both for their survival and Earning profits. this should provide different aspects on Different styles of warfare, the Organized Armies Having to Carve a way through to keep themselves on track while the Rag-tag ones having to make their living in the enemy lands. Although It would bee too complex to actually have to do the whole supply lines, logistics, Etc thing for Organized armies... And maybe there should'n be anything like that at all.

Has nothing to do with civilized or not, it's called foraging with a finer word, Napoleon for example relied heavily on foraging to provide for his Grande Armée, or perhaps the figurehead of the late Enlightenment age was a rag tag barbarian? Oh and an invading army doesn't build roads unless they want to lose all strategical manouverability and surprise their enemy by advancing at snail speed (even if the low movement points per half-year in the original almost seemed to imply something like that), not to mention that it's just plain dumb to give the enemy free roads if the campaign would not end in total conquest.

Looting for supplies and profit should be available for all factions as any rational commander understand that it is more cost effective to have the enemy pay the upkeep of the army.

[Lord Baal]

Not necessarily. Rome needed to use the Scorched Earth against Hannibal for example. If supply mechanics are introduced to the game is bound to affect all factions. You could be the one deciding how to supply your armies. Now, perhaps some factions could have bonuses on how affectively they can forage and pillage after standard supplies are out. Besides that you can always have the negative impact on the population if you raid their farms. Even if you conquest the province people will be mad at you for longer.

[Jungle Rhino]

lol - Rome did just as much looting and pillaging as any 'barbarians'

I think the way it worked in Shogun 2 was pretty good - an invading army provided a big hit to the province 'town' wealth as it sucked it dry to feed it's troops. However I agree that there should probably be an additional 'scorched earth' option that causes a LARGE hit to wealth and represent the invaders trashing the place. The downer being that when they capture the province it is worth little. It would also be interesting if when a province reached a town wealth of 0 that invading armies began suffering from attrition as availalbe supplies become exhausted.

This type of system could emulate Hannibal rampaging around Italy quite nicely. Not to mention the Romans sacking and razing Carthage (although razing a city should probably remain a seperate option following a seige)

[General Sultan V]

lol - Rome did just as much looting and pillaging as any 'barbarians'

I think the way it worked in Shogun 2 was pretty good - an invading army provided a big hit to the province 'town' wealth as it sucked it dry to feed it's troops. However I agree that there should probably be an additional 'scorched earth' option that causes a LARGE hit to wealth and represent the invaders trashing the place. The downer being that when they capture the province it is worth little. It would also be interesting if when a province reached a town wealth of 0 that invading armies began suffering from attrition as availalbe supplies become exhausted.

This type of system could emulate Hannibal rampaging around Italy quite nicely. Not to mention the Romans sacking and razing Carthage (although razing a city should probably remain a seperate option following a seige)

How stupid is that. Thats a popular myth dude, The Romans did not pillage, raze, or sack around carthage. Once carthage fell they Razed it and Founded modern day Tunis, And that was the only example of such an action, this post reeks with fallacy. Doing pillaging and looting defies the "Pacification" And "Romanization" Legacies the Romans executed on the conequered

Not necessarily. Rome needed to use the Scorched Earth against Hannibal for example. If supply mechanics are introduced to the game is bound to affect all factions. You could be the one deciding how to supply your armies. Now, perhaps some factions could have bonuses on how affectively they can forage and pillage after standard supplies are out. Besides that you can always have the negative impact on the population if you raid their farms. Even if you conquest the province people will be mad at you for longer.

True, But What I meant is that the Romans doing raiding and Sacking in Enemy lands as a type of "Invader's scorched earth tactics".

I Think the less civilized factions should not have the supply line mechanic. they should depart with a certain amount of supply and loot and pillage and Forage to gain more, while the more civilized ones have to keep a logistics and supply route, In process building roads through their way into enemy lands.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

How stupid is that. Thats a popular myth dude, The Romans did not pillage, raze, or sack around carthage. Once carthage fell they Razed it and Founded modern day Tunis, And that was the only example of such an action, this post reeks with fallacy. Doing pillaging and looting defies the "Pacification" And "Romanization" Legacies the Romans executed on the conequered






True, But What I meant is that the Romans doing raiding and Sacking in Enemy lands as a type of "Invader's scorched earth tactics".

I Think the less civilized factions should not have the supply line mechanic. they should depart with a certain amount of supply and loot and pillage and Forage to gain more, while the more civilized ones have to keep a logistics and supply route, In process building roads through their way into enemy lands.

No you be totally wrong. In the same year they sacked carthago they sacked Corinth too. Caesars legions killed and slaved 2 mio gauls, the half of the population, and discribe this in his own book.

Specially Carthage is a really good example because the carthages tried to hold on the treaties but the romans allways broke them. The Carthagians loose lands to the numidians and they accept it, because the Romans said that they had to, than the defend their self a few miles out of their own town and the romans forbit that. Finally the romans land before carthage and said that they have to give up all their weapons and ships. The Carthage People did this. Than the Romans said that they have to leave their town and everything in it and the Carthage said no. 2 years later the romans sackt and destroyed Carthage and Carthage wasn't build up to the time of Caesar!

[Kinjo]

Yes raiding should be profitable for the raiders.